Im calling it. Fess up already . No more pseudo science. Work together or forever be silent.

Whoops! Study shows huge basic errors found in CMIP5 climate models

It was just yesterday that we highlighted this unrealistic claim from CMIP5 models: Laughable modeling study claims: in the middle of ‘the pause’, ‘climate is starting to change faster’. Now it seems that there is a major flaw in how the CMIP5 models treat incoming solar radiation, causing up to 30 Watts per square meter of spurious variations. To give you an idea of just how much of an error that is, the radiative forcing claimed to exist from carbon dioxide increases is said to be about 1.68 watts per square meter, a value about 18 times smaller than the error in the CMIP5 models!

New paper finds large calculation errors of solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere in climate models

A new paper published in Geophysical Research Letters finds astonishingly large errors in the most widely used ‘state of the art’ climate models due to incorrect calculation of solar radiation and the solar zenith angle at the top of the atmosphere.

According to the authors,

Quote:

Annual incident solar radiation at the top of atmosphere (TOA) should be independent of longitudes. However, in many Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) models, we find that the incident radiation exhibited zonal oscillations, with up to 30 W/m2 of spurious variations. This feature can affect the interpretation of regional climate and diurnal variation of CMIP5 results.

The alleged radiative forcing from all man-made CO2 generated since 1750 is claimed by the IPCC to be 1.68 W/m2. By way of comparison, the up to 30 W/m2 of “spurious variations” from incorrect calculation of solar zenith angle discovered by the authors is up to 18 times larger than the total alleged CO2 forcing since 1750.

More
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/10/whoops-study-shows-huge-basic-errors-found-in-cmip5-climate-models/

But the IPCC only has doubts about the climate predictions projections prognostications in the short term. They have absolute confidence in the long term whatever the term is now.

http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/links.htm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 11^th, 2015 at 12:00pm:

http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts

"DeSmogBlog is a smear site founded by a scientifically unqualified public relations man, James Hoggan and funded by a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre. The irony here is their favorite tactic is to attempt to smear those they disagree with as funded by “dirty money”. Since it’s creation in 2006 the site has done nothing but post poorly researched propaganda with a clear intent to smear respected scientists, policy analysts or groups who dares oppose an alarmist position on global warming. "

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 11^th, 2015 at 1:47pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 12:00pm: http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts "DeSmogBlog is a smear site founded by a scientifically unqualified public relations man, James Hoggan and funded by a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre. The irony here is their favorite tactic is to attempt to smear those they disagree with as funded by “dirty money”. Since it’s creation in 2006 the site has done nothing but post poorly researched propaganda with a clear intent to smear respected scientists, policy analysts or groups who dares oppose an alarmist position on global warming. "

That would appear to be a direct quote, "..but from whom?", the whole forum asks in unison  :) :)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 11^th, 2015 at 1:57pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 1:47pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 12:00pm: http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts "DeSmogBlog is a smear site founded by a scientifically unqualified public relations man, James Hoggan and funded by a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre. The irony here is their favorite tactic is to attempt to smear those they disagree with as funded by “dirty money”. Since it’s creation in 2006 the site has done nothing but post poorly researched propaganda with a clear intent to smear respected scientists, policy analysts or groups who dares oppose an alarmist position on global warming. " That would appear to be a direct quote, "..but from whom?", the whole forum asks in unison  :) :)

You don't know how to do a google word search??

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 11^th, 2015 at 3:04pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 1:57pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 1:47pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 12:00pm: http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts "DeSmogBlog is a smear site founded by a scientifically unqualified public relations man, James Hoggan and funded by a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre. The irony here is their favorite tactic is to attempt to smear those they disagree with as funded by “dirty money”. Since it’s creation in 2006 the site has done nothing but post poorly researched propaganda with a clear intent to smear respected scientists, policy analysts or groups who dares oppose an alarmist position on global warming. " That would appear to be a direct quote, "..but from whom?", the whole forum asks in unison  :) :) You don't know how to do a google word search??

Just admit you're sly and the forum will give a collective wry grin at your forced humility  ;D ;D

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 11^th, 2015 at 4:39pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 3:04pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 1:57pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 1:47pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 12:00pm: http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts "DeSmogBlog is a smear site founded by a scientifically unqualified public relations man, James Hoggan and funded by a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre. The irony here is their favorite tactic is to attempt to smear those they disagree with as funded by “dirty money”. Since it’s creation in 2006 the site has done nothing but post poorly researched propaganda with a clear intent to smear respected scientists, policy analysts or groups who dares oppose an alarmist position on global warming. " That would appear to be a direct quote, "..but from whom?", the whole forum asks in unison  :) :) You don't know how to do a google word search?? Just admit you're sly and the forum will give a collective wry grin at your forced humility  ;D ;D

Ok, since you can't find it..
http://sppiblog.org/news/the-truth-about-desmogblog-and-sourchwatch

have you found any articles or identified a scientific theory which shows that the average Global temperature will decrease as CO2 levels increase in the earths atmosphere?

What about global surface temperature being independent of atmospheric CO2 concentration? Any luck on that front,.

