Livermore Moves Reality Out Of The Physical World

New research by a team of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientists and international collaborators shows that the observed ocean warming over the last 50 years is consistent with climate models only if the models include the impacts of observed increases in greenhouse gas during the 20th century.

Research shows humans are primary cause of global ocean warming

Nice circular logic. They build a model which assumes that warming is caused by man-made CO2, then use the model as proof that the assumed warming is caused by man-made CO2.

Instead of fixing the model to reflect reality, these geniuses have chosen to alter reality to reflect the model.

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Livermore Moves Reality Out Of The Physical World

  1. Robertvdl says:

    co2 can not warm water.

    • Douglas Hoyt says:

      There is a 1985 paper by Hansen in which he claims that solar radiation and infrared radiation warm the ocean identically. I think this paper is used in all the climate models and that is why they saying that CO2 back radiation is warming the oceans. It all nonsense, of course.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Thank you for putting up my favorite graph so people can actually see it.

    • tom0mason says:


  2. Jason Calley says:

    It would be correct if they only changed “Research shows humans are primary cause of global ocean warming” to “Research shows humans are primary cause of global ocean warming in models designed to show human warming of oceans.”

    • leftinbrooklyn says:

      You should also add:

      “Research shows humans are primary cause of global ocean warming in models designed to show human warming of oceans, because we need the money.”

  3. Andy DC says:

    You program a set of temperature data that shows past warming into the super duper computer. Whether the data is factual or fictional is another story. The computer does its 15 trillion computations a second and determines that past warming shows more warming in the future. Then you ask the Government for a few hundred billion dollars for better computers and more reseach. So sophisticated that a 3rd grader can do it!

  4. scizzorbill says:

    The models are programmed to support the agenda. I call this ‘faith based’ modeling.

  5. slimething says:

    Doug Hoyt,
    I recall you having a drawn out debate a number of years ago about IR warming of water. I believe you brought up the fact that lasers used in cosmetic surgery are of similar wavelength given off by CO2 “back radiation”, and that the blood does not get hot for the very reason CO2 cannot warm oceans.

    • Douglas Hoyt says:

      That’s true. Point these same 10.6 micron CO2 lasers at water, with an intensity 20 million times greater than what you get from a doubling of CO2, and a thermometer 6 inches deep in the water will barely have any change in temperature. Only the the top few microns of the water will boil away.

  6. suyts says:

    Thanks Steve, I think that’s where I’m headed as well. I’m trying to parse through their word salad, but it seems to be a circular thing.

  7. Jason Calley says:

    Just a question to those who have better knowledge of the models than I do. Please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the models are used to indict CO2 as causative for two basic reasons. They show current warming to be outside the realm of natural variation, and (after including what they claim are reasonable estimates of all natural causes) find that the extra warming is of an amount equal to the increased CO2 radiative effects times the forcing factor. Of course this means that a correct estimate of natural variation is critical. I assume (perhaps naively) that their estimate of natural variation is based on analysis of past temperature records – but which past temperature records? The real numbers or the continually adjusted numbers? Do they rerun their models each time the past record is “adjusted”? As they take out such things as the MWP, the LIA, and the Dust Bowl, flattening out the past records, do they then rerun the models with the assumption that natural variation is even smaller than they thought, and that therefore the current temperatures are even more unusual and unprecedented? Do they then use the model runs to justify which past temperatures were outside of natural variation and hence are candidates for further “adjustment”? Is “climate science” a snake eating its own tail?

  8. Imagine a physicist declaring that our best string theory or quantum gravity theory *IS* the way the world is.There can be no other explanation because we’ve run out of ideas… The guy would be laughed out of the room. Yet in certain quarters of Climate Science, this is the exact logic that is applied.

  9. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Steve – The magnitude of the human warming in the Gleckler et al 2012 paper was only 0.025 C/decade in the 50 years of their dataset!

    That corresponds to a 2XCO2 of 0.4 C…!

    They didn’t mention this in the paper, but their data shows Lindzen is on the money with the L&C2011 value for sensitivity. Which is probably why they didn’t mention it in the paper.

    Who cares if 2XCO2 is 0.4 C? That would barely warm the toes of a poley bear, it certainly isn’t enough to harm a planet. Burning 20 times as much fuel as the human race has done since Ugg invented fire would raise pCO2 to about 2000 ppmV resulting in less than 1 C of CO2-driven rise from today.

    I wonder whether Ben Santer understands exactly what he’s signed his name to.

Leave a Reply