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

[mamooth]

"All the altered data", you mean

As it is with any cultist, your cult anti-reality bubble can't be penetrated. You've cut yourself off from reality.

Did someone present inconvenient data that contradicts sacred cult scripture? Just scream it's fraudulent! Problem solved!

At this stage, you're only interesting as an example of abnormal cult psychology.

Go on, keep calling me a heretic if it makes you feel better. That will gain you major brownie points with the cult. After all, I have insulted your sacred religious scripture with hard facts and data, and your cult can never forgive such crimes.

 

[SSDD]

"All the altered data", you mean

As it is with any cultist, your cult anti-reality bubble can't be penetrated. You've cut yourself off from reality.

Did someone present inconvenient data that contradicts sacred cult scripture? Just scream it's fraudulent! Problem solved!

At this stage, you're only interesting as an example of abnormal cult psychology.

Go on, keep calling me a heretic if it makes you feel better. That will gain you major brownie points with the cult. After all, I have insulted your sacred religious scripture with hard facts and data, and your cult can never forgive such crimes.

You rant just like a fundamentalist tv preacher...the only difference is the god you are referring to.

 

[Pilot1]

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.

Quoted for TRUTH!

 

[daveman]

"All the altered data", you mean

As it is with any cultist, your cult anti-reality bubble can't be penetrated. You've cut yourself off from reality.

Did someone present inconvenient data that contradicts sacred cult scripture? Just scream it's fraudulent! Problem solved!

At this stage, you're only interesting as an example of abnormal cult psychology.

Go on, keep calling me a heretic if it makes you feel better. That will gain you major brownie points with the cult. After all, I have insulted your sacred religious scripture with hard facts and data, and your cult can never forgive such crimes.

James Hansen, High Priest of the Church of the Warming Globe, predicted in 1988 that New York City would be underwater in 20-40 years.

You said no one made such a prediction.

You were undeniable wrong. Period. End of story.

Pretending the proof of your heresy isn't there doesn't mean it is, cultist. You're going to burn in Socialist Hell.

 

[mamooth]

No such prediction was made?

Yep. I'm right. You're wrong. SSDD is wrong. That's not debatable. I know the actual facts, while you two cult acolytes only know what your cult feeds you.

First, you in particular look like a 'tard for conflating Gore and Hansen. They're two different people.

Second, Hansen never said that. You get fed bad propaganda.

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.”​

Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
---
Bob Reiss reports the conversation as follows:

"When I interviewed James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2. I'd been trying to think of a way to discuss the greenhouse effect in a way that would make sense to average readers. I wasn't asking for hard scientific studies. It wasn't an academic interview. It was a discussion with a kind and thoughtful man who answered the question. You can find the description in two of my books, most recently The Coming Storm."

"although the book text is correct, in remembering our original conversation, during a casual phone interview with a Salon magazine reporter in 2001 I was off in years.”
---

So, Hansen's prediction was for 40 years after a doubling. Being that CO2 hasn't doubled yet, that 40 year ticker hasn't even started. Hence, the prediction you claim was made wasn't made. That's not debatable. You're just flat out wrong. You're pushing a myth.

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.

Back at ya, cult boi. Admit you're wrong, or shut the **** up. And then perhaps question why you trust sources that lie to you over and over. And question whether you'll burn in Hell for so willingly repeating the lies that they feed you.

(By the way, I'm laughing my ass off now. Dang, you stepped in it this time. You're so stupid, and so arrogant in your stupidity.)

 

[daveman]

No such prediction was made?

Yep. I'm right. You're wrong. SSDD is wrong. That's not debatable. I know the actual facts, while you two cult acolytes only know what your cult feeds you.

First, you in particular look like a 'tard for conflating Gore and Hansen. They're two different people.

Second, Hansen never said that. You got ba

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.”​

​

So, I've shown that you got the facts wrong again.

You poor deluded cultist. Your masters have only let you know what they want you to know.

Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
---
Bob Reiss reports the conversation as follows:

"When I interviewed James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2. I'd been trying to think of a way to discuss the greenhouse effect in a way that would make sense to average readers. I wasn't asking for hard scientific studies. It wasn't an academic interview. It was a discussion with a kind and thoughtful man who answered the question. You can find the description in two of my books, most recently The Coming Storm."

