97% Scientists agree AGAIN

[SSDD]

The pal-review non-doctorate written paper you refer doesn't actually criticize any of the fully three dimensional computer models.

Do you even know what you're talking about?

There are no fully three dimensional computer models. Look at the documentation from the list you provided and tell me which one you believe is fully three dimensional. Which one do you think uses an energy budget and model that is signifigantly different from the khiel / trenberth model?

 

[SSDD]

And again if the earth is a couple degrees warmer we'll all be just fine.

So go to bed now Chicken Little.

They don't seem to realise that it has been a good deal warmer for most of earth's past than the present. I suppose they want to stay in an ice age forever.

 

[edthecynic]

And yet observation has deviated from the models. There hasn't been any "warming" in over ten years.

FAIL.

BULLSHIT!

With no warming in ten years, somehow this last decade is the warmest in the history of direct instrument measurement.

Globe Continues Hottest Decade Ever ? News Watch

New data from scientists at NASA and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) now indicate that 2012 capped the hottest decade on record for global temperatures.

 

[ScienceRocks]

And yet observation has deviated from the models. There hasn't been any "warming" in over ten years.

FAIL.

BULLSHIT!

With no warming in ten years, somehow this last decade is the warmest in the history of direct instrument measurement.

Globe Continues Hottest Decade Ever ? News Watch

New data from scientists at NASA and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) now indicate that 2012 capped the hottest decade on record for global temperatures.

This year should easily be warmer then 2012 as we're now having a true neutral year. I'll say 3rd-5th warmest.

 

[gslack]

Another topic about the same paper...

66% didn't take a side, 32% agreed with agw theory, and of that 32% 97% agreed with the theory completely..So 66% do not agree or disagree with AGW theory meaning they are on the fence yet..

So no consensus. Thanks for clarifying..Now this is two threads on the same claim. Been through this already there.

 

[westwall]

I found this quite amusing.....this is the latest attempt at bolstering the 97% BS. Seems that the author fudged things......a LOT!

What's funny is all these science deniers fall all over themselves talking how great this crap is. What a bunch of losers....


The guidelines for rating these abstracts show only the highest rating value blames the majority of global warming on humans. No other rating says how much humans contribute to global warming. The only time an abstract is rated as saying how much humans contribute to global warming is if it mentions:


that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%).

If we use the system’s search feature for abstracts that meet this requirement, we get 65 results. That is 65, out of the 12,000+ examined abstracts. Not only is that value incredibly small, it is smaller than another value listed in the paper:


Reject AGW 0.7% (78)

Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink in. This study done by John Cook and others, praised by the President of the United States, found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it.

The “consensus” they’re promoting says it is more likely humans have a negligible impact on the planet’s warming than a large one.






http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/on-the-consensus/

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So tell me how one can reasonably expect a model to produce output that resembles reality when the program isn't modelling anything even close to reality.

Things that don't model reality don't model reality - excellent point! That one is not very obvious, glad you pointed it out! BTW, I just discovered that 1 = 1!

The fact remains that climate models are getting worse instead of better. Maybe because they are stuck in the 19th century.

A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters finds that the latest climate models are performing even worse than the earlier generations of climate models in predicting

“…both the mean surface air temperature as well as the frequency of extreme monthly mean temperature events due to climate warming.”

The author hypothesizes the reasons for this are that attempts in the latest generation of models to reproduce observed changes in Arctic sea ice are causing “significant and widening discrepancy between the modeled and observed warming rates outside of the Arctic,” i.e. they have improved Arctic simulation at the expense of poorly simulating the rest of the globe. The paper adds to hundreds of other peer-reviewed papers demonstrating the abject failure of climate models.

Emerging selection bias in large-scale climate change simulations - Swanson - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

You DIDN'T EVEN READ THE PAPER in the link - so you'll have to forgive me if I dismiss your opinion on it (that you actually just copied from someone else that you fail to source) as completely worthless.

 

[gslack]

And yet observation has deviated from the models. There hasn't been any "warming" in over ten years.

FAIL.

BULLSHIT!

With no warming in ten years, somehow this last decade is the warmest in the history of direct instrument measurement.

Globe Continues Hottest Decade Ever ? News Watch

New data from scientists at NASA and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) now indicate that 2012 capped the hottest decade on record for global temperatures.

BULLSHIT from you... Your link said the following right after your line above..

Although average worldwide temperatures in 2012 did not break records, the average global temperature last year was 58.3°F (14.6°C), more than a degree warmer than the historic baseline set in the 1950s. Since 1880, the average global temperature has increased 1.4°F (0.8°C), the new data showed. Taken all together, 2012 was the ninth warmest year in modern history.

Now what was that nonsense all about? It set no records but somehow set records anyway? Ninth warmest year in modern history?

More spin media at work.. I'll tell ya what, you find how it is 2012 was the warmest ever when it was the ninth warmest ever..

 

[gslack]

Things that don't model reality don't model reality - excellent point! That one is not very obvious, glad you pointed it out! BTW, I just discovered that 1 = 1!

The fact remains that climate models are getting worse instead of better. Maybe because they are stuck in the 19th century.

A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters finds that the latest climate models are performing even worse than the earlier generations of climate models in predicting

“…both the mean surface air temperature as well as the frequency of extreme monthly mean temperature events due to climate warming.”

The author hypothesizes the reasons for this are that attempts in the latest generation of models to reproduce observed changes in Arctic sea ice are causing “significant and widening discrepancy between the modeled and observed warming rates outside of the Arctic,” i.e. they have improved Arctic simulation at the expense of poorly simulating the rest of the globe. The paper adds to hundreds of other peer-reviewed papers demonstrating the abject failure of climate models.

Emerging selection bias in large-scale climate change simulations - Swanson - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

You DIDN'T EVEN READ THE PAPER in the link - so you'll have to forgive me if I dismiss your opinion on it (that you actually just copied from someone else that you fail to source) as completely worthless.

That's a pretty bold claim considering he cited the link. I think you didn't read the paper..

from the link he provided in the papers abstract...

Here we show one danger of the use of such criteria in the construction of these simulations, namely the apparent emergence of a selection bias between generations of these simulations. Earlier generation ensembles of model simulations are shown to possess sufficient diversity to capture recent observed shifts in both the mean surface air temperature as well as the frequency of extreme monthly mean temperature events due to climate warming. However, current generation ensembles of model simulations are statistically inconsistent with these observed shifts, despite a marked reduction in the spread among ensemble members that by itself suggests convergence towards some common solution. This convergence indicates the possibility of a selection bias based upon warming rate.

Seems it agrees with his brief completely. Next time try reading socko...

 

[SSDD]

New data from scientists at NASA and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) now indicate that 2012 capped the hottest decade on record for global temperatures.

Newly altered records show that...reality is an entirely different thing...and the CRN temperature network...that's the state of the art gathering stations meticulously placed so as to not have any UHI bias dosn't show anything like what those altered records are showing.

 

[skookerasbil]

yuk......yuk......yuk.........

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBO2IstMi2A]CO2 is a trace gas. - YouTube[/ame]



Oh.....and the "models" have zero value in terms of predictions moving forward. There are waaaaaaaaay too many variables that are conveniently ignored. The models simply help us to understand our atmosphere better but thats about it.......

http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/the-models-are-wrong

 

[edthecynic]

And yet observation has deviated from the models. There hasn't been any "warming" in over ten years.

FAIL.

BULLSHIT!

With no warming in ten years, somehow this last decade is the warmest in the history of direct instrument measurement.

Globe Continues Hottest Decade Ever ? News Watch

New data from scientists at NASA and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) now indicate that 2012 capped the hottest decade on record for global temperatures.

BULLSHIT from you... Your link said the following right after your line above..

Although average worldwide temperatures in 2012 did not break records, the average global temperature last year was 58.3°F (14.6°C), more than a degree warmer than the historic baseline set in the 1950s. Since 1880, the average global temperature has increased 1.4°F (0.8°C), the new data showed. Taken all together, 2012 was the ninth warmest year in modern history.

Now what was that nonsense all about? It set no records but somehow set records anyway? Ninth warmest year in modern history?

More spin media at work.. I'll tell ya what, you find how it is 2012 was the warmest ever when it was the ninth warmest ever..

A perfect example of the absolute stupidity it takes to be a denier. You have to be too stupid to know the difference between a YEAR and a DECADE.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And yet, scientists are baffled why the warming has paused for over a decade now. Can you say "conflict, junk science"? Probably not.

Seriously, you're a ******* high caliber moron, fella. I'm not sure you should even be in the discussion.

 

[edthecynic]

New data from scientists at NASA and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) now indicate that 2012 capped the hottest decade on record for global temperatures.

Newly altered records show that...reality is an entirely different thing...and the CRN temperature network...that's the state of the art gathering stations meticulously placed so as to not have any UHI bias dosn't show anything like what those altered records are showing.

The only thing altered is your reality. The CRN is not global and only has about one decade of data, and doesn't support anything you claim.

 

[SSDD]

And yet, scientists are baffled why the warming has paused for over a decade now. Can you say "conflict, junk science"? Probably not.

Seriously, you're a ******* high caliber moron, fella. I'm not sure you should even be in the discussion.

But he has a clip art observatory as his avatar...surely he is qualified.

 

[SSDD]

Newly altered records show that...reality is an entirely different thing...and the CRN temperature network...that's the state of the art gathering stations meticulously placed so as to not have any UHI bias dosn't show anything like what those altered records are showing.

The only thing altered is your reality. The CRN is not global and only has about one decade of data, and doesn't support anything you claim.[/QUOTE]

It shows that the CONUS temperature readings presented by the larger network have been off considerably for the past 10 years...and by inference for the past 50 or 60 due UHI creeping into the record.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

yuk......yuk......yuk.........
There are waaaaaaaaay too many variables that are conveniently ignored.

How many too many?

The models simply help us to understand our atmosphere better but thats about it.......

And what they've helped us to understand is that Co2 is the predominant cause of warming over most of the past century.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The fact remains that climate models are getting worse instead of better. Maybe because they are stuck in the 19th century.



Emerging selection bias in large-scale climate change simulations - Swanson - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

You DIDN'T EVEN READ THE PAPER in the link - so you'll have to forgive me if I dismiss your opinion on it (that you actually just copied from someone else that you fail to source) as completely worthless.

That's a pretty bold claim considering he cited the link. I think you didn't read the paper..

from the link he provided in the papers abstract...

Here we show one danger of the use of such criteria in the construction of these simulations, namely the apparent emergence of a selection bias between generations of these simulations. Earlier generation ensembles of model simulations are shown to possess sufficient diversity to capture recent observed shifts in both the mean surface air temperature as well as the frequency of extreme monthly mean temperature events due to climate warming. However, current generation ensembles of model simulations are statistically inconsistent with these observed shifts, despite a marked reduction in the spread among ensemble members that by itself suggests convergence towards some common solution. This convergence indicates the possibility of a selection bias based upon warming rate.

Seems it agrees with his brief completely. Next time try reading socko...

Its not "his brief" - he cut and pasted his opinion from Anthony Watts and didn't even source him. And he has not read the paper.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

New data from scientists at NASA and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) now indicate that 2012 capped the hottest decade on record for global temperatures.

Newly altered records show that...reality is an entirely different thing...and the CRN temperature network...that's the state of the art gathering stations meticulously placed so as to not have any UHI bias dosn't show anything like what those altered records are showing.

You're absolutely full of shit.

 

[gslack]

BULLSHIT!

With no warming in ten years, somehow this last decade is the warmest in the history of direct instrument measurement.

Globe Continues Hottest Decade Ever ? News Watch

New data from scientists at NASA and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) now indicate that 2012 capped the hottest decade on record for global temperatures.

BULLSHIT from you... Your link said the following right after your line above..

Although average worldwide temperatures in 2012 did not break records, the average global temperature last year was 58.3°F (14.6°C), more than a degree warmer than the historic baseline set in the 1950s. Since 1880, the average global temperature has increased 1.4°F (0.8°C), the new data showed. Taken all together, 2012 was the ninth warmest year in modern history.

Now what was that nonsense all about? It set no records but somehow set records anyway? Ninth warmest year in modern history?

More spin media at work.. I'll tell ya what, you find how it is 2012 was the warmest ever when it was the ninth warmest ever..

A perfect example of the absolute stupidity it takes to be a denier. You have to be too stupid to know the difference between a YEAR and a DECADE.

Dumbass,

What do you think when you read this phrase...

"New data from scientists at NASA and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) now indicate that 2012 capped the hottest decade on record for global temperatures."

If they aren't claiming that 2012 was the hottest in the decade why the BS about "capped the hottest decade"????

Look dude it was your link, they tried to imply something the data didn't support. AND YOU posted it... So, if it is my mistake better tell them to stop implying it with such loose and misrepresenting phrases like "2012 capped the the hottest decade on record" . When I read capped, liked most people I assume they mean topped it off and should therefore be more or at least some kind of evidence to support the claim.. Ninth warmest doesn't even cut it dude..

If you don't like misunderstandings, don't post misleading crap..