Models Fail so badly NOAA now looking at reality......

[jc456]

the IPCC isn't a science organization, correct?

Wow, I assumed you knew what a scientist was....I guess I was wrong.

you are wrong for sure.

So, who is the workforce of the IPCC other than volunteer SCIENTISTS.


Now I know its hard for you to understand since you pull your information from political groups.

why don't you look up who they are?

Dude, you have nothing, stop digging.

so you haven't a clue do you? why don't you educate yourself, it isn't my job to do that.

 

[Kilroy2]

You cant make this stuff up.

apparently you did make stuff up.

The Warming Meme is collapsing and cooling in all records is now evident by empirical observations. They can no longer hide their AGW failure. There is panic in the AGW political gamer's and they are now desperate to explain it away.

This story is about prediction not being what it should be and scientist are about predictions. They will make the necessary changes. It doesn't mean global warming is not happening.

There is nothing about cooling off in this story

Quote - Cooling in all records is now evident by EMPIRICAL observations

The question that a cooling trend happens does not mean that global warming is not real. Even if you stick your head out the window and there is a lot of snow and rain is a current weather condition. To assume that it indicates that Global warming isn't happening is making a decision on a short term weather event. Weather changes.

Global warming is entirely compatible with these events as it is just weather and empirical observation shows that it changes. Climate change Models looks at long term trends from past to present and it show that the globe is still, unfortunately, warming. The previous models were consistent and there is some concern that the newer modes are off. They just have to make changes and understand why

Major scientific associations all agree

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver"

now should I believe just because it cold outside that global warming doesn't exist because today I need to wear a coat

or should I believe what most scientist are saying who have study the subject matter for years and use science methods to access and support their conclusions. They use a long term approach which makes it more scientific.

In the end they are saying CO2 emissions should be controlled, do not have a problem with that as smog is real and is can be cause by man

 

[Billy_Bob]

You once again have no argument to make, just baseless assertions.

The IPCC have PROJECTED that there would be LESS snow and more rain/freezing rain in the future, they stated this in 2001. Meanwhile here is an article to help educate you:

The Kevin Trenberth Effect: Pulling Science Back to the Dark Ages. Part two - The Big Snow Job

"Trenberth’s 1999 paper framing the effects of global warming on extreme precipitation declared, “With higher average temperatures in winter expected, more precipitation is likely to fall in the form of rain rather than snow, which will increase both soil moisture and run off, as noted by the IPCC (1996) and found in many models.” The 2001 IPCC 3rd Assessment repeated those expectations stating, “Northern Hemisphere snow cover, permafrost, and sea-ice extent are projected to decrease further.” Soon climate scientists
like Dr. Viner proffered alarming scenarios that ‘children would no longer know what snow was’. Similarly in 2008 politicians like RFK Jr. warned DC children would be deprived of the fun of sledding due to global warming."

LINK

Your science illiteracy continues since the claim that increased moisture is the reason is silly when it still requires the freezing air to make this happen, which has been increasing as I pointed out,

Meanwhile you didn't address this statement because it calls NASA a liar about Snowfall extent.

"Now look hard at all three Charts and see one particular statistical importance that NASA didn't bother to bring up."

Has the IPCC stopped developing its report? 2001?

Why not go back to some TIME report from the late 70's about the oncoming ice age....

the IPCC isn't a science organization, correct?

Wow, I assumed you knew what a scientist was....I guess I was wrong.

you are wrong for sure.

So, who is the workforce of the IPCC other than volunteer SCIENTISTS.


Now I know its hard for you to understand since you pull your information from political groups.

The IPCC is a POLITICAL ORGANIZATION engaging in political goals. See Agenda 21

The only science they do is political to ensure that socialism is the one world government.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You cant make this stuff up.

apparently you did make stuff up.

The Warming Meme is collapsing and cooling in all records is now evident by empirical observations. They can no longer hide their AGW failure. There is panic in the AGW political gamer's and they are now desperate to explain it away.

This story is about prediction not being what it should be and scientist are about predictions. They will make the necessary changes. It doesn't mean global warming is not happening.

There is nothing about cooling off in this story

Quote - Cooling in all records is now evident by EMPIRICAL observations

The question that a cooling trend happens does not mean that global warming is not real. Even if you stick your head out the window and there is a lot of snow and rain is a current weather condition. To assume that it indicates that Global warming isn't happening is making a decision on a short term weather event. Weather changes.

