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

[daveman]

You cant make this stuff up.

Clearly you can, because you just did. You posted Spencer's completely fudged graph. It's been pointed out tot you before that it's fraudulent, so you know it's fraudulent, but you posted the fraud anyway.

Back in reality, the models have been excellent. Anyone pretending otherwise is a lying fraud. Every denier on this thread is such a lying fraud.

NOAA is a lying fraud?

Funny how you used to point to them as gospel.

Cultists don't like apostasy.

 

[SSDD]

That makes no sense.
The atmosphere gets much colder the higher you get, so there can be hardly any conduction or convection going on.
The heat attempting to leave the earth HAS to be radiative.
No other form of heat can possibly leave the earth since the earth is surrounded by a vacuum that can not conduct or convent anything.

You really are uninformed on this topic aren't you? Belief that there is more ice at the poles than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years, belief that water vapor doesn't get to the top of the troposphere, and belief that the dominant mode of energy movement through the troposphere is radiation rather than conduction and convection.

What you are trying to claim is that greenhouse gases do not exist, and clearly they to.

Whoever said that so called greenhouse gasses don't exist? Of course they do...they just don't do much radiating. When a so called greenhouse gas molecule absorbs a photon of IR, the time it takes to then emit that photon is about half a second...in that time, that molecule will experience hundreds of thousands of collisions with other molecules, usually N2 or O2 and the so called greenhouse gas molecule usually loses that energy it absorbed by collision rather than radiation...the process is called conduction. About 1 in a billion CO2 molecules actually emits a photon...the rest lose the energy they absorb via collision...that is the energy is conducted away rather than being radiated away.

 

[daveman]

They don't know why? I'm no computer expert but I know one thing, faulty information leads to faulty conclusions.

...especially when you start with your desired conclusion and write the models to fit, using altered data.

 

[SSDD]

Modeling is an iterative process.
You try a hypothesis, and when it fails, you look for a correction.
When that works better, you keep that correction, and move on to the next smaller tweak.
When modeling is inaccurate, that does not mean you are totally wrong.
But with climate, we have actual data so do not rely on modeling to tell us we have a problem.
Modeling is only to project an extrapolation into the future, beyond the global warming we already know about for sure.

The past 3 decades are littered with failed predictions of the AGW hypothesis. In real science, when a hypothesis experiences a predictive failure, the hypothesis is either scrapped, or seriously modified in an effort to come up with a hypothesis that won't experience predictive failures. In pseudoscience, a hypothesis can experience any number of predictive failures and it is OK so long as the funding continues.

 

[SSDD]

They don't know why? I'm no computer expert but I know one thing, faulty information leads to faulty conclusions.

If you include the massive heat energy consumed by ice melting phase change, then the temperatures we are recording are exactly as predicted.

are you saying ice never melted before?

NEVER to this degree.
There was no North Pole navigation route for the last 10,000 years at least, until 2007.

That is absolute, unmitigated bullshit. The fact is that there is more ice in the arctic now than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years.

Here is a gold standard (according to climate science) GISP2 temperature reconstruction derived from ice cores taken above the arctic circle. As you can see, the temperature today is colder than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.

Here is a graph from the peer reviewed, published Stein, et al showing the arctic ice coverage for the past 10,000 years. As you can see, there are several periods during the past 10,000 years when the arctic may well have been all but ice free. During the period between 7500, and 9500 years ago the arctic was almost certainly ice free during the summer.

Instead of relying on opinion pieces from people with an agenda, you might try looking to the actual literature that is being published. Clearly whoever told you that the north pole has less ice now than it has at any time in the past 10,000 yers didn't have a clue...or perhaps knew, but chose to lie in order to support a narrative. In either case, you are sadly misinformed.

 

[SSDD]

The polar and glacial ice is almost half of what it normally should be.

What is "normal"? Ice cores, and the published, peer reviewed literature tell us that there is more ice in the arctic now than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years.

We don't use models to tell us there is dangerous global warming.

Dangerous? By what standard. The temperature prior to the little ice age was warmer than the present...the little ice age came along and we have been warming out of it for about 150 years...the temperature has not reached the temperature it was prior to the onset of the little ice age...why would you expect that the temperature would not warm up at lest to the point it was prior to the little ice age?...

whoever is giving you your opinion is doing a terrible job at letting you in on the realities of natural variability.

