4 ms·

> You ask for us to lie? No. I was just responding literally to the question. Or, for a more socially acceptable response, the Vostok data has me have troubl

by graycat 10y ago

> You ask for us to lie? No. I was just responding literally to the question. Or, for a more socially acceptable response, the Vostok data has me have trouble with the idea that humans are causing climate change. > Those models uniformly project human-caused global warming, and are passing various kinds of sanity checks. The data I have on that indicates that essentially all the models ("uniformly") are wildly wrong. They predicted that by now the temperature would be much higher. Some of that data is reviewed in http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop# http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020430140457717... The way too high predictions are plotted in http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/ http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-clima... > Those models uniformly project human-caused global warming Not all the models. There is a model that fits the data much better -- at least since the last ice age: The model claims that the variation in rates of sun spots causes the temperature changes and that CO2 has essentially nothing to do with climate. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas -- it absorbs in three narrow bands out in the infrared and, thus, absorbs some of the infrared radiation from the Planck black body radiation of the surface of the earth warmed by the sun. But according to the model I am mentioning, this effect from CO2 is tiny. Instead, again from the model I am mentioning, overwhelmingly, the main driver of global temperature since the last ice age has been just clouds, and they have varied with the sun spots. Just why is a longer argument made clear, e.g., in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg So, that is another model that needs to be tested. For now, that model seems to fit the temperature data much better than the CO2, greenhouse gas, Navier-Stokes, atmospheric diffusion, etc. models. To me, the CO2 models fit the data so poorly we have to reject CO2 as relevant to climate change and look elsewhere for the significant cause(s) of climate change. For now, to me, the best model is the one I mentioned here based on sun spots -- you didn't mention sun spots.

throwaway5752 10y ago
Doesn't it worry you at all that you have cited no academic literature in journals? You have an OpEd piece, a youtube video (the producer of which is known for replying to an email critiquing his use of data with "You’re a big daft c*ck"... people can google Martin Durkin and make their own conclusions about him), and the blog of a creationist who refers to those he disagrees with as "global warming Nazis"?
- mistermann 10y ago
  Has this other model been proven incorrect?
  - throwaway5752 10y ago
    None of the three other articles refers to any model. The closest is Dr. Spencer. His published work been critiqued by better people than me, and is readily discoverable via search engine. I can find no record of him making predictions of future warming, just criticism of existing models over the nature of atmospheric water vapor, cloud formation, and infrared reflectivity. His claims are highly disputed (search for "Remote Sensing Wolfgang Wagner")
- graycat 10y ago
  Not really. I have other things to do. The Al Gore, IPCC arguments look bad to me, just from what I wrote, that the temperature record and the CO2 record convince me that CO2 has little or nothing to do with temperature. There is a biggie point: The Al Gore crowd has a claim about CO2 that would have us shoot in the gut much of current civilization. There are at least two ways to respond: (1) From a lot of really good science, find a better answer. (2) F'get about finding a better answer or even any answer but just debunk the Al Gore answer by finding holes in its argument. Then for (2), one way is really simple, just look at the temperature and CO2 record back through the Vostok data 500,000+ years ago. I've basically done that and concluded that from the records we can reject the Gore claims about the effects of CO2 on climate. That Vostok data is what Gore gave as his main evidence that the higher temperatures were from higher concentrations of CO2. Alas, the CO2 concentrations rose about 800 years after the temperatures rose. Another way to do (2) is just to use one of the main criteria of science: Can it make accurate predictions? Well, from some of the references I gave, apparently not. That is, by the CO2, Planck black body radiation, Navier-Stokes, etc. models, the temperature should be very significantly higher now. Well, it's not. So, in science, we reject the prediction and the modelling that made it. So, as in (2), we don't find a good answer but just debunk and reject the Gore CO2 approach. Finding a good answer might be really difficult science, but debunking a proposed answer need not involve much science at all. That rejection is likely just what we are all supposed to do and maybe not publishable. So, we don't look for an academic record of it. For the references I gave, right, they are not primary, but they do give some pointers to primary references. E.g., one of the graphs does name all the models. If that graph is all hogwash, I'd be among the first to want to have good information on that. For that graph with results of the 70 or so models, I just found a link to the graph. I have the graph on my computer from years ago, but I didn't have a link to it on the Internet (I confess -- sloppy record keeping). So, I just took a long gibberish string left over from when I downloaded the graph, pasted it into Google, and let Google give me a link to the graph. I don't know where the graph came from originally (it may say but I haven't looked at that graph in detail for years) but likely not the Web page of the URL I gave. Sorry 'bout that, but I just found a way for you to see the famous graph.
mistermann 10y ago
Is there a name for this sunspot based model so I could read on it a bit without watching a youtube video?

