More bad poll news for the k00ks!!!

[Sarah G]

Is this what you say every time you get your ass kicked? LOL.



[/SIZE]
[/I][/B]

Jeezus, your username should be rolling rambling..

 

[polarbear]

Jeezus, your username should be rolling rambling..

Hi Sarah, I must have missed out on one of this guy`s typical "scientific counterarguments"...because I clicked on the "ignore" button which was next to his user name...
But Your comment gives me a general idea what it was that he said again..

I should suck him and the other #!@%&$$#0|_ E in, yet again into clicking on a disguised URL which leads them to one of my web pages.
But this time I`ll do a "drive by" root kit install and they wont even have to click on anything to get it installed right by all their ant- this and anti- that crap software, which they believe keeps them "safe"...

Unlike most normal people, guys like that use their computers, nailing the keyboard to the wall at the spot where they keep smashing their heads, to cushion the impact and to prevent further brain damage.

The problem is, that while they have these fits all that stuff is coming out of their TCP gets piped to {http://www.usmessageboard.com/}

But after I`ll give his PC a root kit treatment this will be all that`ll come out of his hind TCPorts

Binary :

01110100 01101000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01101101 01101111
01110010 01101111 01101110 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000
01100001 00100000 01110100 01101111 01110100 01100001 01101100
01101100 01111001 00100000 01110010 01100101 01110100 01100001
01110010 01100100 01100101 01100100 00100000 01100001 01110011
01110011 01101000 01101111 01101100 01100101


Hexadecimal :

74 68 69 73 20 6D 6F 72 6F 6E 20 69 73 20 61 20 74 6F
74 61 6C 6C 79 20 72 65 74 61 72 64 65 64 20 61 73 73 68 6F 6C 65


Of course they could never figure out what their PC will keep spelling out...
so I`ll make it easy and show it also as an ASCII sequence

ASCII :

116 104 105 115 32 109 111 114 111 110 32 105 115 32 97 32
116 111 116 97 108 108 121 32 114 101 116 97 114 100 101
100 32 97 115 115 104 111 108 101

Now he`ll be busy spending the rest of his life searching "Wikipedia" what that spells !

At least that would be a lot closer to reality, than what they keep posting here

People like that who can only function marginally when they are connected to their Wikipedia "Ersatz-brain" never heard of sump pumps either..

They have tidal gauges in their basements and tell us all the time how much the "average water level" has risen

But never mind them...I have some news which might be of interest to people who`s IQ is not below ground level..:

And by the time I wrote this post here it developed to a full blown whiteout and the Trans Canada is closed.

This is what it looked like ~ 3 hours ago in my back yard..:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJmBBiaib8M]YouTube - IPCC Stardate5000[/ame]

Don`t worry...it`s not a Startrek episode...I was just too lazy to change the Youtube thumb nail

 

[RollingThunder]

Hi Sarah, I must have missed out on one of this guy`s typical "scientific counterarguments"...because I clicked on the "ignore" button which was next to his user name...
But Your comment gives me a general idea what it was that he said again..

(Blah, blah, blah blah, BLAA). (Babble......drivel.....zzzzzzz)

And another meaningless 'blizzard of bullshit' from good ol' head-in-the-sand PeanutBrain who puts all of the inconvenient facts in this world on 'ignore' because he can't handle having his cherished delusions and myths blown out of the water by actual scientific evidence and the testimony of the real climate scientists who work in the various fields of study and who publish papers in major scientific journals. PeanutBrain is another tragic victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, as are so many AGW deniers and tea party twits. He is too ignorant and unintelligent to realize just how ignorant and dumb he is compared to the professionals. But you notice he posts his nonsense here instead of confronting the peer review process at an actual science journal and making his name in science by 'proving' all of the crazy contrarian crap he comes up with to the world science community. Of course if he submitted his rants to a science journal, all he would get would be some hearty laughs and maybe a little pity. The only people he can fool with his drivel are the other politically-persuaded rightwingers on a forum like this who are pretty ignorant of science in general and often seem somewhat suspicious of it to begin with, perhaps in many cases from growing up in 'faith-based' fundamentalist households.

In any case, PeanutBrain's mishmashes are sometimes good for a laugh but otherwise it's all just quite ignorable and very silly pseudo-science and psychotic rants.

 

[polarbear]

And all the ignore retards cooookies cookies the US Message board stores, have not all been downloaded...
But I did not mind at all, because after yet another "non linear Climate Model day" in Canada I needed a good laugh

Hi Sarah, I must have missed out on one of this guy`s typical "scientific counterarguments"...because I clicked on the "ignore" button which was next to his user name...
But Your comment gives me a general idea what it was that he said again..

(Blah, blah, blah blah, BLAA). (Babble......drivel.....zzzzzzz)

actual scientific evidence and the testimony of the real climate scientists who work in the various fields of study
The only people he can fool with his drivel are the other politically-persuaded rightwingers on a forum like this who are pretty ignorant

his cherished delusions and myths blown out of the water by actual scientific evidence and the testimony of the real climate scientists

The entire non-linear real world is a delusion for this crackpot...