There seems to be a lot of scientific evidence and theoretical support that the earth will warm as CO2 concentration increases in the earths atmosphere.

And if the earth warms up, there will be changes to the earths climate and every other ecological and biological system.

The crap that you spew out seems to be aired on the internet only. Funny that isnt it. Why not put together a article and submit through the scientific peer reviiew process?

Oh whats wrong, cant you handle genuine scrutiny?

You need to hide in the dungeons of the internet to vomit out the BS

Chimp_Logic wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 9:37am:

have you found any articles or identified a scientific theory which shows that the average Global temperature will decrease as CO2 levels increase in the earths atmosphere? What about global surface temperature being independent of atmospheric CO2 concentration? Any luck on that front,. There seems to be a lot of scientific evidence and theoretical support that the earth will warm as CO2 concentration increases in the earths atmosphere. And if the earth warms up, there will be changes to the earths climate and every other ecological and biological system. The crap that you spew out seems to be aired on the internet only. Funny that isnt it. Why not put together a article and submit through the scientific peer reviiew process? Oh whats wrong, cant you handle genuine scrutiny? You need to hide in the dungeons of the internet to vomit out the BS

At least one part of your post is true...
The Earth warming will indeed be changes to the climate and ecological and biological systems. And if Co2 increases as a result of that warming, then plant life will increase in abundance and health (since Co2 is, after all, plant food).

But I notice you still haven't managed to provide any empirical or real world evidence that Co2 is a cause of warming..

The article in the wattsup link, IS from a peer reviewed journal, and was written by scientists..

Oh, and pot-kettle ;D ;D ;D

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 11^th, 2015 at 7:19pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 4:39pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 3:04pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 1:57pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 1:47pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 12:00pm: http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts "DeSmogBlog is a smear site founded by a scientifically unqualified public relations man, James Hoggan and funded by a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre. The irony here is their favorite tactic is to attempt to smear those they disagree with as funded by “dirty money”. Since it’s creation in 2006 the site has done nothing but post poorly researched propaganda with a clear intent to smear respected scientists, policy analysts or groups who dares oppose an alarmist position on global warming. " That would appear to be a direct quote, "..but from whom?", the whole forum asks in unison  :) :) You don't know how to do a google word search?? Just admit you're sly and the forum will give a collective wry grin at your forced humility  ;D ;D Ok, since you can't find it.. http://sppiblog.org/news/the-truth-about-desmogblog-and-sourchwatch

"Their articles frequently reference unreliable sources such as Wikipedia.."(Did you conveniently forget to include this part from the same opeing paragraph!??!)

It's a fact wikipedia is used by professionals!

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 10:11am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Mar 12th, 2015 at 9:37am: have you found any articles or identified a scientific theory which shows that the average Global temperature will decrease as CO2 levels increase in the earths atmosphere? What about global surface temperature being independent of atmospheric CO2 concentration? Any luck on that front,. There seems to be a lot of scientific evidence and theoretical support that the earth will warm as CO2 concentration increases in the earths atmosphere. And if the earth warms up, there will be changes to the earths climate and every other ecological and biological system. The crap that you spew out seems to be aired on the internet only. Funny that isnt it. Why not put together a article and submit through the scientific peer reviiew process? Oh whats wrong, cant you handle genuine scrutiny? You need to hide in the dungeons of the internet to vomit out the BS At least one part of your post is true... The Earth warming will indeed be changes to the climate and ecological and biological systems. And if Co2 increases as a result of that warming, then plant life will increase in abundance and health (since Co2 is, after all, plant food). But I notice you still haven't managed to provide any empirical or real world evidence that Co2 is a cause of warming.. The article in the wattsup link, IS from a peer reviewed journal, and was written by scientists.. Oh, and pot-kettle ;D ;D ;D

indulis at 12:00 PM on 16 July, 2010
Agriculture negatives- More CO2 produces lower protein levels in the plants, so a larger quantity is needed to provide the same amount of protein.
"Despite the large body of research on the effect of elevated CO2 on primary productivity, few studies consider the overall nutritional value of plants."

More CO2 also produces more cyanide in the plant, while at the same time lowering protein in the plant. Animal and human tolerance to cyanide is reduced by lower levels of protein. Coupled with reduced protein levels per plant, this makes plants more toxic.

Paper "Changes in Nutritional Value of Cyanogenic Trifolium repens
Grown at Elevated Atmospheric CO2"
Overview of this research from Monash University
Audio and transcript from ABC Science Show interview with Roslyn M. Gleadow

source: comment 30, http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=1&t=364&&a=50

NB: there is plenty of other commentary regarding the fact CO2 is not the only limiting factor in plant growth... how does extra CO2 supply more nutrients and water for one? For two, why should all plants react in a positive manner to extra CO2 which of course some do...!??!

Gizmo needs a reality check  :D :D

I believe in Climate change but i dont believe in the Alarmism the greenies and IPCC indulge in. Yes Climate change is a problem, yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas that contributes to warming but its clear that its not as significant of a factor as they said it was. And the Human factor is also highly debatable, the percentage of CO2 is so small that its insignificant compared to other green house gases.

