• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent [W:437]

Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

I will boil it down.. it shows real science with a real control and that many variables are in play and that we dont know the reason why tempature changes, nor can we prove any one thing is the factor..

so I guess the liberal scientists LOL... are clueless


But the liberal Al Gore fleecing of the USA is in full play.. as tjhe liberals use this to keep gas and taxes as high as possible.. to outlaw coal and for us to be not the powere house manufacturer this country once was

hahahahhahah can you imagine if the name Al Gore was Dick Cheney ..the liberals heads would explode

Before you say the paper is real science, you do realize it is pro-AGW?

Finally, we note that the claim made by "greenhouse critics" in the popular press, that global warming is a "benign" nighttime phenomenon, is incorrect. The temperature changes, as we have shown, represent the combination of an overall warming and a damping of the diurnal cycle. We can safely predict that on the long run the effect of the diurnal damping on maximum temperatures will be small,

Well they are suggesting that aerosols could be causing the asymmetry, but aerosols are not evenly
distributed around the globe, but the asymmetry appears all over.
Logically it must be something more fundamentally tied to the CO2 excitation states,
hence the quantum mechanism.

Right well at least you read the paper.

However, quantum mechanics isn't the logical conclusion to jump to when it comes to a diurnal temperature. Quantum mechanics isn't affected by day and night, nor the intensity of incoming radiation. The main conclusion that I see the paper come to is that there is an something unknown (circa 1995) that is forcing cooling. Furthermore:

almost all of the damping caused by a climate forcing occurs immediately with the introduction of the forcing, while the mean temperature rise is delayed by the thermal inertia of the climate system. Thus the unrealized warming for greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere will appear almost equally in daily maximum and daily minimum temperatures.

So the diurnal fluctuations could be partially responsible for the famous 'pause' we're having, but the paper specifically explains that this doesn't mean that global warming doesn't happen, there is just a lag introduced in the climate system.

The closest the paper comes to the anti-AGW camp is to suggest:

Thus the impact of policies related to fossil fuel use on the net climate forcing can be assessed reliably only with quantitative understanding of the aerosol and cloud forcings, as well as the greenhouse gas forcing. Comparison of the greenhouse gas and aerosol/cloud forcings is further complicated by the very different spatial distributions of these forcings, which implies that the 2, can not cause a simple cancellation

Which we already know! We know that it's a complex system and that there are parts of it unknown to us. That doesn't mean that the whole theory is wrong. We don't fully understand the mechanics of gravity, that doesn't mean that gravity doesn't exist. We can measure the effects of gravity without intimately knowing the inner workings. Likewise here.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

" Statistical Homogenation " is only credible as long as the people using it continue to go on unchallenged.

You wouldn't know how credible it was since you don't even know what it means.

For the 1765th time, define the term in your own words. If you don't understand it, then everything you say about it is nonsense.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Really? Which isotopes would those be? Since we're talking about "atoms that cannot be formed through natural phenomena" how are these radioisotopes being formed,

I didn't say anything about radioisotopes. Do you know what an isotope is--can you explain it in your own words ?

I have to ask since this forum is populated by conservatives who like to attack science even when they haven't a clue about what it is they're attacking.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Wait, you mean all the frothing, and foaming over "global warming" was based on manipulated, or incomplete data, and flawed models? I......AM.......SHOCKED!!!!!! :cool:
In 2008 Prince Charles predicted that the world had 18 months to take action or there would be "dire consequences". The world didn't listen to and now look at the fine mess we're in!

Prince Charles: Eighteen months to stop climate change disaster - Telegraph
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Hmmm your anecdote/opinion, or the government's MSA definition?
Which is more credible?

Well I know you love you some government, so carry on.

I suppose Peoria is part of the Chicago metro area, too? Victorville is part of LA proper? Same drive time, and I've been all over this country.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

I didn't say anything about radioisotopes. Do you know what an isotope is--can you explain it in your own words ?

I have to ask since this forum is populated by conservatives who like to attack science even when they haven't a clue about what it is they're attacking.
You said these were "atoms that cannot be formed through natural phenomena" - since the only stable isotopes of carbon are naturally occurring, we can deduce that any "atoms that cannot be formed through natural phenomena" must be radioisotopes.

We both know you don't have any idea what you're talking about here, but just for fun, why don't you take a stab at identifying these isotopes you alluded to earlier.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

It looks more like right wingers have to be educated, since they keep arguing against terms/phrases that don't know the meaning of :lol:

It looks like both you and Travis 007 are here to waste everybody elses time by turning this into a US centric political hate game. Neither of you have contributed anything here to genuine debate and are just here to spew bile at what you have framed as the opposing political camp you lack any valid comprehension of the real issues. Plenty of us here actually DO want to debate this issue rationally even if you have chosen not to so I for one appreciate it if you both would give it a rest :(
 
Last edited:
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Nothing that is occurring with the climate is inconsistent with the science.

Nothing that is occurring with the climate is inconsistent with normal natural variability either. We have had many modest warming phases like this one since the last ice age. Today's is nothing special compared to some
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Most of the current models to date are accurate to well within 1%....

Absolute nonsense as you have already been shown.

STILL Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models vs. Measurements, Running 5-Year Means « Roy Spencer, PhD

Here is why they cannot predict diddly ....again

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5c9415b970b-pi

More ....

