The effects of warming: Kilodeaths

[skepticalbip]

Typically cultist post. Ever hear of Prof Tim Ball? How about the co founder of Greenpeace Patrick Moore? Unlike most people in the climate industry who depend on government grants, or work to reach a pre arranged climate model, people like those employed by the IPCC which is wholly funded by the UN. Which climatologist is going to commit a career suicide by exposing the whole thing as a charade?

Clearly your problem with climate science runs deeper than a couple of predictions. You've accused scientists of incompetence and deceit, and the UN of political interference. You're also unable to distinguish between climate scientists, political activists, and media pundits. You're not making any apparent effort to understand what the science actually says--even to argue against it. As far as evidence, you've just been citing the articles and videos that come up in web searches for "failed climate predictions". You certainly don't read or watch the things you post because they contradict each other and your own opinions, some of which are downright wacky. It's just slinging shit hoping for something to stick.


If I had to choose one thing that I think would convince someone that climate science is trustworthy, I would point to the fact that climate models have consistently made accurate predictions about the future climate.

Here's how you test that:
1. You take predictions from a published paper.
2. You take the CO₂ and temperature measurements.
3. You see if they line up.

As Zeke Hausfather shows, they do.

If you believe that the IPCC made a fake "pre arranged climate model" (whatever the fuck that means), or if you think that computer models are, by their very nature, suspect, then you have to explain why the models actually work.

The problem with the "climate debate" (the bull shit carried out in the media) is that neither side in the general public actually know shit about climate science or actually read (or be able to understand) the real research papers. They both depend on activists' presentations and interpretations. It has become a religion for many.

Is there global warming. Hell yes. Global temperatures have risen (with pauses and two periods of about 20 years each of decreasing temperatures) since the depths of the 'little ice age' in the early 1800s.

For instance, here is a recent graph from NOAA showing global temperature since 1880: (from https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth’s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade)

 

[Jokodo]

Typically cultist post. Ever hear of Prof Tim Ball? How about the co founder of Greenpeace Patrick Moore? Unlike most people in the climate industry who depend on government grants, or work to reach a pre arranged climate model, people like those employed by the IPCC which is wholly funded by the UN. Which climatologist is going to commit a career suicide by exposing the whole thing as a charade?

Clearly your problem with climate science runs deeper than a couple of predictions. You've accused scientists of incompetence and deceit, and the UN of political interference. You're also unable to distinguish between climate scientists, political activists, and media pundits. You're not making any apparent effort to understand what the science actually says--even to argue against it. As far as evidence, you've just been citing the articles and videos that come up in web searches for "failed climate predictions". You certainly don't read or watch the things you post because they contradict each other and your own opinions, some of which are downright wacky. It's just slinging shit hoping for something to stick.


If I had to choose one thing that I think would convince someone that climate science is trustworthy, I would point to the fact that climate models have consistently made accurate predictions about the future climate.

Here's how you test that:
1. You take predictions from a published paper.
2. You take the CO₂ and temperature measurements.
3. You see if they line up.

As Zeke Hausfather shows, they do.

If you believe that the IPCC made a fake "pre arranged climate model" (whatever the fuck that means), or if you think that computer models are, by their very nature, suspect, then you have to explain why the models actually work.

The problem with the "climate debate" (the bull shit carried out in the media) is that neither side in the general public actually know shit about climate science or actually read (or be able to understand) the real research papers. They both depend on activists' presentations and interpretations. It has become a religion for many.

Is there global warming. Hell yes. Global temperatures have risen (with pauses and two periods of about 20 years each of decreasing temperatures) since the depths of the 'little ice age' in the early 1800s.

For instance, here is a recent graph from NOAA showing global temperature since 1880: (from https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth’s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade)

View attachment 24474

Pretending we know nothing doesn't make it so. We actually have a pretty good understanding if when, how and why temperatures have risen. Only the where is still a headache to model.

 

[angelo]

Typically cultist post. Ever hear of Prof Tim Ball? How about the co founder of Greenpeace Patrick Moore? Unlike most people in the climate industry who depend on government grants, or work to reach a pre arranged climate model, people like those employed by the IPCC which is wholly funded by the UN. Which climatologist is going to commit a career suicide by exposing the whole thing as a charade?

Clearly your problem with climate science runs deeper than a couple of predictions. You've accused scientists of incompetence and deceit, and the UN of political interference. You're also unable to distinguish between climate scientists, political activists, and media pundits. You're not making any apparent effort to understand what the science actually says--even to argue against it. As far as evidence, you've just been citing the articles and videos that come up in web searches for "failed climate predictions". You certainly don't read or watch the things you post because they contradict each other and your own opinions, some of which are downright wacky. It's just slinging shit hoping for something to stick.


If I had to choose one thing that I think would convince someone that climate science is trustworthy, I would point to the fact that climate models have consistently made accurate predictions about the future climate.

