AGW Theory - Discussion

You have to buy the study to find that out.

Maybe he is just agitated at my presence :P

Menacing Snoopy avatar.

Wait, you mean that you never automatically called me a denier just for questioning the sources?

Or are you calling me a denier because I pointed out an observation about this whole scenario of "trust me on what I say" to be the same as every religion out there?

Well that seems silly.

How?

I might as well say "In 30 years when I am xyz I won't care/should have cared about xyz."

It actually lets you download the whole study for that one btw.

We thank BCC and IPSL for supplying
us with BCC_CSM1.1 and IPSL-CM5A-LR land–
atmosphere carbon flux data directly since the necessary
data were either not available on the CMIP5 archive or
were corrupted.

IDK how many hundreds of thousands of refugees are trying to get in just today? Who are they before they just absorb into the fabric of political correctness in Europe.

And bakers keep baking.

It is just the same ***in a different era. As nations peak and prosperity is reached. When there is a down turn, problems, etc people always turn around and blame the immigrants. Then emotions spread like wildfire.

History will always repeat back to hating the Jews, Irish, Armenians, Slavs, etc. Anyone who is seen as taking a piece of the pie.

We all share in the good times together, but no one wants to share in the bad and it is everyone else's fault.

So in the abstract it states:

Can you clarify that first sentence?

It sounds like, the total amount of CO2 (ppm) is independent of any warming. So instead the amount of emissions (not the cumulative amount of CO2 in ppm) directly affects [absolute, not change in] temperature.

This study therefore consists
of two parts: the first part describes the calculation of the
TCRE of 15 CMIP5 models and examines the extent to
which warming is proportional to cumulative emissions in
each model. The second part derives a new observation-
ally constrained estimate of TCRE, first by using CMIP5-
simulated temperature and temperature observations to
estimate CO2-attributable warming to 2010 and then by
dividing this by an estimate of cumulative CO2
emissionsup to this time.

They're saying that the ratio of warming to cumulative emissions (defined in the next sentence as TCRE) is proportional to emissions. This means that observations of warming can be used to estimate emissions or vice versa.
Part one they show the how then part two is them doing it themselves.

To give everyone an idea of how AGW folks can get a positive "warmth" factor out of a negative trend, the atmosphere and ocean are not uniform in density. Because our planet is rotating and we have air and ocean currents, it causes different parts to be warmed / cooled at different rates. This is why it only makes sense when taken in as a whole. What they will do is look at the warming / cooling of the upper atmosphere, lower atmosphere, upper ocean, middle ocean and the various land mass's, then pick whichever one happened to warm the most.

So you can have a cooling in the upper and lower atmospheres, a slight warming of the middle ocean with the upper ocean being neutral. By selectively choosing to only look at the middle ocean they can construct a statement that "the temperatures of X are going up Y", and then later during a press release leave out the X part.

This is also how they can make the statement that "every year is the hottest year on record!". It's true only if taken in context of what exactly they measured, which is frequently dropped when it hits MSNBC / ABC / CNN. This is why I no longer take articles at face value, too much manipulation of perception taking place. Instead I just go to the studies and data themselves and read. It takes me a few hours each time, and I sometimes have to contact friends of mine who are better versed in the nuances involved.

Oh ok. I'll have to keep this mind the next time I look it at.

I'm not feeling it atm.

Wait, you mean that you never automatically called me a denier just for questioning the sources?

Or are you calling me a denier because I pointed out an observation about this whole scenario of "trust me on what I say" to be the same as every religion out there?

It's shaming tactics used to scare others into compliance, a form of ad hominem. They don't like what we say but putting up an argument would only validate the legitimacy of our own. So instead it's a resort to public ridicule and generic dismissal as though our arguments have no validity.

The only one who was called that was, unsurprisingly, Nausi, cause he at some point stopped even acknowledging the climate is changing at all for the sake of opposing the topic.

I love how Saevel talks about others avoiding proper arguments when he's blacklisted everyone who routinely disagrees with him. And since this is a discussion over evidence, how many shitposts does it take to get topicbanned for routinely not producing any? E.g. how many times should somebody be asked for evidence of inaccurate models before their comments just becomes trolling?

Did you see the part where the original data was corrupted Sav?

What data are you referring to?

I just checked again. Where and what format?

Edit: NVM, found it. PDF for those who would miss it, it's not very noticeable.

Here's something to note:


I hope they either fixed that for everyone or at least are willing to give that data to anyone who asks...

Also hope that it's original backup data and not scrubbed or altered data either....