Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 1

[orogenicman]

Yes.

Really?

Yes. Really. Hint: It's not what you progressives tell each other.

You're stupid and gullible.

You misspelled "things I hate but can't factually refute".

You're dismissed.

No, it is not misspelled. It simply isn't the Americanized version of the word, mate.

And yet, you have utterly failed to refute anything. Imagine that.

Oh, and I forgot to mention earlier -- is "caveman" the best you've got? I've been hearing it for the 10 years I've been going my "daveman" on message boards.

And I bet you thought you were being original.

Yeah, you're right. I can't refute stupid. I can only point to it and laugh.

 

[daveman]

You suck. Math works.

Not when it's applied incorrectly -- as in the climate models.

Did you see the graph? Did you see how far off they were from real-world observations?

Reality is the benchmark. If your models can't meet the benchmark, they've failed.

Only if you believe that models should do long range predictions, of largely chaotic systems, precisely.

Science is much more attuned to using sophisticated statistics to pry useful trends from noisy data.

Way above your pay grade, and mine.

The models have consistently failed to predict PAST temperatures.

If they can't predict what we know already happened, they're useless for predicting the future.

Period.

 

[daveman]

The models suck.

Take a look at Spencer's graphic. Look where he starts the model runs. BEFORE 1975. After over 37 years he gets a fraction of a degree error.

Wow...

How do the models compare to reality?

 

[daveman]

The models suck.

Take a look at Spencer's graphic. Look where he starts the model runs. 1980. After 32 years he gets a fraction of a degree error.

Wow...

Reality says your models are way off

In case of a discrepancy between reality and climate science, reality is wrong.

Or so the cultists keep saying.

 

[orogenicman]

You didn't notice that most of them were far too high?

Huh.

Do you understand the concept of "range"? Right? Like not everyone on the planet is the height of Michael Jordan, right? You do understand that science is not static? Right?

Then perhaps you can provide some information showing the models are correct.

Good luck with that.

Perhaps you can explain why you apparently believe that a scientific model is anything other than a tool to help scientists figure out if their hypotheses are on the right track.

 

[daveman]

Really?

Yes. Really. Hint: It's not what you progressives tell each other.

You're stupid and gullible.

No, it is not misspelled. It simply isn't the Americanized version of the word, mate.

And yet, you have utterly failed to refute anything. Imagine that.

Oh, and I forgot to mention earlier -- is "caveman" the best you've got? I've been hearing it for the 10 years I've been going my "daveman" on message boards.

And I bet you thought you were being original.

Yeah, you're right. I can't refute stupid. I can only point to it and laugh.

I accept your surrender.

 

[daveman]

Do you understand the concept of "range"? Right? Like not everyone on the planet is the height of Michael Jordan, right? You do understand that science is not static? Right?

Then perhaps you can provide some information showing the models are correct.

Good luck with that.

Perhaps you can explain why you apparently believe that a scientific model is anything other than a tool to help scientists figure out if their hypotheses are on the right track.

Are the models on the right track?

If they consistently fail to match with reality, they are not on the right track.

 

[orogenicman]

Not when it's applied incorrectly -- as in the climate models.

Did you see the graph? Did you see how far off they were from real-world observations?

Reality is the benchmark. If your models can't meet the benchmark, they've failed.

Only if you believe that models should do long range predictions, of largely chaotic systems, precisely.

Science is much more attuned to using sophisticated statistics to pry useful trends from noisy data.

Way above your pay grade, and mine.

The models have consistently failed to predict PAST temperatures.

Why would they need to? We have at least a dozen proxies and other direct and indirect methods for making past temperature determinations.

If they can't predict what we know already happened, they're useless for predicting the future.

Period.

Red herring.

 

[orogenicman]

Yes. Really. Hint: It's not what you progressives tell each other.

You're stupid and gullible.


And yet, you have utterly failed to refute anything. Imagine that.

Oh, and I forgot to mention earlier -- is "caveman" the best you've got? I've been hearing it for the 10 years I've been going my "daveman" on message boards.

And I bet you thought you were being original.

Yeah, you're right. I can't refute stupid. I can only point to it and laugh.