If it ain`t "linear" his little mind gets totally bent out of shape

Well here is what this "Climate Science Computer Model linear milk maid math delusion" looks like right now in the "non linear climate science" REAL WORLD ...:

Global warming spring time in Manitoba Canada.
Nothing to see here for Al Gore and computer climate model IPCC folks,...
just another ordinary day in REAL WORLD Manitoba, Canada.
Also not far north from where I live, in the non delusional world the polar bears are neither drowning nor starving.

Although they do eat a lot better when they can snack on the occasional "the ice is too thin" gawking Global Warming "Science" tourist who wasn`t fast enough.

Up North we call these "slow food" and we don`t mind at all if they want to visit us and
see for themselves. Because then at least , the bears quit snacking on our back yard house pets

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkuVuy3s-4g]YouTube - echt Canadischer Fruehling[/ame]

It was not meant for morons like you, because I`m certain you can`t babble anything but your low life gutter slang, least of all speak a second language ...
You can`t even build one single sentence without a major accident...
At least get yourself a spellchecker

 

[westwall]

Is this what you say every time you get your ass kicked? LOL.



Yeah, so??? So what, walleyed? It's a climate scientist discussing the complexities and difficulties of modeling the climate. This is not a secret. The fact remains that the current models have gotten very good at accurately modeling past climates and predicting future developments. As the recent paper that studies modeling results that I just cited says: "...we show that the coupled models have been steadily improving over time and that the best models are converging toward a level of accuracy that is similar to observation-based analyses of the atmosphere."

Gavin Schmidt also says in this article you're quoting:
"We have been quite successful at building these models on the basis of small-scale processes to produce large-scale simulation of the emerging properties of the climate system. We understand why we have a seasonal cycle; we understand why we have storms in the mid-latitudes; we understand what controls the ebb and flow of the seasonal sea ice distribution in the Arctic. We have good estimates in this regard....It turns out that the average of these twenty models is a better model than any one of the twenty models. It better predicts the seasonal cycle of rainfall; it better predicts surface air temperatures; it better predicts cloudiness."




LOLOLOLOL.....let me get this straight....I cite a peer reviewed paper published in a climate related scientific journal - the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, written by a professional climate scientist and professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at a major University, that directly studies models and their accuracy and concludes that they are pretty accurate....and you try to refute that with an (non-peer-reviewed) article in the Financial Post written by two guys who are definitely not climate scientists - Kesten C. Green who has a degree in Management Science and J. Scott Armstrong, a professor of Marketing at the Wharton School with degrees in industrial administration and management - who claim that the models are no good. LOLOLOL. Dr. Armstrong was so sure of himself that in 2007 he offered to bet Al Gore $10,000 that temperatures would not increase in the next ten years. Then, in the real world - 2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. & According to NOAA scientists, 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year of the global surface temperature record, beginning in 1880. From the Wikipedia page on Armstrong: "Climatologist Gavin Schmidt described Armstrong's wager as "essentially a bet on year to year weather noise" rather than on climate change.[17] Armstrong's website, which had been declaring monthly and yearly "winners" of the hypothetical bet, stopped updating the status of the "bet" in March 2010, after Armstrong had lost six of the seven months prior. He has since lost his bet for April, May, June, and July 2010, making Armstrong the loser for 2010 as a whole."

There was a published rebuttal in the journal Interfaces to Armstrong and Green's articles that said: "Green and Armstrong (2007, p.997) also concluded that the thousands of refereed scientific publications that comprise the basis of the IPCC reports and represent the state of scientific knowledge on past, present and future climates "were not the outcome of scientific procedures." Such cavalier statements appear to reflect an overt attempt by the authors of those reports to cast doubt about the reality of human-caused global warming ... ".




Sorry bozo, I never open pdf files from denier cult blogs. Quote from it if you want but, considering the source, it's almost certainly just more denier cult drivel and pseudo-science anyway.




This has got to be the funniest one of all your "rebuttals". Perhaps in your case we should call them "re-buttheads". 'C3' is a denier cult blog and it is as wacked out wrong as the rest of them. On the page you cited they say: "...the empirical evidence is clear that atmospheric water vapor component is not increasing with an upward trend as predicted by IPCC's climate models and their Climategate scientists. At best, water vapor content has remained constant with the distinct possibility it has trended down over recent years."

The reality: Increase in Atmospheric Moisture Tied to Human Activities, published in 2009 in the Proceedings of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
(excerpt)

Observations and climate model results confirm that human-induced warming of the planet is having a pronounced effect on the atmosphere’s total moisture content.

“When you heat the planet, you increase the ability of the atmosphere to hold moisture,” said Benjamin Santer, lead author from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s Program for Climate Modeling and Intercomparison. “The atmosphere’s water vapor content has increased by about 0.41 kilograms per square meter (kg/m²) per decade since 1988, and natural variability in climate just can’t explain this moisture change. The most plausible explanation is that it’s due to the human-caused increase in greenhouse gases.”

Using 22 different computer models of the climate system and measurements from the satellite-based Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I), atmospheric scientists from LLNL and eight other international research centers have shown that the recent increase in moisture content over the bulk of the world’s oceans is not due to solar forcing or gradual recovery from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The primary driver of this ‘atmospheric moistening’ is the increase in carbon dioxide caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

Basic theory, observations and climate model results all show that the increase in water vapor is roughly 6 percent to 7.5 percent per degree Celsius warming of the lower atmosphere.

