Problems With Scientific Models For GW

[Annie]

From another site:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1211101623.htm

New Study Increases Concerns About Climate Model Reliability

ScienceDaily (Dec. 12, 2007) — A new study comparing the composite output of 22 leading global climate models with actual climate data finds that the models do an unsatisfactory job of mimicking climate change in key portions of the atmosphere.

This research, published online in the Royal Meteorological Society's International Journal of Climatology, raises new concerns about the reliability of models used to forecast global warming.

"The usual discussion is whether the climate model forecasts of Earth's climate 100 years or so into the future are realistic," said the lead author, Dr. David H. Douglass from the University of Rochester. "Here we have something more fundamental: Can the models accurately explain the climate from the recent past? "It seems that the answer is no."

Scientists from Rochester, the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) and the University of Virginia compared the climate change "forecasts" from the 22 most widely-cited global circulation models with tropical temperature data collected by surface, satellite and balloon sensors. The models predicted that the lower atmosphere should warm significantly more than it actually did.

"Models are very consistent in forecasting a significant difference between climate trends at the surface and in the troposphere, the layer of atmosphere between the surface and the stratosphere," said Dr. John Christy, director of UAH's Earth System Science Center. "The models forecast that the troposphere should be warming more than the surface and that this trend should be especially pronounced in the tropics.

"When we look at actual climate data, however, we do not see accelerated warming in the tropical troposphere. Instead, the lower and middle atmosphere are warming the same or less than the surface. For those layers of the atmosphere, the warming trend we see in the tropics is typically less than half of what the models forecast."

The 22 climate models used in this study are the same models used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC), which recently shared a Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

From another site:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1211101623.htm

Do not baffle the idiots with facts. The faithful worship at the feet of their prophet Al Gore and his UN buddies. Facts are unimportant.

 

[Larkinn]

So it might be worse than predicted, eh?

 

[Kid Pickle]

So it might be worse than predicted, eh?

To a pessimist, perhaps.

Pessimists are almost always wrong, though. Which, of course, makes their pessimism even deeper. It's kind of like a drug that way, yes?

 

[Larkinn]

To a pessimist, perhaps.

Pessimists are almost always wrong, though. Which, of course, makes their pessimism even deeper. It's kind of like a drug that way, yes?

Pessimists are almost always wrong? So I take it we shouldn't be worried about the lack of water in Georgia, Iran who may or may not be getting nukes, Pakistani instability, etc, etc? After all why think things might not pan out well? Those type of thoughts are "almost always wrong", right?

Absurd, really. And no, its nothing like a drug.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Pessimists are almost always wrong? So I take it we shouldn't be worried about the lack of water in Georgia, Iran who may or may not be getting nukes, Pakistani instability, etc, etc? After all why think things might not pan out well? Those type of thoughts are "almost always wrong", right?

Absurd, really. And no, its nothing like a drug.

Missed the entire fucking point. The models are so flawed they can not predict shit. Meaning the data put in them is WRONG, you stupid genius you. They do not WORK.

It is simple really. If the model can predict the future it should be able to accurately recreate what has already happened, since we HAVE that data. It can not do that. Meaning future predictions do not pan out at ALL. The models are not even educated guesses, they are wild ass guesses with no basis in fact.

The point is we do NOT know enough to predict the future. We do not have enough data or understanding of how things work, we can not get models to recreate what we KNOW happened. The models are useless. The science is to poor to make the predictions.

Thus why I suggest we LEARN what we need to know rather then make ignorant worthless wild guesses and use them to damage economies for no reason other then to delude ourselves into thinking we have power and knowledge we do NOT have.

 

[Larkinn]

Missed the entire fucking point. The models are so flawed they can not predict shit. Meaning the data put in them is WRONG, you stupid genius you. They do not WORK.

Umm, no. Thats not what it means. It means the calculations they are making are wrong.

It is simple really. If the model can predict the future it should be able to accurately recreate what has already happened, since we HAVE that data. It can not do that. Meaning future predictions do not pan out at ALL. The models are not even educated guesses, they are wild ass guesses with no basis in fact.

Well this is a wild assumption based on the article. Are educated guesses sometimes wrong RGS? If so then how do you know these are "wild ass guesses with no basis in fact" as opposed to educated guesses? Oh wait, its convenient for you to think that.

 

[Psychoblues]

Actually, we do have all that data and scientific research to back it up, rgs.

Missed the entire fucking point. The models are so flawed they can not predict shit. Meaning the data put in them is WRONG, you stupid genius you. They do not WORK.

It is simple really. If the model can predict the future it should be able to accurately recreate what has already happened, since we HAVE that data. It can not do that. Meaning future predictions do not pan out at ALL. The models are not even educated guesses, they are wild ass guesses with no basis in fact.

The point is we do NOT know enough to predict the future. We do not have enough data or understanding of how things work, we can not get models to recreate what we KNOW happened. The models are useless. The science is to poor to make the predictions.

Thus why I suggest we LEARN what we need to know rather then make ignorant worthless wild guesses and use them to damage economies for no reason other then to delude ourselves into thinking we have power and knowledge we do NOT have.

Are we now to believe your ignorant rants and completely disproven statements to guide us in our efforts to save our planet, if only for a few more years?

God told us to protect our environment. Are you telling us that God was wrong?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Umm, no. Thats not what it means. It means the calculations they are making are wrong.



Well this is a wild assumption based on the article. Are educated guesses sometimes wrong RGS? If so then how do you know these are "wild ass guesses with no basis in fact" as opposed to educated guesses? Oh wait, its convenient for you to think that.

LOL, usual games from Larkinn. Hey stupid, if ALL the models are wrong, all are using the wrong calculations, those calculations deviced and determined by YOUR 42 percent of the Scientific community, what the hell does that tell you about the dooms day predictions? What dose that tell you about the claims they KNOW what is causing the problem? Now I know it may hurt you, but engage the lump of coal in your head and reason it out, even you can do it.

 

[Psychoblues]

Kinda like all the "Shock and Awe" "We'll be met with Flowers" "Slam Duck" and all that other shit you like to proclaim and defend?

LOL, usual games from Larkinn. Hey stupid, if ALL the models are wrong, all are using the wrong calculations, those calculations deviced and determined by YOUR 42 percent of the Scientific community, what the hell does that tell you about the dooms day predictions? What dose that tell you about the claims they KNOW what is causing the problem? Now I know it may hurt you, but engage the lump of coal in your head and reason it out, even you can do it.

Even I can figure all that out!!!!!!!!!!!

You never figured out the Cheerleaders in High School, did you?

 

[Larkinn]

LOL, usual games from Larkinn. Hey stupid, if ALL the models are wrong, all are using the wrong calculations, those calculations deviced and determined by YOUR 42 percent of the Scientific community, what the hell does that tell you about the dooms day predictions?

They are probably off.

What dose that tell you about the claims they KNOW what is causing the problem? Now I know it may hurt you, but engage the lump of coal in your head and reason it out, even you can do it.

It tells you nothing at all about the claims.

 

[AllieBaba]

It tells me that accuracy and real science mean nothing to the tards who think we're killing the earth.

Whack jobs have been predicting the end of the world since the beginning of time. They've got to get it right at some point. But it doesn't change the fact that they're still whack jobs, and people who just can't believe man is anything but inherently really, really BAD and doesn't deserve to live.

 

[Larkinn]

It tells me that accuracy and real science mean nothing to the tards who think we're killing the earth.

Reading a bit much into it?

Whack jobs have been predicting the end of the world since the beginning of time. They've got to get it right at some point. But it doesn't change the fact that they're still whack jobs, and people who just can't believe man is anything but inherently really, really BAD and doesn't deserve to live.

Nice circular argument there. They are whack jobs because they are predicting the end of the earth. How do we know they aren't right? Because they are whack jobs! Brilliant arguing strategy there.

And kindly tell me how people who, right or wrong, believe they are fighting for humanities, and the worlds, survival think that man is inherently really really bad and doesn't deserve to live?

 

[AllieBaba]

They're whack jobs because they have absolutely no evidence that we're causing it...yet they continue to insist we are.

And they aren't fighting for the survival of man. They want to make life difficult unto death for man, because they put the dirt under their feet before man.

 

[Larkinn]

They're whack jobs because they have absolutely no evidence that we're causing it...yet they continue to insist we are.

Incorrect. So are you merely ignorant or are you lying? There IS evidence that we are causing it.

And they aren't fighting for the survival of man. They want to make life difficult unto death for man, because they put the dirt under their feet before man.[/QUOTE]

Right...its all a global conspiracy to make life more difficult for man. And you have the nerve to call other people whack jobs based on their beliefs?

 

[AllieBaba]

Go ahead. Give me the evidence that proves man is causing global warming.

BTW, were you aware a judge in England ruled that if English schools are going to require students to watch "An Inconvenient Truth" they have to point out the 9 glaring fallacies contained in it? Namely, that there's NO EVIDENCE to support any of the claims that global warming is manmade?

Damn, that is inconvenient.

 

[Larkinn]

Go ahead. Give me the evidence that proves man is causing global warming.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/19/MNGE1BECPI1.DTL

BTW, were you aware a judge in England ruled that if English schools are going to require students to watch "An Inconvenient Truth" they have to point out the 9 glaring fallacies contained in it? Namely, that there's NO EVIDENCE to support any of the claims that global warming is manmade?

Damn, that is inconvenient.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/10/11/scigore111.xml

Care to tell me where the judge said there was no evidence to support any of the claims that global warming is manmade? Or do you think that the Gore only made 9 statements and all were fallacious?

Man...not so inconvenient after all.

 

[AllieBaba]

U.K. Judge Rules Gore's Climate Film Has 9 Errors
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101102134.html

By Mary Jordan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, October 12, 2007; Page A12

LONDON, Oct. 11 -- A British judge has ruled that Al Gore's Oscar-winning film on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth," contains "nine errors."

High Court Judge Michael Burton, deciding a lawsuit that questioned the film's suitability for showing in British classrooms, said Wednesday that the movie builds a "powerful" case that global warming is caused by humans and that urgent means are needed to counter it.

The judge said that, for instance, Gore's script implies that Greenland or West Antarctica might melt in the near future, creating a sea level rise of up to 20 feet that would cause devastation from San Francisco to the Netherlands to Bangladesh. The judge called this "distinctly alarmist" and said the consensus view is that, if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, "but only after, and over, millennia."

Burton also said Gore contends that inhabitants of low-lying Pacific atolls have had to evacuate to New Zealand because of global warming. "But there is no such evidence of any such evacuation," the judge said.

Another error, according to the judge, is that Gore says "a new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find ice." Burton said that perhaps in the future polar bears will drown "by regression of pack-ice" but that the only study found on drowned polar bears attributed four deaths to a storm.

The ruling comes amid speculation that Gore will win the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for his work on global warming.

Kalee Kreider, a spokesman for Gore, said the former vice president is "gratified that the courts verified that the central argument of 'An Inconvenient Truth' is supported by the scientific community." She said that "of the thousands and thousands of facts presented in the film, the judge apparently took issue with a handful."

Kreider also said that Gore believes the film will educate a generation of young people about the "climate crisis" and that the "debate has shifted from 'Is the problem real?' to 'What can be done about it?' "

Burton's ruling said that there is "now common ground that it is not simply a science film -- although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion -- but that it is a political film, albeit of course not party political." Burton said Gore's errors "arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis."

Global warming has been a particularly big issue in Britain, where Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he wants to make his country a world leader in limiting carbon emissions.

Earlier this year, British education officials began distributing DVDs of Gore's film to state schools as part of a package designed to educate 3 million secondary school students on climate change.

The lawsuit was brought by Stewart Dimmock, a local school official who has two sons in state schools, in an attempt to block the education department's program. He claimed the film was inaccurate, politically biased and "sentimental mush" and therefore unsuitable for schools.

Dimmock, who belongs to the tiny New Party, told reporters he was "elated" at the ruling. He said guidance and context that teachers now must give along with the film means that students will not be "indoctrinated with this political spin." But he said he was disappointed the film wasn't banned outright from schools.

A spokesman for the Department of Children, Schools and Families said the agency was "delighted" that students could continue to see Gore's film. It has noted that the judge did not disagree with the film's main point -- that man-made emissions of greenhouse gases are causing serious climate consequences.




Related Articles
U.K. Judge: Gore's Film Has 9 Errors
U.K. Judge Finds Problems in Gore Film
'Climate Year' Heads for Uncertain End
Gore: Award Puts Focus on Global Warming
The Little Film That Became a Hot Property
Powered by Inform» Related Topics & Web Content

 

[Shogun]

*sigh*


I miss the good ole days when we were trying to save just the whales and the rainforrest...

 

[AllieBaba]

I heard somewhere that the polar ice cap is actually thicker than it's ever been in the history of the world, too.