Models Fail so badly NOAA now looking at reality......

[Sunsettommy]

They don't know why? I'm no computer expert but I know one thing, faulty information leads to faulty conclusions.

If you include the massive heat energy consumed by ice melting phase change, then the temperatures we are recording are exactly as predicted.

are you saying ice never melted before?

NEVER to this degree.
There was no North Pole navigation route for the last 10,000 years at least, until 2007.
{...On August 21, 2007, the Northwest Passage became open to ships without the need of an icebreaker. According to Nalan Koc of the Norwegian Polar Institute, this was the first time the Passage has been clear ...}

And this is true of glacial ice and mountain snow caps.

And what is so bad about the vast unprecedented ice regression is that ice used to reflect solar heat, so now heating should accelerate even more.

Ha ha, you still haven't back up your ignorant claim, which is unsurprising since there have been a number of science papers showing it had little to ZERO summer ice for a few THOUSAND years in the early Holocene time frame, the very opposite of your ignorant claim.

Here is a recent paper that make that clear:

Holocene variability in sea ice cover, primary production, and Pacific‐Water inflow and climate change in the Chukchi and East Siberian Seas (Arctic Ocean)

ABSTRACT
In this study, we present new detailed biomarker‐based sea ice records from two sediment cores recovered in the Chukchi Sea and the East Siberian Sea. These new biomarker data may provide new insights on processes controlling recent and past sea ice changes. The biomarker proxy records show (i) minimum sea ice extent during the Early Holocene, (ii) a prominent Mid‐Holocene short‐term high‐amplitude variability in sea ice, primary production and Pacific‐Water inflow, and (iii) significantly increased sea ice extent during the last ca. 4.5k cal a BP. This Late Holocene trend in sea ice change in the Chukchi and East Siberian Seas seems to be contemporaneous with similar changes in sea ice extent recorded from other Arctic marginal seas. The main factors controlling the millennial variability in sea ice (and surface‐water productivity) are probably changes in surface water and heat flow from the Pacific into the Arctic Ocean as well as the long‐term decrease in summer insolation. The short‐term centennial variability observed in the high‐resolution Middle Holocene record is probably related to solar forcing. Our new data on Holocene sea ice variability may contribute to synoptic reconstructions of regional to global Holocene climate change based on terrestrial and marine archives.




LINK

========================================================================

Meanwhile you seem unaware that the decline has stopped after 2007, here is the sea ice data:

Climate Scientists Astounded…No Arctic Ice Loss In 13 Years… Early June Arctic Ice Growing!



LINK

 

[SSDD]

I already showed him that paper and the graph...He denies that it is real because the temperatures from so long ago were not measured or observed so they have to be just made up...then in the next breath, he goes on about what the climate is supposed to be doing based on climate cycles that cover 120,000 year time spans...apparently he believes those 120,000 year spans were actually measured by someone with some sort of device because he accepts them as real.

You forget just how terribly wrong some people can be and then you talk to someone like this guy who has been wrong on every single point he has tried to make. It would be funny if it weren't so damned sad.

 

[jc456]

They don't know why? I'm no computer expert but I know one thing, faulty information leads to faulty conclusions.

If you include the massive heat energy consumed by ice melting phase change, then the temperatures we are recording are exactly as predicted.

are you saying ice never melted before?

NEVER to this degree.
There was no North Pole navigation route for the last 10,000 years at least, until 2007.
{...On August 21, 2007, the Northwest Passage became open to ships without the need of an icebreaker. According to Nalan Koc of the Norwegian Polar Institute, this was the first time the Passage has been clear ...}

And this is true of glacial ice and mountain snow caps.

And what is so bad about the vast unprecedented ice regression is that ice used to reflect solar heat, so now heating should accelerate even more.

Ha ha, you still haven't back up your ignorant claim, which is unsurprising since there have been a number of science papers showing it had little to ZERO summer ice for a few THOUSAND years in the early Holocene time frame, the very opposite of your ignorant claim.

Here is a recent paper that make that clear:

Holocene variability in sea ice cover, primary production, and Pacific‐Water inflow and climate change in the Chukchi and East Siberian Seas (Arctic Ocean)

ABSTRACT
In this study, we present new detailed biomarker‐based sea ice records from two sediment cores recovered in the Chukchi Sea and the East Siberian Sea. These new biomarker data may provide new insights on processes controlling recent and past sea ice changes. The biomarker proxy records show (i) minimum sea ice extent during the Early Holocene, (ii) a prominent Mid‐Holocene short‐term high‐amplitude variability in sea ice, primary production and Pacific‐Water inflow, and (iii) significantly increased sea ice extent during the last ca. 4.5k cal a BP. This Late Holocene trend in sea ice change in the Chukchi and East Siberian Seas seems to be contemporaneous with similar changes in sea ice extent recorded from other Arctic marginal seas. The main factors controlling the millennial variability in sea ice (and surface‐water productivity) are probably changes in surface water and heat flow from the Pacific into the Arctic Ocean as well as the long‐term decrease in summer insolation. The short‐term centennial variability observed in the high‐resolution Middle Holocene record is probably related to solar forcing. Our new data on Holocene sea ice variability may contribute to synoptic reconstructions of regional to global Holocene climate change based on terrestrial and marine archives.




LINK

========================================================================

Meanwhile you seem unaware that the decline has stopped after 2007, here is the sea ice data:

Climate Scientists Astounded…No Arctic Ice Loss In 13 Years… Early June Arctic Ice Growing!



LINK

They found trees under ice in the arctic land! That’s just fact!

 

[Sunsettommy]

It isn't surprising that NOAA climate models are way off. It would be interesting to

False.
Models have always been expected to not be accurate.
That is because they assume everything else is static other than the CO2 emissions increase.
And there are several obvious variables.
For example, the higher the CO2 concentrations, the more CO2 will be absorbed by expanded plant growth.
Another is that this also includes possible increase in carbonate shell production, like plankton.
Finally, it also depends on things like volcanoes and landslides, because fresh rock is known to absorb lots of CO2.
Another is that with warming air, you get more water vapor, and that can end up producing more clouds, which can then block more sunlight and cause cooling.
All of these variables had been considered ahead of time, and everyone expected the models to need works.
Models are never the basis for predictions or concerns.
All we need to do is extrapolate existing data graphs to get really worried.

