Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on globa

[flacaltenn]

Kauppinen and Malmi's paper was heavily criticized for not referencing any data, ignoring contradictory data, attacking climate models while creating and touting a flawed one,

Amateur hour all 'round here with the "modeling" herring.. I don't believe there was ANY MODELING going on in the K & M paper.. Just enough data prep on ACTUAL DATA to cover 20 years...

I'd stop reading any hit piece opinion that didn't understand the proper use of the term modeling.. Authors did not ATTEMPT to build a model to forecast the future or the past. They assembled 20 years of cloud cover data to show the OBVIOUS "weather related" connection between clouds and cooling .. Which COULD be a factor in a very large NEGATIVE feedback on GW -- but probably can not be proven...

And they DID reference specific data sets. Just not ENOUGH of it to leap to conclusions about GW.. In fact MANY papers have done the same thing.. One on "monsoon data" was even linked in this Opening Post and somehow (I haven't read it) they ALSO lept to conclusions bigger than their study.. But THEY got their shit published in the Journal of Nature...

You know, Flac, "clouds control the earth's climate" may be simplistic, and is most assuredly wrong, but it's a climate model.

Moreover, attributing to clouds a cooling effect when you yourself pointed out that it isn't that simple, particularly at night, should give you an understanding that the two laughable goofs authorizing that "study" didn't even begin to understand the complexity of the goings-on.

As to "hit piece"... it's RealClearScience, a sidekick of RealClearPolitics, an ultra-conservative enterprise, but one with some standards. You should have clicked on the link to find several links to other articles debunking Kauppinen and Malmi's paper. That's what links are for, aren't they?

The hell it's a model... It's a leap to conclusions not in evidence in their work... A "model" would be built to PREDICT performance and show some quality control about "hindcasting" the past..

Leaps to CONCLUSIONS are a HALLMARK of GW/CC papers... Like the leap to the conclusion that Mann et al "likely" proved there was close to ZERO variability in climates of the past and THIS 80 year current minor blip in temperature rise is therefore UNPRECEDENTED in magnitude and rate for the near past future of the Earth..

THAT'S a leap SO LARGE -- he's likely still in traction in some nursing home somewhere...

LEAPS are what it takes to SELL your work.. It's the stuff that gets to the press that just isn't PROVEN in your paper....

I don't like 3rd party assessments of technical papers.. If I catch them inventing stuff not in evidence, I go READ the actual work and form my OWN opinion...

 

[mamooth]

H2O is a far more potent GHG than CO2. In fact, the AGW Bible, "Earth in the Balance" claims that CO2 drives water vapor that is responsible for the warming

No, it doesn't. Where do you get this nonsense? Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. This is basic stuff, and you fail hiliarously at it. Most middle school students are much better at the science than you are.

And why do you consider Gore's book to be a Bible? That's just more loopy cult behavior from you. We rational people look at actual science. Don't assume we think and act like you, because we don't.

 

[mamooth]

You're not the first cultist to say non-believers should be killed.

So you're proud of your open death wish towards non-cultists now?

After all, you are the only person here who keeps raving about killing non-believers for thoughtcrimes. You sound like a cult psychopath. You might want to tone that down. Sure, we know you feel that way, but it's best if you don't say it out loud.

 

[mamooth]

Leaps to CONCLUSIONS are a HALLMARK of GW/CC papers... Like the leap to the conclusion that Mann et al "likely" proved there was close to ZERO variability in climates of the past and THIS 80 year current minor blip in temperature rise is therefore UNPRECEDENTED in magnitude and rate for the near past future of the Earth..

It's hard to tell what that was about. It kind of looks like the old "We can't be absolutely 100.0000% positive that some unknown natural magic didn't cause sudden wild temperature fluctuations in the past which the proxies couldn't spot, therefore we must assume such natural magic exists" illogical argument..