No, I use BATTER UP! when I'm going to partuicularly blast one of you or olfrauds ridiculous assertions out of the park.

I'm afraid that you're getting all delusional on me again, walleyed. You've never managed to successfully refute any of the scientific information that I've posted, except maybe in your own very confused and delusion brain (what there is of it).

You claim that they have computer models that can recreate the past weather. Please provide a link to that assertion.

Nice try, slick, but no, I've said that computer models can accurately model past climate patterns not past day-to-day weather. So either you were trying to set up a 'strawman argument' like you usually do when you don't have a leg to stand on, or you just don't know enough about modeling to know that 'climate modeling' specifically deals with longer term trends in global and regional climate patterns over longer periods of years, decades, centuries and millennia and these trends can be accurately modeled. On a shorter time scale of weeks or months, the factors tend to be too chaotic for accurate modeling. As it happens, as climate models have developed and improved due to the intense research into all the different physical factors involved, the knowledge gained has bled over into significant improvements in the computer models that meteorologists use for weather forecasting so that forecasts have gotten more accurate and longer range over recent decades.

Here's some confirmation of the fact that climate models can accurately model past climate patterns. The chart and the paragraphs above and below are the most relevant but I'm going to include the whole article so you can see that the limitations and errors in the models are recognized and understood but don't overwhelm the basic overall ability of the models to accurately reflect both past and current climate changes and also because this material is freely available for reproduction and is not under copyright restrictions.

How Reliable Are the Models Used to Make Projections of Future Climate Change?

There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confidence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes. Confidence in model estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation). Over several decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases.

Climate models are mathematical representations of the climate system, expressed as computer codes and run on powerful computers. One source of confidence in models comes from the fact that model fundamentals are based on established physical laws, such as conservation of mass, energy and momentum, along with a wealth of observations.

A second source of confidence comes from the ability of models to simulate important aspects of the current climate. Models are routinely and extensively assessed by comparing their simulations with observations of the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and land surface. Unprecedented levels of evaluation have taken place over the last decade in the form of organised multi-model ‘intercomparisons’. Models show significant and increasing skill in representing many important mean climate features, such as the large-scale distributions of atmospheric temperature, precipitation, radiation and wind, and of oceanic temperatures, currents and sea ice cover. Models can also simulate essential aspects of many of the patterns of climate variability observed across a range of time scales. Examples include the advance and retreat of the major monsoon systems, the seasonal shifts of temperatures, storm tracks and rain belts, and the hemispheric-scale seesawing of extratropical surface pressures (the Northern and Southern ‘annular modes’). Some climate models, or closely related variants, have also been tested by using them to predict weather and make seasonal forecasts. These models demonstrate skill in such forecasts, showing they can represent important features of the general circulation across shorter time scales, as well as aspects of seasonal and interannual variability. Models’ ability to represent these and other important climate features increases our confidence that they represent the essential physical processes important for the simulation of future climate change. (Note that the limitations in climate models’ ability to forecast weather beyond a few days do not limit their ability to predict long-term climate changes, as these are very different types of prediction – see FAQ 1.2.)

A third source of confidence comes from the ability of models to reproduce features of past climates and climate changes. Models have been used to simulate ancient climates, such as the warm mid-Holocene of 6,000 years ago or the last glacial maximum of 21,000 years ago (see Chapter 6). They can reproduce many features (allowing for uncertainties in reconstructing past climates) such as the magnitude and broad-scale pattern of oceanic cooling during the last ice age. Models can also simulate many observed aspects of climate change over the instrumental record. One example is that the global temperature trend over the past century (shown in Figure 1) can be modelled with high skill when both human and natural factors that influence climate are included. Models also reproduce other observed changes, such as the faster increase in nighttime than in daytime temperatures, the larger degree of warming in the Arctic and the small, short-term global cooling (and subsequent recovery) which has followed major volcanic eruptions, such as that of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 (see FAQ 8.1, Figure 1). Model global temperature projections made over the last two decades have also been in overall agreement with subsequent observations over that period (Chapter 1).

FAQ 8.1, Figure 1. Global mean near-surface temperatures over the 20th century from observations (black) and as obtained from 58 simulations produced by 14 different climate models driven by both natural and human-caused factors that influence climate (yellow). The mean of all these runs is also shown (thick red line). Temperature anomalies are shown relative to the 1901 to 1950 mean. Vertical grey lines indicate the timing of major volcanic eruptions. (Figure adapted from Chapter 9, Figure 9.5. Refer to corresponding caption for further details.)

Nevertheless, models still show significant errors. Although these are generally greater at smaller scales, important large-scale problems also remain. For example, deficiencies remain in the simulation of tropical precipitation, the El Niño- Southern Oscillation and the Madden-Julian Oscillation (an observed variation in tropical winds and rainfall with a time scale of 30 to 90 days). The ultimate source of most such errors is that many important small-scale processes cannot be represented explicitly in models, and so must be included in approximate form as they interact with larger-scale features. This is partly due to limitations in computing power, but also results from limitations in scientific understanding or in the availability of detailed observations of some physical processes. Significant uncertainties, in particular, are associated with the representation of clouds, and in the resulting cloud responses to climate change. Consequently, models continue to display a substantial range of global temperature change in response to specified greenhouse gas forcing (see Chapter 10). Despite such uncertainties, however, models are unanimous in their prediction of substantial climate warming under greenhouse gas increases, and this warming is of a magnitude consistent with independent estimates derived from other sources, such as from observed climate changes and past climate reconstructions.

