Climate Change Models Wrong on California

[longknife]

So, climate models indicate that anthropogenic climate change should lead to wetter winters in California. Is that what we observe in the pesky place called reality? No chance.

Wait! Are you telling me that all those big-shot scientists might possibly be wrong? I'm shocked.

California is actually getting drier during the winter period, in complete contrast to climate model predictions

I don't understand this at all. How can this be?

Perhaps some of our experts here can explain to us what is going on here?

Anyhow, read more of this article by an American chemist @ Climate Models Fail on California

 

[skookerasbil]

the models are consistently wrong EVERYWHERE......might as well be on the wheel in Atlantic City.

 

[flacaltenn]

So, climate models indicate that anthropogenic climate change should lead to wetter winters in California. Is that what we observe in the pesky place called reality? No chance.

Wait! Are you telling me that all those big-shot scientists might possibly be wrong? I'm shocked.

California is actually getting drier during the winter period, in complete contrast to climate model predictions

I don't understand this at all. How can this be?

Perhaps some of our experts here can explain to us what is going on here?

Anyhow, read more of this article by an American chemist @ Climate Models Fail on California

It's easy.. IT NEVER rains in California EXCEPT in the winter. The rest of the year it's natural state is drought. So heating the atmos equally in summer and winter (GW) aint gonna give you LESS rain in the winter..

Same deal as some eager student shoving an Excel Spreadsheet in my face and telling me his "numbers are correct".. Well yeah -- but you solved a problem that never existed ....

When your only tool is a hammer ...... (..........................)

 

[mamooth]

I don't understand this at all. How can this be.

I'll help you. Here's the short term prediction from July 2013, which says "Really bad drought coming".

Here's the long term precipitation change map for 2080. It also says "really dry".

So, both short and long term model predictions say "dry". Your article claimed the model prediction was "wet", but fails to back that claim with anything except an offhand comment from the NYT.

Conclusion? Your article was full of shit, cherrypicking nonsense so they could rail about how awful the models were. A responsible author would have looked to see what the models actually were, instead of relying on an offhand comment. Alas, most deniers tend to simply shut their brains off and believe whenever they hear something that reinforces their beliefs.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I'll help you. Here's the short term prediction from July 2013, which says "Really bad drought coming".

Here's the long term precipitation change map for 2080. It also says "really dry".

So, both short and long term model predictions say "dry". Your article claimed the model prediction was "wet", but fails to back that claim with anything except an offhand comment from the NYT.

Conclusion? Your article was full of shit, cherrypicking nonsense so they could rail about how awful the models were. A responsible author would have looked to see what the models actually were, instead of relying on an offhand comment. Alas, most deniers tend to simply shut their brains off and believe whenever they hear something that reinforces their beliefs.

You're all full of shit, you earth-worshipping cult freak. These models are just that, models, that nobody can prove a damn thing with. Nobody knows what the weather will be like in 2080 and if you think they do then you've got shit for brains. The climate models these quack scientists devised 40 years ago about what it would be like at the turn of the century turned out to be no where near accurate.

The fact of the matter is the drought occurring in California is minor compared to past droughts the region experienced around 1000 years ago. We weren't around to pollute so what's your excuse for those, dipshit? Go pray to your forest god and get back to us.

 

[flacaltenn]

In the first map above, it seems the big change is REMOVING large chunks of the SW from the persistant drought category.... Depends on whose money is writing the headline eh?

 

[mamooth]

You're all full of shit, you earth-worshipping cult freak.

By your hostility to my posting the models, you appear to be saying it would have been more correct for the models to say rain instead of drought. Given that there was a drought, that's really stupid of you.

And do stay on point. Which is that a denier lied about the models, and many denier rubes fell for the lie.

 

[HenryBHough]

Same deal as some eager student shoving an Excel Spreadsheet in my face and telling me his "numbers are correct".. Well yeah -- but you solved a problem that never existed ....

Beware climate change spreadsheets.

First, "GIGO" - Garbage-In, Garbage-Out".

When shown one in a link if you can open it with your spreadsheet program try doing a "select all" and change the font colors to something other than they seem to be. If they're black, for example, turn 'em all red.

Then look at it again.

You can cause a spreadsheet to make it lie just by putting in figures into it using any font with the text color set to white. That's because the default background for all cells is white and white text will not be visible on screen or printed but the contents of those "invisible" cells WILL be felt in the summaries. If you don't want to change the text color then, instead, change the cell backgrounds to something like a pale blue. Easy enough to make the corrections and then return it to normal.

I had this tried on my by an unscrupulous seller in a real estate deal some five years ago. Had he been satisfied to try to steal just a little I might have smelled the rat but he was a little too greedy and the sheet didn't "eyeball" just right.

 

[flacaltenn]

Same deal as some eager student shoving an Excel Spreadsheet in my face and telling me his "numbers are correct".. Well yeah -- but you solved a problem that never existed ....

Beware climate change spreadsheets.

First, "GIGO" - Garbage-In, Garbage-Out".

When shown one in a link if you can open it with your spreadsheet program try doing a "select all" and change the font colors to something other than they seem to be. If they're black, for example, turn 'em all red.

Then look at it again.

You can cause a spreadsheet to make it lie just by putting in figures into it using any font with the text color set to white. That's because the default background for all cells is white and white text will not be visible on screen or printed but the contents of those "invisible" cells WILL be felt in the summaries. If you don't want to change the text color then, instead, change the cell backgrounds to something like a pale blue. Easy enough to make the corrections and then return it to normal.

I had this tried on my by an unscrupulous seller in a real estate deal some five years ago. Had he been satisfied to try to steal just a little I might have smelled the rat but he was a little too greedy and the sheet didn't "eyeball" just right.

Hmmmm.. Hidden twiddle factors? Covert corrections? It's an evil world we live in.
Better add that to your special crayon for testing US paper currency..

Thanks for the tip..

 

[skookerasbil]

Notice the human racist AGW bozo's never post up a map compared to other years???!!!! They ONLY post up maps of the current drought area. Been doing it for years........ghey......typical OCD alarmist stuff.

Ive posted up historical maps of drought many times.......maps that go back to the 1920's that show severe drought every few years in every corner of America.

Not gonna bother posting the maps up again ( unless one of the AGW alarmist k00ks insists )

 

[skookerasbil]

dominating again.........