Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
SSDD -
And the reason you think the IIPC is meaningless is because you are increasingly unable to fault their work.
If you could fault their work, you'd be proclaiming their immense importance to modern science.
the data has simply been updated
How little you know!
Entirely new areas of research have been developed since the last report in 2007. New approaches, new directions of study, new methdologies, and entirely new projects. Things that did not exist at all in 2007.
The only reason you are not aware of this is because, as we know, you refuse to look at science when it is presented on this board.
Sure and unicorns are real!!!
Sure and unicorns are real!!!
Laughable.....aren't they.
no, the models have not improved...the data has simply been updated in an attempt to more accurately reflect the present...they still can't even hindcast and predict what has happened in the past because the physics are still wrong.
and this is why you're called an ignorant denier cult retard....
climate models: How good are they?
by lisa moore
edf
published: July 18, 2007
the author of today's post, lisa moore, is a scientist in the climate and air program.
people often confuse climate and weather. They wonder how scientists can reliably predict climate 50 years from now when they can't predict the weather a few weeks from now. The answer is that climate and weather are different, and it's easier to predict climate than weather. Weather is a short-term, local phenomenon. Climate is the average weather pattern of a region over many years. I may not be able to predict the weather in new york city on december 15, but i can predict with confidence that it will be colder than it is today, in mid-july. A climate model could make the same prediction without a single past temperature reading. Basic orbital mechanics tell us that the northern hemisphere is colder in winter than summer. As i explained in my previous post, a climate model is a mathematical description of the physics and chemistry of the climate system for example, how heat is transferred from one place to another. The inputs to the model are things like solar radiation, volcanic eruptions, and human-produced greenhouse gas emissions. Based on these inputs and the laws of physics, the model predicts temperature, precipitation, and other aspects of climate.
Which brings me to how we know the models are credible. What if the model inputs were actual observations from a time period in the past where we have full climate measurements? If the model is any good, it should accurately "hindcast" what we know the climate conditions were. In fact, hindcasting is the technique scientists use to evaluate models. If a model can accurately hindcast, we can have some confidence in its forecasts of the future. In the graph below, the yellow lines show 58 temperature hindcasts from 14 different climate models. The thick red line is the average of all the hindcasts; the black line shows actual global temperature over the past century. Note how close the hindcast average is to actual temperatures. The models do a very good job of predicting 20th century climate.
source: Ipcc ar4 wg1 figures [ppt file]
update your blog list numbnuts,this one's fubar!!!!!
Your link goes to a time warner search page!
and this is why you're called an ignorant denier cult retard....
climate models: How good are they?
by lisa moore
edf
published: July 18, 2007
the author of today's post, lisa moore, is a scientist in the climate and air program.
people often confuse climate and weather. They wonder how scientists can reliably predict climate 50 years from now when they can't predict the weather a few weeks from now. The answer is that climate and weather are different, and it's easier to predict climate than weather. Weather is a short-term, local phenomenon. Climate is the average weather pattern of a region over many years. I may not be able to predict the weather in new york city on december 15, but i can predict with confidence that it will be colder than it is today, in mid-july. A climate model could make the same prediction without a single past temperature reading. Basic orbital mechanics tell us that the northern hemisphere is colder in winter than summer. As i explained in my previous post, a climate model is a mathematical description of the physics and chemistry of the climate system for example, how heat is transferred from one place to another. The inputs to the model are things like solar radiation, volcanic eruptions, and human-produced greenhouse gas emissions. Based on these inputs and the laws of physics, the model predicts temperature, precipitation, and other aspects of climate.
Which brings me to how we know the models are credible. What if the model inputs were actual observations from a time period in the past where we have full climate measurements? If the model is any good, it should accurately "hindcast" what we know the climate conditions were. In fact, hindcasting is the technique scientists use to evaluate models. If a model can accurately hindcast, we can have some confidence in its forecasts of the future. In the graph below, the yellow lines show 58 temperature hindcasts from 14 different climate models. The thick red line is the average of all the hindcasts; the black line shows actual global temperature over the past century. Note how close the hindcast average is to actual temperatures. The models do a very good job of predicting 20th century climate.
source: Ipcc ar4 wg1 figures [ppt file]
update your blog list numbnuts,this one's fubar!!!!!
Your link goes to a time warner search page!
Fixed it, fuckhead. It was just a little glitch in the forum software.
Trollingblunder just cited The university corporation for climate research as a proper scientific source...
No it was an out of date "daily list of propaganda to spam forums with" We know livetrollingblunderfree, we know.
No it was an out of date "daily list of propaganda to spam forums with" We know livetrollingblunderfree, we know.
What we all know, slackjawed, is that you're extremely retarded and more than a little insane. And,of course, a rabid troll.
Trollingblunder just cited The university corporation for climate research as a proper scientific source...
The slackjawedidiot, in full-on retard mode, just decided that UCAR isn't a proper scientific source....unbelievably stupid but what can we expect from someone with a sub-room-temperature IQ....he even quoted the facts about who and what UCAR is, and he's still too retarded to understand what's going on.....
Here's what the slackjawedidiot denies to be a valid scientific source of information. He even quoted most of this and he's still completely clueless.....LOL...
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research is a consortium of over 100 member universities and academic affiliates focused on research and training in the atmospheric and related Earth system sciences. Our members set directions and priorities for the National Center for Atmospheric Research, which UCAR manages with sponsorship by the National Science Foundation. Through our community programs, UCAR provides innovative services in support of the community's education and research goals.
more below >
The National Center for Atmospheric Research provides research, observing and computing facilities, and a variety of services for the atmospheric and related Earth sciences community.
more below >
The UCAR Community Programs provide innovative services in support of the community's education and research goals.
more below >
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
UCAR manages the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) on behalf of the National Science Foundation. With guidance from its more than 100 member universities and affiliates, UCAR also provides a wide range of core programs and services supporting and extending the capabilities of the academic research community. These efforts together address the large-scale challenges associated with integrated research, technological development, and educational advancement across the geoscience enterprise. UCAR also plays a central national role in advocating for continued federal investment in the life-saving, economically critical work provided by the geosciences community. Both UCAR and NCAR are headquartered in Boulder, Colorado, with additional operations in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Washington, D.C.
UCAR's mission is to
* support, enhance, and extend the capabilities of the university community, nationally and internationally
* understand the behavior of the atmosphere and related systems and the global environment
* foster the transfer of knowledge and technology for the betterment of life on Earth
Founded in 1960, UCAR is a nonprofit consortium of North American member universities, each of which grants doctoral degrees in the atmospheric and related sciences, plus an increasing number of international affiliates offering comparable degrees, and North American academic affiliates offering predoctoral degrees.
Members of the private sector serve on governance boards, collaborate with researchers, contribute funding to specific projects, and participate in technology transfer activities. Through its Office of Government Affairs, UCAR advocates for strong federal science budgets on behalf of the geosciences community.
You'll find more about UCAR and NCAR in Our History.
UCAR Home
....What we all know, slackjawed, is that you're extremely retarded and more than a little insane. And,of course, a rabid troll.
....What we all know, slackjawed, is that you're extremely retarded and more than a little insane. And,of course, a rabid troll.
Do I hear a troll? Why, yes, I think I do. One of the really idiotic ones, it seems, whose posts are empty of all meaning or significance.
Awww, don't cry little fella.
Awww, don't cry little fella.
Says the person who runs to the moderators every time he gets neg repped!.
Awww, don't cry little fella.
Says the person who runs to the moderators every time he gets neg repped!
Gclaks, I neg rep you for your incessant off-topic abuse. Stay on topic and I won't neg rep you.
Awww, don't cry little fella.
Says the person who runs to the moderators every time he gets neg repped!
Gclaks, I neg rep you for your incessant off-topic abuse. Stay on topic and I won't neg rep you.
Trollingblunder just cited The university corporation for climate research as a proper scientific source... Yeah, and the sad part is really believes it.. LOL, I think I'll start an advocacy group like that.. I'll call it the The University Corporation for super smart sciencey stuff and other cool things too.
ROFL
A new paper published in Environmental Research Letters finds that current climate models are not able to predict regional, seasonal temperature and precipitation changes and have huge "mean errors between 1 and 18 °C.
A paper published today in the Journal of Climate finds that ensembles of climate models used by the IPCC to predict future climate change "may lead to overly confident climate predictions." The authors find that many models share the same computer code, have the same limitations, and "tend to be fairly similar," resulting in confirmation bias. Indeed, empirical observations have shown far less warming than the "90% confident" IPCC models in AR4, as shown in this poster by John Christy:
A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research in essence reveals climate models are not capable of reproducing the observed climate of the past century, much less the future. According to the paper, "few models reproduce the strong observed warming trend from 1918 to 1940," there are "large differences" in the forcings and feedbacks used in various models and that some of these are "unrealistic." In other words, the key inputs and assumptions of the models are not known with reasonable certainty - ergo GIGO.
A paper published today in Climate of Past finds a 50% consensus by climate models on the response of Arctic sea ice to changes in solar radiation during the mid-Holocene. According to the authors, "Approximately one half of the models simulate a decrease in winter sea-ice extent and one half simulates an increase." The paper adds to many others demonstrating that climate models are unable to model the known climate of the past, much less the future.
A new paper published in the Journal of Climate finds there has been "little to no improvement" in simulating clouds by state-of-the-art climate models. The authors note the "poor performance of current global climate models in simulating realistic [clouds]," and that the models show "quite large biases...as well as a remarkable degree of variation" with the differences between models remaining "large."
