Scientist discovers errors in global warming model

[gtopa1]

The cultists will never give up their dogma!!

Greg

david evans isn't a climate scientist....

and "rightscoop" isn't a scientific journal.

but thanks for playing

I guess rightwingnut science deniers lose again.

Want to buy an "The end is nigh" T-shirt?? lol

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

The cultists will never give up their dogma!!

Greg

david evans isn't a climate scientist....

and "rightscoop" isn't a scientific journal.

but thanks for playing

I guess rightwingnut science deniers lose again.

He's a mathematician. Models are merely constructs put together by mathematicians. I am very interested in how he is viewed by other reputable mathematicians. Glad to see you identify with the "anti-Capitalist pigs" brigade.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

There never has been droughts in Syria before? Do you know the drought history of the region??

Good lord, you're just as dumb as a can of dried paint....

There's NEVER been a drought in Syria ALONG WITH a raging civil war, the growth of ISIS, the Kurds, Arab spring, a war next door in Iraq, tension with Turkey and the growing dissatisfaction with Assad.

Give it a rest, read a newspaper, talk to your fellow Ilk.

So what is your bloody point?? Do you have one?

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

just checked


the facts are in


the globe has warmed up and human activities have contributed to it

You know a bloody farting cow also contributes to "warming". I am sorry but you'll have to find another shtick; the earth has been warming since the 1700s....by very small increments...with the 1930s being the warmest IN RAW DATA...followed by a cooling until the 70s. Account for that cooling as CO2 levels were going up then as well.



Greg

 

[flacaltenn]

just checked


the facts are in


the globe has warmed up and human activities have contributed to it

That's true.. And I don't disagree -- but that is NOT the constant dramatic hysteria that is being constantly churned out. The lies and misrepresentations about this little warming blip being unprecendented in thousands of years. Or your compadre Nat who was told that GW caused the war in Syria.. Or your Prez who tells the Coast Guard cadets that Global Warming is among their most important missions.

What you said is NOT what the GW theory is about. Your theory states that man's emissions are just the TRIGGER for Earth to launch into an irreparable suicide spin.. All those imagined multipliers to the actual warming power of CO2 are just speculation. That's how they take a relatively small effect of CO2 and EXPAND that into a doomsday crisis.

Man-made emissions -- by themselves --- are not capable of DIRECTLY warming the planet to the degree that GW has speculated. All that additional warming comes from speculated feedback loops in the climate system. This speculation from the folks who only recently discovered that the oceans are MASSIVE storage of the increased GreenHouse heating. Thus REMOVING it from the atmospheric thermal exchanges..

 

[flacaltenn]

The cultists will never give up their dogma!!

Greg

david evans isn't a climate scientist....

and "rightscoop" isn't a scientific journal.

but thanks for playing

I guess rightwingnut science deniers lose again.

Doesn't HAVE to be a Climate scientist. Climate science is a multidisciplinary field. They need physicists, statisticians, modeling experts, geologists, botanists, oceanographers, space systems people, etc Literally DOZENS of specialties involved. So happens -- Evans is a specialist in systems modeling and mathematics. Something that MOST ALL climate scientists aren't really required to study.. Which could explain why those early "climate models" are failing so badly...

 

[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.

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?

Thy are changing the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to match their failed models.. In other words, they are falsifying the predictive step of theroy falsification in an effort to make them agree when they DO NOT!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You know a bloody farting cow also contributes to "warming".

Reagan and Trees cause pollution?

The Genius of Ronald Reagan: Direct Quotes from the Gipper Himself

"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." -- Ronald Reagan, 1981

"A tree is a tree. How many more do you have to look at?" -- Ronald Reagan, 1966, opposing expansion of Redwood National Park as governor of California

"I have flown twice over Mt St. Helens out on our west coast. I'm not a scientist and I don't know the figures, but I have a suspicion that that one little mountain has probably released more sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere of the world than has been released in the last ten years of automobile driving or things of that kind that people are so concerned about." -- Ronald Reagan, 1980. (Actually, Mount St. Helens, at its peak activity, emitted about 2,000 tons of sulfur dioxide per day, compared with 81,000 tons per day by cars.)
Ronald W Reagan Quotes
​

 

[Old Rocks]

just checked


the facts are in


the globe has warmed up and human activities have contributed to it

You know a bloody farting cow also contributes to "warming". I am sorry but you'll have to find another shtick; the earth has been warming since the 1700s....by very small increments...with the 1930s being the warmest IN RAW DATA...followed by a cooling until the 70s. Account for that cooling as CO2 levels were going up then as well.



Greg

In the US, you damned fool. Why don't you people ever do any research before flapping your ignorant yaps.

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries

“The temperature increase of one degree Fahrenheit over the past 50 years may seem small, but it has already altered our planet,” said Deke Arndt, co-editor of the report and chief of the Climate Monitoring Branch of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. “Glaciers and sea ice are melting, heavy rainfall is intensifying and heat waves are more common. And, as the new report tells us, there is now evidence that over 90 percent of warming over the past 50 years has gone into our ocean.”

More and more, Americans are witnessing the impacts of climate change in their own backyards, including sea-level rise, longer growing seasons, changes in river flows, increases in heavy downpours, earlier snowmelt and extended ice-free seasons in our waters. People are searching for relevant and timely information about these changes to inform decision-making about virtually all aspects of their lives. To help keep citizens and businesses informed about climate, NOAA created the Climate Portal athttp://www.climate.gov. The portal features a short video that summarizes some of the highlights of the State of the Climate Report.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

just checked -- the facts are in -- the globe has warmed up and human activities have contributed to it

That's true.. And I don't disagree

 

[Old Rocks]

just checked


the facts are in


the globe has warmed up and human activities have contributed to it

You know a bloody farting cow also contributes to "warming". I am sorry but you'll have to find another shtick; the earth has been warming since the 1700s....by very small increments...with the 1930s being the warmest IN RAW DATA...followed by a cooling until the 70s. Account for that cooling as CO2 levels were going up then as well.