Since confidence in the changes projected by global models decreases at smaller scales, other techniques, such as the use of regional climate models, or downscaling methods, have been specifically developed for the study of regional- and local-scale climate change (see FAQ 11.1). However, as global models continue to develop, and their resolution continues to improve, they are becoming increasingly useful for investigating important smaller-scale features, such as changes in extreme weather events, and further improvements in regional-scale representation are expected with increased computing power. Models are also becoming more comprehensive in their treatment of the climate system, thus explicitly representing more physical and biophysical processes and interactions considered potentially important for climate change, particularly at longer time scales. Examples are the recent inclusion of plant responses, ocean biological and chemical interactions, and ice sheet dynamics in some global climate models.

In summary, confidence in models comes from their physical basis, and their skill in representing observed climate and past climate changes. Models have proven to be extremely important tools for simulating and understanding climate, and there is considerable confidence that they are able to provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at larger scales. Models continue to have significant limitations, such as in their representation of clouds, which lead to uncertainties in the magnitude and timing, as well as regional details, of predicted climate change. Nevertheless, over several decades of model development, they have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases.

Please provide a link to where a computer model has been able to recreate past climate.

 

[skookerasbil]

Hi Sarah, I must have missed out on one of this guy`s typical "scientific counterarguments"...because I clicked on the "ignore" button which was next to his user name...
But Your comment gives me a general idea what it was that he said again..

(Blah, blah, blah blah, BLAA). (Babble......drivel.....zzzzzzz)

And another meaningless 'blizzard of bullshit' from good ol' head-in-the-sand PeanutBrain who puts all of the inconvenient facts in this world on 'ignore' because he can't handle having his cherished delusions and myths blown out of the water by actual scientific evidence and the testimony of the real climate scientists who work in the various fields of study and who publish papers in major scientific journals. PeanutBrain is another tragic victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, as are so many AGW deniers and tea party twits. He is too ignorant and unintelligent to realize just how ignorant and dumb he is compared to the professionals. But you notice he posts his nonsense here instead of confronting the peer review process at an actual science journal and making his name in science by 'proving' all of the crazy contrarian crap he comes up with to the world science community. Of course if he submitted his rants to a science journal, all he would get would be some hearty laughs and maybe a little pity. The only people he can fool with his drivel are the other politically-persuaded rightwingers on a forum like this who are pretty ignorant of science in general and often seem somewhat suspicious of it to begin with, perhaps in many cases from growing up in 'faith-based' fundamentalist households.

In any case, PeanutBrain's mishmashes are sometimes good for a laugh but otherwise it's all just quite ignorable and very silly pseudo-science and psychotic rants.

s0n...........political correctness is so gay..............


March 2, 2007
How to Solve Global Warming: Humans Must Stop Breathing

Congratulations to researchers at the University of Bristol for finding a simple way to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, as well as discerning the ultimate objective of environmentalism. Let's hope a check is in the mail from Richard Branson, who offered $25 million to whomever could solve the supposed CO2 problem.

Their concept: humans need to stop breathing. If people insist on continuing to breathe, they must at least cut down radically. According to Dr. Mark Steer:

If we merely cut out one breath in three, we could decrease the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere each year by a staggering 0.63 gigatonnes. That's the same effect as saving five million acres of land (an area the size of Wales) from deforestation.
The UN had better step in and impose a worldwide ban on exercising. As the researchers write:

[T]he average person exercising at the recommended level of 30 minutes five times a week could be adding as much as 1.3 kg of extra carbon dioxide to the atmosphere each year.
Multiply that by a 6.5 billion people and you get 14 million tons, more C02 than Al Gore's mansion produces in a month.


Moonbattery: How to Solve Global Warming: Humans Must Stop Breathing


Thunder is an advocate................

 

[RollingThunder]

Hi Sarah, I must have missed out on one of this guy`s typical "scientific counterarguments"...because I clicked on the "ignore" button which was next to his user name...
But Your comment gives me a general idea what it was that he said again..

(Blah, blah, blah blah, BLAA). (Babble......drivel.....zzzzzzz)

And another meaningless 'blizzard of bullshit' from good ol' head-in-the-sand PeanutBrain who puts all of the inconvenient facts in this world on 'ignore' because he can't handle having his cherished delusions and myths blown out of the water by actual scientific evidence and the testimony of the real climate scientists who work in the various fields of study and who publish papers in major scientific journals. PeanutBrain is another tragic victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, as are so many AGW deniers and tea party twits. He is too ignorant and unintelligent to realize just how ignorant and dumb he is compared to the professionals. But you notice he posts his nonsense here instead of confronting the peer review process at an actual science journal and making his name in science by 'proving' all of the crazy contrarian crap he comes up with to the world science community. Of course if he submitted his rants to a science journal, all he would get would be some hearty laughs and maybe a little pity. The only people he can fool with his drivel are the other politically-persuaded rightwingers on a forum like this who are pretty ignorant of science in general and often seem somewhat suspicious of it to begin with, perhaps in many cases from growing up in 'faith-based' fundamentalist households.

In any case, PeanutBrain's mishmashes are sometimes good for a laugh but otherwise it's all just quite ignorable and very silly pseudo-science and psychotic rants.

s0n...........political correctness is so gay..............

You saying that is even more gay.

March 2, 2007
How to Solve Global Warming: Humans Must Stop Breathing

Thunder is an advocate................

LOLOLOLOLOL....I'll "advocate" that you stop breathing, kooker. Please. It wouldn't have any effect on CO2 levels but it would stop all that stupid drivel from spewing from your mouth.

 

[RollingThunder]

No, I use BATTER UP! when I'm going to partuicularly blast one of you or olfrauds ridiculous assertions out of the park.

I'm afraid that you're getting all delusional on me again, walleyed. You've never managed to successfully refute any of the scientific information that I've posted, except maybe in your own very confused and delusion brain (what there is of it).

You claim that they have computer models that can recreate the past weather. Please provide a link to that assertion.

Nice try, slick, but no, I've said that computer models can accurately model past climate patterns not past day-to-day weather. So either you were trying to set up a 'strawman argument' like you usually do when you don't have a leg to stand on, or you just don't know enough about modeling to know that 'climate modeling' specifically deals with longer term trends in global and regional climate patterns over longer periods of years, decades, centuries and millennia and these trends can be accurately modeled. On a shorter time scale of weeks or months, the factors tend to be too chaotic for accurate modeling. As it happens, as climate models have developed and improved due to the intense research into all the different physical factors involved, the knowledge gained has bled over into significant improvements in the computer models that meteorologists use for weather forecasting so that forecasts have gotten more accurate and longer range over recent decades.

Here's some confirmation of the fact that climate models can accurately model past climate patterns. The chart and the paragraphs above and below are the most relevant but I'm going to include the whole article so you can see that the limitations and errors in the models are recognized and understood but don't overwhelm the basic overall ability of the models to accurately reflect both past and current climate changes and also because this material is freely available for reproduction and is not under copyright restrictions.

How Reliable Are the Models Used to Make Projections of Future Climate Change?

There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confidence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes. Confidence in model estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation). Over several decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases.

Climate models are mathematical representations of the climate system, expressed as computer codes and run on powerful computers. One source of confidence in models comes from the fact that model fundamentals are based on established physical laws, such as conservation of mass, energy and momentum, along with a wealth of observations.

A second source of confidence comes from the ability of models to simulate important aspects of the current climate. Models are routinely and extensively assessed by comparing their simulations with observations of the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and land surface. Unprecedented levels of evaluation have taken place over the last decade in the form of organised multi-model ‘intercomparisons’. Models show significant and increasing skill in representing many important mean climate features, such as the large-scale distributions of atmospheric temperature, precipitation, radiation and wind, and of oceanic temperatures, currents and sea ice cover. Models can also simulate essential aspects of many of the patterns of climate variability observed across a range of time scales. Examples include the advance and retreat of the major monsoon systems, the seasonal shifts of temperatures, storm tracks and rain belts, and the hemispheric-scale seesawing of extratropical surface pressures (the Northern and Southern ‘annular modes’). Some climate models, or closely related variants, have also been tested by using them to predict weather and make seasonal forecasts. These models demonstrate skill in such forecasts, showing they can represent important features of the general circulation across shorter time scales, as well as aspects of seasonal and interannual variability. Models’ ability to represent these and other important climate features increases our confidence that they represent the essential physical processes important for the simulation of future climate change. (Note that the limitations in climate models’ ability to forecast weather beyond a few days do not limit their ability to predict long-term climate changes, as these are very different types of prediction – see FAQ 1.2.)

A third source of confidence comes from the ability of models to reproduce features of past climates and climate changes. Models have been used to simulate ancient climates, such as the warm mid-Holocene of 6,000 years ago or the last glacial maximum of 21,000 years ago (see Chapter 6). They can reproduce many features (allowing for uncertainties in reconstructing past climates) such as the magnitude and broad-scale pattern of oceanic cooling during the last ice age. Models can also simulate many observed aspects of climate change over the instrumental record. One example is that the global temperature trend over the past century (shown in Figure 1) can be modelled with high skill when both human and natural factors that influence climate are included. Models also reproduce other observed changes, such as the faster increase in nighttime than in daytime temperatures, the larger degree of warming in the Arctic and the small, short-term global cooling (and subsequent recovery) which has followed major volcanic eruptions, such as that of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 (see FAQ 8.1, Figure 1). Model global temperature projections made over the last two decades have also been in overall agreement with subsequent observations over that period (Chapter 1).

FAQ 8.1, Figure 1. Global mean near-surface temperatures over the 20th century from observations (black) and as obtained from 58 simulations produced by 14 different climate models driven by both natural and human-caused factors that influence climate (yellow). The mean of all these runs is also shown (thick red line). Temperature anomalies are shown relative to the 1901 to 1950 mean. Vertical grey lines indicate the timing of major volcanic eruptions. (Figure adapted from Chapter 9, Figure 9.5. Refer to corresponding caption for further details.)

