Dr David Evans: Global Warming is Manmade?

[SgtSpiderMan]

Prove it. That's science. Poor Kevin Trenberth is pulling his hair out trying to find the missing heat/energy. Nobody can find it. Climatology has gone on to "spaghetti" behavior. They're throwing everything at the wall to see if something sticks. "It's buried somewhere in the deep ocean..." "Tropical winds have blown..." "It's the sun..." "Aerosols are to blame..." "Volcanoes..."


Nature "The Missing Heat" and "The Pause"
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525




Seventeen plus (17+) years of no significant warming.
Zero. Nil. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Bupkis.




_______________

“...it should be recognized that the basis for a climate that is highly sensitive to added greenhouse gasses is solely the computer models. The relation of this sensitivity to catastrophe, moreover, does not even emerge from the models, but rather from the fervid imagination of climate activists.”
–Richard H. Lindzen, Ph.D.
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology (emeritus)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Fellow, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMS
Member Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Member National Academy of Sciences





​

Data has already conclusively shown the temperature of oceans is rising. Gain, this is settled science.

 

[trysail]

That's not a synthesis, but a summary. Can you synthesize why previous models were wrong and what new data lead to this new understanding?

You're not suggesting that computer models of an immensely complex, dynamic, non-linear, multivariate system could be wrong?


Surely, that can't possibly be so?





____________________

“Give me four parameters, and I can fit an elephant. Give me five, and I can wiggle its trunk.”

-John von Neumann​

​

​

​

​

 

[toubab]

That's not a synthesis, but a summary. Can you synthesize why previous models were wrong and what new data lead to this new understanding?

Why are you hung up on the idea of a synthesis? Dr. Evans is not theorizing that previous models were wrong, he proves it with scientific evidence.

 

[toubab]

Data has already conclusively shown the temperature of oceans is rising. Gain, this is settled science.

Wrong, as Dr. Evans explains in the videos. Measurements prior to 2003 are unreliable, for example.

 

[islandman]

You're not suggesting that computer models of an immensely complex, dynamic, non-linear, multivariate system could be wrong?


Surely, that can't possibly be so?





____________________

“Give me four parameters, and I can fit an elephant. Give me five, and I can wiggle its trunk.”

-John von Neumann​

​

​

​

​

I keep an open mind to new data and especially so when it comes to complex systems.

Therefore, your sarcasm falls on deaf ears.

Why are you hung up on the idea of a synthesis? Dr. Evans is not theorizing that previous models were wrong, he proves it with scientific evidence.

Yes, and I'm asking you to provide a synthesis of his scientific evidence that disproves previous models.

What's hard to understand about that?

 

[trysail]

Data has already conclusively shown the temperature of oceans is rising. Gain, this is settled science.

Good luck with that.

Come back in a hundred years when you have a statistically significant sample size.



​

 

[toubab]

It's somehow escaping into space even though the carbon dioxide is preventing it from doing so?

Yes, a lot more than expected.

 

[trysail]

I keep an open mind to new data and especially so when it comes to complex systems...

As is plainly evident, apparently not.


Where in the world is Waldo? Where IS the missing heat?



​

 

[toubab]

I keep an open mind to new data and especially so when it comes to complex systems.

Therefore, your sarcasm falls on deaf ears.


Yes, and I'm asking you to provide a synthesis of his scientific evidence that disproves previous models.

What's hard to understand about that?

Here's your synthesis. Look at the damn charts in the videos that show what previous models predicted, and what scientific observations found in reality.

 

[islandman]

As is plainly evident, apparently not.


Where in the world is Waldo? Where IS the missing heat?



​

My response was merely a written acknowledgment of your post and not an emotional one.

There's a difference, bub.

Waldo is likely in your pants. Odds are good that there hasn't been any heat down there in a long, long time.

Now, THAT'S emotional acknowledgement of your response.

 

[islandman]

Here's your synthesis. Look at the damn charts in the videos that show what previous models predicted, and what scientific observations found in reality.

But the reasons as to the "why" seem to escape you?

Still, I find it very amusing that someone so quick to display his understanding of "facts" can't seem to manage a synthesis of said facts....maybe you could film a video and point to that instead.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Here's your synthesis. Look at the damn charts in the videos that show what previous models predicted, and what scientific observations found in reality.

to paraphrase Albert Einstein:

If you cannot explain a given topic to someone else, then you don't understand it yourself.

 

[islandman]

to paraphrase Albert Einstein:

If you cannot explain a given topic to someone else, then you don't understand it yourself.

Precisely my point.

 

[trysail]

Data has already conclusively shown the temperature of oceans is rising. Gain, this is settled science.

Hardly.


What is this "settled science" you speak of? That there may have been an extremely modest increase in sea surface temperatures ( well within the boundaries of measurement error and statistically insignificant) on the order of 0.25°C over a 35-year period?


Surely, you jest.



​

 

[trysail]

My response was merely a written acknowledgment of your post and not an emotional one.

There's a difference, bub.

Waldo is likely in your pants. Odds are good that there hasn't been any heat down there in a long, long time.

Now, THAT'S emotional acknowledgement of your response.

Good luck with that, bub.

​

 

[phrodeau]

(edited)

Seventeen plus (17+) years of no significant warming.
Zero. Nil. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Bupkis.




_______________

​

Come back in a hundred years when you have a statistically significant sample size.

 

[toubab]

But the reasons as to the "why" seem to escape you?

Still, I find it very amusing that someone so quick to display his understanding of "facts" can't seem to manage a synthesis of said facts....maybe you could film a video and point to that instead.

I don't know why they were wrong, genius, nor have I ever said I know why they were wrong. I don't think anybody knows why they were wrong, at present, but I do know a few people are trying very hard to figure out why, and one of them is Dr. Evans. If you weren't so hard-headed, you'd watch the damn videos and listen to him.

 

[toubab]

to paraphrase Albert Einstein:

If you cannot explain a given topic to someone else, then you don't understand it yourself.

Where did you get the idea I'm supposed to know why the previous models have all been wrong?

 

[toubab]

Precisely my point.

You have no point, obviously.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Where did you get the idea I'm supposed to know why the previous models have all been wrong?

I haven't seen the videos but I imagine he explains why the models are wrong.

 

[trysail]

0.25°C over 35 years is basically white noise.





http://www.climate4you.com/images/NCDC%20SST%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif


​

 

[toubab]

I haven't seen the videos but I imagine he explains why the models are wrong.

No, he just shows scientific evidence that they were wrong. He is trying to understand why they were wrong. Trying to come up with a better model.

 

[toubab]

0.25°C over 35 years is basically white noise.





http://www.climate4you.com/images/NCDC%20SST%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif


​

Dr. Evans explains why the readings prior to 2003 are not very reliable. Since 2003 the readings are flat.

 

[phrodeau]

I haven't seen the videos but I imagine he explains why the models are wrong.

No, he just shows scientific evidence that they were wrong. He is trying to understand why they were wrong. Trying to come up with a better model.

Oh, but he explains it quite clearly on this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NZuh4_A5kw

It's because of collusion between the mainstream media and world bureaucracies.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

No, he just shows scientific evidence that they were wrong. He is trying to understand why they were wrong. Trying to come up with a better model.

Wait. Is he saying there is no climate change, or that's there's climate hange but it isn't man made?