Will Greta Thunberg go the way of so many other child stars?

[ding]

Yeah, computer simulations are so unscientific.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/supercomputers-offer-tools-for-nuclear-testing--and-solving-nuclear-mysteries/2011/10/03/gIQAjnngdM_story.html

Supercomputer Models Explosives Critical for Nuclear Weapons

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) is one of the laboratories that operates under the auspices of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which manages the United States’ stockpile of nuclear weapons. Amid major efforts to modernize that stockpile, LLNL has announced that...

www.hpcwire.com

HPE, AMD win deal for U.S. supercomputer to model nuclear weapons

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co and Advanced Micro Devices Inc on Wednesday said they had won a $600 million deal to deliver a supercomputer that will be used by the U.S. Department of Energy's nuclear security arm to support the nation's nuclear arsenal.

www.reuters.com

When they can't history match that is correct. Garbage in equals garbage out.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Yeah, computer simulations are so unscientific.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/supercomputers-offer-tools-for-nuclear-testing--and-solving-nuclear-mysteries/2011/10/03/gIQAjnngdM_story.html

Supercomputer Models Explosives Critical for Nuclear Weapons

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) is one of the laboratories that operates under the auspices of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which manages the United States’ stockpile of nuclear weapons. Amid major efforts to modernize that stockpile, LLNL has announced that...

www.hpcwire.com

HPE, AMD win deal for U.S. supercomputer to model nuclear weapons

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co and Advanced Micro Devices Inc on Wednesday said they had won a $600 million deal to deliver a supercomputer that will be used by the U.S. Department of Energy's nuclear security arm to support the nation's nuclear arsenal.

www.reuters.com

Nuclear physics is Not Science!

Not a great analogy.

While they were using models to develop nuclear bombs, they did not change their strategy fighting the Japanese because hey we're going to have a nuclear bomb soon that will cause a disaster for them. They kept fighting on the ground and in the air with conventional weapons.

They carefully checked and rechecked their calculations built a working model and exploded it. Then they dropped the bomb and caused the predicted disaster. Disaster for the Japanese, great benefit for all the lives saved, of course.

If the test bomb did not explode, it would be back to the drawing board.

If they had followed the procedures used by global warming alarmists, they would have designed multiple models and no matter how often they failed to meet their predictions, they would have proceeded. They would have dropped two " bombs" on Japan that would not have exploded. Maybe caved in a roof or two, but no disaster.

When the Japanese laughed, they would say oh you are so unscientific! Why don't you believe the science? Surrender now or we will drop even more!

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I think Greta will go the Miley Cyrus route.

 

[Crick]

I think Greta will go the Miley Cyrus route.

I think she will go into politics

 

[ding]

Just one more person making money off of a problem we don't have whose solutions won't work even if we did have the problem.

 

[Crick]

Just one more person making money off of a problem we don't have whose solutions won't work even if we did have the problem.

A very large number of people who know a great deal more about this "problem" than do you or me firmly believe to be true what you are claiming is false. Which way should a reasonable person lean?

You need to abandon this idea you have that somehow you are more intelligent and more learned than thousands and thousands of PhDs who've been actively researching AGW for decades. How far did your education actually extend and what field was it in? What research have you done on global warming besides reading articles on the internet? How did you come to be smarter than all those very smart, very well-educated, actively researching scientists?

 

[ding]

A very large number of people who know a great deal more about this "problem" than do you or me firmly believe to be true what you are claiming is false. Which way should a reasonable person lean?

You need to abandon this idea you have that somehow you are more intelligent and more learned than thousands and thousands of PhDs who've been actively researching AGW for decades. How far did your education actually extend and what field was it in? What research have you done on global warming besides reading articles on the internet? How did you come to be smarter than all those very smart, very well-educated, actively researching scientists?

A reasonable person wouldn't place his faith in a computer model that can't history match past climate changes, is routinely tuned to remove natural climate variation, doesn't use the high variability solar output dataset, includes the urban heat island effect and uses unrealistic feedbacks that are 2 to 3 times greater than the effect of CO2 alone.

 

[Crick]

A reasonable person wouldn't place his faith in a computer model that can't history match past climate changes

is routinely tuned to remove natural climate variation

doesn't use the high variability solar output dataset, includes the urban heat island effect and uses unrealistic feedbacks that are 2 to 3 times greater than the effect of CO2 alone.

The source of the problem here is not the programming or performance of GCMs, it is your acceptance of demonstrably false information.

 

[ding]

The source of the problem here is not the programming or performance of GCMs, it is your acceptance of demonstrably false information.

Incorrect. They use the low variability solar output dataset instead of the high variability dataset that NASA uses. They routinely tune out natural variations in their models and they include the urban heat island effect. All things that result in the answer they want.

