The consensus is that James failed to learn
anything about climate models from blog entries
like this one below. It so wrong, it's not
even an opener for debate. Should you, unlike
James and his fossil fool phonies, really
want to learn something about climate models,
actually running one is the best place to start.
Please go to:

http://edgcm.columbia.edu/


On May 8, 6:57*am, "James" wrote:
Scientific Consensus Is That Climate Models Have Failed Spectacularly -
What Did They Fail At and Why?
[ . . . ]

On May 8, 10:55*am, Roger Coppock wrote:
The consensus is that James failed to learn
anything about climate models from blog entries
like this one below. *It so wrong, it's not
even an opener for debate. *Should you, unlike
James and his fossil fool phonies, really
want to learn something about climate models,
actually running one is the best place to start.
Please go to:

http://edgcm.columbia.edu/

On May 8, 6:57*am, "James" wrote: Scientific Consensus Is That Climate Models Have Failed Spectacularly -
What Did They Fail At and Why?

[ . . . ]

So let's see the climate model which shows warming in regions of the
world, and not in others. Impossible.

The GISS statistics from the 30's only show temperature increases in
Europe, parts of Asia and W Australia, that when averaged into other
statistics, make a world average increase appear.

This is not consistent with the climate models.

Show us the climate model which shows that the solar constant is 7%
greater in January than it is in July due to the eccentricity of the
earth's orbit.

This means that each sq kilometer of ocean in the S hemisphere
recieves about 70 Joules per second per sq meter more energy when the
sun is near to Zenith. (the infrareds from the sun are blocked by the
atmosphere, so only about 1000Wm-2 reaches the surface at optimal
conditions)

70 Joules per second per sq meter is a considerable amount of energy.
In only 1 minute, this is 4200 Joules, of which ocean has low albedo
and absorbs and keeps most of the radiant energy.

When a hemisphere is tilted to the sun, it has much more area in
light. Most areas also have a longer time of being lit, and the rays
of the sun are much more direct and therefore intense upon surface
area.

The combination of these and the increased solar constant due to the
change in distance to the sun of earth orbit, means very directly that
the southern hemisphere recieves more solar insolation than the N
hemisphere. This is particulary important with energy absorbed by the
oceans and the effect upon the conveyor currents from the Indian ocean
to the N Atlantic.

Water is more dense and has a very high heat capacity. The ocean can
lose very little temperature while losing enough heat energy to affect
the air temperature a great deal. This is evident in the effect of the
gulf stream on European temperatures. Britain is the same lattitude as
Nova Scotia and the middle of Canada, which are near artic regions.

The rinky dink cartoon which describes the basics of the climate
models, is entirely bogus thermodynamic theory. Energy absorbed by the
oceans may not be relevant to air temperatures for hundreds of years
as cycles of increased ocean currents occur, and the mixing with
colder deeper waters occurs.

Show us the climate model which considers the effect of greater
ultraviolet emissions from the sun when there are sunspots, and the
effect this may have upon solar energy absorbed by the ocean.

We could pick apart your climate models all day.

This does not mean you have the sense to understand the science and
lack of science, as you entertain your 'beliefs', and enjoyment of
playing with your computer while mentally engaged with your false
narccissitic belief in your own importance for imagining a climate
catastrophe which you have programed your computer to read back to
you.

Maybe someday you will have a 'climate model' which is worth a flying
f--k, but not today.

Climate models are merely a psychological disease which is threatening
society.

KD

On May 8, 10:55*am, Roger Coppock wrote:
The consensus is that James failed to learn
anything about climate models from blog entries
like this one below. *It so wrong, it's not
even an opener for debate. *Should you, unlike
James and his fossil fool phonies, really
want to learn something about climate models,
actually running one is the best place to start.
Please go to:

http://edgcm.columbia.edu/

On May 8, 6:57*am, "James" wrote: Scientific Consensus Is That Climate Models Have Failed Spectacularly -
What Did They Fail At and Why?

[ . . . ]

You guys keep attacking the politics, the scientists, the writers, the
blogs, the sources of information, etc., but rarely do you ever
actually challenge the actual arguments, the data, the findings, etc.

When you have the science on you side, you debate the science, when
you don't have the science on your side, you attack the person.

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
The consensus is that James failed to learn
anything about climate models from blog entries
like this one below. It so wrong, it's not
even an opener for debate. Should you, unlike
James and his fossil fool phonies, really
want to learn something about climate models,
actually running one is the best place to start.
Please go to:

http://edgcm.columbia.edu/
--------------------------------------------------------
Give us all a break Roger. If I wanted to learn all about modeling, I'd
do it. I want to know the results of THEIR modeling which I posted. You
seem to think if someone once changed a flat tire, they automatically
become a master mechanic. How many models have you been intimate with?



On May 8, 6:57 am, "James" wrote:
Scientific Consensus Is That Climate Models Have Failed
Spectacularly -
What Did They Fail At and Why?
[ . . . ]

Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:

The consensus is that James failed to learn
anything about climate models from blog entries
like this one below. It so wrong, it's not
even an opener for debate. Should you, unlike
James and his fossil fool phonies, really
want to learn something about climate models,
actually running one is the best place to start.
Please go to:

http://edgcm.columbia.edu/


On May 8, 6:57 am, "James" wrote:
Scientific Consensus Is That Climate Models Have Failed
Spectacularly - What Did They Fail At and Why?
[ . . . ]

And again:

The only thing I see is an idiot, posting an article here in a.g-w
without any reference or fullquote, truncated to 2 lines, breaking
the "pi's law" by writing the opponent's name into the subject line
for purpose of denunciation, and who is too dumb to change the
subject line in a correct way for newsreaders.

Hey petey, tell us again how climate scientists "should be shot down as of
this moment." lol

wrote:
On May 8, 10:55 am, Roger Coppock wrote:
The consensus is that James failed to learn
anything about climate models from blog entries
like this one below. It so wrong, it's not
even an opener for debate. Should you, unlike
James and his fossil fool phonies, really
want to learn something about climate models,
actually running one is the best place to start.
Please go to:

http://edgcm.columbia.edu/

On May 8, 6:57 am, "James" wrote: Scientific
Consensus Is That Climate Models Have Failed Spectacularly -
What Did They Fail At and Why?

[ . . . ]

So let's see the climate model which shows warming in regions of the
world, and not in others. Impossible.

The GISS statistics from the 30's only show temperature increases in
Europe, parts of Asia and W Australia, that when averaged into other
statistics, make a world average increase appear.

This is not consistent with the climate models.

Show us the climate model which shows that the solar constant is 7%
greater in January than it is in July due to the eccentricity of the
earth's orbit.

This means that each sq kilometer of ocean in the S hemisphere
recieves about 70 Joules per second per sq meter more energy when the
sun is near to Zenith. (the infrareds from the sun are blocked by the
atmosphere, so only about 1000Wm-2 reaches the surface at optimal
conditions)

70 Joules per second per sq meter is a considerable amount of energy.
In only 1 minute, this is 4200 Joules, of which ocean has low albedo
and absorbs and keeps most of the radiant energy.

When a hemisphere is tilted to the sun, it has much more area in
light. Most areas also have a longer time of being lit, and the rays
of the sun are much more direct and therefore intense upon surface
area.

The combination of these and the increased solar constant due to the
change in distance to the sun of earth orbit, means very directly that
the southern hemisphere recieves more solar insolation than the N
hemisphere. This is particulary important with energy absorbed by the
oceans and the effect upon the conveyor currents from the Indian ocean
to the N Atlantic.

Water is more dense and has a very high heat capacity. The ocean can
lose very little temperature while losing enough heat energy to affect
the air temperature a great deal. This is evident in the effect of the
gulf stream on European temperatures. Britain is the same lattitude as
Nova Scotia and the middle of Canada, which are near artic regions.