I accept your surrender.

The fact that you believe that someone is winning and someone is losing demonstrates your level of immaturity by believing this to be nothing but a game. Oh dear.

 

[PMZ]

You didn't notice that most of them were far too high?

Huh.

Do you understand the concept of "range"? Right? Like not everyone on the planet is the height of Michael Jordan, right? You do understand that science is not static? Right?

Then perhaps you can provide some information showing the models are correct.

Good luck with that.

Models are predictions of the future. They are the statistical analysis of possibilities of how the excess energy stuck here by GHG concentrations will resolve itself and the impact on our weather as that happens.

They're not perfect, but you have nothing. Just what you wish was true with no support at all for it.

The fact that excess energy is building in earth's systems is known, certain and will not change. How it ends up creating the warming necessary to rebalance energy is being studied.

 

[orogenicman]

Then perhaps you can provide some information showing the models are correct.

Good luck with that.

Perhaps you can explain why you apparently believe that a scientific model is anything other than a tool to help scientists figure out if their hypotheses are on the right track.

Are the models on the right track?

If they consistently fail to match with reality, they are not on the right track.

11 Hurricane models used by the National hurricane center frequently are all over the place, and yet the trends they make often are accurate enough to give emergency planners enough time to implement emergency responses. Every one of the climate models in question show the same trend. And the trend IS the correct one. And I for one think it is high time ignorant shits like you shut the **** up and let the response planners start doing their jobs.

 

[PMZ]

Deniers are going to deny until modeling can precisely emulate weather everywhere on earth for many years ahead and many past.

Of course by then mankind will have moved on from fossil fuel use and the climate will be whatever those final decades of use have created. In other words way too late.

That's why even discussions of climate science with deniers of it is a waste of time.
They are incapable of understanding it and prefer their mythology.

 

[Abraham3]

Deniers are going to deny until modeling can precisely emulate weather everywhere on earth for many years ahead and many past.

Of course by then mankind will have moved on from fossil fuel use and the climate will be whatever those final decades of use have created. In other words way too late.

That's why even discussions of climate science with deniers of it is a waste of time.
They are incapable of understanding it and prefer their mythology.

No... I disagree. I think they are perfectly capable of understanding it (at least most of them). I am convinced that they CHOOSE to go with their falsehoods.

 

[Abraham3]

The models suck.

Take a look at Spencer's graphic. Look where he starts the model runs. BEFORE 1975. After over 37 years he gets a fraction of a degree error.

Wow...

How do the models compare to reality?

Orders of magnitude better than ANY model that doesn't assume AGW.

Do you really not see my point? I just posted a note that contended you DO understand what all this means. Are you going to prove me wrong that quickly?

 

[daveman]

Only if you believe that models should do long range predictions, of largely chaotic systems, precisely.

Science is much more attuned to using sophisticated statistics to pry useful trends from noisy data.

Way above your pay grade, and mine.

The models have consistently failed to predict PAST temperatures.

Why would they need to? We have at least a dozen proxies and other direct and indirect methods for making past temperature determinations.

If they can't predict what we know already happened, they're useless for predicting the future.

Period.

Red herring.

So...you don't give a shit if the models are accurate, as long as they give you the answer you want.

Tell me more about how you love science.

 

[daveman]

Yeah, you're right. I can't refute stupid. I can only point to it and laugh.

I accept your surrender.

The fact that you believe that someone is winning and someone is losing demonstrates your level of immaturity by believing this to be nothing but a game. Oh dear.

If you had something to refute the claims that the models are inaccurate, you'd present it.

You haven't. So you don't. And I know this will come as a shock to you, but your say-so is not compelling.

Bring something, or STFU. It's that simple.

 

[daveman]

Do you understand the concept of "range"? Right? Like not everyone on the planet is the height of Michael Jordan, right? You do understand that science is not static? Right?

Then perhaps you can provide some information showing the models are correct.

Good luck with that.

Models are predictions of the future. They are the statistical analysis of possibilities of how the excess energy stuck here by GHG concentrations will resolve itself and the impact on our weather as that happens.

