Toronto Passions
Toronto Escorts

Gavin Schmidt, NASA admit their Climate models are running too hot

barnacler

Well-known member
May 13, 2013
1,458
839
113
The Greenhouse Effect was first described in 1824.
There are zero legit scientists who think it doesn't exist or have an effect on the climate.
Only a total scientific ignoramus would make such a claim.
There are many distinguished scientists who think there is some effect, but nothing to get alarmed about.

the greenhouse effect It is just one of many many inputs.

The question is whether or not it is/will have the dramatic effect that the climate hystericists claim.

AND... even if those effects occur to some degree, are we best off accommodating ourselves to the changes, or trying to stop them from occurring, impoverishing ourselves in the process. Human longevity and health and quality of life is correlated to standard of living. So stomping down on the world economy to supposedly suppress climate change IMO is worse than a bit of warming.

There are models (yes, models - your opponents get to use them too, right?) which predict next to no NET negative effects, when you offset the positives with the negatives.

Anyhow, the earth has no CORRECT climate.

And lets get real, this debate is not about saving the earth, that's the fig leaf to disguise what is essentially the imposition of a socialist, authoritarian government on populations around the world, in line with the political leanings of the climate hystericists proposing the whole thing.

That much is crystal clear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ref and JohnLarue

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,609
2,347
113
disguise what is essentially the imposition of a socialist, authoritarian government on populations around the world, in line with the political leanings of the climate hystericists proposing the whole thing.

That much is crystal clear.
that "cure " would be much worst than the supposed disease

The loonies have been pushing the idea of the imposition of a socialist, authoritarian government on populations around the world since 1917 despite the 100 million dead bodies the trial runs created
Having failed to impose this nightmare through the front door via the ballot box, they are now trying to impose it via "climate Change" aka, the moron AOCs abomination "The Green New Deal"
The Gren New Deal was never about climate , it is an attempt to backdoor socialism.

One only has to look at the disingenuous responses of the loonies in this thread to the admission of the model failures to know this not about our constantly changing climate
Not even an acknowledgement the model based propaganda used to intentionally traumatize a whole generation of children, should be toned down or revisited
Absolutely despicable and revolting behavior

If a plan needs to be imposed via stealth and deception, there is something very wrong with it
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
82,093
18,340
113
There are many distinguished scientists who think there is some effect, but nothing to get alarmed about.

the greenhouse effect It is just one of many many inputs.

The question is whether or not it is/will have the dramatic effect that the climate hystericists claim.
There are no distinguished scientists who actually study the climate who say that.
As for dramatic effects, did you miss the billion sea creatures boiled to death during the first heat dome? The 95% of US southwest in drought, Canadian farmers losing crops and selling off cattle?
How about the Siberian fires and the fact that the arctic is now no longer a carbon sink but is now releasing CO2.
Or the drought in the Amazon which has turned that from a carbon sink to a source of more atmospheric CO2?

You have be either clueless or just willingly ignorant to miss the changes this year.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,609
2,347
113
There are many distinguished scientists who think there is some effect, but nothing to get alarmed about.

the greenhouse effect It is just one of many many inputs.

The question is whether or not it is/will have the dramatic effect that the climate hystericists claim.

Agreed . There are lots of very capable scientist i(e Roy Spencer) who are luke warmists
Greenhouse gases do absorb infrared energy. but only at select wavelengths , with water vapor responsible for 90% of the absorption

Roy still gets abused by alarmists....... until these hypocrites think it is convenient to quote him, even after they trash him


These brave scientists are smart enough to know weather events which are sensationalized and hyped by alarmists/ fools , have occurred in the past many times and will very likely occur again
They also know these events are not at all evidence of AGW , despite the efforts of complete and utter fools to push that false narrative
You have to be either clueless or just willingly ignorant to link the two without scientific evidence

yes i do understand it is cruel to toy with a dumb animal
 
Last edited:

barnacler

Well-known member
May 13, 2013
1,458
839
113
There are no distinguished scientists who actually study the climate who say that.
As for dramatic effects, did you miss the billion sea creatures boiled to death during the first heat dome? The 95% of US southwest in drought, Canadian farmers losing crops and selling off cattle?
How about the Siberian fires and the fact that the arctic is now no longer a carbon sink but is now releasing CO2.
Or the drought in the Amazon which has turned that from a carbon sink to a source of more atmospheric CO2?

You have be either clueless or just willingly ignorant to miss the changes this year.
There are dramatic events every year..absolutely nothing new about that.

Record spells in 2021.

there are many distinguished scientists who believe precisely what I just said.

When some of the former top scientists at the IPCC and Greenpeace change their minds, you know that the whole thing is a big of tricks and media scare tactics.

Dr. Leslie Woodcock
Judith Curry
 
Last edited:

barnacler

Well-known member
May 13, 2013
1,458
839
113
Roy Spencer would say you're an idiot for claiming the greenhouse effect isn't legit.
Youour appeal to name-calling and totally unproven statements without a shred of evidence is a hallmark of the hystericist community.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ref

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,609
2,347
113
Youour appeal to name-calling and totally unproven statements without a shred of evidence is a hallmark of the hystericist community.
You can not reason with some people
Logic and truth are irrelevant to them
They arrive preprogrammed to spin left propaganda, almost bot like, except I do not think you can program a bot to be so ridiculous
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
82,093
18,340
113
There are dramatic events every year..absolutely nothing new about that.

Record spells in 2021.

there are many distinguished scientists who believe precisely what I just said.

When some of the former top scientists at the IPCC and Greenpeace change their minds, you know that the whole thing is a big of tricks and media scare tactics.

Dr. Leslie Woodcock
Judith Curry
Judith Curry is paid by the oil industry.
Who is Woodcock?

You got anyone who is actually respected as a researcher?
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
82,093
18,340
113

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
28,723
51,213
113
As opposed to your contribution, which is what again ?
Diddley squat ?
No. I was just making fun of the fact you used "interrupt" instead of "interpret".
I stopped bothering with your climate change posts when you obviously put me on ignore and just kept posting your copied graphs and repeated stock phrases.
Wasn't worth it.


All one hundred models ran too hot, updating in lockstep with each other for years, maybe decades
that is no coincidence
You are more than welcome to offer up an alternative explanation to "group think with benefits"
And you have decided that all 100 models ran hot based on what?
You know that isn't what the report you are crowing about says, right?

Or do you just "deny" that all one hundred in lockstep and all wrong is implausible itself ?
All 100 from multiple countries just happened to make the same mistake ?
Can I sell you a bridge?
Where are these 100 models that ran hot?

Do not lose sight of the fact these models are flawed, unable to predict the future and they can not even replicate the past
Do not lose sight of the fact that you don't actually know what that means in the context of the article you claim to have read.

Do you mean like 100 hundred different models all projecting results which are implausible?
I really want to know where you got these 100 models from.
You do know that in the article from the beginning of the thread it isn't even all the models, right?


And they do not know why
You didn't read anything about this, did you?

I am not a big fan of people who abuse children for personal or political gain
We are back to the "they are traumatizing the children" argument, I see.

Ignorant and arrogant is a real bad combination
You seem really invested in being both, though.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
28,723
51,213
113
You make an interesting conclusion from those details. Most people in the scientific community know that the diverse factors affecting climate are complex and are working to continually improve the modelling. That is how science works.
No no.
It is obvious no scientist has ever considered the uncertainties involved in working with complex models ever before until these people started pointing them out.
It's like how no scientist ever understood the limitations of PCR until the "COVID-19 is a hoax" people pointed them out.
 

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
12,419
1,694
113
Ghawar
No no.
It is obvious no scientist has ever considered the uncertainties involved in working with complex models ever before until these people started pointing them out.
In experimental science uncertainties are associated with measurement
of a quantity. Reading of my thermometer in my living room may have an
uncertainty in the range of 0.02--0.05 deg Celsius. Notwithstanding the
inherent limitation in my instrument I know what the most accurate
measurements of temperatures of boiling water and melting ice are
supposed to be. If needed I can determine if my instrument is reliable.