For example, when it was getting hot they all said its Global warming! Then it started getting cold they said "Well part of Global Warming is that Winters get colder and SUmmers get hotter"  but then we started having Summers that are Colder and Winters that are Warmer, then they said "Its Extreme Climate change" with no clear definition of "extreme"

And now we have record winters and freezing in the Northern hemisphere, summers have also gotten colder in many areas but they can't explain it, they just go back to their open ended two words "Climate Change"

on top of that, now every hurricane, cyclone, earthquake, etc is being blamed on Climate Change / Global warming even though the top IPCC scientist said that its "impossible" to prove if a certain extreme weather even is related to Warming.

Latest predictions span 100-500 years, that way we can never criticize them as you can never prove if they are wrong unless you wait 100 years.

The Media loves doom and gloom so they will pump this forever and unfortunately our Governments will keep imposing Green Taxes and put us back to stone age. We are paying the price with extremely high energy costs and lower standard of living.

ministerforbananas wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 11:11am:

I believe in Climate change but i dont believe in the Alarmism the greenies and IPCC indulge in. Yes Climate change is a problem, yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas that contributes to warming but its clear that its not as significant of a factor as they said it was. And the Human factor is also highly debatable, the percentage of CO2 is so small that its insignificant compared to other green house gases. For example, when it was getting hot they all said its Global warming! Then it started getting cold they said "Well part of Global Warming is that Winters get colder and SUmmers get hotter"  but then we started having Summers that are Colder and Winters that are Warmer, then they said "Its Extreme Climate change" with no clear definition of "extreme" And now we have record winters and freezing in the Northern hemisphere but they can't explain it, they just go back to their open ended two words "Climate Change" on top of that, now every hurricane, cyclone, earthquake, etc is being blamed on Climate Change / Global warming even though the top IPCC scientist said that its "impossible" to prove if a certain extreme weather even is related to Warming. Latest predictions span 100-500 years, that way we can never criticize them as you can never prove if they are wrong unless you wait 100 years. The Media loves doom and gloom so they will pump this forever.

What if you're wrong?

:o

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 11:15am:

ministerforbananas wrote on Mar 12th, 2015 at 11:11am: I believe in Climate change but i dont believe in the Alarmism the greenies and IPCC indulge in. Yes Climate change is a problem, yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas that contributes to warming but its clear that its not as significant of a factor as they said it was. And the Human factor is also highly debatable, the percentage of CO2 is so small that its insignificant compared to other green house gases. For example, when it was getting hot they all said its Global warming! Then it started getting cold they said "Well part of Global Warming is that Winters get colder and SUmmers get hotter"  but then we started having Summers that are Colder and Winters that are Warmer, then they said "Its Extreme Climate change" with no clear definition of "extreme" And now we have record winters and freezing in the Northern hemisphere but they can't explain it, they just go back to their open ended two words "Climate Change" on top of that, now every hurricane, cyclone, earthquake, etc is being blamed on Climate Change / Global warming even though the top IPCC scientist said that its "impossible" to prove if a certain extreme weather even is related to Warming. Latest predictions span 100-500 years, that way we can never criticize them as you can never prove if they are wrong unless you wait 100 years. The Media loves doom and gloom so they will pump this forever. What if you're wrong? :o

If i'm wrong, nothing can't be solved through technology and  mass energy solutions like Nuclear or even Nuclear Fusion which should be viable in the next 50 years +. One thing for certain is through tecnology Humanity is able to eventually solve and overcomes all problems.

Its better for humanity to adapt to Climate Change (in the scenario that we witness rapid acceleration of warming across the globe)

It far beats having to roll back civilization back to the stone ages just for the sake of making a few loud Greenies happy.

If only Greenies would adopt Nuclear, this whole debate would be over and both sides of the argument will be satisfied.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 11:10am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 12th, 2015 at 10:11am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Mar 12th, 2015 at 9:37am: have you found any articles or identified a scientific theory which shows that the average Global temperature will decrease as CO2 levels increase in the earths atmosphere? What about global surface temperature being independent of atmospheric CO2 concentration? Any luck on that front,. There seems to be a lot of scientific evidence and theoretical support that the earth will warm as CO2 concentration increases in the earths atmosphere. And if the earth warms up, there will be changes to the earths climate and every other ecological and biological system. The crap that you spew out seems to be aired on the internet only. Funny that isnt it. Why not put together a article and submit through the scientific peer reviiew process? Oh whats wrong, cant you handle genuine scrutiny? You need to hide in the dungeons of the internet to vomit out the BS At least one part of your post is true... The Earth warming will indeed be changes to the climate and ecological and biological systems. And if Co2 increases as a result of that warming, then plant life will increase in abundance and health (since Co2 is, after all, plant food). But I notice you still haven't managed to provide any empirical or real world evidence that Co2 is a cause of warming.. The article in the wattsup link, IS from a peer reviewed journal, and was written by scientists.. Oh, and pot-kettle ;D ;D ;D indulis at 12:00 PM on 16 July, 2010 Agriculture negatives- More CO2 produces lower protein levels in the plants, so a larger quantity is needed to provide the same amount of protein. "Despite the large body of research on the effect of elevated CO2 on primary productivity, few studies consider the overall nutritional value of plants." More CO2 also produces more cyanide in the plant, while at the same time lowering protein in the plant. Animal and human tolerance to cyanide is reduced by lower levels of protein. Coupled with reduced protein levels per plant, this makes plants more toxic. Paper "Changes in Nutritional Value of Cyanogenic Trifolium repens Grown at Elevated Atmospheric CO2" Overview of this research from Monash University Audio and transcript from ABC Science Show interview with Roslyn M. Gleadow source: comment 30, http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=1&t=364&&a=50 NB: there is plenty of other commentary regarding the fact CO2 is not the only limiting factor in plant growth... how does extra CO2 supply more nutrients and water for one? For two, why should all plants react in a positive manner to extra CO2 which of course some do...!??! Gizmo needs a reality check  :D :D

So a random comment from a (probably unqualified) poster is suddenly relevant??

Isn't that what you claim Anthony Watts is??

(edit) skeptical science??...isn't that the site run by John Cook, the 'scientist' who lost a global warming debate to Lord Monckton???

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 11:01am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 7:19pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 4:39pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 3:04pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 1:57pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 1:47pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 12:00pm: http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts "DeSmogBlog is a smear site founded by a scientifically unqualified public relations man, James Hoggan and funded by a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre. The irony here is their favorite tactic is to attempt to smear those they disagree with as funded by “dirty money”. Since it’s creation in 2006 the site has done nothing but post poorly researched propaganda with a clear intent to smear respected scientists, policy analysts or groups who dares oppose an alarmist position on global warming. " That would appear to be a direct quote, "..but from whom?", the whole forum asks in unison  :) :) You don't know how to do a google word search?? Just admit you're sly and the forum will give a collective wry grin at your forced humility  ;D ;D Ok, since you can't find it.. http://sppiblog.org/news/the-truth-about-desmogblog-and-sourchwatch "Their articles frequently reference unreliable sources such as Wikipedia.."(Did you conveniently forget to include this part from the same opeing paragraph!??!) It's a fact wikipedia is used by professionals!

It's also a fact that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, with no review system.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 2:08pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 12th, 2015 at 11:10am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 12th, 2015 at 10:11am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Mar 12th, 2015 at 9:37am: have you found any articles or identified a scientific theory which shows that the average Global temperature will decrease as CO2 levels increase in the earths atmosphere? What about global surface temperature being independent of atmospheric CO2 concentration? Any luck on that front,. There seems to be a lot of scientific evidence and theoretical support that the earth will warm as CO2 concentration increases in the earths atmosphere. And if the earth warms up, there will be changes to the earths climate and every other ecological and biological system. The crap that you spew out seems to be aired on the internet only. Funny that isnt it. Why not put together a article and submit through the scientific peer reviiew process? Oh whats wrong, cant you handle genuine scrutiny? You need to hide in the dungeons of the internet to vomit out the BS At least one part of your post is true... The Earth warming will indeed be changes to the climate and ecological and biological systems. And if Co2 increases as a result of that warming, then plant life will increase in abundance and health (since Co2 is, after all, plant food). But I notice you still haven't managed to provide any empirical or real world evidence that Co2 is a cause of warming.. The article in the wattsup link, IS from a peer reviewed journal, and was written by scientists.. Oh, and pot-kettle ;D ;D ;D indulis at 12:00 PM on 16 July, 2010 Agriculture negatives- More CO2 produces lower protein levels in the plants, so a larger quantity is needed to provide the same amount of protein. "Despite the large body of research on the effect of elevated CO2 on primary productivity, few studies consider the overall nutritional value of plants." More CO2 also produces more cyanide in the plant, while at the same time lowering protein in the plant. Animal and human tolerance to cyanide is reduced by lower levels of protein. Coupled with reduced protein levels per plant, this makes plants more toxic. Paper "Changes in Nutritional Value of Cyanogenic Trifolium repens Grown at Elevated Atmospheric CO2" Overview of this research from Monash University Audio and transcript from ABC Science Show interview with Roslyn M. Gleadow source: comment 30, http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=1&t=364&&a=50 NB: there is plenty of other commentary regarding the fact CO2 is not the only limiting factor in plant growth... how does extra CO2 supply more nutrients and water for one? For two, why should all plants react in a positive manner to extra CO2 which of course some do...!??! Gizmo needs a reality check  :D :D So a random comment from a (probably unqualified) poster is suddenly relevant?? Isn't that what you claim Anthony Watts is??