The "natural magic" theory could get some credibility if it explained the current stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation and decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands, which all have no natural explanation. AGW theory does explain all of the observed data, and it is the simplest theory to do so. Mr. Occam has something to say there about how the simplest theory which explains all of the data is most likely to be correct.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Leaps to CONCLUSIONS are a HALLMARK of GW/CC papers... Like the leap to the conclusion that Mann et al "likely" proved there was close to ZERO variability in climates of the past and THIS 80 year current minor blip in temperature rise is therefore UNPRECEDENTED in magnitude and rate for the near past future of the Earth..

It's hard to tell what that was about. It kind of looks like the old "We can't be absolutely 100.0000% positive that some unknown natural magic didn't cause sudden wild temperature fluctuations in the past which the proxies couldn't spot, therefore we must assume such natural magic exists" illogical argument..

The "natural magic" theory could get some credibility if it explained the current stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation and decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands, which all have no natural explanation. AGW theory does explain all of the observed data, and it is the simplest theory to do so. Mr. Occam has something to say there about how the simplest theory which explains all of the data is most likely to be correct.

What is the high and low temperature in the city of Seattle on August 12 2043?

Surely your incredible climate and emission models are that good!

 

[mamooth]

What is the high and low temperature in the city of Seattle on August 12 2043?

I don't know.

Since I have no idea why you asked such a bizarre question, please explain why you asked such a bizarre question. That is, state your point directly and clearly. Assuming that you had a point, and you weren't just trolling.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

H2O is a far more potent GHG than CO2. In fact, the AGW Bible, "Earth in the Balance" claims that CO2 drives water vapor that is responsible for the warming

No, it doesn't. Where do you get this nonsense? Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. This is basic stuff, and you fail hiliarously at it. Most middle school students are much better at the science than you are.

And why do you consider Gore's book to be a Bible? That's just more loopy cult behavior from you. We rational people look at actual science. Don't assume we think and act like you, because we don't.

Bwahahahaha hilarious!! The "we don't need to stinking scientific method" Cult tries to lecture on science!

Your "Settled science" is a fraud, biggest fraud ever

 

[Sunsettommy]

What is the high and low temperature in the city of Seattle on August 12 2043?

I don't know.

Since I have no idea why you asked such a bizarre question, please explain why you asked such a bizarre question. That is, state your point directly and clearly. Assuming that you had a point, and you weren't just trolling.

I was being sarcastic...



You are in the climate kook club supporting bizarre far into the future climate modeling scenarios, where you accept data free conclusions of climate predictions/projections to year 2100. They are the following, untestable, unverifiable and pseudoscience junk.

You are a confirmed hater of The Scientific Method paradigm.

Cheers....

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Oddly, that doesn't seem to affect the papers linked in the article.

Funny you should say that.

This Paper Has Climate Change Deniers Very Excited. There's Just One Tiny Problem

This Paper Has Climate Change Deniers Very Excited. There's Just One Tiny Problem

"Some news outlets are publishing articles stating that this claim is based on a new 'study'," Climate Feedback stated in a detailed debunking. "If they had contacted independent scientists for insight, instead of accepting this short document as revolutionary science, they would have found that it does not have any scientific credibility."

They were quick to point out what the study is actually based on is unclear, as the paper "provides neither the source of the data it uses nor the physics responsible for the proposed relationship between clouds and global temperature," and the document declares the authors do not consider computer models as evidence.

The scientists and experts the organization asked to review this paper – vital in the peer-review process – list among the many issues the fact that "[the] document only cites six references, four of which are the authors’ own, and of these, two are not actually published." Crucial data sources are not provided, figures used to support their claims are at odds with peer-reviewed studies, and the authors make claims "well beyond the scope of their data, without justification" they concluded.​

ROTFLFMAO!

the climate Deniers just trolled themselves...again!

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Kauppinen and Malmi's paper was heavily criticized for not referencing any data, ignoring contradictory data, attacking climate models while creating and touting a flawed one,

Amateur hour all 'round here with the "modeling" herring.. I don't believe there was ANY MODELING going on in the K & M paper.. Just enough data prep on ACTUAL DATA to cover 20 years...

I'd stop reading any hit piece opinion that didn't understand the proper use of the term modeling.. Authors did not ATTEMPT to build a model to forecast the future or the past. They assembled 20 years of cloud cover data to show the OBVIOUS "weather related" connection between clouds and cooling .. Which COULD be a factor in a very large NEGATIVE feedback on GW -- but probably can not be proven...

And they DID reference specific data sets. Just not ENOUGH of it to leap to conclusions about GW.. In fact MANY papers have done the same thing.. One on "monsoon data" was even linked in this Opening Post and somehow (I haven't read it) they ALSO lept to conclusions bigger than their study.. But THEY got their shit published in the Journal of Nature...

You know, Flac, "clouds control the earth's climate" may be simplistic, and is most assuredly wrong, but it's a climate model.

Moreover, attributing to clouds a cooling effect when you yourself pointed out that it isn't that simple, particularly at night, should give you an understanding that the two laughable goofs authorizing that "study" didn't even begin to understand the complexity of the goings-on.

As to "hit piece"... it's RealClearScience, a sidekick of RealClearPolitics, an ultra-conservative enterprise, but one with some standards. You should have clicked on the link to find several links to other articles debunking Kauppinen and Malmi's paper. That's what links are for, aren't they?

The hell it's a model... It's a leap to conclusions not in evidence in their work... A "model" would be built to PREDICT performance and show some quality control about "hindcasting" the past..

Leaps to CONCLUSIONS are a HALLMARK of GW/CC papers... Like the leap to the conclusion that Mann et al "likely" proved there was close to ZERO variability in climates of the past and THIS 80 year current minor blip in temperature rise is therefore UNPRECEDENTED in magnitude and rate for the near past future of the Earth..

THAT'S a leap SO LARGE -- he's likely still in traction in some nursing home somewhere...

LEAPS are what it takes to SELL your work.. It's the stuff that gets to the press that just isn't PROVEN in your paper....

I don't like 3rd party assessments of technical papers.. If I catch them inventing stuff not in evidence, I go READ the actual work and form my OWN opinion...

I like your last sentence..it's the hallmark of an ordered and mature mind. Not a lot of that around..at any time.

I took a long look at the paper in question...checked out the professional reputations of the authors....and gave it some thought.

It appears to be one of those 'intuitional' hooks. it sounds good. But where is the supporting research? Why is the premise not presented in a holistic model..that at least tries to give the 'data' and the idea context?The peer reviews are scathing--and not in a good way. I too, am skeptical..and i know nerds..being a card-carrying member--Citing your own papers is a bit tacky..but citing yourself in an unpublished study to bolster your argument..is suspect.

To me..the defining point was when I traced its spread on the net..as some had already done. Odd how Russia, of all places..seems to be the virtual epicenter..going from there to extreme right wing conservative sites and hence into social media.

I think that it's bad science at best...and deliberate disinformation at worst.

 

[Olde Europe]

Leaps to CONCLUSIONS are a HALLMARK of GW/CC papers... Like the leap to the conclusion that Mann et al "likely" proved there was close to ZERO variability in climates of the past and THIS 80 year current minor blip in temperature rise is therefore UNPRECEDENTED in magnitude and rate for the near past future of the Earth..

You will not let go of that nonsense, right? We are not in an 80 year blip. We are in a blip of thousands, if not tens of thousands of years, for that is how long it is going to take to absorb the carbon we've pumped, and are going to pump, into the atmosphere, for the increased temperatures to go back to pre-industrial levels, to reduce the sea levels to prior levels, and whatever other attendant consequences there are for weather patterns, fauna or flora, or are going to be.

And that means, yes, what we are inflicting on earth is unprecedented, and if anything like it happened before during the last tens of thousands of years, it would have shown up in even a record of 500-years intervals. But it doesn't. Is there any chance you are going to understand that? Really...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why is the premise not presented in a holistic model..

Because the climate is chaotic and can not be modeled accurately, ever! We're smart enough to understand that...

What I find hilarious is the earths cyclical patterns are well known and yet you AGW nutters want to believe a model that can not replicate reality... Yet the activity seen is well within natural variation bounds.... GO figure...

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Why is the premise not presented in a holistic model..

Because the climate is chaotic and can not be modeled accurately, ever! We're smart enough to understand that...

What I find hilarious is the earths cyclical patterns are well known and yet you AGW nutters want to believe a model that can not replicate reality... Yet the activity seen is well within natural variation bounds.... GO figure...

Hmmm...a model need not be definitively predictive. It's just a tool. I know the climate is chaotic..after all, whole fields of mathematics have been invented just to study it. still, enough time and you can get a baseline--draw a few conclusions.

You seem so caught up in the political kerfuffle..that you don't think to believe your senses. There is observable evidence that things are getting warmer. Heat=energy--thus more powerful storms and extremes in temp. The why of it..except to you guys that like to brangle, is irrelevant..things are changing..so it's time to adapt to the change. Human exacerbated or no.

I doubt that I'm any kind of 'nutter'....unless pragmatism is a mental defect.

You, on the other hand....

 

[Olde Europe]

I know the climate is chaotic..after all, whole fields of mathematics have been invented just to study it. still, enough time and you can get a baseline--draw a few conclusions.

Climate is complex (lots of interrelated variables), but not chaotic.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

I know the climate is chaotic..after all, whole fields of mathematics have been invented just to study it. still, enough time and you can get a baseline--draw a few conclusions.

Climate is complex (lots of interrelated variables), but not chaotic.

My bad..i used the term mathematically. Climate is not weather..and statistical predictions can be made..but there is an innate unpredictability in the phenomena the climate produces..weather. Lorenz was right about weather..he overstepped on climate...but not by much.

Edward Norton Lorenz - Wikipedia
Chaos theory and global warming: can climate be predicted?

Lorenz (1963), in the landmark paper that founded chaos theory, said that because the climate is a mathematically-chaotic object (a point which the UN's climate panel admits), accurate long-term prediction of the future evolution of the climate is not possible "by any method". At present, climate forecasts even as little as six weeks ahead can be diametrically the opposite of what actually occurs, even if the forecasts are limited to a small region of the planet.' (Christopher Monckton)

One of the defining traits of a chaotic system is 'sensitive dependence to initial conditions'. This means that even very small changes in the state of the system can quickly and radically change the way that the system develops over time. Edward Lorenz's landmark 1963 paper demonstrated this behavior in a simulation of fluid turbulence, and ended hopes for long-term weather forecasting.

However, climate is not weather, and modeling is not forecasting.

Although it is generally not possible to predict a specific future state of a chaotic system (there is no telling what temperature it will be in Oregon on December 21 2012), it is still possible to make statistical claims about the behavior of the system as a whole (it is very likely that Oregon's December 2012 temperatures will be colder than its July 2012 temperatures). There are chaotic components to the climate system, such as El Nino and fluid turbulence, but they all have much less long-term influence than the greenhouse effect. It's a little like an airplane flying through stormy weather: It may be buffeted around from moment to moment, but it can still move from one airport to another.

Nor do climate models generally produce weather forecasts. Models often run a simulation multiple times with different starting conditions, and the ensemble of results are examined for common properties (one example: Easterling 2009). This is, incidentally, a technique used by mathematicians to study the Lorenz functions.

The chaotic nature of turbulence is no real obstacle to climate modeling, and it does not negate the existence or attribution of climate change.

 

[daveman]

You're not the first cultist to say non-believers should be killed.

So you're proud of your open death wish towards non-cultists now?

After all, you are the only person here who keeps raving about killing non-believers for thoughtcrimes. You sound like a cult psychopath. You might want to tone that down. Sure, we know you feel that way, but it's best if you don't say it out loud.

I'm getting real tired of your fucking lies, you fucking liar. I have never wished death upon warmers. NEVER.

Either present proof I have, or apologize and then shut the fuck up.

 

[Olde Europe]

I know the climate is chaotic..after all, whole fields of mathematics have been invented just to study it. still, enough time and you can get a baseline--draw a few conclusions.

Climate is complex (lots of interrelated variables), but not chaotic.

My bad..i used the term mathematically. Climate is not weather..and statistical predictions can be made..but there is an innate unpredictability in the phenomena the climate produces..weather. Lorenz was right about weather..he overstepped on climate...but not by much.

Edward Norton Lorenz - Wikipedia
Chaos theory and global warming: can climate be predicted?

Lorenz (1963), in the landmark paper that founded chaos theory, said that because the climate is a mathematically-chaotic object (a point which the UN's climate panel admits), accurate long-term prediction of the future evolution of the climate is not possible "by any method". At present, climate forecasts even as little as six weeks ahead can be diametrically the opposite of what actually occurs, even if the forecasts are limited to a small region of the planet.' (Christopher Monckton)

One of the defining traits of a chaotic system is 'sensitive dependence to initial conditions'. This means that even very small changes in the state of the system can quickly and radically change the way that the system develops over time. Edward Lorenz's landmark 1963 paper demonstrated this behavior in a simulation of fluid turbulence, and ended hopes for long-term weather forecasting.

However, climate is not weather, and modeling is not forecasting.

Although it is generally not possible to predict a specific future state of a chaotic system (there is no telling what temperature it will be in Oregon on December 21 2012), it is still possible to make statistical claims about the behavior of the system as a whole (it is very likely that Oregon's December 2012 temperatures will be colder than its July 2012 temperatures). There are chaotic components to the climate system, such as El Nino and fluid turbulence, but they all have much less long-term influence than the greenhouse effect. It's a little like an airplane flying through stormy weather: It may be buffeted around from moment to moment, but it can still move from one airport to another.

Nor do climate models generally produce weather forecasts. Models often run a simulation multiple times with different starting conditions, and the ensemble of results are examined for common properties (one example: Easterling 2009). This is, incidentally, a technique used by mathematicians to study the Lorenz functions.

The chaotic nature of turbulence is no real obstacle to climate modeling, and it does not negate the existence or attribution of climate change.

Yep. To recap: Weather is chaotic, climate is not. Not mathematically, and not otherwise. It's important, not least because it's one attack vector by climate change denialingdongs, to the tune of, "Climate is so chaotic, we can't predict anything. The scientists' predictions are a hoax, and shall not be believed."

 

[Billy_Bob]

The chaotic nature of turbulence is no real obstacle to climate modeling, and it does not negate the existence or attribution of climate change.

Too funny;

Never mind our models run hot, can not predict better than 36 hours into the future, and can not predict storms outputs accurately...... just believe......

 

[ReinyDays]

The chaotic nature of turbulence is no real obstacle to climate modeling, and it does not negate the existence or attribution of climate change.

Too funny;
Never mind our models run hot, can not predict better than 36 hours into the future, and can not predict storms outputs accurately...... just believe......

Thank you Billy_Bob for answering this ... I hurt my knees I fell laughing so hard ... ouch ...

Global warming is currently reducing turbulence due to lowering of average power in the atmosphere ... storms are becoming less likely ... that's not a change in climate ... severe storms will still occur just at slightly less frequency ...

 

[mamooth]

I'm getting real tired of your fucking lies, you fucking liar. I have never wished death upon warmers. NEVER.

And we've never wished death on you. So why do you think it's okay for you to lie about that, and not okay for me to mock you for lying?

Either present proof I have, or apologize and then shut the fuck up.

How do you justify it to yourself, your constant lying about us supposedly wishing death on people? Do you tell yourself that it's for the greater good, and that God endorses your lying? I've got news for you. God would never tell you to lie.The voice that you're obeying belongs to the other guy.