Epic Climate Science Fail....

[idb]

Only a total f'ing idiot can look at this graph and continue to claim that the climate models are not inconsistent with observations.

How many of you total f'ing idiots (and you know who you are) want to try and defend the claim that climate models are not inconsistent with observations.

In real science, you make some predictions based on a hypothesis. Then you observe and to see if your predictions are accurate...and more importantly....how accurate they are. If they are not accurate, you scrap your failed hypothesis and go back to the drawing board.

Clearly, climate science is not real science. The hypothesis as depicted in climate models has failed spectacularly. What is the response by climate science? Do they acknowledge that their hypothesis that CO2 is driving the climate has failed and go back to the drawing board to see if they can begin to figure out what actually does drive the climate? Hell no. Not the high priests of the church of pseudoscience. They go about trying to form rational explanations for the abject failure of their hypothesis and attempt to explain where all the unobserved heat went. Maybe the dog ate the warming.

So step on up warmers and defend the abject failure that is the pseudoscience of modelling the climate.

Here is an excellent video discussing the role of CO2 in the global climate. It is rather long and technical.

WARNING: WARMERS WILL WANT TO AVOID THE LAST 10 MINUTES AT ALL COSTS.

Presentation Prof. Murray Salby in Hamburg on 18 April 2013 - YouTube

OK, one question springs to mind immediately.
Why are there 73 modelling trends shown and only the average of 4 ballon datasets and 2 satellite datasets?
Is there no more monitoring being done than that?

 

[flacaltenn]

Only a total f'ing idiot can look at this graph and continue to claim that the climate models are not inconsistent with observations.

How many of you total f'ing idiots (and you know who you are) want to try and defend the claim that climate models are not inconsistent with observations.

In real science, you make some predictions based on a hypothesis. Then you observe and to see if your predictions are accurate...and more importantly....how accurate they are. If they are not accurate, you scrap your failed hypothesis and go back to the drawing board.

Clearly, climate science is not real science. The hypothesis as depicted in climate models has failed spectacularly. What is the response by climate science? Do they acknowledge that their hypothesis that CO2 is driving the climate has failed and go back to the drawing board to see if they can begin to figure out what actually does drive the climate? Hell no. Not the high priests of the church of pseudoscience. They go about trying to form rational explanations for the abject failure of their hypothesis and attempt to explain where all the unobserved heat went. Maybe the dog ate the warming.

So step on up warmers and defend the abject failure that is the pseudoscience of modelling the climate.

Here is an excellent video discussing the role of CO2 in the global climate. It is rather long and technical.

WARNING: WARMERS WILL WANT TO AVOID THE LAST 10 MINUTES AT ALL COSTS.

Presentation Prof. Murray Salby in Hamburg on 18 April 2013 - YouTube

OK, one question springs to mind immediately.
Why are there 73 modelling trends shown and only the average of 4 ballon datasets and 2 satellite datasets?
Is there no more monitoring being done than that?

If you've got full surface coverage with one satellite and one measuring apparatus, why would need a fleet of them. Unless you wanted to collect data faster.. That's a HUGE advantage over 10,000 surface thermometers ain't it?

Probably more than 2 capable of divining temp at different levels in the atmosphere tho..

2nd answer to your question is that Dr. Roy is a satellite guy and kinda strongly discounts the huge business of fudging the Surface Temp data from a thermometer on a post. In fact, he suspects it's corrupted as I do also...

 

[IanC]

Only a total f'ing idiot can look at this graph and continue to claim that the climate models are not inconsistent with observations.

How many of you total f'ing idiots (and you know who you are) want to try and defend the claim that climate models are not inconsistent with observations.

In real science, you make some predictions based on a hypothesis. Then you observe and to see if your predictions are accurate...and more importantly....how accurate they are. If they are not accurate, you scrap your failed hypothesis and go back to the drawing board.

Clearly, climate science is not real science. The hypothesis as depicted in climate models has failed spectacularly. What is the response by climate science? Do they acknowledge that their hypothesis that CO2 is driving the climate has failed and go back to the drawing board to see if they can begin to figure out what actually does drive the climate? Hell no. Not the high priests of the church of pseudoscience. They go about trying to form rational explanations for the abject failure of their hypothesis and attempt to explain where all the unobserved heat went. Maybe the dog ate the warming.

