climate humor

imate.html

s," says

ta from observation says global cooling. The physical model says it has to be warming."

Several thousand years ago ...

, it has to get warmer," Liu says.

That is a tautology. English language science writers have been known to pe rpetrate them. No physicist would actually have said that, so it's got to h ave been the journalist or her editor.

ent with the models.

Since what was being talked about was the climate a couple of thousand year s ago, the cost includes the development of heavy duty time machine.

om eliminating California emissions could equal the $1.1 trillion installat ion cost of 603 GW of new power needed for a 100% all-purpose WWS system wi thin ?7 (4?14) years."

The Saudi's haven't got a lock on solar power. If the US stopped having to import oil, it wouldn't have a balance of payments deficit.

And while it's getting progressively more difficult and expensive to dig up fossil carbon to burn to generate power, the Sun's going to hang up there generating power for the next couple of billion years (after which time it will start generating more power, rather than less, which we may need to do something about).

-birds-mid-air-25017031

Only until evolution has done it's work. Cars don't kill as much wild-life as they used to.

OK, I'm mostly agnostic when it comes to AGW. But how do you know this guys computer model of the climate is any good?

George H.

e.html

says

romobservation says global cooling. The physical model says it has to be wa rming."

has to get warmer," Liu says.

y/8075816#!bGQciO

This is all half-baked. Anthropogenic global warming is about the progressi vely rising CO2 level in the atmosphere, which we've been monitoring direct ly since 1958 (when it was 315ppm). It's now 400ppm.

This has imposed a steadily rising trend on the observed average global tem perature. The average global temperature also reflects the erratic paths of the heat flow from the tropics to the poles.

The El Nino/la Nina alternation in Pacific Ocean currents has a well known effect on average global temperature - El Nino makes it a bit warmer, La Ni na a bit cooler.

There are slower - multidecadal - alternations in other ocean currents in t he Pacific Ocean and in in currents in the Atlantic. We haven't got as much data on them yet, though the Argo buoys are starting to tell us more about what's going on.

These processes are indeed chaotic, but they are alternations, and they jus t impose noise on the observation record. This does indeed make it harder t o see the underlying CO2-generated trend, but it's not "realigning climate change theory", it's just explaining in more detail where the noise on the global temperature record comes from.

e.html

says

rom

rming."

has to

y/8075816#!bGQciO

Having a bad reading comprehension day? It says "...So our interest is to u nderstand -- first the natural variability of climate -- and then take it f rom there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natura l,"

So he has this synchronized chaos application that seems to explain observe d climate variablity. Where is the science here?

It might be brown and sticky, but it isn't fudge.

The good news is that we used to exclusively have bogus models that explain global warming, but now we are beginning to have bogus models that explain cooling.

mate.html

," says

a from

warming."

it has to

eory/8075816#!bGQciO

o understand -- first the natural variability of climate -- and then take i t from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all nat ural,"

rved climate variablity. Where is the science here?

That's not the case at all, it sounds like the chaotic systems synchronizat ion modeling is useful, but it has nothing to do with the physics creating the systems in the first place, only the interaction of existing systems.

Science seems to be self-correcting in the long term, but it can sure get whacky now and then.

Michael Terrell's grasp of the climate data evidence seems to be about as r eliable as krw's. Neither knows shit from shinola in this area, and neither knows remotely enough to appreciate quite how ill-informed they are, or qu ite how susceptible they are to fossil-carbon extraction industry (aka deni alist) misinformation.

Denialist propaganda isn't aimed at the well-informed, but rather at the ki nd of right-wing nitwit who thinks that anybody who as got more money than they do must know more about the world.

mate.html

," says Liu, a professor in the UW-Madison Center for Climatic Research. "D ata from observation says global cooling. The physical model says it has to be warming."

it has to get warmer," Liu says.

eory/8075816#!bGQciO

o understand -- first the natural variability of climate -- and then take i t from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all nat ural,"

rved climate variablity. Where is the science here?

explain global warming, but now we are beginning to have bogus models that explain cooling.

John Larkin fails reading comprehension again. The problem that Liu is comp laining about is that his models don't explain the - tiny - cooling that se ems to have happened in the current interglacial from a temperature peak ab out 5000 years ago - early Holocene - to the end of the Little Ice Age - mi ddle and late Holocene - and the start of anthropogenic global warming with the industrial revolution.

And the models aren't "bogus". Like all models they are are over-simplified and incomplete. Liu's models also suffer from an absence of volcanic and v egetation inputs, and don't seem to explicitly consider the ocean current d istribution contribution either, though that's probably where his chaotic e lement aka noise is coming from.

The full paper

does include discussion of melt-water effects and the turning off of the Gu lf Stream during the Younger Dryas, but the more subtle effects of the occa sional re-routing of more or less normal ocean current flow don't get menti oned.

Quite how he might get explicit evidence on what the La Nina/ El Nino and t he Atlantic Multidecadal alternations were doing back then does escape me, but no doubt some sedimentologist will eventually fill in the gaps.

lain global warming, but now we are beginning to have bogus models that exp lain cooling.

itical Science (or is the politicized science?) the truth is whatever is ge nerating the grant money at the moment.

The "new ice age stories" date from the 1970's - that's 40 years ago, not 2

2. formatting link

whacky now and then.

Science had self-corrected that hypothesis by about 1980. The news doesn't seem to have reach John Larkin or Neon John yet, but their understanding of "science" seems to be whatever the Murdoch press tells them "science" happ ens to be a the time. That kind of "science" is what people who advertise e xtravagantly in the Murdoch media want it to be, and tends to be shorn of i nconvenient facts.

Not that the "johns" involved would notice. Their attention is being divert ed by immediate sensory gratification, and they don't seem to worry about t he long-term infections they may pick up in the process of being seduced.

Yeah, it's Slowman.

Krw's judgement isn't entirely reliable, and he's too dim to be aware that he spends a lot of time advertising this.

Founder of Weather Channel Talks About the Hoax of Global Warming: a 36 minute video that goes into a lot of detail.

That's a lot of detail? He cherry picks his data showing only very short term and *extremely* long term temperature trends. He creates strawmen based on what is reported in the news as if that was science and then refutes them. Much of his video is not even science, but rather emotion. He does have a great speaking voice - a bit like Paul Harvey. So I guess that adds some credence to his points... lol I quit a third of the way through as I hadn't found anything of substance and don't expect to.

"I quit a third of the way through as I hadn't found anything of substance and don't expect to."

There's no leftist bias there ?>:-} ...Jim Thompson

Lol. I went back to it until he claimed the "media" has an "Al Gore liberal bias".

It is interesting that those who believe that AGW is real just look at the science without claiming any sort of a conspiracy or other collusion. But those who don't believe in AGW seem to believe there is a global conspiracy afoot. This docudrama is full of that sort of stuff and the only "facts" presented are cherry picked to highlight the doubt that always exists in such a complex phenomena.

We could discuss his points one by one, but is there really any purpose? It would be the same tired, old discussion this group is way too full of. Usually the subject is irrelevant because the discussion is almost never about the topic it is supposed to be.

I believe NOAA's published data. Do you? ...Jim Thompson