User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 157

Thread: The great failure of the climate models

  1. #51
    Original Ranter
    Points: 583,011, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.8%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    438439
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    173,583
    Points
    583,011
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    105,455
    Thanked 89,421x in 59,859 Posts
    Mentioned
    2294 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It is very surprising that climate scientists will say on the one hand that they do not know all of the inputs into what drives climate, yet on the other hand claim their computer models are accurate.

    Well, they are not accurate- the extreme to moderate models have all been wrong.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Please visit my blog http://thepoliticalforums.com/blogs/peter/
    (If a post link does not work, see the archives- it should work there.)

  2. #52
    Points: 16,865, Level: 31
    Level completed: 42%, Points required for next Level: 585
    Overall activity: 30.0%
    Achievements:
    Social10000 Experience PointsVeteran
    jet57's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    939
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    5,596
    Points
    16,865
    Level
    31
    Thanks Given
    721
    Thanked 929x in 749 Posts
    Mentioned
    72 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Demonstrate that by presenting an argument how CO2 drive temps.
    Uh, that would be - carbon monoxide Christopher.

  3. #53
    Points: 16,865, Level: 31
    Level completed: 42%, Points required for next Level: 585
    Overall activity: 30.0%
    Achievements:
    Social10000 Experience PointsVeteran
    jet57's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    939
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    5,596
    Points
    16,865
    Level
    31
    Thanks Given
    721
    Thanked 929x in 749 Posts
    Mentioned
    72 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoosier8 View Post
    Like Al Gore? Bwahahahaha!
    Yes and NASA and other credible scientists that know what they’re talking about.

  4. #54
    Original Ranter
    Points: 583,011, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.8%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    438439
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    173,583
    Points
    583,011
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    105,455
    Thanked 89,421x in 59,859 Posts
    Mentioned
    2294 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    Uh, that would be - carbon monoxide Christopher.
    CO is not CO2.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Please visit my blog http://thepoliticalforums.com/blogs/peter/
    (If a post link does not work, see the archives- it should work there.)

  5. #55
    Points: 484,138, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 92.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    400729
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155,514
    Points
    484,138
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    16,885
    Thanked 48,304x in 35,340 Posts
    Mentioned
    1761 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    CO is not CO2.
    He obviously has no clue what he's talking about here.
    Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"

  6. #56
    Original Ranter
    Points: 583,011, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.8%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    438439
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    173,583
    Points
    583,011
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    105,455
    Thanked 89,421x in 59,859 Posts
    Mentioned
    2294 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    He obviously has no clue what he's talking about here.
    I wish man could break the climates shift back towards an ice age. That is where we are heading. Maybe some fast accelerations in my SUV can stop it....
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Please visit my blog http://thepoliticalforums.com/blogs/peter/
    (If a post link does not work, see the archives- it should work there.)

  7. #57
    Points: 1,578, Level: 9
    Level completed: 10%, Points required for next Level: 272
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points1 year registered
    skepticalmike's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    56
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    267
    Points
    1,578
    Level
    9
    Thanks Given
    17
    Thanked 46x in 39 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    There's a serious disconnect between this paper's conclusions and the datas the conclusions are based on: How well have climate models projected global warming?
    They do admit:
    I think that the mean warming rate is about 0.19 degrees C. per decade from 1980 to present. Given the fact that the climate scientists did not know what future emissions would be for carbon dioxide or for other greenhouse gases, those estimates are not bad. You have to examine what scenario was used for each model projection and take that into consideration. If the actual carbon emissions were lower than the model's assumptions for future carbon emissions, and the model results gave a 20% higher mean rate of warming than the measured rate of warming, that would be a very close match.
    Last edited by skepticalmike; 08-26-2019 at 06:40 PM.

  8. #58
    Points: 16,865, Level: 31
    Level completed: 42%, Points required for next Level: 585
    Overall activity: 30.0%
    Achievements:
    Social10000 Experience PointsVeteran
    jet57's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    939
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    5,596
    Points
    16,865
    Level
    31
    Thanks Given
    721
    Thanked 929x in 749 Posts
    Mentioned
    72 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    CO is not CO2.
    Did I say CO2?

  9. #59
    Original Ranter
    Points: 583,011, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.8%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    438439
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    173,583
    Points
    583,011
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    105,455
    Thanked 89,421x in 59,859 Posts
    Mentioned
    2294 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    Did I say CO2?
    Pay attention.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Please visit my blog http://thepoliticalforums.com/blogs/peter/
    (If a post link does not work, see the archives- it should work there.)

  10. #60
    Points: 1,578, Level: 9
    Level completed: 10%, Points required for next Level: 272
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points1 year registered
    skepticalmike's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    56
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    267
    Points
    1,578
    Level
    9
    Thanks Given
    17
    Thanked 46x in 39 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Below are graphs taken from Realclimate.org which show the same data that John Christy used in his graphs presented to Congress but analyzed in a different way.

    The analysis can be read at the website realclimate.org by searching "The True Meaning of Numbers". They claim that John Christy's analysis was flawed and greatly

    exaggerates the difference between the observations and the models. You can compare their graph with John Christy's graph in the op-ed.




    According to Fig. 3, the tropospheric temperature simulated by the global climate models (from the CMIP5 experiment) increased slightly faster than the temperatures derived from the satellite measurements between 2000 and 2015, but they were not very different. The RSS temperatures gave the closest match with the global climate models (From Realclimate.org, The true meaning of numbers)






    Fig. 4 shows a trend analysis for the 1979-2016 interval where the satellite-based temperature trends are shown with appropriate error bars. The trends from the satellite analyses and the model results overlap if the confidence limits are taken into consideration. (From Realclimate.org The true meaning of Numbers)




    Last edited by skepticalmike; 08-26-2019 at 07:08 PM.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Single Sign On provided by vBSSO