CLIMATE CHANGE: 97% of Climate Models Agree - Global Warming overstated!
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 88
  1. #1
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,469

    CLIMATE CHANGE: 97% of Climate Models Agree - Global Warming overstated!

    Climate models wildly overestimated global warming, study finds | Fox News

    Thatís the upshot of a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change that compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990's to the actual amount of warming. Out of 117 predictions, the studyís author told FoxNews.com, three were roughly accurate and 114 overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.

    Some scientists say the study shows that climate modelers need to go back to the drawing board.

    "It's a real problem ... it shows that there really is something that needs to be fixed in the climate models," climate scientist John Christy, a professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.
    Seems to me that we are not ready to change our lives when nearly all the model predictions are simply wrong. The science is not settled in that you cannot use it to predict the future. The measure of good science is being able to observe, develop correlations and use that information to predict natural outcomes. When reality matches your predictions then you have reason to beleive your equations and assertions are accurate. When reality fails to match predictions you have more work to do.

    Whether you believe in man made global warming or no when models can't predict the future you have admit the models are wrong and the science is not settled. The science is still open for new evaluation and new data or theories.
    Joe
    Road Bike - Specialized Venge | MTB - 2018 Specialized Epic - Vassago Verhauen Steel SS - 2013 Santa Cruz 5010

  2. #2
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    14,228
    It doesn't work to post opinion from someone known as a "climate misinformer."

    I posted above in the magic bullet thread that people who pay attention to Fox know less afterward.

    Let's be careful out there, Joe.

    Edit: This will help clear things up. It's an amusing statement by the judge in a Vermont case where Christy testified under oath on behalf of auto manufacturers:

    "There is widespread acceptance of the basic premises that underlie Hansenís testimony. Plaintiffsí own expert, Dr. Christy, agrees with the IPCCís assessment that in the light of new evidence and taking into account remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations. Tr. vol. 14-A, 145:18-148:7 (Christy, May 4, 2007). Christy agrees that the increase in carbon dioxide is real and primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels, which changes the radiated balance of the atmosphere and has an impact on the planetís surface temperature toward a warming rate. Id. at 168:11-169:10.

    "Christy also agreed that climate is a nonlinear system, that is, that its responses to forcings may be disproportionate, and rapid changes would be more difficult for human beings and other species to adapt to than more gradual changes. Id. at 175:2-174:11. He further agreed with Hansen that the regulationís effect on radiative forcing will be proportional to the amount of emissions reductions, and that any level of emissions reductions will have at least some effect on the radiative forcing of the climate."
    Last edited by BadHabit; 09-12-2013 at 11:14 AM.
    The Republican Party is a lost cause.

  3. #3
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,469
    The Study is not by Fox news or Christy, but by John C. Fyfe, Nathan P. Gillett and Francis W. Zwiers. Fox is just reporting news in this case.

    The comments Christy makes are valid and are pure science. When the models don't match reality the models are wrong and need to be fixed.
    Joe
    Road Bike - Specialized Venge | MTB - 2018 Specialized Epic - Vassago Verhauen Steel SS - 2013 Santa Cruz 5010

  4. #4
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    14,228
    Quote Originally Posted by JoePAz View Post
    The comments Christy makes are valid and are pure science.
    When he speaks under oath they are.

    I would be angry to be played like that.
    The Republican Party is a lost cause.

  5. #5
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,469
    Quote Originally Posted by BadHabit View Post
    When he speaks under oath they are.

    I would be angry to be played like that.
    Again the study was not done by Christy. He was just asked for comment and not under oath. Are you going to dispute the study that found 114 of 117 predictions wrong? Or just shoot the messengers.. Which in this case is Nature who published the work from John C. Fyfe.
    Joe
    Road Bike - Specialized Venge | MTB - 2018 Specialized Epic - Vassago Verhauen Steel SS - 2013 Santa Cruz 5010

  6. #6
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    14,228
    I have no opinion of the study. I don't know enough. But a warming planet (fact, Joe) is a warming planet, and models are models. They can be made better. I do have issue with the Fox characterization of it apparently, through that Christy guy, who can't be trusted.

    Why did Fox choose a compromised expert for its report? Seriously. You know why; I know why. How else do you come away thinking (I presume) that somehow climate change is denied by this study? Did Fox tell you that Journal Nature says climate change is real and a huge issue for humanity? Did it?

    Whenever you sees something on Fox or reported by Fox, you can be sure it is taking advantage of your credulity--that you're being toyed with.

    in 2013, I won't argue with anyone about the reality of climate change. No honest person would.
    The Republican Party is a lost cause.