Huh? Models have always been expected to be inaccurate? Al Gore made a fortune off of those models. He told us the polar ice caps were turning to slush and there would be beachfront property in Kansas cuz the models told him so. The Church of Climatology raked in billions based on the doom and gloom in those models.

Totally and completely wrong.

Gore had nothing at all to do with climate models.
The trends were already ACTUALLY happening, with polar and glacial ice melts, ocean rising, air temperatures increasing, hurricane increases, etc.

Climate models are ONLY about guessing when accelerators, like water vapor and methane are going to kick in. And no one ever said they could even remotely predict when or how that would likely happen. All we could do is suggest possibilities. For example, we don't know how more heat is going to cause more global warming from increased water vapor because more water vapor in the atmosphere could also create more reflective clouds. We don't know how much frozen methane hydrate in under the ocean or in tundra, so we can't know when or how much that will effect things. There is no way to model these things, and everyone always knew that. Models were only used to give a max/min range. Anyone who claims models were used for actual predictions is just lying.

It is clear you haven't read the IPCC reports, because in them they DO make many modeled predictions/projections on many weather and climate stuff. They do model CH4 and CO2 in their scenarios!

Snowfall-- which is increasing contradicting the IPCC
Temperature-- which is warming at a rate well below the minimum per decade rate, in contradiction to the IPCC
Droughts-- which is NOT increasing at all, in contradiction to the IPCC
Hurricanes-- which is not increasing at all, in contradiction to the IPCC
Tornadoes-- which is DECREASING in contradiction to the IPCC

The IPCC projected an obvious "hot spot" in the Tropical Troposphere, it is NOT there at all, another modeled failure.

They make a lot of modeling constructs/scenarios that goes far into the future, which gets lapped up by science illiterates like YOU, who have no concept on what Falsification is, and why The Scientific Method should be the main guideline in science research.

Your arguments have been poor and shallow, often making them from the ass claims without merit. You should go back to the kiddie section where errors there are understandably tolerated.

 

[otto105]

[Q


I just spent the better part of an hour reading through this mess and Rigby is wrong on just about every count he brings up. It is obvious he has no clue on atmospheric processes.

Like I have said a couple of times in this thread, these Moon Bats are as confused about Climate Science as they are confused about Economics, History, Ethics, Biology and the Constitution.

There is climate change. Very common for the earth but there is no proof there is a significant made made component, if any.

Not even any proof that atmospheric CO2 levels like we see now has a greenhouse effect. The chemical reaction of CO2 is much more complex than any of the simplistic computer models these environmental wackos use and that is why none of their predictions ever come true.

The earth has been warmer than it is now for 90% of the time it has been around.

In human times the earth has been warmer than it is now when the CO2 levels have been lower. In other times the earth has cooler with the CO2 levels higher. Once the earth was like the ice planet Hoth and the CO2 levels were more than ten times what it is now.

Sure wingnut, supply side economics work except wherever there tried (Kansas), AGW is a myth if you ignore all experts and available information and so on

 

[jc456]

It isn't surprising that NOAA climate models are way off. It would be interesting to

False.
Models have always been expected to not be accurate.
That is because they assume everything else is static other than the CO2 emissions increase.
And there are several obvious variables.
For example, the higher the CO2 concentrations, the more CO2 will be absorbed by expanded plant growth.
Another is that this also includes possible increase in carbonate shell production, like plankton.
Finally, it also depends on things like volcanoes and landslides, because fresh rock is known to absorb lots of CO2.
Another is that with warming air, you get more water vapor, and that can end up producing more clouds, which can then block more sunlight and cause cooling.
All of these variables had been considered ahead of time, and everyone expected the models to need works.
Models are never the basis for predictions or concerns.
All we need to do is extrapolate existing data graphs to get really worried.

Huh? Models have always been expected to be inaccurate? Al Gore made a fortune off of those models. He told us the polar ice caps were turning to slush and there would be beachfront property in Kansas cuz the models told him so. The Church of Climatology raked in billions based on the doom and gloom in those models.

Totally and completely wrong.

Gore had nothing at all to do with climate models.
The trends were already ACTUALLY happening, with polar and glacial ice melts, ocean rising, air temperatures increasing, hurricane increases, etc.

Climate models are ONLY about guessing when accelerators, like water vapor and methane are going to kick in. And no one ever said they could even remotely predict when or how that would likely happen. All we could do is suggest possibilities. For example, we don't know how more heat is going to cause more global warming from increased water vapor because more water vapor in the atmosphere could also create more reflective clouds. We don't know how much frozen methane hydrate in under the ocean or in tundra, so we can't know when or how much that will effect things. There is no way to model these things, and everyone always knew that. Models were only used to give a max/min range. Anyone who claims models were used for actual predictions is just lying.

It is clear you haven't read the IPCC reports, because in them they DO make many modeled predictions/projections on many weather and climate stuff. They do model CH4 and CO2 in their scenarios!

Snowfall-- which is increasing contradicting the IPCC
Temperature-- which is warming at a rate well below the minimum per decade rate, in contradiction to the IPCC
Droughts-- which is NOT increasing at all, in contradiction to the IPCC
Hurricanes-- which is not increasing at all, in contradiction to the IPCC
Tornadoes-- which is DECREASING in contradiction to the IPCC

The IPCC projected an obvious "hot spot" in the Tropical Troposphere, it is NOT there at all, another modeled failure.

They make a lot of modeling constructs/scenarios that goes far into the future, which gets lapped up by science illiterates like YOU, who have no concept on what Falsification is, and why The Scientific Method should be the main guideline in science research.

Your arguments have been poor and shallow, often making them from the ass claims without merit. You should go back to the kiddie section where errors there are understandably tolerated.

well, never do we see any actual testing from the warmers, only the condescending comment of consensus!! We have consensus. They have that on a few scientists they chose to go to to get that consensus. What we want to see is their observation of fact to make that claim and when challenged for that material, all you get back is ...consensus. total bullshit. spit!!!!!