 

[SSDD]

For example, the reality is CO2 is missing. We know how much additional CO2 is added from fossil fuel consumption. But apparently volcanism that we normally associate with additional CO2 release, is also absorbing huge amounts of CO2 from the silicates turning into carbonates. So the models are being tweaked to account for that.

That is questionable as well. The published, peer reviewed literature calls into question whether we are having any real effect on the atmospheric CO2 content at all. The fact is that we don't produce enough CO2 to even overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery.

Here, have a look at some of the published literature on the topic.

For example, termites alone produce two times as much CO2 as we make...the soil produces 9 times more CO2 than we do and as the earth greens, the soil area is expanding producing even more CO2... Just considering those two sources which produce eleven times more CO2 than we do, it is clear that the claim that our relative wisp of CO2 is causing the globe to warm is pseudoscience of the foulest sort.

Here...have a look at the actual scientific literature rather than believe a "hollywood" scientist who is little more than a paid whore for the climate industry. His story doesn't jibe with the peer reviewed published literature on the topic..


https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

“A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming isthat there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … Results do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenicemissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

“The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”
“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

Conclusion:
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whetherrepresenting sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

“The warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

“With the short (5−15 year) RT residence time results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”



https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/011006/meta

“However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”

Error - Cookies Turned Off

“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”


There is plenty more actual evidence that our effect on the atmospheric CO2 concentration is negligible...how much more would you like to see?

 

[Pilot1]

You have to be really weak minded, gullible, and naïve to believe that Man rules the Climate, and Nature (the Sun, etc) does not. Obama weaponized the DOJ, IRS, EPA, Interior and others, but also NOAA and NASA to push his agenda.

 

[daveman]

It isn't surprising that NOAA climate models are way off. It would be interesting to

False.
Models have always been expected to not be accurate.
That is because they assume everything else is static other than the CO2 emissions increase.
And there are several obvious variables.
For example, the higher the CO2 concentrations, the more CO2 will be absorbed by expanded plant growth.
Another is that this also includes possible increase in carbonate shell production, like plankton.
Finally, it also depends on things like volcanoes and landslides, because fresh rock is known to absorb lots of CO2.
Another is that with warming air, you get more water vapor, and that can end up producing more clouds, which can then block more sunlight and cause cooling.
All of these variables had been considered ahead of time, and everyone expected the models to need works.
Models are never the basis for predictions or concerns.
All we need to do is extrapolate existing data graphs to get really worried.

Huh? Models have always been expected to be inaccurate? Al Gore made a fortune off of those models. He told us the polar ice caps were turning to slush and there would be beachfront property in Kansas cuz the models told him so. The Church of Climatology raked in billions based on the doom and gloom in those models.

Totally and completely wrong.

Gore had nothing at all to do with climate models.
The trends were already ACTUALLY happening, with polar and glacial ice melts, ocean rising, air temperatures increasing, hurricane increases, etc.

Climate models are ONLY about guessing when accelerators, like water vapor and methane are going to kick in. And no one ever said they could even remotely predict when or how that would likely happen. All we could do is suggest possibilities. For example, we don't know how more heat is going to cause more global warming from increased water vapor because more water vapor in the atmosphere could also create more reflective clouds. We don't know how much frozen methane hydrate in under the ocean or in tundra, so we can't know when or how much that will effect things. There is no way to model these things, and everyone always knew that. Models were only used to give a max/min range. Anyone who claims models were used for actual predictions is just lying.

Predictions made by climate models

Predictions of Future Global Climate

The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly

Climate Models & Predictions for the Future

Climate models are often used to predict the climate of an Earth in which the carbon dioxide concentration has doubled. This is a prospect very likely to occur within the next 50-100 years, given the current increasing rates of anthropogenic CO2.

Below are some results of climate models run under twice the current global carbon dioxide concentration. The model predictions for future climate are based on forward estimates of the rate of fossil fuel consumption, and thus the production of CO2 and its input to the atmosphere.
​

Oh, look. Climate models being used for actual predictions...you know, the exact opposite of what you claimed.

You should just stop now.

​

 

[Flash]

The AGW scammers have come up with a great solution to the fact that their predictions never come true. They just invent bogus data to cover up the real facts.

 

[Pilot1]

And they keep extending the catastrophic scare tactics every twelve years. Watch Gore's fiction movie, An Inconvenient Truth. All of those prediction were supposed to come true several years ago. NONE HAVE. lol!

