Climate models have long been shown to be garbage. Among the many studies of varying degrees, one of the best was the most poignant was when Dr. Roy Spencer showed that 95% of the models were wrong. And then we have this
Climate Models Are Warming Earth Two Times Faster Than Reality
Climate models show twice as much warming during the 21st Century than what’s actually been observed, according to a new report highlighting the limitations of global climate models, or GCMs.
“So far in the 21st century, the GCMs are warming, on average, about a factor of 2 faster than the observed temperature increase,†Dr. Judith Curry, a former Georgia Tech climate scientist who now runs her own climate forecasting company, wrote in a report for the U.K.-based Global Warming Policy Foundation. (snip)
“The reason for the discrepancy between observations and model simulations in the early 21st century appears to be caused by a combination of inadequate simulations of natural internal variability and oversensitivity of the models to increasing carbon dioxide,†wrote Curry.
Climate models assume carbon dioxide is the control knob for average global temperature and fail to take into account “the patterns and timing of multidecadal ocean oscillations†and “future solar variations and solar indirect effects on climate,†Curry explains.
It’s long been a case of making the output of the models match the preconceived notions of Warmist scientists. In actual science, if the data doesn’t fit, then the models and hypothesis must be wrong. When it comes to members of the Cult of Climastrology, they flip the notion, and simply change the data and force the models to give them the prognostications of doom they want.
But climate model problems predate the recent warming “pause.†Chip Knappenberger and Patrick Michaels, climate scientists at the libertarian Cato Institute, have long criticized most climate models, which they say have not accurately predicted global temperature rises for the past six decades.
The models do not even work when you apply them to past warming (and said warming is utterly within the norm of a Holocene warm period).
Even the recent string of “record warmâ€Â years are below what most climate models predicted. A recent El Nino temporarily brought global average temperature in agreement with most climate models, but the globe is expected to cool in the coming years as the tropics cool.
Which, of course, prompts Warmists to trot out all sorts of Excuses, usually blaming nature. In their world, though, nature cannot cause the warming.
None of this matters to the Cult of Climastrology in the least: the movement is not about the climate, it’s about being anti-capitalist and creating massive centralized government that controls all aspects of people’s lives, private entities, and economies.
All models are wrong. — George E.P. Box
Unfortunately, the graph doesn’t show the margins of error. In any case, the HadCRUT4 temperature anomaly for the last two years puts the graph right in the middle of the projections.
2016 0.77
2015 0.76
Teach: I’ve called you out on that lie numerous times and you never respond. Can you support your claim?
Roy Spencer’s graph has been demonstrated to be wrong for reasons of fudging the baseline etc. Models are models.
The facts are that the Earth is warming and the cause is an increase in atmospheric CO2 from we humans burning fossil fuels. The rest of your caterwauling is simply… well, caterwauling.
You’ve won! trump and the deplorable Republicans will work overtime to INCREASE CO2 emissions!
I’ve called out the little guy many times to provide scientific evidence of his erroneous assumption but he never provides any.
Wonder why?
Can you prove that the current warm period is outside the norm for what happens with warm periods? You and your ilk have made the case that this is abnormal. Prove it.
Climate scientists have shown this the current period is abnormal and from CO2. YOU are making the objective claim that other warm periods during the Holocene are similar. Show your work, or at least link to a scientific explanation of your claim.
said warming is utterly within the norm of a Holocene warm period
How about just pointing out a “typical Holocene warm period”?
“future solar variations and solar indirect effects on climate,†Curry explains.
The most direct evidence is that the surface and lower atmosphere are warming while the lower stratosphere is cooling.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif
Nice graph.
Where’s the evidence of CO2 warming caused by burning fossil fuels?
Actually, there’s no “proof” warming caused by “we humans”. Show me the difference between natural warming and man-made warming, and how it’s detected.
Warming isn’t evidence of AGW warming.
You are confused. Science works with evidence, not proof in the mathematical sense. In particular, science is characterized by hypothetico-deduction. In this case, tropospheric warming accompanied by stratospheric cooling is entailed in the hypothesis of greenhouse warming, a prediction made over a century ago from first principles.
No, I’m not confused.
You presented some graphs with different colored lines representing temperature anomalies.
Hardly evidence of CO2 warming caused by the burning of fossils fuels.
We’ve gone through this before, kiddies…
And right there is a big problem, Zach. Hypotheses are made, data is looked at, and when the data doesn’t conform to the hypothesis, the data is changed, massaged, “smoothed”, adjusted, and just created out of thin air. Then we’re told about future doom, using models that fail.
Ignoring evidence is not much of an argument. Do you understand hypothetico-deduction? We have a hypothesis, a deduction, and a confirming observation. You might argue the deduction is faulty, or that there are other causes for the observation.
We used the same data sources that were cited in the original post. What you mean is that if the data confirms your preconceptions, then the data is okay, but if it doesn’t, then it must be fraudulent.
I might but still you presented graphs of temp. anomalies implying that’s evidence of CO2 warming by the caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
Sorry, kids, that’s not evidence.
Last time you said I was handwaving…
Apparently, you do not understand hypothetico-deduction, the characteristic methodology of science. It takes the following form: Given the hypothesis, we deduce the observational entailment. If we observe the entailment, then the hypothesis is supported. If we do not observe the entailment, then the hypothesis is falsified.
Let’s take a historical example. If the Earth rotates, then (deduction from Newtonian Mechanics) the Earth will exhibit an equatorial bulge. This implies that equatorial regions of the Earth will be farther from the center of gravity (deduction from Newton’s Theory of Gravity), and the force of gravity less at lower latitudes when compared to higher latitudes. This implies that a pendulum will have a lower period (retardation) near the equator when compared to, say, in England (deduction from Newtonian Mechanics).
The retardation of the pendulum was first observed by Sir Edmond Halley at St. Helena in the tropical South Atlantic in 1677. This is evidence, by hypothetico-deduction that the Earth rotates. It doesn’t “prove” the Earth rotates. Any link in the chain of deduction could be fallacious. The observation could be faulty. Or the effect could be due to some other, unknown cause. However, it is considered evidence to support the claim that the Earth, in fact, rotates.
An increasing greenhouse effect implies that the surface and troposphere will warm, while the stratosphere cools. This is what we observe, so this supports, that is, provides evidence that the greenhouse effect is increasing over time.
So, given that we have provided apparent evidence, you could argue that the observation is not entailed in the hypothesis (Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896). You could argue the observation is faulty (however, it is supported by many different independent data sources). Or you could provide an alternative hypothesis that the effect is due to some other cause.
Stupid Antarctic glaciers didn’t get the memo that the Earth and oceans aren’t warming after all.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/a-huge-antarctic-glacier-just-lost-another-chunk-of-ice-%e2%80%94-and-we-know-because-of-nasa/ar-AAnegMs?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=edgsp
Of course, this info is from NASA who shouldn’t be looking at glaciers anyway, and are probably faking the data. trumpy will teach them a lesson.
Yep, Antarctica never loses chunks of ice during the summer down under.
It’s a catastrophe of epic proportions!!!
OMG, what about the PENGUINS???
2: clear or manifest to the understanding
As is clear from context, we were using the fourth definition.
4: manifest to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be factually valid
We explained why the phenomenon is evidence for an increasing greenhouse effect. We explained you might contest the evidence. Instead you simply wave your hands at the dictionary.
It’s an assumption (also called the hypothesis) which has been supported (evidence of entailed observations).
ap·par·ent
əˈperənt/
adjective
-clearly visible or understood; obvious.
“it became apparent that he was talented”
synonyms: evident, plain, obvious, clear, manifest, visible, discernible, perceptible
-seeming real or true, but not necessarily so.
“his apparent lack of concern”
synonyms: seeming, ostensible, outward, superficial
Apparently I should have spelled it out for y’all but I got the expected response.
Anyway, still you presented graphs of temp. anomalies implying that’s evidence of CO2 warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
That’s right. Here’s the form:
H, hypothesis
O, observation
if H then O. O, therefore H is supported; ~O, therefore H is falsified.
We provided observations that apparently support the hypothesis. You could argue that the deductions are fallacious, that the observations are faulty, or that there are other possible causes.
Let’s look at the hypothesized chain of causation again. CO2 absorbs and emits infrared radiation, resulting in the greenhouse effect. Increasing CO2 increases the greenhouse effect. An increasing greenhouse effect will warm the surface and cool the stratosphere. Atmospheric CO2 has increased, so we would expect to observe a warming surface and cooling stratosphere, and that is what we observe. That’s called scientific evidence.
Refusing to address the specifics is just handwaving.
Uh, … CO2 warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
You seem to be trying to make a point, but are being oblique about it. Are you saying atmospheric CO2 is not increasing? Or that it is not due to anthropogenic emissions?
I said neither of those things.
Once again, read slowly…
Still waiting…
Um, they were questions. That how people try to clarify.
Once again, read slowly… The evidence is in the observation that the troposphere and surface are warming while the lower stratosphere is cooling, as entailed in the hypothesis.
These are the links of causation:
• Humans burn fossil fuels;
• Burning fossil fuels emits CO2;
• Emissions of CO2 accumulate in the atmosphere;
• CO2 is a greenhouse gas;
• Increasing CO2 will increase the greenhouse effect;
• Increasing the greenhouse effect will result in a warmer surface and cooler lower stratosphere.
Which step do you find problematic?
Humans burn fossil fuels; yes
Burning fossil fuels emits CO2; yes, along with other things that emit CO2
Emissions of CO2 accumulate in the atmosphere; somewhat, yes
CO2 is a greenhouse gas; yes, 4 parts/10,000 (along w/H2O and others)
Increasing CO2 will increase the greenhouse effect; maybe not proven
Increasing the greenhouse effect will result in a warmer surface and cooler lower stratosphere: maybe not proven.
