Scientist team, "Man made climate change doesnt exist!"

[skookerasbil]

Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

It only occurs in Computer Simulations.
Intelligent people have always known this.

That is silly because no one ever based any predictions on computer models.
We use computer models only to help us understand what already is happening.
And clearly the oceans, glacial and polar ice, are much warmer.
The British Admiralty noticed global warming over 100 years ago, because they were carefully measuring ocean temperatures in order to map currents.

If you look at things in history, like the USS Nautilus crossing under the North Pole in 1957, you will see that even in summer, there was no open water for a Northwest Passage, and it could only be traversed by submarine.
Now there is open water route across the pole, in summer.
It has changes tremendously.

Which shows you have no clue what you are talking about. EVERY study put out by the AGW crowd over the last 15 years is based entirely on computer models.

There is ZERO observed data in them.

Yep....and has impressed nobody and particularly the public policy makers who routinely reject the models. That's what the climate crusaders dont get....they point to this big billboard of THE SCIENCE but everybody drives past and says, "Oh....isnt that interesting!". But nobody is taking it seriously, especially Congress who couldnt give a shit!! And the public thinks the concept of AGW is ghey....they give it no creedence.

So the findings of these scientists just serves to further freight train the efforts of the climate obsessed.. I mean....think about it. These folks have been losing consistently for 20 years now

Oh and Rigby best bow out here....he's getting schooled! I'm laughing my balls off!

 

[SSDD]

That is silly because no one ever based any predictions on computer models.
We use computer models only to help us understand what already is happening.

Sorry guy, but the entirety of climate science and their predictions are based on computer models...Which is why I can state with perfect confidence that there is not a single shred of observed, measured evidence which supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability....I can say it knowing without a doubt that no one will post any observed, measured evidence to contradict me because no such evidence exists...it is all computer modeling and it has littered the scientific landscape of the past 40 years with failed predictions.

And clearly the oceans, glacial and polar ice, are much warmer.
The British Admiralty noticed global warming over 100 years ago, because they were carefully measuring ocean temperatures in order to map currents.

Warmer than what? Warmer than it was during the little ice age and the early days when the earth was just exiting it? Duh? Of course the oceans and the climate were colder during that cold period. Is it warmer than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years? Not even close. Here, have a look at the gold standard (according to climate science) in temperature reconstructions of the past 10,000 years. It was derived from the GISP2 ice core extracted above the arctic circle in Greenland. It is the most pristine record of temperatures over the past 10,000 years that we have and according to it, it is colder now than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years except for the little ice age...

As you can see, the present is considerably cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years. And you can also see that during the past 10,000 years, there have been temperature increases far greater than anything we have seen in a much shorter time than any changes we have seen...and temperature decreases that were both greater and faster than any that we have experienced... Today, it isn't even as warm as it was prior to the onset of the little ice age...what would make you think that it would't get at least that warm if not as warm as it was during the roman period...or the minoan period, or the holocene optimum? If you look closely at that graph, you see a cooling trend... You really should hope that it continues to warm...we know from the past that warm periods were great for life on earth....cold periods, however are killers.

If you look at things in history, like the USS Nautilus crossing under the North Pole in 1957, you will see that even in summer, there was no open water for a Northwest Passage, and it could only be traversed by submarine.
Now there is open water route across the pole, in summer.
It has changes tremendously.

Tell me...what do you think happens to ice as a planet exits a cold period? Here, have a look at a reconstruction of the arctic ice over the past 10,000 years...As you can see, except for the ice growth during the little ice age, there is more ice in the arctic now than there has been for the past 10,000 years. There have been periods in the past 10,000 years when it is likely that there was no ice to be found in the arctic at all during the summer months. You guys seem to think that the climate isn't supposed to change...ever...that it is supposed to remain static just because we are here. As you can see, we haven't even reached the temperature it was before the onset of the little ice age...what on earth would make you think that we shouldn't at least warm up to that point, if not the much warmer temperatures you see as you go back to the roman period, the minoan period, and the holocene optimum?

 

[SSDD]

That is silly.
If the Sun is at a mimimun, and it is, then the Earth should be colder than usual.
That means when solar activity increases back to normal levels, it will get so hot that life may no longer be possible on the planet.

What is silly is the amount that you seem not to know...the oceans hold a great deal of heat...how long do you think it takes to bleed off that heat as the sun goes quiet? The oceans are cooling now and we all should hope that the sun goes back into an active phase before much more heat escapes from the ocean...because it will take as long to reclaim that heat as it took to lose it...and it is the oceans that drive the climate...not CO2.

