Ignoring inconvenient climate model failures

Sunsettommy

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
5,217
Reaction score
2,560
Points
385
That seems to be the overriding theme from warmists in the forum.

I have posted numerous times, well documented modeling failures that should have at least caused warmists pause and think about it, but they don't seem to with their deflecting replies trying to sweep up the freaking failures under the rug.

Here is a jingle I found at WUWH,

"Listen, and understand. Those CO2ists are out there. They can’t be bargained with. They can’t be reasoned with. They don’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until they are dead."
 

Billy_Bob

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
22,129
Reaction score
6,410
Points
1,010
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
They refuse to be seen as "failed".

In that effort they "retrain" their models ever few years to make sure there is no deviation... in doing so, they never predict anything, its all bull shit all the time... And they hope the useful idiots will eat it hook, line, and sinker.. We have plenty of sucker fish here in this forum..
 

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
35,467
Reaction score
4,098
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere
Mostly, they ignore having to answer the tough question. If they do respond 9 times out of 10 it's to change the subject to a different matter. These are the people we deal with.... people who will lie cheat and steal themselves to achieving their agenda goals. That's why we will always have our guns!!:coffee:
 

SSDD

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
16,806
Reaction score
1,893
Points
280
Here are clips from just 3 published papers speaking to the fact that climate models are useless. There are literally dozens of papers and the number keeps growing.


May common model biases reduce CMIP5’s ability to simulate the recent Pacific La Niña-like cooling?

Over the recent three decades sea surface temperate (SST) in the eastern equatorial Pacific has decreased, which helps reduce the rate of global warming. However, most CMIP5 model simulations with historical radiative forcing do not reproduce this Pacific La Niña-like cooling. Based on the assumption of “perfect” models, previous studies have suggested that errors in simulated internal climate variations and/or external radiative forcing may cause the discrepancy between the multi-model simulations and the observation…. Based on the total 126 realizations of the 38 CMIP5 model Historical simulations, the results show that none of the 126 model historical realizations reproduce the intensity of the observed eastern Pacific [1981-2010] cooling and only one simulation produces a weak cooling (−0.007 °C per decade).”



TCD - Recent changes in summer Greenland blocking captured by none of the CMIP5 models

“Recent studies note a significant increase in high-pressure blocking over the Greenland region (Greenland Blocking Index, GBI) in summer since the 1990s. … We find that the recent summer GBI increase lies well outside the range of modelled past reconstructions (Historical scenario) and future GBI projections (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). The models consistently project a future decrease in GBI (linked to an increase in NAO), which highlights a likely key deficiency of current climate models if the recently-observed circulation changes continue to persist. Given well-established connections between atmospheric pressure over the Greenland region and air temperature and precipitation extremes downstream, e.g. over Northwest Europe, this brings into question the accuracy of simulated North Atlantic jet stream changes and resulting climatological anomalies […] as well as of future projections of GrIS mass balance produced using global and regional climate models.”



EmeraldInsight

“The temperature effects of the water and CO2 are based on spectral analysis calculations, which show that water is 11.8 times stronger a GH gas than CO2 in the present climate. … There are essential features in the long-term trends of temperature and TPW [total precipitable water], which are calculated and depicted as mean values 11 years running. The temperature has increased about 0.4°C since 1979 and has now paused at this level. The long-term trend of TPW [total precipitable water] effects shows that it has slightly decreased during the temperature-increasing period from 1979 to 2000. This means that the absolute water amount in the atmosphere does not follow the temperature increase, but is practically constant, reacting only very slightly to the long-term trends of temperature changes. The assumption that relative humidity is constant and that it amplifies the GH gas changes over the longer periods by doubling the warming effects finds no grounds based on the behavior of the TWP [total precipitable water] trend. The positive water feedback exists only during the short-term ENSO events (≤4 years).”
 
OP
Sunsettommy

Sunsettommy

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
5,217
Reaction score
2,560
Points
385
Utter silence from the AGW camp...…..

Snicker.
 

SSDD

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
16,806
Reaction score
1,893
Points
280
Utter silence from the AGW camp...…..

Snicker.
I love the sound of crickets...sure beats the hell out of their dishonest demands that we just have faith and believe in the pseudoscience.
 
OP
Sunsettommy

Sunsettommy

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
5,217
Reaction score
2,560
Points
385
In my visits in forums on the net, I see warmists making total fool of themselves over this dishonest, misleading crap about Antarctica, when they get smashed on this, they go into a fetal ball and deflect, deflect and deflect, hoping the nightmare goes away.

Antarctica loses three trillion tonnes of ice in 25 years

By Jonathan Amos and Victoria Gill Science correspondents
13 June 2018

=================================================
That warmists bombs on is SCALE of the loss, it is TINY!
 
Last edited:
OP
Sunsettommy

Sunsettommy

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
5,217
Reaction score
2,560
Points
385
I like this ditty from HERE, written by Ruairi:

Alarmists would think it no harm,
To raise Antarctic ice-melt alarm,
More man-made-heat panic,
Likely suboceanic,
Just to build yet another wind farm.
 

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
35,467
Reaction score
4,098
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere
I like this ditty from HERE, written by Ruairi:

Alarmists would think it no harm,
To raise Antarctic ice-melt alarm,
More man-made-heat panic,
Likely suboceanic,
Just to build yet another wind farm.

Lol.....but how boring it would be around here without all the k00k gheyness?!! It's our entertainment tic Tommy!:113:
 

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
21,893
Reaction score
4,056
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
Hey guys! How's it going!

So, why did I bring up this old thread? Because Sunsettommy arrived after I started my long break. I'm used to the other deniers. They haven't changed at all, same old sulky failed arguments and helplessly flapping wrists. Boring. I crave fresh meat. I'll get it by calling Sunsettommy out on his own thread, and ripping apart his fraudulent claims about models.

Your stupidity is even worse when you finally realize that the PER DECADE warming rate on your chart is .13C/ decade, while modeled rates are often ABOVE .30C/decade.
The models have been stellar. Anyone saying otherwise is lying. The models have basically predicted 0.20C/decade (anyone saying they predicted 0.30C/decade is peddling a falsehood), and the climate has responded with 0.19C/decade (anyone saying the warming has been 0.13C/decade is peddling a falsehood.) So, the models were spot-on.

Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming? | Carbon Brief

Climate model projections compared to observations




So, Sunsettommy, why were your claims about models so wildly incorrect? You got some 'splainin to do.

And please, don't start out by saying how all the hard data is a socialist plot. Save that ace-in-the-hole cult conspiracy theory for after you've been reduced to helplessly weeping out of hysterical desperation, then trot it out as your final admission of humiliating defeat. Leading with it, that would be way too soon.
 

Billy_Bob

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
22,129
Reaction score
6,410
Points
1,010
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
Hey guys! How's it going!

So, why did I bring up this old thread? Because Sunsettommy arrived after I started my long break. I'm used to the other deniers. They haven't changed at all, same old sulky failed arguments and helplessly flapping wrists. Boring. I crave fresh meat. I'll get it by calling Sunsettommy out on his own thread, and ripping apart his fraudulent claims about models.

Your stupidity is even worse when you finally realize that the PER DECADE warming rate on your chart is .13C/ decade, while modeled rates are often ABOVE .30C/decade.
The models have been stellar. Anyone saying otherwise is lying. The models have basically predicted 0.20C/decade (anyone saying they predicted 0.30C/decade is peddling a falsehood), and the climate has responded with 0.19C/decade (anyone saying the warming has been 0.13C/decade is peddling a falsehood.) So, the models were spot-on.

Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming? | Carbon Brief

Climate model projections compared to observations




So, Sunsettommy, why were your claims about models so wildly incorrect? You got some 'splainin to do.

And please, don't start out by saying how all the hard data is a socialist plot. Save that ace-in-the-hole cult conspiracy theory for after you've been reduced to helplessly weeping out of hysterical desperation, then trot it out as your final admission of humiliating defeat. Leading with it, that would be way too soon.
Right out of the gate and a bald face lie.... At least your consistent...

Seems to me you left when you were called on this same lie. Tell me again why you post up a graph that has model training only and no forward prediction?

Just more bull shit from a stupid cat...

FYI... When your models are left to any short 15-25 year prediction phase they fail miserably... Which is why you liars omit it now...
cmip5-73-models-vs-obs-20n-20s-mt-5-yr-means11 Dr Roy Spencer.png
 
Last edited:

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
21,893
Reaction score
4,056
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
[Right out of the gate and a bald face lie.... At least your consistent...
At least you're consistent. You're too dim to fathom the "your/you're" difference. And you know Spencer's graph there is openly fraudulent, but you still posted it and pretended it was legit. You've seen this many times before.

Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception | HotWhopper

Yes, I know the woman who writes that blog humiliated you in front of the world and banned you from the blog, after you were busted for lying over and over. That makes the fact that she's the one debunking Spencer's fraud so much sweeter, being how it sends you insane with butthurt. Sucks to be you, that in the real world, there are consequences for lying. You can get away with lying here, due to your political affiliations, but honest people won't put up with it.

Seems to me you left when you were called on this same lie. Tell me again why you post up a graph that has model training only and no forward prediction?
And you're lying again. The graph and the links show how past model predictions stacked up to reality. It has nothing to do with "model training." The models have been excellent. Anyone saying otherwise is peddling a falsehood. Some have been brainwashed into believing their falsehood. Some, like you, know very well that they're pushing a fraud.
 

Billy_Bob

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
22,129
Reaction score
6,410
Points
1,010
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
[Right out of the gate and a bald face lie.... At least your consistent...
At least you're consistent. You're too dim to fathom the "your/you're" difference. And you know Spencer's graph there is openly fraudulent, but you still posted it and pretended it was legit. You've seen this many times before.

Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception | HotWhopper

Yes, I know the woman who writes that blog humiliated you in front of the world and banned you from the blog, after you were busted for lying over and over. That makes the fact that she's the one debunking Spencer's fraud so much sweeter, being how it sends you insane with butthurt. Sucks to be you, that in the real world, there are consequences for lying. You can get away with lying here, due to your political affiliations, but honest people won't put up with it.

Seems to me you left when you were called on this same lie. Tell me again why you post up a graph that has model training only and no forward prediction?
And you're lying again. The graph and the links show how past model predictions stacked up to reality. It has nothing to do with "model training." The models have been excellent. Anyone saying otherwise is peddling a falsehood. Some have been brainwashed into believing their falsehood. Some, like you, know very well that they're pushing a fraud.
And you still use Hotwhooper lies as proof.... Nothing changes with you morons..
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,337
Reaction score
7,230
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
That seems to be the overriding theme from warmists in the forum.

I have posted numerous times, well documented modeling failures that should have at least caused warmists pause and think about it, but they don't seem to with their deflecting replies trying to sweep up the freaking failures under the rug.

Here is a jingle I found at WUWH,

"Listen, and understand. Those CO2ists are out there. They can’t be bargained with. They can’t be reasoned with. They don’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until they are dead."
Let us say that you are correct. And the warming is far less than predicted. Yet the effects of the warming that we have are clearly evident. From the fires around the world, in both hemispheres, to the precipitation events and the heat waves. So, what that tells us, is that we are in for a lot more trouble from AGW that predicted. So go ahead and deny that the present fires are not influenced by the warming.
 

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
35,467
Reaction score
4,098
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere
That seems to be the overriding theme from warmists in the forum.

I have posted numerous times, well documented modeling failures that should have at least caused warmists pause and think about it, but they don't seem to with their deflecting replies trying to sweep up the freaking failures under the rug.

Here is a jingle I found at WUWH,

"Listen, and understand. Those CO2ists are out there. They can’t be bargained with. They can’t be reasoned with. They don’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until they are dead."
Let us say that you are correct. And the warming is far less than predicted. Yet the effects of the warming that we have are clearly evident. From the fires around the world, in both hemispheres, to the precipitation events and the heat waves. So, what that tells us, is that we are in for a lot more trouble from AGW that predicted. So go ahead and deny that the present fires are not influenced by the warming.
But the only thing that matters is if the public thinks the fires are being caused by "warming". They dont. They've seen it their whole lives during times of drought....less in non-drought years. Folks get conditioned to things in life....a dynamic just not at all understood by most climate crusaders.:113:
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,337
Reaction score
7,230
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
A new study says that human-induced climate change has doubled the area affected by forest fires in the U.S. West over the last 30 years. According to the study, since 1984 heightened temperatures and resulting aridity have caused fires to spread across an additional 16,000 square miles than they otherwise would have—an area larger than the states of Massachusetts and Connecticut combined. The authors warn that further warming will increase fire exponentially in coming decades. The study appears today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Read more at: Climate change has doubled western US forest fires
 

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
35,467
Reaction score
4,098
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere
A new study says that human-induced climate change has doubled the area affected by forest fires in the U.S. West over the last 30 years. According to the study, since 1984 heightened temperatures and resulting aridity have caused fires to spread across an additional 16,000 square miles than they otherwise would have—an area larger than the states of Massachusetts and Connecticut combined. The authors warn that further warming will increase fire exponentially in coming decades. The study appears today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Read more at: Climate change has doubled western US forest fires
Their conclusions mean that maybe California burns to the ground in the next two decades. And that's a bad thing?:21::21:
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top