Scientist discovers errors in global warming model

[Weatherman2020]

Bottom line is the optimum earth climate is much warmer than it is today. Dinosaurs didn't get to the size of freight trains without plenty to eat.

 

[Billy_Bob]

there is a consensus on what the science says

most all the attacks here have been ideological ones.

Two words for the Moronic dip shit....

BULL SHIT!!!

First of all CONSENSUS is POLITICAL and has NOTHING to do with science. History proves that each time a "consensus" has been reached it has been WRONG!
One of those earth is flat, sun revolves around the earth, things....

 

[nat4900]

CO2 is not causing global warming.

Climate Change and the Media

According to a poll done by WorldPublicOpinion.org (WPO) after the 2010 election, 45% of voting Americans think that most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring. WPO goes on further to estimate that this percentage has actually increased over the past ten years. A recent Pew study found that an overwhelming majority of Americans like science, have a positive regard for scientists, and think that science "contributes a lot to society's well-being." So if there's obvious consensus among scientists, why is that information not making it to the public?

Of people who responded that they agree with the statement "most scientists believe that global warming is not occurring," 60% watch Fox News almost every day. (Source)
The average American learns about climate science from the media, and which media source you choose could influence your understanding of the facts. Unfortunately, when the media covers climate change science, it usually frames the science as a debate in order to present "balanced" news to the viewers. But the debate among climate scientists has long been over. Pitting a climate scientist and a climate "contrarian" (who's usually not a scientist at all) against one another makes it appear this is a 50/50 struggle between fact and fiction, when in reality, 97% of climate scientists agree that global temperatures are rising and human activity is to blame. Whereas in political discourse the method of giving two opposing sides equal coverage is valid, in science there is an objective truth. To present science as a subjective debate is misleading.

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 is not causing global warming.

Climate Change and the Media

According to a poll done by WorldPublicOpinion.org (WPO) after the 2010 election, 45% of voting Americans think that most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring. WPO goes on further to estimate that this percentage has actually increased over the past ten years. A recent Pew study found that an overwhelming majority of Americans like science, have a positive regard for scientists, and think that science "contributes a lot to society's well-being." So if there's obvious consensus among scientists, why is that information not making it to the public?

Of people who responded that they agree with the statement "most scientists believe that global warming is not occurring," 60% watch Fox News almost every day. (Source)
The average American learns about climate science from the media, and which media source you choose could influence your understanding of the facts. Unfortunately, when the media covers climate change science, it usually frames the science as a debate in order to present "balanced" news to the viewers. But the debate among climate scientists has long been over. Pitting a climate scientist and a climate "contrarian" (who's usually not a scientist at all) against one another makes it appear this is a 50/50 struggle between fact and fiction, when in reality, 97% of climate scientists agree that global temperatures are rising and human activity is to blame. Whereas in political discourse the method of giving two opposing sides equal coverage is valid, in science there is an objective truth. To present science as a subjective debate is misleading.

Another one who thinks the debate is over.. And you would be wrong..

 

[nat4900]

Another one who thinks the debate is over.. And you would be wrong..

Science is NOT subjective.......The debate is LONG over...

Some right wingers would argue about the existence of gravity if Sean Hannity tells them to.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Another one who thinks the debate is over.. And you would be wrong..

Science is NOT subjective.......The debate is LONG over...

Some right wingers would argue about the existence of gravity if Sean Hannity tells them to.

To say debating science is over simply shows how anti-science the sheep are.

 

[kaz]

"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

I am an "ideologue" who thinks global warming who just thinks global warming is unproven. I want more facts either way rather than knee jerk believing theory with endless holes and no predictive capability as fact. You think an ideologue is someone with an open mind.

This word Dante is using, "ideologue," I do not think it means what he thinks it means...

 

[kaz]

Another one who thinks the debate is over.. And you would be wrong..

Science is NOT subjective.......The debate is LONG over...

Some right wingers would argue about the existence of gravity if Sean Hannity tells them to.

What a dumb ass

 

[kaz]

"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

Climate science, as it stands today IS ideology and political biased crap as evidenced by the 126 non-empirical (fantasy) models that have been produced and have ALL FAILED.. They have NO PREDICTIVE POWER.

The proof is in the output of these people and the claims of doom unsupported by any real facts or empirical evidence.

I can imagine you in the 1960s "We can't land a man on the moon!" Christ, those rockets failed during testing.

You are certainly coming from an ideological perspective. I know of no doomsday predictions. You are using news headlines (remember how many cures for AIDS there have been and end of the world Ebola scenarios ) and scenarios that have been proposed that say things like "If nothing is done..." well no one with any credibility (including Exxon: see Dante's links ) has been advocating doing nothing. Because the science says the Earth has warmed. The science also suggests humans are playing a part in it.

the consensus is built around the science, not the science around the consensus

Landing a man on the moon wasn't politically motivated. The global warming crowd wants socialism, and global warming is a justification to get it. You aren't giving it up

 

[kaz]

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

Climate science, as it stands today IS ideology and political biased crap as evidenced by the 126 non-empirical (fantasy) models that have been produced and have ALL FAILED.. They have NO PREDICTIVE POWER.

The proof is in the output of these people and the claims of doom unsupported by any real facts or empirical evidence.

I can imagine you in the 1960s "We can't land a man on the moon!" Christ, those rockets failed during testing.

You are certainly coming from an ideological perspective. I know of no doomsday predictions. You are using news headlines (remember how many cures for AIDS there have been and end of the world Ebola scenarios ) and scenarios that have been proposed that say things like "If nothing is done..." well no one with any credibility (including Exxon: see Dante's links ) has been advocating doing nothing. Because the science says the Earth has warmed. The science also suggests humans are playing a part in it.

the consensus is built around the science, not the science around the consensus

Didn't understand a word of that. But I suppose you're denying the MULTITUDE of doomsday predictions associated with catastrophic GW..

Dante has never followed doomsday scenarios. Predictions layered with 'if we do nothing' and 'if nothing changes' always struck me as warnings and alerts rather than alarmist cries of 'the end is near'

Dante does not do conspiracy shit. Funny thing is Dante listens to Coast to Coast quite often.
Know thy opponent and watch and learn

you cannot grasp a simple truth: the consensus is built around the science, not the science around the consensus? poor you, poor you, pour you a strong drink

Dante needs to watch "An Inconvenient Truth" so he knows what is being discussed

 

[flacaltenn]

there is a consensus on what the science says

most all the attacks here have been ideological ones.

Really? What was the consensus on the temperature anomaly expected in 2100 when the IPCC conferences first started and what it is NOW? .

I didn't know scientists stating expected temps were a concrete thing. We must have different understandings of the word 'expected'

predictions of temps in 2100? Why are you hung up on that? Dante has said the globe has warmed. No credible scientist disputes this. Not the scientists hired by Exxon and others. What they differ on is what it means to business and other bottom line issues . then there are people like you with ideological based attacks looking around for parts of an overall design as if to say 'look here! a loose screw. the machine will not ever work'

Dante grew up outside of the airport. Things fall off of planes ALL the time, yet the planes still fly

Wouldn't be discussing the topic at all if the EXPECTED temp. anomaly in 2100 was all consensus up to be another 1degC. There's no story to that. When this circus came to town 30 years ago, Hansen was out there prodding the media with predictions of 5 or 6degC by 2100. And boiling oceans and killer weather and major cities underwater by 2020 or so.. It's all been exaggerated from the lead activist scientists. AND NOW --- there's some sanity settling in and all that is being RAPIDLY walked back in the last 5 years or so.

Got to say that if you continue to do this Dante says biz -- I'm gonna be too creeped out to even read your posts.
FlaCalTenn is just sayin"... Coast to Coast eh?

 

[flacaltenn]

Another one who thinks the debate is over.. And you would be wrong..

Science is NOT subjective.......The debate is LONG over...

Some right wingers would argue about the existence of gravity if Sean Hannity tells them to.

The debate about WHAT?? What is the fucking question you believe to be resolved? You know how high the ocean is gonna be by 2100? You know how much hotter it's gonna be in 2100? You know what the major power sources will be 2060? Bullshit. If you can't answer those questions -- what is this "consensus" about?

What kind of public policy could be based on a consensus -- unless you're certain of being able to predict those things?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Landing a man on the moon wasn't politically motivated. The global warming crowd wants socialism, and global warming is a justification to get it. You aren't giving it up

Sputnik

 

[kaz]

Landing a man on the moon wasn't politically motivated. The global warming crowd wants socialism, and global warming is a justification to get it. You aren't giving it up

Sputnik

Non-sequitur, I was referring to internal American politics, both partied were on the same side

 

[Billy_Bob]

Another one who thinks the debate is over.. And you would be wrong..

Science is NOT subjective.......The debate is LONG over...

Some right wingers would argue about the existence of gravity if Sean Hannity tells them to.

The left wit fool has drank the kookaid too long.. Your being biasedly subjective to your religion. I on the other hand know the real questions have not been answered with REAL SCIENCE!

Tell me, why have all of your models failed? Why do you need to adjust them empirical evidence so that it meets you failed models? There used to be a time in real science when a model failed that we looked at the models and the reason it failed, Now you guys just change the empirical data to "meet expectations".. who is fucking lying out their asses?

Political Pseudoscience s all climate science is today.

 

[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.

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

Adapt or die.

Bring on the warmth. I can handle it. I ain't afraid of no Global Warming Boogeyman.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Another one who thinks the debate is over.. And you would be wrong..

Science is NOT subjective.......The debate is LONG over...

Some right wingers would argue about the existence of gravity if Sean Hannity tells them to.

The left wit fool has drank the kookaid too long.. Your being biasedly subjective to your religion. I on the other hand know the real questions have not been answered with REAL SCIENCE!

Tell me, why have all of your models failed? Why do you need to adjust them empirical evidence so that it meets you failed models? There used to be a time in real science when a model failed that we looked at the models and the reason it failed, Now you guys just change the empirical data to "meet expectations".. who is fucking lying out their asses?

Political Pseudoscience s all climate science is today.

So, when a model is found to be out, they change the model. Then you say that in the past when a model failed, they looked at why it failed and changed it. But now they just look at a model, ask why it's wrong and change it.

Er..... do you not see what's wrong with what you're saying?

 

[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

Point of information: Prof Ian Lowe was DEFINITELY pushing the Global Cooling myth at the time. I know because I attended his lectures. He is NOW a major local AGW alarmist. He was always a left wing nutter. As such he is much beloved by the "anti-USA Capitalist pigs" crowd. He worked his way up through the anti-Nuclear movement. Frankly he's a conman. The established Science hierarchy regarded him with disdain!!

Greg

Good point. Most pushing the Global Warming fear mongering are Leftist Globalists. There's some interesting books out there on how when Communism collapsed, many on the Left gave up and shifted focus to environmental fanaticism.

They later formed the 'Global Warming' cult. Just look at who's doing the fear mongering. It shouldn't take long to realize it's usually Left/Communist extremists.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Bring on the warmth. I can handle it. I ain't afraid of no Global Warming Boogeyman.

Until it starts killing too many people, then....

 

[paulitician]

One thing you learn in all this, is that human beings are fascinated, and obsessed with End-Times and death. They're consumed with the harsh reality of mortality. Whether it's religious zealots, zombie apocalypse zealots, or Global Warming zealots, they all have that in common.

They're obsessed with their eventual demise. There has to be an impending doom to fear. They take some sort of comfort in believing they know how it's gonna end for em. I guess it's the human condition. The sad inevitability of the end.

Well some may be. Personally I'm with the "you know not the hour" mob.

Greg

For many, it's comforting believing they know how it's all gonna end. Most humans need an impending doom to fear. They're both frightened and fascinated with their inevitable demise. The harsh reality is, they're not gonna die from Global Warming or Global Cooling. They're gonna die from anything but that. Such is the human condition i guess.