The Planet is Heating Up Faster than Models Predict -- James Hansen

[justoffal]

Sure, in theory that is true. The question is how much and that is where I disagree. The radiative forcing of CO2 is quite weak. Their bullshit claim of climate sensitivity is the problem which leads to unrealistic projections of runaway temperatures. If they ever published the components separately, this debate would be over. That's how unrealistic they are with their climate sensitive. The vast amount of warming that has occurred since the little ice age is natural warming of an interglacial period.

Goddamnit! How are they supposed to make any money off of people if you keep talking like that?

 

[Crick]

You literally started this thread by posting an article saying that global warming is increasing faster than models predict.

I posted an article in which James Hansen said that. Are you in agreement with Hansen?

 

[Crick]

The IPCC report is well over 1,000 pages long, but the CO2 warm forcing formula covers a single page and can be easily tested and shown to be a trivial warming effect at the 440 ppm level thus not a concern.

Here is what the doubling of CO2 is postulated to generate,

"Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation.

View attachment 858068

The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise."

LINK

===

The change even at the doubling level is trivial thus the AGW is worthless to worry over.

Really? Care to calculate how much warming that will produce?

 

[Crick]

This is why modeling today doesn't want their models checked.

What modelers don't want their models checked?

And what is the source of your claim that CO2 can only produce 0.084C of warming?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Odd that you don't list them where it would be obvious that they were not the predictions of mainstream science.

Since you did not defend your claim, I assume you're admitting your contention models consistently failed at hindcasting was a lie.

Ask and you shall receive.
Your cult is always wrong.

50 Years of Failed Doomsday, Eco-pocalyptic Predictions; the So-called 'experts' Are 0-50

This week Myron Ebell (director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute) and Steven J. Milloy published a post on the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) blog titled “Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions:” Modern doomsayers have...

www.aei.org

 

[miketx]

Will there be any humans left here after you "depart this mortal coil"? Do you care about anyone else?

Nope. If it removes all leftists and media fed idiots its a good thing.

 

[miketx]

Yes, but who listens to models?

This guy:

 

[jc456]

I posted an article in which James Hansen said that. Are you in agreement with Hansen?

If I read his post correctly, he’s asking why the model needed an adjustment

 

[miketx]

What modelers don't want their models checked?

I used to make models all the time and I'd have people check them. It was a good thing to cause on the model I built of the VW bug I had put the tail light lenses on backwards.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

I posted an article in which James Hansen said that. Are you in agreement with Hansen?

I agree that the models are wrong.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I posted an article in which James Hansen said that. Are you in agreement with Hansen?

There’s over 150 models forecasting my weather next week. 150 different results.

One or none is correct.

But I’m to believe a software written by people with and agenda to get wealthy from one output of what’s to occur a century from now.

PT Barnum loved idiots like you.

 

[Billy_Bob]

There’s over 150 models forecasting my weather next week. 150 different results.

One or none is correct.

But I’m to believe a software written by people with and agenda to get wealthy from one output of what’s to occur a century from now.

PT Barnum loved idiots like you.

And not one of them is accurate at 72 hours. It's a coin toss at just 24 hours... Yet they want us "to believe"...

 

[jc456]

And not one of them is accurate at 72 hours. It's a coin toss at just 24 hours... Yet they want us "to believe"...

Well they will never have me. I am proud that I use my brain and my logic!!!!

I laugh at the sheep/ parrots. It must really suck for them to not understand how to wipe their asses by themselves.

 

[fncceo]

There’s over 150 models forecasting my weather next week. 150 different results.

They're on the Horoscope page of the NY Daily News.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Global temperatures as studied since earth beginning 500,000,000 years ago after the earth cooled.
It goes up and down in very long patterns with very quick changes within.
Nothing you can do to stop it, cause it or change it.

You can see we are following the same path as 350,000,000 years ago, earth will likely see cool ups and downs for another 50 to 100 million years before a serious increase in temps. Most likely longer than humans will inhabit the planet.

 

[gtopa1]

Will there be any humans left here after you "depart this mortal coil"? Do you care about anyone else?

Greg

 

[Libby von H]

We’ve only got 4 years to act!

That was in 2003.

Logically one MUST say that the models are wrong and not the Earth.
IF they predict like sht maybe they are sht. WOW, so simple to deduce that.

 

[Fueri]

Anyone that has any level of belief in "models" after watching their use to manipulate the public during covid boggles the mind.

 

[Weatherman2020]

They're on the Horoscope page of the NY Daily News.

 

[Crick]

And not one of them is accurate at 72 hours. It's a coin toss at just 24 hours... Yet they want us "to believe"...

You're fucking unbelievable. Literally. Given your lies about your qualifications, why should anyone here believe anything you say?

Your local weatherman is attempting to forecast temperature, windspeed, wind direction and precipitation with roughly one kilometer accuracy. GCMs {climate models) are attempting to forecast the average temperature of the entire planet. Do you actually want to say that you believe they have the same chronological limitations?