Based on climate modelling climate scientists told us further increase of
global temperature has to be capped at 1.5 deg by 2030 or something like
that. I have no idea what uncertainties are considered by scientists involved
in working with complex models. To assign an uncertainty to the global
temperature I have to know how it is defined first. Calling it the average or mean
temperature of the surface of Earth is too vague for me to figure out what its
magnitude of its uncertainty is like. We don't have to worry about uncertainty of
the temperature of GTA because a minor variation of local temp doesn't
really matter. But if for some reason we want to know what it is
we can expect that the daily average temperature of GTA that includes the
effect of the measured temperature as well as the temperature you feel
would most likely more uncertain than the temperature reading
taken from my thermometer. Try imagine if you can measure yearly average
or mean temperature inside Al Gore's mansion. You have to monitor temperature
in each and every room and in the backyard as well as the area near the swimming
pool. Assuming you obtain an temperature accurate to within 1.5 deg then try
imagine you proceed to measure mean or average temperature of the earth.
You have to monitor temperature variation across the globe from the North Pole
to Antarctica. Based on what you learned from practical science from high
school do you think your measurement will be accurate to within 1.5 deg?
As a scientist myself and like you I am inclined to believe climate scientists
have considered the uncertainties associated with global temperature. But
I have no idea who those scientists are. To this day I am still trying to dig out
from literature what the exact definition of global temperature is and how
or whether its uncertainties are determined.

It's like how no scientist ever understood the limitations of PCR until the "COVID-19 is a hoax" people pointed them out.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
82,093
18,340
113
No. I was just making fun of the fact you used "interrupt" instead of "interpret".
I stopped bothering with your climate change posts when you obviously put me on ignore and just kept posting your copied graphs and repeated stock phrases.
Wasn't worth it.
larue can't debate, all he can do is repeat decades old right wing talking points and oil company propaganda.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
82,093
18,340
113
In experimental science uncertainties are associated with measurement
of a quantity. Reading of my thermometer in my living room may have an
uncertainty in the range of 0.02--0.05 deg Celsius. Notwithstanding the
inherent limitation in my instrument I know what the most accurate
measurements of temperatures of boiling water and melting ice are
supposed to be. If needed I can determine if my instrument is reliable.

Based on climate modelling climate scientists told us further increase of
global temperature has to be capped at 1.5 deg by 2030 or something like
that. I have no idea what uncertainties are considered by scientists involved
in working with complex models. To assign an uncertainty to the global
temperature I have to know how it is defined first. Calling it the average or mean
temperature of the surface of Earth is too vague for me to figure out what its
magnitude of its uncertainty is like. We don't have to worry about uncertainty of
the temperature of GTA because a minor variation of local temp doesn't
really matter. But if for some reason we want to know what it is
we can expect that the daily average temperature of GTA that includes the
effect of the measured temperature as well as the temperature you feel
would most likely more uncertain than the temperature reading
taken from my thermometer. Try imagine if you can measure yearly average
or mean temperature inside Al Gore's mansion. You have to monitor temperature
in each and every room and in the backyard as well as the area near the swimming
pool. Assuming you obtain an temperature accurate to within 1.5 deg then try
imagine you proceed to measure mean or average temperature of the earth.
You have to monitor temperature variation across the globe from the North Pole
to Antarctica. Based on what you learned from practical science from high
school do you think your measurement will be accurate to within 1.5 deg?
As a scientist myself and like you I am inclined to believe climate scientists
have considered the uncertainties associated with global temperature. But
I have no idea who those scientists are. To this day I am still trying to dig out
from literature what the exact definition of global temperature is and how
or whether its uncertainties are determined.
Just because its too hard for you to understand doesn't mean smarter people can't handle it.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,609
2,347
113
So the IPCC will put out a summary report on Monday
What do you think they will say about the models which the modelers just admitted are flawed?
The same modals which are the basis for all their doom and gloom catastrophic projections / propaganda

What are the chances they say " oops..... never mind " ?

This will be a credibility test
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
82,093
18,340
113
So the IPCC will put out a summary report on Monday
What do you think they will say about the models which the modelers just admitted are flawed?
The same modals which are the basis for all their doom and gloom catastrophic projections / propaganda

What are the chances they say " oops..... never mind " ?

This will be a credibility test

Hansen was about as accurate as Exxon and Shell's scientists, all who did quite well at projecting without the use of models.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts