Global warming.

[smokingman]

No problem. You can duck the questions if you'd like. I had no expectation that anything of value would be forthcoming.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/break_room/23956-rhinos_big_adventures_23feb09-6.html

If you want to talk physics,I am capable.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

No where in that study does he even mention humans as a cause for global warming.That paper is more a study of why all the models are wrong than anything.I will read the next one.

It was one of many texts that served as precursors to more recent models, which to a significant degree of accuracy did predict climate change. Said models fall apart when you remove anthropogenic causes.

No models exist that explain climate change to anywhere near the same degree using non-anthropogenic variables alone.

Of course there were quite a few more changes than that - but many of them came from the IPCC - and being the devil and all, we cannot talk about any science that came from the IPCC - because although they data is publicly available, somehow it doesn't count.

 

[smokingman]

It was a precursor to more recent models, which to a significant degree of accuracy did predict climate change. Said models fall apart when you remove anthropogenic causes.

Of course there were quite a few more changes than that - but many of them came from the IPCC - and being the devil and all, we cannot talk about any science that came from the IPCC.

Why does he then say "thus diminishing our confidence in model predictions of climate change."

That is a quote from the study you linked me to.The models fell apart when compared to actual data recorded.Read the damned study you sent me to!
Stop sitting there and pretending the models where anything but totally wrong.You sent me to read the study,and the author clearly thinks the 8 climate models he tested where all fatally flawed,and it did not have a damn thing to do with carbon,but comparing the model predictions to actual data recorded.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Why does he then say "thus diminishing our confidence in model predictions of climate change."

That is a quote from the study you linked me to.The models fell apart when compared to actual data recorded.Read the damned study you sent me to!
Stop sitting there and pretending the models where anything but totally wrong.You sent me to read the study,and the author clearly thinks the 8 climate models he tested where all fatally flawed,and it did not have a damn thing to do with carbon,but comparing the model predictions to actual data recorded.

You mean in 2003 when he wrote that paper, correct?

The year is 2012.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

If Earth has warmed and cooled throughout history, what makes scientists think that humans are causing global warming now? : Climate Q&A : Blogs

 

[smokingman]

You mean in 2003 when he wrote that paper, correct?

The year is 2012.

I am asking one very simple request.Show me a peer reviewed published study linking humans to global warming.You want to change my mind on global warming,show me a scientific paper.Yes I excluded the IPCC,but they have only released 5 papers on the subject since 1978.If those are the only studies you are basing your "educated" opinion on them maybe you should do a little more research yourself.
Show me just ONE study(preferably written in the last few years)that shows a direct link to warming and human activity.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I am asking one very simple request.Show me a peer reviewed published study linking humans to global warming.You want to change my mind on global warming,show me a scientific paper.Yes I excluded the IPCC,but they have only released 5 papers on the subject since 1978.If those are the only studies you are basing your "educated" opinion on them maybe you should do a little more research yourself.
Show me just ONE study(preferably written in the last few years)that shows a direct link to warming and human activity.

Funny how your window of "I will believe" gets smaller and smaller.

Throw out the IPCC - the foremost body of thought on the subject.

Throw out the fact that our models predict climate change, but fall apart when anthropogenic causes are removed....

Throw out the comparison between previous ice ages and our current warming period...

Still don't believe...

And then, without anywhere near the same level of required proof, claim that it is warming due to non-anthropogenic variables alone.

Odd how that works.

Nobody disputes that CO2 has a major impact on climbing temperatures. Nobody disputes that the human population contributes to the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Somehow, when you put the two together, people claim that it does not work out - but fail to illustrate why.

 

[smokingman]

You mean in 2003 when he wrote that paper, correct?

The year is 2012.

Current IPCC models,per the leaked report.They do not look to be predicting anything well.
http://i46.tinypic.com/122zp6a.png

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Now remove anthropogenic variables from any of those models, and they are significantly further from observations.

Also, I should not have to do more research - because all computer scientists are leading experts in climate change, remember? My opinion is worth as much as any senior researcher at the IPCC *rolls eyes*

 

[newguy]

its real people im super cereal its real just ask al gore, he invented the internet so you know he is smart.
EXCELSIOR!

 

[Liberty1911]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/break_room/23956-rhinos_big_adventures_23feb09-6.html

If you want to talk physics,I am capable.

He likes to talk tough, not physics. I'd be surprised to see him respond.

 

[Liberty1911]

And then, without anywhere near the same level of required proof, claim that it is warming due to non-anthropogenic variables alone.

Odd how that works.

Nobody disputes that CO2 has a major impact on climbing temperatures. Nobody disputes that the human population contributes to the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Somehow, when you put the two together, people claim that it does not work out - but fail to illustrate why.

Let's assume everything you say is true.

What is the course of action we need to take?

 

[smokingman]

Now remove anthropogenic variables from any of those models, and they are significantly further from observations.

Also, I should not have to do more research - because all computer scientists are leading experts in climate change, remember? My opinion is worth as much as any senior researcher at the IPCC *rolls eyes*

Where did you get the chart? The Hadley center model was deemed to flawed by the Hadley center in 2000.They created a new model HadCM3,that worked better but did not take into account vegetation or solar activity and was eliminated from models acceptable to even the IPCC.
Is the Canadian model Andrew Weaver's?

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Where did you get the chart? The Hadley center model was deemed to flawed by the Hadley center in 2000.They created a new model HadCM3,that worked better but did not take into account vegetation or solar activity and was eliminated from models acceptable to even the IPCC.
Is the Canadian model Andrew Weaver's?

That is an older Hadley model. I would imagine the "Canadian Model" would be CGCM1, but that is just an assumption based on the date.

Here is a newer one, HadGEM1 GCM, which is believed to be more accurate than HadCM3:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3712.1

I believe even HadGEM1 is outdated, but I have not read much on the newer models.

Hopefully, CMIP5 will lead to even more accurate models: http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/

Still have not run into a model that comes near observed temperatures when anthropogenic variables are removed....

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Global Climate Change Indicators

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Let's assume everything you say is true.

What is the course of action we need to take?

Reduce our output of CO2, and get ready for some seriously bad weather.

 

[Liberty1911]

Reduce our output of CO2, and get ready for some seriously bad weather.

How do you propose we reduce CO2 on A: a global scale, and B: a national scale.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

How do you propose we reduce CO2 on A: a global scale, and B: a national scale.

For one, it would be nice if we could talk people into not breeding like rabbits. With the world population nearing 7 billion, it has quickly become a problem. We will likely not be successful in this venture.

Reduction in deforestation could be quite helpful. Since we have been harping that for years, and it continues, we will likely not be successful.

Reducing a significant amount of greenhouse gases likely will not happen, because we like to enjoy our luxuries. Also, since a significant portion of our population clings to the belief that humans do not have an effect on the environment in which we live, half of the population will shrug off the necessity anyhow.

Since we generally refuse to make any changes that have a significant impact - we will continue down the same path. There is no sound "what should we do" - since as a people, we will say "screw it".

 

[Bummer]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/break_room/23956-rhinos_big_adventures_23feb09-6.html

If you want to talk physics,I am capable.

Cut and paste from Wikipedia. See the section entitled Cosmological constant if your browser doesn't take you directly there. Oh wait, you already have.

Shall I cut and paste something about membranes in M Theory for you? How about a synopsis: Everything is made of vibrating energy. Sometimes it acts like a membrane. Or how about: It isn't really a theory in the technical sense, since it is not yet testable and therefore not falsifiable. It makes a fun math game, though.

Got a cut and paste for me on Thermodynamics?

 

[Bummer]

He likes to talk tough...

Hi there pot.

(signed) kettle