Don't believe it see if I care! You're losing credibility not me ;) ;)

ministerforbananas wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 1:23pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 12th, 2015 at 11:15am: ministerforbananas wrote on Mar 12th, 2015 at 11:11am: I believe in Climate change but i dont believe in the Alarmism the greenies and IPCC indulge in. Yes Climate change is a problem, yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas that contributes to warming but its clear that its not as significant of a factor as they said it was. And the Human factor is also highly debatable, the percentage of CO2 is so small that its insignificant compared to other green house gases. For example, when it was getting hot they all said its Global warming! Then it started getting cold they said "Well part of Global Warming is that Winters get colder and SUmmers get hotter"  but then we started having Summers that are Colder and Winters that are Warmer, then they said "Its Extreme Climate change" with no clear definition of "extreme" And now we have record winters and freezing in the Northern hemisphere but they can't explain it, they just go back to their open ended two words "Climate Change" on top of that, now every hurricane, cyclone, earthquake, etc is being blamed on Climate Change / Global warming even though the top IPCC scientist said that its "impossible" to prove if a certain extreme weather even is related to Warming. Latest predictions span 100-500 years, that way we can never criticize them as you can never prove if they are wrong unless you wait 100 years. The Media loves doom and gloom so they will pump this forever. What if you're wrong? :o If i'm wrong, nothing can't be solved through technology and  mass energy solutions like Nuclear or even Nuclear Fusion which should be viable in the next 50 years +. One thing for certain is through tecnology Humanity is able to eventually solve and overcomes all problems. Its better for humanity to adapt to Climate Change (in the scenario that we witness rapid acceleration of warming across the globe) It far beats having to roll back civilization back to the stone ages just for the sake of making a few loud Greenies happy. If only Greenies would adopt Nuclear, this whole debate would be over and both sides of the argument will be satisfied.

Do you write science fiction?

Do you smoke crack and pretend you're a futurist hoping daddy won't bust you for coming round for prawns and crayfish with those glassy eyes again?!!?

You're talking about technological solutions to technological problems when simple logic says STOP DIGGING THE HOLE!

Do you know what entropy and disintegration of system is? yeh, buddy: I wish I voted Liberal and pretended I had business acumen like you  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D You're one smart bunny  ::)

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 2:09pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 12th, 2015 at 11:01am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 7:19pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 4:39pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 3:04pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 1:57pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 1:47pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 12:00pm: http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts "DeSmogBlog is a smear site founded by a scientifically unqualified public relations man, James Hoggan and funded by a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre. The irony here is their favorite tactic is to attempt to smear those they disagree with as funded by “dirty money”. Since it’s creation in 2006 the site has done nothing but post poorly researched propaganda with a clear intent to smear respected scientists, policy analysts or groups who dares oppose an alarmist position on global warming. " That would appear to be a direct quote, "..but from whom?", the whole forum asks in unison  :) :) You don't know how to do a google word search?? Just admit you're sly and the forum will give a collective wry grin at your forced humility  ;D ;D Ok, since you can't find it.. http://sppiblog.org/news/the-truth-about-desmogblog-and-sourchwatch "Their articles frequently reference unreliable sources such as Wikipedia.."(Did you conveniently forget to include this part from the same opeing paragraph!??!) It's a fact wikipedia is used by professionals! It's also a fact that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, with no review system.

Gizmo can't admit professionals use wikipedia and we all laugh at him yet again!

You love getting laughed at don't you Gizmo  :D :D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 4:39pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 12th, 2015 at 2:09pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 12th, 2015 at 11:01am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 7:19pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 4:39pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 3:04pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 1:57pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 1:47pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 12:00pm: http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts "DeSmogBlog is a smear site founded by a scientifically unqualified public relations man, James Hoggan and funded by a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre. The irony here is their favorite tactic is to attempt to smear those they disagree with as funded by “dirty money”. Since it’s creation in 2006 the site has done nothing but post poorly researched propaganda with a clear intent to smear respected scientists, policy analysts or groups who dares oppose an alarmist position on global warming. " That would appear to be a direct quote, "..but from whom?", the whole forum asks in unison  :) :) You don't know how to do a google word search?? Just admit you're sly and the forum will give a collective wry grin at your forced humility  ;D ;D Ok, since you can't find it.. http://sppiblog.org/news/the-truth-about-desmogblog-and-sourchwatch "Their articles frequently reference unreliable sources such as Wikipedia.."(Did you conveniently forget to include this part from the same opeing paragraph!??!) It's a fact wikipedia is used by professionals! It's also a fact that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, with no review system. Gizmo can't admit professionals use wikipedia and we all laugh at him yet again! You love getting laughed at don't you Gizmo  :D :D

Which professionals use it??

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 11:15am:

ministerforbananas wrote on Mar 12th, 2015 at 11:11am: I believe in Climate change but i dont believe in the Alarmism the greenies and IPCC indulge in. Yes Climate change is a problem, yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas that contributes to warming but its clear that its not as significant of a factor as they said it was. And the Human factor is also highly debatable, the percentage of CO2 is so small that its insignificant compared to other green house gases. For example, when it was getting hot they all said its Global warming! Then it started getting cold they said "Well part of Global Warming is that Winters get colder and SUmmers get hotter"  but then we started having Summers that are Colder and Winters that are Warmer, then they said "Its Extreme Climate change" with no clear definition of "extreme" And now we have record winters and freezing in the Northern hemisphere but they can't explain it, they just go back to their open ended two words "Climate Change" on top of that, now every hurricane, cyclone, earthquake, etc is being blamed on Climate Change / Global warming even though the top IPCC scientist said that its "impossible" to prove if a certain extreme weather even is related to Warming. Latest predictions span 100-500 years, that way we can never criticize them as you can never prove if they are wrong unless you wait 100 years. The Media loves doom and gloom so they will pump this forever. What if you're wrong? :o

Going by the models and going by the poor science of AGW climate change..... We will not be wrong. Only the models to which this whole pseudo science relies on are wrong.

ministerforbananas wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 1:23pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 12th, 2015 at 11:15am: ministerforbananas wrote on Mar 12th, 2015 at 11:11am: I believe in Climate change but i dont believe in the Alarmism the greenies and IPCC indulge in. Yes Climate change is a problem, yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas that contributes to warming but its clear that its not as significant of a factor as they said it was. And the Human factor is also highly debatable, the percentage of CO2 is so small that its insignificant compared to other green house gases. For example, when it was getting hot they all said its Global warming! Then it started getting cold they said "Well part of Global Warming is that Winters get colder and SUmmers get hotter"  but then we started having Summers that are Colder and Winters that are Warmer, then they said "Its Extreme Climate change" with no clear definition of "extreme" And now we have record winters and freezing in the Northern hemisphere but they can't explain it, they just go back to their open ended two words "Climate Change" on top of that, now every hurricane, cyclone, earthquake, etc is being blamed on Climate Change / Global warming even though the top IPCC scientist said that its "impossible" to prove if a certain extreme weather even is related to Warming. Latest predictions span 100-500 years, that way we can never criticize them as you can never prove if they are wrong unless you wait 100 years. The Media loves doom and gloom so they will pump this forever. What if you're wrong? :o If i'm wrong, nothing can't be solved through technology and  mass energy solutions like Nuclear or even Nuclear Fusion which should be viable in the next 50 years +.

How is Fukushima and Chernobyl going?

You want Australia to follow this path towards insanity and madness?

Your hatred of children and future generations is showing

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 11^th, 2015 at 3:04pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 1:57pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 1:47pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 12:00pm: http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts "DeSmogBlog is a smear site founded by a scientifically unqualified public relations man, James Hoggan and funded by a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre. The irony here is their favorite tactic is to attempt to smear those they disagree with as funded by “dirty money”. Since it’s creation in 2006 the site has done nothing but post poorly researched propaganda with a clear intent to smear respected scientists, policy analysts or groups who dares oppose an alarmist position on global warming. " That would appear to be a direct quote, "..but from whom?", the whole forum asks in unison  :) :) You don't know how to do a google word search??

I did a google word search and found plenty of that specific quote being regurgitated, you know, like it's fact.

Yet, the clear question above was "WHOM?"....

It may have escaped your notice but no actual author is credited with the quote.... Not a lot of credibility points there. Ironically, when the quote directly attacks the credibility of its subject.

So, after checking quite a few links, it appears no author is putting their hand up for the actual statement?

What is this about junk science again?

Phemanderac wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 8:13am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 3:04pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 1:57pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 1:47pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 12:00pm: http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts "DeSmogBlog is a smear site founded by a scientifically unqualified public relations man, James Hoggan and funded by a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre. The irony here is their favorite tactic is to attempt to smear those they disagree with as funded by “dirty money”. Since it’s creation in 2006 the site has done nothing but post poorly researched propaganda with a clear intent to smear respected scientists, policy analysts or groups who dares oppose an alarmist position on global warming. " That would appear to be a direct quote, "..but from whom?", the whole forum asks in unison  :) :) You don't know how to do a google word search?? I did a google word search and found plenty of that specific quote being regurgitated, you know, like it's fact. Yet, the clear question above was "WHOM?".... It may have escaped your notice but no actual author is credited with the quote.... Not a lot of credibility points there. Ironically, when the quote directly attacks the credibility of its subject. So, after checking quite a few links, it appears no author is putting their hand up for the actual statement? What is this about junk science again?

Did you click on the link I posted?

I see no fess up. Hardly surprising.

Just to go with the theme of this thread and the bogus AGW models. Here we can see and be happy that the deep oceans have actually cooled at the time of the pseudo scientists of AGW catastrophic climate change were sprooking deep oceans were taking up the missing heat.

No you dumb azz's. The heat is not missing, it just isn't anywhere.


