Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
As always, so very, very, very wrong.When the models over estimate warming by a factor of ten, at minimum, you must look for what else is influencing the system. IF they include heat generated from power generation it shows CO2 to be much less of an influence and they simply can't have that.
www.nationalgeographic.com
I didn't put any effort into finding out where you screwed up. It's definitely in your estimate of worldwide electricity consumption.You've got yourself turned around. AFTER you find out I messed up somewhere, you can say so. If you don't know where I messed up, you DON'T KNOW that I messed up.
And your spiel there is an absolutely perfect example of someone looking for a specific outcome before they have any idea whether or not such an outcome exists. Concentrating an effect into small areas may make it look really impressive in those small areas but it DOESN'T increase the total effect AT ALL.
That's a qualitative cartoon drawing. I need something quantitative.
Yeah.... you kinda are dismissing it.I'm not dismissing it. I'm pointing out the fact that no one seems to feel that it is a significant factor. The things you claim are not things that most professionals in the field think are real.
You demand I address every data point you throw out but you NEVER address ANY point I throw out.
You demand I address Soon. But you won't say ANYTHING about Peterson.
Here's a great question to ask yourself from time to time: "Hey, I just realized I'm not a professional climate scientist! But I think I've found something that ALL THE WORLD'S EXPERTS OVER THE LAST 60 YEARS OF INTENSIVE STUDY have missed! Am I more likely right or am I more likely wrong?"
Given that you are not actively pursuing any RESEARCH in this area it comes down to a "probabilities" game.
And the good money says you are more likely wrong.
I'm not saying for sure you ARE wrong, just that given what we are presented with here, you are more likely wrong.
This is a good gut check for any scientist when they step out of their comfort zone.
And that is the point... Quantitative is what they cannot do.That's a qualitative cartoon drawing. I need something quantitative.
I assume you (twice) meant "minute".And that is the point... Quantitative is what they cannot do.
For instance, SHO (Solar Helio Observatory) quantified a shift in power within the suns output. It was a mere 2-3W/m^2 but it happened in the narrow band at 0.2-0.6um of the suns output and it moved to 0.8-1.2um. It did nothing to Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) but here on earth that band is what is responsible for heating our oceans to depth. (9 years ago- notation of surface cooling on the sun). Now the ENSO is slow to recharge, the oceans are cooling and the atmosphere with it. Things this minuet can have massive impacts on our climatic system.
Our climactic system cannot be modeled, with accuracy, because they cannot mimic these minuet changes, or predict them. Everything they are doing today is a hope and poke... It is also why they do not want to discuss them.
Obama won a Nobel for not doing anything.As always, so very, very, very wrong.
How climate models got so accurate they earned a Nobel Prize
Climate predictions were treated with heavy skepticism just 30 years ago, but they've become our main window into how global warming works.
NO NO AN EXPERIMENT FROM A HUNDRED YEARS AGO WITH TWO VARIABLES ACCURATELY MODELS AN ENTIRE SOLAR SYSTEM INCLUDING THE STAR WITH LITERALLY MILLIONS OF VARIABLES I KNOW BECAUSE BILL NYE TOLD ME SOAnd that is the point... Quantitative is what they cannot do.
For instance, SHO (Solar Helio Observatory) quantified a shift in power within the suns output. It was a mere 2-3W/m^2 but it happened in the narrow band at 0.2-0.6um of the suns output and it moved to 0.8-1.2um. It did nothing to Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) but here on earth that band is what is responsible for heating our oceans to depth. (9 years ago- notation of surface cooling on the sun). Now the ENSO is slow to recharge, the oceans are cooling and the atmosphere with it. Things this minuet can have massive impacts on our climatic system.
Our climactic system cannot be modeled, with accuracy, because they cannot mimic these minuet changes, or predict them. Everything they are doing today is a hope and poke... It is also why they do not want to discuss them.
The change in the sun's output wasn't modeled, it was observed.I assume you (twice) meant "minute".
I find it odd that you claim the system cannot be modeled with accuracy, yet you provide a completely unqualified result of a "minute" change.
He has missed this for years. It is either intentional or due to incompetence. Due to his inability to interpret simple graphing, its most likely the later.The change in the sun's output wasn't modeled, it was observed.
Do you know the difference?
SO... The only thing you have is grammatical corrections, due to VOICE to TEXT errors in a program and the fact you do not know the difference from a modeled output and EMPERICAL OBSERVATION of changes. Nothing ever changes...I assume you (twice) meant "minute".
I find it odd that you claim the system cannot be modeled with accuracy, yet you provide a completely unqualified result of a "minute" change.
If you pronounced migh-NOOT, MIN-yoo-ett, then you've got more problems than I thought. But I was hardly making a big deal about that. As for your other mistake:SO... The only thing you have is grammatical corrections, due to VOICE to TEXT errors in a program and the fact you do not know the difference from a modeled output and EMPERICAL OBSERVATION of changes. Nothing ever changes...
PREACH IT BROTHER YOU TELL THAT UNBELEIVER HALLEUJAH PRAISE SAINT ALIf you pronounced migh-NOOT, MIN-yoo-ett, then you've got more problems than I thought. But I was hardly making a big deal about that. As for your other mistake:
"For instance, SHO (Solar Helio Observatory) quantified a shift in power within the suns output. It was a mere 2-3W/m^2 but it happened in the narrow band at 0.2-0.6um of the suns output and it moved to 0.8-1.2um. It did nothing to Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) but here on earth that band is what is responsible for heating our oceans to depth. (9 years ago- notation of surface cooling on the sun). Now the ENSO is slow to recharge, the oceans are cooling and the atmosphere with it. Things this minuet can have massive impacts on our climatic system.
Our climactic system cannot be modeled, with accuracy, because they cannot mimic these minuet changes, or predict them. Everything they are doing today is a hope and poke... It is also why they do not want to discuss them."
You are making a connection between the spectral change of solar radiation and ENSO being slow to recharge and that the oceans and atmopshere are cooling. Ignoring the fact that no one else see the oceans and the atmosphere cooling, you had to have done some very accurate modeling to have connected the former with the latter, you lying piece of shit.
Tell me Crick, what portion of the spectrum warms our deep oceans to depth...? 0.2-0.6um is that region. Above 0.8um it impacts the surface and is thwarted by the evaporation process, which occurs in the first ten microns of the oceans surface. When this energy is lost on 72% of the earths surface, WE COOL and there is nothing you idiots can do to stop it. Its a matter of basic physics and no left wing talking point is going to save you.If you pronounced migh-NOOT, MIN-yoo-ett, then you've got more problems than I thought. But I was hardly making a big deal about that. As for your other mistake:
"For instance, SHO (Solar Helio Observatory) quantified a shift in power within the suns output. It was a mere 2-3W/m^2 but it happened in the narrow band at 0.2-0.6um of the suns output and it moved to 0.8-1.2um. It did nothing to Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) but here on earth that band is what is responsible for heating our oceans to depth. (9 years ago- notation of surface cooling on the sun). Now the ENSO is slow to recharge, the oceans are cooling and the atmosphere with it. Things this minuet can have massive impacts on our climatic system.
Our climactic system cannot be modeled, with accuracy, because they cannot mimic these minuet changes, or predict them. Everything they are doing today is a hope and poke... It is also why they do not want to discuss them."
You are making a connection between the spectral change of solar radiation and ENSO being slow to recharge and that the oceans and atmopshere are cooling. Ignoring the fact that no one else see the oceans and the atmosphere cooling, you had to have done some very accurate modeling to have connected the former with the latter, you lying piece of shit.
I love it when you post up confirmation bias... and it's so obvious... This is not science...As always, so very, very, very wrong.
How climate models got so accurate they earned a Nobel Prize
Climate predictions were treated with heavy skepticism just 30 years ago, but they've become our main window into how global warming works.
And again... NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ANYTHING YOU'VE SAIDI love it when you post up confirmation bias... and it's so obvious... This is not science...
View attachment 651365
You have been shown over and over again. Just because you refuse to acknowledge it does not make you right or the crap you pedal truth. Thanks for playing.And again... NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ANYTHING YOU'VE SAID
All of the above. It has all been shown to you over and over again and you refuse to acknowledge it. I won't waste my time with you again. Sunsettommy, Westwall, myself and many others have shown you over and over again. Many of the concepts you fail to grasp the basics of, I am not helping you learn it as you openly refuse to look at things objectively.Just what, precisely, do you believe you have presented evidence for? Confirmation bias? Pal review? Falsification of global temperature data? Falsification of CO2's absorption spectrum? What?
That, I'm afraid, is a lie. I have acknowledged those arguments because I (and several other posters) refuted them when you made them. Your febrile grasp of science has led you to make patently absurd claims that you couldn't get past a 7th grader. You have learned to avoid making specific claims or attempting to actually back them up with hard facts or published science because invariably you end up looking like a complete fool. So all we ever get now is your unevidenced dissing and calims about past presentations. YOU never admit that your arguments have been refuted, that they showed a complete failure to grasp basic scientific principles How long did you attempt to support SSDD's idiotic smart photons? And remember your magnetic gravity? I do.All of the above. It has all been shown to you over and over again and you refuse to acknowledge it. I won't waste my time with you again. Sunsettommy, Westwall, myself and many others have shown you over and over again. Many of the concepts you fail to grasp the basics of, I am not helping you learn it as you openly refuse to look at things objectively.