The rinky dink cartoon which describes the basics of the climate
models, is entirely bogus thermodynamic theory. Energy absorbed by the
oceans may not be relevant to air temperatures for hundreds of years
as cycles of increased ocean currents occur, and the mixing with
colder deeper waters occurs.

Show us the climate model which considers the effect of greater
ultraviolet emissions from the sun when there are sunspots, and the
effect this may have upon solar energy absorbed by the ocean.

We could pick apart your climate models all day.

This does not mean you have the sense to understand the science and
lack of science, as you entertain your 'beliefs', and enjoyment of
playing with your computer while mentally engaged with your false
narccissitic belief in your own importance for imagining a climate
catastrophe which you have programed your computer to read back to
you.

Maybe someday you will have a 'climate model' which is worth a flying
f--k, but not today.

Climate models are merely a psychological disease which is threatening
society.

KD

More science word salad. lol

wrote:
On May 8, 10:55 am, Roger Coppock wrote:
The consensus is that James failed to learn
anything about climate models from blog entries
like this one below. It so wrong, it's not
even an opener for debate. Should you, unlike
James and his fossil fool phonies, really
want to learn something about climate models,
actually running one is the best place to start.
Please go to:

http://edgcm.columbia.edu/

On May 8, 6:57 am, "James" wrote: Scientific
Consensus Is That Climate Models Have Failed Spectacularly -
What Did They Fail At and Why?

[ . . . ]

You guys keep attacking the politics, the scientists, the writers, the
blogs, the sources of information, etc., but rarely do you ever
actually challenge the actual arguments, the data, the findings, etc.

That's because denialists typically have none.

tdcom wrote:

"When you have the science on you side, you debate the science, when
you don't have the science on your side, you attack the person."


Reply:

That is marcodbeasts signature technique... attacking
the person. Rarely do you ever see him come up with an intelligent
debating rebuttle.

On May 8, 11:26*am, "James" wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message

...
The consensus is that James failed to learn
anything about climate models from blog entries
like this one below. *It so wrong, it's not
even an opener for debate. *Should you, unlike
James and his fossil fool phonies, really
want to learn something about climate models,
actually running one is the best place to start.
Please go to:

http://edgcm.columbia.edu/
--------------------------------------------------------
Give us all a break Roger. If I wanted to learn all about modeling, I'd
do it. I want to know the results of THEIR modeling which I posted

The article you posted does not even correctly
report model results.



You
seem to think if someone once changed a flat tire, they automatically
become a master mechanic.

No, but someone who's changed a tire, knows
how to change a tire.

How many models have you been intimate with?

I've never had sex with a model. ;-)


On May 8, 6:57 am, "James" wrote: Scientific Consensus Is That Climate Models Have Failed
Spectacularly -
What Did They Fail At and Why?

[ . . . ]

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
On May 8, 11:26 am, "James" wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message

...
The consensus is that James failed to learn
anything about climate models from blog entries
like this one below. It so wrong, it's not
even an opener for debate. Should you, unlike
James and his fossil fool phonies, really
want to learn something about climate models,
actually running one is the best place to start.
Please go to:

http://edgcm.columbia.edu/
--------------------------------------------------------
Give us all a break Roger. If I wanted to learn all about modeling,
I'd
do it. I want to know the results of THEIR modeling which I posted

The article you posted does not even correctly
report model results.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, did they misspell something? Even using their cherry picked input
data, they can't correctly achieve anything except make it available to
people like you who make dire predictions from it that don't ever
materialize.


You
seem to think if someone once changed a flat tire, they automatically
become a master mechanic.

No, but someone who's changed a tire, knows
how to change a tire.

How many models have you been intimate with?

I've never had sex with a model. ;-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm glad you admit models are not your forte'. Maybe you should change
another flat tire. You never know.