The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteria

Thanks for illustrating my point. The temperature has been outside of the cone since 2007. 5 years is short term when it comes to climate.
HadCRUT also has limited measurements of the arctic, where warming is the greatest. Why not show all the temp data sets. Woodfortrees

The GISS data is closer to being within the cone.

Once again, the anti-AGW pick data that agrees with their agenda and ignore data that does not.

 

I don't know what a "never ending bar thread" is supposed to be, but I understand what you are saying. You want me to do all of the work and post whatever amount of material required to convince you that my arguement is correct. So much work to convince a single anonymous person, with no return other than "winning" an arguement, is a foolish undertaking. If you are truly interested and open, you would have already started on your own rather than wait for me to feed you data which I "cherry pick".

You continue to make my point. With near perfect hindsight of hundreds (maybe thousands) of storms to refine models of hurricanes/cyclones, they are still very inaccurate at predictions more than 72 hours out. The graph from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology I previously referenced didn't go beyond 48 hours and even the 48 hour accuracy measure was sparse.

At 12 hours, location predictions are more accurate simply because the sheer inertia of the storm makes changes in such a short time difficult but there are many cases of <24 hour intensity predictions being grossly in error.

The metric for predictions is not 12 hours however. In the US, most cities have a 72 hour minimum for evacuation in the event of a hurricane. That means the 3+ day predictions have to be accurate and they frequently are not. Certainly not accurate enough for a city government to accept the cost and disruption of an evacuation with 72+ hours to go. Katrina was a perfect example.

**********
But the original point was that if the climate world with perfect data cannot predict hurricanes reliably, then why would they be able to predict the global climate with very limited data and no truth source to validate their simulation?

Multiple simulations can generate the same result, but that doesn't mean it is the correct result. Science isn't a majority rules game.

Also, being an aero expert, I can go to the lab and run a CFD simulation that tells me the pressure at any point inside a jet engine, taking into account the atmosphere, angle of attack at the inlet, turbulent flow due to the aircraft airframe, mutiple engine stages, throttle changes, ice build up, an on and on. It can predict the temperature and pressure at any point on a turbine blade spinning at thousands of rpm. Its a hugely complicated simulation with more variables than any hurricane model.

Or using a city simulation, the wind pressure on any window in the city can be calculated (thats how architects know how strong a building needs to be and they meet building codes). Think about how varied and complicated a city can be with multiple elevations, rivers, highways, green spaces. The air flow through a city changes based on day/night, cloud cover, and even is influenced by rush hour traffic through 10 lane highways. Far more complicated than a climate model or hurricane model.

Why aren't the climate and hurricane models as accurate? Same computers, same technology, equally smart people, with hurricanes they have plenty of data. The understanding is lacking. The science isn't there.

 

The link that is embedded in the IMG coding for the board. The one that shows up when you hit "quote" the one that is showing in my post because I quoted Windigo and disabled the activation of the code that would have caused it to show as an image - you know I would not have thought I had to be THAT descriptive
As for my pic - beautiful illustration of how denialists will claim everything else is causing global warming BUT CO2

 

Specifically, this blog:

http://c3headlines.typepad.com

That's a fine illustration of how denialism almost always goes hand-in-hand with right-wing hysteria, demonstrating how denialism is almost entirely a political movement, as opposed to a scientific movement like climate science.

Scafetta is referred to as the father of climastrology. His thing is trying to find correlations between planetary alignments and warming, without showing any mechanism for why such a correlation exists. That's similar to how astrology works. His graph has major problems. It uses the wrong baseline, the wrong data set, the wrong uncertainty. When these are corrected, it looks like this.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/ScafettaWidgetRevised.png

Dang. Fix Scafetta's errors, and the IPCC now looks really good.

 

Becasue the IPCC graph is based on the CRU data set. If you are going to blame someone blame the IPCC. Of course I dont' know what you would blame them for. Even the GISS admits that CRU is better than theirs becasue CRU has more coverage in the arctic.

"Limited measurements in the arctic"? So what you are saying is that the GISS has more arctic stations than CRU? Is that what you are arguing? Because I would hate for posters on this board to see that you like to lie by omission. Please tell me that you mean that the GISS has has more arctic stations. Otherwise I would have to say that you are lying by omission to create a false impression. Now that wouldn't be very upfront would it? So please tell me that you mean the the GISS has more acritc station than CRU. I would have for other members on this board ot have to come to the conclusions that you tried to mislead them with cleaver omission.

Sadly for you the GISS is not the standard used by the IPCC or really anyone else of consequence for that matter, the CRU is.

I'm not the one cherry picking here. You are. The IPCC climate model and forecast is all based on CRU not GISS. If you go to the CMIP3(the ipcc model) website looking for data it will direct you to pull the temperature record from CRU. You are clearly the one cherry picking.

 

All of which has happened before.

Only if he swallows the AGW Kool-Aid.

 

OK, so you admit that you lied when you claimed Windigo linked to a blog.

No, it is a beautiful illustration of how La Carbonostra has turned a bald and quite juvenile post hoc fallacy into global hysteria.