Quote:

Abstract Estimated values of recent oceanic heat uptake are of order of a few tenths of a W/m2, and are a very small residual of air-sea exchanges with annual average regional magnitudes of hundreds of W/m2. Using a dynamically consistent state estimate, the redistribution of heat within the ocean is calculated over a 20-year period. The 20-year mean vertical heat flux shows strong variations in both the lateral and vertical directions, consistent with the ocean being a dynamically active and spatially complex heat exchanger. Between mixing and advection, the two processes determining the vertical heat transport in the deep ocean, advection plays a more important role in setting the spatial patterns of vertical heat exchange and its temporal variations. The global integral of vertical heat flux shows an upward heat transport in the deep ocean, suggesting a cooling trend in the deep ocean. These results support an inference that the near-surface thermal properties of the ocean are a consequence, at least in part, of internal redistributions of heat, some of which must reflect water that has undergone long trajectories since last exposure to the atmosphere. The small residual heat exchange with the atmosphere today is unlikely to represent the interaction with an ocean that was in thermal equilibrium at the start of global warming. An analogy is drawn with carbon-14 “reservoir ages” which range over hundreds to a thousand years.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00550.1?af=R&

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 11:10am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 12th, 2015 at 10:11am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Mar 12th, 2015 at 9:37am: have you found any articles or identified a scientific theory which shows that the average Global temperature will decrease as CO2 levels increase in the earths atmosphere? What about global surface temperature being independent of atmospheric CO2 concentration? Any luck on that front,. There seems to be a lot of scientific evidence and theoretical support that the earth will warm as CO2 concentration increases in the earths atmosphere. And if the earth warms up, there will be changes to the earths climate and every other ecological and biological system. The crap that you spew out seems to be aired on the internet only. Funny that isnt it. Why not put together a article and submit through the scientific peer reviiew process? Oh whats wrong, cant you handle genuine scrutiny? You need to hide in the dungeons of the internet to vomit out the BS At least one part of your post is true... The Earth warming will indeed be changes to the climate and ecological and biological systems. And if Co2 increases as a result of that warming, then plant life will increase in abundance and health (since Co2 is, after all, plant food). But I notice you still haven't managed to provide any empirical or real world evidence that Co2 is a cause of warming.. The article in the wattsup link, IS from a peer reviewed journal, and was written by scientists.. Oh, and pot-kettle ;D ;D ;D indulis at 12:00 PM on 16 July, 2010 Agriculture negatives- More CO2 produces lower protein levels in the plants, so a larger quantity is needed to provide the same amount of protein. "Despite the large body of research on the effect of elevated CO2 on primary productivity, few studies consider the overall nutritional value of plants." More CO2 also produces more cyanide in the plant, while at the same time lowering protein in the plant. Animal and human tolerance to cyanide is reduced by lower levels of protein. Coupled with reduced protein levels per plant, this makes plants more toxic. Paper "Changes in Nutritional Value of Cyanogenic Trifolium repens Grown at Elevated Atmospheric CO2" Overview of this research from Monash University Audio and transcript from ABC Science Show interview with Roslyn M. Gleadow source: comment 30, http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=1&t=364&&a=50 NB: there is plenty of other commentary regarding the fact CO2 is not the only limiting factor in plant growth... how does extra CO2 supply more nutrients and water for one? For two, why should all plants react in a positive manner to extra CO2 which of course some do...!??! Gizmo needs a reality check  :D :D

As nights warm—minimum temperatures rise–plants can’t take up as much CO2. The “plant food” non–argument is total crap.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/fig2-18.gif

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-18.htm

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 10:05pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 12th, 2015 at 11:15am: ministerforbananas wrote on Mar 12th, 2015 at 11:11am: I believe in Climate change but i dont believe in the Alarmism the greenies and IPCC indulge in. Yes Climate change is a problem, yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas that contributes to warming but its clear that its not as significant of a factor as they said it was. And the Human factor is also highly debatable, the percentage of CO2 is so small that its insignificant compared to other green house gases. For example, when it was getting hot they all said its Global warming! Then it started getting cold they said "Well part of Global Warming is that Winters get colder and SUmmers get hotter"  but then we started having Summers that are Colder and Winters that are Warmer, then they said "Its Extreme Climate change" with no clear definition of "extreme" And now we have record winters and freezing in the Northern hemisphere but they can't explain it, they just go back to their open ended two words "Climate Change" on top of that, now every hurricane, cyclone, earthquake, etc is being blamed on Climate Change / Global warming even though the top IPCC scientist said that its "impossible" to prove if a certain extreme weather even is related to Warming. Latest predictions span 100-500 years, that way we can never criticize them as you can never prove if they are wrong unless you wait 100 years. The Media loves doom and gloom so they will pump this forever. What if you're wrong? :o Going by the models and going by the poor science of AGW climate change..... We will not be wrong. Only the models to which this whole pseudo science relies on are wrong.

Which is why no one places a bet on the horse your backing  :) :)

