Climate models wildly overestimated global warming, study finds

[trfjr]

Can you rely on the weather forecast? Maybe not, at least when it comes to global warming predictions over short time periods.

That’s the upshot of a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change that compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990's to the actual amount of warming. Out of 117 predictions, the study’s author told FoxNews.com, three were roughly accurate and 114 overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.

Read more: Climate models wildly overestimated global warming, study finds | Fox News

how many times does a science need to be wrong before they lose all creditability?
114 being wrong out of 117 is a very piss poor record. all the scientist that where wrong need to have their funding pulled and only allow the 3 that where roughly right to continue with their research. just think of all the money that would be saved by not supporting the junk science of the 114 that was wrong

 

[rocket88]

They can't get the weather right tomorrow half of the time. Of course a more long range model is going to fall short.

 

[Fisher]

They can't get the weather right tomorrow half of the time. Of course a more long range model is going to fall short.

You mean your weather station doesn't give you a 3 degree guarantee? I'd shop around.

 

[trfjr]

They can't get the weather right tomorrow half of the time. Of course a more long range model is going to fall short.

so why are they wasting all that money attempting to do so and then report their inaccurate finding as it was the gospel as billions get spent to try to curve what they falsely predict will happen

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Read more: Climate models wildly overestimated global warming, study finds | Fox News

how many times does a science need to be wrong before they lose all creditability?
114 being wrong out of 117 is a very piss poor record. all the scientist that where wrong need to have their funding pulled and only allow the 3 that where roughly right to continue with their research. just think of all the money that would be saved by not supporting the junk science of the 114 that was wrong

Just further proof this whole hoax is politically charged.

:alert

 

[LowDown]

Read more: Climate models wildly overestimated global warming, study finds | Fox News

how many times does a science need to be wrong before they lose all creditability?
114 being wrong out of 117 is a very piss poor record. all the scientist that where wrong need to have their funding pulled and only allow the 3 that where roughly right to continue with their research. just think of all the money that would be saved by not supporting the junk science of the 114 that was wrong

There's a headline I thought I'd never see. But then it's Fox News. Let's see if anyone else picks it up.

Looks like the embargo that kept skeptical papers from being published is breaking open. In this case the conclusion is irrefutable. There's no question that the models are missing badly. Ignoring that fact is just harming the credibility of the whole field.

 

[WCH]

There's a headline I thought I'd never see. But then it's Fox News. Let's see if anyone else picks it up.

Looks like the embargo that kept skeptical papers from being published is breaking open. In this case the conclusion is irrefutable. There's no question that the models are missing badly. Ignoring that fact is just harming the credibility of the whole field.

So does this mean Conservatives don't 'hate' science any longer? ;

That was getting so old.

 

[Deuce]

Read more: Climate models wildly overestimated global warming, study finds | Fox News

how many times does a science need to be wrong before they lose all creditability?
114 being wrong out of 117 is a very piss poor record. all the scientist that where wrong need to have their funding pulled and only allow the 3 that where roughly right to continue with their research. just think of all the money that would be saved by not supporting the junk science of the 114 that was wrong

Because all of them used assumptions about future solar activity that turned out to be incorrect. The sun dipped in output.

 

[head of joaquin]

so why are they wasting all that money attempting to do so and then report their inaccurate finding as it was the gospel as billions get spent to try to curve what they falsely predict will happen

Because the negative effects of climate change, if on the extreme end, are devastating and will impoverish and kill millions of people and deracinate our economy.

Given the terrible nature of the risk, wise people act prudently to avoid it, even if the risk itself isn't certain.

It goes without saying that tea party knownothings aren't wise.

 

[Deuce]

There's a headline I thought I'd never see. But then it's Fox News. Let's see if anyone else picks it up.

Looks like the embargo that kept skeptical papers from being published is breaking open. In this case the conclusion is irrefutable. There's no question that the models are missing badly. Ignoring that fact is just harming the credibility of the whole field.

The part you people refuse to even think about is why the models turned out to be incorrect. To you, temperatures falling outside of the model range disproves AGW in of itself. This, of course, is based on fundamental misunderstandings about how climate models work and what their purpose is.