"although the book text is correct, in remembering our original conversation, during a casual phone interview with a Salon magazine reporter in 2001 I was off in years.”
---

So, Hansen's prediction was for 40 years after a doubling. Being that CO2 hasn't doubled yet, that 40 year ticker hasn't even started. hence, no such prediction was made. That's not debatable. You're just flat out wrong. You're pushing a myth.

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.

Back at ya, cult boi. Admit you're wrong, or shut the **** up. And then perhaps question why you trust sources that lie to you over and over.[/QUOTE]
So, you prove that Hansen didn't make the prediction by proving he made the prediction.

Brilliant.

 

[SSDD]

Poor hairball...so deep in denial that you have become pathetic.

 

[mamooth]

If you make a model and the prediction that model makes don't match reality then either...

And the climate models match reality well.

If someone told you otherwise, why did you just blindly believe them?

Oh, I see. It was raging confirmation bias on your part. You wanted to believe it, because it matched your politics, so you no longer cared what the facts said.

 

[Rigby5]

We use real life data for that.

And when the real life data doesn't match the confirmation bias ... alter the data.

You know what happens when you do that with an airplane full of passengers?

No one is altering the real life data to fit the model.
No one cares if the model is right or not, because if it is wrong it gives them more work to get paid to do.

The reason some people have claimed the data is being manipulated is that urban weather stations are sometimes being corrected for the fact cities now have dust domes and inversion layers that deflect actually weather values.

 

[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. 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.

Quoted for TRUTH!

"All the altered data", you mean

As it is with any cultist, your cult anti-reality bubble can't be penetrated. You've cut yourself off from reality.

Did someone present inconvenient data that contradicts sacred cult scripture? Just scream it's fraudulent! Problem solved!

At this stage, you're only interesting as an example of abnormal cult psychology.

Go on, keep calling me a heretic if it makes you feel better. That will gain you major brownie points with the cult. After all, I have insulted your sacred religious scripture with hard facts and data, and your cult can never forgive such crimes.

James Hansen, High Priest of the Church of the Warming Globe, predicted in 1988 that New York City would be underwater in 20-40 years.

You said no one made such a prediction.

You were undeniable wrong. Period. End of story.

Pretending the proof of your heresy isn't there doesn't mean it is, cultist. You're going to burn in Socialist Hell.

In 2004 Florida got hit by four hurricanes and the AGW scammers said that it was just the beginning. Global warming was going to devastate Florida with hurricanes. However, it was 12 years before another hurricane hit Florida. We had 10-12 years of quiet hurricane seasons.

Nothing they ever say comes true.

They lost their credibility a long time ago.

 

[Rigby5]

I don't buy that in the least.
Water vapor can not get anywhere near the upper troposphere in any quantity because it is like -50 degrees, and much too cold.

Guess you never saw one of these: It is called a cumulonimbus. Their tops are usually in the neighborhood of 32,000 feet and often airliners must go miles out of the way to avoid such clouds that are in their flight path... The troposphere, oddly enough tops out at about 32,000 feet. Now if those clouds, and the cirrus clouds you often see are not water vapor, exactly what are they?

You said it yourself, that "clouds" or water vapor can't get above 32000'.
That means there is almost no water vapor at the crossover layer to space.
There is more CO2 than anything else.
And the CO2 at that layer traps most radiant heat from escaping.
Why are you even beginning to argue this, since if not for normal global warming, the whole world would be about 40 degree colder, and almost no life could survive. Obviously global warming has always been essential to the survival of plants and animals. And it should also be obvious that too much increase in CO2 will cause huge hardships as oceans can rise as much as 250' if it gets warm enough to melt all polar and glacial ice.

 

[mamooth]

So, you prove that Hansen didn't make the prediction by proving he made the prediction.

Brilliant.

It's clear I'm going to have to help you out here.

Bob Weiss interviewed Hansen.

Hansen said 40 years after a doubling.

Some time later, in an interview with Salon, Weiss misremembered and said "Hansen said 20 years from now." That's Weiss talking, not Hansen. That's what you quoted.

Later, Weiss admits he screwed it up. Hansen agrees. Everyone agrees the actual statement was "40 years after a doubling."

Being Weiss is your source as well, you're kind of screwed. If you say he's reliable, then Hansen never made your prediction, because Weiss retracted it. If you say he's a fraud, then Hansen never made any prediction, because you can't trust Weiss on anything.

So, admit you were wrong, or shut the **** up.

And when in a hole, stop digging.

 

[Rigby5]

but no one is trusting or using models for any legislation, yet.

List of climate change initiatives - Wikipedia

European Climate Change Programme - Wikipedia

"There has been a 20-fold increase in the number of global climate change laws since 1997, according to the most comprehensive database of relevant policy and legislation."

Mapped: Climate change laws around the world | Carbon Brief

Yes there have been changes in laws to reduce global warming, but they have NOT been due to any modeling.
You don't need modeling to see millions of gallons of Greenland melt off pouring into the ocean, the opening of the Northwest Passage for the first time in 10,000 years, the great loss of Antarctic ice shelf, etc.

 

[Rigby5]

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

Quoted for TRUTH!

"All the altered data", you mean

As it is with any cultist, your cult anti-reality bubble can't be penetrated. You've cut yourself off from reality.

Did someone present inconvenient data that contradicts sacred cult scripture? Just scream it's fraudulent! Problem solved!

At this stage, you're only interesting as an example of abnormal cult psychology.

Go on, keep calling me a heretic if it makes you feel better. That will gain you major brownie points with the cult. After all, I have insulted your sacred religious scripture with hard facts and data, and your cult can never forgive such crimes.

James Hansen, High Priest of the Church of the Warming Globe, predicted in 1988 that New York City would be underwater in 20-40 years.

You said no one made such a prediction.

You were undeniable wrong. Period. End of story.

Pretending the proof of your heresy isn't there doesn't mean it is, cultist. You're going to burn in Socialist Hell.

In 2004 Florida got hit by four hurricanes and the AGW scammers said that it was just the beginning. Global warming was going to devastate Florida with hurricanes. However, it was 12 years before another hurricane hit Florida. We had 10-12 years of quiet hurricane seasons.

Nothing they ever say comes true.

They lost their credibility a long time ago.

Wrong.
First of all, there were 2 hurricanes in 2005 as well.

{...
Storm Saffir-Simpson
Category Date of landfall Year Landfall Intensity
(in knots) Landfall Location
Great Middle Florida 3 August 23 1851 100 Panama City
Unnamed 3 August 17 1871 100 Jupiter Island
Unnamed 3 October 7 1873 100 Captiva Island
Unnamed 3 October 3 1877 100 Panama City
Unnamed 3 September 10 1882 110 Navarre
Unnamed 3 August 16 1888 110 Miami Beach
Unnamed 3 October 9 1894 105 Panama City
Unnamed 3 September 29 1896 110 Cedar Key
Unnamed 3 October 18 1906 105 Marathon
Unnamed 3 October 11 1909 100 Marathon
Unnamed 3 September 29 1917 100 Fort Walton Beach
Unnamed 4 September 10 1919 130 Dry Tortugas
Great Miami 4 September 18–20 1926 125 Palmetto Bay
Okeechobee 4 September 17 1928 125 Palm Beach
Unnamed 3 September 4 1933 110 Jupiter
Labor Day 5 September 3 1935 160 Craig Key
Unnamed 3 October 18 1944 105 Dry Tortugas
Unnamed 4 September 15 1945 115 North Key Largo
Unnamed 4 September 17 1947 115 Fort Lauderdale
Unnamed 4 September 21–22 1948 115 Near Chokoloskee
Unnamed 4 August 26 1949 115 Lake Worth
Easy 3 September 5 1950 105 Near Cedar Key
King 4 October 18 1950 115 Coconut Grove, Miami
Donna 4 September 10 1960 125 Conch Key
Betsy 3 September 8 1965 110 Tavernier
Eloise 3 September 23 1975 110 Near Destin
Elena 3 September 2 1985 100 Gulfport, MS*
Andrew 5 August 24 1992 145 Near Homestead
Opal 3 October 4 1995 100 Pensacola Beach
Charley 4 August 13 2004 130 Cayo Costa
Ivan 3 September 16 2004 105 Near Gulf Shores, AL*
Jeanne 3 September 26 2004 105 Hutchinson Island
Dennis 3 July 10 2005 105 Santa Rosa Island
Wilma 3 October 24 2005 105 Cape Romano
Irma 4 September 10 2017 115 Cudjoe Key
Michael 5 October 10 2018 140 Mexico Beach
...}

Second is that when hurricanes have more power from the greater heat, they tend to move faster and that simply causes them to miss Florida.
So Florida not getting hit does not mean that weather is not more extreme.