by graycat 10y ago

throwaway5752 10y ago

Doesn't it worry you at all that you have cited no academic literature in journals? You have an OpEd piece, a youtube video (the producer of which is known for replying to an email critiquing his use of data with "You’re a big daft c*ck"... people can google Martin Durkin and make their own conclusions about him), and the blog of a creationist who refers to those he disagrees with as "global warming Nazis"?

mistermann 10y ago
Has this other model been proven incorrect?
- throwaway5752 10y ago
  None of the three other articles refers to any model. The closest is Dr. Spencer. His published work been critiqued by better people than me, and is readily discoverable via search engine. I can find no record of him making predictions of future warming, just criticism of existing models over the nature of atmospheric water vapor, cloud formation, and infrared reflectivity. His claims are highly disputed (search for "Remote Sensing Wolfgang Wagner")
graycat 10y ago
Not really. I have other things to do. The Al Gore, IPCC arguments look bad to me, just from what I wrote, that the temperature record and the CO2 record convince me that CO2 has little or nothing to do with temperature. There is a biggie point: The Al Gore crowd has a claim about CO2 that would have us shoot in the gut much of current civilization. There are at least two ways to respond: (1) From a lot of really good science, find a better answer. (2) F'get about finding a better answer or even any answer but just debunk the Al Gore answer by finding holes in its argument. Then for (2), one way is really simple, just look at the temperature and CO2 record back through the Vostok data 500,000+ years ago. I've basically done that and concluded that from the records we can reject the Gore claims about the effects of CO2 on climate. That Vostok data is what Gore gave as his main evidence that the higher temperatures were from higher concentrations of CO2. Alas, the CO2 concentrations rose about 800 years after the temperatures rose. Another way to do (2) is just to use one of the main criteria of science: Can it make accurate predictions? Well, from some of the references I gave, apparently not. That is, by the CO2, Planck black body radiation, Navier-Stokes, etc. models, the temperature should be very significantly higher now. Well, it's not. So, in science, we reject the prediction and the modelling that made it. So, as in (2), we don't find a good answer but just debunk and reject the Gore CO2 approach. Finding a good answer might be really difficult science, but debunking a proposed answer need not involve much science at all. That rejection is likely just what we are all supposed to do and maybe not publishable. So, we don't look for an academic record of it. For the references I gave, right, they are not primary, but they do give some pointers to primary references. E.g., one of the graphs does name all the models. If that graph is all hogwash, I'd be among the first to want to have good information on that. For that graph with results of the 70 or so models, I just found a link to the graph. I have the graph on my computer from years ago, but I didn't have a link to it on the Internet (I confess -- sloppy record keeping). So, I just took a long gibberish string left over from when I downloaded the graph, pasted it into Google, and let Google give me a link to the graph. I don't know where the graph came from originally (it may say but I haven't looked at that graph in detail for years) but likely not the Web page of the URL I gave. Sorry 'bout that, but I just found a way for you to see the famous graph.

mistermann 10y ago

Is there a name for this sunspot based model so I could read on it a bit without watching a youtube video?