 

[otto105]

It isn't surprising that NOAA climate models are way off. It would be interesting to

False.
Models have always been expected to not be accurate.
That is because they assume everything else is static other than the CO2 emissions increase.
And there are several obvious variables.
For example, the higher the CO2 concentrations, the more CO2 will be absorbed by expanded plant growth.
Another is that this also includes possible increase in carbonate shell production, like plankton.
Finally, it also depends on things like volcanoes and landslides, because fresh rock is known to absorb lots of CO2.
Another is that with warming air, you get more water vapor, and that can end up producing more clouds, which can then block more sunlight and cause cooling.
All of these variables had been considered ahead of time, and everyone expected the models to need works.
Models are never the basis for predictions or concerns.
All we need to do is extrapolate existing data graphs to get really worried.

Huh? Models have always been expected to be inaccurate? Al Gore made a fortune off of those models. He told us the polar ice caps were turning to slush and there would be beachfront property in Kansas cuz the models told him so. The Church of Climatology raked in billions based on the doom and gloom in those models.

Totally and completely wrong.

Gore had nothing at all to do with climate models.
The trends were already ACTUALLY happening, with polar and glacial ice melts, ocean rising, air temperatures increasing, hurricane increases, etc.

Climate models are ONLY about guessing when accelerators, like water vapor and methane are going to kick in. And no one ever said they could even remotely predict when or how that would likely happen. All we could do is suggest possibilities. For example, we don't know how more heat is going to cause more global warming from increased water vapor because more water vapor in the atmosphere could also create more reflective clouds. We don't know how much frozen methane hydrate in under the ocean or in tundra, so we can't know when or how much that will effect things. There is no way to model these things, and everyone always knew that. Models were only used to give a max/min range. Anyone who claims models were used for actual predictions is just lying.

It is clear you haven't read the IPCC reports, because in them they DO make many modeled predictions/projections on many weather and climate stuff. They do model CH4 and CO2 in their scenarios!

Snowfall-- which is increasing contradicting the IPCC
Temperature-- which is warming at a rate well below the minimum per decade rate, in contradiction to the IPCC
Droughts-- which is NOT increasing at all, in contradiction to the IPCC
Hurricanes-- which is not increasing at all, in contradiction to the IPCC
Tornadoes-- which is DECREASING in contradiction to the IPCC

The IPCC projected an obvious "hot spot" in the Tropical Troposphere, it is NOT there at all, another modeled failure.

They make a lot of modeling constructs/scenarios that goes far into the future, which gets lapped up by science illiterates like YOU, who have no concept on what Falsification is, and why The Scientific Method should be the main guideline in science research.

Your arguments have been poor and shallow, often making them from the ass claims without merit. You should go back to the kiddie section where errors there are understandably tolerated.

well, never do we see any actual testing from the warmers, only the condescending comment of consensus!! We have consensus. They have that on a few scientists they chose to go to to get that consensus. What we want to see is their observation of fact to make that claim and when challenged for that material, all you get back is ...consensus. total bullshit. spit!!!!!

We have all the facts and consensus from actual scientists....you have a political belief that the Chinese cooked it up...

 

[Sunsettommy]

It isn't surprising that NOAA climate models are way off. It would be interesting to

False.
Models have always been expected to not be accurate.
That is because they assume everything else is static other than the CO2 emissions increase.
And there are several obvious variables.
For example, the higher the CO2 concentrations, the more CO2 will be absorbed by expanded plant growth.
Another is that this also includes possible increase in carbonate shell production, like plankton.
Finally, it also depends on things like volcanoes and landslides, because fresh rock is known to absorb lots of CO2.
Another is that with warming air, you get more water vapor, and that can end up producing more clouds, which can then block more sunlight and cause cooling.
All of these variables had been considered ahead of time, and everyone expected the models to need works.
Models are never the basis for predictions or concerns.
All we need to do is extrapolate existing data graphs to get really worried.

Huh? Models have always been expected to be inaccurate? Al Gore made a fortune off of those models. He told us the polar ice caps were turning to slush and there would be beachfront property in Kansas cuz the models told him so. The Church of Climatology raked in billions based on the doom and gloom in those models.

Totally and completely wrong.

Gore had nothing at all to do with climate models.
The trends were already ACTUALLY happening, with polar and glacial ice melts, ocean rising, air temperatures increasing, hurricane increases, etc.

Climate models are ONLY about guessing when accelerators, like water vapor and methane are going to kick in. And no one ever said they could even remotely predict when or how that would likely happen. All we could do is suggest possibilities. For example, we don't know how more heat is going to cause more global warming from increased water vapor because more water vapor in the atmosphere could also create more reflective clouds. We don't know how much frozen methane hydrate in under the ocean or in tundra, so we can't know when or how much that will effect things. There is no way to model these things, and everyone always knew that. Models were only used to give a max/min range. Anyone who claims models were used for actual predictions is just lying.

It is clear you haven't read the IPCC reports, because in them they DO make many modeled predictions/projections on many weather and climate stuff. They do model CH4 and CO2 in their scenarios!

Snowfall-- which is increasing contradicting the IPCC
Temperature-- which is warming at a rate well below the minimum per decade rate, in contradiction to the IPCC
Droughts-- which is NOT increasing at all, in contradiction to the IPCC
Hurricanes-- which is not increasing at all, in contradiction to the IPCC
Tornadoes-- which is DECREASING in contradiction to the IPCC

The IPCC projected an obvious "hot spot" in the Tropical Troposphere, it is NOT there at all, another modeled failure.

They make a lot of modeling constructs/scenarios that goes far into the future, which gets lapped up by science illiterates like YOU, who have no concept on what Falsification is, and why The Scientific Method should be the main guideline in science research.

Your arguments have been poor and shallow, often making them from the ass claims without merit. You should go back to the kiddie section where errors there are understandably tolerated.

well, never do we see any actual testing from the warmers, only the condescending comment of consensus!! We have consensus. They have that on a few scientists they chose to go to to get that consensus. What we want to see is their observation of fact to make that claim and when challenged for that material, all you get back is ...consensus. total bullshit. spit!!!!!