Nevertheless, models still show significant errors. Although these are generally greater at smaller scales, important large-scale problems also remain. For example, deficiencies remain in the simulation of tropical precipitation, the El Niño- Southern Oscillation and the Madden-Julian Oscillation (an observed variation in tropical winds and rainfall with a time scale of 30 to 90 days). The ultimate source of most such errors is that many important small-scale processes cannot be represented explicitly in models, and so must be included in approximate form as they interact with larger-scale features. This is partly due to limitations in computing power, but also results from limitations in scientific understanding or in the availability of detailed observations of some physical processes. Significant uncertainties, in particular, are associated with the representation of clouds, and in the resulting cloud responses to climate change. Consequently, models continue to display a substantial range of global temperature change in response to specified greenhouse gas forcing (see Chapter 10). Despite such uncertainties, however, models are unanimous in their prediction of substantial climate warming under greenhouse gas increases, and this warming is of a magnitude consistent with independent estimates derived from other sources, such as from observed climate changes and past climate reconstructions.

Since confidence in the changes projected by global models decreases at smaller scales, other techniques, such as the use of regional climate models, or downscaling methods, have been specifically developed for the study of regional- and local-scale climate change (see FAQ 11.1). However, as global models continue to develop, and their resolution continues to improve, they are becoming increasingly useful for investigating important smaller-scale features, such as changes in extreme weather events, and further improvements in regional-scale representation are expected with increased computing power. Models are also becoming more comprehensive in their treatment of the climate system, thus explicitly representing more physical and biophysical processes and interactions considered potentially important for climate change, particularly at longer time scales. Examples are the recent inclusion of plant responses, ocean biological and chemical interactions, and ice sheet dynamics in some global climate models.

In summary, confidence in models comes from their physical basis, and their skill in representing observed climate and past climate changes. Models have proven to be extremely important tools for simulating and understanding climate, and there is considerable confidence that they are able to provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at larger scales. Models continue to have significant limitations, such as in their representation of clouds, which lead to uncertainties in the magnitude and timing, as well as regional details, of predicted climate change. Nevertheless, over several decades of model development, they have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases.

Please provide a link to where a computer model has been able to recreate past climate.

I just showed you one for the last century where there's a good instrumental record to compare the results to and it even had a graph showing the observed temperature record vs the model results. Are you blind or just blinded by your ideology? That article also contained a reference to other studies. Did you miss that too? Take another look.
A third source of confidence comes from the ability of models to reproduce features of past climates and climate changes. Models have been used to simulate ancient climates, such as the warm mid-Holocene of 6,000 years ago or the last glacial maximum of 21,000 years ago (see Chapter 6).

But OK, just for you walleyed, here's an even bigger and more recent study.

New Cause for Past Global Warming Revealed by Massive Modeling Project
July 16, 2009
(excerpt)

To launch the experiment, scientists jump-started the CCSM with known changes in Earth's orbit and in carbon dioxide concentration deduced from ice cores and other evidence. They then observed how the atmosphere and ocean responded. The results were in close agreement with temperatures, sea levels, and glacial coverage as deduced from fossil and geologic records.

"We've never been able to recreate climate over this long a period with so much detail and accuracy," says Otto-Bliesner. "Being able to successfully simulate thousands of years of past climate for the first time with a comprehensive climate model is a major scientific achievement."


***

 

[polarbear]

No, I use BATTER UP! when I'm going to partuicularly blast one of you or olfrauds ridiculous assertions out of the park.

I'm afraid that you're getting all delusional on me again, walleyed. You've never managed to successfully refute any of the scientific information that I've posted, except maybe in your own very confused and delusion brain (what there is of it).

You claim that they have computer models that can recreate the past weather. Please provide a link to that assertion.

Nice try, slick, but no, I've said that computer models can accurately model past climate patterns not past day-to-day weather .
Here's some confirmation of the fact that climate models can accurately model past climate patterns.
The chart and the paragraphs above and below are the most relevant
How Reliable Are the Models Used to Make Projections of Future Climate Change?

Climate models are mathematical representations of the climate system, expressed as computer codes and run on powerful computers.

......and their skill in representing observed climate and past climate changes.

Models continue to have significant limitations, such as in their representation of clouds,

Nevertheless, over several decades of model development, they have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases.

Please provide a link to where a computer model has been able to recreate past climate.

As if this : 01110010 01100101 01110100 01100001 01110010 01100100
would have a link to a computer model.
He does not even know the difference between a "computer model" and the simpleton graphic predictions he keeps quoting here.

I`ld like to see him produce 1 single computer model equation or a few lines of algorithms
"OldRocks" had "addressed this"...by copy&pasting Wikipedia equations in here and had no idea what they actually expressed either

This guy, ... You asked him for a link to a published computer model algorithm, all he does is he keeps coming back with these usual linear milk maid math graph using only one input variable, as usual the OH MY GOD CO2 concentration.

And now his "newest" one, which every Jim Dick and Harry knew long before he found it finally too...

with El Chichon & Pinatubo on it "explaining" the drop in delta Temp/time increase which none of their ACTUAL computer models had factored in...
All they did is when they were caught with it was the usual crap, they used Ducky Adobe photo shop and drew in "computer model output lines" with a PS-2 mouse

So all over sudden the fact that if there are radiation absorbers and reflectors in the atmosphere, then this bogus "computer model" did it right and subtracted this missing energy...
But when it gets back to CO2 then it all comes through again and heats up a flat earth model which has been "geometry corrected" by

solar constant divided by 4 and multiplied by 0.7 to take into account the geometry of the sphere and the amount of reflected sunlight.

This guy who is calling other people "retards" or "pea-brains" simply can`t understand what the IPCC publicly said how all their official computer models work...

The algorithm, that is,...NOT THESE RETARDED MSPaint drawn graphs he keeps posting here

...the term "forcing" is restricted to changes in the radiation balance of the surface-troposphere system imposed by external factors, with no changes in stratospheric dynamics, no surface and tropospheric feedbacks in operation (i.e., no secondary effects induced because of changes in tropospheric motions or its thermodynamic state), and no dynamically induced changes in the amount and distribution of atmospheric water (vapour, liquid, and solid forms).

ALL OTHER INFLUENCING FACTORS ARE HELD CONSTANT...
He`s simply not able to comprehend this simple statement

He just keeps coming back here over and over and over again with MSPaint or Adobe Ducky PS2 mouse drawn "Climate model graphs"...
just like "OldRocks" kept doing with his URL to this medieval British oven stoker Tyndal who knew more about physics than Roentgen, Hertz and Max Planck put together about
thermodynamics, Wavelength & Energy correlations, by having "observed" the relation ship between heat and motion...as he noticed that when he tried climbing a mountain he started sweating..and with that brilliant observation he became the "grand daddy" of this Glow Ball "science"



This guy keeps throwing buzz words around, being totally ignorant of what they mean...
Exactly like "Old Rocks" does too
It`s like watching an old Abbott and Costello comedy, or almost as funny as watching 2 retards playing hop-scotch in the mine fields..but call the amused spectators who know where the mines have been planted "retards" and "pea-brains"..

Hey, 79 6F 75 20 66 75 63 6B 69 6E 67 20 6D 6F 72 6F 6E , yesterday somebody just dropped off a 2 month old Toshiba Laptop at my place...
I fix these when I feel like it...
Here are a few "pea- brain" pictures...:

I bet You any of these would win a game of chess hands down against a watermelon brain like your`s...:

So "Rolling01110010 01100101 01110100 01100001 01110010 01100100 "

Why don`t You try it out, go download a free "chess.exe" program like this one...:

http://www.download3k.com/DownloadLink1-Multiplayer-Chess.html

and let us know how you made out...

Hey 01110111 01100001 01110100 01100101 01110010 01101101 01100101 01101100 01101111 01101110 01100010 01110010 01100001 01101001 01101110

Do You know how to add up 0`s and `1`s ?
I`ll teach you...: 0+0=0, 0+1=1,1+0=1
and shit you already fucked up, by guessing that 1+1=2
because it is...0 + CARRY a 1
Don`t believe it..? of course that would not be so in the linear Glow Ball you call your "real science world"..
but in the REAL WORLD 2^0 +2^0=2^1 which is the same as 00000010

first digit (left) = 2^8 and the right most would be 2^0...of course You would'nt even have a clue that 2^8 = 128
So the first letter in your name would be 0*128+1*64+1*32+1*16+0*8+1*4+1*2+1*1...
still don`t know to what that adds up to...it`s ASCII(119), American Standard Code for Information Interchange ...aka ASCII, the whole REAL WORLD all around your little delusion has been using it for over 50 years now...
so the first letter would be a w ...I`ll give you a few more freebee letters...:

01110111 01100001 01110100 01100101 01110010 01101101 01100101 01101100 01101111 01101110 01100010 01110010 01100001 01101001 01101110----w....m.l..b...n

I bet you anything that this "pea-brain" ;

can do it in 1/(2.93*10^9 )seconds what you can`t do even if you were at it all day long
But You sure as shit can beat any of these "pea brains" by a long shot how much garbage you can post here in no time at all

 

[skookerasbil]

Polar bro............when the k00ks start getting angst, miserable and pissed, you know you're doing your job!!!!


In fact, this thread is becomming an utter blowout for the SKEPTICS. I think an Environmental Forum Scoreboard check is in order..................

 

[editec]

"I guess we'll all just have to get used to global warming"

President George W. Bush

 

[skookerasbil]

"I guess we'll all just have to get used to global warming"

President George W. Bush

Hey.......the guy is right. Cant do shit about it so no use in obsessing!!!

 

[editec]

Continuing to add by quotes the same huge posts time after time, makes continuing these discussion rather difficult.

 

[wirebender]

"I guess we'll all just have to get used to global warming"

President George W. Bush

Like we get used to the sun coming up and the moon having phases; rain, snow, wind, fall, summer, winter, and spring. All are natural phenomena and there is nothing we can do to change them. The overall warming trend has been going on for 14,000 years now.

What, precisely, does anyone find upsetting about the fact that it continues; and if earth history is any indication, will continue until such time as there is no ice at one or both poles?

 

[skookerasbil]

Continuing to add by quotes the same huge posts time after time, makes continuing these discussion rather difficult.