C3: Climate Models

Climate models are essentially mathematical constructs. It is therefore quite impossible to get the correct answer from them if the values for the major input variables like CO2 climate sensitivity are unknown. The errors magnify exponentially the longer the model runs which explains the ever increasing diveregence between the models and the observed reality
 
Last edited:
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

And another nail in the coffin of the green religion. It started out harmless enough with picking up trash, cleaning up beaches and cutting down less trees. Until socialists saw an opportunity. A group of naive, idealistic, pot heads signing kumbaya around the capfire. A group of people easily influenced by feel goodery, pseudoscience, and dooms day predictions of death and destruction if we don't save the trees. Then they hijacked the green movement in order to hide their socialist agenda into it. It was a very smart idea, and one that almost worked. Pay scientists grants in order to come to forgon conclusions.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Wait, you mean all the frothing, and foaming over "global warming" was based on manipulated, or incomplete data, and flawed models? I......AM.......SHOCKED!!!!!! :cool:

Trust me, warmers never want it to be over either. No matter how many years, no matter how many policy changes, we'll ALWAYS global warming.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Right well at least you read the paper.

However, quantum mechanics isn't the logical conclusion to jump to when it comes to a diurnal temperature. Quantum mechanics isn't affected by day and night, nor the intensity of incoming radiation. The main conclusion that I see the paper come to is that there is an something unknown (circa 1995) that is forcing cooling. Furthermore:
Since the diurnal asymmetry seems to be present everywhere they look, and CO2 is one of the
well distributed greenhouse gasses, it could be tied to CO2.
For a given geographic location the intensity of incoming radiation is radically affected by day and night.
I have a theory, that in sunlight conditions, nitrogen is excited, and passes a quantum vibrational mode
to almost all of the CO2. (Yes it is a contact transfer).
while the quantum excited cycle of CO2 is short in Human time, it is long in quantum time,
between 20 and 50 ms. While the molecule is spontaneously decaying, it cannot absorb
the 14 um ground emissions.
(Basically I am saying that CO2 in the daytime stays in a state of population inversion.)
This would explain why CO2 does what we think it should at night, but not in the daytime.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

And turkeys don't vote for christmas so I'll just go with the thermometers. I've already illustrated at some length using actual peer reviewed sources that this whole agenda is simply politicized bunkum.

C3: Global Warming: Evidence-Facts Vs. CO2-AGW

You've presented an opinion. Nice
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

What is .17 divided by T ? Do you think anywhere on the surface of Earth is regularly below 170 K?
What are you talking about?
You said in post #278
Most of the current models to date are accurate to well within 1%....
I responded with the nature article, stating that the models predicted warming
of .21 °C per decade from 1998 to 2012, when the observed warming was actually
.04 °C per decade. So the model is not prediction is not within 1% of the observed temperature.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Not so much a conspiracy as a rush to secure grant money....Not to mention that those that step out of line are thoroughly trashed, and ruined within their community....I mean just look at the 'go to' in a simple thread like this from the jump...It wasn't a serious discussion about anything other than trashing the source, and it continues.

Well, if the source is trash....................
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

What are you talking about?
You said in post #278

I responded with the nature article, stating that the models predicted warming
of .21 °C per decade from 1998 to 2012, when the observed warming was actually
.04 °C per decade. So the model is not prediction is not within 1% of the observed temperature.

the models predict temperatures of ....
300.21 K vs 300.04K .
(for example)
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Since the diurnal asymmetry seems to be present everywhere they look, and CO2 is one of the
well distributed greenhouse gasses, it could be tied to CO2.
For a given geographic location the intensity of incoming radiation is radically affected by day and night.
I have a theory, that in sunlight conditions, nitrogen is excited, and passes a quantum vibrational mode
to almost all of the CO2. (Yes it is a contact transfer).
while the quantum excited cycle of CO2 is short in Human time, it is long in quantum time,
between 20 and 50 ms. While the molecule is spontaneously decaying, it cannot absorb
the 14 um ground emissions.
(Basically I am saying that CO2 in the daytime stays in a state of population inversion.)
This would explain why CO2 does what we think it should at night, but not in the daytime.


more pseudoscientific wtf-ery.
 
Last edited:
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

1) oil & gas is trying to save itself from the balls-out climate change crowd.
2) despite what you're being encouraged to accept, "scientists the world over" do not support AGW. And they're certainly not climate scientists.
3) I'm saying, yes, the prominent AGW crowd, those from whom you've heard & associate with AGW, are NOT climate scientists, but have built a wonderful new career and gotten some notoriety through AGW.

Ask yourself why the models and predictions have been so wrong so consistently ... yet the drumbeat continues.

What is climate change? | Climate Change Education | Climate Change | Washington State Department of Ecology

http://www.globalissues.org/article/233/climate-change-and-global-warming-introduction

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.
http://www.climatechangeeducation.ca/why-we-re-concerned-with-changing-climate/

http://www.wno.org/climate-change-history


Just for starters.
 
Last edited:
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

No. Reality of humans being selfish.

Well that was dismissive enough.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

If there isn't a perfect climate, than there is no "worse".

Ok, I'm glad you're satisfied all's well.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Prove that it isn't then ?

Post 319 is a good start for you. Wtf, you think you're a scientist, lol. Thankfully there is sufficient consensus that this is being addressed despite the ignorant masses blundering forward.
 
Back
Top Bottom