Sciencescience

Tue Feb 21, 2017, 03:58 PM

Scathing Report: Climate models wrong by significant factor

Climate models show twice as much warming during the 21st Century than what’s actually been observed, according to a new report highlighting the limitations of global climate models, or GCMs.

“So far in the 21st century, the GCMs are warming, on average, about a factor of 2 faster than the observed temperature increase,”

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/02/Curry-2017.pdf

23 replies, 638 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 23 replies Author Time Post
Reply Scathing Report: Climate models wrong by significant factor (Original post)
Iron Condor Feb 2017 OP
Slayer Feb 2017 #1
Carlos_Danger Feb 2017 #2
Slayer Feb 2017 #5
Scary Red Feb 2017 #3
oflguy Feb 2017 #12
def_con5 Feb 2017 #4
News2Me Feb 2017 #6
def_con5 Feb 2017 #7
It Guy Feb 2017 #9
NotAWineSnob Feb 2017 #11
oflguy Feb 2017 #13
It Guy Feb 2017 #14
It Guy Feb 2017 #15
NotAWineSnob Feb 2017 #17
It Guy Feb 2017 #18
NotAWineSnob Feb 2017 #19
It Guy Feb 2017 #21
def_con5 Feb 2017 #8
NotAWineSnob Feb 2017 #20
Jack Burton Feb 2017 #10
Ravenquills Feb 2017 #16
oflguy Feb 2017 #22
Letmypeoplevote Feb 2017 #23

Response to Iron Condor (Original post)

Tue Feb 21, 2017, 04:03 PM

1. 67 degrees here in sunny central Ohio.

 

Nothing to see here folks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Slayer (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 21, 2017, 04:09 PM

2. But wait...

Aren't the climate fear mongers always telling us that climate and weather are separate things?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carlos_Danger (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 21, 2017, 04:16 PM

5. What are you going on about?

 

This is the warmest winter I can remember.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iron Condor (Original post)

Tue Feb 21, 2017, 04:13 PM

3. And your point is? Of course models have a tendency to fail at times, but...

there still is a tendency for temps to rise, even if not as fast as some models predict.

Are you advocating increasing CO2? Not attempting to reduce it?

What?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scary Red (Reply #3)

Wed Feb 22, 2017, 12:13 PM

12. "have a tendency to fail at times"

funny

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iron Condor (Original post)

Tue Feb 21, 2017, 04:13 PM

4. Time for the question

If you had weather sensors that could measure any and all weather data, and they completely covered the globe, oceans, and atmosphere, also the best and fastest supercomputers you needed.

Do you think you could accurately predict the weather a year from now, how bout 10,50 or a 100?

Think "The butterfly affect"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iron Condor (Original post)

Tue Feb 21, 2017, 04:19 PM

6. An online search tells me that GWPF is a think tank comprised of climate change deniers.

Sorry, there's just too much evidence to the contrary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to News2Me (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 21, 2017, 04:24 PM

7. True dat

They're skeptics.

But go look at the individual resumes of some of their staff. They got some heavy hitters.

BtW, they did not say the earth is not warming, they said beware of Climate models.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to News2Me (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 21, 2017, 05:18 PM

9. Nobody denies that the climate doesn't change, it always has and always will.

What's denied is catastrophic changes of climate due to mans hydrocarbon use, furthermore that any supranational org wouldn't use fear mongering to further the goals of a one world socialist government.

To present the predicate that climate is changing abnormally to too hot, too cold or too fast then begs the legitimate question, when was the earth's climate considered normal or optimal?

Please answer that. I doubt that you will because there's no such thing as normal and if you ludicrously provide an answer, I'll then ask what caused it to change? If the period you cite is after the initial advent of hydrocarbon use by man, I'll then provide comparisons of climate change prior to hydrocarbons.

If you answer these questions with any basis of proof, I'll say you're full of shit because you have no objective proof and subjectivity is not science, because stating that any period of climate and any optimum temperature is purely subjective!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to It Guy (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 22, 2017, 08:01 AM

11. It's weird you think you're making some ace-in-the-hole argument

 

You're just constructing some bullshit out of straw-men and semantics.

No one has ever said in year X the earth's climate was optimal.

It's a matter of what range of temperatures one can have a viable civilization.

It's a matter of how much CO2 we can add to the atmosphere before the various carbon sinks no longer take their load and we get even more rapid warming

I don't know, your post is so ignorant and badly constructed I have to believe you're simply trolling.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NotAWineSnob (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 22, 2017, 01:01 PM

13. So Snob

what range of temperatures enable us to have a viable civilization?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 22, 2017, 01:45 PM

14. The idiot has begun to dig himself into a hole. Like we already don't have temps for

a viable civilization? Gawd, these climate jihadists are so dull with a total lack of reasoning skills that they can't even realize that as soon as they open their mouths they've already lost the debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NotAWineSnob (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 22, 2017, 01:55 PM

15. Ok, I'll go with 4,000 ppm ceiling, that's 10 times what we have today and that's the proven

number in climatic history. The planet didn't burn up and the fauna did just fine, same with animals.

You do realize that CO2 increase lags temp increase by 800 years, which means that CO2 doesn't do any forcing. Naw, you probably didn't know that, because all you are capable of doing is spouting off on leftist narratives, memes and talking points. No thought required.

Keep digging yourself a hole, I'll be around to push the dirt back in with you in it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to It Guy (Reply #15)

Wed Feb 22, 2017, 11:16 PM

17. What was solar output in the high CO2 periods?

 

Any idea?

Did you even factor that in? I'm guessing not. Go read about it in some real science books.

What about taconic orogeny? Do you know what that is and how that would mitigate atmospheric CO2 levels?



As far as this - You do realize that CO2 increase lags temp increase by 800 years, which means that CO2 doesn't do any forcing

.http://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1060


You don't know shit about shit.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NotAWineSnob (Reply #17)

Thu Feb 23, 2017, 03:48 AM

18. Actually, CO2 was at a high of 7,000ppm, my bad, but so what?

The real undisputable motivation comes from one of the UN's own. Everything else is noise generated by the scammers.

At least I'm not a fucking dupe.


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-03/un-official-admits-global-warming-agenda-really-about-destroying-capitalism


Figueres admitted that the Global Warming conspiracy set by the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, of which she is the executive secretary, has a goal not of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity, but to destroy capitalism. She said very casually:

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

She even restated that goal ensuring it was not a mistake:

“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
I was invited to a major political dinner in Washington with the former Chairman of Temple University since I advised the University with respect to its portfolio. We were seated at one of those round tables with ten people. Because we were invited from a university, they placed us with the heads of the various environmental groups. They assumed they were in friendly company and began speaking freely. Dick Fox, my friend, began to lead them on to get the truth behind their movement. Lo and behold, they too admitted it was not about the environment, but to reduce population growth. Dick then asked them, “Whose grandchild are we trying to prevent from being born? Your’s or mine?

All of these movements seem to have a hidden agenda that the press helps to misrepresent all the time. One must wonder, at what point will the press realize they are destroying their own future?

Investors.com reminds Figueres that the only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to It Guy (Reply #18)

Thu Feb 23, 2017, 04:10 AM

19. Here we go

 

You couldn't answer my questions regarding the science, so you're off on a wild conspiratorial goosechase.

How shocking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NotAWineSnob (Reply #19)

Thu Feb 23, 2017, 09:26 PM

21. And a conspiracy it is.

You do realize that science has been politicized, don't you? Or is that something that stretches your noodle too much?

I've read much on this topic as I'm sure you haven't.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicization_of_science


Politicization of science
The politicization of science is the manipulation of science for political gain. It occurs when government, business, or advocacy groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research or the way it is disseminated, reported or interpreted. The politicization of science may also negatively affect academic and scientific freedom. Historically, groups have conducted various campaigns to promote their interests in defiance of scientific consensus, and in an effort to manipulate public policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iron Condor (Original post)

Tue Feb 21, 2017, 04:33 PM

8. Super credible Global warming skeptic

Meet Dr. Richard Lindzen.

American atmospheric physicist, and until his retirement in 2012 the chair of MIT's climate department.

I found him years ago, when I think it was Gore said every credible scientist accepts global warming as fact.

Within 2 hours, I identified about 50 renown scientist, who did not accept global warming as fact, including the head of the French government's climate agency.

For more detail please see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to def_con5 (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 23, 2017, 04:12 AM

20. There are dissenters in every scientific field

 

I can find creationists with good scientific credentials. So what?

The vast majority of people in climate science and allied fields and ever credible scientific academy in the world agree that anthropogenic climate change is real, and a problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iron Condor (Original post)

Tue Feb 21, 2017, 09:01 PM

10. DOOM DOOM DOOM

Quick save the planet. Doomers need to stop using electricity. Giving up cell phone, and stopping any use of social media and the Internet in general would be a good start. Every post on the internet makes the few remaining polar bears cry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iron Condor (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2017, 03:20 PM

16. IT DOES NOT MATTER

Climate change is inevitable but the people who debate it can be classed two ways:

Extremist number 1 - All climate change is caused by man, the climate is never supposed to change it is supposed to remain the same as it has the entire time man has been extant on the earth and if it doesn't it is mans fault.

Extremist number 2 - There is no such thing as global warming man made climate change or climate change at all. God determined what the ideal climate is for man who are his chosen creatures.

The rest of us who just wish to fuck the other two groups would shut the fuck up! We know that there is such a thing as climate change and that it is complex , can be observed in micro and macro climates and has resulted in mass extinctions and in mass evolution of new life on this planet and will always continue to do so. We are able to handle living in non steady state world. We also reserve the right to change out mind based on DATA not the religion of belief in god or the religion of belief in man made climate change. DATA is king

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iron Condor (Original post)

Fri Feb 24, 2017, 06:47 AM

22. Reputable scientists would ditch the failed models and start anew

Not so in this case. These "scientists" simply make excuses and try to rationalize the extra heat as "hidden heat."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iron Condor (Original post)

Fri Feb 24, 2017, 02:06 PM

23. Some more facts for the silly conservatives to ignore or not be able to understand

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescience