• 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]

j-mac

DP Veteran
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]
  • 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
By ELLIE ZOLFAGHARIFARD FOR DAILYMAIL.COM


Read more: Global warming has slowed but our climate models are WRONG | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

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:
 
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:
I wonder if that explains why so many people are trading in their hybrids for SUV's
 
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:

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

I wonder if that explains why so many people are trading in their hybrids for SUV's

Tax policy and motor fuel cost changes are a more likely cause.
 
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:

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

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

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?

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

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?

Don't be so cynical.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

And that's what happens when you rely on the Daily Fail to paraphrase and "inform" you...

I would be quick to point out I just paraphrased the study as well, but I do encourage people to read it for themselves. Never trust others to do your thinking for you.
 
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:

What you mean my government has had me paying a 20% carbon tax levy on my energy bills for the last 5 years .... for NOTHING !

Meanwhile in the real world just look at what all that extra nasty nasty CO2 has been doing for us while it hasn't been following the doomsday models

Increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) have helped boost green foliage across the world's arid regions over the past 30 years through a process called CO2 fertilisation, according to CSIRO research. In findings based on satellite observations, CSIRO, in collaboration with the Australian National University (ANU), found that this CO2 fertilisation correlated with an 11 per cent increase in foliage cover from 1982-2010 across parts of the arid areas studied in Australia, North America, the Middle East and Africa

So it turns out that all this demonized extra CO2 has actually been a good thing for the biosphere ! Who'd have thunk it :shock:

Deserts 'greening' from rising carbon dioxide: Green foliage boosted across the world's arid regions -- ScienceDaily
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

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. ;)

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

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

And that's what happens when you rely on the Daily Fail to paraphrase and "inform" you...

Nothing like the good ol' ad hom to contribute NOTHING. as usual.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

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

Well its hardly surprising the models don't work. Here are just 50 reasons why

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

You would probably be better off with a crystal ball frankly :cool:
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

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.

And it's succeeding.

from 1995 to 2005 the AGW arena was the fastest growing industry on the planet. It now directly employs over 5 million 'non-research' staff world wide and that does not include the public sector where cities run by socialists like Vancouver have a global warming staff of 16.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

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.

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

But, but but the rise is only twenty feet, not twenty one, so it's all a lie!
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

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


Ok,

1. how does that refute the Duke scientists?

2. The study provided by the Florida commission is just another group using their conclusion first, then working to prove the conclusion....That's NOT science.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

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

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.

Yep, the final straw was Kyoto. When I got past the media hype and saw what was really in it, that was it.

It turned pollution into a comodity
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

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.

Never said that I thought this disproved Climate changes, only that it shows that the supposed science being rammed down our throats, and driving policy that is artificially raising prices across the spectrum for everyone, is based on a political, rather than a scientific explanation. Also, that it is apparent that at this point, as F&L points out rather well, is that AGW proponents have become more akin to a religious cult rather than a rational belief, or debate.
 
Back
Top Bottom