So you still take "climate scientists" seriously?

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
45
48
65
For the Holocene followers:


Dear oh dear! All those naive newborns who trust "climate scientists"! Wake up and smell the scandal. Case in point, Wattsupwiththat carries a report today from the University of Wisconsin-Madison of a new study that can't avoid the fact that the models and the data are now in clear, unambiguous contradiction. From the report:
“We have been building models and there are now robust contradictions,” says Liu, a professor in the UW-Madison Center for Climatic Research. “Data from observation says global cooling. The physical model says it has to be warming.”
A real scientist, of course, would conclude that, things having been checked and rechecked (see definition of "robust"), the models are wrong. And since the models are the only evidence for the catastrophic global warming theory, which is already in serious disagreement with reality, that the theory is wrong too. But what do the authors of this "study" conclude?
Let's start with the jibberish first:
“The fundamental laws of physics say that as the temperature goes up, it has to get warmer,” Liu says.
Nope, sorry. The fundamental laws of the English language say that the phrase "gets warmer" means that the temperature is going up. This is a tautology, nothing to do with the laws of physics whatever. We could live in the "road runner" universe in which coyote gets blown up, squashed by a boulder, and run over by a train, and pops up unharmed to try again tomorrow, and, as long as we are speaking English, as the temperature rises it gets warmer. What ridiculous nonsense!
Then there's the smug, fatuous nonsense:
"The scientists call this problem the Holocene temperature conundrum. It has important implications for understanding climate change and evaluating climate models, as well as for the benchmarks used to create climate models for the future. It does not, the authors emphasize, change the evidence of human impact on global climate beginning in the 20th century."
But hang on! The only reason they have to believe that plant food (aka carbon dioxide) is causing dangerous warming is precisely the fact that, in the late 20th century, temperatures rose in a way that these same models could not explain without positing a high sensitivity of temperature to CO2. But if these models are wrong anyway at a time when human output of CO2 was negligible, then why can they not simply be wrong now because, well, the models are wrong?
"With their current knowledge, Liu and colleagues don’t believe any physical forces over the last 10,000 years could have been strong enough to overwhelm the warming indicated by the increase in global greenhouse gases and the melting ice sheet, nor do the physical models in the study show that it’s possible."
All one can say about that is: DON'T TRUST THESE 'SCIENTISTS' TO MAKE A CUP OF TEA!
Put some very cold water in the kettle. Turn the gas on to "extremely high". Then turn the gas down a bit to "very high". According to these 'scientists', the very cold water should get even colder, because the temperature of the flame reduced. The nice old lady who used to make tea for the physics departments at University of Queensland knew better than that, before UQ became a bastion of climate fraudsters. So did the (real) scientists to whom she served the tea. Not today's "climate scientists", apparently.
Some commenters on the Wattsupwiththat article make further points:
tty says:
August 11, 2014 at 3:57 pm
Actually everybody who has the slightest interest in Quaternary Geology knows that it is normal for the beginning of interglacials to be warmest and for the temperatures to then gradually decline, just as they have done in the current interglacial. This is the way things are, and it’s about time that ‘climate scientists’ start taking note of the real world, even when it doesn’t fit their models.
And:
Hockey Schtick says:
August 11, 2014 at 3:45 pm
The doi link is broken for the paper, but the supplemental info is online:
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2014/08/08/1407229111.DCSupplemental/pnas.201407229SI.pdf
Says they used Marcott’s data, previously ripped to shreds by McIntyre & others
And for a final word:
Michael Wassil says:
August 11, 2014 at 4:45 pm
First they went after the LIA and MWP, now they’re going after the Holocene Optimum and everything in between. Can’t have that big hump of warming 10000 years ago warping the hockey schtick. Everything and anything that doesn’t support the ‘settled science’ has to disappear. I wonder when the Younger Dryas will go.



http://peacelegacy.org/articles/so-you-still-take-climate-scientists-seriously
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
They can't accurately predict what would happen in either case anyway. Cooling would see the ocean levels drop and warming would see them rise. The latter has a 'how long can you tread water thingy attached' so be careful what you wish fore. Knowing something is coming is the best way to survive it. Knowing the little ice-age was coming in the past would have meant England would have changed from grapes to another crop sooner and the transition would have been less painful. History paints that time as being 'better' than before the grapes and after the grapes were so why would. The weather from the super volcano brought in a change that saw snow in all months of the year but did the arid places to the south get more rain that year and that is where the grapes could have been grown and England planted potatoes and carrots and other crops that are frost resistant and early harvest still gets some food. The mid east could use more rain as the rivers are the source of water these days, in a global cooling situation that would happen.

Gee whiz, is it ever a conundrum.

Which comic book hero in tights do we call to save us?
One issue. "What happens when you forget to migrate with the seasons, bye, bye birdie.'
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Dominion (TV Series 2014– ) - IMDb


The graphics are surprisingly good. Not sure if they will do any flashbacks to the time before Noah. They shied away from showing 'an Angel of the Lord' killing 180,000 soldiers in one night so adhering to the script is not all that important.

Dominion - Extended Trailer - YouTube
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,336
113
Vancouver Island
So far as I can tell all climate change models have been made by people with a predetermined conclusion that man is causing a change in the temperature. Basing your computer model on a conclusion instead of starting with a theory and trying to prove or disprove it is just bad science. And as with all things computer it is GIGO(garbage in, garbage out).
 

Grievous

Time Out
Jul 28, 2014
1,009
0
36
Whitby
So far as I can tell all climate change models have been made by people with a predetermined conclusion that man is causing a change in the temperature. Basing your computer model on a conclusion instead of starting with a theory and trying to prove or disprove it is just bad science. And as with all things computer it is GIGO(garbage in, garbage out).


You do of course have proof of this right?


Proof it's not just scientists doing science.


Can you, at the very least explain to us all the scientific method.......do have any clue at all what that is?


Try explaining it without google......that would be even funnier.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
You do of course have proof of this right?


Proof it's not just scientists doing science.


Can you, at the very least explain to us all the scientific method.......do have any clue at all what that is?


Try explaining it without google......that would be even funnier.


The end result is that ALL of the models have failed.. How they got there is irrelevant, but among the reasons, poor science like taxslave speculated may be one of those reasons, but sh*tty scientists is the more likely reason
 

Grievous

Time Out
Jul 28, 2014
1,009
0
36
Whitby
The end result is that ALL of the models have failed.. How they got there is irrelevant, but among the reasons, poor science like taxslave speculated may be one of those reasons, but sh*tty scientists is the more likely reason



Did I ask you?


....but since we are here.


How did the models fail?


Don't like the scientists involved?


Which ones?


What papers have you read to confirm this?


Did you do your own research?


Publish any papers?


.........or, did you read an online blog with the Koolaid guy at the bottom confirming your predisposed beliefs like taxi accused the scientists of doing without a shred of evidence to support it?


The only thing that would convince me personally that AGW is garbage would be to expose a vast.....and I mean vast conspiracy.




Call me the magic bullet guy.....prove to me that it is all one big hoax.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,915
11,193
113
Low Earth Orbit
The end result is that ALL of the models have failed.. How they got there is irrelevant, but among the reasons, poor science like taxslave speculated may be one of those reasons, but sh*tty scientists is the more likely reason

A lack of ocean modelling. Since geophysicists can't currently model and predict the systems that drive ocean currents let alone ocean currents themselves, there is absolutely no way of predicting atmospheric responses to said oceanic systems.

I'm sure somebody will call bull**** without verifying this fact.

Have fun kids.