Cocky Democrat Stumped By Dinesh D'Souza Over Morality Of Climate Change

In a nut shell.

Where man gets blamed for climate, I totally find that not to be true.

 

Oh, it is fine for you to use ad hominem I see.

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf

I think you will need to read chapter 6.2

 

I would like to right now introduce to Bowerbird a few factual findings by scientists.
Earth spins
Earth actually is huge
Earth has warm air rising around the equator areas to the tropic areas, such as tropic of cancer.
Said air flow goes both to the north polar areas and the south polar areas.
It may seem crazy, but north of the equator, water and air spins in the opposite direction as it does south of the equator.
We have two major and counter flows depending on where you are on Earth. This is the major flows.
Earth spins much like a cue ball can spin or a top can spin.
The spinning imparts a direction all of it's own to the north and south poles and all in between.

So what does this actually all mean.

This is a super complex system. A glance at the Earth from space shows a very complex cloud system. So complex it is next to impossible to predict. Some prediction of a more local source can happen.

When one encounters a super curious and complex system, one does not use inaccurate models for predictions.

Weather a few days into the future has been honed to a decent science. Climate is not yet predictable. The doom and gloom by the alarmist is their view of a dooming earth if man is not kicked off or he changes his ways. This is nuts.

 

Look up the term because you are misinterpreting

 

-----------------------------------------------
From the IPCC home page:

"As an intergovernmental body, membership of the IPCC is open to all member countries of the United Nations (UN) and WMO. Currently 195 countries are Members of the IPCC. Governments participate in the review process and the plenary Sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. The IPCC Bureau Members, including the Chair, are also elected during the plenary Sessions. "
-----------------------------------------------

It is *government* bureaucrats that are the final determining factor for the reports, not the scientists.

I don't *have* to argue anything. I can show you!



The yellow area is what the climate models used in the IPCC give. The black line is the RSS data set, i.e. satellite data.

They are diverging. And the divergence is getting bigger and bigger every year!

And how about this: Chapter 9, page 743: "The simulation of clouds in climate models remains challenging. There is very high confidence that uncertainties in cloud processes explain much of the spread in modelled climate sensitivity. However, the simulation of clouds in climate models has shown modest improvement relative to models available at the time of the AR4, and this has been aided by new evaluation techniques and new observations for clouds. Nevertheless, biases in cloud simulation lead to regional errors on cloud radiative effect of several tens of watts per square meter"

If there are regional errors then just how accurate can the overall report be?

You didn't actually expect anyone to read the report, did you?

How about this: "Most simulations of the historical period do not reproduce the observed reduction in global mean surface warming trend over the last 10 to 15 years. There is medium confidence that the trend difference between models and observations during 1998–2012 is to a substantial degree caused by internal variability, with possible contributions from forcing error and some models overestimating the response to increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing. Most, though not all, models overestimate the observed warming trend in the tropical troposphere over the last 30 years, and tend to underestimate the long-term lower stratospheric cooling trend. "

Even the IPCC is finally waking up to the fact that the climate models are WRONG!

But not you!

 

Ah! Then this is the chapter you want

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf

Tell me specifically which bit is in contention

 

Let me be of help to you.

Oh and before moving forward, do take note of the term suggest. Suggest does not mean proven.

 

No not "government" but "governments" there is a difference

ONE goverment might hold sway over a handful of participants but 196???

Governments do not even choose participants they are volunteers

Now (((((((((sigh)))))))))))) how about using academic referencing and give the $@&$@ page number!!

But the IPCC has always acknowledged that the models were limited in accuracy which is why they were published with confidence intervals
Btw I cannot find your graph please supply the page

 

Let's go over your major source shall we?

Dennis Hartmann

What do you have to say about his own words?

 

That you are dodging

 

No, GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS and not scientists!

Of course the governments choose the bureaucrats that will be the sitting members as part of bureau!

JUDAS H. PRIEST! Read my post instead of just popping off!

If you had *read* the report you would *know* where it came from anyway!

Not just limited in ACCURACY. They are wrong!

"Most, though not all, models overestimate the observed warming trend in the tropical troposphere over the last 30 years, and tend to underestimate the long-term lower stratospheric cooling trend. "

Overestimating and underestimating is not an accuracy issue, it is an issue of being WRONG. Just as my first graph shows!

And you are *still* refusing to admit there are problems in the climate models and thus in the global warming alarms put out for political gain!

When even the IPCC has had to finally admit this why isn't the US Government in its report on climate change?

I know the answer and so do you. YOU just won't admit it!

 

You deleted about 90 percent of my post but you claim I am who is dodging? Funny innit?

But move on.

So, BB, just what have YOU done over man made global warming?

By listing for us, what changes have you made and see if you can explain what good is done by said changes.

 

You didn't actually expect an answer, did you?

BB is a troll. He makes challenges he thinks no one will take up but is then unable to back his challenges up when they are met.

He just did the same thing with me!

 

I plan to ask every one of the alarmists why they make the claim that it is your fault and my fault for AGW yet when asked, they then turn around and tell us humans do not control climate.

What the hell good does it do when we do not control climate to yap their guts out laying guilt trips on posters?

So, let them lay out what they do to chill earth down. Do they toss dry ice all over?

 

Yeah. And bleach kills germs. Doesn't mean you should drink bleach when you're sick.

 

The Greenhouse Effect is real. This is science. That your interests contradict science is of no concern to me.

 

You haven't even read the thread, have you?

From that IPCC AR5 report:

Chapter 9, page 743: "The simulation of clouds in climate models remains challenging. There is very high confidence that uncertainties in cloud processes explain much of the spread in modelled climate sensitivity. However, the simulation of clouds in climate models has shown modest improvement relative to models available at the time of the AR4, and this has been aided by new evaluation techniques and new observations for clouds. Nevertheless, biases in cloud simulation lead to regional errors on cloud radiative effect of several tens of watts per square meter"

If there are regional errors then just how accurate can the overall report be?


"Most simulations of the historical period do not reproduce the observed reduction in global mean surface warming trend over the last 10 to 15 years. There is medium confidence that the trend difference between models and observations during 1998–2012 is to a substantial degree caused by internal variability, with possible contributions from forcing error and some models overestimating the response to increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing.Most, though not all, models overestimate the observed warming trend in the tropical troposphere over the last 30 years, and tend to underestimate the long-term lower stratospheric cooling trend. "

Even the IPCC is finally waking up to the fact that the climate models are WRONG!

Over this 10-15 year period CO2 levels have gone up but the temperature has not. And no one knows why. In the last two years a couple of small midwestern universities have even discovered that the central US and eastern US are what they call "global warming holes" - yet it is in these areas where the CO2 concentration is the highest on the globe.

Tell me again about the science?

 

AGW is the scientific consensus. As I'm not a climate scientist, I lack the expertise necessary to deny the consensus and doing so would be arrogance on my part.

Maybe you should stop politicizing science.