The great failure of the climate models

[jet57]

Our current temps are stable.

Yeah, this last July was the hottest July ever recorded so temps are going way up due to greenhouse effects. Here, I'll let NASA educate you:

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/19/what...nhouse-effect/

But in the last century or so, humans have been interfering with the energy balance of the planet, mainly through the burning of fossil fuels that give off additional carbon dioxide into the air. The level of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere has been rising consistently for decades and traps extra heat near the surface of the Earth, causing temperatures to rise.

[Chris]

Yeah, this last July was the hottest July ever recorded so temps are going way up due to greenhouse effects. Here, I'll let NASA educate you:

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/19/what...nhouse-effect/

That's nice. You give a link defining greenhouse effects as "Greenhouse gases arise naturally." Now can you explain the causative connection from man to greenhouse effects to the latest local highs?

[Chris]

Our current temps are stable.

Interesting article on Why global climate models do not give a realistic description of the local climate:

Global climate statistics, such as the global mean temperature, provide good indicators as to how our global climate varies (e.g. see here). However, most people are not directly affected by global climate statistics. They care about the local climate; the temperature, rainfall and wind where they are. When you look at the impacts of a climate change or specific adaptations to a climate change, you often need to know how a global warming will affect the local climate.

Yet, whereas the global climate models (GCMs) tend to describe the global climate statistics reasonably well, they do not provide a representative description of the local climate. Regional climate models (RCMs) do a better job at representing climate on a smaller scale, but their spatial resolution is still fairly coarse compared to how the local climate may vary spatially in regions with complex terrain. This fact is not a general flaw of climate models, but just the climate models’ limitation....

[Hoosier8]

Global warming is happening on the earth's land surface, in the oceans, and in the atmosphere. A recent study reported in the journal, Nature, concluded that 98% of the earth's surface was
hotter in the late 20th century than at any time during the last 2000 years. Global warming is certainly happening in the Arctic.

I frequently hear that expression "garbage in, garbage out" in reference to computer models by people who don't understand science. Computer models are used all of the time in science and
engineering. They always have to go through a validating process. How else can scientists understand something as complicated as the climate?

Which of course is bollocks. Another study that ignores the major warming periods of the past.

[Hoosier8]

Yeah, this last July was the hottest July ever recorded so temps are going way up due to greenhouse effects. Here, I'll let NASA educate you:

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/19/what...nhouse-effect/

[/FONT][/COLOR]

Of course that depends on what outlet you listen to. According to lower troposphere records it is the 4th, but then all scientists agree it has warmed since the Little Ice Age, but few agree why.

[jet57]

That's nice. You give a link defining greenhouse effects as "Greenhouse gases arise naturally." Now can you explain the causative connection from man to greenhouse effects to the latest local highs?

But - you left this part out of your stupid comments:

But in the last century or so, humans have been interfering with the energy balance of the planet, mainly through the burning of fossil fuels that give off additional carbon dioxide into the air. The level of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere has been rising consistently for decades and traps extra heat near the surface of the Earth, causing temperatures to rise.

Why do you lie so much?

[jet57]

Of course that depends on what outlet you listen to. According to lower troposphere records it is the 4th, but then all scientists agree it has warmed since the Little Ice Age, but few agree why.

Then you'll have no trouble reading all these articles: here's one, and calling all of them liars...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/15/c...july-noaa.html

And what doers NASA know- right?

[skepticalmike]

The data demonstrate The great failure of the climate models.

There are many things wrong with this article.
1) The article states that there has been no systematic increase in extreme weather events. The AR5 does say that there have been more heat waves and heavy precipitation events.

2) the model predictions of the mid-troposphere versus satellite data represent a discrepancy but this does not invalidate models of the entire earth (land-ocean models) even if the
data is 100% accurate. An article at realclimate.org (comparing models to the satellite data sets) discusses this issue but it is very complicated. A number of irregularities in John
Christ's graphical presentations were noted and the climate models imparted a 0.1 degree C. bias because of volcanic and solar forcings after 2000 and ENSO (Southern Oscillation)
variability used in the model was flawed. This is too complicated a subject for me or probably anyone else at this forum.

3) The first half of the 20th century global mean temperature was affected by a rise in CO2 and also by solar forcings. The article states that all of the temp. rise was natural. Aerosols aslo
cooled the planet somewhat, especially in the 1940's.

4)The warming did not stop from 2000 to 2014. That is a lie. Oceans are a big part of the climate system and ocean heat increased greatly during that time. Land temperatures also increased.

5)The author, Pat Michaels, is implying with no evidence, that the scientific community was dishonest or incompetent in the adjustments to ocean temperatures and to the Arctic temperature
data (due to a lack of temperature stations)

6)There isn't plenty of ice over the Arctic. Arctic sea ice has been declining rapidly since 1950 and it is getting much thinner. At some point in the near future the Arctic ocean temperature will
rise above 0 degrees C. and that will increase the meltdown of Greenland and the release of subsea methane.

This entire article is dishonest. Pat Michaels has a history of misleading the public about global warming and he has received money from the fossil fuel industry. I remember hearing him on CNN
saying that we should expect the global mean temp. to increase by about 1 degree C. over the next 100 years. That was back in about 2005. His logic was that CO2 was increasing exponentially
but the radiative forcing by CO2 is logarithmic so when we multiply these 2 functions together we get a linear curve showing a 1 degree C temp increase He left out all of he climate feedbacks.
with the feedbacks it would be closer to 3 degrees C.

[skepticalmike]

That's the point. It is not. It's only happening in computer models.

In the real world, over the last couple of decades there's been a very slight cooling.

You are wrong. There has been accelerated warming. I don't know where you get your information. 2014-2018 are the 4 warmest years since temp. records have been kept and 2019
will be hotter than 2018.

[MisterVeritis]

You are wrong. There has been accelerated warming. I don't know where you get your information. 2014-2018 are the 4 warmest years since temp. records have been kept and 2019
will be hotter than 2018.

Who cares?