So step on up warmers and defend the abject failure that is the pseudoscience of modelling the climate.

Here is an excellent video discussing the role of CO2 in the global climate. It is rather long and technical.

WARNING: WARMERS WILL WANT TO AVOID THE LAST 10 MINUTES AT ALL COSTS.

Presentation Prof. Murray Salby in Hamburg on 18 April 2013 - YouTube

OK, one question springs to mind immediately.
Why are there 73 modelling trends shown and only the average of 4 ballon datasets and 2 satellite datasets?
Is there no more monitoring being done than that?

one of the common findings of all GCMs is that there should be a tropical 'hotspot' caused by GHGs. it has not been found by weather balloons or satellites, and so has been an embarrassment for decades.

Santer(sp?) did write a paper using wind shear as a proxy for temp that suggested it could be there! hahahaha. when in doubt use a proxy because they are more malleable than actual instrument readings.

 

[SSDD]

Santer(sp?) did write a paper using wind shear as a proxy for temp that suggested it could be there! hahahaha. when in doubt use a proxy because they are more malleable than actual instrument readings.

Hansen (and others) have shown us convincingly that instrument readings are pretty malleable as well...resulting in a surface record that is so corrupted that I doubt that anyone knows what the real data say anymore.

 

[mamooth]

Maybe at some point, the fact that there are no outraged modellers claiming that he has altered thier work for the purpose of his graph will sink in and maybe, just maybe you will come to your senses and grasp the glaring fact that the hypothesis has completely, spectacularly, and sensationally failed.

Maybe, at some point, your conspiracy-addled brain will figure out that it's the other part that Roy Spencer (aka "the fudgemaster") creatively adjusted.

However, since that would require you to admit how you've been brainwashed and bamboozled and babbling cult nonsense for years, it's not gonna happen. You're too emotionally invested in not understanding, hence you will actively refuse to understand.

is that CO2 follows temperature around like a little lost puppy.

I never get tired of laughing at this logic failure by the denialists. In this case, their logic failure is "It happened that way in the past, so it must work exactly the same now, even if conditions are wildly different!".

Not surprising. People who understand logic and who possess common sense don't get sucked into the right wing extremist fringe political cult, being how that cult regards rational thinking as evidence of treason. Thus, those cultists are required to self-select themselves for extreme emotionalism and frothing irrationality.

 

[SSDD]

Maybe, at some point, your conspiracy-addled brain will figure out that it's the other part that Roy Spencer (aka "the fudgemaster") creatively adjusted.

You think he adjusted model output in such a manner that the modellers themselves are uable to detect the adjustments and expose his dastardly plan to the public? How might he do that? Or perhaps you think he has taken control of the internet (pinky to the corner of the mouth) and has blocked the modellers who are outraged at his adjustments to their output from posting their outrage to the unsuspecting public. Perhaps he is holding the world wide web hostage and demanding one hundred thousand dollars (pinky again to the corner of the mouith) to relinquish control of the internet back to the public.

I never get tired of laughing at this logic failure by the denialists. In this case, their logic failure is "It happened that way in the past, so it must work exactly the same now, even if conditions are wildly different!".

If it only happened once, perhaps you would have a point but it happens over and over and over and happened again as the earth began the exit from the ice age we are in at present. Face it, you have been duped and the wheels are coming off the crazy train. Jump off before it goes over the cliff and you find yourself having to admit that you were the gullible fool all of us skeptics have been calling you for years.

 

[mamooth]

Back in the real world, models work very well. Which would be why they're used. It really is that simple.

I could post the charts, but what would the point be? After all, the denialists would simply declare that all the data was forged, like they always do.

Given that both sides will claim the other side is lying, try looking at it in a different way. Which of these scenarios is more likely to be true?

A. That the models are good, and are used because they're good.

B. That most of the scientists on planet earth are lying, and that only a handful of right-wing-fringe political cultists understand the real truth.

 

[bripat9643]

Back in the real world, models work very well. Which would be why they're used. It really is that simple.

Models only "work" when their output can be tested against reality. When the results differ, the models are thrown out. Spencer just tested the models against reality.

I could post the charts, but what would the point be? After all, the denialists would simply declare that all the data was forged, like they always do.

Charts of what?

Given that both sides will claim the other side is lying, try looking at it in a different way. Which of these scenarios is more likely to be true?

