Claims to be an expert, even knows how to prepare a scientific paper for peer review (as ge has done on something he actually IS an expert on) but does not publish anything on the topic via the appropriate channels, only on his blog for the fanboys.......
Sorry.
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Site Moderator)
He is referring to publications (not his) that he has been rooting for years that should be included in the models.
It's really just about asking to use the available evidence that we have to get accurate models.
Not sure what the appropriate channels for this would be?
+1
+2
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
He did this for a long time now, it is really getting boring if you ask me.
He claims real climate scientists "forgot" to include certain things (or did they deliberately leave out vital information so the climate change conspiracy remains active and well funded? It's a cabal, right?) in the models he thinks are relevant. Scientists claim they did not. He even wrote a book about it which got mostly ignored, I believe.
If he really wanted to open a debate with climate scientists he would publish a paper for peer review stating exactly what they ommitted and how this influences the models. He doesn't. When you challenge him on it he goes apeshit (I asked him a few years back why he did not publish a paper for peer review if he is so sure about his claims).
Or at least he should peer review the publications he disagrees with and point out the flaws like that.
Like I said he did it before on another matter, so this is not at all alien to him.
This video is clickbait for the fanboys.
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Site Moderator)
"He claims real climate scientists "forgot" to include certain things (or did they deliberately leave out vital information so the climate change conspiracy remains active and well funded? It's a cabal, right?) in the models he thinks are relevant. Scientists claim they did not."
Well it is interesting that they now mention the papers on solar forcing that he was claiming should be included in the models for years (Matthes et al 2017) but then they don't show up in the actual descriptions of the models.
Did they forget or ignore it? I don't know, but I find it curious that it's now taken into consideration...I guess, at least mentioned.
Then theres the fact that there a more recent publications on these subjects but they are refering to older ones.
Just like with the solar forcing paper, they seem to take their time.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
"Solar forcing" in contrary to his claims has not been ignored. It probably was not significant enough to include in the models and I assume they may be now as the models become even more accurate (but I don't know, I am not an expert). What we can say with an enormous level of certainty is that they don'thave more influence than greenhouse gases.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Site Moderator)
Well yeah.
Maybe the models will become so accurate that they can show correct numbers for the past when run backwards.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
In contrary to the claims of the climate change deniers the predicted trends of the models have been quite accurate. Potholer did several videos on this, all based on real science.
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Site Moderator)
I'm just pointing out what the IPCC admits in this very paper.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Looks to me like the gist of the report isn't contradictory at all to previous findings, quite the opposite.
"It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred."
"Human influence has warmed the climate at a rate that is unprecedented in at least the last 2000 years"
"Observed warming is driven by emissions from human activities, with greenhouse gas warming partly masked by aerosol cooling"
"The scale of recent changes across the climate system as a whole and the present state of many aspects of the climate system are unprecedented over many centuries to many thousands of years."
"Human-induced climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe. Evidence of observed changes in extremes such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and tropical cyclones, and, in particular, their attribution to human influence, has strengthened since AR5"
"Climate change is already affecting every inhabited region across the globe with human influence contributing to many observed changes in weather and climate extremes"
"Improved knowledge of climate processes, paleoclimate evidence and the response of the climate system to increasing radiative forcing gives a best estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3°C with a narrower range compared to AR5."
This is what people now get hung up about. lol. So it's all wrong!
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Site Moderator)
"This is what people now get hung up about. lol. So it's all wrong!"
Nobody said it's all wrong.
Sure the title is very click baity but if you listen to it, it's not about saying climate change isn't happening.
It's about looking at current science publications and what is mention in the report and used in the models.
I don't think either of us has a deep enough understanding on the subject to say if these are valid points or not.
My main takeaway from this is that models he has been rooting for are now after years included (again maybe).
Your reaction seems to be to dismiss it.
All I can say is I don't know if theres something to it or the 15 other points that he is advocating to be added in the models. This is why I think it would be fascinating to see a debate on these things.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
I am not dismissing anything. I even quoted where the IPCC mentioned it.
The question is how relevant is it, the answer is in comparison to other issues like CO2 emmissions "not a lot!", it just makes the models a little more accurate.
Saying it is an "epic failure" is bullshit and cliskbait, exactly what is to be expected from this channel on this topic.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid (Old Spike)
These are incredibly weak apologetics for your religious movement. As usual you didn't watch the video - just looked at the title and poster. As detailed in the video, this overdo correction is just a small drop in the bucket towards repairing the error delta. All of your comments appear incredibly retarded to those who watched the video and understand this.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid (Old Spike)
Via the appropriate channels. Hegelian appeal to authority. Invalid argument from an invalid mind.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Site Moderator)
"Not a lot"
Ok, noted.
They probably didn't really need to include it at all then, but it's nice to see they did after all these years.
