- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
[h=1]Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are down to ‘natural variability’, says study[/h]
By ELLIE ZOLFAGHARIFARD FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
- Duke University study looked at 1,000 years of temperature records
- It compared it to the most severe emissions scenarios by the IPCC
- Found that natural variability can slow or speed the rate of warming
- These 'climate wiggles' were not properly accounted for in IPCC report
Read more: Global warming has slowed but our climate models are WRONG | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
I wonder if that explains why so many people are trading in their hybrids for SUV'sWait, you mean all the frothing, and foaming over "global warming" was based on manipulated, or incomplete data, and flawed models? I......AM.......SHOCKED!!!!!!
Wait, you mean all the frothing, and foaming over "global warming" was based on manipulated, or incomplete data, and flawed models? I......AM.......SHOCKED!!!!!!
I wonder if that explains why so many people are trading in their hybrids for SUV's
Wait, you mean all the frothing, and foaming over "global warming" was based on manipulated, or incomplete data, and flawed models? I......AM.......SHOCKED!!!!!!
That is absolutely and entirely not what the study says. What it says is that the most extreme models are probably not accurate and more moderate models likely, which is not what you would call unexpected. It does not create any doubt about man made effects on climate change. Here is the actual study: Comparing the model-simulated global warming signal to observations using empirical estimates of unforced noise : Scientific Reports : Nature Publishing Group
I'm not shocked. When the real goal has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with wealth redistribution, you don't expect the left and their lemmings to tell the truth, do you?
I'm not shocked. When the real goal has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with wealth redistribution, you don't expect the left and their lemmings to tell the truth, do you?
And that's what happens when you rely on the Daily Fail to paraphrase and "inform" you...
Wait, you mean all the frothing, and foaming over "global warming" was based on manipulated, or incomplete data, and flawed models? I......AM.......SHOCKED!!!!!!
It has more to do with expanding government power/control - wealth redistribution is but one possible path under that scenario. If the government can tax (fine?) you for not having a "private" medical care insurance policy then it is a small step to add a "green" mode of transportation (or home energy source) to the must buy/use list.
Don't be so cynical.
That is absolutely and entirely not what the study says. What it says is that the most extreme models are probably not accurate and more moderate models likely, which is not what you would call unexpected. It does not create any doubt about man made effects on climate change. Here is the actual study: Comparing the model-simulated global warming signal to observations using empirical estimates of unforced noise : Scientific Reports : Nature Publishing Group
And that's what happens when you rely on the Daily Fail to paraphrase and "inform" you...
That is absolutely and entirely not what the study says. What it says is that the most extreme models are probably not accurate and more moderate models likely, which is not what you would call unexpected. It does not create any doubt about man made effects on climate change. Here is the actual study: Comparing the model-simulated global warming signal to observations using empirical estimates of unforced noise : Scientific Reports : Nature Publishing Group
Don't be so cynical.
It's far bigger than that - it's a United Nation's exercise driven by a desire to create a world governing body that transfers wealth from first world nations to third world nations and climate change is the current means to that end. They've plainly said so.
Wait, you mean all the frothing, and foaming over "global warming" was based on manipulated, or incomplete data, and flawed models? I......AM.......SHOCKED!!!!!!
That is absolutely and entirely not what the study says. What it says is that the most extreme models are probably not accurate and more moderate models likely, which is not what you would call unexpected. It does not create any doubt about man made effects on climate change. Here is the actual study: Comparing the model-simulated global warming signal to observations using empirical estimates of unforced noise : Scientific Reports : Nature Publishing Group
Wrong on both counts Red....From the article....
"The research, uses observed data, rather than the more commonly used climate models, to estimate decade-to-decade variability.
'At any given time, we could start warming at a faster rate if greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere increase without any offsetting changes in aerosol concentrations or natural variability,' said Wenhong Li, assistant professor of climate at Duke, who conducted the study with Brown.
The team examined whether climate models, such as those used by the IPCC, accurately account for natural chaotic variability that can occur in the rate of global warming.
To test these, created a new statistical model based on reconstructed empirical records of surface temperatures over the last 1,000 years.
'By comparing our model against theirs, we found that climate models largely get the 'big picture' right but seem to underestimate the magnitude of natural decade-to-decade climate wiggles,' Brown said.
'Our model shows these wiggles can be big enough that they could have accounted for a reasonable portion of the accelerated warming we experienced from 1975 to 2000, as well as the reduced rate in warming that occurred from 2002 to 2013.'
'Statistically, it's pretty unlikely that an 11-year hiatus in warming, like the one we saw at the start of this century, would occur if the underlying human-caused warming was progressing at a rate as fast as the most severe IPCC projections,' Brown said."
So, not quite what you are trying to paint here...Not surprising that you would try though.
Wrong on both counts Red....From the article....
"The research, uses observed data, rather than the more commonly used climate models, to estimate decade-to-decade variability.
'At any given time, we could start warming at a faster rate if greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere increase without any offsetting changes in aerosol concentrations or natural variability,' said Wenhong Li, assistant professor of climate at Duke, who conducted the study with Brown.
The team examined whether climate models, such as those used by the IPCC, accurately account for natural chaotic variability that can occur in the rate of global warming.
To test these, created a new statistical model based on reconstructed empirical records of surface temperatures over the last 1,000 years.
'By comparing our model against theirs, we found that climate models largely get the 'big picture' right but seem to underestimate the magnitude of natural decade-to-decade climate wiggles,' Brown said.
'Our model shows these wiggles can be big enough that they could have accounted for a reasonable portion of the accelerated warming we experienced from 1975 to 2000, as well as the reduced rate in warming that occurred from 2002 to 2013.'
'Statistically, it's pretty unlikely that an 11-year hiatus in warming, like the one we saw at the start of this century, would occur if the underlying human-caused warming was progressing at a rate as fast as the most severe IPCC projections,' Brown said."
So, not quite what you are trying to paint here...Not surprising that you would try though.
Thank you.
A layman I sensed something was wrong with that rebuttal but I did not know what.
This kind of thing is what converted me from a die hard AGW to an outright opponent. There always seems to be some twist, some complex "counter explanation" that doesn't make sense and is filled "scientific jargon". Any question of any report like this, even asking if the article is substantiated elsewhere, draws accusations and insults. "Denier" is an insult, has religious roots and is like screaming "heretic"
If you have to explain what you do with confusing jargon, whether in the computer industry, hi fi, or hawking cheap **** on a midway, then it's likely they don't know what they're talking about or want to deliberately mislead.
A good idea doesn't need lies and exaggerations to live. And aren't we going to see the end of life as we know it next year according to Al Gore?
yeah, no doubt. And I should say that I am not smart enough to know, or even understand fully what goes into the AGW debate, but I do know that once they injected a political goal, ie; social justice, and wealth redistribution into the argument, they completely took away from any real science....Now it is what it is, a scam.
I don't think you understand what you are reading j-mac. Redress got it exactly right, the DailyMail headlines got it wrong in the headlines but the actual article isn't as bad. That is standard misinformation peddling that you fell for.
The use of "natural variability" is highly misleading in this context. What the study is talking about is the unexpected behavior of the oceans in which heat is cyclically absorbed for decades and then released later. These are long cycles that climate modelers just didn't know about in the 90's. This in turn is what creates the rapid warming and then lull we are observing today. This does not indicate agw being a hoax, or scam, or of manipulated data, or any other silly notion. Even though surface temperatures are not rapidly rising in the last decade or so, we are technically still rapidly warming because of the massive positive net energy imbalance. The upper oceans are warming rapidly and the Earth may also be a "planetary heatsink" which is also absorbing large amounts of heat which is why we're not seeing warming the in deeper levels of the ocean.
The other component here is that the paper supports the upper spectrum of climate model warming to be unlikely looking at these oscillations. They also say it could change but for now it is less likely not impossible or wrong, or a scam, or anything else. This is just statistics. This is why they have different scenarios because they don't have perfect information so they have to interpolate and make educated predictions.
Also wanted to add, when the oscillations are back to the warming phase, we will likely see very rapid warming once again and it could easily eclipse the warming we saw from the 70's to 00's. If you think this means agw is going away or not a problem, you're likely quite wrong.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?