 

Whereas La Carbonostra's thing is trying to concoct mechanisms to rationalize the lack of observed correlations that fit its hypothesis.

No, that's a flat-out lie from you.

Yep: it proves La Carbonostra is a scam.

"Wrong" because they show up La Carbonostra's massive failure to account for the last decade of no warming.

No, actually, it doesn't.

 

I'm sorry. Did I point out you're a brainless suckup to charlatans? I'll ... keep doing that, because it's funny to watch you stomp your widdle foot.

Denialists tend to be fairly predictable political cranks. They know next to nothing about the physics, statistics, history, or anything concerning this issue, but they do know how to go attack poodle on command. If nothing else, they're loyal lapdogs, and when master orders them to attack, you'll see some truly fearsome yipping and ankle biting.

 

Check my posting history.

I studied physics, chemistry, geophysics (including atmospheric physics), astronomy and statistics at an internationally respected university.

<yawn>

 

They know next to nothing about the physics, statistics, history, or anything concerning this issue,

Physics: I have a BS in engineering and I am an registered professional engineer - both of which required me to know a very great deal about physics. BTW my GPA was 3.78 - I never got a "C" or less in any course ever. I have also read quite a number of books by noted physicists. On my desk as we speak is Michio Kaku's "Physics of the Impossible".

Statistics: besides the obvious with the engineering degree I am a certified Master Black Belt in Six Sigma problem solving methodology (look it up).

History: you have me there, what has it to do with AGW??

or anything concerning this issue: My dear friend I was our company's officer for the Chicago Climate Exchange on which we traded carbon credits, until Gore, Strong and the other members of the "Board" took their millions out and shut it down......... I have made presentations on the subject at universities and and gov't meetings (would you like to see my PPT's?) and have attended conferences with senators, congressmen, and climatologists. I actually had lunch with a well know "alarmists" form Colorado Sate (I forget his name) at one.
I also have an MBA and am a member of the national honor society in economics which is why I know most alarmist "plans" to get rid of CO2 are economic disaster.

I actually think I have a reasonable background.....

What about you??

 

Actually, it doesn't. A BS in engineering teaches you little about physics, and pretty much nothing about the statistics which are the heart of the issue. A degree in psychology would be more useful, since it focuses so much on statistics. A lot of engineers just don't understand that they are not scientists. I'm an engineer with a very strong physics and statistics minor, so at least I understand just how little I know on those topics compared to the scientists.

No need. Having suffered through more than enough Six Sigma, I am quite aware of how corporate-PC it is. Defect reduction and process improvement aren't anything new. You don't need the Six Sigma cult to occasionally step back and look at your overall system. And the statistics used in Six Sigma are of the "well, let's have untrained people count some things", very basic stuff.

I suppose Six Sigma could be useful, but in practice it's almost always implemented poorly. Everyone gets a week-long crash course, and then is told to get on with the dreaded "Six Sigma Project." And off people go, trying to look good to the boss by using Six Sigma to magically solve some insignificant problem. Formerly it would have gotten solved in a day, but now it takes a couple months because we have to use those precious Six Sigma principles, where the statistics are gathered, put in the various tracking spreadsheets, placed in various PowerPoint presentations, studied by committees, and so on.

You'd understand the political origin of the denialists, and the non-political nature of the mainstream science.

Ah, you "know". Then you should be able to explain, for example, why pollution credits have worked so well, or why the carbon trading in the northeast USA has worked so well. Why weren't those economic disasters?

Much the same, but I have the advantage of being politically neutral. Your side, however, is required by your politics to conclude that global warming science is a socialist conspiracy, and thus you have to work so hard at cherry picking to support that predetermined conclusion.

By the way, how do you square your claims of intelligence with the shocking lack of common sense and ethical behavior we see from you here? You've repeated baseless conspiracy theories about DDT. You've started a threat based on the moron premise that you can't argue for CO2 reduction unless you live in a cave. You've gotten most everything on the hockey stick completely wrong. Instead of honestly discussing issues, you fling insults at environmentalists and make up crazy stories about what they supposedly believe. If you can argue science, then just do it, instead of exploding in rage at the dirty liberals. That kind of gives away your real agenda.

 

Lean Six Sigma Black Belts? The primary candidates for LSS "Black Belt" training are typically "problem children" who program managers don't want to touch!

Got a "problem child" who PM's don't want to have sucking away their precious project funding, but who has done a good enough job brown-nosing senior management to avoid getting laid off? Then management needs to find a creative way to bury his/her hourly labor costs in corporate overhead. And LSS is one of the favorite ways to do that.

LSS "black belts" are better referred to as LSS "brown nosers".

 

Thing about being anonymous is that one can claim ANYTHING so I never believe claims

Instead I look to evidence - can they critique a science paper? Can they use academic style referencing? Can they even tell the difference between a blog and a research paper

 

Great, we seem to be on the same page as far as background and so forth....