Here's how you test that:
1. You take predictions from a published paper.
2. You take the CO₂ and temperature measurements.
3. You see if they line up.

As Zeke Hausfather shows, they do.

If you believe that the IPCC made a fake "pre arranged climate model" (whatever the fuck that means), or if you think that computer models are, by their very nature, suspect, then you have to explain why the models actually work.

The IPCC kept using the discredited " hockey stitch " even after it was proven that Michael Mann fudged, or removed the medieval warming in the graph and to greatly overstate global warming after 2000. That's a proven fact not something stitched up by Mr Tim Ball and many others.

 

[angelo]

The problem with the "climate debate" (the bull shit carried out in the media) is that neither side in the general public actually know shit about climate science or actually read (or be able to understand) the real research papers. They both depend on activists' presentations and interpretations. It has become a religion for many.

Is there global warming. Hell yes. Global temperatures have risen (with pauses and two periods of about 20 years each of decreasing temperatures) since the depths of the 'little ice age' in the early 1800s.

For instance, here is a recent graph from NOAA showing global temperature since 1880: (from https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth’s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade)

View attachment 24474

Pretending we know nothing doesn't make it so. We actually have a pretty good understanding if when, how and why temperatures have risen. Only the where is still a headache to model.

You without realizing it , or in ignorance just admitted what the argument is all about. Modeling. I could input anything into my pc to get a desired outcome!

 

[angelo]

And add this as well......NASA admits it's the sun stupid....................https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-08...FqkX86s3FI0TMhASxeBX0EJFuzB93wP0wB9J7asKRXLs0

More garbage.

You're insinuating that what Warmists and alarmists have depended on for decades to bolster their evidence from NASA of GW/CC/CD as " proof" positive is garbage all of a sudden?

 

[Jokodo]

The problem with the "climate debate" (the bull shit carried out in the media) is that neither side in the general public actually know shit about climate science or actually read (or be able to understand) the real research papers. They both depend on activists' presentations and interpretations. It has become a religion for many.

Is there global warming. Hell yes. Global temperatures have risen (with pauses and two periods of about 20 years each of decreasing temperatures) since the depths of the 'little ice age' in the early 1800s.

For instance, here is a recent graph from NOAA showing global temperature since 1880: (from https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth’s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade)

View attachment 24474

Pretending we know nothing doesn't make it so. We actually have a pretty good understanding if when, how and why temperatures have risen. Only the where is still a headache to model.

You without realizing it , or in ignorance just admitted what the argument is all about. Modeling. I could input anything into my pc to get a desired outcome!

I don't think you know what a model is.

 

[bigfield]

The IPCC kept using the discredited " hockey stitch " even after it was proven that Michael Mann fudged, or removed the medieval warming in the graph and to greatly overstate global warming after 2000. That's a proven fact not something stitched up by Mr Tim Ball and many others.

You clearly don;t have a clue what you're talking about, and you just make yourself look like an idiot when you use stupid nicknames for things.

Firstly, Mann didn't fudge or remove the MWP. You're just repeating a bullshit accusation that you don't understand. Calling it a "proven fact" is just asinine ignorance.

Secondly, MBH1998 didn't overstate 21st century warming at all. This is because (a) it fucking stops before the 21st century, and (b) the real-life temperature record shows that the temperature is in fact climbing dramatically:

The graph below shows several more recent reconstructions, combined with actual temperature measurements for recent years:

Global temperatures have gone far beyond even the highest estimates for the Medieval Warm Period, and is climbing extremely quickly. We don't need to rely on models to know that; it's 2019 and we've got decades of real-life, fair-dinkum temperature measurements to prove it, before and after the turn of the millennium.

 

[bigfield]

You without realizing it , or in ignorance just admitted what the argument is all about. Modeling. I could input anything into my pc to get a desired outcome!

Jokodo nailed it: you've just got no clue how modelling works.

 

[bigfield]

And add this as well......NASA admits it's the sun stupid....................https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-08...FqkX86s3FI0TMhASxeBX0EJFuzB93wP0wB9J7asKRXLs0

More garbage.

You're insinuating that what Warmists and alarmists have depended on for decades to bolster their evidence from NASA of GW/CC/CD as " proof" positive is garbage all of a sudden?

Raving, incoherent garbage.

 

[fromderinside]

WRONG! Declarative, but, wrong. Hard to contest evidence free declarative.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The IPCC kept using the discredited " hockey stitch " even after it was proven that Michael Mann fudged, or removed the medieval warming in the graph and to greatly overstate global warming after 2000. That's a proven fact not something stitched up by Mr Tim Ball and many others.

Keeping bringing up already-discredited things doesn't do anything to help your position.

That "medieval warming" was Europe, not the world.

And what's fudged (mostly by cherry-picking) is the data from the deniers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And add this as well......NASA admits it's the sun stupid....................https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-08...FqkX86s3FI0TMhASxeBX0EJFuzB93wP0wB9J7asKRXLs0

More garbage.

