If you still believe in deadly climate change, this will help you sleep.

catatomic said:
The models are correct through the 150 year range
Click to expand...
Incorrect.

"...In the global climate models (GCMs) most of the warming that has taken place since 1950 is attributed to human activity. Historically, however, there have been large climatic variations.Temperature reconstructions indicate that there is a ‘warming’ trend that seems to have been going on for as long as approximately 400 years. Prior to the last 250 years or so, such a trend could only be due to natural causes..."

"...The preceding four interglacial periods are seen at about 125,000, 280,000, 325,000 and 415,000 years before now, with much longer glacial periods in between. All four previous interglacial periods are seen to be warmer than the present. The typical length of a glacial period is about 100,000 years, while an interglacial period typically lasts for about 10-15,000 years. The present inter-glacial period has now lasted about 11,600 years..."

"...Kobashi et al. (2011) have reconstructed Greenland surface snow temperature variability over the past 4,000 years (until 1993) at the GISP2 site (near the Summit of the Greenland ice sheet) with a new method that utilizes argon and nitrogen isotopic ratios from occluded air bubbles (Figure B4, Appendix B). These data indicate that warmer temperatures were the norm in the earlier part of the past 4,000 years, including century-long intervals nearly 1°C warmer than the decade (2001-2010). Therefore, it appears that the current decadal mean temperature in Greenland has not exceeded the envelope of natural variability over the past 4,000 years. Schönwiese (1995)has reconstructed temperatures from ice cores in Greenland for the last 11,000 years (Figure B5,Appendix B). These reconstructions show that during the past 10,000 years temperatures over long periods were higher than they are today. The warmest phase occurred 4,000 to 8,000 years agoand is known as the Holocene Climate Optimum or the Atlantic Period..."

"...GCMs are not sufficiently reliable to distinguish between natural and man-made causes of the temperature increase in the 20th century. Some of the predictions from GCMs are accompanied by standard errors, as in statistical analysis. But since the GCMs are deterministic models one cannot interpret these standard errors in the same way as in statistics. GCMs are typically evaluated applying the same observations used to calibrate the model parameters. In an article in Science, Voosen (2016) writes; “Indeed, whether climate scientists like to admit it or not, nearly every model has been calibrated precisely to the 20th century climate records – otherwise it would have ended up in the trash”. Unfortunately,models that match 20th century data as a result of calibration using the same 20th century data are of dubious quality for determining the causes of the 20th century temperature variability. The problem is that some of the variables representing sources of climate variability other than greenhouse gases are not properly controlled for during the calibrations. The resulting calibration of the climate sensitivity may therefore be biased. Further critical evaluations are given by several authors, such as Essex (2022)..."

"...As mentioned in the previous section climate can also change owing to internal processes within the climate system even without any variations in external forcings (chaos). In the GCMs the source of chaos is the nonlinearity of the Navier-Stokes equations. If the initial conditions are not known exactly for a dynamic model based on the Navier-Stokes relations the forecast trajectory will diverge from the actual one, and it is not necessarily the case that small perturbations have small effects. In fact, slightly different initial conditions can yield wildly different outputs..."

"...In order to assess the uncertainty due to internal variability, researchers use so-called ICE (Initial Condition Ensembles) simulations. This means that outputs of GCMs are simulated starting from slightly different initial conditions. As the climate system is chaotic, slightly different initial conditions lead to different trajectories..."

"...Subsequently, we have summarized recent work on statistical analyses on the ability ofthe GCMs to track historical temperature data. These studies have demonstrated that the timeseries of the difference between the global temperature and the corresponding hindcast from theGCMs is non-stationary. Thus, these studies raise serious doubts about whether the GCMs are able to distinguish natural variations in temperatures from variations caused by man-made emissions of CO2..."

"...Next, we have updated the statistical time series analysis of Dagsvik et al. (2020) based on observed temperature series recorded during the last 200 years and further back in time. Despite long trends and cycles in these temperature series, we have found that the hypothesis of stationarity was not rejected, apart from a few cases. These results are therefore consistent with the results obtained by Dagsvik et al. (2020). In other words, the results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations. In other words, our analysis indicates that with the current level of knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to emissions of CO2..."
 
ding said:
Incorrect.