A. That the models are good, and are used because they're good.

B. That most of the scientists on planet earth are lying, and that only a handful of right-wing-fringe political cultists understand the real truth.

Spencer just proved the models are not good, so your "logic" is beside the point.

 

[flacaltenn]

Back in the real world, models work very well. Which would be why they're used. It really is that simple.

I could post the charts, but what would the point be? After all, the denialists would simply declare that all the data was forged, like they always do.

Given that both sides will claim the other side is lying, try looking at it in a different way. Which of these scenarios is more likely to be true?

A. That the models are good, and are used because they're good.

B. That most of the scientists on planet earth are lying, and that only a handful of right-wing-fringe political cultists understand the real truth.

Talk about "see no evil".. I'd throw up a picture, but my Constitution is getting violated and I dont have time to mock you.

The models were OK up to about 2000.. Right now, you need to trade those in and buy some ones... The wheels are probably not gonna fall off tomorrow, but that coughing and rattling ain't a big confidence builder for Mamooth anymore..

Remember, those models are supposed to be comprehensive. We don't gotta wait a couple decades to declare them failed. Someone forgot to carry the 3..

 

[SSDD]

Back in the real world, models work very well. Which would be why they're used. It really is that simple.

Like I said, only a total f'ing idiot could look at the results of all those models compared to real world observations and still believe that models work. They clearly don't.

On second thought, let me revise that statement. The models work just fine. They produce exactly what they put out exactly what they are told to put out. It is the hypothesis that the modellers are modelling that has failed spectacularly. Clearly, the hypothesis is an abject failure.

Yet another paper was just published in the Geophysical Research Letters finding that the hot spot which all climate models say is the human fingerprint on global warming is absent. The hypothesis is a failure. It is time to stop wasting money on it and get climate science oriented back to the scientific method.

I could post the charts, but what would the point be? After all, the denialists would simply declare that all the data was forged, like they always do.

Because the evidence is there that your charts have been altered. The idiots who did the altering forgot that they couldn't make the original data disappear because of the internet. Anything that gets on the internet gets saved and when they put out charts showing temperature increases, the alterations can be detected by comparing them to the original unaltered data.

Given that both sides will claim the other side is lying, try looking at it in a different way. Which of these scenarios is more likely to be true?

Given that the chart has been out for several weeks now, and not one modeller has come forward to state that spencer has altered the output of his or her model, the senario that makes the most sense is that spencer's chart of model outputs is correct and that the models have indeed failed as spectacularly as the chart shows.

You guys up in the first class section of the AGW crazytrain will believe anything so long as it aligns with your faith won't you? Like missing heat sinking to the cold depths of the ocean and coral atols which are caused due to rising sea levels being endangered by rising sea levels and a thousand other goofy claims.

A. That the models are good, and are used because they're good.

The models are shit and have been proven to be shit but continue to be used because some idiot politicians who happen to hold the purse strings can be convinced that computer output is actual data. When the models don't match reality...the models have failed and there are a stack of peer reviewed, published papers 3 feet high stating clearly that the models have failed. Here are a few:


Plausible reasons for the inconsistencies between the modelled and observed temperatures in the tropical troposphere - Varotsos - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/cdeser/docs/submitted.ault.vari_eqPac_lm.pdf
Cooling effect of agricultural irrigation over Xinjiang, Northwest China from 1959 to 2006 - Abstract - Environmental Research Letters - IOPscience
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1903.html
Volcanoes cause climate gas concentrations to vary - environmentalresearchweb
Can natural variability explain observed Antarctic sea ice trends? New modeling evidence from CMIP5 - Polvani - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library
CP - Abstract - Climate of the last millennium: ensemble consistency of simulations and reconstructions

And the list could go on and on.

B. That most of the scientists on planet earth are lying, and that only a handful of right-wing-fringe political cultists understand the real truth.

You begin with a fallacy, that being that most of the scientists on earth are onboard the crazy train with you. That claim of most scientists has been proven false over and over but like a zombie, it keeps coming back to life...as to the rest of your claim, show me a single example of a modeller claiming that spencer altered is model's output for the purposes of his graph. Short of that, you have nothing and his graph is indeed correct showing how terribly the models have failed.

You are off in the realm of conspiracy theory here mamooth...is there a super dooper first class section on the crazy train for people who will sink so low to defend the failed hypothesis?