So, once again… evidence kids, where is it?
Oh, since y’all are into graphs and shit…
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lPGChYUUeuc/VLhzJqwRhtI/AAAAAAAAAS4/ehDtihKNKIw/s1600/GISTemp%2BKelvin%2B01.png
A similar graph of your body temperature would not distinguish between health and a fever. An ice age would only show as a small dip in temperature.
Yep, comparing the earth’s temperature to the temperature of a human is really a stretch even for y’all.
Thought y’all liked to use graphs to prove shit?
Numerous times we’ve asked the Covian Deniers to outline simply what they believe would constitute “proof”. Crickets…
You’ve been asked for proof you joined the army and why you didn’t serve…
How do you reconcile these two claims, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but increasing CO2 will not increase the greenhouse effect?
Easily.
Do you think waving your hands is convincing? Try to reconcile your two statements; that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but increasing CO2 will not increase the greenhouse effect?
And the answer is maybe, not proven.
No. Scientific evidence is what matters to determining the validity of scientific claims.
The internal temperature for a healthy human being is ~98.6 F.
Could y’all tell me what is the accepted normal temperature of a ‘healthy’ earth?
Y’know science and all.
If CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then increasing CO2 will lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect. Your claim is “maybe”. Please explain how it could not be so.
Humanity has built a vast civilization, much of it on low-lying coastal areas, and dependent upon relative stability for agriculture. A significant increase in temperature will inundate coastal areas, while leading to massive dislocation, and the resultant political turmoil. In addition, it will cause permanent damage to the humanity’s ecological inheritance. Life will persevere. Indeed, humans will adapt. However, the sooner mitigation is taken, the lower the cost, and the less the overall damage to the environment.
Did y’all figure out what the normal temperature of the earth is?
Still waiting for your answer… because scientific evidence is what matters to determining the validity of scientific claims.
Soooo the scientifically accepted normal temperature of the earth is…?
And how does that relate to the scientifically accepted body temperature of a normal healthy human being…?
First of all Zachriel, I think drowningpuppies was looking for a number in either degrees Fahrenheit or Celsius, not a lecture.
Second, we like to think of it as improving the overall environment rather than your dismal view of “overall damage to the environment”. After all, we won’t know until it arrives if it’s good or bad. A new environment could be exactly what mother earth wants so she can introduce new species and fauna and such.
“Normal” is not a useful term in context. Earth’s temperature has varied considerably over its history, from a frozen Earth to one without ice caps. Now try to answer the question. If CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then increasing CO2 will lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect. Your claim is “maybeâ€. Please explain how it could not be so.
The answer is that human civilization evolved in a narrow range of temperatures. Rapid fluctuations are detrimental to humans and ecosystems.
While life can survive (and has survived) mass extinction events, humans may not want to live through a mass extinction event, much less be the avoidable cause of a mass extinction.
We’re rather fond of the featherless bipeds. Consider it a peccadillo, if you like.
Z,
So, you prove you have no background in science and no knowledge of logic. You state CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it goes up with temp. So how much CO2 results in a given rise in temp. Now how does a tax and global government result in lowering CO2. Unless it throws us into poverty. Now using your logic we could aye that the vast majority of terror is caused by people who believe in Islam so getting rid of Muslims would restrict terror and reduce CO2 production as they produce CO2. Same goes for numerous other assumptions. Provide a scientific paper that follows scientific methods or shut up.
dave typed:
Based on what, please?
An increase in CO2 from 280 up to 400 ppm has resulted in an approx 1C increase, but CO2 is not the only determinant of average global surface temperature. As the Arctic melts less sunlight will be reflected, the oceans are massive heat sinks and redistribute heat from the surface to the ocean deeps and back again, volcanoes can cause cooling. Note too that even if CO2 stops increasing, warming will continue until a new equilibrium is reached between the energy reaching Earth and that leaving.
Market principles tell us that raising the price reduces consumption for commodities where there are valid alternatives. Why do you invoke “global government”, as it’s not necessary to reduce overall CO2 emissions.
There are thousands of scientific articles containing evidence that supports the theory of AGW. If one is cited are you really in a position to evaluate it and discuss whether it “follows scientific methods”? Why would you tell someone who has been making polite and meaningful arguments to shut up?
Sooo, little dipshit guy, maybe you can provide us with the scientifically accepted normal temperature of a healthy earth…
The Zeta fratboys sure couldn’t.
We stated no such thing. We stated increasing CO2 will increase the greenhouse effect.
A doubling of CO2 will directly lead to about 3.7 W/m^2 radiative forcing. By itself, this will lead to about 1°C of warming at the surface. As warmer air can hold more water vapor, this is expected to be amplified, an effect called climate sensitivity. For a basic overview, see Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896.
According to market principles, if carbon emission has an associated cost, then businesses will work to reduce their emissions, either through conservation, or through new technologies.
The transition to a low-carbon energy infrastructure will require healthy economic growth in order to develop the new technologies required.