"...In the global climate models (GCMs) most of the warming that has taken place since 1950 is attributed to human activity. Historically, however, there have been large climatic variations.Temperature reconstructions indicate that there is a ‘warming’ trend that seems to have been going on for as long as approximately 400 years. Prior to the last 250 years or so, such a trend could only be due to natural causes..."

"...The preceding four interglacial periods are seen at about 125,000, 280,000, 325,000 and 415,000 years before now, with much longer glacial periods in between. All four previous interglacial periods are seen to be warmer than the present. The typical length of a glacial period is about 100,000 years, while an interglacial period typically lasts for about 10-15,000 years. The present inter-glacial period has now lasted about 11,600 years..."

"...Kobashi et al. (2011) have reconstructed Greenland surface snow temperature variability over the past 4,000 years (until 1993) at the GISP2 site (near the Summit of the Greenland ice sheet) with a new method that utilizes argon and nitrogen isotopic ratios from occluded air bubbles (Figure B4, Appendix B). These data indicate that warmer temperatures were the norm in the earlier part of the past 4,000 years, including century-long intervals nearly 1°C warmer than the decade (2001-2010). Therefore, it appears that the current decadal mean temperature in Greenland has not exceeded the envelope of natural variability over the past 4,000 years. Schönwiese (1995)has reconstructed temperatures from ice cores in Greenland for the last 11,000 years (Figure B5,Appendix B). These reconstructions show that during the past 10,000 years temperatures over long periods were higher than they are today. The warmest phase occurred 4,000 to 8,000 years agoand is known as the Holocene Climate Optimum or the Atlantic Period..."

"...GCMs are not sufficiently reliable to distinguish between natural and man-made causes of the temperature increase in the 20th century. Some of the predictions from GCMs are accompanied by standard errors, as in statistical analysis. But since the GCMs are deterministic models one cannot interpret these standard errors in the same way as in statistics. GCMs are typically evaluated applying the same observations used to calibrate the model parameters. In an article in Science, Voosen (2016) writes; “Indeed, whether climate scientists like to admit it or not, nearly every model has been calibrated precisely to the 20th century climate records – otherwise it would have ended up in the trash”. Unfortunately,models that match 20th century data as a result of calibration using the same 20th century data are of dubious quality for determining the causes of the 20th century temperature variability. The problem is that some of the variables representing sources of climate variability other than greenhouse gases are not properly controlled for during the calibrations. The resulting calibration of the climate sensitivity may therefore be biased. Further critical evaluations are given by several authors, such as Essex (2022)..."

"...As mentioned in the previous section climate can also change owing to internal processes within the climate system even without any variations in external forcings (chaos). In the GCMs the source of chaos is the nonlinearity of the Navier-Stokes equations. If the initial conditions are not known exactly for a dynamic model based on the Navier-Stokes relations the forecast trajectory will diverge from the actual one, and it is not necessarily the case that small perturbations have small effects. In fact, slightly different initial conditions can yield wildly different outputs..."

"...In order to assess the uncertainty due to internal variability, researchers use so-called ICE (Initial Condition Ensembles) simulations. This means that outputs of GCMs are simulated starting from slightly different initial conditions. As the climate system is chaotic, slightly different initial conditions lead to different trajectories..."

"...Subsequently, we have summarized recent work on statistical analyses on the ability ofthe GCMs to track historical temperature data. These studies have demonstrated that the timeseries of the difference between the global temperature and the corresponding hindcast from theGCMs is non-stationary. Thus, these studies raise serious doubts about whether the GCMs are able to distinguish natural variations in temperatures from variations caused by man-made emissions of CO2..."

"...Next, we have updated the statistical time series analysis of Dagsvik et al. (2020) based on observed temperature series recorded during the last 200 years and further back in time. Despite long trends and cycles in these temperature series, we have found that the hypothesis of stationarity was not rejected, apart from a few cases. These results are therefore consistent with the results obtained by Dagsvik et al. (2020). In other words, the results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations. In other words, our analysis indicates that with the current level of knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to emissions of CO2..."
Click to expand...