We have all the facts and consensus from actual scientists....you have a political belief that the Chinese cooked it up...

I notice you showed no interest in what the IPCC stated, which I have posted many times already, only to see it get ignored by hypocritical warmist idiot, would that be you too?

What I posted was based on the data, which has been presented a lot recently, yet gets ignored anyway, because warmists have a religion to stay enslaved with, would that be you too?

Here is the NOAA Tornado data, want to ignore this too, Otto?

and,

LINK

Snicker......

 

[Flash]

[Q


I just spent the better part of an hour reading through this mess and Rigby is wrong on just about every count he brings up. It is obvious he has no clue on atmospheric processes.

Like I have said a couple of times in this thread, these Moon Bats are as confused about Climate Science as they are confused about Economics, History, Ethics, Biology and the Constitution.

There is climate change. Very common for the earth but there is no proof there is a significant made made component, if any.

Not even any proof that atmospheric CO2 levels like we see now has a greenhouse effect. The chemical reaction of CO2 is much more complex than any of the simplistic computer models these environmental wackos use and that is why none of their predictions ever come true.

The earth has been warmer than it is now for 90% of the time it has been around.

In human times the earth has been warmer than it is now when the CO2 levels have been lower. In other times the earth has cooler with the CO2 levels higher. Once the earth was like the ice planet Hoth and the CO2 levels were more than ten times what it is now.

Sure wingnut, supply side economics work except wherever there tried (Kansas), AGW is a myth if you ignore all experts and available information and so on

You stupid Moon Bat. You are ignorant of Economics aren't you?

We have seen the failure of Left economics all over the world. Nations have collapsed and driven into poverty by having the failed destruction of socialism.

We see that same destruction in America in these filthy ass Democrat controlled big city shitholes. Shitlholes like Detroit, Chicago and Baltimore. Shit states like California that use to be wealthy under Conservative government now having the nations' worst poverty, worst schools and most debt. Downtown LA is full of homeless people in a nation where everybody that wants a job can get one. They are the legacy of failed Left policies.

You Moon Bats never get anything right. You don't understand Economics any more than you understand Climate Science.

 

[SSDD]

AGW is a myth if you ignore all experts and available information and so on

You can't provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...

Nor can you provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas other than water vapor and warming in the atmosphere.

Nor can you provide a single peer reviewed, published paper in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses...

so which "available" information are you referring to? Opinion pieces on the nightly news?

 

[SSDD]

It isn't surprising that NOAA climate models are way off. It would be interesting to

False.
Models have always been expected to not be accurate.
That is because they assume everything else is static other than the CO2 emissions increase.
And there are several obvious variables.
For example, the higher the CO2 concentrations, the more CO2 will be absorbed by expanded plant growth.
Another is that this also includes possible increase in carbonate shell production, like plankton.
Finally, it also depends on things like volcanoes and landslides, because fresh rock is known to absorb lots of CO2.
Another is that with warming air, you get more water vapor, and that can end up producing more clouds, which can then block more sunlight and cause cooling.
All of these variables had been considered ahead of time, and everyone expected the models to need works.
Models are never the basis for predictions or concerns.
All we need to do is extrapolate existing data graphs to get really worried.

Huh? Models have always been expected to be inaccurate? Al Gore made a fortune off of those models. He told us the polar ice caps were turning to slush and there would be beachfront property in Kansas cuz the models told him so. The Church of Climatology raked in billions based on the doom and gloom in those models.

Totally and completely wrong.

Gore had nothing at all to do with climate models.
The trends were already ACTUALLY happening, with polar and glacial ice melts, ocean rising, air temperatures increasing, hurricane increases, etc.

Climate models are ONLY about guessing when accelerators, like water vapor and methane are going to kick in. And no one ever said they could even remotely predict when or how that would likely happen. All we could do is suggest possibilities. For example, we don't know how more heat is going to cause more global warming from increased water vapor because more water vapor in the atmosphere could also create more reflective clouds. We don't know how much frozen methane hydrate in under the ocean or in tundra, so we can't know when or how much that will effect things. There is no way to model these things, and everyone always knew that. Models were only used to give a max/min range. Anyone who claims models were used for actual predictions is just lying.

It is clear you haven't read the IPCC reports, because in them they DO make many modeled predictions/projections on many weather and climate stuff. They do model CH4 and CO2 in their scenarios!

Snowfall-- which is increasing contradicting the IPCC
Temperature-- which is warming at a rate well below the minimum per decade rate, in contradiction to the IPCC
Droughts-- which is NOT increasing at all, in contradiction to the IPCC
Hurricanes-- which is not increasing at all, in contradiction to the IPCC
Tornadoes-- which is DECREASING in contradiction to the IPCC

The IPCC projected an obvious "hot spot" in the Tropical Troposphere, it is NOT there at all, another modeled failure.

They make a lot of modeling constructs/scenarios that goes far into the future, which gets lapped up by science illiterates like YOU, who have no concept on what Falsification is, and why The Scientific Method should be the main guideline in science research.

Your arguments have been poor and shallow, often making them from the ass claims without merit. You should go back to the kiddie section where errors there are understandably tolerated.

well, never do we see any actual testing from the warmers, only the condescending comment of consensus!! We have consensus. They have that on a few scientists they chose to go to to get that consensus. What we want to see is their observation of fact to make that claim and when challenged for that material, all you get back is ...consensus. total bullshit. spit!!!!!

We have all the facts and consensus from actual scientists....you have a political belief that the Chinese cooked it up...

You can't provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...

Nor can you provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas other than water vapor and warming in the atmosphere.

Nor can you provide a single peer reviewed, published paper in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses...

