Members banned from this thread: evince, domer76, archives, Nomad and Micawber


Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 47

Thread: We Were Wrong, Climate Scientists Concede

  1. #16 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    3,429
    Thanks
    187
    Thanked 483 Times in 416 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 80 Times in 78 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Corazón View Post
    The world has warmed more slowly than had been predicted by computer models, which were “on the hot side” and overstated the impact of emissions on average temperature, research has found. Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London and one of the study’s authors, admitted that his previous prediction had been wrong. He stated during the climate summit in Paris in December 2015: “All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.”

    Speaking to The Times, he said: "When the facts change, I change my mind, as Keynes said.

    Ben Webster, The Times, 19 September 2017*


    To have the discrepancy between climate model predictions and reality acknowledged in Nature Geoscience is good. It has already resulted in a substantial debate about this most fundamental approach to assessing the impact of man-made climate change, demonstrating once again that ‘the science’ is definitely not settled. Assumptions made about important details of climate science that were accepted a decade ago are becoming increasingly frayed.

    Let us hope that a new era of scientific reality will replace the far-to-simple messages previously proclaimed to the public.

    David Whitehouse, GWPF Observatory, 19 September 2017
    Again it says nothing. I will explain. There is no computer model that can predict warming or cooling of the Earth because the ultimate factors that cause this are just not all known. The fact that the models are wrong actually confirms this. Global warming due to pollution is a wishlist of certain humans, it has no basis in fact.

  2. #17 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    61,320
    Thanks
    7,144
    Thanked 8,821 Times in 6,166 Posts
    Groans
    5,805
    Groaned 1,532 Times in 1,444 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    No they didn't.
    "Do not think that I came to bring peace... I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34

  3. #18 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    3,429
    Thanks
    187
    Thanked 483 Times in 416 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 80 Times in 78 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck and Nancy View Post
    No they didn't.
    Yes they didud

  4. #19 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    15,288
    Thanks
    3,870
    Thanked 5,011 Times in 3,467 Posts
    Groans
    1,286
    Groaned 494 Times in 452 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rune View Post
    Sure Tom, one article from some obscure college no one has ever heard of proves....nothing.
    Thanks...for ....nothing
    These are the guys who did the carbon budget for the IPCC. It's for real, man. Sorry. It means that when we were saying the climate models overstated warming, we were right. And it's by a lot. They calculated based on two things. 1)The natural carbon sinks are greater than modeled due to the increased uptake of co2 by plants. As the concentration increases plants are able to get more co2 and they are then able to use water more efficiently as well which increases their growth. Historically plants respond to increased concentration by evolving to reduce stomatal density. Science!
    2)The climate models forecast too much warming and they finally had to admit it and recalculate. Science!

    This is the first walkback and long overdue. Hopefully the stranglehold over this subject will loosen, but you guys are religious about your beliefs. You even doubt your truth bringers when they have bad news. LOL

  5. #20 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    15,288
    Thanks
    3,870
    Thanked 5,011 Times in 3,467 Posts
    Groans
    1,286
    Groaned 494 Times in 452 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Corazón View Post
    Oh man you really do go out of your way to look foolish!! So are you calling Oxford University and University College of London obscure? Oh and by the way the paper was published in Nature, is that an obscure publication as well?
    And it's the official team who does the IPCC budgets.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...06261916302495

  6. #21 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    15,288
    Thanks
    3,870
    Thanked 5,011 Times in 3,467 Posts
    Groans
    1,286
    Groaned 494 Times in 452 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Oops, I may have been repeating misinformation. I can not verify my claim above, Sorry. Will keep looking for now, but I was wrong. I read it at Climate etc, which I trust greatly, but it was in the comments. Might have been someone making it up.

  7. #22 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,777
    Thanks
    35,457
    Thanked 50,276 Times in 27,089 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rune View Post
    Sure Tom, one article from some obscure college no one has ever heard of proves....nothing.
    Thanks...for ....nothing
    There is a reason jpp climate deniers always link to some obscure website no one has ever heard of, but not to the actual publication.

    In the actual publication, the authors are unequivocal and unambiguous that global warming and human CO2 emissions are closely connected, and they articulate the urgency for mitigation and reductions of GHG emissions.

    Computer models and data need to be constantly updated and refined as science progress. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of science understands that. But, word games do not change a single thing about the underlying science, and the long term risk to the planet.


    Nature Geoscience | Article

    Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C

    "The Paris Agreement has opened debate on whether limiting warming to 1.5 °C is compatible with current emission pledges and warming of about 0.9 °C from the mid-nineteenth century to the present decade.

    ....Hence, limiting warming to 1.5 °C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation. Strengthening near-term emissions reductions would hedge against a high climate response or subsequent reduction rates proving economically, technically or politically unfeasible.

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...ry-information

  8. #23 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    There is a reason jpp climate deniers always link to some obscure website no one has ever heard of, but not to the actual publication.

    In the actual publication, the authors are unequivocal and unambiguous that global warming and human CO2 emissions are closely connected, and they articulate the urgency for mitigation and reductions of GHG emissions.

    Computer models and data need to be constantly updated and refined as science progress. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of science understands that. But, word games do not change a single thing about the underlying science, and the long term risk to the planet.
    Seriously, why are you such an arsehole? Nobody is denying that CO2 has a climate forcing effect, I guess with your Russian background rewriting history just comes as second nature to you.

    The world has warmed more slowly than had been predicted by computer models, which were“on the hot side” and overstated the impact of emissions on average temperature, research has found. Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London and one of the study’s authors, admitted that his previous prediction had been wrong. He stated during the climate summit in Paris in December 2015: “All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.” Speaking to The Times, he said: “When the facts change, I change my mind, as Keynes said.

    Ben Webster, The Times, 19 September 2017

    To have the discrepancy between climate model predictions and reality acknowledged in Nature Geoscience is good. It has already resulted in a substantial debate about this most fundamental approach to assessing the impact of man-made climate change, demonstrating once again that‘the science is definitely not settled. Assumptions made about important details of climate science that were accepted a decade ago are becoming increasingly frayed. Let us hope that a new era of scientific reality will replace the far-to-simple messages previously proclaimed to the public.

    David Whitehouse, GWPF Observatory, 19 September 2017
    Last edited by cancel2 2022; 09-23-2017 at 02:10 AM.

  9. #24 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    North Mississippi
    Posts
    100
    Thanks
    61
    Thanked 46 Times in 36 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Predictions are just predictions. In the case of climate change there is no doubt that it is occurring. Whether or not it is occurring exactly as some have predicted is not important in the general concept. That said, the deniers will always be deniers regardless of any contradictory information that might be discovered or communicated to them. Rather than argue the case with them it's usually better to consider and work on actual scientific models and let the chips fall where they may. It is important to note that the genuine scientists that actually look at facts and demonstrated information continue to hold their findings as reasonably accurate and their predictions have proven true even though they might be only approximate. It's also important to note that those that deny the science of climate change continue to deny it regardless of the overwhelming evidence against their mere "opinions." The deniers have no science to back their claims up. They are repeatedly proven wrong on every accord.
    Last edited by Zippity Doo Da; 09-23-2017 at 02:12 AM.

  10. #25 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippity Doo Da View Post
    Predictions are just predictions. In the case of climate change there is no doubt that it is occurring. Whether or not it is occurring exactly as some have predicted is not important in the general concept. That said, the deniers will always be deniers regardless of any contradictory information that might be discovered or communicated to them. Rather than argue the case with them it's usually better to consider and work on actual scientific models and let the chips fall where they may. It is important to note that the genuine scientists that actually look at facts and demonstrated information continue to hold their findings as reasonably accurate and their predictions have proven true even though they might be only approximate. It's also important to note that those that deny the science of climate change continue to deny it regardless of the overwhelming evidence against their mere "opinions." The deniers have no science to back their claims up. They are repeatedly proven wrong on every accord.
    So are you saying that scepticism is no longer an essential aspect to the scientific method? So should we just take the over egged predictions as gospel without any recourse to rigorous scrutiny? I have a scientific background, it sounds to me that you'd be happier with Scientology.

