AN Open Challenge for my AGW Friends....

[westwall]

What a dumb ass. You demand models not supplied by scientists, but then offer a model supplied by another nutbag that nobody ever heard of. You are a phony, and even worse than that, you are a phony MAGA.

That's not what he requested at all. No go read the OP again and tell the class what you said that was wrong.

 

[Crick]

I am an atmospheric physicist.

You are a lying sack of shit. You are a retired cop who took a meteorology course for retired fogies. I am going to assume that is why you deleted the post in which you made this claim. Unfortunately for you, it had already been tapped.

 

[Crick]

Feel free to bring one to discuss.

Dr Roy Spencer did 73 of the models. They were primed will all the same data then allowed to run from 1979 and checked against empirical data. They all failed. To date, that failure remains a problem with climate modeling. Why do they persist in not fixing the models?

View attachment 857677

This is the topic of the first "Roy Spencer's Hot Whoppers". The falsehoods and deceptions used in putting this graphic together essentially ended Spencer's career. But, this is the internet. It will live forever.

 

[ding]

This is the topic of the first "Roy Spencer's Hot Whoppers". The falsehoods and deceptions used in putting this graphic together essentially ended Spencer's career. But, this is the internet. It will live forever.

Manabe and Strickler (1964) calculated the global-average strength of the “greenhouse effect” on surface temperatures assuming all energy transfers were radiative (no weather processes), based upon the theory of how infrared energy courses through the atmosphere. They found that the surface of the Earth would average a whopping 75 deg. C warmer than if there was no greenhouse effect. But in reality, the surface of the Earth averages about 33 deg. C warmer, not 75 deg. C warmer than a no-greenhouse Earth. That’s because convective air currents (which create weather) carry excess heat away from the surface, cooling it well below its full greenhouse effect value represented by their imagined “pure radiative energy equilibrium” assumption.

 

[ding]

And yet we are expected to believe that an additional 120 ppm of CO2 is 500% efficient when all of the GHG in the atmosphere are only 44% efficient.

 

[BULLDOG]

That fact seems to have escaped most people today. They cannot discern the difference between empirical fact and modeled fantasy.

Still waiting for you to present your own personal research that doesn't rely on other's previous work. What measurements did you personally make that leads you to your conclusion? Seems childish for you to repeat work done by others while demanding only personally gathered data from others, don't you think?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Still waiting for you to present your own personal research that doesn't rely on other's previous work. What measurements did you personally make that leads you to your conclusion? Seems childish for you to repeat work done by others while demanding only personally gathered data from others, don't you think?

The challenge was for YOU to present models which I can evaluate. My own research has shown no model capable of long term climactic prediction. The ball is in your court... GO!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Manabe and Strickler (1964) calculated the global-average strength of the “greenhouse effect” on surface temperatures assuming all energy transfers were radiative (no weather processes), based upon the theory of how infrared energy courses through the atmosphere. They found that the surface of the Earth would average a whopping 75 deg. C warmer than if there was no greenhouse effect. But in reality, the surface of the Earth averages about 33 deg. C warmer, not 75 deg. C warmer than a no-greenhouse Earth. That’s because convective air currents (which create weather) carry excess heat away from the surface, cooling it well below its full greenhouse effect value represented by their imagined “pure radiative energy equilibrium” assumption.

That study also showed that a rise in CO2 allowed faster energy escape, not warming. Funny how they only like what they think proves their delusions.

 

[Billy_Bob]

This is the topic of the first "Roy Spencer's Hot Whoppers". The falsehoods and deceptions used in putting this graphic together essentially ended Spencer's career. But, this is the internet. It will live forever.

Slandering Sue... Funny how you would bring that outright deception creating person into this conversation and all without facts. Her reputation is not one you want to hang anything on. How about you bring some facts that are reproducible and verifiable. Sue failed in her analysis.

I can defend what Dr Spencer did because he was open and transparent with what he did. He did a simple evaluation using real world data to prime the models. He then allowed them to run and watch the predicative phase of each one as measured against empirical data.

It's called Empirical Verification. If the model can't predict the future and runs away in temperature its worthless. The modelers are running from this test as it exposes the models' weaknesses and failures.

