on the basis that another process that was designed to yield better results on a different variable doesn't yield results quite as accurate on the primary variable
The primary variable of these models is the fucking temperature your complete cretin.
With respect to the science, what these clowns have in fact discovered is that the models with the most realistic simulations of clouds also had the most unrealistic representations of temperature change compared to actual real-world measurements. In other words, "we're modelling clouds really well but the temperature we've been generating here is a complete fantasy".
Remarkable. I call BS on this entire enterprise. I expect they have begged the question with their selection method much as Michael Mann did with his proxies in his utterly terrible hockey stick paper.
Kind of sweet that you'd post more sleight of hand from the "hockey team" propaganda website. Look once again, as they desperately attempt to hide the decline (or in this case, the fact that the models are embarrassingly wrong). Obviously the hind-cast is correct; it's just curve fitting. The forecast they have stuck a line through the middle. Yet this is not what the actual model results show. Here's the actual graph without RealClimate propaganda. Enjoy.
The fact that the planet has remained in a warming trend during this period only backs up climatologists claims that we're in deep sh*t
It hasn't though, has it. The trend is flat for the last 17 years. Also, you're discounting the positive effects of warming and increased Co2, which are substantial. They're not included because they hurt the "crisis" narrative and the crisis narrative feeds huge sums of government money to academic institutions, NGOs and "green economy" start-ups.
Yes, this is the kind of thing us denialist trolls have been saying for years: Sensitivity is far too high. Strangely, even though the IPCC itself has slashed its prediction, we're still called "denialists". It seems to me looking at the thread that it isn't the sceptics who're in denial here.
That's a big IF, isn't it. Worse, it makes no difference to the skill of their model. This is obvious to anyone who has any knowledge of discrete mathematics.
If you read the IPCC report, you'll find they slashed their measure of climate sensitivity. I expect it'll go down in the next one too, because let's face it they can't keep producing reports that contradict real-world observations, can they. Of course it's almost certain that you have not read the reports yourself.
That is the case with the big picture in climate science.
Unfortunately it isn't, no. If it were, then you would have seen the warming trend continue past 1997. Unfortunately it's stopped even though CO2 has continued to increase. This is something of a problem for your hypothesis, isn't it, especially as we're now over half way through the standard 30 year period of significance.
In my view, when people think something's settled and the real-world evidence flatly contradicts it, it isn't fucking settled.
It probably warmed during the 20th century, yes. But then it warmed during the 19th as well, and the 18th. In fact it's been gently warming since the end of the LIA. It was warmer during the Roman Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period too. It's actually relatively cold at the moment.
Obviously climate scientists failed their Philosophy of Science class, as they seem to regularly mistake a trend for a law. Worse, they actually think their models have skill, despite the fact that in order to have any skill they would need a resolution of at least 1mm or less; something it would take 10^20 years to compute a 10 year prediction for.
If we're naive in wanting our government to behave, what are you for seeming to make excuses for their behavior?
You are naive in suggesting that you think your government can behave if some other government out there is misbehaving, giving itself a decisive advantage. Sometimes I think you people are living in some kind of la-la land.
I saw yesterday that William Rees Mogg, a British Conservative MP, had his site blocked by O2 from his own phone. Well, here's the thing: The Daily Mail newspaper, read by oh I don't know, 100,000,000 worldwide (internet views), was running a campaign and Claire Perry, another Conservative MP, was charged by the Prime Minister with placating it. She did so but as always with the things politicians do, the blow-back from the unintended consequences of this action will probably cause the party to suffer more than the original act.
The power of outrage is very strong in the UK at the moment, across all fronts. People were outraged at children being able to view pornography and now a different set of people are outraged that seemingly innocuous websites are being blocked.
All governments are spying on all other governments, especially when it comes to what they consider are their vital economic interests. No doubt Brazil has a spy agency spying on US corporations too (shock!). Germany is spying on Britain. Britain is spying on France. France is spying on the US. The US is spying on Brazil. Brazil are spying on Chile. Chile is spying on Argentina. Argentina is spying on China. China is spying on absolutely everyone. Indeed, China has a MASSIVE on-going espionage operation, across corporate, governmental and military interests.
What shocks me more than spying is the fact that so many people on slashdot seem to have only become aware of it when Snowden leaked. I'm guessing you were either asleep during the Cold War or not yet born. Either that or wilfully ignorant, or just plain stupid. I suspect the latter, because frankly the naivete you and others show here is simply breathtaking.
I would think that having liquid water may or may not be a necessary condition for life, but it certainly isn't sufficient. At least for Abiogenesis, I would have thought a vibrant chemical and energy environment, such as that provided by hydrothermal vents from an active core, were far more important within certain ranges.
Although it would be exciting and interesting to send subs down there to see what there is, my expectation would be that it's sterile.
For godssake don't give the game away. You need to be kept permanently in anticipation of your imminent doom in order to justify NGO and institutional tax payer funding, and also to ensure that the extremely tedious, dreary and boring wastes of space who populate environmental science departments across the world are taken seriously by politicians.
I'll see you at the next climate science conference in the exclusive luxury resort of Punta Cana, Dominican Republic.
The radioactive isotopes are a bonus. Via differentiation, radioactive decay in a planet's core generates lots of heat and heat is what you need if you want lots of hydrothermal vents to accumulate and concentrate organic molecules for you.
I couldn't give a flying fuck whether you believe me or not. I don't need a degree to see the problem with the OP, which you have singularly failed to refute, or even argue about.
Thanks for your concern but I have a BSc. (Hons) 1st Class in Computer Science. But what's more interesting is that you didn't actually argue against my main point. Rather, you preferred to go grammar-bully, which in my experience is fairly typical of climate Nazis.
What the insurance companies are frightened of are idiots like you and your supporting politicians framing absolutely every natural event as "climate change". When you look at the actual facts, you'll see that the truth is the absolute opposite of what your tiny little brain perceives it to be, conditioned as it is through the lens of your favourite "liberal" (not classical liberal) news source, which itself is informed by activist scientists and NGOs who's budgets are mostly acquired through lobbying the very governments they claim to be trying to influence.
What a load of complete and utter bollocks. Activists and NGOs just making stuff up and calling it science is not Science, it's political activism. If you can't tell the difference, you're an idiot.
Slashdot Mirror
The primary variable of these models is the fucking temperature your complete cretin.
With respect to the science, what these clowns have in fact discovered is that the models with the most realistic simulations of clouds also had the most unrealistic representations of temperature change compared to actual real-world measurements. In other words, "we're modelling clouds really well but the temperature we've been generating here is a complete fantasy".
Remarkable. I call BS on this entire enterprise. I expect they have begged the question with their selection method much as Michael Mann did with his proxies in his utterly terrible hockey stick paper.
Kind of sweet that you'd post more sleight of hand from the "hockey team" propaganda website. Look once again, as they desperately attempt to hide the decline (or in this case, the fact that the models are embarrassingly wrong). Obviously the hind-cast is correct; it's just curve fitting. The forecast they have stuck a line through the middle. Yet this is not what the actual model results show. Here's the actual graph without RealClimate propaganda. Enjoy.
It hasn't though, has it. The trend is flat for the last 17 years. Also, you're discounting the positive effects of warming and increased Co2, which are substantial. They're not included because they hurt the "crisis" narrative and the crisis narrative feeds huge sums of government money to academic institutions, NGOs and "green economy" start-ups.
Yes, this is the kind of thing us denialist trolls have been saying for years: Sensitivity is far too high. Strangely, even though the IPCC itself has slashed its prediction, we're still called "denialists". It seems to me looking at the thread that it isn't the sceptics who're in denial here.
That's a big IF, isn't it. Worse, it makes no difference to the skill of their model. This is obvious to anyone who has any knowledge of discrete mathematics.
If you read the IPCC report, you'll find they slashed their measure of climate sensitivity. I expect it'll go down in the next one too, because let's face it they can't keep producing reports that contradict real-world observations, can they. Of course it's almost certain that you have not read the reports yourself.
Unfortunately it isn't, no. If it were, then you would have seen the warming trend continue past 1997. Unfortunately it's stopped even though CO2 has continued to increase. This is something of a problem for your hypothesis, isn't it, especially as we're now over half way through the standard 30 year period of significance.
In my view, when people think something's settled and the real-world evidence flatly contradicts it, it isn't fucking settled.
It probably warmed during the 20th century, yes. But then it warmed during the 19th as well, and the 18th. In fact it's been gently warming since the end of the LIA. It was warmer during the Roman Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period too. It's actually relatively cold at the moment.
