Warmist experts wrong over and over

Tipsycatlover

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2016
Messages
40,672
Reaction score
12,039
Points
2,220
Get ready for global FREEZING, Scientists have been saying it for more than a year. While activists are trying to sell global warming to seize control of the economy the truth is, it is going to get cold. It will get much colder. Then it will get even colder.

 
OP
Sunsettommy

Sunsettommy

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
5,302
Reaction score
2,642
Points
385
Have you ever heard the saying "When you're in a hole, stop digging"? You're in a hole.

Why aren't you referring to the consensus models and forecasts? Because they've all been so good, and you know it. That's why you can only cherrypick and make stuff up.
Typical deflection when fools like Mamooth can't address the well known Arctic Ice Free forecasts, heck I posted the evidence and QUOTES from the people who made them. some of them in the link are from their own websites!

Like this one Mamooth ignored:

1589651763732.png


or this one,

1589651853402.png


Link to see this better

You are in total denial that this happened, over and over. They finally stopped making these predictions after being wrong over and over, the fuckwits finally realized they were digging a deep hole......

You are stupid as hell!
 
Last edited:

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
21,948
Reaction score
4,112
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
Typical deflection when fools like Mamooth
I've already pointed out that all you can do is dishonest cherrypicks. Everyone already knows it, so you didn't need to confirm my point yet another time.

The actual consensus forecasts have been excellent. Only the most desperate cult liars still try to deny it. Therefore, you're still trying to deny it.

I kind of get it. Your cult is collapsing under the weight of reality, and your whole sense of self-worth is based on your identification with that cult. Your world is crumbling around you, and that's left you terrified and in denial.
 
OP
Sunsettommy

Sunsettommy

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
5,302
Reaction score
2,642
Points
385
Typical deflection when fools like Mamooth
I've already pointed out that all you can do is dishonest cherrypicks. Everyone already knows it, so you didn't need to confirm my point yet another time.

The actual consensus forecasts have been excellent. Only the most desperate cult liars still try to deny it. Therefore, you're still trying to deny it.

I kind of get it. Your cult is collapsing under the weight of reality, and your whole sense of self-worth is based on your identification with that cult. Your world is crumbling around you, and that's left you terrified and in denial.
Another dead on arrival from the warmist/alarmist, who ignored what Wadham, and Backwith stated in post 22, full quote from Beckwith, notice HIS headline....:

Why Arctic sea ice will vanish in 2013




By Paul Beckwith

On March 23, 2013, I made the following prediction:

“For the record—I do not think that any sea ice will survive this summer. An event unprecedented in human history is today, this very moment, transpiring in the Arctic Ocean. The cracks in the sea ice that I reported in my Sierra blog and elsewhere have spread. Worse news is at this very moment the entire sea ice sheet (or about 99 percent of it) covering the Arctic Ocean is on the move (clockwise), and the thin, weakened icecap has literally begun to tear apart.
This is abrupt climate change in real-time.

Humans have benefited greatly from a stable climate for the last 11,000 years (roughly 400 human generations). Not anymore. We now face an angry climate -- one that we have poked in the eye with our fossil fuel stick -- and have to deal with the consequences.

We must set aside our differences and prepare for what we can no longer avoid: massive disruption to our civilization."

bolding mine

=======

It is clear you just got smacked by Beckwith himself. :laugh:

It has been six years since then, still plenty of summer ice hanging around for 2020 summer.

He was wrong about the early interglacial time when there was little to NO summer sea ice, for centuries in the Arctic.

The guy is a lying propagandist.

You are so bad at this.
 
Last edited:

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
112,815
Reaction score
24,081
Points
2,220
Location
Location, location
anyone else find it odd that in the search for potentially habitable exoplanets NASA never discusses the importance of monitoring for nearly imperceptible changes in CO2?
 
OP
Sunsettommy

Sunsettommy

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
5,302
Reaction score
2,642
Points
385
Here is another famous prediction failure to laugh over, it is an utter failure.

C3 Headlines

The Simple & Sad Truth About Computer Climate Models: They Can't Predict Squat

February 03, 2020

Excerpt:


This NASA climate model chart certainly confirms why expert computer climate simulations are held in such contempt and ridiculed; and also why they should not be utilized for policy work performed by politicians and bureaucrats.

1590595699111.png


The failure of climate models at what they were originally intended to accomplish has forced the major climate research agencies into a constant state of both "upgrading" their wildly expensive climate models and "correcting" past actual temperature measurements.

This particular model was instrumental in starting the egregious and shrill propaganda war against economic growth and prosperity way back in 1988.

LINK

The excuses for his utter failure has been so hilarious, I wonder what they will say now?
 
Last edited:

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
21,948
Reaction score
4,112
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
1983, when the models were put together, was before the Montreal Protocols, so the models used high CFC estimates. Real CFC levels ended up being much lower. That's why the models run a little high. Corrected for that, the models would be right on.

Now, if someone wants to claim Hansen should have known what CFC levels were going to be ... they'll sound insane.

