An Article from WUWT

[Buzz]

That's the only thing from your comments I need to address.

No it isn't. You started this stupid thread and now your going to bail after I have shown it to be without merit. Typical.

You clearly don't understand the difference between random and systemic errors. It is this: Random errors cancel out, systemic errors don't. You seem to share this deficiency with the climate modelers. Incredibly enough, they don't understand the difference, either!

O.K... its obvious that you have no clue what I'm talking about because I haven't said anything that disagrees with this.

Your in way over your head dude.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Everyone knows and acknowledges that the models are far from perfect and need plenty of work. The main problem here is denialists taking these facts and suggesting that they somehow disprove AGW. This is wrong and you know it.

This is where your side is repeatedly wrong.

Wrong over and over, no matter how many times it is pointed out.

What is being discussed in no way implies a disproof of AGW. We agree AGW is real. The fact that you cannot distinguish the nuances shows denial of facts and science on your part.

You guys take a binary approach. Yes/no... Is/is not, etc. What about the shades of grey in between?

 

[Buzz]

This is where your side is repeatedly wrong.

Wrong over and over, no matter how many times it is pointed out.

What is being discussed in no way implies a disproof of AGW. We agree AGW is real. The fact that you cannot distinguish the nuances shows denial of facts and science on your part.

You guys take a binary approach. Yes/no... Is/is not, etc. What about the shades of grey in between?

O.K... Saying denialist are using this to disprove AGW might be a bit strong. What I should have said is that it is being used to suggest there is NO evidence that AGW will be really bad. And even though this is the case there will be plenty of denialists out there who will end up thinking it disproves AGW anyway.

And don't bother telling me I am wrong on this. All you have to do is look at all the right wingers in the world who claim AGW is all a hoax.

Oh... and here is a reminder of Pat Frank's conclusions in the video at about the 33 minute mark:

At The End of the End of the Journey

Current Scientific Merit of Predictions of future warming
None

Reliability of the IPCC's Warnings of Catastrophe
None

Evidence of a Looming Climate Disaster from CO2 Emissions
None

The Most Rational Approach to the "Problem" of CO2 Emissions
Have the Courage to Do Nothing

Now are you going to try and tell me that this isn't a bunch of lies?

 

[Lord of Planar]

O.K... Saying denialist are using this to disprove AGW might be a bit strong.

More than a bit strong. It is distorted, inaccurate, and a lie.

Where do you guys come off at thinking you are offering any intelligent discourse, when you frame and answer things so incorrectly?

We are not deniers. You should eliminate that strawman from your vocabulary. Every time you say it, myself and others are inclined to believe that you don't deserve anything but a similar disrespect.

If you want me to take you serious, then stop using that 3rd grade nonsense.

What I should have said is that it is being used to suggest there is NO evidence that AGW will be really bad.

Now consider the equivocation of word structure you just used. Look at how different people will take that to mean different things.

And even though this is the case there will be plenty of denialists out there who will end up thinking it disproves AGW anyway.

Denialists.... yes. There are no regular deniers in this forum. I am one of the first people to shame the deniers that periodically enter here. The regulars you are disagreeing with aren't deniers.

I'll bet if you stop calling them that, and start listening to what they say, instead of what you think they mean, there would be a better discourse. Instead of accusing us of a point we never implied, ask us to elaborate what we mean when you don't understand.

And don't bother telling me I am wrong on this. All you have to do is look at all the right wingers in the world who claim AGW is all a hoax.

Yes, there are actual deniers out there.

Your problem is treating us all that way. We are all individuals, you should stop such bigotry towards us.

Oh... and here is a reminder of Pat Frank's conclusions in the video at about the 33 minute mark:

At The End of the End of the Journey

Current Scientific Merit of Predictions of future warming
None

Reliability of the IPCC's Warnings of Catastrophe
None

Evidence of a Looming Climate Disaster from CO2 Emissions
None

The Most Rational Approach to the "Problem" of CO2 Emissions
Have the Courage to Do Nothing

Now are you going to try and tell me that this isn't a bunch of lies?

