• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Climate models wildly overestimated global warming, study finds

No, we don't have to deal with the problem. It would be a waste of resources to deal with a problem that doesn't exist.

The models have fundamentally failed in their first big test of 20 years of prospective observations after the initial predictions. There is no reason to think they will do any better in the next 20 years since they can't explain why the models failed and have made no significant improvement in the models. I think I know why the models failed; they have the water vapor feedback set way too high, but they steadfastly refuse to admit it. If they'd plugged in a more realistic figure for water vapor feedback the models would have made the correct prediction, but the whole alarmist schtick would have been spoiled since that would mean that climate sensitivity is nowhere near as high as they've been claiming.

In science if your theory fails to make useful predictions then it is useless and wrong. Back to the drawing board.

Wish it to the cornfield!

That's what I love about conservatives. Total denial.
 
This is a good example of hermeneutical (religious) thinking. The Truth is known with absolute certainty and all is to be interpreted in the light of that Truth.

But that's not how scientists should think. The theory missed badly in terms of providing predictions. Time to consider other ideas.

O Jeez, a lecture on methodological naturalism from a denialist.

Science proposes theories to explain facts. Ultimately the theories, if validated, allow us to make predictions about stuff we care about. Nothing apodictic about it. Pure empiricism. In that context we have a valid theory about how climate changes and how industrial activity affects that. The models accord with the data, but at least this study shows that the prediction overestimated the warming trend for the period at issue, and proposes reasons why. Scientists will now examine those proposed reasons, test them, and construct better models.

Does that mean the problem of global warming doesn't exist? Nope. Only Fox News and denialists would misinterpret the study that way.
 
Not when the warming seen over the last 100 years is only 0.7C. When the error is larger than the observation you can't trust the observation.

Now you're making stuff up. The study didn't say this at all. Focus, focus.

You must be channeling some particularly freakish denialist website.
 
Now you're making stuff up. The study didn't say this at all. Focus, focus.

You must be channeling some particularly freakish denialist website.


I was responding to someone's example. Keep up.
 
Last edited:
Ya think? Tell me, in your infinite clairvoyant wisdom, what do you think a 2 degree annual difference will mean to our planet? :popcorn2:
Let's see, Which Scientist anywhere is talking about a 2 degree annual difference?
https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years
To be fair you did include a time parameter with your increase number, which is better than many do,
but the rise/time you suggested is preposterous.
Perhaps you mean 2 degrees C over the next 82 years,(the low end of the IPCC range).
If that is you question, then Toronto will end up with plant zones now seen about 150 miles south.
Sea levels will rise about 10 inches.
There is a slight chance we Humans will find an energy path forward that will
keep 4 out of 5 people from starving.
Alarm and Panic only helps those asking for money.
 
Climate model=weather girl?
 
Boy did you get it wrong.

Cook et al examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. They also invited authors to rate their own papers and found that, while only 35.5% rated their paper as expressing no position on AGW, 97.2% of the rest endorsed the consensus. In both cases the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position was marginally increasing over time. They concluded that the number of papers actually rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.[21]


Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your mind on denialism.
I said,
About 36% of Scientist writing papers about Climate change, endorse AGW.
Cook search criteria 'global climate change' or 'global warming' indeed found many of the papers
related to climate change, and of those 36% endorsed AGW.
How and where was I wrong?
I my own opinion, Cooks first search did not yield the result he was looking for,
so he choose to further parse the data until he got a significant figure.
 
I said,

Cook search criteria 'global climate change' or 'global warming' indeed found many of the papers
related to climate change, and of those 36% endorsed AGW.
How and where was I wrong?
I my own opinion, Cooks first search did not yield the result he was looking for,
so he choose to further parse the data until he got a significant figure.

His paper was right on target with 2 other peer-reviewed papers that came to the same bloody conclusion. It's like thinking an animated GIF will yield a different result if you look at it long enough.
 
His paper was right on target with 2 other peer-reviewed papers that came to the same bloody conclusion. It's like thinking an animated GIF will yield a different result if you look at it long enough.
I deal in numbers, and stand by my statement.
About 36% of Scientist writing papers about Climate change, endorse AGW.
Based on Cook's data.
He searched for 'global climate change' or 'global warming' and of the papers he found only
a little less than 36% endorsed AGW.
 
Not when the warming seen over the last 100 years is only 0.7C. When the error is larger than the observation you can't trust the observation.

I guess, but even 100 years of weather observation doesn't tell us a whole lot about climate. Climate is usually more of a long-term thing.
 
So much fail in this thread. I see the same silly old arguments the right always trot out. The same garbage that has been debunked over and over and over. This "weak" warming trend has been explained and accounted for, this has all been gone over years ago but nobody here has taken a look, nobody has researched why. Instead we get the same old nonsense spewed from the scientifically illiterate who can barely construct a coherent sentence nonetheless understand complex integrated sciences.

This is part of why America is falling apart, ignorance. Most people are unable to correctly understand the issues and become advocates of positions that are not beneficial to them or "the people" at large.

I certainly hope we can techno-fix our way out of this mess because I can't imagine we're going to curb carbon emission with the current state of public awareness.
 
Just curious, if it is as the proponents of AGW say it is, I am wondering what they think the scientists say is the fix? Or can we even reverse it at all through our actions?
 
climate models are create and modified given real observations, and modifications to the model is made when real observations don't line up with the earlier models.

Whenever the models don't jive, new parameters are added and old weights change. What this means is that future projections from models will be wrong until all parameters are discovered. Should probably take about 1,000 years to find all the problems.
 