You summed up our differences in the final paragraph:

By the way, how do you square your claims of intelligence with the shocking lack of common sense and ethical behavior we see from you here? You've repeated baseless conspiracy theories about DDT. You've started a threat based on the moron premise that you can't argue for CO2 reduction unless you live in a cave. You've gotten most everything on the hockey stick completely wrong. Instead of honestly discussing issues, you fling insults at environmentalists and make up crazy stories about what they supposedly believe. If you can argue science, then just do it, instead of exploding in rage at the dirty liberals. That kind of gives away your real agenda.

One at a time:

You've repeated baseless conspiracy theories about DDT. No, I have repeated documented facts, even the EPA admin at the time has publicly admitted to his wrongdoing. You are the one showing a lack of intelligence and extreme political brainwashing.

You've started a threat based on the moron premise that you can't argue for CO2 reduction unless you live in a cave. No I said you are a hypocrite if you argue for ELIMINATION of fossil fuels ASAP and you still use them by running you power all day. Do you do that???

You've gotten most everything on the hockey stick completely wrong. Indeed....they YOU explain why because there is a hockey stick now and there have been hundreds (or millions depending on your scope) in the past that this one is reason for concern.......I'm waiting.....

you fling insults at environmentalists and make up crazy stories about what they supposedly believe. I have met many crazy ones......"environmentalists" who believe electricity comes from the wall and that wind and solar can provide all the power we need. I have actually read a proposal by "environmentalists" that says we can all plug in out electric cars at home and make a huge national "battery" to store solar power for the evening. These people are idiots..... They deserve to be insulted and I shall continue to do so at my leisure.

If you can argue science, then just do it, instead of exploding in rage at the dirty liberals. I shall do both.

That kind of gives away your real agenda. My agenda is stopping your agenda......its working too. Find another way to begin social change and wealth-redistribution. You all have gone so far over the edge even the less educated voters realize its a scam now.

 

Sounds like you work(ed) for a really sh***y company....I suggest you change.

 

No you pointed to yet another bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claim by skepticalscience which is the warmmongers little sandbox where they can play never worried about getting questioned in the comments because the moderate every post. Anytyhing that comes from skepticalscinece cant by definition be trusted because it is not a free and open forum. He could be flat out wrong and you wouldn't know it because any comment confirming such isn't allowed past moderation.

In this case as is usually the case the argument is bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Svalgaard essentially argues that he can widen the error bounds beyond the IPCC's error bounds by employing a 2 sigma envelope instead of a 1 sigma. This is really just an attempt to fool the reader who is too stupid to know that 1 sigma is standard and the same envelope used by the IPCC. All Svalgaard is saying is that if you use a huge error bound then the model is validated. Only a total fool would fall for this. Had he posted such a thing at climateaudit where the discussion is free and open he would have been laughed off the internet.

As for his model not being able to go back melenia he clearly stated in his paper that it wasn't for such a purpose. His argument is that short decadial oscillations are controlled by other factors than millennial ossification. The argument is just an attempt to fool the ignorant. Svalgaard is assuming that the dumb reader of his articles have never read the paper nor does he expect you ever will.

 

Poor explanation on my part. GISS extrapolates to get data for the arctic. CRU leaves out data for which there are no stations.

As to the observations out of the cone, it looks like the last three months, April, May and June will give quite a bump upwards to the observations.

 

Leaves out data? How do you leave out data for which there is none?

 

Then you might want to document them. For once. Should be easy if you have such solid documentation.

Wiki, just as one example, disagrees with you. Anyone interested can just read the wiki article on DDT, for one source, so I won't bother linking to it. There are many others. But let me guess. Wiki and all of mainstream sources are part of the liberal conspiracy, and your crank website has the real truth.

And since essentially no such people exist, that kind of explained why no one was really interested in discussing such a dishonest strawman.

I'm waiting for you to write a sentence that makes sense. In general, your logic stinks. You don't use logic. You fling out various unrelated factoids and then draw some bizarre unsupported conclusion from them.

Of course you will. After all, you're incapable of addressing any real liberals or environmentalists, and constantly raging only at a few nutcases gives you an excuse to evade the real issues.

According to your idiot conspiracy theory, pretty much everyone on the planet except a tiny fringe of right-wing extremists in the English-speaking nations is actually a socialist. Given you believe something so insanely stupid, why should anyone take you seriously?

 

Denialist are on the fringe. Just like the Creationist and the Flat Earthers and the people that think man did not land on the Moon.

Even though the evidence is overwheming and EVERY legitimate scientific society IN THE WORLD supports AGW, the denialist will still argue from an unsuportable and unsutainable position.

I heard something on talk radio today that puts it in perspective..."If the Envirormentalist allowed logging in Colorado Public Lands there would be no forest fires!".

Now this makes sense...no trees...no forest fires...at least not on public lands.

 

"I think the reaction to Fukushima was a turning point. It meant to me at least that it's almost probably pointless to support nuclear now. The opposition to it now is just too powerful..." James Lovelock.

 

I may need to clarify so i quoted my own post.

I am against clearcutting public lands. I just thought the talk show host was ridiculous to the point of being funny.

His solution to forest fires was to cut down all the trees.

A little controlled burning at the proper time may cut down on forest fires however.

That was the way the natives did it hundreds of years ago.