You are full of it and also not too bright, but mostly it's dishonest.
One contrary study does Not make another (or the majority/consensus) "incorrect" or "wrong," it merely "differs."
Do you think any paper you find is god?
Years of this Bogus 'logic' is Obtuse and intentionally Dishonest.

In this case you have two Outliers from Hell

""Are SSB economist John K. Dagsvik and former civil engineer Sigmund H. Moen among Norway's leading experts on Climate change?​


NO. It’s the stereotypical problem of an expert in one field dreaming that they are an expert in another field. In effect they ignore a large amount of important contextual information and end up misapplying some understanding or technique from their own field.​

In the case of John K Dagsvik a statistical model was chosen to represent historical temperature time series. Analysis of the statistical model then produces a statistical significance value that fails to verify any actual change and supposes that the temperature series could have, might possibly been, produced by random noise.​

These purely statistical arguments are like a variation of “correlation is not causation” and ignore the physical constraints on the system. In this case conservation of energy is important and the statistical model would allow random non-physical temperatures to occur, while still claiming it’s a random process.​

See:​

See, for a criticism: ​


renewablenews.quora.com

https://www.quora.com/Are-SSB-economist-John-K-Dagsvik-and-former-civil-engineer-Sigmund-H-Moen-among-Norways-leading-experts-on-climate-...

https://www.quora.com/Are-SSB-economist-John-K-Dagsvik-and-former-civil-engineer-Sigmund-H-Moen-among-Norways-leading-experts-on-climate-change/answer/Richard-Rothwell-1
renewablenews.quora.com renewablenews.quora.com
'​
 
Last edited:
abu afak said:
You are full of it and also not too bright, but mostly it's dishonest.
One contrary study does Not make another (or the majority/consensus) "incorrect" or "wrong," it merely "differs."
Do you think any paper you find is god?
Years of this Bogus 'logic' is Obtuse and intentionally Dishonest.

In this case you have two Outliers from Hell

""Are SSB economist John K. Dagsvik and former civil engineer Sigmund H. Moen among Norway's leading experts on Climate change?​


NO. It’s the stereotypical problem of an expert in one field dreaming that they are an expert in another field. In effect they ignore a large amount of important contextual information and end up misapplying some understanding or technique from their own field.​

In the case of John K Dagsvik a statistical model was chosen to represent historical temperature time series. Analysis of the statistical model then produces a statistical significance value that fails to verify any actual change and supposes that the temperature series could have, might possibly been, produced by random noise.​

These purely statistical arguments are like a variation of “correlation is not causation” and ignore the physical constraints on the system. In this case conservation of energy is important and the statistical model would allow random non-physical temperatures to occur, while still claiming it’s a random process.​

See:​

See, for a criticism: ​


renewablenews.quora.com

https://www.quora.com/Are-SSB-economist-John-K-Dagsvik-and-former-civil-engineer-Sigmund-H-Moen-among-Norways-leading-experts-on-climate-...

https://www.quora.com/Are-SSB-economist-John-K-Dagsvik-and-former-civil-engineer-Sigmund-H-Moen-among-Norways-leading-experts-on-climate-change/answer/Richard-Rothwell-1
renewablenews.quora.com renewablenews.quora.com
'​
Click to expand...
IPCC models assume all warming is from CO2.
 
abu afak said:
You are full of it and also not too bright, but mostly it's dishonest.
One contrary study does Not make another (or the majority/consensus) "incorrect" or "wrong," it merely "differs."
Do you think any paper you find is god?
Years of this Bogus 'logic' is Obtuse and intentionally Dishonest.

