LOL...
I understand, as I see most of your posts as BS as well.
Now, under the assumption you are asking for support of the warming formula, let me start with this, which you can verify with a calculator or Excel:
The AR4 claims a 1.66 W/m^2 warming for the period of 1750 to 2004(5?). The use the increase in CO2 from 278 to 379 ppm.
5.35 x ln(379/278) = 1.66
The AR5 claims 1.82 W/m^2 for the range of 278 to 391 ppm for 1750 to 2011.
5.35 x ln(391/278) = 1.82
I don't recall where in the AR4 or AR5 the formula is listed, but they do refer to the study, Myhre et al 1998, and it is is the TAR, table 6.2, the first of three CO2 formulas:
He still cannot justify his numbers. He is passing off the aggregate average of forcing measurements over 250 years that IPCC lists with a +/-10% degree of error and is trying to pass it off as the exact number they use in their current models. It's been pointed out to him yet he continues to repeat the same with the same ty numbers.
Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 03-03-2015 at 04:49 PM.
Your argument is a non sequitur to my statement. Why are you so ing stupid?
LOL...
I understand, as I see most of your posts as BS as well.
Now, under the assumption you are asking for support of the warming formula, let me start with this, which you can verify with a calculator or Excel:
The AR4 claims a 1.66 W/m^2 warming for the period of 1750 to 2004(5?). The use the increase in CO2 from 278 to 379 ppm.
5.35 x ln(379/278) = 1.66
The AR5 claims 1.82 W/m^2 for the range of 278 to 391 ppm for 1750 to 2011.
5.35 x ln(391/278) = 1.82
I don't recall where in the AR4 or AR5 the formula is listed, but they do refer to the study, Myhre et al 1998, and it is is the TAR, table 6.2, the first of three CO2 formulas:
mistake
If current trends continue, in the next few years, we will have to admit that something is fundamentally wrong with climate models. A 20 year pause in warming doesn't occur in any of the simulations.
All I see in a lack of comprehension on your part.
You have no basis for said claim. As usual you are talking out of your ass about something you have no way of knowing.
You say that with everyone. The (lowest) common denominator is you.
WC has backtracked. He now admits there is such a thing as AGW, even goes so far (hilariously, again) to claim no one denies it. Now he's just bickering over the extent, when he used to blame the sun and soot.
OK, this implies two things:
1. you have read the original study and have the ability to understand the science - is this true or have you just read about it?
2. you have read the vast majority of the other studies to be able to say that this is the first and can prove the definitive bit - and I remain EXTREMELY skeptical of this.
BTW 10 years? Really?
I should've quoted the guy
A very interesting interviewStorch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-906721.html
It's not bad per se, but it would be like using tape on the ground to designate a smoking area.
You should have quoted someone who worked on models and not a meteorologist. How would this guy know?
He's a climate scientist. Appears that he's published quite a few papers.
http://scholar.google.com/citations?...GCIAAAAJ&hl=en
I didn't see the exhaustive work analyzing the slopes of climate models. Please point me to the work where he would have made a determination on 'all climate models.'
He is saying he proved a negative. i am curious to see where he did it.
I see papers on climate modeling. I don't know what list you're looking at.
It's funny that you NOW have to on this guy, since you reflexively on my post that paraphrased him.
Now you are dissembling again. You are waving your hands at "A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario." That means he claims to have examined all of them exhaustively. Please point me to the exhaustive work and not your red herring. Mostly what I see is a whole ton of work mitigating forcings.I see papers on climate modeling. I don't know what list you're looking at.
It's funny that you NOW have to on this guy, since you reflexively on my post that paraphrased him.
I've already made my point.
I prefer BEST's analysis. It is critical certainly but not the latest buzz phrase being smeared across the Koch funded web denial industry.
http://berkeleyearth.org/graphics/mo...-vs-be-dataset
IT shows pretty clearly that they are having issues modeling regional climates in a whole system particularly in central asia and the north pole where they are colder and warmer than actual measurements respectively.
And I refuted it and presented an alternate source to evaluate the performances of climate models as opposed to your throwaway line from a news interview. Funny how that works and as usual this is the part where you run away from the actual argument.
Why People "Fly from Facts"
Does that exchange sound familiar: a debate that starts with testable factual statements, but then, when the truth becomes inconvenient, the person takes a flight from facts.
As public debate rages about issues like immunization, Obamacare, and same-sex marriage, many people try to use science to bolster their arguments. And since it’s becoming easier to test and establish facts—whether in physics, psychology, or policy—many have wondered why bias and polarization have not been defeated. When people are confronted with facts, such as the well-established safety of immunization, why do these facts seem to have so little effect?
Our new research, recently published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, examined a slippery way by which people get away from facts that contradict their beliefs. Of course, sometimes people just dispute the validity of specific facts. But we find that people sometimes go one step further and, as in the opening example, they reframe an issue in untestable ways. This makes potential important facts and science ultimately irrelevant to the issue.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...SA_WR_20150304
Are you really going to act ignorant of the evolution of Mann and BEST relative to the debate as a whole? koch funded them when the question was still open in 2010. When they started putting out their reports with their findings the funding ended. It is very clear on that page where there has been nothing since the startup.
Now compare Koch and Dr Soon and the deception which you yourself should be familiar with. You too like to misrepresent yourself.
It's been noted you have abandoned your argument of having proven a negative as per usual.
Are you really this stupid?
I had a hunch that (1) I could find a statement from a climate scientist that was slightly critical of the science, (2) I could alter the words slightly and post it as my own thought, and (3) that you would reflexively pounce on it because I posted it.
You didn't disappoint.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