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

 

[Flash]

It isn't surprising that NOAA climate models are way off. It would be interesting to

False.
Models have always been expected to not be accurate.
That is because they assume everything else is static other than the CO2 emissions increase.
And there are several obvious variables.
For example, the higher the CO2 concentrations, the more CO2 will be absorbed by expanded plant growth.
Another is that this also includes possible increase in carbonate shell production, like plankton.
Finally, it also depends on things like volcanoes and landslides, because fresh rock is known to absorb lots of CO2.
Another is that with warming air, you get more water vapor, and that can end up producing more clouds, which can then block more sunlight and cause cooling.
All of these variables had been considered ahead of time, and everyone expected the models to need works.
Models are never the basis for predictions or concerns.
All we need to do is extrapolate existing data graphs to get really worried.

Huh? Models have always been expected to be inaccurate? Al Gore made a fortune off of those models. He told us the polar ice caps were turning to slush and there would be beachfront property in Kansas cuz the models told him so. The Church of Climatology raked in billions based on the doom and gloom in those models.

Totally and completely wrong.

Gore had nothing at all to do with climate models.
The trends were already ACTUALLY happening, with polar and glacial ice melts, ocean rising, air temperatures increasing, hurricane increases, etc.

Climate models are ONLY about guessing when accelerators, like water vapor and methane are going to kick in. And no one ever said they could even remotely predict when or how that would likely happen. All we could do is suggest possibilities. For example, we don't know how more heat is going to cause more global warming from increased water vapor because more water vapor in the atmosphere could also create more reflective clouds. We don't know how much frozen methane hydrate in under the ocean or in tundra, so we can't know when or how much that will effect things. There is no way to model these things, and everyone always knew that. Models were only used to give a max/min range. Anyone who claims models were used for actual predictions is just lying.

Predictions made by climate models

Predictions of Future Global Climate

The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly

Climate Models & Predictions for the Future

Climate models are often used to predict the climate of an Earth in which the carbon dioxide concentration has doubled. This is a prospect very likely to occur within the next 50-100 years, given the current increasing rates of anthropogenic CO2.

Below are some results of climate models run under twice the current global carbon dioxide concentration. The model predictions for future climate are based on forward estimates of the rate of fossil fuel consumption, and thus the production of CO2 and its input to the atmosphere.
​

Oh, look. Climate models being used for actual predictions...you know, the exact opposite of what you claimed.

You should just stop now.

​

Predictions are only true if the measurements are accurate. What we have found out is that the AGW scammers have created false measurements to cover up reality. They get caught at it all the time. They even admitted it in the emails exposed by Climategate I&II. Obama even corrupted NASA and NOAA to create false data.

AGW is a big scam. We all know that as a fact. The stupid Moon Bats may not know it but they are as ignorant of Climate Science as they are of Economics, History, Biology, Ethics, The Constitution and just about everything else.

 

[mamooth]

NOAA is a lying fraud?

What a profoudnly retarded statement on your part. NOAA didn't say any of the crap your cult claims. Spencer and the all the deniers are just pushing fraud when they claim such nonsense.

I understand why all denier cultists rely entirely on fraud. All the data contradicts their loopy conspiracy babbling. Honesty is not an option for denier cultists, since they'd be ejected from their authoritarian cult if they told the truth. To cult herd animals like deniers, the loss of their herd would be a death sentence, so they'll tell whatever lies are necessary to remain in good standing with their herd/cult.

Again, the models have been excellent. For the same reasons that we know flat-earthers are lying, we know deniers are lying -- because the data says so. Now, I'm going to present you with actual data, and hen laugh as you get triggered. Here's the actual model record, and it's been excellent.

Climate model projections compared to observations

 

[daveman]

It isn't surprising that NOAA climate models are way off. It would be interesting to

False.
Models have always been expected to not be accurate.
That is because they assume everything else is static other than the CO2 emissions increase.
And there are several obvious variables.
For example, the higher the CO2 concentrations, the more CO2 will be absorbed by expanded plant growth.
Another is that this also includes possible increase in carbonate shell production, like plankton.
Finally, it also depends on things like volcanoes and landslides, because fresh rock is known to absorb lots of CO2.
Another is that with warming air, you get more water vapor, and that can end up producing more clouds, which can then block more sunlight and cause cooling.
All of these variables had been considered ahead of time, and everyone expected the models to need works.
Models are never the basis for predictions or concerns.
All we need to do is extrapolate existing data graphs to get really worried.