In this case you have two Outliers from Hell

""Are SSB economist John K. Dagsvik and former civil engineer Sigmund H. Moen among Norway's leading experts on Climate change?​


NO. It’s the stereotypical problem of an expert in one field dreaming that they are an expert in another field. In effect they ignore a large amount of important contextual information and end up misapplying some understanding or technique from their own field.​

In the case of John K Dagsvik a statistical model was chosen to represent historical temperature time series. Analysis of the statistical model then produces a statistical significance value that fails to verify any actual change and supposes that the temperature series could have, might possibly been, produced by random noise.​

These purely statistical arguments are like a variation of “correlation is not causation” and ignore the physical constraints on the system. In this case conservation of energy is important and the statistical model would allow random non-physical temperatures to occur, while still claiming it’s a random process.​

See:​

See, for a criticism: ​


renewablenews.quora.com

https://www.quora.com/Are-SSB-economist-John-K-Dagsvik-and-former-civil-engineer-Sigmund-H-Moen-among-Norways-leading-experts-on-climate-...

https://www.quora.com/Are-SSB-economist-John-K-Dagsvik-and-former-civil-engineer-Sigmund-H-Moen-among-Norways-leading-experts-on-climate-change/answer/Richard-Rothwell-1
renewablenews.quora.com renewablenews.quora.com
'​
Click to expand...
IPCC models ignore the vast and overwhelming number of natural warming and cooling trends.
 
ding said:
IPCC models assume all warming is from CO2.
Click to expand...
Do IPCC models assume all warming is due to CO2

ChatGPT said:​

No, IPCC models do not assume that all warming is due to CO₂. Here's a breakdown of how they actually handle it:

🔬​

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) uses climate models (like CMIP6) that include a wide range of forcings — not just CO₂. These models simulate Earth's climate based on various physical processes and inputs.

☀️​

  1. Greenhouse Gases (GHGs):
    • CO₂ (carbon dioxide)
    • CH₄ (methane)
    • N₂O (nitrous oxide)
    • Halocarbons
  2. Aerosols (e.g., sulfate particles from burning fossil fuels — these tend to cool the climate by reflecting sunlight).
  3. Solar Variability (small fluctuations in solar energy output).
  4. Land Use Changes (e.g., deforestation, agriculture).
  5. Volcanic Activity (can cause short-term cooling via aerosols in the stratosphere).

🎯​

  • CO₂ is the dominant driver of long-term warming because:
    • It's the most abundant long-lived greenhouse gas.
    • Its emissions have increased significantly since the Industrial Revolution.
    • It has a long atmospheric lifetime (decades to centuries).
But the models don’t assume it’s the only driver — they isolate its effects through attribution studies that compare different combinations of forcings (e.g., GHGs alone vs. natural factors).

🔍​

These studies show that:

  • Most of the warming since ~1850 is due to human activities, especially CO₂.
  • Natural factors (like solar changes and volcanoes) explain only a small part of observed changes.

✅ Bottom Line​

The IPCC models:

  • Do not assume all warming is due to CO₂.
  • Do simulate and compare multiple causes of climate change.
  • Find that CO₂ is the largest contributor to observed warming, but not the only one.
If you want, I can show you a chart from one of the reports that breaks down warming by source.
 
catatomic said:
Do IPCC models assume all warming is due to CO2

ChatGPT said:​

No, IPCC models do not assume that all warming is due to CO₂. Here's a breakdown of how they actually handle it:

🔬​

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) uses climate models (like CMIP6) that include a wide range of forcings — not just CO₂. These models simulate Earth's climate based on various physical processes and inputs.

☀️​

  1. Greenhouse Gases (GHGs):
    • CO₂ (carbon dioxide)
    • CH₄ (methane)
    • N₂O (nitrous oxide)
    • Halocarbons
  2. Aerosols (e.g., sulfate particles from burning fossil fuels — these tend to cool the climate by reflecting sunlight).
  3. Solar Variability (small fluctuations in solar energy output).
  4. Land Use Changes (e.g., deforestation, agriculture).
  5. Volcanic Activity (can cause short-term cooling via aerosols in the stratosphere).

🎯​

  • CO₂ is the dominant driver of long-term warming because:
    • It's the most abundant long-lived greenhouse gas.
    • Its emissions have increased significantly since the Industrial Revolution.
    • It has a long atmospheric lifetime (decades to centuries).
But the models don’t assume it’s the only driver — they isolate its effects through attribution studies that compare different combinations of forcings (e.g., GHGs alone vs. natural factors).

