Scientist discovers errors in global warming model

[paulitician]

I'm just waiting for the Globalist idiots to start pushing a 'Global Cooling' scam. Because i assure you, that is coming next. But see, at least Global Cooling is a real threat to humanity. There is no evidence showing Global Warming ends life on Earth. In fact, in the warmest temperatures ever recorded, life actually thrived on the Planet. It was incredibly diverse and abundant. More so than today.

However, when it turns cold, life struggles to survive. Not much survives Ice Ages. So at least Global Cooling would be somewhat of a concern. But again, no need to panic. You're gonna die of anything but Global Warming and Global Cooling. So just live and enjoy your short time here. Peace.

Been there done that: 1974 the leftards were pushing we were headed into another ice age unless we acted now. Maybe we overreacted?
Another Ice Age?

Awww, it's that cute global cooling myth again that was debunked last decade.

An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Actually, many currently believe the earth is about to enter a cooling cycle. But regardless, Global Warming/Global Cooling? We'll survive... Or we won't.

 

[Weatherman2020]

6 degrees in applied mathematics.

You only need applied Real Analysis at the PH.D level and every things covered. Why did he waste his time obtaining 6 degrees?


Something is not right with this person. Wait, is he a doctor?

6 degrees in mathematics tells me this is a person afraid to move out of moms basement and start contributing to society and earn a living.

 

[amrchaos]

6 degrees in applied mathematics.

You only need applied Real Analysis at the PH.D level and every things covered. Why did he waste his time obtaining 6 degrees?


Something is not right with this person. Wait, is he a doctor?

6 degrees in mathematics tells me this is a person afraid to move out of moms basement and start contributing to society and earn a living.

found it!!

David Evans

David Evans
Credentials

• Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
• M.S. Electrical Engineering, Stanford University.
• M.S. Statistics, Stanford University.
• M.A. Applied Mathematics, University Of Sydney.
• B.E. Electrical Engineering, University Of Sydney, Sydney Australia, University Medal (1983).
• B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, University Of Sydn

He has 3 degrees in applied Mathematic, with his highest degree in Electrical Engineering! The math degrees can be considered side interests and his real focus is Engineering.

The Doctorates from Stanford is the underlining point of his education. You can assume basic knowledge of Stats and most applied Mathematics as well as Physics due to the PH.D.

 

[IanC]

Credentials only matter if you are agreeing with the consensus position. Just ask Crick and Old Rocks.

 

[Misty]

There have already been two threads in the Environment folder where this got laughed at. But I get it, when conservatives get their marching orders, they all rush to obey.

Evans is a clown who botched the math and physics. However, you won't be able to convince a denier of that, being their faith in their conspiracy theory is unshakable. According to them, the last 3 centuries of math and physics are all wrong, overturned by an electrical engineer political fanatic. Yeah, that's probably it.

If Evans isn't a clown, he merely needs to use his theory to make climate predictions, and show those predictions come true. Mainstream climate science has been getting everything right for decades, which is why it has such credibility. Of course, like every other denier, Evans won't have the guts to put his credibility on the line by making predictions, or to submit his work to peer review.

79 out of 300O scientists is what libs think is a consensus. Do you not get it yet? You've been lied to again by your government.

 

[Misty]

"A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.

He has found...

...


Read more: Australian scientist discovers ERRORS in Global Warming models that COMPLETELY undermine climate theory!!! » The Right Scoop -

Should say Read more carefully: since at least 2011 this Dr Evans has been going on, and on, and, on... David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold

The Australian NEWS article is posted by a nut job calling himself Sooper Mexican or some such nonsense

very credible, eh?

Try reading the Wall Street journal.

 

[Misty]

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make."

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'm not a climate scientists. I'm a skeptic. And I can see that our country is using climate change to take away freedoms and to sell green energy.

Are you a skeptic by nature or nurture, by nurture being your ideology?

Why would our country have to use climate change if they desired taking away freedoms in order to sell green energy or anything else? This is a very convoluted and extra difficult road to take. and btw, by our country, do you mean our government, a majority or minority of the people? you do sound more like a crank than a skeptic

just sayin

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Just because it's science does not ever mean it's truth.

I bet you think that statement actually means something

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yawn, but then there is this.....

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/missing-carbon/

CO2 feeds plants. I learned that in 4th grade.

Wow ! Misty is qualified to be an anti-climate science expert

I'm qualified to know that there are many scientist that do not follow the global warming myth and they are ignored. Why be so afraid of differing opinions on climate change? Why not listen to all sides to find the truth?

are they climate scientists?
Dante has never gone against differing opinions on global warming. Going against the science is NOT an opinion, it is a reaction. There are a few opinions on how to deal with global warming. Those are legitimate and valuable battles. But when you post like a crank and deny the facts it leaves you being viewed as a nut job

Dante posted links to science Exxon has funded on global warming

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

He's predicting temperatures to start cooling down in 2017 and we'll have a mini-ice age by 2030. If we see temperatures stagnate until 2017 as he says then others will be forced to sit up and listen. Otherwise, his credibility is out the window.

Temperatures have not gotten warmer is 17 years. That's proof that the climate is not getting warmer. It's staying the same.

The temperature of the planet has gotten warmer

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.

He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.

He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.

It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says.

“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.

CO2 is not causing global warming.



Read more: Australian scientist discovers ERRORS in Global Warming models that COMPLETELY undermine climate theory!!! » The Right Scoop -

Sorry, this is a non-starter. You violated the inherent truth of liberalism

evidence your objection to the climate science is one of ideology and not science and truth

how is that, holmes?

be honest stand your ground. you're more of an ideologue than a seeker of facts and truth. you'd at the least get some respect that way

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Nonsense. You "end of worlders" are a bloody cult...

Dante has never been an alarmist

please pay attention or go away .. crawl back under your rock

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

how is that, holmes?

When people are talking about climate science and you riff off into ideology ...

please, go shit in a hat and call it ice-cream

Seems you have coprophilic tendencies!!

Greg

your sexual fantasy life is truly one that should be kept off of the boards

 

[gtopa1]

Just because it's science does not ever mean it's truth.

I bet you think that statement actually means something

To a scientist it means much indeed. Glad you are showing your ignorance!!

The Zimmermann/Dorian "Consensus" survey is a joke!! You KNOW it and continue the lie!

The REAL cause of Global Warming!!!

Stupid!

Greg

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Try reading the Wall Street journal.

WSJ Editorial Page under John Fund used to push the Vince Foster may have been murdered by the Clintons meme

The wsj news pages are linked to from many of Dante's posts. Ask for a clue when you you get your new life

 

[gtopa1]

This survey was somewhat more useful.

Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011
In an October 2011 paper published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 998 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, a biographical reference work on leading American scientists, and 489 returned completed questionnaires. Of those who replied, 97% agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century. 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming is now occurring," 5% disagreed, and 12% didn't know.[21][22]

When asked "What do you think is the % probability of human-induced global warming raising global average temperatures by two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years?’’: 19% of respondents answered less than 50% probability, 56% said over 50%, and 26% didn't know.[22]

When asked what they regard as "the likely effects of global climate change in the next 50 to 100 years," on a scale of 1 to 10, from Trivial to Catastrophic: 13% of respondents replied 1 to 3 (trivial/mild), 44% replied 4 to 7 (moderate), 41% replied 8 to 10 (severe/catastrophic), and 2% didn't know.[22]

Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOT 97% at all you dolt!! 57% said they thought "trivial to moderate".....and I am with the trivial. I am looking forward to a longer hill walking season in the Lakes District quite frankly but I am not going to be too disappointed if I don't get to see it.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

how is that, holmes?

When people are talking about climate science and you riff off into ideology ...

please, go shit in a hat and call it ice-cream

Seems you have coprophilic tendencies!!

Greg

your sexual fantasy life is truly one that should be kept off of the boards

You're the one confusing shit and ice-cram, you drongo!! lmao

Greg

 

[BlindBoo]

I'm just waiting for the Globalist idiots to start pushing a 'Global Cooling' scam. Because i assure you, that is coming next. But see, at least Global Cooling is a real threat to humanity. There is no evidence showing Global Warming ends life on Earth. In fact, in the warmest temperatures ever recorded, life actually thrived on the Planet. It was incredibly diverse and abundant. More so than today.

However, when it turns cold, life struggles to survive. Not much survives Ice Ages. So at least Global Cooling would be somewhat of a concern. But again, no need to panic. You're gonna die of anything but Global Warming and Global Cooling. So just live and enjoy your short time here. Peace.

Been there done that: 1974 the leftards were pushing we were headed into another ice age unless we acted now. Maybe we overreacted?
Another Ice Age?

Awww, it's that cute global cooling myth again that was debunked last decade.

An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Actually, many currently believe the earth is about to enter a cooling cycle. But regardless, Global Warming/Global Cooling? We'll survive... Or we won't.

No not really. Most believe we have just started the interglacial period which will last for thousands of years.

Adapt or die.

 

[gtopa1]

evidence your objection to the climate science is one of ideology and not science and truth

Just because it's science does not ever mean it's truth.

I'm not sure what that means, but global warming conclusions are pseudo science

try refuting NASA NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

Hansen has been an alarmist for years!! He has been busy adjusting data to fit his theory......the epitome of fraud!!



Spectacularly Poor Climate Science At NASA

Frankly it looks like crap to me!!

Greg

It looks like two different data sets to me. Are they suppose to be from the same location? Or are they averages?

They are the SAME data sets only the originals have been "adjusted" by Hansen to show the early part of the century to be cooler than it was and the latter part warmer thus giving a "warming" trend. There is much discussion about why the adjustments were applied. My guess is to make the data fit the theory.....sorta wrong way round.

Greg