• 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

I'm thinking about starting a new organization... along the lines of AARP....

Old People for Global Warming NOW :lol: How many want a T-shirt ? :lamo

Keep smilin'

Thom Paine
 
And now it's global COOLING! Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a yearAlmost a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012
BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013
Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month


Global cooling: Arctic ice caps grows by 60% against global warming predictions | Mail Online

View attachment 67153507

Do you seriously think a one-year increase in ice area means it's getting colder?
 
Do you seriously think a one-year increase in ice area means it's getting colder?

nope because ice will form with hot climate nowdays
 
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.

No that doesn't disprove the AGW theory, which may be at least partly correct. It does show that the scientists don't know how to predict what will happen to the climate in the future. We should not be basing policy on such predictions.
 
Last edited:
Do you seriously think a one-year increase in ice area means it's getting colder?

It has indeed been cooler than average in the Arctic for most of the summer. I'm not sure that explains the ice, though, since the ice extent has more to do with the winds there.
 
In the normal course of things, Humanity can survive the warming we are likely to see.

Ya think? Tell me, in your infinite clairvoyant wisdom, what do you think a 2 degree annual difference will mean to our planet? :popcorn2:
 
The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996


Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online

View attachment 67153508

Are you aware that the 2000s have been the hottest decade on record? And before that, it was the 1990s? And before that, it was the 1980s?

See where I'm going?
 
CO2 is a requisite to sustain life on this planet. :doh

Thom Paine

So what is your point?

Water is also a requisite to sustain life on this planet, yet when there's too much of it in a given area, what happens?
 
It has indeed been cooler than average in the Arctic for most of the summer. I'm not sure that explains the ice, though, since the ice extent has more to do with the winds there.

And precipitation. But that's not the point. The point is that a single years worth of data is completely useless for establishing a climate trend.
 
so are you deny the existence of the ice age or the mini ice age that ended about 200 years ago?

God I love how deniers can't think clearly - and have to demonstrate it.
 
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

Much stuff up much?
 
In the normal course of things, Humanity can survive the warming we are likely to see.
I am not so sure that would be a safe statement for the next ice age.
80 to 90% of the last 800,000 years have been spent in an ICE age, I think it is a
high probability it will return.
Kind of narrow-minded of you to think it will not!

Says longview after extensive economic and social research into the effects of global warming.

I just love knownothing memes
 
Read Cook's abstract, that's not what it says.
About 36% of Scientist writing papers about Climate change, endorse AGW.
Most of the rest do not express a position.

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.
 
No that doesn't disprove the AGW theory, which may be at least partly correct. It does show that the scientists don't know how to predict what will happen to the climate in the future. We should not be basing policy on such predictions.

No it shows that the models up to now have overestimated the warming trend during a particular period. The article suggests why.

It doesn't imply at all the "scientists don't know how to predict" future climate. Both the models and the measurements show global warming. If the actuality is not as bad as the predictions, that's good news. But we still have to deal with the problem, and denying it is pure knownothingism.
 
Hi there Middleground :2wave: By now you've probably read the rest of the thread. post #50 generally sums up the point.

Have a nice eve

Thom Paine

Hi back, Mr. Paine.

A balance of CO2, thy way nature intended, is fine and dandy. However we humans have tipped the balance, even if it seems ever so slight. And that is what is causing climate change.
 
And precipitation. But that's not the point. The point is that a single years worth of data is completely useless for establishing a climate trend.

Yeah, but so is 30 years. For all we know it's a cycle and is starting to turn back the other way.
 
Yeah, but so is 30 years. For all we know it's a cycle and is starting to turn back the other way.

No, what we know is that it's not, since the data and models show otherwise.

That's what science does: makes predictions based on data and theories that are supported by fact and reason. The anthropogenic causation of global warming is well understood. The extent and rapidity is not.
 
No it shows that the models up to now have overestimated the warming trend during a particular period. The article suggests why.

It doesn't imply at all the "scientists don't know how to predict" future climate. Both the models and the measurements show global warming. If the actuality is not as bad as the predictions, that's good news. But we still have to deal with the problem, and denying it is pure knownothingism.

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.
 
No, what we know is that it's not, since the data and models show otherwise.

That's what science does: makes predictions based on data and theories that are supported by fact and reason. The anthropogenic causation of global warming is well understood. The extent and rapidity is not.

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.
 
That's not really that far off. If the weatherman says it's going to be 80 and it's only 78.7, that's still a pretty good prediction.


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.
 
Back
Top Bottom