I guess, but even 100 years of weather observation doesn't tell us a whole lot about climate. Climate is usually more of a long-term thing.



Which is why all the alarm over the warming of the last 100 years is stupid.
 
Which is why all the alarm over the warming of the last 100 years is stupid.

I agree, but it's also stupid to look at 1 year or 15 and say "See, nothings happening!"

Whether or not any changes happening are a result of human action, I don't think it's particularly smart to bury our heads in the sand and pretend like we know it's a hoax. We don't know that either.
 
I agree, but it's also stupid to look at 1 year or 15 and say "See, nothings happening!"

Whether or not any changes happening are a result of human action, I don't think it's particularly smart to bury our heads in the sand and pretend like we know it's a hoax. We don't know that either.


Not really true, Rocket. The problem with the AGW argument is they are trying to argue that the trend of the last 100 years is abnormal when we simply don't have the precision in paleoclimate records to see 0.7C change with any precision. But when you are talking about a 100 year trend, 15 years is very significant. All the skeptical argument needs to show is that there is no precision in the AGW models because it is the AGW models on which their entire theory rests. So it is an entirely different use of time scales in the Skeptical argument.
 
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

I don't know what logical truth/free thinking individual could possibly buy this AGW bull****....

The simple fact that these quacks get paid by governments to say AGW is fact despite the fact there is absolutely ZERO evidence to support their claims is enough to shut the door in their faces....

These quacks don't even have enough recorded data to even have a science let alone make predictions...

Your local Meteorologist cant even predict the weather accurately 3 days from now but we should take the word of a bunch of quack rejects that "AGW is fact" lol....
 
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

In other words, temperature increased, but not by as much as predicted. So we were right I guess?
 
In other words, temperature increased, but not by as much as predicted. So we were right I guess?

No it is like running around screaming a hurricane is coming a hurricane is coming and we get a drizzle
 
No, it's like it rose, but not as much as was predicted. The flood is only up to your knees instead of your waist. Two feet high and rising.....
 
In other words, temperature increased, but not by as much as predicted. So we were right I guess?
The temperature increased on a line it has been on since about 1850, the prediction was that it would exceed the normal rise by a factor of 3X or 4X.
The temperature may have exceeded the general line for brief periods, but also has now stopped rising altogether (for a brief period).
Their predictions are still within the error bars, but they made the error bars wide enough to cover even a minor increase.
I will try to put some numbers on this later (when more awake)
 
I concur; while I posit this thought. Without plentiful CO2 none of the above would exist. No flora means no fauna... more flora means more fauna... compare species propagation in regards to climate areas. Keeping human population in perspective... one could allow for 1000 square feet per human and still place every human within the U.S. State of Texas. It is challenging to believe that so few could doom the entire mass of this planet. It is not to say we should be so cavalier to disregard all we do but our sciences are very young and panic is uncalled for.... we can take advantage of the always changing natural occurrences.

Have a great day, Snappo

Thom Paine

What are your thoughts on the carrying capacity of this planet? Lots of scientists are thinking somewhere between one and two billion, tops. So if we are over the carrying capacity by such a sh**t-ton, maybe that's the problem? I wonder what soylent green tasted like? I guess Charlton Heston isn't around anymore to tell us though. ;-(
 
The temperature increased on a line it has been on since about 1850, the prediction was that it would exceed the normal rise by a factor of 3X or 4X.
The temperature may have exceeded the general line for brief periods, but also has now stopped rising altogether (for a brief period).
Their predictions are still within the error bars, but they made the error bars wide enough to cover even a minor increase.
I will try to put some numbers on this later (when more awake)


Here's the problem with numbers - let's say someone did a study on what you and I set our thermostats to because they want to make sure our electric bills together are kind of static. So one day I turn down my temp in the house from 68 to 48 since I like it cold. Conversely, you then have to turn yours from 68 to 88. The scientists report back to their readers that Snappo and Long are in stasis. Well if someone was visiting your house they wouldn't think things were in stasis - your house just became hot as hell. Maybe the planet is overall not moving much one way or the other; but from my seat in NY and previously from my seat in GA it sure is getting hotter. Maybe that means it's colder in Canada. <shrugs>
 
Here's the problem with numbers - let's say someone did a study on what you and I set our thermostats to because they want to make sure our electric bills together are kind of static. So one day I turn down my temp in the house from 68 to 48 since I like it cold. Conversely, you then have to turn yours from 68 to 88. The scientists report back to their readers that Snappo and Long are in stasis. Well if someone was visiting your house they wouldn't think things were in stasis - your house just became hot as hell. Maybe the planet is overall not moving much one way or the other; but from my seat in NY and previously from my seat in GA it sure is getting hotter. Maybe that means it's colder in Canada. <shrugs>
This is a different can of worms, the how the data was collected and averaged.
Here is the text header from the NASA table data.

GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index in 0.01 degrees Celsius base period: 1951-1980

sources: GHCN-v3 1880-08/2013 + SST: ERSST 1880-08/2013
using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment
Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 - Feb 1950 ; ***** = missing
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
We can only hope they used good methodology in how the eliminated outliers and homogenized the data.
Sometimes I think it is getting hotter also, but the numbers show only a slight increase.
I think the numbers on my scale and number of birthdays have more to do with my perception of it getting warmer.
If the AGW concept were accurate, the time lag of energy leaving earth would first be observed at night.
(It would cool off slower after the sun went down).
 
Back
Top Bottom