Talk-Polywell.org

AGW is being peer reviewed by reality, and it is saying the theory is wrong:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... cover.html

Read the whole thing, especially these parts:

A paper in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics – by Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Dr Marcia Wyatt – amounts to a stunning challenge to climate science orthodoxy.

According to Dr Hawkins, the divergence is now so great that the world’s climate is cooler than what the models collectively predicted with ‘five to 95 per cent certainty’.

According to almost all the 138 models used by the IPCC, there is a 1 in 20 chance or less that they are correct.

Professor Curry went much further. ‘The growing divergence between climate model simulations and observations raises the prospect that climate models are inadequate in fundamental ways,’ she said.

If the pause continued, this would suggest that the models were not ‘fit for purpose’.

What are we running from Schniebster? You don't know enough to have a discussion with. It's likely every one on this board know more math than you do. I occasionally have colleagues coming to me to get math done, and they have 30 years experience on me--and they aren't slouches at that. You don't realize the fact that CO2 has been far higher in the recent past and the global temperatures colder, means that for the AGW theory to work, human released CO2 has to be magically more warming than natural CO2, possessed with the power of higher gains and "forcing" as the fraudsters put it than natural CO2.

AGW is not a physical model, it is solely a statistical one, and the numbers have all been gamed. AGW is Garbage In, Garbage Out.

You don't understand how ludicrously badly peer review has failed before, like the idea that cold-natured mothers cause autism, or that most psychological illnesses are not materially based, or that margarine is better for you than real butter, or that fat in that diet cause obesity, or that salt in your diet as commonly found is generically bad for you.

The government's "food pyramid" or whatever they are calling it these days, is most likely what's causing obesity.

You don't know enough to talk to, and you'd be am insufferable dick if you did.

We don't need an "Directorate of Science", we need peer review juries to reject all papers by everyone who hasn't, in that jury's eyes, faithfully attempted to replicate at least ten papers before they get to publish one, and then publishing is on a one for one basis.

TDPerk wrote:AGW is being peer reviewed by reality, and it is saying the theory is wrong:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... cover.html

Read the whole thing, especially these parts:

A paper in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics – by Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Dr Marcia Wyatt – amounts to a stunning challenge to climate science orthodoxy.

According to Dr Hawkins, the divergence is now so great that the world’s climate is cooler than what the models collectively predicted with ‘five to 95 per cent certainty’.

According to almost all the 138 models used by the IPCC, there is a 1 in 20 chance or less that they are correct.

Professor Curry went much further. ‘The growing divergence between climate model simulations and observations raises the prospect that climate models are inadequate in fundamental ways,’ she said.

If the pause continued, this would suggest that the models were not ‘fit for purpose’.

What are we running from Schniebster? You don't know enough to have a discussion with. It's likely every one on this board know more math than you do. I occasionally have colleagues coming to me to get math done, and they have 30 years experience on me--and they aren't slouches at that. You don't realize the fact that CO2 has been far higher in the recent past and the global temperatures colder, means that for the AGW theory to work, human released CO2 has to be magically more warming than natural CO2, possessed with the power of higher gains and "forcing" as the fraudsters put it than natural CO2.

AGW is not a physical model, it is solely a statistical one, and the numbers have all been gamed. AGW is Garbage In, Garbage Out.

You don't understand how ludicrously badly peer review has failed before, like the idea that cold-natured mothers cause autism, or that most psychological illnesses are not materially based, or that margarine is better for you than real butter, or that fat in that diet cause obesity, or that salt in your diet as commonly found is generically bad for you.

The government's "food pyramid" or whatever they are calling it these days, is most likely what's causing obesity.

You don't know enough to talk to, and you'd be am insufferable dick if you did.

We don't need an "Directorate of Science", we need peer review juries to reject all papers by everyone who hasn't, in that jury's eyes, faithfully attempted to replicate at least ten papers before they get to publish one, and then publishing is on a one for one basis.

Very accurate - and I have no doubt Schniebster will completely discount it because he believes he's the smartest one in the room, because he KNOWS that everything you've said is a lie. It must be a lie because it goes against what he believes.

He has yet to understand belief doesn't always correlate with reality - and can lead you far astray if it doesn't.

He will just wave that desmog post that asserts that the last decade is the warmest ever around and that will trump every piece of real information you could provide.

Then I look forward to the Arctic Ice Death Spiral chart's trend slowly reversing direction.
Where is their study?
Found it.

As for as I can determine, they are referring to sea ice area and not volume.

Dr. Wyatt wrote: “While the results of this study appear to have implications regarding the hiatus in warming, the stadium wave signal does not support or refute anthropogenic global warming. The stadium wave hypothesis seeks to explain the natural multi-decadal component of climate variability”

so how does this affect AGW exactly?

Jccarlton wrote:He will just wave that desmog post that asserts that the last decade is the warmest ever around and that will trump every piece of real information you could provide.

That was then - this is now.

Or as anyone who's ever read a prospectus knows: "Past performance is no guarantee of future results."

Reality ALWAYS wins out.

Still denying the satellites I see.