 

[rocket88]

So does this mean Conservatives don't 'hate' science any longer? ;

That was getting so old.

Nobody likes science that they don't want to hear. Doesn't matter which side you're on, if it's not what you want to hear...well, it's not true.

 

[rocket88]

so why are they wasting all that money attempting to do so and then report their inaccurate finding as it was the gospel as billions get spent to try to curve what they falsely predict will happen

Because somebody's paying them to do the study. You can make a study that says anything you want it to say, or at least you can turn the raw data into anything.

 

[Deuce]

Because somebody's paying them to do the study. You can make a study that says anything you want it to say, or at least you can turn the raw data into anything.

So, all science ever done is suspect, rocket88?

 

[head of joaquin]

Note that the Fox headline distorts what the study found. Typical conservative agitprop.

Fox: Climate models wildly overestimated global warming, study finds

Study: Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models. This
difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and
internal climate variability.

 

[WCH]

Nobody likes science that they don't want to hear. Doesn't matter which side you're on, if it's not what you want to hear...well, it's not true.

I'm scientific by nature but, sometimes my boots aren't high enough for all the bull chit I have to wade through.

 

[trfjr]

Because the negative effects of climate change, if on the extreme end, are devastating and will impoverish and kill millions of people and deracinate our economy.

Given the terrible nature of the risk, wise people act prudently to avoid it, even if the risk itself isn't certain.

It goes without saying that tea party knownothings aren't wise.

the earths climate has fluctuated from day 1 and there is nothing we can do about it has oscillated from warm to cold back to warm right now we are at the peak of a warming period and in the next 1000 years or so it will start cooling again into another mini ice age

 

[longview]

Note that the Fox headline distorts what the study found. Typical conservative agitprop.

Note: The title of the actual article.

Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years

compared to Fox's headline

Climate models wildly overestimated global warming, study finds

The use of the adjective "wildly" might be a bit much, but the title and headline say basically the same thing.
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate change/Climate model results/over estimate.pdf

 

[head of joaquin]

the earths climate has fluctuated from day 1 and there is nothing we can do about it has oscillated from warm to cold back to warm right now we are at the peak of a warming period and in the next 1000 years or so it will start cooling again into another mini ice age

Oh jeez, this silly rightwing meme.

 

[longview]

the earths climate has fluctuated from day 1 and there is nothing we can do about it has oscillated from warm to cold back to warm right now we are at the peak of a warming period and in the next 1000 years or so it will start cooling again into another mini ice age

The point we really need to be concerned with is the next non mini ICE AGE,
which could last 80,000 years.
If we could keep that wolf at bay, by putting some extra Co2 in the air, that may be
worth looking at.

 

[Middleground]

The part you people refuse to even think about is why the models turned out to be incorrect. To you, temperatures falling outside of the model range disproves AGW in of itself. This, of course, is based on fundamental misunderstandings about how climate models work and what their purpose is.

Exactly. It does not take an Einstein to conclude that despite the climate models being off (by how much???), that climate change is real.

 

[Middleground]

The point we really need to be concerned with is the next non mini ICE AGE,
which could last 80,000 years.
If we could keep that wolf at bay, by putting some extra Co2 in the air, that may be
worth looking at.

Do you realize how narrow-minded your thinking really is? :lamo

 

[trfjr]

Oh jeez, this silly rightwing meme.

so are you deny the existence of the ice age or the mini ice age that ended about 200 years ago?

 

[longview]

Exactly. It does not take an Einstein to conclude that despite the climate models being off (by how much???), that climate change is real.

I don't know any skeptics who don't think the climate is changing,
The discussion is human involvement, in general, and Co2 in particular.

 

[rocket88]

The part you people refuse to even think about is why the models turned out to be incorrect. To you, temperatures falling outside of the model range disproves AGW in of itself. This, of course, is based on fundamental misunderstandings about how climate models work and what their purpose is.

There's always going to be incorrect models. Until there isn't one. Problem is, by the time we know that model was right it won't matter anymore.

 

[trfjr]

Exactly. It does not take an Einstein to conclude that despite the climate models being off (by how much???), that climate change is real.

they predicted that the earth temp would be 2 degrees hotter then when they made that perdition it only risen by .7 degrees and it has stopped