Obviously climate scientists failed their Philosophy of Science class, as they seem to regularly mistake a trend for a law. Worse, they actually think their models have skill, despite the fact that in order to have any skill they would need a resolution of at least 1mm or less; something it would take 10^20 years to compute a 10 year prediction for.
Finally, as you might know, around 97 of 100 computer models are running far too hot. But don't fear, scientists think the 3 that aren't have errors and are wrong. This is notwithstanding the fact that the other 97 look nothing like actual measured temperatures.
Isn't this "science" stuff brilliant?
Fuck off and die. Now.
Just thinking about this and wondering how much bird I'll get the first time I punch a Glasshole.
You are naive in suggesting that you think your government can behave if some other government out there is misbehaving, giving itself a decisive advantage. Sometimes I think you people are living in some kind of la-la land.
I saw yesterday that William Rees Mogg, a British Conservative MP, had his site blocked by O2 from his own phone. Well, here's the thing: The Daily Mail newspaper, read by oh I don't know, 100,000,000 worldwide (internet views), was running a campaign and Claire Perry, another Conservative MP, was charged by the Prime Minister with placating it. She did so but as always with the things politicians do, the blow-back from the unintended consequences of this action will probably cause the party to suffer more than the original act.
The power of outrage is very strong in the UK at the moment, across all fronts. People were outraged at children being able to view pornography and now a different set of people are outraged that seemingly innocuous websites are being blocked.
Before you ask, yes, my country is nuts.
All governments are spying on all other governments, especially when it comes to what they consider are their vital economic interests. No doubt Brazil has a spy agency spying on US corporations too (shock!). Germany is spying on Britain. Britain is spying on France. France is spying on the US. The US is spying on Brazil. Brazil are spying on Chile. Chile is spying on Argentina. Argentina is spying on China. China is spying on absolutely everyone. Indeed, China has a MASSIVE on-going espionage operation, across corporate, governmental and military interests.
What shocks me more than spying is the fact that so many people on slashdot seem to have only become aware of it when Snowden leaked. I'm guessing you were either asleep during the Cold War or not yet born. Either that or wilfully ignorant, or just plain stupid. I suspect the latter, because frankly the naivete you and others show here is simply breathtaking.
I would think that having liquid water may or may not be a necessary condition for life, but it certainly isn't sufficient. At least for Abiogenesis, I would have thought a vibrant chemical and energy environment, such as that provided by hydrothermal vents from an active core, were far more important within certain ranges. Although it would be exciting and interesting to send subs down there to see what there is, my expectation would be that it's sterile.
For godssake don't give the game away. You need to be kept permanently in anticipation of your imminent doom in order to justify NGO and institutional tax payer funding, and also to ensure that the extremely tedious, dreary and boring wastes of space who populate environmental science departments across the world are taken seriously by politicians.
I'll see you at the next climate science conference in the exclusive luxury resort of Punta Cana, Dominican Republic.
Cheerio!
The radioactive isotopes are a bonus. Via differentiation, radioactive decay in a planet's core generates lots of heat and heat is what you need if you want lots of hydrothermal vents to accumulate and concentrate organic molecules for you.
During his speech, Bush told the NSA's employees that the NSA was a place where wings take dream.
The Bush administration started the programme under discussion.
I couldn't give a flying fuck whether you believe me or not. I don't need a degree to see the problem with the OP, which you have singularly failed to refute, or even argue about.
For your information.
Is this news? The Decline Effect has been known about (and generally ignored) for years.
Thanks for your concern but I have a BSc. (Hons) 1st Class in Computer Science. But what's more interesting is that you didn't actually argue against my main point. Rather, you preferred to go grammar-bully, which in my experience is fairly typical of climate Nazis.
Error bars in Climate Science were abolished in 1988.
What the insurance companies are frightened of are idiots like you and your supporting politicians framing absolutely every natural event as "climate change". When you look at the actual facts, you'll see that the truth is the absolute opposite of what your tiny little brain perceives it to be, conditioned as it is through the lens of your favourite "liberal" (not classical liberal) news source, which itself is informed by activist scientists and NGOs who's budgets are mostly acquired through lobbying the very governments they claim to be trying to influence.
What a load of complete and utter bollocks. Activists and NGOs just making stuff up and calling it science is not Science, it's political activism. If you can't tell the difference, you're an idiot.