You're insinuating that what Warmists and alarmists have depended on for decades to bolster their evidence from NASA of GW/CC/CD as " proof" positive is garbage all of a sudden?

He's calling Natural News garbage.

 

[angelo]

You without realizing it , or in ignorance just admitted what the argument is all about. Modeling. I could input anything into my pc to get a desired outcome!

Jokodo nailed it: you've just got no clue how modelling works.

Do you have any idea how a model say, a Stuka plane is put together?

Further, here's another theory of climate.

https://theconversation.com/amp/new...red-an-abrupt-climate-change-for-earth-118244

 

[bigfield]

You without realizing it , or in ignorance just admitted what the argument is all about. Modeling. I could input anything into my pc to get a desired outcome!

Jokodo nailed it: you've just got no clue how modelling works.

Do you have any idea how a model say, a Stuka plane is put together?

Sure.

I have to admit, I'm curious about where your argument is going to lead.

Further, here's another theory of climate.

https://theconversation.com/amp/new...red-an-abrupt-climate-change-for-earth-118244

A hypothesis proposing that a asteroid or comet impact contributed to the Younger Dryas cooling.

How exactly do you think this relate to current climate change?

 

[angelo]

The IPCC kept using the discredited " hockey stitch " even after it was proven that Michael Mann fudged, or removed the medieval warming in the graph and to greatly overstate global warming after 2000. That's a proven fact not something stitched up by Mr Tim Ball and many others.

Keeping bringing up already-discredited things doesn't do anything to help your position.

That "medieval warming" was Europe, not the world.

And what's fudged (mostly by cherry-picking) is the data from the deniers.

Europe isn't located in a bubble and it's a fact the world isn't flat. Also. The warming lasted around 400 years, not a few weeks.

 

[angelo]

Do you have any idea how a model say, a Stuka plane is put together?

Sure.

I have to admit, I'm curious about where your argument is going to lead.

Further, here's another theory of climate.

https://theconversation.com/amp/new...red-an-abrupt-climate-change-for-earth-118244

A hypothesis proposing that a asteroid or comet impact contributed to the Younger Dryas cooling.

How exactly do you think this relate to current climate change?

I understand that you're trying o bait me. But if you have looked at most of my posts you'd have seen my insistence that GW/CC/CD is a natural part of climate throughout Earth's history. There have been periods when CO2 levels have been as much as 2000 ppm, long before the appearance of fossil fuels using homo sapiens!

 

[Jokodo]

You without realizing it , or in ignorance just admitted what the argument is all about. Modeling. I could input anything into my pc to get a desired outcome!

Jokodo nailed it: you've just got no clue how modelling works.

Do you have any idea how a model say, a Stuka plane is put together?

You think you have nailed this, right? "I don't know shit about science, but I've heard the word 'model' before, as in 'model airplane' and 'bikini model'. Let's change the topic to airplanes and bikinis before they notice."

Further, here's another theory of climate.

https://theconversation.com/amp/new...red-an-abrupt-climate-change-for-earth-118244

That's not "another theory". It's a calculation based on the same kind of knowledge that goes into modelling current and near future climate, about relevant factors and their relative weight and feedback loops, showing that their is a good fit between the expected effects of such a meteorite impact and what we actually observe (through proxies) in the archaeological record.

It is, in other words, a (claimed) confirmation of a hypothesis formed within the very theory you're disputing and makes zero sense outside of it.

 

[angelo]

Modeling is rubbish imputed into a computer and the computer outputting the same rubbish as was imputed.

In a simpler way of putting it. Rubbish in rubbish out.

 

[Jokodo]

Modeling is rubbish imputed into a computer and the computer outputting the same rubbish as was imputed.

In a simpler way of putting it. Rubbish in rubbish out.

Just saying "I don't know shit" would have saved you a lot if typing.

 

[bigfield]

I understand that you're trying o bait me.

Well, your post was basically "model aeroplanes and climate models are the same thing". You can't blame me for wanting to see how far that brainfart could waft.

But if you have looked at most of my posts you'd have seen my insistence that GW/CC/CD is a natural part of climate throughout Earth's history. There have been periods when CO2 levels have been as much as 2000 ppm, long before the appearance of fossil fuels using homo sapiens!

I agree with all of that, and so would every climate scientist, I expect.

However your factoids need some context:
- CO2 levels have sometimes been very high, but this was balanced out by the fact that the sun used to be weaker.
- CO2 levels have been extremely high, and sometimes this has coincided with extremely high temperatures and mass extinctions such as the Great Dying.
- Our current rapid climate change is not "natural". It's driven by human activity. We know this for certain because the science accounted for pretty much every significant source of forcing, including the sun.

Modeling is rubbish imputed into a computer and the computer outputting the same rubbish as was imputed.

In a simpler way of putting it. Rubbish in rubbish out.

Nah I want to hear the rest of the model Stuka argument.