They're not perfect, but you have nothing. Just what you wish was true with no support at all for it.

The fact that excess energy is building in earth's systems is known, certain and will not change. How it ends up creating the warming necessary to rebalance energy is being studied.

So, you believe the predictions based on the modelling are accurate, even though the models can't predict what we know happened in the past.

Magical thinking. That's all it is.

 

[daveman]

Perhaps you can explain why you apparently believe that a scientific model is anything other than a tool to help scientists figure out if their hypotheses are on the right track.

Are the models on the right track?

If they consistently fail to match with reality, they are not on the right track.

11 Hurricane models used by the National hurricane center frequently are all over the place, and yet the trends they make often are accurate enough to give emergency planners enough time to implement emergency responses. Every one of the climate models in question show the same trend. And the trend IS the correct one. And I for one think it is high time ignorant shits like you shut the **** up and let the response planners start doing their jobs.

Yes, we know you hate that people are allowed to disagree with you.

Tough shit for you, huh?

 

[daveman]

Take a look at Spencer's graphic. Look where he starts the model runs. BEFORE 1975. After over 37 years he gets a fraction of a degree error.

Wow...

How do the models compare to reality?

Orders of magnitude better than ANY model that doesn't assume AGW.

And that's the problem right there.

AGW "science" starts off with the assumption that AGW is fact.

That's not how science is done. Period.

Do you really not see my point? I just posted a note that contended you DO understand what all this means. Are you going to prove me wrong that quickly?

Your problem is I DO understand what all this means. I understand it better than you, actually.

I understand the science is flawed and, as you just admitted, it starts off with the conclusion.

I understand why the people advocating AGW are doing so...and it has nothing to do with "saving the planet".

I understand that increasingly your conclusions are being proven wrong by reality...and YOU understand it, too. That's why you're more and more emotional.

 

[polarbear]

Take a look at Spencer's graphic. Look where he starts the model runs. BEFORE 1975. After over 37 years he gets a fraction of a degree error.

Wow...

How do the models compare to reality?

Orders of magnitude better than ANY model that doesn't assume AGW.

Do you really not see my point? I just posted a note that contended you DO understand what all this means. Are you going to prove me wrong that quickly?

It`s easy to prove you wrong, the problem is that people like you are unable to accept scientific proof which is based on actual & measured data and yields real correlations. Your lot is hell bent to average everything that is not ppm CO2 & temperature to death, till it`s a constant "average" value, which is then plugged into these garbage in/garbage out computer models.
Thus you keep insisting it`s CO2 that drives temperature first and foremost.
You got your heads buried far too deep in your own bullshit while "climate science estimates" have been "updated".
Here is what the IPCC stated in the AR4:
1.4.3 Solar Variability and the Total Solar Irradiance - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science

Between 1902 and 1957, Charles Abbot and a number of other scientists around the globe made thousands of measurements of TSI from mountain sites. Values ranged from 1,322 to 1,465 W m–2, which encompasses the current estimate of 1,365 W m–2


Tett et al., 1999; Cubasch and Voss, 2000) suggest that the changes in solar radiation could cause surface temperature changes of the order of a few tenths of a degree celsius.

There are tons of data, but none of that will ever appear on one of these dumb blogs you keep quoting:

Take another look at solar irradiance & temperature @ 1940...you know the data point you tried to use in order to "prove" that CO2 leads temperature !

If you only trust reconstructions that re-inforce your CO2 psychosis and have an issue with solar irradiance reconstructions there is much more recent data that show the same nearly perfect correlation...
Column1 = the date and #5 = TSI [watts/m^2]
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt

Scroll down column 5 and keep track how far off the "current estimate" is, which these milkmaid math computers models have been plugging in.
I can`t find even a single occurance of 1365 [watts/m^2] most are at ~ 1360 to 1361.5 which is the highest one listed.

It takes a real idiot to try find the 1.6 watts/m^2 "missing heat" in the ocean`s depth while the IPCC`s "estimate" has been 5 watts/m^2 too high for the entire time period and data set since it has been logged with ERBS, ACRIM-III, VIRGO, ACRIM-I and ACRIM-II.