 

[mamooth]

We had 10-12 years of quiet hurricane seasons.

And the rest of the world? You don't seem to understand the term "global".

By the way, AGW theory doesn't predict more numbers of hurricanes. It predicts more powerful hurricanes, which is being seen.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Wrong.
There clearly is far less ice at the poles than there ever has been in the last 10,000 years. That is well documented fact. I remember when the USS Natilus went under the pole in summer of 1958, and not only was it totally locked in ice, but they said it had been for over 10,000 years. Now ships are routinely crossing the North Pole.

Of course water can't get to the top of the troposphere in any quantity because it is far too cold. How much water vapor do you think the atmosphere can support when it is -50 degrees? Sure a column of hot moisture can temporarily approach the upper troposphere, but why do you think you see that column as a cloud? It is because the cold is condensing it into liquid water that is going to fall quickly down.

It is impossible for heat to get past the upper troposphere and out into space in any form but radiant. No vibratory heat can conduct or convect out into space. So any CO2 near the edge of space will reduce what can radiation out. We don't care about the whole troposphere. It is only the edge of space that matters.

And you seem to not understand how greenhouse gases work. When they are hit by infrared radiation, they do not and can not radiate almost anything back.
That infrared energy they are hit with turns almost completely and entirely into vibratory heat. If you claim you can see hot CO2 on an infrared scanner, you would be lying. CO2 does not transmit or radiate heat. It only conducts or convects, to any significant degree.
And the point is that for the earth to lose heat, it can ONLY be radiated out into space, since no heat can be conducted or convected into the vacuum of space.
CO2 that conducts or convects heat is heat that is trapped to the earth.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

That is just silly.
Not only is polar ice about half what it was and should be, but mountain ice is melting so fast that cities won't be able to use them for water supplies any more.
Not a single human caused global warming prediction has ever failed.
And there is no significant funding for global warming research. Government agencies like NOAA are funded identically if there were global warming or not.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

That absolutely makes no sense at all.
First of all, if sea ice were melting more than now in the past, then there could not possibly be a record of it. The only way you can have a historical record of sea ice, is it is has NEVER EVER melted off completely in that time period.
Second is that we can use Greenland ice to tell us whether or not polar ice ever had warmer periods of melt off, and it has not been warmer than now since the period between 130,000 and 115,000 years ago. There have been short anomalies, but they are due to volcanism, comet impact, and obit deviations.

We are supposed to entering into a cold period.
The warming after the end of an ice age is over.
The warming is supposed to have increased plant growth to the point that CO2 should be low, and it is supposed to be cooling now.
We are coming out of one of the warmest periods in the last 100 thousand year, and it is supposed to be cooling now.
The difference between the temperature now and what it should be is much greater than the comparison between the temperature now and what it was.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

You cant make this stuff up. Now NOAA is admitting their climate modeling programs run 5+ degrees C hotter than reality. And they DON'T KNOW WHY...

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.

Climate Modellers Waiting for Observations to Catch Up with Their Predictions

Here's some empirical observations for you..dumbass:

 

[Rigby5]

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.

That makes no sense.
We are coming out of the warming period that ended the last great ice age, and are supposed to be well into the beginning of the next ice age, so comparing us to the extreme warming is pointless.
However, it is also clear we have started the most rapid warming in the history of the planet. Never before has it ever warmed this rapidly.

And no, there is not more arctic ice than there has been for the last 10,000 years. There was no Northwest Passage before 2007, and now there not only is, but it has stayed.

It is dangerous because there are huge amounts of frozen methane hydrate in frozen tundar and under the ocean. It we make it warm enough, these will melt, be released, and greatly accelerate the warming that should NOT be taking place. In the grand scheme of climate cycles, we are supposed to be over the warming, and into the start of the next cooling. Instead we are piling a new warming of the highest magnitude, on top of the previous already existing natural warming. That is unprecedented, and incredibly dangerous. The temperature reached are likely to be beyond the survivability of most life on earth.