[N_Fiddledog]

$1:

The Gap is large and the models are wrong because in their obsession with radiative change they undervalue natural influences on the climate (which might have caused a little cooling recently if it had not been for greenhouse gases); they fancifully imagine that the harmless direct warming from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration – just 1.16 Cº – ought to be tripled by imagined net-positive temperature feedbacks (not one of which can be measured, and which in combination may well be net-negative); they falsely triple the 1.16 Cº direct warming on the basis of a feedback-amplification equation that in its present form has no physical meaning in the real climate (though it nicely explains feedbacks in electronic circuits, for which it was originally devised); they do not model non-radiative transports such as evaporation and convection correctly (for instance, they underestimate the cooling effect of evaporation threefold); they do not take anything like enough account of the measured homeostasis of global temperatures over the past 420,000 years (variation of little more than ±3 Cº, or ±1%, in all that time); they daftly attempt to overcome the Lorentz unpredictability inherent in the mathematically-chaotic climate by using probability distributions (which, however, require more data than straightforward central estimates flanked by error-bars, and are thus even less predictable than simple estimates); they are aligned to one another by “inter-comparison” (which takes them further and further from reality); and they are run by people who fear, rightly, that politicians would lose interest and stop funding them unless they predict catastrophes (and fear that funding will dry up is scarcely a guarantee of high-minded, objective scientific inquiry).

That, in a single hefty paragraph, is why the models are doing such a spectacularly awful job of predicting global temperature – which is surely their key objective. They are not fit for their purpose. They are mere digital masturbation, and have made their operators blind to the truth. The modelers should be de-funded. Or perhaps paid in accordance with the accuracy of their predictions. Sum due to date: $0.00.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/27/t ... more-92466

[stratos]

Zip I will bet you 100 dollars donated to the other persons charity that you can not predict the actual temp for Dec. 26th 2013 within 2 degrees Fahrenheit for Austin Texas USA. I will want it to range from the High to the Low. An example would be the low of 27 and the high of 41 for that date. You can only be 2 degrees off for either one. Thus if it only gets down to 28 you win but if it only goes to 30 I win. I will give you and your science model till Sep. 21 2013 to come up with the correct temp. The temps will not be wind chill factored or any other variable just the true air temp.

You claim that the your model is good science so use it to predict the temp and if you want you can even state if it will snow here or not. Thats not a trick it does snow in Austin some times. Safe money is on that it wont.

As for your attempted bet with bart it was an eronious condition seeing as how the tilit of the earth effects the temp difference between July and Dec far more then any type of Global warming does. So even if your bet had been accepted it would not have proven or disproven the validity of your global warming model. What would prove your model is if they acurately showed what future weather and temps will be. Thus far they all have failed to do so.

One of the factors that many supporters of Global warming forget is that on a whole the earth temps have been going up sense the early 1800's. A mini ice age is part of the cause for both the American and French revolutions. The crop failures of Europe in the late 1700's was in part do to the cooling caused by the mini ice age. These same crop failures are considered factors in the above Revolutions. Sense that time temps around the world have risen in ever incressing numbers, first slowly and in recent times more rapidly, kind of like a car when you step on the gas. Considering we are no where near the high temps that once existed it can be summed up that the earth is only headed back to such temps that existed prior to the last great ice age. What those were is not known but what is known is that Greenland had plam trees and from recently discovered maps Ant-Artica's coast line was ice free.

I look forward to your models attempt at predicting the temp for Austin on the 26th of Dec.

[Lemmy]

Some people really have trouble discerning the difference between climate and weather. And we, sadly, no longer need models. Climate change doesn't need to be proven to us any more because we can look outside and see it.

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

we can look outside and see it.

It's pissing out and 15 C

[stratos]

$1:

And we, sadly, no longer need models. Climate change doesn't need to be proven to us any more because we can look outside and see it.

And sadly people refuse to notice that the warming of the Earth is a natrual part of it's cycle. All we have to do is look at it's long history to see that.

[DrCaleb]

stratos stratos:

Zip I will bet you 100 dollars donated to the other persons charity that you can not predict the actual temp for Dec. 26th 2013 within 2 degrees Fahrenheit for Austin Texas USA.

I look forward to your models attempt at predicting the temp for Austin on the 26th of Dec.

Lemmy Lemmy:

Some people really have trouble discerning the difference between climate and weather. And we, sadly, no longer need models.

Too true. I expect -40c snow in January. That is 'climate'. Sometimes, we get a Chinook wind in January, and it goes up to +10c and all the snow melts. That is 'weather'.

Weather prediction beyond 2 weeks is nearly impossible, even though the fastest computers on Earth are used for just that.

stratos stratos:

$1:

And we, sadly, no longer need models. Climate change doesn't need to be proven to us any more because we can look outside and see it.

And sadly people refuse to notice that the warming of the Earth is a natrual part of it's cycle. All we have to do is look at it's long history to see that.

No one doubts that is true. The only question is; if the warming is accellerating due to man's increase in releasing gasses and particulate into the atmosphere.

We had a story recently that 96% of studies in the last decade conclude that man is indeed contributing to that warming.

[stratos]

$1:

We had a story recently that 96% of studies in the last decage conclude that man is indeed contributing to that warming.

The disagreement is with how much of man's releasing of gasses and particulates are causing this. I'm of the oppinon that we are not a very significant factor to the climate change. Global warming theroist seem to be saying that we are 99% of the cause for climate change.

[Lemmy]

stratos stratos:

The disagreement is with how much of man's releasing of gasses and particulates are causing this. I'm of the oppinon that we are not a very significant factor to the climate change. Global warming theroist seem to be saying that we are 99% of the cause for climate change.

The thing is, there is no disagreement, save with the viewers of FOX news.

[Lemmy]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

It's pissing out and 15 C

Lemmy Lemmy:

some people really have trouble discerning the difference between climate and weather.

[stratos]

$1:

The thing is, there is no disagreement, save with the viewers of FOX news.

Oh so you watch Fox news. I'm sorry.

[N_Fiddledog]

One never needed models to show climate change. The term climate change is redundant. The word climate implies change as it is. It's why you need about 30 years to be considered climate. One 30 yr. term can be compared to another. If they were all the same there would be no need for a time limit.

On this...

$1:

The only question is; if the warming is accellerating due to man's increase in releasing gasses and particulate into the atmosphere.

Actually there has been no warming for about 16 years so it's definitely not accelerating. The question now would be will the warming start up again, or has it peaked? Although you could also ask questions like was it ever dangerous?

$1:

We had a story recently that 96% of studies in the last decage conclude that man is indeed contributing to that warming.

That was a study on studies, and since it concerned consensus, I thought the consensus on that story was it was a heaping load of metaphorical donkey dung.

If we're still not convinced though, here's the most recent discrediting of that nonsense.

http://richardtol.blogspot.co.uk/2013/0 ... or-of.html

[DrCaleb]

Lemmy Lemmy:

stratos stratos:

The disagreement is with how much of man's releasing of gasses and particulates are causing this. I'm of the oppinon that we are not a very significant factor to the climate change. Global warming theroist seem to be saying that we are 99% of the cause for climate change.

The thing is, there is no disagreement, save with the viewers of FOX news.

Exactly. 'Disagreement' is not (as Stratos put it) Science-y. It's an opinion. Opinions are not facts, they are opinions; suppositions, guesses.

Studies are about 'facts', they require no agreement on the part of humans. 96% of studies say that humans contrubute to the acelleration of the natural cycle of warming.

[stratos]

$1:

96% of studies say that humans contrubute to the acelleration of the natural cycle of warming.

And most if not all the studies only show a small field of data gathered over 10-20 years. They then go back 100 years and go OMG we are hotter then then it's all mans fault. When it can be shown that for the last 200+ years that the increase in temp has been happening. So what gases and particulates were being release 200 years ago? If you can not show that the temp increase was caused by gases and particulates back then what makes science so sure that it is the cause now. I'm probably not making my point very well but I hope you get the drift of it.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

If we're still not convinced though, here's the most recent discrediting of that nonsense.

http://richardtol.blogspot.co.uk/2013/0 ... or-of.html

That's not a discrediting. That's one big logical fallicy.

"His refusal to release all data may indicate that more could be wrong with the paper."

No, it doesn't.

"But this undermines the entire paper: It is no longer a survey of the literature, but rather a survey of Mr Cook and his friends."

The Fallicy of uncertaintity?

If everyone who studies the climate is certain, why are people still trying to ramp up that they are not?

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I'm not getting angry at all. I should, becasue between you and Bart you know about Jack Squat about what you're talking about, and I have to constantly listen to you call me an idiot and a liar and a fake.

Like I said, the problem isn't that there's stupid people. The problem is that the stupid people don't know they're stupid.

Then howzabout you take me up on my simple wager and prove how stupid I am by taking my money? Hmmm?