Hansen's models look espectially good when compared to denier predictinos, as deniers couldn't even get the direction of the change correct. They were all predicting cooling, and still are.
 
Last edited:

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
112,815
Reaction score
24,081
Points
2,220
Location
Location, location
1983, when the models were put together, was before the Montreal Protocols, so the models used high CFC estimates. Real CFC levels ended up being much lower. That's why the models run a little high. Corrected for that, the models would be right on.

Now, if someone wants to claim Hansen should have known what CFC levels were going to be ... they'll sound insane.

Hansen's models look espectially good when compared to denier predictinos, as deniers couldn't even get the direction of the change correct. They were all predicting cooling, and still are.
The models are flawless, once you take out all the errors. Awesome! That's settled science!

 
OP
Sunsettommy

Sunsettommy

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
5,302
Reaction score
2,642
Points
385
1983, when the models were put together, was before the Montreal Protocols, so the models used high CFC estimates. Real CFC levels ended up being much lower. That's why the models run a little high. Corrected for that, the models would be right on.

Now, if someone wants to claim Hansen should have known what CFC levels were going to be ... they'll sound insane.

Hansen's models look espectially good when compared to denier predictinos, as deniers couldn't even get the direction of the change correct. They were all predicting cooling, and still are.
Did you even read his ORIGINAL 1988 paper at all? :rolleyes:

CFC's has little over all effect on forcing in his paper......

You said models (Plural) but only a rational being could say at best, ONE of the models could be right on......, the other would be wrong automatically. Which scenario could be right on?

Snicker....., you didn't say..... snicker......

CFC's were supposed to greatly reduce OZONE layer, but now with CFC's production mostly depleted and mostly gone from the atmosphere, the "hole" still shows up, heck even the northern one had a small hole last winter...., without CFC's lurking around up there...

You were shown a big chart last year showing that CFC's have no measurable effect on todays O3 "hole", they show up anyway, even with no visible CFC's in the area.

Your are grasping for straws, without a rational thought in the process.

Your excuses are absurd.
 

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
21,948
Reaction score
4,112
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
CFC's has little over all effect on forcing in his paper......
And his models were only slightly off, so that makes sense.

You said models (Plural) but only a rational being could say at best, ONE of the models could be right on......, the other would be wrong automatically. Which scenario could be right on?
You seem to be confused about the concept of scenarios. If the emissions scenario isn't close to the one used by the model, then the model is invalid, not incorrect.

CFC's were supposed to greatly reduce OZONE layer, but now with CFC's production mostly depleted and mostly gone from the atmosphere, the "hole" still shows up,
They're not mostly gone from the atmosphere. Who told you such a crazy thing, and why did you believe it?

As usual, you fail at the basics.
 
OP
Sunsettommy

Sunsettommy

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
5,302
Reaction score
2,642
Points
385
CFC's has little over all effect on forcing in his paper......
And his models were only slightly off, so that makes sense.

You said models (Plural) but only a rational being could say at best, ONE of the models could be right on......, the other would be wrong automatically. Which scenario could be right on?
You seem to be confused about the concept of scenarios. If the emissions scenario isn't close to the one used by the model, then the model is invalid, not incorrect.

CFC's were supposed to greatly reduce OZONE layer, but now with CFC's production mostly depleted and mostly gone from the atmosphere, the "hole" still shows up,
They're not mostly gone from the atmosphere. Who told you such a crazy thing, and why did you believe it?

As usual, you fail at the basics.
As usual you ignored the papers I have linked to, you ignore what they say completely.

All you do is inject unsupported assertions over and over.

You are truly stupid.

You write this stupidity:

Hansen's models look espectially good when compared to denier predictinos, as deniers couldn't even get the direction of the change correct. They were all predicting cooling, and still are.
His three models (PLURAL) have a drastically different outcome, but your tiny brain thinks they are "... Hansen's models look espectially good..." are essentially the same in outcome.

:cuckoo: :cuckoo: :cuckoo:

It is obvious you never read the 1988 paper at all.

You were shown by Flacaltenn LAST YEAR that CFC's in the air has largely dissipated, but the O3 "hole" remains, even showed up at the North pole last winter. but you are famous for having serious memory holes.....

Do you eat a bowl of stupid every morning?
 

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
21,948
Reaction score
4,112
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
You are truly stupid.

You write this stupidity:
Do you think your pissy act gains any converts to your cult? Do you think anyone sees it and say "Yeah, I want to be just like that!"?

You were shown by Flacaltenn LAST YEAR that CFC's in the air has largely dissipated,
Meanwhile, back in reality ...



And ...

 
OP
Sunsettommy

Sunsettommy

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
5,302
Reaction score
2,642
Points
385
You are truly stupid.

You write this stupidity:
Do you think your pissy act gains any converts to your cult? Do you think anyone sees it and say "Yeah, I want to be just like that!"?

You were shown by Flacaltenn LAST YEAR that CFC's in the air has largely dissipated,
Meanwhile, back in reality ...



And ...