It isn't a bunch of lies.

Prove one of them as such.

We have seen but only a short period of climate history. We have evidence the world was hotter and flourished. Look at all the catastrophes predicted more than a decade ago, that have not occurred. What ever happened to "more Katrina like events?"

We don't have cheap enough technology to gamble on spending money, for a problem that only exists in climate models. Especially when climate models have already broken 95% of the time. There is no rational reason to spend now, when 20 years from now, the possible threat is still 100 years of, and we will have better knowledge and technology.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Will you please elaborate on this:

What I should have said is that it is being used to suggest there is NO evidence that AGW will be really bad.

Please restate it more clearly so there is no misunderstanding of your intent.

 

[Jack Hays]

No it doesn't. Try again.

Sorry, but you're just in denial. I will not gild the lily by restating proof you've already provided.

 

[longview]

It is error. Whether it is systemic or random hasn't been proven by anyone. Especially Pat Frank.

An error is systematic when is consistently adds the error on one side or the other.
Since the actual long term (134 years) is closer to .15 C per decade, a model that predicts .21 C per decade,
will accumulate, .06 C per decade, for each decade the error is allowed to persist.

So... we shouldn't count this last El Nino because you claim it is a weather event yet you just posted a link to an 3 year old article that uses the 1998 El Nino to claim no warming for 16 years. Didn't I point out this blatant hypocrisy of yours a while back?

The El Nino events are weather and should not be counted ether way in regards to AGW.
The .21 c per decade in the Nature article, counted the El Nino high from 1998 as the end point,
if they are counting them for one side, they should count for the other.

The recent cool down wasn't that low and hasn't been long enough to say anything about the planet being back to the same levels. And you cited the article because it was written before this last El Nino and its dramatic warming.

The recent cool down just shows the relaxation pattern from the El Nino, we will not know much until the cycle completes.

Actually much of the article discussed the possibility that it was oceans that were sucking up the heat and that they could start releasing that heat in another El Nino. And now 3 years later it looks like they were right.

I know what the article was about, but was just using their description of the error, and the contrast between what was predicted vs what actually happened,
(and continues to happen)

Did you see Lord Of Denial's latest thread with the 2 studies about cloud feedbacks? Looks like they both say that the estimates of ECS from recent times has likely been biased low.

ECS is a tricky subject, the studies based on the empirical data, mostly point to a very low range (2 C or below).
It is only the studies that are based of the predictive models that show higher ECS.
The question becomes which feedbacks are more likely, the ones which are actually present in the climate system,
or the one they think may exists, but have never been validated?

 

[Buzz]

O.K.... I'm back :twisted:

More than a bit strong. It is distorted, inaccurate, and a lie.

Where do you guys come off at thinking you are offering any intelligent discourse, when you frame and answer things so incorrectly?

So.... When you told me that random errors almost never cancel out that was a lie. When LowDown claimed that people who dislike WUWT want to limit free speech.... that was a lie. Or when he claimed there was no dissent on RealClimate... that was a lie. If your going to use this standard for what is and is not a lie then you are going to make your side of the argument look like dishonest fools. But knowing you, you will have a double standard for this.

Want an example of denialists using this "study" to disprove AGW? Of course not... but I'm going to give you all one anyway.

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh on Monday for a short time while driving to my next job. And what do I hear him say? I don't remember his exact wording but he was basically saying that all of the AGW hypothesis is based solely on models. And since those models are unreliable then this proves that all of AGW is nothing but a hoax.

This is why I call many here denialists. Many don't really out right lie but their many misleading arguments are used by idiots like Rush to mislead millions.

We are not deniers. You should eliminate that strawman from your vocabulary. Every time you say it, myself and others are inclined to believe that you don't deserve anything but a similar disrespect.

If you want me to take you serious, then stop using that 3rd grade nonsense .

Yeah... well when you guys quit using 3rd grade level arguments that are frequently nothing but denial I will quit calling you deniers.

It isn't a bunch of lies.

Prove one of them as such.

No problem. The very first one:

Current Scientific Merit of Predictions of future warming
None

The IPCC predicts warming of a certain range for so much increase in GHG. The lower end of that range is basically if there are little to no positive feedbacks or if there are enough negative feedbacks to offset the positive. You guys admit this is perfectly reasonable and think this kind of warming is no big deal if not a good thing. So... there is at least some merit to the low end range of the IPCC projections. So... No merit to predictions of future warming is a lie. Many of you guys have admitted as much many times. Don't deny it!

 

[Buzz]

Sorry, but you're just in denial. I will not gild the lily by restating proof you've already provided.

How... specifically... does my admission that there are errors in the models prove that they are the errors Pat Frank thinks they are? They don't.

 

[Buzz]

An error is systematic when is consistently adds the error on one side or the other.
Since the actual long term (134 years) is closer to .15 C per decade, a model that predicts .21 C per decade,
will accumulate, .06 C per decade, for each decade the error is allowed to persist.

You are way over simplifying this. Not only has Frank used differences in cloud cover instead of differences in temp to gauge the error but the time period is way to short to know anything for sure. If those two articles about clouds that Lord found are any indication then there is a chance that things will swing the other way.

The El Nino events are weather and should not be counted ether way in regards to AGW.
The .21 c per decade in the Nature article, counted the El Nino high from 1998 as the end point,
if they are counting them for one side, they should count for the other.

Yes... Just like you shouldn't be citing articles that use 1998 but ignore 2015 and 2016. Funny how you keep doing this despite the fact I have pointed out your hypocrisy before.

The recent cool down just shows the relaxation pattern from the El Nino, we will not know much until the cycle completes.

Isn't that what I just said?

I know what the article was about, but was just using their description of the error, and the contrast between what was predicted vs what actually happened,
(and continues to happen)

So... you were cherry picking the contents to back up your position while you ignore the correct predictions of another El Nino event rapidly warming the Earth. I call this denial of the facts.

ECS is a tricky subject, the studies based on the empirical data, mostly point to a very low range (2 C or below).
It is only the studies that are based of the predictive models that show higher ECS.
The question becomes which feedbacks are more likely, the ones which are actually present in the climate system,
or the one they think may exists, but have never been validated?

Why do you insist on this stupidity? Do you really think that the loss of snow and ice isn't going to decrease surface albedo and increase warming? Do you believe that methane being released from the frozen tundra up north isn't going to increase methane levels and warming? Do you really think these feedbacks have never been validated?

 

[Lord of Planar]

O.K.... I'm back :twisted:



So.... When you told me that random errors almost never cancel out that was a lie.

I never specified "random" when I said they don't cancel out, and when I said "random" I said large samples do.

This is why you guys always lose these debates, and don't even know it!

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh on Monday for a short time while driving to my next job. And what do I hear him say? I don't remember his exact wording but he was basically saying that all of the AGW hypothesis is based solely on models. And since those models are unreliable then this proves that all of AGW is nothing but a hoax.

Why do you listen to that blowhard arrogant ass?

This is why I call many here denialists. Many don't really out right lie but their many misleading arguments are used by idiots like Rush to mislead millions.

I see...

You treat us all like we listen to some pampas ass...

The IPCC predicts warming of a certain range for so much increase in GHG. The lower end of that range is basically if there are little to no positive feedbacks or if there are enough negative feedbacks to offset the positive. You guys admit this is perfectly reasonable and think this kind of warming is no big deal if not a good thing. So... there is at least some merit to the low end range of the IPCC projections. So... No merit to predictions of future warming is a lie. Many of you guys have admitted as much many times. Don't deny it!

The lie is to continue to use the catastrophic predictions, when the last 20 years or so has shown how the bias of systematic errors of models have become.

We cannot identify the actual error variable, but we know its there. If it wasn't, the trend of actual temperatures would match the models. We are around the 5% margin of the modeling. That point need to be the center point. Not the low end of their modeling. After all this time, and continually adjusting temperature records... Maybe it's the model that needs adjusted...

 

[Buzz]

I never specified "random" when I said they don't cancel out, and when I said "random" I said large samples do.

No...You never specified random but I just had. That is what I was talking about and you responded to it. Did you make a mistake? Should that mistake be called a lie? If not then get off my ass for saying people will use Frank's stupid article to disprove AGW. At least I can give an example of it being used that way.

This is why you guys always lose these debates, and don't even know it!

Only in your deluded mind.

Why do you listen to that blowhard arrogant ass?

Because I listen to and watch a wide range of media including both extremes.

I see...

You treat us all like we listen to some pampas ass...

No.... the pampas ass is listening to you. Or people like you. I treat you like the denier you are.

The lie is to continue to use the catastrophic predictions, when the last 20 years or so has shown how the bias of systematic errors of models have become.

I'm still waiting for that peer reviewed and published study that you have read that backs this up. Oh... almost forgot. You don't have one. All you have is a 6+ times rejected study.

:lol:

We cannot identify the actual error variable, but we know its there. If it wasn't, the trend of actual temperatures would match the models. We are around the 5% margin of the modeling. That point need to be the center point. Not the low end of their modeling. After all this time, and continually adjusting temperature records... Maybe it's the model that needs adjusted...

Oh Boy!!! More denial!!

 

[Lord of Planar]

No...You never specified random but I just had. That is what I was talking about and you responded to it. Did you make a mistake? Should that mistake be called a lie? If not then get off my ass for saying people will use Frank's stupid article to disprove AGW. At least I can give an example of it being used that way.



Only in your deluded mind.

It is your deluded mind.

Words have meaning. You did not "specify" random but said "likely."

Please stop lying...

Then you take your preconceived beliefs, and apply them to us. The smart thing for you to do would be to stop using phrases like "to disprove AGW." Nobody here, except out recent arrival Mac77 is claiming any such thing.

Do you realize you are framing a strawman to argue a point against, that doesn't exist with me?

How many times must I say "YES AGW IS REAL!"

Because I listen to and watch a wide range of media including both extremes.

Then you incorrectly use your confirmation bias, and like a bigot, treat all who oppose your views as the same...

You need to wake up and see your actions from an unbiased viewpoint.

No.... the pampas ass is listening to you. Or people like you. I treat you like the denier you are.

Wow...

I don't know what to say to that, without inviting an infraction from a moderator. Any of my views about that ignorance would do just that.

I'm still waiting for that peer reviewed and published study that you have read that backs this up. Oh... almost forgot. You don't have one. All you have is a 6+ times rejected study.

:lol:



Oh Boy!!! More denial!!

I have no intent of wasting my time, pulling years old material, just to satisfy your denial of science, just to have it rationalized and denied.

 

[Buzz]

It is your deluded mind.

Words have meaning. You did not "specify" random but said "likely."

Please stop lying...

BS! I said this in post #17:

So these errors are most likely random and not systemic.

So... who is lying and deluded? It is not me.

Then you take your preconceived beliefs, and apply them to us. The smart thing for you to do would be to stop using phrases like "to disprove AGW." Nobody here, except out recent arrival Mac77 is claiming any such thing.

Do you realize you are framing a strawman to argue a point against, that doesn't exist with me?

Damn Dude... I admitted that statement was too strong because no one here is saying that. My point is that there are many who will say this and I have show there are. Is Rush and all of his millions of listeners nothing but a straw man?

How many times must I say "YES AGW IS REAL!"

I have never accused you of not believing AGW is real. Talk about straw men. :roll:

Then you incorrectly use your confirmation bias, and like a bigot, treat all who oppose your views as the same...

You need to wake up and see your actions from an unbiased viewpoint.

And I would say the same about you. Guess we will have to duke it out in fair debate.

Wow...

I don't know what to say to that, without inviting an infraction from a moderator. Any of my views about that ignorance would do just that.

Don't worry... you have insulted me plenty of times. I'm used to it.

I have no intent of wasting my time, pulling years old material, just to satisfy your denial of science, just to have it rationalized and denied.

Of course not. You never back up your "stuff" when I ask you to. Always have some lame excuse why you wont. But then you just love to demand it of others, don't you?

 

[longview]

You are way over simplifying this. Not only has Frank used differences in cloud cover instead of differences in temp to gauge the error but the time period is way to short to know anything for sure. If those two articles about clouds that Lord found are any indication then there is a chance that things will swing the other way.

My comment has nothing to do with what Frank said, I was only pointing out a clear example of a systematic error,
used in the models. If the example was simplistic, it was because that is the way the article described it.

Yes... Just like you shouldn't be citing articles that use 1998 but ignore 2015 and 2016. Funny how you keep doing this despite the fact I have pointed out your hypocrisy before.

The article was a pro AGW piece and described the systematic error, the authors were the ones who picked 1998, not me.

Isn't that what I just said?

Not exactly, Your description still referenced the "dramatic warming" from the El Nino as if that had something to do with the Climate.

So... you were cherry picking the contents to back up your position while you ignore the correct predictions of another El Nino event rapidly warming the Earth. I call this denial of the facts.

Do you know what cherry picking means?
The article referenced the stark contrast of the problem, before rendering their subjective non validated cause.

Why do you insist on this stupidity? Do you really think that the loss of snow and ice isn't going to decrease surface albedo and increase warming? Do you believe that methane being released from the frozen tundra up north isn't going to increase methane levels and warming? Do you really think these feedbacks have never been validated?

They are working on ways to validate these concepts as we speak, there is an article in this months Scientific American about the subject.
The are trying to simulate the predicted warming, by building greenhouse boxes on the tundra.
http://www.sciencepoles.org/assets/..._of_greenhouse_study_1024_767_80_s_c1_c_c.jpg
Since AGW appears to be warming the surface troposphere system almost completely opposite than the way a real greenhouse warms,
the results of the experiment could be subjective.
(the majority of AGW warming has been in the evenings of the cooler months.)
But please do not believe me, I encourage you to look at the data for yourself.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Diurnal asymmetry to the observed global warming - Davy - 2016 - International Journal of Climatology - Wiley Online Library

There has been a more rapid increase in the globally averaged diurnal minimum temperature
(Tmin) than the diurnal maximum temperature (Tmax) in the last 50 years leading to a decrease in the DTR (Figure 1).

Table 1 also has a note from Vose et al. (2005)

DTR change is smaller after 1979 but strong increase in Tmin in wintertime continues

 

[KLATTU]

Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
Your #54 concedes the point.

No it doesn't. Try again.

OUCHH. Take THAT Jack Jays! He really shut you up with that rebuttal!!

 

[Lord of Planar]

Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
Your #54 concedes the point.



OUCHH. Take THAT Jack Jays! He really shut you up with that rebuttal!!

LOL...

What to do. We have a real live denier among us.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Because of both the alarmists (Deuce, 3goofs, et. al.) and the deniers like Mac77:

In my email, from Nature's "Here’s our pick of today’s science stories"

At the end of the email is a "thought of the day."

Thought for the day

“The amount of energy needed to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it. Is it really worth taking the time and effort to challenge, correct and clarify?”
​

This is why I often don't put much effort into proving the warmers and alarmists wrong.

It links to this however:

Take the time and effort to correct misinformation by Phil Williamson

Talk about misinformation...

A good part however:

Challenging falsehoods and misrepresentation may not seem to have any immediate effect, but someone, somewhere, will hear or read our response. The target is not the peddler of nonsense, but those readers who have an open mind on scientific problems. A lie may be able to travel around the world before the truth has its shoes on, but an unchallenged untruth will never stop.
​

 

[Lord of Planar]

LOL...

What to do. We have a real live denier among us.

Scratch that... I was thinking of Mac77.