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 24^th, 2015 at 11:18pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 12th, 2015 at 11:10am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 12th, 2015 at 10:11am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Mar 12th, 2015 at 9:37am: have you found any articles or identified a scientific theory which shows that the average Global temperature will decrease as CO2 levels increase in the earths atmosphere? What about global surface temperature being independent of atmospheric CO2 concentration? Any luck on that front,. There seems to be a lot of scientific evidence and theoretical support that the earth will warm as CO2 concentration increases in the earths atmosphere. And if the earth warms up, there will be changes to the earths climate and every other ecological and biological system. The crap that you spew out seems to be aired on the internet only. Funny that isnt it. Why not put together a article and submit through the scientific peer reviiew process? Oh whats wrong, cant you handle genuine scrutiny? You need to hide in the dungeons of the internet to vomit out the BS At least one part of your post is true... The Earth warming will indeed be changes to the climate and ecological and biological systems. And if Co2 increases as a result of that warming, then plant life will increase in abundance and health (since Co2 is, after all, plant food). But I notice you still haven't managed to provide any empirical or real world evidence that Co2 is a cause of warming.. The article in the wattsup link, IS from a peer reviewed journal, and was written by scientists.. Oh, and pot-kettle ;D ;D ;D indulis at 12:00 PM on 16 July, 2010 Agriculture negatives- More CO2 produces lower protein levels in the plants, so a larger quantity is needed to provide the same amount of protein. "Despite the large body of research on the effect of elevated CO2 on primary productivity, few studies consider the overall nutritional value of plants." More CO2 also produces more cyanide in the plant, while at the same time lowering protein in the plant. Animal and human tolerance to cyanide is reduced by lower levels of protein. Coupled with reduced protein levels per plant, this makes plants more toxic. Paper "Changes in Nutritional Value of Cyanogenic Trifolium repens Grown at Elevated Atmospheric CO2" Overview of this research from Monash University Audio and transcript from ABC Science Show interview with Roslyn M. Gleadow source: comment 30, http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=1&t=364&&a=50 NB: there is plenty of other commentary regarding the fact CO2 is not the only limiting factor in plant growth... how does extra CO2 supply more nutrients and water for one? For two, why should all plants react in a positive manner to extra CO2 which of course some do...!??! Gizmo needs a reality check  :D :D As nights warm—minimum temperatures rise–plants can’t take up as much CO2. The “plant food” non–argument is total crap.

They say some trees respond positively and some don't: regardless CO2 is not the only limiting factor !!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 24^th, 2015 at 11:48pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 24th, 2015 at 11:18pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 12th, 2015 at 11:10am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 12th, 2015 at 10:11am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Mar 12th, 2015 at 9:37am: have you found any articles or identified a scientific theory which shows that the average Global temperature will decrease as CO2 levels increase in the earths atmosphere? What about global surface temperature being independent of atmospheric CO2 concentration? Any luck on that front,. There seems to be a lot of scientific evidence and theoretical support that the earth will warm as CO2 concentration increases in the earths atmosphere. And if the earth warms up, there will be changes to the earths climate and every other ecological and biological system. The crap that you spew out seems to be aired on the internet only. Funny that isnt it. Why not put together a article and submit through the scientific peer reviiew process? Oh whats wrong, cant you handle genuine scrutiny? You need to hide in the dungeons of the internet to vomit out the BS At least one part of your post is true... The Earth warming will indeed be changes to the climate and ecological and biological systems. And if Co2 increases as a result of that warming, then plant life will increase in abundance and health (since Co2 is, after all, plant food). But I notice you still haven't managed to provide any empirical or real world evidence that Co2 is a cause of warming.. The article in the wattsup link, IS from a peer reviewed journal, and was written by scientists.. Oh, and pot-kettle ;D ;D ;D indulis at 12:00 PM on 16 July, 2010 Agriculture negatives- More CO2 produces lower protein levels in the plants, so a larger quantity is needed to provide the same amount of protein. "Despite the large body of research on the effect of elevated CO2 on primary productivity, few studies consider the overall nutritional value of plants." More CO2 also produces more cyanide in the plant, while at the same time lowering protein in the plant. Animal and human tolerance to cyanide is reduced by lower levels of protein. Coupled with reduced protein levels per plant, this makes plants more toxic. Paper "Changes in Nutritional Value of Cyanogenic Trifolium repens Grown at Elevated Atmospheric CO2" Overview of this research from Monash University Audio and transcript from ABC Science Show interview with Roslyn M. Gleadow source: comment 30, http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=1&t=364&&a=50 NB: there is plenty of other commentary regarding the fact CO2 is not the only limiting factor in plant growth... how does extra CO2 supply more nutrients and water for one? For two, why should all plants react in a positive manner to extra CO2 which of course some do...!??! Gizmo needs a reality check  :D :D As nights warm—minimum temperatures rise–plants can’t take up as much CO2. The “plant food” non–argument is total crap. They say some trees respond positively and some don't: regardless CO2 is not the only limiting factor !!

did someone cooke the books again

This is how insane the global warming cult is, there absolutely positively can not ever be any positive thing to come from a bit more warmth or a bit more co2 never ever ever.

If they didn't want to be viewed as anything other than Scientology type cult crackpots with a screw loose they would be a little more objective.

innocentbystander. wrote on Mar 25^th, 2015 at 1:19pm:

This is how insane the global warming cult is, there absolutely positively can not ever be any positive thing to come from a bit more warmth or a bit more co2 never ever ever. If they didn't want to be viewed as anything other than Scientology type cult crackpots with a screw loose they would be a little more objective.

You're wrong: science agrees that some plants and animals will benefit, but not all!

Further, they will have you note that warmth and CO2 are not the only limiting factors.

This is why the problem is called 'complex'  :o :o :o i.e. it has too many variables without the needed equations to solve for a point solution  :)