So lets see one observed, measured fact which contradicts any of the 3 statements above....and if you can't provide any, and I already know that you can't, your claim of having the facts is just more bullshit...

and which other branch of science holds up "consensus" as evidence that the main stream hypothesis is correct? You question the mainstream hypothesis of any other branch of science, you get bombarded with observed, measured data in support of the hypothesis...you question AGW and you get called names, and told about the consensus...what you don't get is observed, measured data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

 

[jc456]

It isn't surprising that NOAA climate models are way off. It would be interesting to

False.
Models have always been expected to not be accurate.
That is because they assume everything else is static other than the CO2 emissions increase.
And there are several obvious variables.
For example, the higher the CO2 concentrations, the more CO2 will be absorbed by expanded plant growth.
Another is that this also includes possible increase in carbonate shell production, like plankton.
Finally, it also depends on things like volcanoes and landslides, because fresh rock is known to absorb lots of CO2.
Another is that with warming air, you get more water vapor, and that can end up producing more clouds, which can then block more sunlight and cause cooling.
All of these variables had been considered ahead of time, and everyone expected the models to need works.
Models are never the basis for predictions or concerns.
All we need to do is extrapolate existing data graphs to get really worried.

Huh? Models have always been expected to be inaccurate? Al Gore made a fortune off of those models. He told us the polar ice caps were turning to slush and there would be beachfront property in Kansas cuz the models told him so. The Church of Climatology raked in billions based on the doom and gloom in those models.

Totally and completely wrong.

Gore had nothing at all to do with climate models.
The trends were already ACTUALLY happening, with polar and glacial ice melts, ocean rising, air temperatures increasing, hurricane increases, etc.

Climate models are ONLY about guessing when accelerators, like water vapor and methane are going to kick in. And no one ever said they could even remotely predict when or how that would likely happen. All we could do is suggest possibilities. For example, we don't know how more heat is going to cause more global warming from increased water vapor because more water vapor in the atmosphere could also create more reflective clouds. We don't know how much frozen methane hydrate in under the ocean or in tundra, so we can't know when or how much that will effect things. There is no way to model these things, and everyone always knew that. Models were only used to give a max/min range. Anyone who claims models were used for actual predictions is just lying.

It is clear you haven't read the IPCC reports, because in them they DO make many modeled predictions/projections on many weather and climate stuff. They do model CH4 and CO2 in their scenarios!

Snowfall-- which is increasing contradicting the IPCC
Temperature-- which is warming at a rate well below the minimum per decade rate, in contradiction to the IPCC
Droughts-- which is NOT increasing at all, in contradiction to the IPCC
Hurricanes-- which is not increasing at all, in contradiction to the IPCC
Tornadoes-- which is DECREASING in contradiction to the IPCC

The IPCC projected an obvious "hot spot" in the Tropical Troposphere, it is NOT there at all, another modeled failure.

They make a lot of modeling constructs/scenarios that goes far into the future, which gets lapped up by science illiterates like YOU, who have no concept on what Falsification is, and why The Scientific Method should be the main guideline in science research.

Your arguments have been poor and shallow, often making them from the ass claims without merit. You should go back to the kiddie section where errors there are understandably tolerated.

well, never do we see any actual testing from the warmers, only the condescending comment of consensus!! We have consensus. They have that on a few scientists they chose to go to to get that consensus. What we want to see is their observation of fact to make that claim and when challenged for that material, all you get back is ...consensus. total bullshit. spit!!!!!

We have all the facts and consensus from actual scientists....you have a political belief that the Chinese cooked it up...

I rest my case.

An intelligent post would have actually debated my comment by providing actual observed data, but instead did what I said they do. too funny

 

[SSDD]

It isn't surprising that NOAA climate models are way off. It would be interesting to
Huh? Models have always been expected to be inaccurate? Al Gore made a fortune off of those models. He told us the polar ice caps were turning to slush and there would be beachfront property in Kansas cuz the models told him so. The Church of Climatology raked in billions based on the doom and gloom in those models.

Totally and completely wrong.

Gore had nothing at all to do with climate models.
The trends were already ACTUALLY happening, with polar and glacial ice melts, ocean rising, air temperatures increasing, hurricane increases, etc.

Climate models are ONLY about guessing when accelerators, like water vapor and methane are going to kick in. And no one ever said they could even remotely predict when or how that would likely happen. All we could do is suggest possibilities. For example, we don't know how more heat is going to cause more global warming from increased water vapor because more water vapor in the atmosphere could also create more reflective clouds. We don't know how much frozen methane hydrate in under the ocean or in tundra, so we can't know when or how much that will effect things. There is no way to model these things, and everyone always knew that. Models were only used to give a max/min range. Anyone who claims models were used for actual predictions is just lying.

It is clear you haven't read the IPCC reports, because in them they DO make many modeled predictions/projections on many weather and climate stuff. They do model CH4 and CO2 in their scenarios!

Snowfall-- which is increasing contradicting the IPCC
Temperature-- which is warming at a rate well below the minimum per decade rate, in contradiction to the IPCC
Droughts-- which is NOT increasing at all, in contradiction to the IPCC
Hurricanes-- which is not increasing at all, in contradiction to the IPCC
Tornadoes-- which is DECREASING in contradiction to the IPCC

The IPCC projected an obvious "hot spot" in the Tropical Troposphere, it is NOT there at all, another modeled failure.

They make a lot of modeling constructs/scenarios that goes far into the future, which gets lapped up by science illiterates like YOU, who have no concept on what Falsification is, and why The Scientific Method should be the main guideline in science research.

Your arguments have been poor and shallow, often making them from the ass claims without merit. You should go back to the kiddie section where errors there are understandably tolerated.

well, never do we see any actual testing from the warmers, only the condescending comment of consensus!! We have consensus. They have that on a few scientists they chose to go to to get that consensus. What we want to see is their observation of fact to make that claim and when challenged for that material, all you get back is ...consensus. total bullshit. spit!!!!!

We have all the facts and consensus from actual scientists....you have a political belief that the Chinese cooked it up...

I rest my case.

An intelligent post would have actually debated my comment by providing actual observed data, but instead did what I said they do. too funny

Consensus...what a laugh...which other branch of science offers up "consensus" as evidence that their mainstream hypothesis is correct? Answer...none. Any other branch of science bombards you with evidence upon evidence upon evidence in support of their hypothesis...not so with climate science...you get name calling and "consensus...

 

[jc456]

Totally and completely wrong.