 

[Crick]

Incorrect. They use the low variability solar output dataset instead of the high variability dataset that NASA uses. They routinely tune out natural variations in their models and they include the urban heat island effect. All things that result in the answer they want.

Just for the record, in this comment, who is intended by : "they"? To what specific models are you referring. And how is it you've become familiar with the details of these models programming? If you've learned this from someone that is familiar with their programming, please provide a link if you can.

 

[martybegan]

Here John Kerry is questioned about Thundbergs dismissal of the latest climate Palooza for wealthy and Powerful private jet owners. Of course Carrie expresses her respect and thanks to Greta. But notice it is all in the past tense.



Many famous young girls have grown up to become lost and pathetic adults. I'm talking young women with actual talent. Greta has none. She is nothing more than a child with the disability of autism who has been used by her parents and the activists Who convinced her parents to let her be used in this way.

Now that she is developing a mind of her own, she will likely be quickly cast aside. The main rule of being a climate activist is don't annoy John kerry.

Dana Plato was not the best actress in The world. But she had a bright future ahead of her until she became an adult and lost it all. She wound up in rehab working whatever job she could find and sleeping with multiple sugar daddies. I doubt that last option will be open to Greta.

Once she outlives her usefulness she will get the Cindy Sheehan treatment.

 

[Crick]

And what might be the Cindy Sheehan treatment? Getting asked to run for vice president?

 

[ding]

Just for the record, in this comment, who is intended by : "they"? To what specific models are you referring. And how is it you've become familiar with the details of these models programming? If you've learned this from someone that is familiar with their programming, please provide a link if you can.

You should probably start reading my posts closer because that's all been answered multiple times.

 

[Crick]

You should probably start reading my posts closer because that's all been answered multiple times.

And so you spend more time telling me why you won't tell me than it would have taken to answer the question. Got it. But I haven't answer all of yours. So turnabout's fair.

 

[ding]

And so you spend more time telling me why you won't tell me than it would have taken to answer the question. Got it. But I haven't answer all of yours. So turnabout's fair.

You've been told numerous times and still can't remember it. It would be illogical for me to tell you again and expect a different result.

 

[Crick]

Tired of your evasion

 

[ding]

Tired of your evasion

I'm tired of your politically motivated bullshit science and running away from debates and then claiming you need to be told about the things you ran away from because you ran away from them every time they were brought up.

 

[ding]

Let's see Crick ... you were told here...

OH YEA??? Well this guy is so disputed by "settled Science"!!!

The combustion of fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide. dead plants produce carbon dioxide. Now what?

www.usmessageboard.com

and here

Leftist politicians are still trying to push the MMGW Hoax. It's a political scam to redistribute wealth.

Apparently nothing you're interested in learning. Or you’re willing to highlight as fact

www.usmessageboard.com

and here

A 45 million year record of Arctic sea temperatures and ice melt

Sure. Don't let the Sky fall on you. Oooohh... you're a deep one.

www.usmessageboard.com

and here

MIT Scientist Debunks Global Warming Hysteria

Repeating your quote won't help you here Todd. My quote? It's from your link. That does NOT say that the research was in any way based on anyone's feelings. personal and tangible experiences of the weather. Doesn't sound very objective or scientific. And I gave you seven other links. I...

www.usmessageboard.com

and here

Green Energy Red In The Face

You know, the fellow routinely identified as "one of the scummiest humans on the planet". That fella. He's no Nobel Prize winner, like Michael Mann, that's for sure. Did Michael Mann pay those court ordered legal fees yet? What a scummy human.........

www.usmessageboard.com

and here

Climate Change Brings Warmer Global Temps

First, as I have had to explain to dozens of AGW-deniers, there ARE NO PROOFS in the natural sciences. What we have is evidence. There is an enormous amount of evidence that the primary cause of the observed warming since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is human GHG emissions. See...

www.usmessageboard.com

and here

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

Yes, the climate changes. And, recently, it has been changing due to human GHG emissions. We have to blame the humans because they're responsible. Inept species will do what inept species do.

www.usmessageboard.com

and here

Greenland surface melt falls over a kilometer to the ice sheet base. Potential -> Kinetic > than 10 powerstations combined

Ban him, ban him, ban him, ban him.....

www.usmessageboard.com

and here

Global warming is speeding up.

I would likely agree with him on everything but his conclusion of man made climate change. That's a conclusion based upon emotion. The data overwhelmingly shows that the earth has been cooling for over 50 million years and that that cooling took a step change 2.7 million years ago when the...

www.usmessageboard.com

and here

Global Ice loss accelerating.

From the polar caps to the glaciers of Europe, Asia and South America, global warming is melting the planet’s ice faster than ever and speeding the inundation of the world’s coastlines. New research shows the annual melt rate grew from 0.8 trillion tons in the 1990s to 1.3 trillion tons by...

www.usmessageboard.com

and here

Why does the greenhouse effect only work in one direction?