Hey what can I say? One has to out absurd the absurd..........thats my motto.


Its like this..........if you see a guy walking down the street in his birthday suit waving a bananna over his head while advocating for some gay cause, you dont join him. You walk behind him in full garb waving a HUMONGOUS bannana over your head.

 

[The T]

"I guess we'll all just have to get used to global warming"

President George W. Bush

In other words? "Welcome to Planet Earth...enjoy your stay..."

 

[RollingThunder]

(blah, blah, blah, blah and BLAAA.) (blather.....bs.....drivel.....zzzzz)]

I said it before but it seems to be worth repeating.

"PeanutBrain is another tragic victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, as are so many AGW deniers and tea party twits. He is too ignorant and unintelligent to realize just how ignorant and dumb he is compared to the professionals. But you notice he posts his nonsense here instead of confronting the peer review process at an actual science journal and making his name in science by 'proving' all of the crazy contrarian crap he comes up with to the world science community. Of course if he submitted his rants to a science journal, all he would get would be some hearty laughs and maybe a little pity. The only people he can fool with his drivel are the other politically-persuaded rightwingers on a forum like this who are pretty ignorant of science in general and often seem somewhat suspicious of it to begin with, perhaps in many cases from growing up in 'faith-based' fundamentalist households.

In any case, PeanutBrain's mishmashes are sometimes good for a laugh but otherwise it's all just quite ignorable and very silly pseudo-science and psychotic rants."

 

[RollingThunder]

Continuing to add by quotes the same huge posts time after time, makes continuing these discussion rather difficult.

Hey what can I say? One has to out absurd the absurd..........thats my motto.

You won the 'absurdity contest' a long time ago, kooker. The 'delusional idiot' contest too, hands down. Your real motto which combines ignorance, idiocy and apathy, just like you do, is actually: 'I don't know, I don't wanna know and I don't care'.

Its like this..........if you see a guy walking down the street in his birthday suit waving a bananna over his head while advocating for some gay cause, you dont join him. You walk behind him in full garb waving a HUMONGOUS bannana over your head.

Is that how you wound up walking around with "a HUMONGOUS bannana" up your ass? I was thinking your repressed homosexuality, that you make so obvious, probably had something to do with it being there.

 

[skookerasbil]

Continuing to add by quotes the same huge posts time after time, makes continuing these discussion rather difficult.

Hey what can I say? One has to out absurd the absurd..........thats my motto.

You won the 'absurdity contest' a long time ago, kooker. The 'delusional idiot' contest too, hands down. Your real motto which combines ignorance, idiocy and apathy, just like you do, is actually: 'I don't know, I don't wanna know and I don't care'.

Its like this..........if you see a guy walking down the street in his birthday suit waving a bananna over his head while advocating for some gay cause, you dont join him. You walk behind him in full garb waving a HUMONGOUS bannana over your head.

Is that how you wound up walking around with "a HUMONGOUS bannana" up your ass? I was thinking your repressed homosexuality, that you make so obvious, probably had something to do with it being there.

gay

Indeed..........I dont know much, but what I do know is that I wont be drawn into the world of the PC zombies like the left in here.

Guys like Rolling Thunder? Thinks there is a solution to anything and everything if the passion and effort is concerted enough..............

..........for example..............a few years back, a rather vocal band of far lefties started lobbying the Connecticut state capitol!! Why? They were pressing for the state to widen the I-95 highway due to a terrible accident. At a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. You see.......a family of 8 or 9 was killed when their van was rammed from behind while parked on the shoulder of the highway. The liberal thinking? The widening was necessary to prevent a similar tragedy.

Asshats like Rolling Thunder and Old Rocks are all over that kind of shit. Its a neurological fcukk-up thing, but to them, the dynamic is, "Of course this is the right thing and the only thing to do. If it costs 1 billion and is over cost.............so be it!!"


Of course, if one had half a brain, they've already figured out that the legislation was rejected by a laughable margin. Of course.........its called understanding the necessary tradeoffs in life. Something the liberal mind is incapable of doing. k00ks like Rolling Thunder, Chris and Old Rocks would be beyond appalled.


Rolling would happily buy a bag of dog doo for $1,000.00 a pop if it was packaged up just right!!!! ( since you're a homophobe s0n, I threw in the BOOBIES just for you!!!)

 

[RollingThunder]

Hey what can I say? One has to out absurd the absurd..........thats my motto.

You won the 'absurdity contest' a long time ago, kooker. The 'delusional idiot' contest too, hands down. Your real motto which combines ignorance, idiocy and apathy, just like you do, is actually: 'I don't know, I don't wanna know and I don't care'.

Its like this..........if you see a guy walking down the street in his birthday suit waving a bananna over his head while advocating for some gay cause, you dont join him. You walk behind him in full garb waving a HUMONGOUS bannana over your head.

Is that how you wound up walking around with "a HUMONGOUS bannana" up your ass? I was thinking your repressed homosexuality, that you make so obvious, probably had something to do with it being there.

gay

LOLOLOL. People who use that word the way you do are usually very gay but in denial.

Indeed..........I dont know much

Everybody knows that!!! You make that point clear every time you post your braindead drivel.