Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Ashotep

Climate change fulfilling dire predictions

28 posts in this topic

A NASA-funded climate study released Thursday said climate models that more accurately project relative humidity and cloud cover are more reliable in predicting the overall rate of change — a revelation that, disturbingly, means the planet’s changing climate is fulfilling scientists’ most dire predictions.

Study: Climate change fulfilling most dire predictions

I wish I could say this surprises me.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"NCAR scientists John Fasullo and Kevin Trenberth, who co-authored the study, reached their conclusions by analyzing how well sophisticated climate models reproduce observed relative humidity in the tropics and subtropics. The climate models that most accurately captured these complex moisture processes and associated clouds, which have a major influence on global climate, were also the ones that showed the greatest amounts of warming as society emits more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere."

this is pseudoscience and circular reasoning, I wish I could say this surprises me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"NCAR scientists John Fasullo and Kevin Trenberth, who co-authored the study, reached their conclusions by analyzing how well sophisticated climate models reproduce observed relative humidity in the tropics and subtropics. The climate models that most accurately captured these complex moisture processes and associated clouds, which have a major influence on global climate, were also the ones that showed the greatest amounts of warming as society emits more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere."

this is pseudoscience and circular reasoning, I wish I could say this surprises me.

So a model which is shown to work best is circular reasoning. Would you rather we used the models which failed to predict what is observed ?

Denialist reasoning at its best.

Br Cornelius

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a model which is shown to work best is circular reasoning. Would you rather we used the models which failed to predict what is observed ?

Denialist reasoning at its best.

Br Cornelius

false dichotomy fallacy.

cultist reasoning at its best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

false dichotomy fallacy.

cultist reasoning at its best.

When you can show that you understand the function and purpose of a model, I will show your opinion some respect, until then its just more denial from the man who thinks its all a Eugenics plot to kill us all.

PS- and please, before you squeal like a stuck pig that I am misrepresenting your position - in plain words deny what I have just said about you. You wont because you can't. When you start accusing respected scientists of been Cultists, don't be surprised when you are called what you are - a paranoid CT freak.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you start accusing respected scientists of been Cultists, don't be surprised when you are called what you are - a paranoid CT freak.
you are not a respected scientist. you are an anonymous and arrogant internet bully who spews antagonistic insults because you don't understand science.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you are not a respected scientist. you are an anonymous and arrogant internet bully who spews antagonistic insults because you don't understand science.

I am a trained and qualified environmental scientist who understands how the scientific method works. What are your qualifications Little Fish.

However, your comments I assumed were directed at the authors of the report on which this thread is based. You have called Climate scientists and Environmental scientists cultists on numerous occasions before so my assessment of you position seems more than fair.

Just out of interest, are you prepared to deny my accusation - it really gets to the heart of your credibility on these matters and so is centrally relevant to understanding your denial of reality.

Since you have openly accused me of been a cultist, I think it only fair that you enlighten us as to your central motives. I suspect you wont though. I am proud to declare what I know to be true and what I believe to be the case and I think it is essential that when people come to a debate they are honest and upfront about their beliefs so that all witnesses can make a fair assessment of their whole position and personality. Anything less is dishonest to my mind.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you had an opportunity to discuss the science, instead you chose to focus on imagined motivations and personalities and provoke with abusive insults. these are the traits of a cultist not a scientist.

if being called a cultist upsets you then think before you start calling people "denialists".

you're like the abusive drunk who doesn't know why he was beaten up.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you had an opportunity to discuss the science, instead you chose to focus on imagined motivations and personalities and provoke with abusive insults. these are the traits of a cultist not a scientist.

if being called a cultist upsets you then think before you start calling people "denialists".

you're like the abusive drunk who doesn't know why he was beaten up.

Your comments didn't address the science and failed to show an understanding of the reason for modelling.

However, what is important is that you have again refused to deny your real motivation. It would be quite simple for you to do so, yet you will not deny your core belief in public even though you cannot bring yourself to openly state it.

I am not upset at been called a Cultist as it helps highlight your delusional belief system :tu:

I am done debating the science with you because as you have shown before - you are a dishonest debater so I am wasting my time. You are incapable of assimilating real information so presenting it to you is a waste of both of our times. Frankly the only useful thing that can be achieved is to show you for what you really are, a delusional conspiracy theorist who cannot distinguish fact from fiction. If that hurts then learn to tell the difference and people will stop pointing it out to you.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets put this in perspective.

When I am debating Evolution its essential that I establish whether I am up against a fundamentalist Christian so that I can gauge how likely that person is to be able to assimilate the facts.

The same is true when debating the existence of God (though I gave up on that a long time ago)

The same is true of CT believers, and more particularly, what flavour of CT you are dealing with.

These are all gatekeeper beliefs which deform logical discussion and determine to what degree a person is capable of assimilating contradictory information.

Br Cornelius

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate scientists would like to give the impression, that our climate models are getting better and better. This is true. However what they don't tell the public, who doesn't have the means to actually understand these models, is that our models for short and medium-terms predictions are still not that good (****) as they were 5-10 years ago. But long term predictions, they are getting better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I could say this surprises me.

All this study is really saying is that one model works better than another one. It is not really about global warming - it's about models. The study would be relevant to climate forecasting whether there was such a thing as global warming or not.

At this point in time, the "wild weather" phenomenon has not been around long enough for scientists to reach solid conclusions about it. "Wild weather" is consistent with climate forecasts, but we have yet to establish a cause-and-effect relationship.

Heavy snowstorms in Canada, northeastern US and Europe are probably a function of the melt-off of Arctic ice, thus, only an indirect connection exists between them and warming. It's hard to demonstrate cause-and-effect when there's another step between cause and effect.

As for the rest: they're probably related to warming, but exactly how hasn't been clearly established.

See BFB's post above. True, but with the proviso that there are about 300 climate models of varying degrees of accuarcy. Some should probably go the way of the dinosaurs; others are accurate only in restricted areas or under restricted conditions - useful in the proper setting.

All climate models have trouble with summer precips and temps in continental interiors due to the convection problem - they can't predict exactly where the thunderstorm will go, so they can't precisely tell how much precip will occur in a point location. That's what BFB means when he says they aren't that accurate. For winter conditions, and yearly averages, they're a lot better. And as snow fall and winter precip is what recharges reservoirs, that is the important part.

BTW: A study soon to be published shows a decrease in the number of winter storms in the central US since 1980. Another nail in the denialist coffin.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate scientists would like to give the impression, that our climate models are getting better and better. This is true. However what they don't tell the public, who doesn't have the means to actually understand these models, is that our models for short and medium-terms predictions are still not that good (****) as they were 5-10 years ago. But long term predictions, they are getting better.

what do you mean by "long term" predictions? can you state what period you think "long term" represents.

if not enough time has passed to be able to verify a "long term" prediction, then how can they be judged to be getting better, worse or otherwise, we would have to wait before making a judgement wouldn't we?

there has been no global warming for the last 16 years during which time co2 has risen, this is contrary to the gcm model predictions, a zero temperature trend for 15 years or more is long enough to determine that there is a serious problem with the temperature predictions of the gcm models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been global warming over the last 16 yrs. It has been observed in the surface record and in the OHC. Only by careful selection of one particular start date can that be concealed - which is called cherry picking.

Models are aids to understanding what is likely to happen on a macro level over the long time scale - they do rather well in that most have matched the temperature record within standard error. What they are not good at is predicting micro detail on the geographic or short time scales - but then again that was not their purpose - which is what BFB said.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there has been no global warming for the last 16 years during which time co2 has risen, this is contrary to the gcm model predictions, a zero temperature trend for 15 years or more is long enough to determine that there is a serious problem with the temperature predictions of the gcm models.

There are only a half-dozen or so globally averaged temperature anomally data sets. Which of those are you saying do not show warming since 1997? I am not aware that ANY fail to show it.

As those are the only evidence there is, it's time to cite one (or more). In other words, put up some evidence.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are only a half-dozen or so globally averaged temperature anomally data sets. Which of those are you saying do not show warming since 1997? I am not aware that ANY fail to show it.

As those are the only evidence there is, it's time to cite one (or more). In other words, put up some evidence.

Doug

http://www.woodfortr...from:1997/trend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been global warming over the last 16 yrs. It has been observed in the surface record and in the OHC. Only by careful selection of one particular start date can that be concealed - which is called cherry picking.

Models are aids to understanding what is likely to happen on a macro level over the long time scale - they do rather well in that most have matched the temperature record within standard error. What they are not good at is predicting micro detail on the geographic or short time scales - but then again that was not their purpose - which is what BFB said.

Br Cornelius

again, what do you define as "short term" and "long term"?

no global warming for 16 years - that's a big chunk of the measurement record that shows warming that is claimed to be due to co2. but again you miss the point here - NOAA says that a period of 15 years of no trend is enough to falsify the gcm models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

again, what do you define as "short term" and "long term"?

no global warming for 16 years - that's a big chunk of the measurement record that shows warming that is claimed to be due to co2. but again you miss the point here - NOAA says that a period of 15 years of no trend is enough to falsify the gcm models.

If there had been no accumulation of heat energy in the system you might have a point. Since there has, you haven't.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there had been no accumulation of heat energy in the system you might have a point. Since there has, you haven't.

Br Cornelius

I want to test the assertion that gcms are better at "long term" predictions than "short term" predictions.

if you don't define "short term" and "long term" then it is untestable, its just faith.

the gcms predictions being used to frighten us into giving up our labour and wealth are predictions of global temperatures, not "accumulations of heat energy". Noaa says that gcms as they claim to understand co2/temperature do not output zero trends for 15 years, that is a testable statement made in 2007 and it failed, but will the warmists reexamine the hypothesis that co2 is the cause, which the models are built on as demanded by the scientific method, nope, what happens is that untestable and speculative assertions are made to cover up for the failure of the gcm models, the gcm model outputs are the only "evidence" for "dire predictions" but nature isn't cooperating with the models. so before we each pay $300/ton co2 to the vampiric money junkies I want to see some empirical evidence otherwise it's not science, its just an excuse to milk the masses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your graph. But why didn't you actually look at it? The trend line (the green one) is INCREASING. Admittedly, it's not a big increase, but trend lines only increase if the average is increasing. And that means, temps are going up.

There's a note that the graph is based on hadcrut3, produced by the University of East Anglia - you know - the place that puts out pro-warming propaganda. So why are you basing your claims that there's no warming on the work of people that you say lie? I don't get it.

A copy of the hadcrut3 data set is available at: http://www.cru.uea.a.../hadcrut3gl.txt

Temperature anomalies listed are differences from the 1951-1980 mean and expressed in hundredths of a degree Centigrade. Since 1991, the mean annual anomalies are:

1991: 0.213

1992: 0.062

1993: 0.106

1994: 0.172

1995: 0.275

1996: 0.137

1997: 0.352

1998: 0.548

1999: 0.297

2000: 0.271

2001: 0.408

2002: 0.465

2003: 0.475

2004: 0.447

2005: 0.482

2006: 0.425

2007: 0.402

2008: 0.325

2009: 0.443

2010: 0.478

2011: 0.340

2012: Incomplete

This list contains the fifteen hottest years ever recorded. Fourteen of them are in the 1997-2011 period (1995 was warmer than 2000.).

(You'd probably do better if you used Hansen's list of global temperature anomalies, but you can't do that because (according to you) he lies too. Eventually you'll have to decide who to believe and when you do that, your claim goes down the tubes.)

This dataset exhibits an outlier problem: 1998 is significantly warmer than any other year listed. If this one outlier were not there, the trend would be strongly upward instead of just weakly upward. You are putting an awful lot of faith in one observation.

But we can't throw out an observation just because we don't like it. So the next question is: what caused that outlier? The answer affects both our contentions.

At any rate, I have a copy of the dataset and will be looking at it more carefully over the next few weeks. I am leaving on a collecting trip this aftrenoon , so I won't have a chance to look at it until I get back next week.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to test the assertion that gcms are better at "long term" predictions than "short term" predictions.

if you don't define "short term" and "long term" then it is untestable, its just faith.

the gcms predictions being used to frighten us into giving up our labour and wealth are predictions of global temperatures, not "accumulations of heat energy". Noaa says that gcms as they claim to understand co2/temperature do not output zero trends for 15 years, that is a testable statement made in 2007 and it failed, but will the warmists reexamine the hypothesis that co2 is the cause, which the models are built on as demanded by the scientific method, nope, what happens is that untestable and speculative assertions are made to cover up for the failure of the gcm models, the gcm model outputs are the only "evidence" for "dire predictions" but nature isn't cooperating with the models. so before we each pay $300/ton co2 to the vampiric money junkies I want to see some empirical evidence otherwise it's not science, its just an excuse to milk the masses.

As Doug pointed out your basic premise is flawed - the trend has been upwards. Really that is where the discussion should end. Your assertion that the models are the only basis of the predictions is equally flawed since the data record shows a clear warming response to CO2 forcing on both the surface temperature and the overall heat content of the system - in the absence of any external forcing.

Heat is what actually matters as it is a measure of overall energy. Temperature is place specific and by choosing to concentrate exclusively on one place (the surface) it tells you very little about the actual system dynamics. It shows a lack of wanting to actually understand what is happening to the planet - it shows you are only interested in arguing points which can be won or lost.

I am interested in what happens if you accumulate heat(energy) within a dynamic system for over 200years. I have a fairly good idea what happens because scientists are collecting data and modelling that data and the ultimate outcome says that heating will be somewhere between 3 to 6 degrees of surface temperature rise for a doubling of CO2.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"fulfilling scientists’ most dire predictions"

predictions, made with the million pounds equipment, but saying that, they are scientists and its not rocket science really when you know how the weather has changed throughout Earths existance, that its likely to happen again, except today man IS helping it somewhat a lot quicker than nature intended.

Not to worry, the way we are breeding, there will be well enough people in future to witness and suffer the consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"fulfilling scientists’ most dire predictions"

predictions, made with the million pounds equipment, but saying that, they are scientists and its not rocket science really when you know how the weather has changed throughout Earths existance, that its likely to happen again, except today man IS helping it somewhat a lot quicker than nature intended.

Not to worry, the way we are breeding, there will be well enough people in future to witness and suffer the consequences.

Which is exactly what scientists are telling us - climate changes naturally, and climate changes because of man. It is only denialists which attempt to claim that scientists attribute all changes to man. Its a convenient arguing point which attempts to show them as unreasonable.

Br Cornelius

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientists come in all shape and forms, so does nature, but there are some out there who thinks he is GOD, considering this is one piece of history which has never been proven, I will read what the some scientists have to say and keep watching the skies for the rest of the news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can only view these things by our own best reading of the evidence (if we are fair and open minded in that reading) and by making a judgement call on who is most likely to be correct based upon the prevailing view of those with enough expertise to draw such conclusions.The weight in that case falls overwhelmingly on the side of AGW been a substantial part of all the current climate change.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.