 

[SSDD]

Talk about "see no evil".. I'd throw up a picture, but my Constitution is getting violated and I dont have time to mock you.

The models were OK up to about 2000.. Right now, you need to trade those in and buy some ones... The wheels are probably not gonna fall off tomorrow, but that coughing and rattling ain't a big confidence builder for Mamooth anymore..

Remember, those models are supposed to be comprehensive. We don't gotta wait a couple decades to declare them failed. Someone forgot to carry the 3..

Honestly, I didn't really think anyone would be crazy enough to try and defend the models considering what that graph shows. Leave it to mammooth to make a complete jackass out of herself in an attempt to defend the indefensible. What gets me is that she apparently thinks that spencer could falsify the output of the models for his graph, and the modellers themselves wouldn't recognize the falsification of their work, or they would change sides and keep quiet about the falsification of their work.

 

[mamooth]

Ah, so you _are_ claiming that all the scientists in the world are lying, and that only a group of dishonest bedwetters knows the real truth.

Go on, tell us more about the vast quantities of abiotic oil out there, and how a Ph.D. dropout is disproving Einstein, how backradiation doesn't exist, how DDT is harmless, how ozone depletion was faked, and so on. There are almost no idiot conspiracies theory which you cranks don't embrace. If it pushes your political cult's nonsense, you believe.

I don't envy you. Being justifiably laughed at by everyone everywhere can't be fun for you guys. But then, you also get your thrills by proclaiming your martyrhood, so it looks like everyone wins. We get to mock you, and you love being mocked, as you think it proves everyone fears you.

 

[SSDD]

Ah, so you _are_ claiming that all the scientists in the world are lying, and that only a group of dishonest bedwetters knows the real truth.

Go on, tell us more about the vast quantities of abiotic oil out there, and how a Ph.D. dropout is disproving Einstein, how backradiation doesn't exist, how DDT is harmless, how ozone depletion was faked, and so on. There are almost no idiot conspiracies theory which you cranks don't embrace. If it pushes your political cult's nonsense, you believe.

I don't envy you. Being justifiably laughed at by everyone everywhere can't be fun for you guys. But then, you also get your thrills by proclaiming your martyrhood, so it looks like everyone wins. We get to mock you, and you love being mocked, as you think it proves everyone fears you.

So explain why no modeler is complaining that his model output has been altered for Spencer's graph. The UAH data is all available as well as balloon data. If the graph were falsified there would be an outcry by now rather than the mainstream press finally asking questions of climate science that should have been asked decades ago.

Sorry that losing snuck up on you like that.

 

[flacaltenn]

Ah, so you _are_ claiming that all the scientists in the world are lying, and that only a group of dishonest bedwetters knows the real truth.

Go on, tell us more about the vast quantities of abiotic oil out there, and how a Ph.D. dropout is disproving Einstein, how backradiation doesn't exist, how DDT is harmless, how ozone depletion was faked, and so on. There are almost no idiot conspiracies theory which you cranks don't embrace. If it pushes your political cult's nonsense, you believe.

I don't envy you. Being justifiably laughed at by everyone everywhere can't be fun for you guys. But then, you also get your thrills by proclaiming your martyrhood, so it looks like everyone wins. We get to mock you, and you love being mocked, as you think it proves everyone fears you.

So explain why no modeler is complaining that his model output has been altered for Spencer's graph. The UAH data is all available as well as balloon data. If the graph were falsified there would be an outcry by now rather than the mainstream press finally asking questions of climate science that should have been asked decades ago.

Sorry that losing snuck up on you like that.

Perhaps Mamooth would like to contribute to http://www.usmessageboard.com/7339891-post1.html

Where I suggested we ANALYZE the models to know EXACTLY when they've broken down and gone off the rails.. That way it won't come as a surprise to him/her/it

 

[mamooth]

So explain why no modeler is complaining that his model output has been altered for Spencer's graph.

I already did. You ignored it, choosing instead to just repeat your idiocy again.

So now you're repeating it for a third time. Whatever. If you were too stupid to understand it the first time, repetetion won't help. I'd have to spend time dumbing it down, and frankly, it's more fun to watch you rage and dig yourself in deeper.

 

[mamooth]

Where I suggested we ANALYZE the models to know EXACTLY when they've broken down and gone off the rails.. That way it won't come as a surprise to him/her/it

But there is no warming pause. And the models work well. Check out the summaries by some competent people who aren't liars, such as Tamino. Wow, look at how awful those models are.

So, you've got one problem in how you rely on ideological partisans for statistics. And another problem in how you mistake a pause in rising air temps (due to the persistent La Nina) as a pause in warming. The warming is still coming in strong, but with more going into the oceans instead of the air.

 

[flacaltenn]

Where I suggested we ANALYZE the models to know EXACTLY when they've broken down and gone off the rails.. That way it won't come as a surprise to him/her/it

But there is no warming pause. And the models work well. Check out the summaries by some competent people who aren't liars, such as Tamino. Wow, look at how awful those models are.

So, you've got one problem in how you rely on ideological partisans for statistics. And another problem in how you mistake a pause in rising air temps (due to the persistent La Nina) as a pause in warming. The warming is still coming in strong, but with more going into the oceans instead of the air.

Actually I KNOW that the diff in your YOUR sources is the Ground Temp sensors vs Satellite.. There's been SIGNIFICANT departure in the 2 since 2000 when the GISS books started getting cooked in earnest. Going BACK to the 30s to RAISE temps as well as lowering current temps.

See --- with a satellite --- you've got ONE INSTRUMENT.. And it's a lot harder to ballot stuff the results.. That's why NASA's HANSEN hates satellites.. That's why the GISS people believe the ground data recieves better massaging..

For instance. GISS Vs. Satellites In Paraguay | Real Science

The data sets are there.. Tell me he's lying..

Or go to the UAH Climate site (responsible for the sat data) and see the diff yourself.. You just don't see the forgery that's going on to keep those models "on the rails"..

 

[flacaltenn]

Where I suggested we ANALYZE the models to know EXACTLY when they've broken down and gone off the rails.. That way it won't come as a surprise to him/her/it

But there is no warming pause. And the models work well. Check out the summaries by some competent people who aren't liars, such as Tamino. Wow, look at how awful those models are.

So, you've got one problem in how you rely on ideological partisans for statistics. And another problem in how you mistake a pause in rising air temps (due to the persistent La Nina) as a pause in warming. The warming is still coming in strong, but with more going into the oceans instead of the air.

Actually I KNOW that the diff in your YOUR sources is the Ground Temp sensors vs Satellite.. There's been SIGNIFICANT departure in the 2 since 2000 when the GISS books started getting cooked in earnest. Going BACK to the 30s to LOWER temps as well as RAISING current temps.

See --- with a satellite --- you've got ONE INSTRUMENT.. And it's a lot harder to ballot stuff the results.. That's why NASA's HANSEN hates satellites.. That's why the GISS people believe the ground data recieves better massaging..

For instance. GISS Vs. Satellites In Paraguay | Real Science

The data sets are there.. Tell me he's lying..

Or go to the UAH Climate site (responsible for the sat data) and see the diff yourself.. You just don't see the forgery that's going on to keep those models "on the rails"..

BTW:: WHy don't you find a chart that LABELS the models like Dr. Roy Spencer did.. Models can be run under gillions of assumptions. OR PRUNED to make you look SPECTACULAR...

 

[mamooth]

There's been SIGNIFICANT departure in the 2 since 2000 when the GISS books started getting cooked in earnest.

As I predicted, you've instantly started yammering that the data is forged.

Hence, there's no point in speaking with you. You've got your conspiracy theories, supplied by your various conspiracy websites (Watts, Spencer, McIntyre), and you're not budging from your conspiracy beliefs.

 

[flacaltenn]

There's been SIGNIFICANT departure in the 2 since 2000 when the GISS books started getting cooked in earnest.

As I predicted, you've instantly started yammering that the data is forged.

Hence, there's no point in speaking with you. You've got your conspiracy theories, supplied by your various conspiracy websites (Watts, Spencer, McIntyre), and you're not budging from your conspiracy beliefs.

Question --- What country was featured in the link I gave you???

Bet you don't know.. Because you didn't even look ---- didya?


The satellite DATA has been diverging with the HEAVILY MASSAGED GISS data.. That's a fact dude/dudette...
And ummmmmm --- I''m gonna go with the satellite data... YOU can stick to 20,000 thermometers and "daily adjustments" to the temperature records of the 1930s.... Fair?? See any conspiracy there???