Greg

Aerosols. Ever consider doing research before posting?

 

[Old Rocks]

just checked


the facts are in


the globe has warmed up and human activities have contributed to it

That's true.. And I don't disagree -- but that is NOT the constant dramatic hysteria that is being constantly churned out. The lies and misrepresentations about this little warming blip being unprecendented in thousands of years. Or your compadre Nat who was told that GW caused the war in Syria.. Or your Prez who tells the Coast Guard cadets that Global Warming is among their most important missions.

What you said is NOT what the GW theory is about. Your theory states that man's emissions are just the TRIGGER for Earth to launch into an irreparable suicide spin.. All those imagined multipliers to the actual warming power of CO2 are just speculation. That's how they take a relatively small effect of CO2 and EXPAND that into a doomsday crisis.

Man-made emissions -- by themselves --- are not capable of DIRECTLY warming the planet to the degree that GW has speculated. All that additional warming comes from speculated feedback loops in the climate system. This speculation from the folks who only recently discovered that the oceans are MASSIVE storage of the increased GreenHouse heating. Thus REMOVING it from the atmospheric thermal exchanges..

Now how on earth do the oceans being warmer remove them from the atmospheric thermal exchanges? What are the El Nino and La Nina affects? And the melting of the sea ice in the Arctic is primarily an effect of a warming ocean. And effect whose affect on the jet stream has already been documented. That is a rather strong exchange with the atmosphere. And then the warming of the oceans serves as a driver of tropical storms, of which the Pacific basin has just had a record number, is that not a rather strong thermal exchange between the ocean and atmosphere?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

flacaltenn

just checked


the facts are in


the globe has warmed up and human activities have contributed to it

That's true.. And I don't disagree -- but that is NOT the constant dramatic hysteria that is being constantly churned out. The lies and misrepresentations about this little warming blip being unprecendented in thousands of years. Or your compadre Nat who was told that GW caused the war in Syria.. Or your Prez who tells the Coast Guard cadets that Global Warming is among their most important missions.

What you said is NOT what the GW theory is about. Your theory states that man's emissions are just the TRIGGER for Earth to launch into an irreparable suicide spin.. All those imagined multipliers to the actual warming power of CO2 are just speculation. That's how they take a relatively small effect of CO2 and EXPAND that into a doomsday crisis.

Man-made emissions -- by themselves --- are not capable of DIRECTLY warming the planet to the degree that GW has speculated. All that additional warming comes from speculated feedback loops in the climate system. This speculation from the folks who only recently discovered that the oceans are MASSIVE storage of the increased GreenHouse heating. Thus REMOVING it from the atmospheric thermal exchanges..

Everything before your but is intelligent, but I am not sure that is by design

after you but it is all ideological. Dante does NOT argue the science with non scientists and especially with non climate scientists. As a matter of principle Dante has never to my knowledge ever argued the science. Stating what the consensus within the scientific community is on the science is not arguing the scientific details nor is it arguing that there is a consensus method that verifies scientific data

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Doesn't HAVE to be a Climate scientist. Climate science is a multidisciplinary field. They need physicists, statisticians, modeling experts, geologists, botanists, oceanographers, space systems people, etc Literally DOZENS of specialties involved. So happens -- Evans is a specialist in systems modeling and mathematics. Something that MOST ALL climate scientists aren't really required to study.. Which could explain why those early "climate models" are failing so badly...

Evans is a blogger.

When and if his 'stuff' gets peer reviewed it is just bullshit

 

[frigidweirdo]

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....

until what does that? Let's see some evidence of something you fear here.

You mean, you want evidence of what will happen in the future? You know that's impossible right?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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....

People die all the time. That's never gonna change. But the historical climate evidence shows that animal and plant life thrive during times of high CO2 levels and warm climates. So humanity isn't doomed.

Now, extreme cold climates are another story. Animal and plant life don't do very well in those climates. So, when the 'Global Cooling' fear mongering begins, it would be somewhat reasonable to be concerned. Humans don't like harsh cold climates.

Well, the think is that some animals might thrive in times of high CO2, but will humans?

Humanity might be doomed, life on the planet probably not.

But then again, should we be changing the world in a manner where we don't know the impact it will have on life, especially human life?

It seems there are those who only care about themselves and want to make oil profits, and therefore spend loads of money making sure people are not concerned about something that has the potential to go wrong.

If you don't know the outcome of a big change, are you willing to take the risk?

Those who make profits from oil etc are willing to take this risk. Why are you?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Check your smart-watch. This interglacial is already longer than 2 of the previous three.. Time's a'wasting.
Good news is -- spewing A LOT of CO2 might just help a few people in the higher latitudes survive the next glacial period..

Animal and plant life have always thrived during times of high CO2 levels and warm climates. Lush tropical climates are perfect for life. It's only when climates turn cold & dry, that life struggles to survive. 'Global Warming' will not spell the end of humanity. In fact, humanity will likely thrive.

Actually if you look at say, the great empires, what we see is a decline when things get too hot.

The Egyptians were followed by the Greeks and then the Romans. As things changed so too did the areas able to sustain great empires.

Are equatorial countries at the top of the GDP pile? No, in fact it is mostly countries in milder climates, Europe, China, Japan, North America, etc.

 

[Programmer]

"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 -

Who's handling this guy's security?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

jc456

until what does that? Let's see some evidence of something you fear here.

You mean, you want evidence of what will happen in the future? You know that's impossible right?

 

[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 -

Who's handling this guy's security?

The Oath Keepers or some such group of imbeciles