 

[Jack Hays]

Yup! You are correct. This is actually a good point. There is the possibility... if not probability that there are systemic errors in the models. The problem is that Pat Frank hasn't proven that there is nor what they are. And when Pat takes this issue and hypes it up into the ridiculous claim that this somehow invalidates all the models and that we shouldn't do anything about AGW he goes from being a skeptic into being a denialist.

This point isn't the only thing that most climate scientists disagree with him on either.

How... specifically... does my admission that there are errors in the models prove that they are the errors Pat Frank thinks they are? They don't.

The existence of errors is enough to make Pat Frank's point. Exactly what the errors are is not really important. By conceding the possibility of error you have conceded his point.

 

[Buzz]

The article was a pro AGW piece and described the systematic error, the authors were the ones who picked 1998, not me.

You picked the article. The main reason the article started with 1998 is because you denialists have been incessantly making a big deal about the lack of warming since 1998.

Not exactly, Your description still referenced the "dramatic warming" from the El Nino as if that had something to do with the Climate.

Contrary to your denialist preachers... not all of the warming of 2015 and 2016 was caused by the El Nino. Actually most real climate scientists believe that a majority of the warming was not from the El Nino.

They are working on ways to validate these concepts as we speak, there is an article in this months Scientific American about the subject.
The are trying to simulate the predicted warming, by building greenhouse boxes on the tundra.
http://www.sciencepoles.org/assets/..._of_greenhouse_study_1024_767_80_s_c1_c_c.jpg
Since AGW appears to be warming the surface troposphere system almost completely opposite than the way a real greenhouse warms,
the results of the experiment could be subjective.

You linked to nothing but a picture here. Do you think you could actually provide a link to the study or article?

And your not making sense. Like snow and ice melt decreasing albedo. This doesn't need validation. What it needs is quantification.

(the majority of AGW warming has been in the evenings of the cooler months.)
But please do not believe me, I encourage you to look at the data for yourself.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Diurnal asymmetry to the observed global warming - Davy - 2016 - International Journal of Climatology - Wiley Online Library

Table 1 also has a note from Vose et al. (2005)

WTF does diurnal asymmetry have to do with this discussion? And how does this data that you seem to love prove anything about diurnal asymmetry or what we are discussing in this thread? It doesn't.

Don't change the subject.

 

[Buzz]

Because of both the alarmists (Deuce, 3goofs, et. al.) and the deniers like Mac77:

In my email, from Nature's "Here’s our pick of today’s science stories"

At the end of the email is a "thought of the day."

Thought for the day

“The amount of energy needed to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it. Is it really worth taking the time and effort to challenge, correct and clarify?”
​

This is why I often don't put much effort into proving the warmers and alarmists wrong.

It links to this however:

Take the time and effort to correct misinformation by Phil Williamson

Talk about misinformation...

A good part however:

Challenging falsehoods and misrepresentation may not seem to have any immediate effect, but someone, somewhere, will hear or read our response. The target is not the peddler of nonsense, but those readers who have an open mind on scientific problems. A lie may be able to travel around the world before the truth has its shoes on, but an unchallenged untruth will never stop.
​

:lol:

You supported this thread without even watching the video. I watched the video twice and did a bunch of research on the subject to make sure I understood most of it before I started debunking it.

This explains why you almost never put any effort into debating. It is because you don't need to when your constantly pushing bull****!!

 

[Buzz]

The existence of errors is enough to make Pat Frank's point. Exactly what the errors are is not really important. By conceding the possibility of error you have conceded his point.

This just might be the stupidest thing you have ever written.

 

[Lord of Planar]

WTF does diurnal asymmetry have to do with this discussion? And how does this data that you seem to love prove anything about diurnal asymmetry or what we are discussing in this thread? It doesn't.

Don't change the subject.

You don't know, but feel expert enough to discuss the topic?

LOL...

 

[Lord of Planar]

:lol:

You supported this thread without even watching the video.

Yes, I posted twice before watching the video.

So?

I already understood exactly what the concept was about.

What did your "bunch or research" consist of? Searches on Real Climate or Skeptical Science?