• 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!

Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent [W:437]

Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Wait, you mean all the frothing, and foaming over "global warming" was based on manipulated, or incomplete data, and flawed models? I......AM.......SHOCKED!!!!!! :cool:

Thanks for brining this up! This is certainly a very important study.
https://nicholas.duke.edu/news/global-warming-more-moderate-worst-case-models

Of particular note is this graph.
20150424_ar5fig1125a.png


The biggest takeaways are:
1). There are 180 different climate models listed here. All of them are getting warmer. And the global temperate has consistently fallen within the bounds of these models.
2). In the 1990's, global temperature tended toward the upper extremes of these models. In the 2010's it's been more toward the lower extremes. While the climate models failed to predict this, the duke study calculated a 70% likelihood of seeing these anomalies given a middle of the road warming scenario. But it is highly unlikely that we would have seen these same anomalies if either of the extreme ends of the models were correct.
3). And most importantly... The study showed that climate models by in large GET IT RIGHT.. but they tend to underestimate short term (decade long) climate variability.

In short, this study is a near airtight validation of human induced global warming with the most likely outcome being about a 1 deg c temperature rise by 2050.

(also.. while I applaud your enthusiasm, there's a reason scientists don't read about science in places like the Guardian. Lets just say that Journalists and Physicists don't take very many classes together. And from personal experience, having had various things covered by the press.... it's always been painful to read their descriptions of what we've done. 50% of the coverage tends to be a complete fabrication, the other 50% poorly understood and misstated.
 
Last edited:
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

The energy state of a molecule does in fact decay, in that it transitions from higher to a
lower energy state. The translation (decay) can ether be spontaneous, or stimulated.

yay, you FINALLY actually backpedalled and corrected yourself on something.
the ENERGY LEVEL does in fact decay. Note however, I objected to you saying the molecule decays. KUDOS .

I am guessing your comment about Maxwell–Boltzmann is in regards to aerosol distribution,
This incredible image from NASA portrays global...
aerosols are not evenly distributed.

Nope, I am commenting on the fact that you claimed that all CO2 exist in an excited state; a fact that

1) invalidates M-B statistics/partition functions
or
2) the laws of thermodynamics
or
3) both
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

What's disingenuous in pointing out that both the warming since 1998, and the ability of climatologists to predict temperatures to within 1% are both statistically meaningless?

Um, the whole thread (OP and some 200+ of the following posts) is devoted to the the exact opposite- worshiping "the hiatus {sic}". DO TRY, to keep up.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

You're always a ****ing waste of my time. Go bother somebody else dude, I'm tired of you and your arrogance already.

Wow ! I really got you on the run there didn't I ? :lol:
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Good ... lord ... are you trying to be a boor or does it come naturally.

Arguing with people who are talking out of their rear end 99% of the time might tend to bring it out
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Thanks for brining this up! This is certainly a very important study.
https://nicholas.duke.edu/news/global-warming-more-moderate-worst-case-models

Of particular note is this graph.
20150424_ar5fig1125a.png


The biggest takeaways are:
1). There are 180 different climate models listed here. All of them are getting warmer. And the global temperate has consistently fallen within the bounds of these models.
2). In the 1990's, global temperature tended toward the upper extremes of these models. In the 2010's it's been more toward the lower extremes. While the climate models failed to predict this, the duke study calculated a 70% likelihood of seeing these anomalies given a middle of the road warming scenario. But it is highly unlikely that we would have seen these same anomalies if either of the extreme ends of the models were correct.
3). And most importantly... The study showed that climate models by in large GET IT RIGHT.. but they tend to underestimate short term (decade long) climate variability.

In short, this study is a near airtight validation of human induced global warming with the most likely outcome being about a 1 deg c temperature rise by 2050.
t
(also.. while I applaud your enthusiasm, there's a reason scientists don't read about science in places like the Guardian. Lets just say that Journalists and Physicists don't take very many classes together. And from personal experience, having had various things covered by the press.... it's always been painful to read their descriptions of what you've done.
So, if I ask 180 people to pull predictions out of their asses, and the actual trend falls within the bounds of those predictions, can I similarly claim that people who pull numbers out of their asses by in large get it right?
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

yay, you FINALLY actually backpedalled and corrected yourself on something.
the ENERGY LEVEL does in fact decay. Note however, I objected to you saying the molecule decays. KUDOS .



Nope, I am commenting on the fact that you claimed that all CO2 exist in an excited state; a fact that

1) invalidates M-B statistics/partition functions
or
2) the laws of thermodynamics
or
3) both
Once excited by the vibrational transfer from nitrogen CO2 will start it's energy decay within ms.
The entire (roughly 27) possible steps to ground state can take up to 50 ms.
While the energy state is in decay steps, it cannot absorb the 15 um ground emission.
(look up population inversion).
My theory, is that during the sunlight hours, CO2 could be continuously cycling
through it's energy states, because the ms it hits ground state, a nitrogen is there to re-excite it.
Even if a random 15 um photon happened to excite a CO2 molecule, it is a quick transition back to ground state.
The question would become what is the mean free path of a 15 um photon to a CO2 Molecule
vs the mean free path of an excited nitrogen atom to a CO2 Molecule?
Also is there the 9.6 and 10.6 um spectra present in the daytime sky, because it would not have been caused from
a 15 um ground emission!
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Thanks for brining this up! This is certainly a very important study.
https://nicholas.duke.edu/news/global-warming-more-moderate-worst-case-models

Of particular note is this graph.
20150424_ar5fig1125a.png


The biggest takeaways are:
1). There are 180 different climate models listed here. All of them are getting warmer.
And the global temperate has consistently fallen within the bounds of these models.
2). In the 1990's, global temperature tended toward the upper extremes of these models. In the 2010's it's been more toward the lower extremes. While the climate models failed to predict this, the duke study calculated a 70% likelihood of seeing these anomalies given a middle of the road warming scenario. But it is highly unlikely that we would have seen these same anomalies if either of the extreme ends of the models were correct.
3). And most importantly... The study showed that climate models by in large GET IT RIGHT.. but they tend to underestimate short term (decade long) climate variability.

In short, this study is a near airtight validation of human induced global warming with the most likely outcome being about a 1 deg c temperature rise by 2050.

(also.. while I applaud your enthusiasm, there's a reason scientists don't read about science in places like the Guardian. Lets just say that Journalists and Physicists don't take very many classes together. And from personal experience, having had various things covered by the press.... it's always been painful to read their descriptions of what we've done. 50% of the coverage tends to be a complete fabrication, the other 50% poorly understood and misstated.
Sure looks like it'd be more accurate to say the global temps fall between the absolute lowest in the range of models. (thank God for those outlier models, huh)
That gives rise to the question of why there are so many doom-and-gloom models that are so very wrong?
And your answer to that would be ... those pesky short-term decade-long climate variabilities you mentioned.
The question then is, why are they ignored & how many of those decade-long climate variabilities do there have to be before they're not dismissed out of hand?
They can't have been an anomaly unique to the 21st century.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

So, if I ask 180 people to pull predictions out of their asses, and the actual trend falls within the bounds of those predictions, can I similarly claim that people who pull numbers out of their asses by in large get it right?

These people would hold our entire economic future as hostage to fortune based on this subjective nonsense. As I illustrated earlier this current warming phase is niether unprecedented nor is it in any way abnormal when viewed against the post glacial pattern of natural variation. Even if one views the ice core record of just the last 4,000 years it is clear just how inconsequential todays temperatures are

Kobashi 2011

View attachment 67183695

http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049444.pdf
 

Attachments

  • 4000yearsgreenland_nov2011_gprl.jpg
    4000yearsgreenland_nov2011_gprl.jpg
    88 KB · Views: 28
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Um, the whole thread (OP and some 200+ of the following posts) is devoted to the the exact opposite- worshiping "the hiatus {sic}". DO TRY, to keep up.
LOL - what?

The exact opposite of pointing out that the warming since 1998 is statistically meaningless is that the warming since 1998 is statistically meaningful, which has absolutely nothing to do with "worshiping the hiatus."

Yes, you can play the game too, but you really suck at it.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

So, if I ask 180 people to pull predictions out of their asses, and the actual trend falls within the bounds of those predictions, can I similarly claim that people who pull numbers out of their asses by in large get it right?

Actually yes, providing of course that you do it for a long enough of a time and the guesses fell within a small enough spread for the analysis to be statistically significant.

And for the record, large numbers of people pulling numbers out of their asses can be a very useful technique. Think oddsmakers, and the stock market.

Of course, you already realize this as it's pretty basic stuff for anyone even remotely versed in STEM.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

These people would hold our entire economic future as hostage to fortune based on this subjective nonsense. As I illustrated earlier this current warming phase is niether unprecedented nor is it in any way abnormal when viewed against the post glacial pattern of natural variation. Even if one views the ice core record of just the last 4,000 years it is clear just how inconsequential todays temperatures are

Kobashi 2011

View attachment 67183695

http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049444.pdf
You do realize that's GREENLAND surface temperature, not GLOBAL surface temperature. The Earth is actually quite a bit larger than Greenland. And that's a good thing, because that chart shows a 5 deg C swing in temperature. If that were global, we'd be in FAR worse trouble than we are now.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Actually yes, providing of course that you do it for a long enough of a time and the guesses fell within a small enough spread for the analysis to be statistically significant.

Aye and theres the rub. Our records are not nearly of long enough duration to be making determinations about anything. The most accurate record is probably the UAH satellite record which only starts in 1979 and for nearly half that period has flatlined

And for the record, large numbers of people pulling numbers out of their asses can be a very useful technique. Think oddsmakers, and the stock market.
The stock market is based on speculation the climate is not
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Aye and theres the rub. Our records are not nearly of long enough duration to be making determinations about anything. The most accurate record is probably the UAH satellite record which only starts in 1979 and for nearly half that period has flatlined


The stock market is based on speculation the climate is not
And you know this how?
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

You do realize that's GREENLAND surface temperature, not GLOBAL surface temperature. The Earth is actually quite a bit larger than Greenland. And that's a good thing, because that chart shows a 5 deg C swing in temperature. If that were global, we'd be in FAR worse trouble than we are now.

Historically Greenland has tracked Northern hemisphere temperatures pretty closely however there are multiple sources from around the world confirming it too as this interactive map illustrates

Medieval Warm Period

It seems global warming advocates like to make hay with the polar temperatures when it fits their agenda but are just as keen to ignore it when it doesn't
 
Last edited:
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

What's disingenuous in pointing out that both the warming since 1998, and the ability of climatologists to predict temperatures to within 1% are both statistically meaningless?

Nothing is wrong with it. The "one percent" claim is an invalid 'verification statistic' for a model, the other is a current trend that suggests that most models may be overestimating. Generalized snarks about the prior number of posts and derogatory characterizations of others points as "worship" is little more than unentertaining dodging.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Actually yes, providing of course that you do it for a long enough of a time and the guesses fell within a small enough spread for the analysis to be statistically significant.
Surely, statistical analyses of the 180 climatology models shown in your chart would show that by and large, climatology models get it wrong.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Surely, statistical analyses of the 180 climatology models shown in your chart would show that by and large, climatology models get it wrong.

Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day. Move the goalposts far enough apart and anything can be made to fit
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

It looks like both you and Travis 007 are here to waste everybody elses time by turning this into a US centric political hate game. Neither of you have contributed anything here to genuine debate and are just here to spew bile at what you have framed as the opposing political camp you lack any valid comprehension of the real issues. Plenty of us here actually DO want to debate this issue rationally even if you have chosen not to so I for one appreciate it if you both would give it a rest :(

whats to debate? we are discussing the liberal agenda of it... "weather changes"... whats to debate?
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Because I can read
Any scientific claim requires evidence to back it up. We do not simply say things and hope people take our word for it.

You made the claim that we do not have measurements over a long enough time period to accurately predict the future climate. So, what constitutes enough time? How would you know that we have enough to accurately predict the climate?

I'm quite convinced you know how to read. And while it is an accomplishment that you should certainly be proud of, it sadly is not quite enough to make you an expert on climate models, stochastic processes, or anything else.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day. Move the goalposts far enough apart and anything can be made to fit

A "clock" in the sense you use it, never really tells the correct time, and a broken one certainly doesn't have to twice a day.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Surely, statistical analyses of the 180 climatology models shown in your chart would show that by and large, climatology models get it wrong.

That's absolutely possible if you know nothing about statistics.


This is pretty simple stuff.

global temperature = T(year) + [T] where T(year) is the global trend and [T] is a stochastic process overlayed on top.

The goal is to find some function of temperature per year which best explains the data. Anyone taking a look at that dataset would immediately begin investigating a linearly increasing function for global temperature. This is clearly a better explanation than a steady state system as the probability for a random process to show such clear trendlines is borderline impossible.
 
Last edited:
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Any scientific claim requires evidence to back it up. We do not simply say things and hope people take our word for it.

Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, PhD

You made the claim that we do not have measurements over a long enough time period to accurately predict the future climate. So, what constitutes enough time? How would you know that we have enough to accurately predict the climate?

We know phases of warming or cooling often last for many centuries. This is clearly indicated by the paleoclimatic record. The surface record is patchy unreliable and of too short a duration to be making determinations about anything. The satellite record is accurate but even more meaningless due to its much shorter duration.

I'm quite convinced you know how to read. And while it is an accomplishment that you should certainly be proud of, it sadly is not quite enough to make you an expert on climate models, stochastic processes, or anything else.

Here is why they are worthless and why they will always fail

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5c9415b970b-pi
 
Back
Top Bottom