Parts per TRILLION...... :auiqs.jpg:

The chart Flacaltenn posted was in parts per BILLION, there it showed a marked decline........,

You still haven't showed that CFC's have much warm forcing in the atmosphere, that is what I keep hitting you on. The published Emission scenarios in the IPCC reports rarely even mention CFC's at all, it is CO2 being the dominant warm forcing agent in the scenarios.

I see that you drop the dead on arrival defense of the three modeling scenarios..... :cool:

You flop around like a fish, I am impressed.
 

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
21,948
Reaction score
4,112
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
The chart Flacaltenn posted was in parts per BILLION, there it showed a marked decline........,
Does this chart exist anywhere except in your imagination? If you think it's such an awesome chart, present it. I don't remember seeing any such thing.

This isn't really a debate. CFC levels are only down about 20% from peak. That's why the ozone hole is still there, though not quite as big. What you're babbling has no basis in reality.

You still haven't showed that CFC's have much warm forcing in the atmosphere, that is what I keep hitting you on. The published Emission scenarios in the IPCC reports rarely even mention CFC's at all, it is CO2 being the dominant warm forcing agent in the scenarios.
As is always the case, you're stunningly ignorant of the actual science here. This is from IPCC AR5. It shows the halocarbon effect as being about 10% as big as the CO2 effect.



Seriously, don't you ever get tired of face planting every time you go off-script?
 
OP
Sunsettommy

Sunsettommy

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
5,302
Reaction score
2,642
Points
385
The chart Flacaltenn posted was in parts per BILLION, there it showed a marked decline........,
Does this chart exist anywhere except in your imagination? If you think it's such an awesome chart, present it. I don't remember seeing any such thing.

This isn't really a debate. CFC levels are only down about 20% from peak. That's why the ozone hole is still there, though not quite as big. What you're babbling has no basis in reality.

You still haven't showed that CFC's have much warm forcing in the atmosphere, that is what I keep hitting you on. The published Emission scenarios in the IPCC reports rarely even mention CFC's at all, it is CO2 being the dominant warm forcing agent in the scenarios.
As is always the case, you're stunningly ignorant of the actual science here. This is from IPCC AR5. It shows the halocarbon effect as being about 10% as big as the CO2 effect.



Seriously, don't you ever get tired of face planting every time you go off-script?
The chart are based on modeled assumptions. you are as usual falling for it.

The Confidence levels claims are absurd, since so much of are based on untested models.

:cuckoo:
 

Newtonian

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
1,170
Reaction score
182
Points
73
The chart Flacaltenn posted was in parts per BILLION, there it showed a marked decline........,
Does this chart exist anywhere except in your imagination? If you think it's such an awesome chart, present it. I don't remember seeing any such thing.

This isn't really a debate. CFC levels are only down about 20% from peak. That's why the ozone hole is still there, though not quite as big. What you're babbling has no basis in reality.

You still haven't showed that CFC's have much warm forcing in the atmosphere, that is what I keep hitting you on. The published Emission scenarios in the IPCC reports rarely even mention CFC's at all, it is CO2 being the dominant warm forcing agent in the scenarios.
As is always the case, you're stunningly ignorant of the actual science here. This is from IPCC AR5. It shows the halocarbon effect as being about 10% as big as the CO2 effect.



Seriously, don't you ever get tired of face planting every time you go off-script?
Thank you for the chart. Can you link to it? I would like to study the context.
 

Newtonian

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
1,170
Reaction score
182
Points
73
Same people telling you not to wear masks are the ones telling you not to care about climate change
:eusa_boohoo:

You are off topic....., you have anything to say about WARMISTS prediction failures?

Who said I am not caring about climate change...., you?
On that we agree. Some of the posts here are really off topic! Thankfully some are on topic.

Predictions by humans are fallible - I think we can agree on that as well.

Current events are another matter. Take the Tuvalu Islands for example. From our literature:


"“Veu Lesa, a 73-year-old villager in Tuvalu, does not need scientific reports to tell him that the sea is rising,” says The New Zealand Herald. “The beaches of his childhood are vanishing. The crops that used to feed his family have been poisoned by salt water. In April [2007], he had to leave his home when a spring tide flooded it, and the waves showered it with rocks and debris.”

FOR the people of Tuvalu, a group of islands no more than 13 feet [4 m] above sea level, global warming is, not abstract science, but “a daily reality,” says the Herald.* Thousands have already left the islands, and many more are preparing to go."


"Rising Sea Levels and Deforestation

According to an editorial in the journal Science, “sea levels have risen 10 to 20 centimeters [four to eight inches] in the past century, and more is in store for us.” How might this be related to global warming? Researchers point to two possible mechanisms. One is the prospect of the melting of land-based polar ice and glaciers, which would add to the volume of the oceans. The other factor is thermal expansion—as oceans become warmer, their volume increases.

The tiny Pacific islands of Tuvalu may already be experiencing the effects of rising sea levels. Smithsonian magazine notes that data collected on the atoll of Funafuti shows that the sea level there has risen “an average of 0.22 inches [5.6 mm] annually over the past decade.”
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top