Huh? Models have always been expected to be inaccurate? Al Gore made a fortune off of those models. He told us the polar ice caps were turning to slush and there would be beachfront property in Kansas cuz the models told him so. The Church of Climatology raked in billions based on the doom and gloom in those models.

Totally and completely wrong.

Gore had nothing at all to do with climate models.
The trends were already ACTUALLY happening, with polar and glacial ice melts, ocean rising, air temperatures increasing, hurricane increases, etc.

Climate models are ONLY about guessing when accelerators, like water vapor and methane are going to kick in. And no one ever said they could even remotely predict when or how that would likely happen. All we could do is suggest possibilities. For example, we don't know how more heat is going to cause more global warming from increased water vapor because more water vapor in the atmosphere could also create more reflective clouds. We don't know how much frozen methane hydrate in under the ocean or in tundra, so we can't know when or how much that will effect things. There is no way to model these things, and everyone always knew that. Models were only used to give a max/min range. Anyone who claims models were used for actual predictions is just lying.

Predictions made by climate models

Predictions of Future Global Climate

The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly

Climate Models & Predictions for the Future

Climate models are often used to predict the climate of an Earth in which the carbon dioxide concentration has doubled. This is a prospect very likely to occur within the next 50-100 years, given the current increasing rates of anthropogenic CO2.

Below are some results of climate models run under twice the current global carbon dioxide concentration. The model predictions for future climate are based on forward estimates of the rate of fossil fuel consumption, and thus the production of CO2 and its input to the atmosphere.
​

Oh, look. Climate models being used for actual predictions...you know, the exact opposite of what you claimed.

You should just stop now.

​

Predictions are only true if the measurements are accurate. What we have found out is that the AGW scammers have created false measurements to cover up reality. They get caught at it all the time. That even admitted it in the emails exposed by Climategate I&II. Obama even corrupted NASA abd NOAA to create false data.

AGW is a big scam. We all know that as a fact. The stupid Moon Bats may not know it but they are as ignorant of Climate Science as they are of Economics, History, Biology, Ethics, The Constitution and just about everything else.

It's true because they want it to be true.

They really do believe reality bends to their emotions. Utterly pathetic.

 

[mamooth]

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.

 

[daveman]

NOAA is a lying fraud?

What a profoudnly retarded statement on your part. NOAA didn't say any of the crap your cult claims. Spencer and the all the deniers are just pushing fraud when they claim such nonsense.

I understand why all denier cultists rely entirely on fraud. All the data contradicts their loopy conspiracy babbling. Honesty is not an option for denier cultists, since they'd be ejected from their authoritarian cult if they told the truth. To cult herd animals like deniers, the loss of their herd would be a death sentence, so they'll tell whatever lies are necessary to remain in good standing with their herd/cult.

Again, the models have been excellent. For the same reasons that we know flat-earthers are lying, we know deniers are lying -- because the data says so. Now, I'm going to present you with actual data, and hen laugh as you get triggered. Here's the actual model record, and it's been excellent.

Climate model projections compared to observations

"All the altered data", you mean.

A link to a klimate kultist site is less than credible, but I understand you're unable to consider anything that isn't dogma.

 

[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.”​

 

[mamooth]

It's true because they want it to be true.

They really do believe reality bends to their emotions. Utterly pathetic.

You're like a flat-earther screaming about how all the round-earthers are brainwashed. Amusing, and pathetic.

You cult masters lied to you about the models.

Someone with a spine would call them to task for that.

You won't. The prospect of not having your cult to tell you what to think and do terrifies you too much.

 

[SSDD]

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.

Of course the prediction was made...gore didn’t make it though...the prediction was made by no less than Hansen himself....what a liar you are hairball...

 

[daveman]

It's true because they want it to be true.

They really do believe reality bends to their emotions. Utterly pathetic.

You're like a flat-earther screaming about how all the round-earthers are brainwashed. Amusing, and pathetic.

You cult masters lied to you about the models.

Someone with a spine would call them to task for that.

You won't. The prospect of not having your cult to tell you what to think and do terrifies you too much.

Uh huh. Say, what about your claim that no one predicted the oceans would rise into NYC? I just proved you wrong about that.

Admit you're wrong, or shut the **** up.