A paper published in the technical newsletter of the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment finds that climate models suppress the negative feedback from low clouds, which serve to cool the Earth by reflection of incoming sunlight. The paper notes that cloud feedbacks in computer models are not only uncertain in magnitude, but even in sign (positive or negative). As climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer has pointed out, a mere 1 to 2% natural variation in cloud cover can alone account for whether there is global warming or global cooling, despite any alleged effects of CO2.
A new paper published in Global and Planetary Change finds that IPCC climate models are unable to reproduce either the El Nino Southern Oscillation [ENSO] or the Indian summer monsoon, the two most influential natural weather patterns on Earth, both of which have large effects upon global climate. The authors therefore caution that, given these large uncertainties of natural variation, current models cannot be relied upon to project future global warming from greenhouse gases.
A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres admits that state-of-the-art climate models exaggerate alleged warming from greenhouse gases, finding the models "overestimate the observed temperature change" in comparison to historical data since 1850. The authors also find the various models have a "large spread" or widely divergent temperature projections.
A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters finds climate models "suffer from temperature-dependent biases" which "leads to an overestimation of projections of regional temperatures." According to the authors, "10-20% of projected warming is due to model deficiencies.
A recent paper in the Journal of Climate finds that most climate models erroneously predict that Antarctic sea ice extent decreased over the past 30 years, which "differs markedly from that observed." As noted in the abstract, Antarctic sea ice has confounded the models by instead increasing over the satellite era. In fact, it is currently at a record extent that is more than 2 standard deviations above the 1979-2000 average. The authors lament, "The negative [Antarctic sea ice] trends in most of the model runs over 1979 - 2005 are a continuation of an earlier decline, suggesting that the processes responsible for the observed increase over the last 30 years are not being simulated correctly."
A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters shows the mythical "hot spot" in the upper troposphere predicted by climate models is indeed still missing. The paper shows little change in the upper tropospheric temperature measured by radiosondes and satellites from 1979-2011, while climate models instead predicted a significant increase over the same period. The paper confirms others showing that the so-called "fingerprint" of man-made global warming does not exist and therefore the computer models are based upon incorrect assumptions.
A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research finds that current climate models are unable to simulate the climate following large volcanic eruptions, a major cause of natural climate variability. According to the authors, the paper confirms others with the same findings and "raises concern for the ability of current climate models to simulate the response of a major mode of [climate change]."
[dubious ]
(same URL)As solar heating and “back radiation” from the atmosphere raise the surface temperature, the surface simultaneously releases an increasing amount of heat—equivalent to about 117 percent of incoming solar energy
So there you have it. That`s how thermodynamics works according to "climatologists". They invented a system where you get 17% more energy than you feed into it.
So there you have it. That`s how thermodynamics works according to "climatologists". They invented a system where you get 17% more energy than you feed into it.
And to an individual, they claim that they aren't creating energy.
So they have 100% of the 680 Watts per m^2 "back radiating" from a colder atmosphere at an already warmer surface.The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface (sometimes called “back radiation”is equivalent to 100 percent of the incoming solar energy.[dubious – discuss]
As solar heating and “back radiation” from the atmosphere raise the surface temperature, the surface simultaneously releases an increasing amount of heat—equivalent to about 117 percent of incoming solar energy
The solar flux averaged over just the sunlit half of the Earth's surface is about 680 W m^−2
Awww, don't cry little fella.
Says the person who runs to the moderators every time he gets neg repped!
Gclaks, I neg rep you for your incessant off-topic abuse. Stay on topic and I won't neg rep you.
What else can you expect....the slackjawedidiot is a troll....practically the definition of one.....he will always try to derail the actual topic of any thread he pollutes with his presence...usually with a barrage of long since thoroughly debunked denier cult myths or just pure moronic nonsense....you can either ignore him or have some fun mocking and exposing his retarded ignorance....but you just can't fix stupid...his retardation is impenetrable and incurable....try not to get too sucked into his denier cult troll tricks and distractions....just laugh and pity his folly....
Forum Troll
An obnoxious user or member on a forum that goes out of their way to make pointless, offensive, or annoying posts and messages. Often these users are labeled as spammers and will post random off-topic junk in many sections of a forum.
1.
User: I think his policies are corrupt and the only reason he remains in office is because of his financial bribes and support requests to other branches of the government. What about you guys?
Forum Troll: I think if you actually had a life, you would turn off your monintor, walk away, and never return to this website again. Of course, it doesn't seem like either will ever happen.
forum troll
A forum troll is someone who actively watches a forum. Not to be confused with a lurker, or just a forum frequenter, the troll annoys, pesters, and generally insults any thread they open.
-- Interweb : "My dad called me yesterday and said that the house was up for sale and I have to move and now I won't have any friends and I'm so sad I don't even know how to use punctuation it's insane."
-- Forum Troll : "I've become dumber just by reading this. Removing you from the genepool would not only be helpful to society, but would be praised in songs for generations."
