Peer reviewed analysis shows AGW statically insignificant

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

It is on the record that the HAARP facility manipulates the ionosphere

In a miniscule fashion.

Quote

This is believed to change the jet streams and in turn change the weather on our planet.

Believed by tin foil hatters.

Quote

No stupid, carbon is good, oxygen is good, carbon monoxide is no good.

If you produce carbon = good, if you produce oxygen = good but if you produce carbon monoxide = not good.

Pretty darned simple?

Yep - in fact, you've simply illustrated my point.

"Carbon tax" does not refer to taxation of diamonds, lumps of graphite or production of any pure form of carbon - it refers to taxation of carbon-dioxide emissions.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[skiskyrock 0]

from the EU position statement on discussion papers published in EGU open access Journals:

"Discussion papers are proceedings-type publications, comparable to traditional conference proceedings, working papers, preprints/e-prints, etc. (see arXiv.org, Nature Precedings, etc.). Like other proceedings-type publications, discussion papers are citable and permanently archived but are not peer-reviewed."

http://www.egu.eu/about/statements/position-statement-on-the-status-of-discussion-papers-published-in-egu-interactive-open-access-journals/

so, the paper you linked isn't peer reviewed

Here is the link to the accepted version:

http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/3/173/2012/esd-3-173-2012.html

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

from the EU position statement on discussion papers published in EGU open access Journals:

"Discussion papers are proceedings-type publications, comparable to traditional conference proceedings, working papers, preprints/e-prints, etc. (see arXiv.org, Nature Precedings, etc.). Like other proceedings-type publications, discussion papers are citable and permanently archived but are not peer-reviewed."

http://www.egu.eu/about/statements/position-statement-on-the-status-of-discussion-papers-published-in-egu-interactive-open-access-journals/

so, the paper you linked isn't peer reviewed

Ooooh.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,120]

>Nothing alone explains the changes. CO2 alone doesn't.

Agreed. Anthropogenic CO2 is merely the largest forcing. There are a great many other anthropogenic changes which influence our climate to a lesser degree - methane releases, land use changes, albedo changes due to contrails etc.

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

Quote

from the EU position statement on discussion papers published in EGU open access Journals:

"Discussion papers are proceedings-type publications, comparable to traditional conference proceedings, working papers, preprints/e-prints, etc. (see arXiv.org, Nature Precedings, etc.). Like other proceedings-type publications, discussion papers are citable and permanently archived but are not peer-reviewed."

http://www.egu.eu/about/statements/position-statement-on-the-status-of-discussion-papers-published-in-egu-interactive-open-access-journals/

so, the paper you linked isn't peer reviewed

Ooooh.

Ooooh, so the "accepted version" states: "Therefore, greenhouse gas forcing, aerosols, solar irradiance and global temperature are not polynomially cointegrated, and the perceived relationship between these variables is a spurious regression phenomenon." Oh snap! Kallend, did you review the bit about the scientific method?

[Bignugget 0]

Since I am sure you meant to paste the full context of their conclusion and just forgot to paste the second half, Ill help you out

"Therefore, greenhouse gas forcing, aerosols, solar irradiance and global temperature are not polynomially cointegrated, and the perceived relationship between these variables is a spurious regression phenomenon. On the other hand, we find that greenhouse gas forcings might have had a temporary effect on global temperature."

Now I dont know what any of that means, but I just figured you wouldn't want to leave that other hand part out, since you seem like a level headed dude looking for some real discussion.

[brenthutch 444]

"MIGHT have a TEMPORARY effect" did not seem worth the bandwidth. Although thank you for the complement, and the assist.

[billvon 3,120]

=======================
Climate modelling

Nature
December 2012

The latest global climate models produce a 'fingerprint' that aligns well with actual temperature observations, and underscores the human influence on climate through the release of greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting chemicals.

Ben Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California, and his group analysed simulations from 20 climate models at the core of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's fifth assessment, and compared the results with satellite temperature records dating back to 1979. The team found general agreement with observed global-warming patterns, although the models typically overestimate warming in the lower atmosphere while underestimating cooling trends higher up, in the stratosphere. The analysis suggests that climate modellers could improve model performance by incorporating more realistic treatments of ozone chemistry and aerosols.
=========================

[brenthutch 444]

It is easy to model backward, easy and worthless.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

It is easy to model backward, easy and worthless.

History is worthless?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,120]

>It is easy to model backward, easy and worthless.

So models that accurately predict what actually happens are worthless, but guesses from denier websites are rock solid predictions?

[brenthutch 444]

No, models that accurately predict what WILL happen are useful, ones that can predict what HAS happened are useless.

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

No, models that accurately predict what WILL happen are useful, ones that can predict what HAS happened are useless.

Picture this: you have two different models working from the same inputs. Using historical data, one of them produces results that match what we know to have happened, the other one produces results that do not match what we know to have happened.

Using current data, which of these models stands a better chance of reliably predicting what will happen?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,120]

>Using current data, which of these models stands a better chance of reliably predicting
>what will happen?

Whichever one Rush Limbaugh agrees with, of course!

[brenthutch 444]

Nether, climate models keep chasing observations. Remember when snow was a thing of the past? Then we had snow, models were revised, and presto, the climate models account for snow. Models predict drought in Australia, they get floods, models revised, and shazam! models account for floods. I could go on and on, but you get the point. Look, you can’t have it both ways. Climate Models cannot predict where the next flood, drought, hurricane, heat wave, or tornado. However, when we have a flood, drought, hurricane, heat wave, or tornado the warmists claim that is just what the models predicted.

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

Nether, climate models keep chasing observations. Remember when snow was a thing of the past? Then we had snow, models were revised, and presto, the climate models account for snow. Models predict drought in Australia, they get floods, models revised, and shazam! models account for floods. I could go on and on, but you get the point. Look, you can’t have it both ways. Climate Models cannot predict where the next flood, drought, hurricane, heat wave, or tornado. However, when we have a flood, drought, hurricane, heat wave, or tornado the warmists claim that is just what the models predicted.

Pretty much none of what you just said is true. No climate model has ever claimed to be able to predict when or where a specific hurricane or tornado will happen. That's not climate, that's weather - and criticising a climate model for not predicting the weather is absurd.

Looks like you have failed to heed your own warning, hmm?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Quote

Climate Models cannot predict where the next flood, drought, hurricane, heat wave, or tornado. However, when we have a flood, drought, hurricane, heat wave, or tornado the warmists claim that is just what the models predicted.

Leaving aside the issue that you aren't even thinking in complete sentences, climate models have never been designed to predict exactly when or where the next flood or hurricane will occur. They are intended to predict the probability or frequency with which such events will occur, which is not at all the same thing. Once again, you create a straw man argument just so you can shoot it down. It might make you feel feel good, but ultimately it's totally unproductive. Mental masturbation, if you will.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[brenthutch 444]

We are told that the drought in the mid-west and Sandy, were just what the climate models predicted. It is noteworthy that these predictions only happen ex post facto.

[ibx 2]

Quote

It is noteworthy that these predictions only happen ex post facto.

I dug up an Article from 2006 to prove that you are wrong ! http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2006/0205-harder_rain_more_snow.htm

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

We are told that the drought in the mid-west and Sandy, were just what the climate models predicted. It is noteworthy that these predictions only happen ex post facto.

It's worth bearing in mind that your interpretation of what news sources tell you that climate models predict may in fact be completely different to what the climate models actually predict.

Hurricane Sandy, as a specific event, is not predicted by any climate model because that's not what climate models do. A current drought, as a specific event, is not predicted by any climate model because that's not what climate models do.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

warmist

You condemn your thread to silly insignificance in the very first sentence of your OP by doing that.

[brenthutch 444]

So insignificant that it sucked you in, hook, line and sinker.

That said, to your point, it reminds me of when I met Michael Mann. He was introduced as "Mr. Global Warming" I could not help to think that his moniker belied the fact that he was more an advocate than a scientist. I, as you elude, am more of a counterpoise, than an impartial jurist.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

So insignificant that it sucked you in, hook, line and sinker.

I will concede the point that your thread sucks.

[brenthutch 444]

you must be related to Shakespeare

[skiskyrock 0]

there is a comment that has been submitted to the same journal. http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/4/219/2013/esdd-4-219-2013.html

the comment is still in review, but it appears that the authors of the original paper didn't understand the data set they were using was composed of data from two different sources, ice ores and direct measurement. When you correct for this you reach the opposite conclusion.