Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...

[ron johnson]

Got a citation for that claim?

How many posts have I made on the subject? It's been pretty well covered.

[ron johnson]

I have a hunch that WronG's pal Tony is using Solver to manipulate the data. It would be pretty easy to make changes on the fly that he demonstrated and have Solver massaging the other variables in the background to spit out the desired results based on the inputs where Tony pretends to adjust the variables called and shows results still looking similar.

Tony's software is public, and he has never been found guilty of manipulating data.

[rideit]

And Trump has not been found guilty of extortion...yet

[Mofro261]

How many posts have I made on the subject? It's been pretty well covered.

Regurgitation is not citation.

Nature, Science, or GTFO.

Anybody whining about pay walls is a little bitch.

[MultiVerse]

I have a hunch that WronG's pal Tony is using Solver to manipulate the data. It would be pretty easy to make changes on the fly that he demonstrated and have Solver massaging the other variables in the background to spit out the desired results based on the inputs where Tony pretends to adjust the variables called and shows results still looking similar.

Who knows if its true, but a commenter says he did the same thing using Tomino's analysis and got the same result then called out tony on twitter and was blocked.

Regardless, there are plenty of other takedowns of tony's methods out there but why bother getting into the weeds about instrument calibration, adjusting for location or equipment changes, observation times in older systems, or homogenization algorithms, etc. when NASA, NOAA, the UK, and Japan produce independent datasets using independent methods that are in close agreement more or less confirming each others approach.

They are either all engaged in a massive conspiracy that ron's source tony has uncovered or decades of effort involving thousands upon thousands of hours has produced datasets that do a good job tracking temperature.


The reality is scientists aren’t inventing global warming through adjustments. They’re just being thorough:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2016...perature-data/

[old goat]

Regurgitation is not citation.

Nature, Science, or GTFO.

Anybody whining about pay walls is a little bitch.

Nature and Science are left wing radical fake news un-American rags that are enemies of the people. Everyone knows that.

[SkiCougar]

>>French fry shortage brought on by record cold, GET IN YOUR SUV AND START IT UP NOW, WE NEED FRENCH FRYS !

“America Braces for Possible French Fry Shortage After Poor Potato Harvest,” reads the headline.
Cool weather and frosts started hitting key potato-growing regions in the U.S. and Canada in October, leading to potato shortages in Alberta, Manitoba, Idaho, North Dakota and Minnesota.

Alberta and Idaho were able to dig up some damaged crops for storage. But growers in Manitoba, North Dakota and Minnesota received snow and rain, forcing them to abandon some supplies in fields.

It’s likely that potato prices could climb this year across North America, said Stephen Nicholson, a senior grains and oilseeds analyst at Rabobank.

The United Potato Growers of Canada estimates about 12,000 Manitoba acres (about 4,900 hectares), or 18% of the province’s planted area, were left unharvested.Manitoba is Canada’s second-largest grower, followed by Alberta. Prince Edward Island is No. 1.

About 6.5% of Alberta’s potatoes are estimated to be frost damaged.

In Idaho, the top producer, output is forecast to fall 5.5%.

https://www.iceagenow.info/fighting-...-food-not-yet/

[k2skier112]

>>French fry shortage brought on by record cold, GET IN YOUR SUV AND START IT UP NOW, WE NEED FRENCH FRYS !

“America Braces for Possible French Fry Shortage After Poor Potato Harvest,” reads the headline.
Cool weather and frosts started hitting key potato-growing regions in the U.S. and Canada in October, leading to potato shortages in Alberta, Manitoba, Idaho, North Dakota and Minnesota.

Alberta and Idaho were able to dig up some damaged crops for storage. But growers in Manitoba, North Dakota and Minnesota received snow and rain, forcing them to abandon some supplies in fields.

It’s likely that potato prices could climb this year across North America, said Stephen Nicholson, a senior grains and oilseeds analyst at Rabobank.

The United Potato Growers of Canada estimates about 12,000 Manitoba acres (about 4,900 hectares), or 18% of the province’s planted area, were left unharvested.Manitoba is Canada’s second-largest grower, followed by Alberta. Prince Edward Island is No. 1.

About 6.5% of Alberta’s potatoes are estimated to be frost damaged.

In Idaho, the top producer, output is forecast to fall 5.5%.

https://www.iceagenow.info/fighting-...-food-not-yet/

and November was warmer, well above average, so?

Albany NY gets a top 10 record snowfall, while Portland OR has the third driest November on record...more and more extremes and anomalies

rj and skoogs can suck each other off when it gets cold in the winter

[old goat]

Aren't french fries a petroleum product?

[Ted Striker]

Every time you reply to Ron god kills a kitten.

[SkiCougar]

and November was warmer, well above average, so?

Albany NY gets a top 10 record snowfall, while Portland OR has the third driest November on record...more and more extremes and anomalies

rj and skoogs can suck each other off when it gets cold in the winter

so ?

I call that weather, been changing on changing weather patterns that change yearly for years. no measurable sea level rise and no temp change from satellite data.

and thanks, but i'll be turning down the offer with rj. no offense but I never was a fan of the bj.

[WMD]

Every time you reply to Ron god kills a kitten.

I used to reply to Ron, now I mostly post in spite of him. But I also believe we should eat both babies and kittens, so I'm ok with this.

[rideit]

And this is why we discount anything skougs says

https://ocean.si.edu/through-time/an...sea-level-rise

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fe...alWarming.html

Holy shit, more obtuse than RJ, how is that possible?

[WMD]

"Climate models have been correct for literally 40 years. Deniers say the models are unreliable. New research proves them hilariously wrong."

"According to the research published today, almost every peer-reviewed climate model of human-caused global temperature rise dating back to 1970 lines up with the warming we see today.

“In scientific terms, we'd say there's no bias,” the paper’s co-author Henri Drake, a PhD candidate at MIT, told me over the phone. “Once we accounted for the differences in CO2 emissions, 14 of the 17 models we analyzed were consistent with current observations.”

“Taken together,” he added, “these climate models have always been quantitatively accurate.”

Today’s issue is about new research published in Geophysical Research Letters evaluating the reliability of climate models dating back to the 1970s.

This research is interesting and validating and infuriating, because it helps debunk one of the oldest and yet still-persistent climate denier tricks in the books: questioning the reliability of climate models.

Thirty-one years ago, in 1988, Dr. James Hansen told Congress that climate change had arrived.

“It is time to stop waffling so much and say that the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here," said Hansen, then the director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. As the Washington Post would later report, that statement and his full testimony made Hansen “one of the first climatologists to speak out about the potential dangers of man-made global warming.”

As evidence for his concern, Hansen attached to his testimony the results of something called a climate model—that is, a tool used to predict what the world might look like under different emissions scenarios. If we emit THIS much carbon dioxide, a climate model says, the world will warm THIS much by THIS year.

Of course, Congress didn’t really listen to Hansen. Not that it was personal—they didn’t really listen to any of the climate scientists warning that, unless we stopped emitting huge quantities of greenhouse gases, global temperatures would rise with potentially catastrophic consequences.

But they didn’t listen to Hansen in part because his model was criticized heavily by climate deniers. In fact, Hansen’s model continues to be criticized today, because the highest point on the chart says the world will warm 1.5 degrees Celsius by the year 2019. To deniers, this means climate models “run hot” and can’t be trusted. (The world has only warmed about 1 degree Celsius since the Industrial Revolution).

But Hansen’s model didn’t “run hot,” as new research out this morning shows. That particular point on the graph just predicted humans would emit more carbon dioxide than we actually did. The only reason it didn’t warm that much is because we didn’t pollute that much. If we had polluted that much, the world would have warmed 1.5 degrees.

So Hansen’s 1988 model was correct. But that’s not all the new paper published in Geophysical Research Letters shows.

According to the research published today, almost every peer-reviewed climate model of human-caused global temperature rise dating back to 1970 lines up with the warming we see today.

“In scientific terms, we'd say there's no bias,” the paper’s co-author Henri Drake, a PhD candidate at MIT, told me over the phone. “Once we accounted for the differences in CO2 emissions, 14 of the 17 models we analyzed were consistent with current observations.”

“Taken together,” he added, “these climate models have always been quantitatively accurate.”

A “screw you” to climate deniers

I asked Drake whether the results of his research—published with Zeke Hausfather, Tristan Abbott, and Gavin Schmidt—represented a sort of “screw you” to climate deniers.

“I wouldn’t put that in my own words,” he said. “But sure.”


The group decided to do an assessment of past climate models because it simply hadn’t been done in a comprehensive way before. Some climate bloggers had attempted to verify singular models from the past, but as Drake explained, “There was little no talk of uncertainties, no talk of natural variabilities. They were no different than skeptic blogs that plot two curves together and make some wild conclusions. We wanted to do it the proper way.”

The “proper way,” he said, is accounting for all scientific literature. In this case, the paper’s authors looked at every past climate model that met three criteria:

The model had a start date and an end date. That is, it started at the then-present or the past, and ended at a specific year in the future.

The model included carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere for both dates. In other words, it included the current concentration of CO2 at the time, and estimated a CO2 concentration for the future.
The model noted what the global average temperature was at the time, and predicted what the global average temperature would be in the future.

The paper’s authors found and analyzed 17 examples of past climate models that fit these criteria. There would be a lot more, except for the fact that in 1990, the United Nations started essentially compiling all climate models into one, so the paper’s authors used those compiled models instead of assessing each one individually. However, “From 1970 to 1990, we have every single published paper we know of that meet those criteria,” Drake said.

Out of these 17 models, Drake said, 14 correctly predicted how much the earth would warm based on how much CO2 was in the atmosphere. The ones that predicted more warming than there is now only did so because they predicted more CO2 emissions, not because the models were "running hot.” The ones that predicted too little warming only did so because they predicted less CO2 emissions. If they had predicted the right amount of CO2 emissions, they would have predicted the correct amount of warming.

In fact, of the three models that incorrectly predicted warming trends, two “ran cold”—that is, they predicted that CO2 would cause less warming than it actually did. Only one climate model from the last 40 years “ran hot.”

One reason this is so impressive is because the climate models scientists use today are far better than the ones Drake’s group analyzed.

“These models we surveyed are operationally obsolete,” he said. “They're written in old programming languages. Virtually no one is using them. But there's value in understanding how good they were back then, because it tells us whether or not we made the right choices back then.”

Spoiler alert: We didn’t!

Fossil fuel companies deny the reliability of climate models, and Republicans follow suit

Climate models are our best evidence to justify rapid, radical climate action. That’s why Republicans and fossil fuel industry executives are doing everything they can to discredit or erase them.

Falsely denying the reliability of climate models is tried and true tactic of the fossil fuel industry. Some of the first evidence of the tactic being used comes from ExxonMobil in 1989, the year after Hansen’s testimony.

As reported by InsideClimate News in 2015, emphasis mine:

Through much of the 1980s, Exxon researchers worked alongside university and government scientists to generate objective climate models that yielded papers published in peer-reviewed journals. Their work confirmed the emerging scientific consensus on global warming's risks.

Yet starting in 1989, Exxon leaders went down a different road. They repeatedly argued that the uncertainty inherent in computer models makes them useless for important policy decisions. Even as the models grew more powerful and reliable, Exxon publicly derided the type of work its own scientists had done. The company continued its involvement with climate research, but its reputation for objectivity began to erode as it campaigned internationally to cast doubt on the science.

In 1998, the tactic was picked up by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an influential libertarian think tank. Since then, questioning and attacking climate models has since become a regular tactic of climate denier lawmakers in the Republican Party, and contrarian scientists who attack climate models have been featured regularly in House Science Committee hearings.

The Trump administration regularly attacks climate models, too. As the New York Times reported back in May:

In the most recent example, the White House-appointed director of the United States Geological Survey, James Reilly, a former astronaut and petroleum geologist, has ordered that scientific assessments produced by that office use only computer-generated climate models that project the impact of climate change through 2040, rather than through the end of the century, as had been done previously.

In that article, a spokesperson for the Trump administration Environmental Protection Agency decried the use of “inaccurate modeling” to justify climate action.

This, again, is the Environmental Protection Agency.

https://heated.world/p/climate-models-have-been-correct?r=36qpx&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email &utm_source=copy

[Ted Striker]

we should eat both babies and kittens

Babies for sure.

[rideit]

I prefer Thai, Indian, or Mexican babies myself.

[k2skier112]

$300 chicken nuggets?

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/2nbukc...save-the-world

[dan_pdx]

How many posts have I made on the subject? It's been pretty well covered.

So you can't produce a source? Got it

[dan_pdx]

I believe the title of the post is in jest because 'Tamino' used to accuse him of faking the graphs. But I'm just wondering, why do you find 'Tamino' to be such a credible source? He isn't a scientist like you claim, he is a statistician. I'm sure you had never heard of him before today. Here are some of Tony's posts on TOB adjustments:
[/URL]

This is a real, literal, laugh out loud moment. What could statistics POSSIBLY have to do with investigating whether temperatures are in fact changing over time? OBVIOUSLY, you need a SCIENTIST to study that, statistics has nothing to do with it!

[SLCUTAH]

Climate change is real but the climate alarmists are out of control. Yes the earth has warmed due to deforestation and urbanization. Link to a very interesting video that shows how data has been manipulated to cause alarm https://youtu.be/8455KEDitpU

[rideit]

Sometimes you need a loud alarm in order to awaken the sleeping buffoon that doesn’t realize there is a fire in the kitchen.

[Mofro261]

Climate change is real but the climate alarmists are out of control. Yes the earth has warmed due to deforestation and urbanization. Link to a very interesting video that shows how data has been manipulated to cause alarm https://youtu.be/8455KEDitpU

Nice link to a vid by the discredited anti-climate data manipulator (Tony Heller) being discussed in the posts DIRECTLY above.

Back to your dribble cup now.

[ron johnson]

This is a real, literal, laugh out loud moment. What could statistics POSSIBLY have to do with investigating whether temperatures are in fact changing over time? OBVIOUSLY, you need a SCIENTIST to study that, statistics has nothing to do with it!

No surprise you totally missed the point. I don't care about whether the guy is a scientist or a statistician. My point was that MV was leaning heavily on the opinion of an anonymous blogger, that he had never heard of before yesterday, who he knows nothing about, and thought he was a scientist when he wasn't.

[ron johnson]

So you can't produce a source? Got it

I'm not going to waste my time on you. I've covered this ad nauseam with numerous sources. If you actually care you can look back through the thread, but I'm pretty sure you don't.

[ron johnson]

Nice link to a vid by the discredited anti-climate data manipulator (Tony Heller) being discussed in the posts DIRECTLY above.

Back to your dribble cup now.

Nothing above has discredited him.