JLawson wrote:

Jccarlton wrote:He will just wave that desmog post that asserts that the last decade is the warmest ever around and that will trump every piece of real information you could provide.

That was then - this is now.

Or as anyone who's ever read a prospectus knows: "Past performance is no guarantee of future results."

Reality ALWAYS wins out.

Yep, and reality is satellites that say more heat is going in than coming out, and the Arctic Ice Death Spiral.

"Yep, and reality is satellites that say more heat is going in than coming out, and the Arctic Ice Death Spiral."

The Arctic was occasionally bare of ice in the '30's, I if I recall, and the 60's/70's once or twice, and is behaving in a perfectly usual fashion, there is no evidence there of anything but the usual variations in climate.

I suppose you think you have irrefutable proof that more heat is "going in than coming out"?

I know it isn't so.

@Stubby
"so how does this affect AGW exactly?"

It invalidates it completely. It has greater explanatory power and actual replicable intellectual rigor. AGW is the theory that human released CO2--unlike other like and higher concentrations of CO2 known to be present in the atmosphere in geologically recent times past--was doing such drastically bad things to the climate by warming it, that we had to immediately take steps to reverse our CO2 output even though it would necessarily impoverish billions and lead to the prompt early death of millions. AGW was always founded in fraud and so simplistic a model of the climate, that it has never reflected reality with any rigor, no global warming model has ever replicated the recent known past from the known past. That's why the AGW fraudsters had to keep on cherry picking fragments of datasets by ad hoc justifications, and why so many of their "adjustments" to their data sets were in the plus direction, although most temperature measuring stations are badly sited and should be ignored or adjusted down to compensate for heat island effects.

Per the paper, secondhand from the online article:

"It also means that a large proportion of the warming that did occur in the years before the pause was due not to greenhouse gas emissions, but to the same cyclical wave."

And there is already no statistically significant evidence ANY warming is caused by human released greenhouse gasses. No we know where what was seen came from.

Then how do you explain one of the authors saying this

Dr Wyatt wrote:“While the results of this study appear to have implications regarding the hiatus in warming, the stadium wave signal does not support or refute anthropogenic global warming. The stadium wave hypothesis seeks to explain the natural multi-decadal component of climate variability”

TDPerk wrote:"Yep, and reality is satellites that say more heat is going in than coming out, and the Arctic Ice Death Spiral."

The Arctic was occasionally bare of ice in the '30's, I if I recall, and the 60's/70's once or twice, and is behaving in a perfectly usual fashion, there is no evidence there of anything but the usual variations in climate.

I suppose you think you have irrefutable proof that more heat is "going in than coming out"?

I know it isn't so.

Need a link for this please. Not that I don't trust your memory but I don't trust your memory.
If the death spiral reached zero at any point in the last 100 years...

Here Stubby,

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/anta ... -are-sync/

One attempt to understand the D-O events is the ‘polar seesaw’ theory, which says that when one pole is getting colder, the other is getting warmer, perhaps with some delay between the two oscillations.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Arctic_ ... arctic.pdf

We hear a constant hyping of the new low arctic ice record and the
ignoring of the simultaneous increase of Antarctic ice which appears
heading towards a near new record high.
To these so called scientists and the media, the world began in 1979
when satellite tracking began, The famous picture of the submarine
Skate surfacing at the North Pole in August 1959 shows this has
happened before.


http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/0 ... ic-seesaw/



Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, …, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. -Washington Post, November 2, 1922.

And before:
“A considerable change of climate inexplicable at present to us must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been, during the last two years, greatly abated.”

“2000 square leagues of ice with which the Greenland Seas between the latitudes of 74̊ and 80̊N have been hitherto covered, has in the last two years entirely disappeared.” -Royal Society, London. Nov. 20, 1817. Minutes of Council, Vol. 8. pp.149-153.

http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/0 ... saw/skate/

We've only had satellite data on the icecaps since 1979.

TDPerk wrote:"Yep, and reality is satellites that say more heat is going in than coming out, and the Arctic Ice Death Spiral."

The Arctic was occasionally bare of ice in the '30's, I if I recall, and the 60's/70's once or twice,

Absolutely false.

http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/publication ... hC_RSI.pdf

And that's just from the edge. In the center, it's never melted since before the beginning of the Würm/Wisconsonian glaciation, a hundred thousand years ago before Homo Sapiens Sapiens existed. This was established by coring in the Arctic before you were born. You can count the seasons, just like tree rings.

For that matter, they have moss from Baffin Island that's at least 44,000 years old, and surrounding physical evidence evidence suggests it's more like 120,000 years old. As in, 44,000 years ago was the middle of the last ice age.

Then there's the mud cores from the Arctic Ocean.

You're denying three lines of evidence. Completely separate from one another, and performed by totally unrelated scientists, in almost completely unrelated fields: paleobotany, paleogeology, and paleoclimatology. Their only relation is they study the deep past. They do so by completely separate methods.

This is called "consilience." It's one of the reasons we know science is right. Things fit together; different methods give the same result if they study the same thing.