🔍​

These studies show that:

  • Most of the warming since ~1850 is due to human activities, especially CO₂.
  • Natural factors (like solar changes and volcanoes) explain only a small part of observed changes.

✅ Bottom Line​

The IPCC models:

  • Do not assume all warming is due to CO₂.
  • Do simulate and compare multiple causes of climate change.
  • Find that CO₂ is the largest contributor to observed warming, but not the only one.
If you want, I can show you a chart from one of the reports that breaks down warming by source.
Click to expand...
The problem with that logic is that CO2 is the only thing in that list that is materially changing. So the statement that the IPCC assumes there is NO natural warming is correct and true.

ipcc_rad_forc_ar5.webp
 
Well, maybe you know more than me, but I have my assurances that all the scientists are very convinced of the science.
 
catatomic said:
It always saves money to consume less
Click to expand...
Yeah, to hell with personal freedom. You'll have less and like it!

It's my decision to buy what I want. I don't need government making those decisions for me. Government making those decisions has historically killed millions of people.

And no, it won't work when you're in charge.
 
catatomic said:
Do IPCC models assume all warming is due to CO2

ChatGPT said:​

No, IPCC models do not assume that all warming is due to CO₂. Here's a breakdown of how they actually handle it:

🔬​

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) uses climate models (like CMIP6) that include a wide range of forcings — not just CO₂. These models simulate Earth's climate based on various physical processes and inputs.

☀️​

  1. Greenhouse Gases (GHGs):
    • CO₂ (carbon dioxide)
    • CH₄ (methane)
    • N₂O (nitrous oxide)
    • Halocarbons
  2. Aerosols (e.g., sulfate particles from burning fossil fuels — these tend to cool the climate by reflecting sunlight).
  3. Solar Variability (small fluctuations in solar energy output).
  4. Land Use Changes (e.g., deforestation, agriculture).
  5. Volcanic Activity (can cause short-term cooling via aerosols in the stratosphere).

🎯​

  • CO₂ is the dominant driver of long-term warmingbecause:
    • It's the most abundant long-lived greenhouse gas.
    • Its emissions have increased significantly since the Industrial Revolution.
    • It has a long atmospheric lifetime (decades to centuries).
But the models don’t assume it’s the only driver — they isolate its effects through attribution studies that compare different combinations of forcings (e.g., GHGs alone vs. natural factors).

🔍​

These studies show that:

  • Most of the warming since ~1850 is due to human activities, especially CO₂.
  • Natural factors (like solar changes and volcanoes) explain only a small part of observed changes.

✅ Bottom Line​

The IPCC models:

  • Do not assume all warming is due to CO₂.
  • Do simulate and compare multiple causes of climate change.
  • Find that CO₂ is the largest contributor to observed warming, but not the only one.
If you want, I can show you a chart from one of the reports that breaks down warming by source.
Click to expand...
Your post lacks something you didn't notice was missing.....


The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) uses climate models (like CMIP6) that include a wide range of forcings — not just CO₂. These models simulate Earth's climate based on various physical processes and inputs.
Click to expand...

Playstation modeling scenarios, how unconvincing this crap is, CH4 and other extremely rare gases combined does not reach the very small CO2 warm forcing effect, thus your post was poor and silly.

Stop being a suck up for the Government run pseudoscience organization!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

For those who don't think Climate Hysteria harms the economy...

< Previous Thread

Dirty Rain!

Next Thread >

Similar threads

Delldude
Climate Change is all bunk?
2
Replies
30
Views
563
Sunsettommy
Sunsettommy
daveman
Met Office Shock: More Non-Existent UK Weather Stations Discovered Reporting Invented Data
Replies
3
Views
205
toobfreak
toobfreak
Robert W
Prepare for a very cold winter
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
Robert W
Robert W
H
Bernie Sanders..Zeldin whether he agreed with Trump that climate change was a hoax.
2
Replies
29
Views
735
jc456
jc456
W
Global Warming or Climate Change?
2 3 4
Replies
66
Views
966
Nostra
Nostra

New Topics

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom