New study confirms climate models suck

Micawber said:
Call it learned helplessness. Denier threads are a very reliable disappointment, but since you are so insistent, I muscled through the abstract page. So, it appears these researchers whose affiliations are beyond reproach believe the difference between the modeled temps and the SAT observed temps since 2000 cannot be explained in a probabilistic sense with confidence above 9% or so. And they believe that the model needs some external forcing input tweak.

OK now what? Did they say global warming is over? Nope.
Click to expand...

Those points are all things you alarmists derided skeptics for pointing out. You've been proven wrong. Natural variability was underestimated and anthropogenic forcing was overestimated in models.
Now what? Improve the models. Otherwise we can't get an accurate understanding of the dangers of anthropogenic forcing and the associated feedbacks.

When the models start making accurate hindcasts, let us know
 
tinfoil said:
Those points are all things you alarmists derided skeptics for pointing out. You've been proven wrong. Natural variability was underestimated and anthropogenic forcing was overestimated in models.
Now what? Improve the models. Otherwise we can't get an accurate understanding of the dangers of anthropogenic forcing and the associated feedbacks.

When the models start making accurate hindcasts, let us know
Click to expand...

Satellites are not the only source of proof for anthropogenic climate change. When you climate science deniers start doing ANYTHING AT ALL in the relevant science literature, you let us know.
 
Micawber said:
For a self proclaimed chemist, you lack the ability to read an abstract that answers your question as straightforward as is possible?
Click to expand...
Now there you go displaying your ignorance to all and sundry. The author of that Guardian article Richard Tol is an economics professor specialising in the economics of climate change. He has also been a contributor to the IPCC.

Sent from my iPhone 25 GT Turbo
 
tinfoil said:
Those points are all things you alarmists derided skeptics for pointing out. You've been proven wrong. Natural variability was underestimated and anthropogenic forcing was overestimated in models.
Now what? Improve the models. Otherwise we can't get an accurate understanding of the dangers of anthropogenic forcing and the associated feedbacks.

When the models start making accurate hindcasts, let us know
Click to expand...
Freeman Dyson has a lot to say about climate models and fudge factors, needless to say he's not impressed.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/11/freeman_dyson_interview/

Sent from my iPhone 25 GT Turbo
 
Micawber said:
Satellites are not the only source of proof for anthropogenic climate change. When you climate science deniers start doing ANYTHING AT ALL in the relevant science literature, you let us know.
Click to expand...

I guess you must think the alarmists have been finding the flaws. LOL
 
Milagro said:
Now there you go displaying your ignorance to all and sundry. The author of that Guardian article Richard Tol is an economics professor specialising in the economics of climate change. He has also been a contributor to the IPCC.

Sent from my iPhone 25 GT Turbo
Click to expand...

Ridiculous. You asked me to tell you what that study I linked to said. It said it says. Read it. 97% AGW among other things.
 
Micawber said:
Ridiculous. You asked me to tell you what that study I linked to said. It said it says. Read it. 97% AGW among other things.
Click to expand...
I have read it already and well before now, indeed when it first came out. It's bullshit and the methodology has been discredited many times. John Cook is a fraud, nobody takes him seriously anymore.

Sent from my iPhone 25 GT Turbo
 
Milagro said:
I have read it already and well before now, indeed when it first came out. It's bullshit and the methodology has been discredited many times. John Cook is a fraud, nobody takes him seriously anymore.

Sent from my iPhone 25 GT Turbo
Click to expand...

Of course you did. And I posted it before, and you said this before, and you apparently don't remember, and you wasted our time getting back here from start. I hate arguing with people when I always have to go from reboot.

If we do this again in three months or a year will you remember? I will. It's my burden I guess.

The study is an analysis of more than 1000 published peer reviewed climate science papers and determines that they by 97 percent accept the basic science and human cause of climate change being the predominant factor. That's the claim. Now carry your burden of proving the defamation you just published, without having first offered a damn thing, I might add. Libel per se. You are defaming a guy in his business trade or profession. Prove he is a fraud, non climate scientist.

"Scientist said x" - micawber
"Everyone knows he's a fraud" milgram

Thanks for your expert analysis.
 
Micawber said:
Thanks for your expert analysis.
Click to expand...

We're past the Al Gorian "point of no return". We have entered a self reinforcing feedback loop that can only end in a fireball Earth. Anything you or the U.N. do from this point on is fruitless. At least, that is, if you actually believe the "science".
 
Bigdog said:
We're past the Al Gorian "point of no return". We have entered a self reinforcing feedback loop that can only end in a fireball Earth. Anything you or the U.N. do from this point on is fruitless. At least, that is, if you actually believe the "science".
Click to expand...

Well of course that is a lie. Your leader has been a good teacher. I think there is some percentage of experts who think there is already an irreversible highly negative impact, but that is not the consensus yet. And not a cataclysmic irreversibility. And there is a tiny percentage who actually do believe your disgusting and disserving sarcasm.

Mock it. Mock pure science. Mock reason. You are the hostile party. Your leader is a lying orange joke. You want my country to be a joke. I love my country. I won't allow it. Your hate must end. Your self destruction must end.
 
Micawber said:
Of course you did. And I posted it before, and you said this before, and you apparently don't remember, and you wasted our time getting back here from start. I hate arguing with people when I always have to go from reboot.

If we do this again in three months or a year will you remember? I will. It's my burden I guess.

The study is an analysis of more than 1000 published peer reviewed climate science papers and determines that they by 97 percent accept the basic science and human cause of climate change being the predominant factor. That's the claim. Now carry your burden of proving the defamation you just published, without having first offered a damn thing, I might add. Libel per se. You are defaming a guy in his business trade or profession. Prove he is a fraud, non climate scientist.

"Scientist said x" - micawber
"Everyone knows he's a fraud" milgram

Thanks for your expert analysis.
Click to expand...

Now you are going back to fuckwit mode, if indeed you ever left it. Here is what Judith Curry, who is a climate scientist, had to say on the matter.

https://judithcurry.com/2013/07/26/the-97-consensus/

Sent from my iPhone 25 GT Turbo
 
Last edited:
Micawber said:
Well of course that is a lie. Your leader has been a good teacher. I think there is some percentage of experts who think there is already an irreversible highly negative impact, but that is not the consensus yet. And not a cataclysmic irreversibility. And there is a tiny percentage who actually do believe your disgusting and disserving sarcasm.

Mock it. Mock pure science. Mock reason. You are the hostile party. Your leader is a lying orange joke. You want my country to be a joke. I love my country. I won't allow it. Your hate must end. Your self destruction must end.
Click to expand...
Good grief, how many whiskies have you had now?

Sent from my iPhone 25 GT Turbo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top