  7. #7
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: troutmd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    26,608
    Well your opinion doesn't even fit the US Department of Defense predictions on climate change impacts. They predict:

    ***increased storm damage to coastal infrastructure

    ***more rapid coastal erosion

    *** shoreline change including the possibility for total loss of protective natural barriers

    ***saltwater intrusion into aquifers and surface waters

    ***rising water tables

    ***changes in tidal prism


    Climate Change and Impacts of Sea Level Rise

    .
    I am 100% convinced the internet and social media are not the salvation to human civility.

  8. #8
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Fredrico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    27,214
    Quote Originally Posted by JoePAz View Post
    Again the study was not done by Christy. He was just asked for comment and not under oath. Are you going to dispute the study that found 114 of 117 predictions wrong? Or just shoot the messengers.. Which in this case is Nature who published the work from John C. Fyfe.
    They were wrong only in degrees temperature gain, still right that global temperature has risen on average and that the observed increase in CO2 is responsible, and the source of all that CO2 is man.

    The libs go crazy and say the sky is falling, we have to stop using energy, live humbly with respect to finite resources, retool for renewable energy sources, and hug trees. Conservatives want to go full speed ahead burning up the world's fossil fuels because its good for business and screw global warming as a natural phenomenon out of human hands to control. God is great.

  9. #9
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    14,228
    Quote Originally Posted by troutmd View Post
    Well your opinion doesn't even fit the US Department of Defense predictions on climate change impacts. They predict:

    ***increased storm damage to coastal infrastructure

    ***more rapid coastal erosion

    *** shoreline change including the possibility for total loss of protective natural barriers

    ***saltwater intrusion into aquifers and surface waters

    ***rising water tables

    ***changes in tidal prism


    Climate Change and Impacts of Sea Level Rise

    .
    Florida is screwed, 2' tall and all those subterranean voids. You'd have to be nuts to leave an estate there.

    What really saddens me is my perception that coral reefs around the world are bleaching. Many, many creatures live only there.

    Has humanity every done one good thing for the earth and its life forms? One? Help me out here.
    The Republican Party is a lost cause.

  10. #10
    Ricardo Cabeza
    Reputation: Andy69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    19,381
    Pack it up, Al, the dream is over
    Whenever the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence - John Locke

    SuperAndy's Garage

  11. #11
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,481
    The paper cited goes on to provide possible explanations for the discrepancies, and suggests the models could be pulled into better alignment if missing water vapor and stratospheric aerosols had been considered. It also in no way refutes a warming earth or suggests that the models should be abandoned. To Fox's credit only thier headline was misleading.

  12. #12
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    14,228
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy69 View Post
    Pack it up, Al, the dream is over
    You mean Saint Al.

    Saint Al of Gore.

    Light a candle.
    The Republican Party is a lost cause.

  13. #13
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    14,228
    Quote Originally Posted by Dream Plus View Post
    ...only their headline was misleading.
    Joe? I didn't read the thing. You?
    The Republican Party is a lost cause.

  14. #14
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,469
    Quote Originally Posted by BadHabit View Post
    Joe? I didn't read the thing. You?
    I read it and decided for myself. Like I said the study that Fox reported on shows the models are not accurate. So therefore I don't put much stock in them. I don't believe we have all the factors that define the earths climate. All the data I see show the science far from settled. There are theories about how much CO2 is increasing temp, but that never pans out. Or shall we say 97% of the time the overstate the impact. I would not look at completely changing our lives when 97% of predictions are wrong. It does not mean the earths temp is not increasing, nor does it mean CO2 is not a contributor. Why it means however is the system is still to complex and not well enough understood to make accurate predictions. Science needs more time to study and understand the complex factor and interactions. While it make some sense that CO2 will increase temps, what is critical is how much CO2 increases temps by how much. That will then give us the abilty to really understand how CO2 impacts our lives and how much we can stand to use. No form of energy is 100% clean, but we cannot go back to a zero energy environment either. Heck since man discovered Fire we have been increasing CO2 to better mans condition. Before fire we never had cooked foods, but after we learned to harness and control it we did. Life got better for man as a result. So we must always balance our needs for technology aids to improve the human condition while balancing the need to not harm the human condition by polluting our environment. Making rational decisions requires good data and understand of the cause and effects. We simply do not have that right now despite all of whal Algore wants us to believe.
    Joe
    Road Bike - Specialized Venge | MTB - 2018 Specialized Epic - Vassago Verhauen Steel SS - 2013 Santa Cruz 5010

  15. #15
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: bahueh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    19,389
    Quote Originally Posted by JoePAz View Post
    I read it and decided for myself. Like I said the study that Fox reported on shows the models are not accurate. So therefore I don't put much stock in them. I don't believe we have all the factors that define the earths climate. All the data I see show the science far from settled. There are theories about how much CO2 is increasing temp, but that never pans out. Or shall we say 97% of the time the overstate the impact. I would not look at completely changing our lives when 97% of predictions are wrong. It does not mean the earths temp is not increasing, nor does it mean CO2 is not a contributor. Why it means however is the system is still to complex and not well enough understood to make accurate predictions. Science needs more time to study and understand the complex factor and interactions. While it make some sense that CO2 will increase temps, what is critical is how much CO2 increases temps by how much. That will then give us the abilty to really understand how CO2 impacts our lives and how much we can stand to use. No form of energy is 100% clean, but we cannot go back to a zero energy environment either. Heck since man discovered Fire we have been increasing CO2 to better mans condition. Before fire we never had cooked foods, but after we learned to harness and control it we did. Life got better for man as a result. So we must always balance our needs for technology aids to improve the human condition while balancing the need to not harm the human condition by polluting our environment. Making rational decisions requires good data and understand of the cause and effects. We simply do not have that right now despite all of whal Algore wants us to believe.
    so you believe one paper that disputes thousands of papers that agree?
    you're also ignoring most of what the paper discusses and the limitations it mentions.

    have you ever studied the carbon cycle? do you understand that we're disrupting a natural cycle that took tens of millions of years to sequester natural carbon in a matter of decades? Do you not think that will have consequences? Where do you think the billions of gallons of carbon we suck out of the ground and combust goes exactly? Life got 'better'? How does one come to that conclusion? What is 'better'? owning an I-Pad? driving an SUV? Different? sure. Better? a matter of opinion.
    Not banned yet.

  16. #16
    Lost in Space...
    Reputation: headloss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    3,432
    I love this kind of paper... where you have to go through and individually read the 117 other papers cited in order to figure out where they are pulling the wool over your eyes. To add to the fun, the linked article is by the oh so objective News Corp interpreting said paper. Then, for the grand finale, you have deep-rooted conservatives here, who have never read the original paper or any of the other cited papers within it, defending it here as if they know wtf is written.

    Cheers!

  17. #17
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,469
    If I throw a rock in a pond I disrupt the natural state. However at the end of day a small rock in big pond does nothing.

    Now toss one of these in pond and things are different.



    Then again toss that in the ocean and nothing much happens. It is all an issue of degrees.
    How much influence do we have? I have asserted that man's influence on global temperatures is much less the normal variations. The fact that we have 97% of climate models wrong proves to me science has more work to do. The general belief on how much CO2 impacts temperatures is wrong.

    As for life being better... Even in the stone age they had fire... Do you want to back to days of no fire?
    Joe
    Road Bike - Specialized Venge | MTB - 2018 Specialized Epic - Vassago Verhauen Steel SS - 2013 Santa Cruz 5010

  18. #18
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: bahueh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    19,389
    Quote Originally Posted by JoePAz View Post
    If I throw a rock in a pond I disrupt the natural state. However at the end of day a small rock in big pond does nothing.

    Now toss one of these in pond and things are different.



    Then again toss that in the ocean and nothing much happens. It is all an issue of degrees.
    How much influence do we have? I have asserted that man's influence on global temperatures is much less the normal variations. The fact that we have 97% of climate models wrong proves to me science has more work to do. The general belief on how much CO2 impacts temperatures is wrong.

    As for life being better... Even in the stone age they had fire... Do you want to back to days of no fire?
    nice deflection and avoidance. The "general" belief is that this paper is wrong.
    Stating your opinion, posting a picture of a rock and a bad analogy, and referring to one paper doesn't make that fact disappear. You don't really seem to understand how scientific conclusion is made..through a preponderance of evidence, not one paper.
    You're ignoring everything everyone here is telling you...fingers in the ears...you're ignoring the conclusions and limitations that the paper ITSELF are telling you...
    good stuff. comedy at it's fineset.
    Not banned yet.

  19. #19
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,481
    At least you read the paper. You came to a different conclusion than I did. I don't see the analysis refuting the models at all. Fox sensationalized it and it will probably be picked up in the Anti AGW blogosphere like the Artic Ice story of late or the Global Cooling story that misrepresent what's happening.

  20. #20
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,469
    Quote Originally Posted by bahueh View Post
    nice deflection and avoidance. The "general" belief is that this paper is wrong.
    Stating your opinion otherwise and referring to one paper doesn't make that fact disappear. You don't really seem to understand how scientific conclusion is made..through a preponderance of evidence, not one paper.
    You're ignoring everything everyone here is telling you...fingers in the ears...you're ignoring the conclusions and limitations that the paper ITSELF are telling you...
    good stuff. comedy at it's fineset.
    This study is a review of 117 climate models and it has shown they 114 overstate the temperature increase as compared to actual. The actual paper does not state that man made global warming is hoax, but only that the models are not ready for prime time. if you consider yourself a scientist or one with an analytically mind this is clear evidence that models are missing things. Any scientist looking for the truth will go back to the models and assumptions and try to see where they went wrong. All this talk about "the science is settled" is BS. If it were we would the model predictions matching the actual date. Since we do not there is still something missing. Why is it important? Global warming in past 20 years has been really a non issue. No big deal. Florida is not under water and life is not over.

    From the Nature Paper.
    The evidence, therefore, indicates that
    the current generation of climate models
    (when run as a group, with the CMIP5
    prescribed forcings) do not reproduce
    the observed global warming over the
    past 20*years, or the slowdown in global
    warming over the past fifteen years...
    ...
    Although
    these three natural variations account
    for some differences between simulated
    and observed global warming, these
    differences do not substantively change our
    conclusion that observed and simulated
    global warming are not in agreement over
    the past two decades (Fig.*3)....

    Ultimately the causes of this
    inconsistency will only be understood after
    careful comparison of simulated internal
    climate variability and climate model forcings
    with observations from the past two decades,
    and by waiting to see how global temperature
    responds over the coming decades.
    Last edited by JoePAz; 09-12-2013 at 02:07 PM.
    Joe
    Road Bike - Specialized Venge | MTB - 2018 Specialized Epic - Vassago Verhauen Steel SS - 2013 Santa Cruz 5010

  21. #21
    Ricardo Cabeza
    Reputation: Andy69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    19,381
    Quote Originally Posted by JoePAz View Post
    This study is a review of 117 climate models and it has shown they 114 overstate the temperature increase as compared to actual. The actual paper does not state that man made global warming is hoax, but only that the models are not ready for prime time. if you consider yourself a scientist or one with an analytically mind this is clear evidence that models are missing things. Any scientist looking for the truth will go back to the models and assumptions and try to see where they went wrong. All this talk about "the science is settled" is BS. If it were we would the model predictions matching the actual date. Since we do not there is still something missing. Why is it important? Global warming in past 20 years has been really a non issue. No big deal. Florida is not under water and life is not over.
    don't present any facts, you'll only confuse him
    Whenever the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence - John Locke

    SuperAndy's Garage

  22. #22
    Moderatus Puisne
    Reputation: Argentius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    15,882
    I have only scanned this thread but I just wanted to check in on something:

    Your OP title says "97% of climate models agree global warming is overstated."

    But, in fact we are looking at ONE study -- or, it sounds like, meta-analysis, and that ONE study says that 97% of OTHERS are wrong.

    Do I have that right?

  23. #23
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,469
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy69 View Post
    don't present any facts, you'll only confuse him
    Liberals are not confused by facts. They chose to ignore them. After all Fox new is Faux News right? Even when the report on scientific paper and link to it. I am sure they made it all up.
    Joe
    Road Bike - Specialized Venge | MTB - 2018 Specialized Epic - Vassago Verhauen Steel SS - 2013 Santa Cruz 5010

  24. #24
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,469
    Quote Originally Posted by Argentius View Post
    I have only scanned this thread but I just wanted to check in on something:

    Your OP title says "97% of climate models agree global warming is overstated."

    But, in fact we are looking at ONE study -- or, it sounds like, meta-analysis, and that ONE study says that 97% of OTHERS are wrong.

    Do I have that right?

    You have it wrong. One study reviewed 117 model predictions over the past 20 years and compare them to actual data. The found that models are wrong 114 time and right only 3 times. Statistically that is on the order of random chance. They did not comment on the nature of global warming, but did speculate scientifically (this means questioning technical assumption in the models) on why the models are consistently over predicting global temperatures.


    BTW my title was design to peak the interests those here to check in and read the thread.
    Joe
    Road Bike - Specialized Venge | MTB - 2018 Specialized Epic - Vassago Verhauen Steel SS - 2013 Santa Cruz 5010

  25. #25
    Moderatus Puisne
    Reputation: Argentius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    15,882
    Right, a single paper analysing data.

    117 works cited; that is a LOT of methodology to review, if one wanted to check any work.

    Linguistic aside, fwiw: interest is piqued, so a reader takes a peek, to see that peak global temperatures are already occurring , say.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 151
    Last Post: 04-09-2013, 06:48 AM
  2. Science skeptics warming to reality of climate change
    By PaxRomana in forum Politics Only
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 12-19-2012, 08:54 PM
  3. Who can learn me climate warming?
    By 151 in forum Politics Only
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 12-05-2012, 08:05 AM
  4. good computer models for global warming???
    By jimcav in forum Politics Only
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 04-23-2007, 01:44 PM
  5. Global Warming
    By filtersweep in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-28-2005, 11:16 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT ROADBIKEREVIEW

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.