Comments
(Old Spike)
(Old Spike)
Claims to be an expert, even knows how to prepare a scientific paper for peer review (as ge has done on something he actually IS an expert on) but does not publish anything on the topic via the appropriate channels, only on his blog for the fanboys.......
Sorry.
(Site Moderator)
He is referring to publications (not his) that he has been rooting for years that should be included in the models.
It's really just about asking to use the available evidence that we have to get accurate models.
Not sure what the appropriate channels for this would be?
(Old Spike)
He did this for a long time now, it is really getting boring if you ask me.
He claims real climate scientists "forgot" to include certain things (or did they deliberately leave out vital information so the climate change conspiracy remains active and well funded? It's a cabal, right?) in the models he thinks are relevant. Scientists claim they did not. He even wrote a book about it which got mostly ignored, I believe.
If he really wanted to open a debate with climate scientists he would publish a paper for peer review stating exactly what they ommitted and how this influences the models. He doesn't. When you challenge him on it he goes apeshit (I asked him a few years back why he did not publish a paper for peer review if he is so sure about his claims).
Or at least he should peer review the publications he disagrees with and point out the flaws like that.
Like I said he did it before on another matter, so this is not at all alien to him.
This video is clickbait for the fanboys.
(Site Moderator)
"He claims real climate scientists "forgot" to include certain things (or did they deliberately leave out vital information so the climate change conspiracy remains active and well funded? It's a cabal, right?) in the models he thinks are relevant. Scientists claim they did not."
Well it is interesting that they now mention the papers on solar forcing that he was claiming should be included in the models for years (Matthes et al 2017) but then they don't show up in the actual descriptions of the models.
Did they forget or ignore it? I don't know, but I find it curious that it's now taken into consideration...I guess, at least mentioned.
Then theres the fact that there a more recent publications on these subjects but they are refering to older ones.
Just like with the solar forcing paper, they seem to take their time.
(Old Spike)
"Solar forcing" in contrary to his claims has not been ignored. It probably was not significant enough to include in the models and I assume they may be now as the models become even more accurate (but I don't know, I am not an expert). What we can say with an enormous level of certainty is that they don'thave more influence than greenhouse gases.
(Site Moderator)
Well yeah.
Maybe the models will become so accurate that they can show correct numbers for the past when run backwards.
(Old Spike)
In contrary to the claims of the climate change deniers the predicted trends of the models have been quite accurate. Potholer did several videos on this, all based on real science.
(Site Moderator)
I'm just pointing out what the IPCC admits in this very paper.
(Old Spike)
Looks to me like the gist of the report isn't contradictory at all to previous findings, quite the opposite.
"It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred."
"Human influence has warmed the climate at a rate that is unprecedented in at least the last 2000 years"
"Observed warming is driven by emissions from human activities, with greenhouse gas warming partly masked by aerosol cooling"
"The scale of recent changes across the climate system as a whole and the present state of many aspects of the climate system are unprecedented over many centuries to many thousands of years."
"Human-induced climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe. Evidence of observed changes in extremes such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and tropical cyclones, and, in particular, their attribution to human influence, has strengthened since AR5"
"Climate change is already affecting every inhabited region across the globe with human influence contributing to many observed changes in weather and climate extremes"
"Improved knowledge of climate processes, paleoclimate evidence and the response of the climate system to increasing radiative forcing gives a best estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3°C with a narrower range compared to AR5."
This is what people now get hung up about. lol. So it's all wrong!
(Site Moderator)
"This is what people now get hung up about. lol. So it's all wrong!"
Nobody said it's all wrong.
Sure the title is very click baity but if you listen to it, it's not about saying climate change isn't happening.
It's about looking at current science publications and what is mention in the report and used in the models.
I don't think either of us has a deep enough understanding on the subject to say if these are valid points or not.
My main takeaway from this is that models he has been rooting for are now after years included (again maybe).
Your reaction seems to be to dismiss it.
All I can say is I don't know if theres something to it or the 15 other points that he is advocating to be added in the models. This is why I think it would be fascinating to see a debate on these things.
(Old Spike)
I am not dismissing anything. I even quoted where the IPCC mentioned it.
The question is how relevant is it, the answer is in comparison to other issues like CO2 emmissions "not a lot!", it just makes the models a little more accurate.
Saying it is an "epic failure" is bullshit and cliskbait, exactly what is to be expected from this channel on this topic.
(Old Spike)
These are incredibly weak apologetics for your religious movement. As usual you didn't watch the video - just looked at the title and poster. As detailed in the video, this overdo correction is just a small drop in the bucket towards repairing the error delta. All of your comments appear incredibly retarded to those who watched the video and understand this.
(Old Spike)
Via the appropriate channels. Hegelian appeal to authority. Invalid argument from an invalid mind.
(Site Moderator)
"Not a lot"
Ok, noted.
They probably didn't really need to include it at all then, but it's nice to see they did after all these years.