 

[ding]

That study also showed that a rise in CO2 allowed faster energy escape, not warming. Funny how they only like what they think proves their delusions.

That's just thermodynamics and common sense. The warmer the planet gets the more the rate of heat loss to outer space. The cooler the planet gets the less the rate of heat loss to outer space. It's a built in compensation for equilibrium.

 

[jc456]

Don't mention the fact that my views are contrary to every scientific institution on the planet.

well the mere fact you use words like 'every' implies that all science backs your position. Failed right there. All you would need to do is tell us how many scientists back your position. Heartland Institute doesn't. So boom

 

[jc456]

Slandering Sue... Funny how you would bring that outright deception creating person into this conversation and all without facts. Her reputation is not one you want to hang anything on. How about you bring some facts that are reproducible and verifiable. Sue failed in her analysis.

I can defend what Dr Spencer did because he was open and transparent with what he did. He did a simple evaluation using real world data to prime the models. He then allowed them to run and watch the predicative phase of each one as measured against empirical data.

It's called Empirical Verification. If the model can't predict the future and runs away in temperature its worthless. The modelers are running from this test as it exposes the models' weaknesses and failures.

Billy, we know today that funding determines bias, because old chick complained that Willie Soon was paid by Oil industry money to provide his data. So if a government is funding the peered papers, she is admitting it is biased to the money they received.

BTW, I hope you're feeling better today!!!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Billy, we know today that funding determines bias, because old chick complained that Willie Soon was paid by Oil industry money to provide his data. So if a government is funding the peered papers, she is admitting it is biased to the money they received.

BTW, I hope you're feeling better today!!!!

Since the bone marrow transplant, I am doing much better. Cancer sucks!

Government grant funding requires a preconceived outcome. This is not the way to do science. I have many complaints on how things are funded and how it drives the political narrative and not science.

 

[jc456]

Since the bone marrow transplant, I am doing much better. Cancer sucks!

Government grant funding requires a preconceived outcome. This is not the way to do science. I have many complaints on how things are funded and how it drives the political narrative and not science.

It was nice that chick finally agreed that is what's happening.

 

[Billy_Bob]

55 posts in and not one answer to my challenge.

 

[jc456]

55 posts in and not one answer to my challenge.

there never will be one.

 

[ding]

Still waiting for you to present your own personal research that doesn't rely on other's previous work. What measurements did you personally make that leads you to your conclusion? Seems childish for you to repeat work done by others while demanding only personally gathered data from others, don't you think?

Why can't we use empirical climate data from the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet? Or the empirical climate evidence of the glacial cycles that have been occurring for the past 3 million years?

 

[Sunsettommy]

This is the topic of the first "Roy Spencer's Hot Whoppers". The falsehoods and deceptions used in putting this graphic together essentially ended Spencer's career. But, this is the internet. It will live forever.

My what a barrage of empty unsupported words meanwhile still nothing to answer his request from post one:

My challenge is this: Bring me the names of models and how they included natural forcings and land use changes in them. Feel free to post links to these models/modelers and their sources. Then explain how they ruled out these natural factors and land use changes which affect the global average of temperature.

Do not appeal to authority. I want facts and data only.

You fear of it is all you show here.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Still waiting for you to present your own personal research that doesn't rely on other's previous work. What measurements did you personally make that leads you to your conclusion? Seems childish for you to repeat work done by others while demanding only personally gathered data from others, don't you think?

Still waiting for YOU to answer his request from post one:

My challenge is this: Bring me the names of models and how they included natural forcings and land use changes in them. Feel free to post links to these models/modelers and their sources. Then explain how they ruled out these natural factors and land use changes which affect the global average of temperature.

Do not appeal to authority. I want facts and data only.

So far all you show is your unprovoked prejudice which is boooring!

 

[Sunsettommy]

55 posts in and not one answer to my challenge.

It appears the request was too difficult for them to handle which is why they ignored it for the cheap prejudice and fallacious response thus no debate at all which is why they lose....... again.

I have done similar expose of their childish behavior in three forums with this and not a single reply to the content of this article published 2 1/2 years ago.

ZERO.... really, they couldn't handle it instead the screamed at it with a torrent of fallacies, name calling and more childish responses while totally avoiding the article itself thus never challenged.

Where is the Climate Emergency?

LINK