  11. #26 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    North Mississippi
    Posts
    100
    Thanks
    61
    Thanked 46 Times in 36 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    No. I am not saying that at all. I invite all science to produce their findings and discuss them on an intelligent level with open mindedness and a learned level of competence and discernment. I've found that in this stage of the scientific analyses of climate change there have been certainties generally agreed upon by the overwhelming majorities of interested parties and that have been demonstrated to my satisfaction to be pretty much on target and reasonably researched. Also at this stage of the scientific analyses there are those that simply disagree with only their disagreement to show for it. They have nothing scientific at all to demonstrate their "opinions" as accurate or worthy of serious concept entertainment. I am also scientifically inclined and I've run across several self-named scientists that have proven to me that they are not worthy in any way to proclaim themselves as competent to contribute in any meaningful way to the particular subjects in which they have chosen to debate. That's life.

    And the investigations continue,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

  12. #27 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    North Mississippi
    Posts
    100
    Thanks
    61
    Thanked 46 Times in 36 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Oops

  13. #28 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    15,288
    Thanks
    3,870
    Thanked 5,011 Times in 3,467 Posts
    Groans
    1,286
    Groaned 494 Times in 452 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippity Doo Da View Post
    No. I am not saying that at all. I invite all science to produce their findings and discuss them on an intelligent level with open mindedness and a learned level of competence and discernment. I've found that in this stage of the scientific analyses of climate change there have been certainties generally agreed upon by the overwhelming majorities of interested parties and that have been demonstrated to my satisfaction to be pretty much on target and reasonably researched. Also at this stage of the scientific analyses there are those that simply disagree with only their disagreement to show for it. They have nothing scientific at all to demonstrate their "opinions" as accurate or worthy of serious concept entertainment. I am also scientifically inclined and I've run across several self-named scientists that have proven to me that they are not worthy in any way to proclaim themselves as competent to contribute in any meaningful way to the particular subjects in which they have chosen to debate. That's life.

    And the investigations continue,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    So when I was saying climate models overestimated warming by about 30% and was called a denier, that was the kind of debate you're talking about?

  14. #29 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    North Mississippi
    Posts
    100
    Thanks
    61
    Thanked 46 Times in 36 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    30% according to whom and by what data can that be affirmed? I operate from legitimate data analyses without any pre-determined expectations. Considering the agenda driven analyses and remarks from the denier crowds I experience almost total dismissal of them. I do appreciate hearty debate but I shutter the unfounded opinions without evidence that the deniers tend to blather about.

    And the investigations continue,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

  15. #30 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tinfoil View Post
    So when I was saying climate models overestimated warming by about 30% and was called a denier, that was the kind of debate you're talking about?
    I think that calling somebody a denier is very much in the same vein as calling somebody, who merely questions immigration, racist. They are both designed to shut down legitimate debate.

Similar Threads

  1. Climate scientists trying to influence policy through fraud
    By cancel2 2022 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-09-2017, 10:18 AM
  2. Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say?
    By cancel2 2022 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 08-19-2016, 02:43 AM
  3. Climate scientists call out the cranks
    By cawacko in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 02-02-2012, 04:37 PM
  4. APP - Surprisingly, the THIRD "Climate Gate" Review vindicates climate scientists
    By Cypress in forum Above Plain Politics Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-14-2010, 10:55 AM
  5. Fed-up Climate Scientists Call for Strong Climate Treaty
    By blackascoal in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 12-07-2007, 10:08 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

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