Another example of climate models being wrong

[Cellblock2429]

So this means you’re at a lost for words and need to copy / paste to keep up.

/---/ GOREball Warming is a scam. Prove me wrong.

 

[Dagosa]

/---/ GOREball Warming is a scam. Prove me wrong.
View attachment 909547

You have no point to make….copy, paste….the internet is your friend when you’re on the wrong side. Even if you’re outnumber 1000 to 100, your crew of 100 fools will coalesce around the jokers Camp fire and convince each other the world is flat.

 

[Dagosa]

Remember, the denier mouthbreathers on this thread have spent the last decade predicting a NewIceAgeRealSoonNow.

They've all been as wrong as it's possible for a human to be, for many years, and they've been so belligerent with their stupidity.

They're also all now shrieking that AGW models being proven totally right, with the current record warmth thing, that proves how the models were totally wrong.

Thus, the world correctly classifies deniers as being brainwashed cult clowns.

Deniers haz a sad over that. They think that if they just cry enough about how mean all the normal people are for laughing at them, then everyone will forget about the cult clown circus that deniers have spent so many years performing in.

Bzzzzzt. Not how it works, denier clowns. Y'all deliberately shit your own beds, so now you get to lay in it.

It seems that way to you dullards who sat in sceince class bored out of your gored and just resorted to throwing spit balls and copying off some else.
Science has nothing to do with this post what so ever.

 

[Dagosa]

They're also all now shrieking that AGW models being proven totally right, with the current record warmth thing, that proves how the models were totally wrong.

No they aren’t. That’s a lie. Science says no such thing.
That’s you just making up shit.

 

[Cellblock2429]

So this means you’re at a lost for words and need to copy / paste to keep up.

/——/ No, it means even comic strips mock you Global Warming cult members.

 

[Cellblock2429]

You have no point to make….copy, paste….the internet is your friend when you’re on the wrong side. Even if you’re outnumber 1000 to 100, your crew of 100 fools will coalesce around the jokers Camp fire and convince each other the world is flat.

/——/ And you GW cult members get your so called science off of the internet. Moron.

 

[Dagosa]

/——/ No, it means even comic strips mock you Global Warming cult members.

Wow, comic strips….let’s see, you go after little girls and comedians and comic strips about AGW. What a babbling bunch of buffoons you MAGA morons are.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Wow, comic strips….let’s see, you go after little girls and comedians and comic strips about AGW. What a babbling bunch of buffoons you MAGA morons are.

/----/ So, instead of debating the merits of the post, you decide to attack the messenger. OK, I get it. Deflection noted.

A political cartoon, also known as an editorial cartoon, is a cartoon graphic with caricatures of public figures, expressing the artist's opinion. An artist who writes and draws such images is known as an editorial cartoonist. They typically combine artistic skill, hyperbole and satire in order to either question authority or draw attention to corruption, political violence and other social ills.[1][2]

Developed in England in the latter part of the 18th century, the political cartoon was pioneered by James Gillray,[3] although his and others in the flourishing English industry were sold as individual prints in print shops. Founded in 1841, the British periodical Punch appropriated the term cartoon to refer to its political cartoons, which led to the term's widespread use.[4] - Wikipedia

Mallard Fillmore is an editorial cartoon, that lampoons you people on the Left.

You guys have Doonesbury mocking the Right.

 

[Dagosa]

/---/ GOREball Warming is a scam. Prove me wrong.
View attachment 909547

That‘s hilariously ignorant post. It’s exactly like dumbass flat earthers on a clear day riding in the isle seat of a plane at 40,000 feet declaring, “ the is earth flat, prove me wrong”.

 

[Crick]

/----/ So, instead of debating the merits of the post, you decide to attack the messenger. OK, I get it. Deflection noted.

A political cartoon, also known as an editorial cartoon, is a cartoon graphic with caricatures of public figures, expressing the artist's opinion. An artist who writes and draws such images is known as an editorial cartoonist. They typically combine artistic skill, hyperbole and satire in order to either question authority or draw attention to corruption, political violence and other social ills.[1][2]

Developed in England in the latter part of the 18th century, the political cartoon was pioneered by James Gillray,[3] although his and others in the flourishing English industry were sold as individual prints in print shops. Founded in 1841, the British periodical Punch appropriated the term cartoon to refer to its political cartoons, which led to the term's widespread use.[4] - Wikipedia

Mallard Fillmore is an editorial cartoon, that lampoons you people on the Left.
View attachment 910175

You guys have Doonesbury mocking the Right.
View attachment 910176

Are you aware that this Doonesbury strip is making fun of Florida, Ron DeSantis and the fatuous Florida congress attempting to remove black history from Florida's public education? That seems the opposite to YOUR position on these issues. It also looks to be completely irrelevant to the thread topic.

PS: Also note that the first, single-panel cartoon is neither Doonesbury nor Trudeau.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Are you aware that this Doonesbury strip is making fun of Florida, Ron DeSantis and the fatuous Florida congress attempting to remove black history from Florida's public education? That seems the opposite to YOUR position on these issues. It also looks to be completely irrelevant to the thread topic.

PS: Also note that the first, single-panel cartoon is neither Doonesbury nor Trudeau.

/----/ Oh, for crying out loud. Of course I know that. That is why I posted them both to show Dagosa in post #108 that political cartoons are an effective way to communicate an idea on both sides of the aisle. Mallard Fillmore on the right, and Doonesbury on the Left.
Please, please, please try and follow a thread. Pretty, pretty, please.

 

[Crick]

/----/ Oh, for crying out loud. Of course I know that. That is why I posted them both to show Dagosa in post #108 that political cartoons are an effective way to communicate an idea on both sides of the aisle. Mallard Fillmore on the right, and Doonesbury on the Left.
Please, please, please try and follow a thread. Pretty, pretty, please.

Why should I follow a nominally scientific conversation involving someone like you who has repeatedly demonstrated that you're utterly ignorant of the most basic science?

 

[ding]

Why should I follow a nominally scientific conversation

Exactly. You belong to a cult.

 

[Crick]

I have been critical of computer models being used to predict the effects of human on the climate. The main reason is that they are always wrong and are nothing more than shit in shout models that are paid for by the Environmental Wacko lobby. Mostly in the universities but also with the government agencies like NASA and NOAA.

These are models that the Environmental Wackos refer to when they tell us we are all going to be dead in seven, or ten or 20 years because of man made warming.

The Climate Change scam research mostly is nothing more than grifting for government grants and a power-grab tool for government itself.

It looks like we have now discovered a main reason the models are always wrong. 40 years of observed data trumps some grad student's computer program, doesn't it?

New Study: Climate Models Get Water Vapor Wildly Wrong – A ‘Major Gap in Our Understanding’

From the NoTricksZone By Kenneth Richard on 19. February 2024 “Here, we have demonstrated a major discrepancy between observation-based and climate model-based historical trends in n…

wattsupwiththat.com

New Study: Climate Models Get Water Vapor Wildly Wrong – A ‘Major Gap in Our Understanding’​

By Kenneth Richard on 19. February 2024

“Here, we have demonstrated a major discrepancy between observation-based and climate model-based historical trends in near-surface atmospheric water vapor in arid and semi-ari regions.” – Simpson et al., ​

A new study published in PNAS has demonstrated, once again, that climate models fail to simulate what happens in the real world with regard to fundamental climate change variables like water vapor. This is a devastating finding, as water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas due to its alleged “feedback” capacity, accelerating warming well beyond what CO2 is said to be capable of alone.


The authors do not understate the significance of this climate modeling failure.


“This represents a major gap in our understanding and in climate model fidelity that must be understood and fixed as soon as possible in order to provide reliable hydroclimate projections for arid/semi-arid regions in the coming decades.”


Per state-of-the-art climate models, specific humidity (SH) should increase as a consequence of CO2-induced global warming. But 40 years of observations (1980-) show no increasing SH trend over arid/semi-arid regions.


Per state-of-the-art climate models, relative humidity (RH) should decline slightly as a consequence of CO2-induced global warming. But 40 years of observations (1980-) show not a slight declining trend, but a declining trend that is “about an order of magnitude more than the models on average.” In other words, the climate models are wrong by a factor of 10


The models say the tropical warming rate should have been nearly 3 times larger than the observations show – “0.389 ± 0.173°C per decade (models) and 0.142 ± 0.115°C per decade (observed)” – due to the assumed feedback response to CO2 forcing over warm regions. Instead, there is a “clear and significant tendency on the part of the models to overstate warming.”

And, yet, despite the cherry-picked water vapor errors, models have done an excellent job at predicting temperatures.

Conclusion​

Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account.

Models are far from perfect and will continue to be improved over time. They also show a fairly large range of future warming that cannot easily be narrowed using just the changes in climate that we have observed.

Nevertheless, the close match between projected and observed warming since 1970 suggests that estimates of future warming may prove similarly accurate.

 

[Flash]

And, yet, despite the cherry-picked water vapor errors, models have done an excellent job at predicting temperatures.
View attachment 914568

View attachment 914569

View attachment 914570

View attachment 914571

View attachment 914572

View attachment 914573

View attachment 914574

View attachment 914575

Conclusion​

Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account.

Models are far from perfect and will continue to be improved over time. They also show a fairly large range of future warming that cannot easily be narrowed using just the changes in climate that we have observed.

Nevertheless, the close match between projected and observed warming since 1970 suggests that estimates of future warming may prove similarly accurate.

You are again posting false, fraudulent and made up data with no real scientific validity from the butt pirates that have been caught lying, aren't you?

You never get tired of doing that, do you? Do you have any intentions of ever pulling your head out of you ass?

If man made climate change was real there would be no reason to lie about it, would there?

By the way Moon Bat, did you see the report earlier this week that said that your beloved EVs are more polluting than ICE vehicles? Particulate in the atmosphere is a lot more polluting than a little CO2.

Another example of the Environmental Wackos getting it wrong once again.

 

[Flash]

 

[Crick]

You are again posting false, fraudulent and made up data with no real scientific validity from the butt pirates that have been caught lying, aren't you?

No. YOU are making accusations for which you have ZERO EVIDENCE.

You never get tired of doing that, do you?

Posting the truth? No. And I never will.

If man made climate change was real there would be no reason to lie about it, would there?

Well, it looks like you've got it in a thumbnail. It is real and neither I nor my sources are lying about it. You are as are your sources.

By the way Moon Bat, did you see the report earlier this week that said that your beloved EVs are more polluting than ICE vehicles?

No, I didn't. Does that have any bearing on the accuracy of GCMs? Does that have any bearing on the validity of AGW theory? Does that support your charge that I've been lying? No, no and no.

Particulate in the atmosphere is a lot more polluting than a little CO2.

How do you get through life only being capable of addressing a single problem at a time?

Another example of the Environmental Wackos getting it wrong once again.

I think not. I firmly believe it's simply another example of the never ending stream of your ignorant lies.

 

[ding]

And, yet, despite the cherry-picked water vapor errors, models have done an excellent job at predicting temperatures.
View attachment 914568

View attachment 914569

View attachment 914570

View attachment 914571

View attachment 914572

View attachment 914573

View attachment 914574

View attachment 914575

Conclusion​

Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account.

Models are far from perfect and will continue to be improved over time. They also show a fairly large range of future warming that cannot easily be narrowed using just the changes in climate that we have observed.

Nevertheless, the close match between projected and observed warming since 1970 suggests that estimates of future warming may prove similarly accurate.

Timeseries of the difference between the global temperature and the corresponding hindcast from the GCMs is non-stationary. Thus, the GCMs are unable to distinguish natural variations in temperatures from variations caused by man-made emissions of CO2.

 

[mamooth]

Trump cult losers ... I mean deniers ... same difference ... has your fraud, whimpering and lying ever convinced anyone who wasn't a fellow cult pissdrinker?

No?

Imagine that.

Keep at it. At least you're earning cult brownie points from your RepubliRussian masters.

 

[ding]

Trump cult losers ... I mean deniers ... same difference ... has your fraud, whimpering and lying ever convinced anyone who wasn't a fellow cult pissdrinker?

No?

Imagine that.

Keep at it. At least you're earning cult brownie points from your RepubliRussian masters.

Sounds like you are melting down like a polar ice cap in an interglacial period.