 

[SSDD]

Then you are not a scientist.
Scientists NEVER base predictions on computer models.

You don't have a clue...it is all computer models.

Once again...There is not one shred of observed, measured evidence which supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability...I can say that with perfect confidence that neither you, nor anyone else will provide even one piece of actual observed, measured data which contradicts me....and how can I say such a thing with such confidence? Because climate science depends nearly entirely on models...models that have failed spectacularly for decades now.

But feel free to step on up to the plate and provide a single pice of actual observed, measured data that contradicts me.

 

[SSDD]

Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

It only occurs in Computer Simulations.
Intelligent people have always known this.

That is silly because no one ever based any predictions on computer models.

I stopped right there.
False.

Then you are not a scientist.
Scientists NEVER base predictions on computer models.
The based predictions on data, and use computer models to help understand data.
They NEVER come up with computer model that is not based on data.
They only start to trust computer models when they explain and correlate with the data.

And clearly all CO2 based warming theories are based on fact, due to compiled data.
CO2 always traps heat.
It changes the infrared radiation into vibratory heat that can't radiate out through a vacuum any more.

GIGO

There can be no circumstance where photo radiation is not trapped by CO2.

If radiation were being "trapped" by CO2, then there would be an inevitable tropospheric hot spot...no such hot spot exists...a million radiosondes have been sent up into the atmosphere to take temperature readings among other data and no hot spot has ever been detected...climate science made the idiotic claim that the hot spot was found but that it couldn't be detected with thermometers...that it could only be detected via wind velocity...imagine, a hot spot that can't be measured with a thermometer....doesn't sound much like a hot spot does it?.....sounds like a windy spot.

And if CO2 were "trapping" infrared radiation in the atmosphere, then the outgoing radiation, that is radiation escaping the earth at the top of the atmosphere would be decreasing since less of it would be making it to the top of the atmosphere... Alas, that isn't happening. The amount of radiation escaping the earth at the top of the atmosphere has been increasing as CO2 increases... Note the drop off at the end of the graphs coinciding with the time that the sun began to go quiet in earnest.

 

[Billy_Bob]

If the Sun is at a mimimun, and it is, then the Earth should be colder than usual.

You obviously have no idea how a buffered system functions.... The oceans are the buffer and they are now cooling rapidly. Do you know what follows? We've been cooling now since 1998 and our ocean buffer is now gone....

 

[SSDD]

If the Sun is at a mimimun, and it is, then the Earth should be colder than usual.

You obviously have no idea how a buffered system functions.... The oceans are the buffer and they are now cooling rapidly. Do you know what follows? We've been cooling now since 1998 and our ocean buffer is now gone....

Whoever gives them their opinions clearly doesn't prepare them to talk about the science....they are great at the alarmist buzz words, and catch phrases, but are completely unprepared to try to defend them in any real way...guess they think consensus is proof of anything more than groupthink...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And clearly all CO2 based warming theories are based on fact, due to compiled data.
CO2 always traps heat.

incorrect;

LWIR is incapable of warming the atmosphere. CO2, as a molecule, doesn't even warm as the energy doesn't reside long enough to do so. Add to this the fact it collides with other molecules in our atmosphere some 30,000 times during the time energy resides, the kinetic energy pass off warms nothing until it collides with water vapor.

Sorry Charlie the models fail in all regards with CO2..

LWIR is incapable of warming the atmosphere. CO2, as a molecule, doesn't even warm as the energy doesn't reside long enough to do so.

What temperature are the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere?
Is their temperature uniform?

 

[Billy_Bob]

And clearly all CO2 based warming theories are based on fact, due to compiled data.
CO2 always traps heat.

incorrect;

LWIR is incapable of warming the atmosphere. CO2, as a molecule, doesn't even warm as the energy doesn't reside long enough to do so. Add to this the fact it collides with other molecules in our atmosphere some 30,000 times during the time energy resides, the kinetic energy pass off warms nothing until it collides with water vapor.

Sorry Charlie the models fail in all regards with CO2..

LWIR is incapable of warming the atmosphere. CO2, as a molecule, doesn't even warm as the energy doesn't reside long enough to do so.

What temperature are the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere?
Is their temperature uniform?

That is dependent on the gasses surrounding it with which it collides. Is the atmosphere stagnant like you believe?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And clearly all CO2 based warming theories are based on fact, due to compiled data.
CO2 always traps heat.

incorrect;

LWIR is incapable of warming the atmosphere. CO2, as a molecule, doesn't even warm as the energy doesn't reside long enough to do so. Add to this the fact it collides with other molecules in our atmosphere some 30,000 times during the time energy resides, the kinetic energy pass off warms nothing until it collides with water vapor.

Sorry Charlie the models fail in all regards with CO2..

LWIR is incapable of warming the atmosphere. CO2, as a molecule, doesn't even warm as the energy doesn't reside long enough to do so.

What temperature are the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere?
Is their temperature uniform?

That is dependent on the gasses surrounding it with which it collides. Is the atmosphere stagnant like you believe?

That is dependent on the gasses surrounding it with which it collides

It can warm if it collides but not if it absorbs a photon? Sounds a bit like an epicycle.

Is the atmosphere stagnant like you believe?

Where did I ever post that?

 

[jc456]

Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

It only occurs in Computer Simulations.
Intelligent people have always known this.

That is silly because no one ever based any predictions on computer models.

I stopped right there.
False.

Then you are not a scientist.
Scientists NEVER base predictions on computer models.
The based predictions on data, and use computer models to help understand data.
They NEVER come up with computer model that is not based on data.
They only start to trust computer models when they explain and correlate with the data.

And clearly all CO2 based warming theories are based on fact, due to compiled data.
CO2 always traps heat.
It changes the infrared radiation into vibratory heat that can't radiate out through a vacuum any more.

then where is the empirical evidence?

 

[mamooth]

Even the crazies at WUWT (Eschenbach specifically) are saying how awful that paper is. That means it's off-the-charts stupid.

And it is. If anyone would like to read a point-by-point shredding of it, go here:

Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming

 

[mamooth]

Which shows you have no clue what you are talking about. EVERY study put out by the AGW crowd over the last 15 years is based entirely on computer models.

There is ZERO observed data in them.

Do you really not understand just how insane your statement is?

Let's take an example, any study on ocean temperatures. According to Westwall here, all such papers use zero actual ocean temperature data of any sort. And I think he actually believes it.

 

[westwall]

Which shows you have no clue what you are talking about. EVERY study put out by the AGW crowd over the last 15 years is based entirely on computer models.

There is ZERO observed data in them.

Do you really not understand just how insane your statement is?

Let's take an example, any study on ocean temperatures. According to Westwall here, all such papers use zero actual ocean temperature data of any sort. And I think he actually believes it.

Stupid little kitty. That's not what I said and you know it. The so called scientists take whatever raw data they get, and then run it all through a computer model so they can get the warming result they want. The raw data is long disappeared by the time any of it ever gets into a paper.

But you knew that, you just don't care about scientific fraud.

 

[mamooth]

Stupid little kitty. That's not what I said and you know it.

As your exact quote is "There is ZERO observed data in them", it's exactly what you said. Words mean things. It's not my fault if you can't use them.

The so called scientists take whatever raw data they get, and then run it all through a computer model so they can get the warming result they want. The raw data is long disappeared by the time any of it ever gets into a paper.

Flat-earthers and scientologists say the same thing. All authoritarian cults are alike that way. All the hard data says the cults are lying, so the cults are forced to invent fraudulent stories about how all the data is faked by the EvilEnemiesOfTheCult.

 

[westwall]

Stupid little kitty. That's not what I said and you know it.

As your exact quote is "There is ZERO observed data in them", it's exactly what you said. Words mean things. It's not my fault if you can't use them.

The so called scientists take whatever raw data they get, and then run it all through a computer model so they can get the warming result they want. The raw data is long disappeared by the time any of it ever gets into a paper.

Flat-earthers and scientologists say the same thing. All authoritarian cults are alike that way. All the hard data says the cults are lying, so the cults are forced to invent fraudulent stories about how all the data is faked by the EvilEnemiesOfTheCult.

Correct, dumbass. By the time they have run them through their models there is indeed ZERO observed data in them. It has all been washed away.

 

[skookerasbil]

Which shows you have no clue what you are talking about. EVERY study put out by the AGW crowd over the last 15 years is based entirely on computer models.

There is ZERO observed data in them.

Do you really not understand just how insane your statement is?

Let's take an example, any study on ocean temperatures. According to Westwall here, all such papers use zero actual ocean temperature data of any sort. And I think he actually believes it.

As usual s0n, you miss the point entirely.....

The entire "man made" part of climate change is a fabrication. Doy....always has been. And now even Yale University concurs that climate alarmism is spectacularly fake.