Gore had nothing at all to do with climate models.
The trends were already ACTUALLY happening, with polar and glacial ice melts, ocean rising, air temperatures increasing, hurricane increases, etc.

Climate models are ONLY about guessing when accelerators, like water vapor and methane are going to kick in. And no one ever said they could even remotely predict when or how that would likely happen. All we could do is suggest possibilities. For example, we don't know how more heat is going to cause more global warming from increased water vapor because more water vapor in the atmosphere could also create more reflective clouds. We don't know how much frozen methane hydrate in under the ocean or in tundra, so we can't know when or how much that will effect things. There is no way to model these things, and everyone always knew that. Models were only used to give a max/min range. Anyone who claims models were used for actual predictions is just lying.

It is clear you haven't read the IPCC reports, because in them they DO make many modeled predictions/projections on many weather and climate stuff. They do model CH4 and CO2 in their scenarios!

Snowfall-- which is increasing contradicting the IPCC
Temperature-- which is warming at a rate well below the minimum per decade rate, in contradiction to the IPCC
Droughts-- which is NOT increasing at all, in contradiction to the IPCC
Hurricanes-- which is not increasing at all, in contradiction to the IPCC
Tornadoes-- which is DECREASING in contradiction to the IPCC

The IPCC projected an obvious "hot spot" in the Tropical Troposphere, it is NOT there at all, another modeled failure.

They make a lot of modeling constructs/scenarios that goes far into the future, which gets lapped up by science illiterates like YOU, who have no concept on what Falsification is, and why The Scientific Method should be the main guideline in science research.

Your arguments have been poor and shallow, often making them from the ass claims without merit. You should go back to the kiddie section where errors there are understandably tolerated.

well, never do we see any actual testing from the warmers, only the condescending comment of consensus!! We have consensus. They have that on a few scientists they chose to go to to get that consensus. What we want to see is their observation of fact to make that claim and when challenged for that material, all you get back is ...consensus. total bullshit. spit!!!!!

We have all the facts and consensus from actual scientists....you have a political belief that the Chinese cooked it up...

I rest my case.

An intelligent post would have actually debated my comment by providing actual observed data, but instead did what I said they do. too funny

Consensus...what a laugh...which other branch of science offers up "consensus" as evidence that their mainstream hypothesis is correct? Answer...none. Any other branch of science bombards you with evidence upon evidence upon evidence in support of their hypothesis...not so with climate science...you get name calling and "consensus...

I get a kick that that's all they got. nothing more. we say here's our data, and they'll come back.....consensus, fk off. the only reason one would stoop so low is that one has zero data to back up one's argument. I am comfortable with my position, and I am positive they ain't got shit for data.

 

[otto105]

It isn't surprising that NOAA climate models are way off. It would be interesting to
Huh? Models have always been expected to be inaccurate? Al Gore made a fortune off of those models. He told us the polar ice caps were turning to slush and there would be beachfront property in Kansas cuz the models told him so. The Church of Climatology raked in billions based on the doom and gloom in those models.

Totally and completely wrong.

Gore had nothing at all to do with climate models.
The trends were already ACTUALLY happening, with polar and glacial ice melts, ocean rising, air temperatures increasing, hurricane increases, etc.

Climate models are ONLY about guessing when accelerators, like water vapor and methane are going to kick in. And no one ever said they could even remotely predict when or how that would likely happen. All we could do is suggest possibilities. For example, we don't know how more heat is going to cause more global warming from increased water vapor because more water vapor in the atmosphere could also create more reflective clouds. We don't know how much frozen methane hydrate in under the ocean or in tundra, so we can't know when or how much that will effect things. There is no way to model these things, and everyone always knew that. Models were only used to give a max/min range. Anyone who claims models were used for actual predictions is just lying.

It is clear you haven't read the IPCC reports, because in them they DO make many modeled predictions/projections on many weather and climate stuff. They do model CH4 and CO2 in their scenarios!

Snowfall-- which is increasing contradicting the IPCC
Temperature-- which is warming at a rate well below the minimum per decade rate, in contradiction to the IPCC
Droughts-- which is NOT increasing at all, in contradiction to the IPCC
Hurricanes-- which is not increasing at all, in contradiction to the IPCC
Tornadoes-- which is DECREASING in contradiction to the IPCC

The IPCC projected an obvious "hot spot" in the Tropical Troposphere, it is NOT there at all, another modeled failure.

They make a lot of modeling constructs/scenarios that goes far into the future, which gets lapped up by science illiterates like YOU, who have no concept on what Falsification is, and why The Scientific Method should be the main guideline in science research.

Your arguments have been poor and shallow, often making them from the ass claims without merit. You should go back to the kiddie section where errors there are understandably tolerated.

well, never do we see any actual testing from the warmers, only the condescending comment of consensus!! We have consensus. They have that on a few scientists they chose to go to to get that consensus. What we want to see is their observation of fact to make that claim and when challenged for that material, all you get back is ...consensus. total bullshit. spit!!!!!

We have all the facts and consensus from actual scientists....you have a political belief that the Chinese cooked it up...

I rest my case.

An intelligent post would have actually debated my comment by providing actual observed data, but instead did what I said they do. too funny

You don’t have a case.

According to you the IPCC proves your climate denial when the report does the opposite.

Your denial of science is noted.

 

[otto105]

It isn't surprising that NOAA climate models are way off. It would be interesting to
Huh? Models have always been expected to be inaccurate? Al Gore made a fortune off of those models. He told us the polar ice caps were turning to slush and there would be beachfront property in Kansas cuz the models told him so. The Church of Climatology raked in billions based on the doom and gloom in those models.

Totally and completely wrong.

Gore had nothing at all to do with climate models.
The trends were already ACTUALLY happening, with polar and glacial ice melts, ocean rising, air temperatures increasing, hurricane increases, etc.

Climate models are ONLY about guessing when accelerators, like water vapor and methane are going to kick in. And no one ever said they could even remotely predict when or how that would likely happen. All we could do is suggest possibilities. For example, we don't know how more heat is going to cause more global warming from increased water vapor because more water vapor in the atmosphere could also create more reflective clouds. We don't know how much frozen methane hydrate in under the ocean or in tundra, so we can't know when or how much that will effect things. There is no way to model these things, and everyone always knew that. Models were only used to give a max/min range. Anyone who claims models were used for actual predictions is just lying.

It is clear you haven't read the IPCC reports, because in them they DO make many modeled predictions/projections on many weather and climate stuff. They do model CH4 and CO2 in their scenarios!

Snowfall-- which is increasing contradicting the IPCC
Temperature-- which is warming at a rate well below the minimum per decade rate, in contradiction to the IPCC
Droughts-- which is NOT increasing at all, in contradiction to the IPCC
Hurricanes-- which is not increasing at all, in contradiction to the IPCC
Tornadoes-- which is DECREASING in contradiction to the IPCC

The IPCC projected an obvious "hot spot" in the Tropical Troposphere, it is NOT there at all, another modeled failure.

They make a lot of modeling constructs/scenarios that goes far into the future, which gets lapped up by science illiterates like YOU, who have no concept on what Falsification is, and why The Scientific Method should be the main guideline in science research.

Your arguments have been poor and shallow, often making them from the ass claims without merit. You should go back to the kiddie section where errors there are understandably tolerated.

well, never do we see any actual testing from the warmers, only the condescending comment of consensus!! We have consensus. They have that on a few scientists they chose to go to to get that consensus. What we want to see is their observation of fact to make that claim and when challenged for that material, all you get back is ...consensus. total bullshit. spit!!!!!

We have all the facts and consensus from actual scientists....you have a political belief that the Chinese cooked it up...

You can't provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...

Nor can you provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas other than water vapor and warming in the atmosphere.

Nor can you provide a single peer reviewed, published paper in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses...

So lets see one observed, measured fact which contradicts any of the 3 statements above....and if you can't provide any, and I already know that you can't, your claim of having the facts is just more bullshit...

and which other branch of science holds up "consensus" as evidence that the main stream hypothesis is correct? You question the mainstream hypothesis of any other branch of science, you get bombarded with observed, measured data in support of the hypothesis...you question AGW and you get called names, and told about the consensus...what you don't get is observed, measured data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

All that you request has been provided and is easy verified by many organizations and scientific fact.


You spin yourself into the sand you stand on with your push doubt without facts opinion.

 

[otto105]

It is clear you haven't read the IPCC reports, because in them they DO make many modeled predictions/projections on many weather and climate stuff. They do model CH4 and CO2 in their scenarios!

Snowfall-- which is increasing contradicting the IPCC
Temperature-- which is warming at a rate well below the minimum per decade rate, in contradiction to the IPCC
Droughts-- which is NOT increasing at all, in contradiction to the IPCC
Hurricanes-- which is not increasing at all, in contradiction to the IPCC
Tornadoes-- which is DECREASING in contradiction to the IPCC

The IPCC projected an obvious "hot spot" in the Tropical Troposphere, it is NOT there at all, another modeled failure.

They make a lot of modeling constructs/scenarios that goes far into the future, which gets lapped up by science illiterates like YOU, who have no concept on what Falsification is, and why The Scientific Method should be the main guideline in science research.

Your arguments have been poor and shallow, often making them from the ass claims without merit. You should go back to the kiddie section where errors there are understandably tolerated.

well, never do we see any actual testing from the warmers, only the condescending comment of consensus!! We have consensus. They have that on a few scientists they chose to go to to get that consensus. What we want to see is their observation of fact to make that claim and when challenged for that material, all you get back is ...consensus. total bullshit. spit!!!!!

We have all the facts and consensus from actual scientists....you have a political belief that the Chinese cooked it up...

I rest my case.

An intelligent post would have actually debated my comment by providing actual observed data, but instead did what I said they do. too funny

Consensus...what a laugh...which other branch of science offers up "consensus" as evidence that their mainstream hypothesis is correct? Answer...none. Any other branch of science bombards you with evidence upon evidence upon evidence in support of their hypothesis...not so with climate science...you get name calling and "consensus...

I get a kick that that's all they got. nothing more. we say here's our data, and they'll come back.....consensus, fk off. the only reason one would stoop so low is that one has zero data to back up one's argument. I am comfortable with my position, and I am positive they ain't got shit for data.

Go right ahead and try to refute all this...

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

 

[SSDD]

Totally and completely wrong.

Gore had nothing at all to do with climate models.
The trends were already ACTUALLY happening, with polar and glacial ice melts, ocean rising, air temperatures increasing, hurricane increases, etc.

Climate models are ONLY about guessing when accelerators, like water vapor and methane are going to kick in. And no one ever said they could even remotely predict when or how that would likely happen. All we could do is suggest possibilities. For example, we don't know how more heat is going to cause more global warming from increased water vapor because more water vapor in the atmosphere could also create more reflective clouds. We don't know how much frozen methane hydrate in under the ocean or in tundra, so we can't know when or how much that will effect things. There is no way to model these things, and everyone always knew that. Models were only used to give a max/min range. Anyone who claims models were used for actual predictions is just lying.

It is clear you haven't read the IPCC reports, because in them they DO make many modeled predictions/projections on many weather and climate stuff. They do model CH4 and CO2 in their scenarios!

Snowfall-- which is increasing contradicting the IPCC
Temperature-- which is warming at a rate well below the minimum per decade rate, in contradiction to the IPCC
Droughts-- which is NOT increasing at all, in contradiction to the IPCC
Hurricanes-- which is not increasing at all, in contradiction to the IPCC
Tornadoes-- which is DECREASING in contradiction to the IPCC

The IPCC projected an obvious "hot spot" in the Tropical Troposphere, it is NOT there at all, another modeled failure.

They make a lot of modeling constructs/scenarios that goes far into the future, which gets lapped up by science illiterates like YOU, who have no concept on what Falsification is, and why The Scientific Method should be the main guideline in science research.

Your arguments have been poor and shallow, often making them from the ass claims without merit. You should go back to the kiddie section where errors there are understandably tolerated.

well, never do we see any actual testing from the warmers, only the condescending comment of consensus!! We have consensus. They have that on a few scientists they chose to go to to get that consensus. What we want to see is their observation of fact to make that claim and when challenged for that material, all you get back is ...consensus. total bullshit. spit!!!!!

We have all the facts and consensus from actual scientists....you have a political belief that the Chinese cooked it up...

You can't provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...

Nor can you provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas other than water vapor and warming in the atmosphere.

Nor can you provide a single peer reviewed, published paper in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses...

So lets see one observed, measured fact which contradicts any of the 3 statements above....and if you can't provide any, and I already know that you can't, your claim of having the facts is just more bullshit...

and which other branch of science holds up "consensus" as evidence that the main stream hypothesis is correct? You question the mainstream hypothesis of any other branch of science, you get bombarded with observed, measured data in support of the hypothesis...you question AGW and you get called names, and told about the consensus...what you don't get is observed, measured data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

All that you request has been provided and is easy verified by many organizations and scientific fact.


You spin yourself into the sand you stand on with your push doubt without facts opinion.

Totally and completely wrong.

Gore had nothing at all to do with climate models.
The trends were already ACTUALLY happening, with polar and glacial ice melts, ocean rising, air temperatures increasing, hurricane increases, etc.

Climate models are ONLY about guessing when accelerators, like water vapor and methane are going to kick in. And no one ever said they could even remotely predict when or how that would likely happen. All we could do is suggest possibilities. For example, we don't know how more heat is going to cause more global warming from increased water vapor because more water vapor in the atmosphere could also create more reflective clouds. We don't know how much frozen methane hydrate in under the ocean or in tundra, so we can't know when or how much that will effect things. There is no way to model these things, and everyone always knew that. Models were only used to give a max/min range. Anyone who claims models were used for actual predictions is just lying.

It is clear you haven't read the IPCC reports, because in them they DO make many modeled predictions/projections on many weather and climate stuff. They do model CH4 and CO2 in their scenarios!

Snowfall-- which is increasing contradicting the IPCC
Temperature-- which is warming at a rate well below the minimum per decade rate, in contradiction to the IPCC
Droughts-- which is NOT increasing at all, in contradiction to the IPCC
Hurricanes-- which is not increasing at all, in contradiction to the IPCC
Tornadoes-- which is DECREASING in contradiction to the IPCC

The IPCC projected an obvious "hot spot" in the Tropical Troposphere, it is NOT there at all, another modeled failure.

They make a lot of modeling constructs/scenarios that goes far into the future, which gets lapped up by science illiterates like YOU, who have no concept on what Falsification is, and why The Scientific Method should be the main guideline in science research.

Your arguments have been poor and shallow, often making them from the ass claims without merit. You should go back to the kiddie section where errors there are understandably tolerated.

well, never do we see any actual testing from the warmers, only the condescending comment of consensus!! We have consensus. They have that on a few scientists they chose to go to to get that consensus. What we want to see is their observation of fact to make that claim and when challenged for that material, all you get back is ...consensus. total bullshit. spit!!!!!

We have all the facts and consensus from actual scientists....you have a political belief that the Chinese cooked it up...

You can't provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...

Nor can you provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas other than water vapor and warming in the atmosphere.

Nor can you provide a single peer reviewed, published paper in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses...

So lets see one observed, measured fact which contradicts any of the 3 statements above....and if you can't provide any, and I already know that you can't, your claim of having the facts is just more bullshit...

and which other branch of science holds up "consensus" as evidence that the main stream hypothesis is correct? You question the mainstream hypothesis of any other branch of science, you get bombarded with observed, measured data in support of the hypothesis...you question AGW and you get called names, and told about the consensus...what you don't get is observed, measured data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

All that you request has been provided and is easy verified by many organizations and scientific fact.


You spin yourself into the sand you stand on with your push doubt without facts opinion.

so step on up to the plate cup cake and post a single piece of the evidence I said you couldn't ptoduce...a single piece.

I predict epic failure.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Otto boy the little choo choo train that couldn't...…..

Here are his dead on arrival, fact/evidence/data free replies to laugh over:

Post 134 "Only in your mind as the world changes for the worse. "

Post 145 "Sure wingnut, supply side economics work except wherever there tried (Kansas), AGW is a myth if you ignore all experts and available information and so on"

Post 147 "We have all the facts and consensus from actual scientists....you have a political belief that the Chinese cooked it up..."

Post 155 "You don’t have a case. According to you the IPCC proves your climate denial when the report does the opposite.

Your denial of science is noted. "

Post 156 "All that you request has been provided and is easy verified by many organizations and scientific fact. You spin yourself into the sand you stand on with your push doubt without facts opinion. "

Meanwhile choo choo boy, has avoided post 148 in reply to Otto boy when he hade this useless statement at Post 147:

"We have all the facts and consensus from actual scientists....you have a political belief that the Chinese cooked it up... "

You are boring, stupid who can't even carry on a science debate at all. How could you when you are a proven science illiterate who ignores official data and statements that damages your warmist religion.

 

[jc456]

Otto boy the little choo choo train that couldn't...…..

Here are his dead on arrival, fact/evidence/data free replies to laugh over:

Post 134 "Only in your mind as the world changes for the worse. "

Post 145 "Sure wingnut, supply side economics work except wherever there tried (Kansas), AGW is a myth if you ignore all experts and available information and so on"

Post 147 "We have all the facts and consensus from actual scientists....you have a political belief that the Chinese cooked it up..."

Post 155 "You don’t have a case. According to you the IPCC proves your climate denial when the report does the opposite.

Your denial of science is noted. "

Post 156 "All that you request has been provided and is easy verified by many organizations and scientific fact. You spin yourself into the sand you stand on with your push doubt without facts opinion. "

Meanwhile choo choo boy, has avoided post 148 in reply to Otto boy when he hade this useless statement at Post 147:

"We have all the facts and consensus from actual scientists....you have a political belief that the Chinese cooked it up... "

You are boring, stupid who can't even carry on a science debate at all. How could you when you are a proven science illiterate who ignores official data and statements that damages your warmist religion.

wow a true leftist turd