brenthutch 444 #26 February 20, 2013 you persist in the whole "peer reviewed gold standard" while simultaneously you rail against peer reviewed science that you don't agree with. Tells me all I need to know about your intellectual gravitas. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #27 February 20, 2013 Quoteyou persist in the whole "peer reviewed gold standard" while simultaneously you rail against peer reviewed science that you don't agree with. Tells me all I need to know about your intellectual gravitas. Lying doesn't help you make a case. If you want to find the consensus opinion of climate scientists, who would you survey if not those "most actively publishing in the field" of climate science? Perhaps you'd like to survey oil and coal company executives and their shills instead.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #28 February 20, 2013 QuoteQuoteyou persist in the whole "peer reviewed gold standard" while simultaneously you rail against peer reviewed science that you don't agree with. Tells me all I need to know about your intellectual gravitas. Lying doesn't help you make a case. If you want to find the consensus opinion of climate scientists, who would you survey if not those "most actively publishing in the field" of climate science? Perhaps you'd like to survey oil and coal company executives and their shills instead. How about this guy? The modelling community and the IPCC have both recognized that they have a problem. For example both Hansen and Trenberth have been looking for the missing heat and generating epicycle type theories to preserve their models.Hansen thinks it might have something to do with aerosols and Trenberth first wanted to hide it down the deep ocean black hole. Death Train Hansen is a lost cause as far as objective science is concerned but Trenberth has always been a more objective and judicious scientist and has recently made excellent progress in discovering a real negative feedback in the system. see http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outreach/proceedings/cdw31_proceedings/S6_05_Kevin_Trenberth_NCAR.ppt CONCLUSION: Trenberth’s latest work implies that when it is incorporated into the climate models the entire CAGW scare will collapse. The only effect of increasing CO2 will be to ameliorate slightly the coming cold temperature trend and to help world food production by its fertilizing effect on crops. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #29 February 20, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteyou persist in the whole "peer reviewed gold standard" while simultaneously you rail against peer reviewed science that you don't agree with. Tells me all I need to know about your intellectual gravitas. Lying doesn't help you make a case. If you want to find the consensus opinion of climate scientists, who would you survey if not those "most actively publishing in the field" of climate science? Perhaps you'd like to survey oil and coal company executives and their shills instead. How about this guy? The modelling community and the IPCC have both recognized that they have a problem. For example both Hansen and Trenberth have been looking for the missing heat and generating epicycle type theories to preserve their models.Hansen thinks it might have something to do with aerosols and Trenberth first wanted to hide it down the deep ocean black hole. Death Train Hansen is a lost cause as far as objective science is concerned but Trenberth has always been a more objective and judicious scientist and has recently made excellent progress in discovering a real negative feedback in the system. see http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outreach/proceedings/cdw31_proceedings/S6_05_Kevin_Trenberth_NCAR.ppt CONCLUSION: Trenberth’s latest work implies that when it is incorporated into the climate models the entire CAGW scare will collapse. The only effect of increasing CO2 will be to ameliorate slightly the coming cold temperature trend and to help world food production by its fertilizing effect on crops. That most certainly is NOT the conclusion in the link you provided.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #30 February 20, 2013 Shortened thread titles "Biden is a Complete Idiot" "New Research Blows" "MN Lawmakers Drop" "Delight Yourself" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #31 February 20, 2013 What about these guys? "With the limited skills of the models in reproducing the monsoon, the ENSO and ENSO Modoki, it is difficult to reconcile that the teleconnections of a tropical driver can change like that. All this indicates the challenges associated with the limitations of the models in reproducing the variability of the monsoons and ENSO flavors, not to speak of failing in capturing the potential impacts of global warming as they are expected to" http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000301 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #32 February 20, 2013 or these guys http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000301 "This study shows that, since 1979 when outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) observations became reliably available, most of the useful U.S. seasonal weather impact of El Niño events is associated with the few events identified by the behavior of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) over the eastern equatorial Pacific (“OLR–El Niño events”). These events produce composite seasonal regional weather anomalies that are 95% statistically significant and robust (associated with almost all events). Results also show that there are very few statistically significant seasonal weather anomalies, even at the 80% level, associated with the non-OLR–El Niño events." Like AGW Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #33 February 20, 2013 Quoteor these guys http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000301 "This study shows that, since 1979 when outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) observations became reliably available, most of the useful U.S. seasonal weather impact of El Niño events is associated with the few events identified by the behavior of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) over the eastern equatorial Pacific (“OLR–El Niño events”). These events produce composite seasonal regional weather anomalies that are 95% statistically significant and robust (associated with almost all events). Results also show that there are very few statistically significant seasonal weather anomalies, even at the 80% level, associated with the non-OLR–El Niño events." Like AGW Thank you for demonstrating once again your inability to understand scientific literature.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #34 February 21, 2013 I just need to understand this http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/hansen.gif Models do not comport with reality. Thank you very much Professor Piltdown, or to bring it into the modern era, Dr, Cold Fusion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