Global warming is entirely compatible with these events as it is just weather and empirical observation shows that it changes. Climate change Models looks at long term trends from past to present and it show that the globe is still, unfortunately, warming. The previous models were consistent and there is some concern that the newer modes are off. They just have to make changes and understand why

Major scientific associations all agree

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver"

now should I believe just because it cold outside that global warming doesn't exist because today I need to wear a coat

or should I believe what most scientist are saying who have study the subject matter for years and use science methods to access and support their conclusions. They use a long term approach which makes it more scientific.

In the end they are saying CO2 emissions should be controlled, do not have a problem with that as smog is real and is can be cause by man

I love them appeals to authority and the ignoring of empirical evidence that disproves your dogma.

Mans's affect is negligible to the point that it can not be discerned from noise in our climatic system.

 

[otto105]

Has the IPCC stopped developing its report? 2001?

Why not go back to some TIME report from the late 70's about the oncoming ice age....

the IPCC isn't a science organization, correct?

Wow, I assumed you knew what a scientist was....I guess I was wrong.

you are wrong for sure.

So, who is the workforce of the IPCC other than volunteer SCIENTISTS.


Now I know its hard for you to understand since you pull your information from political groups.

The IPCC is a POLITICAL ORGANIZATION engaging in political goals. See Agenda 21

The only science they do is political to ensure that socialism is the one world government.

The fact that you answer a regarding the IPCC with political blather informs us all what knowledge you possess on the subject.

 

[otto105]

You cant make this stuff up.

apparently you did make stuff up.

The Warming Meme is collapsing and cooling in all records is now evident by empirical observations. They can no longer hide their AGW failure. There is panic in the AGW political gamer's and they are now desperate to explain it away.

This story is about prediction not being what it should be and scientist are about predictions. They will make the necessary changes. It doesn't mean global warming is not happening.

There is nothing about cooling off in this story

Quote - Cooling in all records is now evident by EMPIRICAL observations

The question that a cooling trend happens does not mean that global warming is not real. Even if you stick your head out the window and there is a lot of snow and rain is a current weather condition. To assume that it indicates that Global warming isn't happening is making a decision on a short term weather event. Weather changes.

Global warming is entirely compatible with these events as it is just weather and empirical observation shows that it changes. Climate change Models looks at long term trends from past to present and it show that the globe is still, unfortunately, warming. The previous models were consistent and there is some concern that the newer modes are off. They just have to make changes and understand why

Major scientific associations all agree

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver"

now should I believe just because it cold outside that global warming doesn't exist because today I need to wear a coat

or should I believe what most scientist are saying who have study the subject matter for years and use science methods to access and support their conclusions. They use a long term approach which makes it more scientific.

In the end they are saying CO2 emissions should be controlled, do not have a problem with that as smog is real and is can be cause by man

I love them appeals to authority and the ignoring of empirical evidence that disproves your dogma.

Mans's affect is negligible to the point that it can not be discerned from noise in our climatic system.

What empirical evidence do you possess that would disprove AGW. You're just a doubt spreader with a political motive.

 

[jc456]

the IPCC isn't a science organization, correct?

Wow, I assumed you knew what a scientist was....I guess I was wrong.

you are wrong for sure.

So, who is the workforce of the IPCC other than volunteer SCIENTISTS.


Now I know its hard for you to understand since you pull your information from political groups.

The IPCC is a POLITICAL ORGANIZATION engaging in political goals. See Agenda 21

The only science they do is political to ensure that socialism is the one world government.

The fact that you answer a regarding the IPCC with political blather informs us all what knowledge you possess on the subject.

you've made crystal clear you have no fking clue, that's for sure.

 

[jc456]

You cant make this stuff up.

apparently you did make stuff up.

The Warming Meme is collapsing and cooling in all records is now evident by empirical observations. They can no longer hide their AGW failure. There is panic in the AGW political gamer's and they are now desperate to explain it away.

This story is about prediction not being what it should be and scientist are about predictions. They will make the necessary changes. It doesn't mean global warming is not happening.

There is nothing about cooling off in this story

Quote - Cooling in all records is now evident by EMPIRICAL observations

The question that a cooling trend happens does not mean that global warming is not real. Even if you stick your head out the window and there is a lot of snow and rain is a current weather condition. To assume that it indicates that Global warming isn't happening is making a decision on a short term weather event. Weather changes.

Global warming is entirely compatible with these events as it is just weather and empirical observation shows that it changes. Climate change Models looks at long term trends from past to present and it show that the globe is still, unfortunately, warming. The previous models were consistent and there is some concern that the newer modes are off. They just have to make changes and understand why

Major scientific associations all agree

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver"

now should I believe just because it cold outside that global warming doesn't exist because today I need to wear a coat

or should I believe what most scientist are saying who have study the subject matter for years and use science methods to access and support their conclusions. They use a long term approach which makes it more scientific.

In the end they are saying CO2 emissions should be controlled, do not have a problem with that as smog is real and is can be cause by man

I love them appeals to authority and the ignoring of empirical evidence that disproves your dogma.

Mans's affect is negligible to the point that it can not be discerned from noise in our climatic system.

What empirical evidence do you possess that would disprove AGW. You're just a doubt spreader with a political motive.

ready? you don't have any. there.

 

[otto105]

You cant make this stuff up.

apparently you did make stuff up.

The Warming Meme is collapsing and cooling in all records is now evident by empirical observations. They can no longer hide their AGW failure. There is panic in the AGW political gamer's and they are now desperate to explain it away.

This story is about prediction not being what it should be and scientist are about predictions. They will make the necessary changes. It doesn't mean global warming is not happening.

There is nothing about cooling off in this story

Quote - Cooling in all records is now evident by EMPIRICAL observations

The question that a cooling trend happens does not mean that global warming is not real. Even if you stick your head out the window and there is a lot of snow and rain is a current weather condition. To assume that it indicates that Global warming isn't happening is making a decision on a short term weather event. Weather changes.

Global warming is entirely compatible with these events as it is just weather and empirical observation shows that it changes. Climate change Models looks at long term trends from past to present and it show that the globe is still, unfortunately, warming. The previous models were consistent and there is some concern that the newer modes are off. They just have to make changes and understand why

Major scientific associations all agree

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver"

now should I believe just because it cold outside that global warming doesn't exist because today I need to wear a coat

or should I believe what most scientist are saying who have study the subject matter for years and use science methods to access and support their conclusions. They use a long term approach which makes it more scientific.

In the end they are saying CO2 emissions should be controlled, do not have a problem with that as smog is real and is can be cause by man

I love them appeals to authority and the ignoring of empirical evidence that disproves your dogma.

Mans's affect is negligible to the point that it can not be discerned from noise in our climatic system.

What empirical evidence do you possess that would disprove AGW. You're just a doubt spreader with a political motive.

ready? you don't have any. there.

You have no empirical evidence that would disprove AGW.

You're just a doubt spreader with a political motive.

 

[jc456]

You cant make this stuff up.

apparently you did make stuff up.

The Warming Meme is collapsing and cooling in all records is now evident by empirical observations. They can no longer hide their AGW failure. There is panic in the AGW political gamer's and they are now desperate to explain it away.

This story is about prediction not being what it should be and scientist are about predictions. They will make the necessary changes. It doesn't mean global warming is not happening.

There is nothing about cooling off in this story

Quote - Cooling in all records is now evident by EMPIRICAL observations

The question that a cooling trend happens does not mean that global warming is not real. Even if you stick your head out the window and there is a lot of snow and rain is a current weather condition. To assume that it indicates that Global warming isn't happening is making a decision on a short term weather event. Weather changes.

Global warming is entirely compatible with these events as it is just weather and empirical observation shows that it changes. Climate change Models looks at long term trends from past to present and it show that the globe is still, unfortunately, warming. The previous models were consistent and there is some concern that the newer modes are off. They just have to make changes and understand why

Major scientific associations all agree

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver"

now should I believe just because it cold outside that global warming doesn't exist because today I need to wear a coat

or should I believe what most scientist are saying who have study the subject matter for years and use science methods to access and support their conclusions. They use a long term approach which makes it more scientific.

In the end they are saying CO2 emissions should be controlled, do not have a problem with that as smog is real and is can be cause by man

I love them appeals to authority and the ignoring of empirical evidence that disproves your dogma.

Mans's affect is negligible to the point that it can not be discerned from noise in our climatic system.

What empirical evidence do you possess that would disprove AGW. You're just a doubt spreader with a political motive.

ready? you don't have any. there.

You have no empirical evidence that would disprove AGW.

You're just a doubt spreader with a political motive.

how can I show something that doesn't exist? so I did. You can't prove there is any empirical data it does. simple.

 

[otto105]

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


Evidence of Climate Change


NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

 

[jc456]

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


Evidence of Climate Change


NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

post the piece that shows the statistics of man vs natural.

 

[daveman]

How about that NYC is not under water? Is that inconvenient Al?

No such prediction was made. that's another fraud deniers push. I understand you don't know that, because you only know what your cult masters tell you, and they feed you pure bullshit.

Thanks for confirming my point, that every single thing ever denier says should always initially be assumed to be fraudulent, because that's almost always the case.

No such prediction was made?

You really ought to stop, too.

Hansen, dubbed the “godfather” of global warming, was interviewed about a study he co-authored last month, which claimed future global warming would be worse than predicted. The study found global warming would cause massive sea level rise, flooding of major cities such as New York and enormous super storms. But that’s not the first time Hansen made dire sea level rise predictions.

In 1988, a Washington Post reporter asked Hansen what a warming Earth would look like in 20 or 40 years in the future. Hansen reportedly looked out a window and said New York City’s “West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water.”​

Oceans are rising at an accerating rate, and 40 years from 1988 would be 2028, which has not arrived yet.
And that is not including the fact that we have reduced our carbon emissions.
If not for these predictions by people like Hansen, then we would have increased carbon emissions instead, and then water would be even higher.
We have not seen the result of the carbon we have already added to the atmosphere yet. It takes time to slowly accumulate solar heat. But it is happening,

Reality says CO2 lags temperature changes.

Sorry to destroy your cult. Oh, well

You have destroyed nothing.

NASA - Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature

Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide | NOAA Climate.gov


Other than your credibility.

Quoting the High Priests may make you feel better, but it proves nothing besides the High Priests think you're a gullible idiot.

 

[jc456]

QUOTE="daveman, post: 22516959, member: 23991"]

No such prediction was made. that's another fraud deniers push. I understand you don't know that, because you only know what your cult masters tell you, and they feed you pure bullshit.

Thanks for confirming my point, that every single thing ever denier says should always initially be assumed to be fraudulent, because that's almost always the case.

No such prediction was made?

You really ought to stop, too.

Hansen, dubbed the “godfather” of global warming, was interviewed about a study he co-authored last month, which claimed future global warming would be worse than predicted. The study found global warming would cause massive sea level rise, flooding of major cities such as New York and enormous super storms. But that’s not the first time Hansen made dire sea level rise predictions.

In 1988, a Washington Post reporter asked Hansen what a warming Earth would look like in 20 or 40 years in the future. Hansen reportedly looked out a window and said New York City’s “West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water.”​

Oceans are rising at an accerating rate, and 40 years from 1988 would be 2028, which has not arrived yet.
And that is not including the fact that we have reduced our carbon emissions.
If not for these predictions by people like Hansen, then we would have increased carbon emissions instead, and then water would be even higher.
We have not seen the result of the carbon we have already added to the atmosphere yet. It takes time to slowly accumulate solar heat. But it is happening,

Reality says CO2 lags temperature changes.

Sorry to destroy your cult. Oh, well

You have destroyed nothing.

NASA - Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature

Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide | NOAA Climate.gov


Other than your credibility.

Quoting the High Priests may make you feel better, but it proves nothing besides the High Priests think you're a gullible idiot.[/QUOTE]

Out fking standing

 

[otto105]

So that is the response to information provided by the Donny grifter government which tries but can’t make AGW go away?


Both sad and stupid of you.

 

[daveman]

So that is the response to information provided by the Donny grifter government which tries but can’t make AGW go away?


Both sad and stupid of you.

Any time you'd like to stop being incoherent, that'd be great.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You cant make this stuff up.

apparently you did make stuff up.

The Warming Meme is collapsing and cooling in all records is now evident by empirical observations. They can no longer hide their AGW failure. There is panic in the AGW political gamer's and they are now desperate to explain it away.

This story is about prediction not being what it should be and scientist are about predictions. They will make the necessary changes. It doesn't mean global warming is not happening.

There is nothing about cooling off in this story

Quote - Cooling in all records is now evident by EMPIRICAL observations

The question that a cooling trend happens does not mean that global warming is not real. Even if you stick your head out the window and there is a lot of snow and rain is a current weather condition. To assume that it indicates that Global warming isn't happening is making a decision on a short term weather event. Weather changes.

Global warming is entirely compatible with these events as it is just weather and empirical observation shows that it changes. Climate change Models looks at long term trends from past to present and it show that the globe is still, unfortunately, warming. The previous models were consistent and there is some concern that the newer modes are off. They just have to make changes and understand why

Major scientific associations all agree

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver"

now should I believe just because it cold outside that global warming doesn't exist because today I need to wear a coat

or should I believe what most scientist are saying who have study the subject matter for years and use science methods to access and support their conclusions. They use a long term approach which makes it more scientific.

In the end they are saying CO2 emissions should be controlled, do not have a problem with that as smog is real and is can be cause by man

I love them appeals to authority and the ignoring of empirical evidence that disproves your dogma.

Mans's affect is negligible to the point that it can not be discerned from noise in our climatic system.

What empirical evidence do you possess that would disprove AGW. You're just a doubt spreader with a political motive.

1. Your models fail without exception. All of your pontificating is from these fantasy model outputs that have absolutely NO correlation with actual physical empirical evidence.

2. You have a bunch of idiots who are politicians who write the report each time it comes out and it is unsupported by actual science. Even the IPCC admits this is nothing more than a money and power scam.

3. Your IPCC hypothesis requires a formation of a mid-tropospheric hot spot in the equatorial region. Where is it?

Looks to me like I have just placed verifiable, empirical evidence up against your hyperbole... And you LOST big time....

You sir are a useful idiot who will spread any lie or horse shit they feed you.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I get a kick that that's all they got. nothing more. we say here's our data, and they'll come back.....consensus, fk off. the only reason one would stoop so low is that one has zero data to back up one's argument. I am comfortable with my position, and I am positive they ain't got shit for data.

Go right ahead and try to refute all this...

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

And, this statement right here is nonsense in its own wording.

"Scientific Consensus

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."

extremely likely is not a tested theory. nor is it any word that should be used in a definition of Consensus. dude, it's hysterical. Obviously they had zip to use to qualify their statement.

Extremely likely means 99% certainty.


Got it.

The only thing that is extremely likely is that the models will run away from the real temperature and you will be left holding an empty bag.. Your modeling fails with 100% certainty. Thus you have no working knowledge of the system your purporting to be spot on.. You and the IPCC are making Wild Ass Guesses that you claim are scientific yet you can not articulate one verifiable, empirically observed fact that proves your assumptions..

You idiots bore me with your lies and deceptions...

I was reading yesterday that Glacier National Park is quietly removing the signs they had put up at some of the favorite viewing spots that the glacier would be gone by 2020. Chalk up yet another predictive failure of the unfalsifiable hypothesis....like I have said before...in pseudoscience, any number of predictive failures are fine so long as the funding continues.

Climate Oops: National Park Begins Subtle Removal of "Gone by 2020" Signs After Glaciers Just Keep Not Being Gone

LOL... Glacier National Park reports that the glaciers are advancing not subsiding... Where is Old Crock and Crick when you want to rub their faces in the fact that NH glaciers are now advancing and have been for three years now..

The upper air masses have cooled significantly and its about to hit the floors of most valleys. Even our night time temps have been about 7-9 deg F below normal for the year since March. This means our atmosphere is cooling rapidly.

 

[Billy_Bob]

the IPCC isn't a science organization, correct?

Wow, I assumed you knew what a scientist was....I guess I was wrong.

you are wrong for sure.

So, who is the workforce of the IPCC other than volunteer SCIENTISTS.


Now I know its hard for you to understand since you pull your information from political groups.

The IPCC is a POLITICAL ORGANIZATION engaging in political goals. See Agenda 21

The only science they do is political to ensure that socialism is the one world government.

The fact that you answer a regarding the IPCC with political blather informs us all what knowledge you possess on the subject.

I'm sure that Otto-retard can tell us all what the base hypothesis is for Anthroprogenic Global Warming. Come on and tell us what it is... I'll wait....

 

[SSDD]

What empirical evidence do you possess that would disprove AGW. You're just a doubt spreader with a political motive.

The empirical evidence is scattered across the scientific landscape and if you actually knew anything about science, you would have already seen it.

In most branches of real science, if a hypothesis experiences a predictive failure, it is scrapped and work begins on a new hypothesis which won’t experience predictive failures..or the hypothesis is modified in an effort to avoid future predictive failures.

The scientific landscape is literally littered with all the predictive failures experienced by the AGW hypothesis over the past 3 decades. No modification has been made on the original radiative greenhouse effect hypothesis and the failures continue. There is your empirical evidence...

In real science, a single predictive failure is sufficient to cause a hypothesis to be scrapped or seriously modified...in pseudoscience, however, any number of predictive failures are acceptable, so long as the funding continues.