The number of scientists publishing papers over the past 5 years, which conclude that "natural forces" are the primary cause of the warming observed over the past 150 years is, for all practical purposes, ZERO. There is not fucking debate. And Todd, YOU sound desperate. This paper concludes...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[sparky]

dibs she becomes a fluffer for some big windmill co.
Motto? It sucks to stand behind us , blows to stand in front of us, and standing beside us does jack s*it

~S~

 

[Crick]

Let's see Crick ... you were told here...

OH YEA??? Well this guy is so disputed by "settled Science"!!!

The combustion of fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide. dead plants produce carbon dioxide. Now what?

www.usmessageboard.com

and here

Leftist politicians are still trying to push the MMGW Hoax. It's a political scam to redistribute wealth.

Apparently nothing you're interested in learning. Or you’re willing to highlight as fact

www.usmessageboard.com

and here

A 45 million year record of Arctic sea temperatures and ice melt

Sure. Don't let the Sky fall on you. Oooohh... you're a deep one.

www.usmessageboard.com

and here

MIT Scientist Debunks Global Warming Hysteria

Repeating your quote won't help you here Todd. My quote? It's from your link. That does NOT say that the research was in any way based on anyone's feelings. personal and tangible experiences of the weather. Doesn't sound very objective or scientific. And I gave you seven other links. I...

www.usmessageboard.com

and here

Green Energy Red In The Face

You know, the fellow routinely identified as "one of the scummiest humans on the planet". That fella. He's no Nobel Prize winner, like Michael Mann, that's for sure. Did Michael Mann pay those court ordered legal fees yet? What a scummy human.........

www.usmessageboard.com

and here

Climate Change Brings Warmer Global Temps

First, as I have had to explain to dozens of AGW-deniers, there ARE NO PROOFS in the natural sciences. What we have is evidence. There is an enormous amount of evidence that the primary cause of the observed warming since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is human GHG emissions. See...

www.usmessageboard.com

and here

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

Yes, the climate changes. And, recently, it has been changing due to human GHG emissions. We have to blame the humans because they're responsible. Inept species will do what inept species do.

www.usmessageboard.com

and here

Greenland surface melt falls over a kilometer to the ice sheet base. Potential -> Kinetic > than 10 powerstations combined

Ban him, ban him, ban him, ban him.....

www.usmessageboard.com

and here

Global warming is speeding up.

I would likely agree with him on everything but his conclusion of man made climate change. That's a conclusion based upon emotion. The data overwhelmingly shows that the earth has been cooling for over 50 million years and that that cooling took a step change 2.7 million years ago when the...

www.usmessageboard.com

and here

Global Ice loss accelerating.

From the polar caps to the glaciers of Europe, Asia and South America, global warming is melting the planet’s ice faster than ever and speeding the inundation of the world’s coastlines. New research shows the annual melt rate grew from 0.8 trillion tons in the 1990s to 1.3 trillion tons by...

www.usmessageboard.com

and here

Why does the greenhouse effect only work in one direction?

The number of scientists publishing papers over the past 5 years, which conclude that "natural forces" are the primary cause of the warming observed over the past 150 years is, for all practical purposes, ZERO. There is not fucking debate. And Todd, YOU sound desperate. This paper concludes...

www.usmessageboard.com

I'm curious why you've obsessively linked to a 69 page paper with dozens of data graphics but only present one of those graphics and speak as if the entire work is contained in two paragraphs. Your endlessly repeated assertion, that climate scientists come to different conclusions based on which dataset they are shown, is not the conclusion of this paper but part of its premise. The paper's title is "How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate".

Among its list of authors may be found a 'veritable who's who' of AGW deniers: Ronan Connolly, Willie Soon, Michael Connolly, Sallie Baliunas, Johan Berglund, C. John Butler, Rodolfo Gustavo Cionco, Ana G. Elias, Valery M. Fedorov, Hermann Harde, Gregory W. Henry, Douglas V. Hoyt, Ole Humlum, David R. Legates, Sebastian Luning, Nicola Scafetta, Jan-Erik Solheim, Laszlo Szarka, Harry van Loon, Vıctor M. Velasco Herrera, Richard C. Willson, Hong Yan and Weijia Zhang. The inclusion of Legates, who has no climatological, astronomical or statistical background at all and whose most famous paper should have gotten him thrown out of whatever professional or academic institutions were blind enough to have admitted him, is simply an insult to the reader. Legates and Connolly have worked together on several other papers

Abstract In order to evaluate how much Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has influenced Northern Hemisphere surface air temperature trends, it is important to have reliable estimates of both quantities. Sixteen different estimates of the changes in TSI since at least the 19th century were compiled from the literature. Half of these estimates are “low variability” and half are “high variability”. Meanwhile, five largely-independent methods for estimating Northern Hemisphere temperature trends were evaluated using: 1) only rural weather stations; 2) all available stations whether urban or rural (the standard approach); 3) only sea surface temperatures; 4) tree-ring widths as temperature proxies; 5) glacier length records as temperature proxies. The standard estimates which use urban as well as rural stations were somewhat anomalous as they implied a much greater warming in recent decades than the other estimates, suggesting that urbanization bias might still be a problem in current global temperature datasets – despite the conclusions of some earlier studies. Nonetheless, all five estimates confirm that it is currently warmer than the late 19th century, i.e., there has been some “global warming” since the 19th century. For each of the five estimates of Northern Hemisphere temperatures, the contribution from direct solar forcing for all sixteen estimates of TSI was evaluated using simple linear least-squares fitting. The role of human activity on recent warming was then calculated by fitting the residuals to the UN IPCC’s recommended “anthropogenic forcings” time series. For all five Northern Hemisphere temperature series, different TSI estimates suggest everything from no role for the Sun in recent decades (implying that recent global warming is mostly human-caused) to most of the recent global warming being due to changes in solar activity (that is, that recent global warming is mostly natural). It appears that previous studies (including the most recent IPCC reports) which had prematurely concluded the former, had done so because they failed to adequately consider all the relevant estimates of TSI and/or to satisfactorily address the uncertainties still associated with Northern Hemisphere temperature trend estimates. Therefore, several recommendations on how the scientific community can more satisfactorily resolve these issues are provided.

I'm no climate scientist, but drawing the potential conclusion that ubanization bias might still be present because rural and urban weather stations show more warming than SST, glacier length and tree-ring widths seems a clear case of apples and oranges. The instantaneous nature of the former vs the severe lags of the latter are a blatant conflict they don't mention. Several of these authors: Connolly, Soon, Bailunas (who have put out numerous papers together) and others have argued for years that global warming is not anthropogenic but due to increases in TSI not reflected in its most widely accepted measures. Soon and Bailunas, in particular, are famous for the oil industry funding for their work. I'm not foolish enough to think that any scientist begins a study tabula rasa, but most of this crew had formed these conclusions long before this study was even imagined. A strong majority of climate scientists disagree with this contention that previous studies and the IPCC had "prematurely concluded" that global warming is mostly human-caused.

I would guess that this paper is where your preference for Northern Hemisphere temperature data begins. If so, you failed to note that what drove the author's choice was simply the relative paucity of data from the Southern Hemisphere, not any superiority in representation. I also failed to see any comments supporting your claim that it was best to restrict your analysis to temperature outliers.

This paper finshes by concluding it has no conclusion at all and that its authors could not agree on a singular answer to the title's question. Your contention all along, has been that "climate scientists" come to different conclusions about global warming when looking at different datasets. What this paper actually shows is that the authors of this paper, with differing preferences for TSI and temperature data, come to different conclusions. You have no survey of climate scientists looking at different datasets. And since you never seem to venture beyond that initial claim but have linked to this study at least eleven times, I will have to state what it appears to me that you are attempting to say: that the resolution of TSI centered on Matthes 2017 is unwarranted, that distinct possibilities exist that TSI has been far greater than commonly held, particularly during the ACRIM gap, that actual global warming trends have not been accurately determined, that urbanization bias may still be present in commonly used temperature data and thus that common conclusions about the reality of AGW are unjustified. If you disagree, please explain what it is you are actually attempting to take from this paper.

From the study

Conclusion. In the title of this paper, we asked “How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends?” However, it should now be apparent that, despite the confidence with which many studies R. Connolly et al.: How Much has the Sun Influenced Northern Hemisphere Temperature Trends? 131–59 claim to have answered this question, it has not yet been satisfactorily answered. Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions that remain on these issues, we argue that recent attempts to force an apparent scientific consensus (including the IPCC reports) on these scientific debates are premature and ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress. We hope that the analysis in this paper will encourage and stimulate further analysis and discussion. In the meantime, the debate is ongoing.

Acknowledgements The main analysis and first draft of the manuscript were carried out by the first three authors (RC, WS and MC). All other co-authors are listed in alphabetical order. As explained in the Introduction, the approach we have taken in this review is to explicitly acknowledge the many dissenting scientific perspectives on a lot of the issues reviewed. As a result, the co-authors have not reached a mutual consensus on all issues. Rather, we have endeavored to present all competing scientific perspectives as fairly and open-mindedly as possible. With that in mind, all co-authors have approved of the text, even though most of us have definite opinions on many of the debates which have been described, and those opinions vary between co-authors.