Top Scientists: "Warming Exagerated"

[skookerasbil]

Global warming is just HALF what we said: World's top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong

Leaked report reveals the world is warming at half the rate claimed by IPCC in 2007

Scientists accept their computers 'may have exaggerated'

PUBLISHED: 16:01 EST, 14 September 2013


Read more: Global warming is just HALF what we said: World's top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[skookerasbil]

As Ive said for years.....the AGW crowd has always been desperate to cling to the established narrative. These people automatically gravitate to the hysterical. Perpetuating the hoax of global warming disaster is.........make no mistake..........big business. There is always the crowd out there that is easily hoodwinked.

 

[Abraham3]

As Ive said for years.....the AGW crowd has always been desperate to cling to the established narrative.

Rejecting mainstream science without cause is by far the more desperate modality.

 

[skookerasbil]

As Ive said for years.....the AGW crowd has always been desperate to cling to the established narrative.

Rejecting mainstream science without cause is by far the more desperate modality.

Hey.....I didn't write the headline s0n!!!

 

[flacaltenn]

As Ive said for years.....the AGW crowd has always been desperate to cling to the established narrative.

Rejecting mainstream science without cause is by far the more desperate modality.

THIS PARTICULAR science was never mainstream. It was immature and OVER-EXPOSED by the media and political hype.

Even surveys of people WORKING in the field -- show a high percentage of them rating their field as "immature" or not fully vetted. And very few even believe the historical proxy evidence that the fairytale is based on..

Nanomaterials is a fully mature and mainstream.. Climate science is a circus of public relations outreach..

 

[asterism]

Looks like computer experts should have written these models instead of rank amateurs in Climatology fields.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Looks like computer experts should have written these models instead of rank amateurs in Climatology fields.

Wouldn't have helped, we simply do not know enough about how weather climate and systems evolve and are created. We are real good at OBSERVED data on weather but no good on climate models.

We simply do not know enough.

 

[bripat9643]

As Ive said for years.....the AGW crowd has always been desperate to cling to the established narrative.

Rejecting mainstream science without cause is by far the more desperate modality.

So now it's "mainstream science" rather than "settled science?" You realize, of course, that "mainstream" is a term the demagogues and political propagandists use. It has no connection with actual science.

 

[skookerasbil]

notice the climate crusaders steer waaaaaaay clear of this thread. Happens all the time.....they want stuff like this to fall away from the face page of the forum asap.


gay

 

[mamooth]

Looks like computer experts should have written these models instead of rank amateurs in Climatology fields.

But computer experts _did_ write the models. Where did you get the idea they didn't? Oh, that's right, partly from me. But I have no problem admitting error, as only cultists declare themselves to be infallible.

Why trust climate models? It?s a matter of simple science | Ars Technica
---
When Easterbrook started looking into the processes followed by climate modeling groups, he was surprised by what he found. “I expected to see a messy process, dominated by quick fixes and muddling through, as that's the typical practice in much small-scale scientific software. What I found instead was a community that takes very seriously the importance of rigorous testing, and which is already using most of the tools a modern software development company would use (version control, automated testing, bug tracking systems, a planned release cycle, etc.).”

“I was blown away by the testing process that every proposed change to the model has to go through,” Easterbrook wrote. “Basically, each change is set up like a scientific experiment, with a hypothesis describing the expected improvement in the simulation results. The old and new versions of the code are then treated as the two experimental conditions. They are run on the same simulations, and the results are compared in detail to see if the hypothesis was correct. Only after convincing each other that the change really does offer an improvement is it accepted into the model baseline.”
---

Everyone should read the article, but I expect most denialists won't, since it basically shoots down all of their nonsense concerning the models. They'll also have to add Ars Technica to their list of forbidden sources.

Oh, good job by Skook of showing crank denialist Judith Curry lying about some supposed lack of warming. She seems to relish the adulation she gets from her new status as denialist cult hero, so she reliably makes up the stories that the cult wants to hear. That means her reputation is shit with honest scientists, but she no longer cares about that.

 

[skookerasbil]

Looks like computer experts should have written these models instead of rank amateurs in Climatology fields.

But computer experts _did_ write the models. Where did you get the idea they didn't? Oh, that's right, partly from me. But I have no problem admitting error, as only cultists declare themselves to be infallible.

Why trust climate models? It?s a matter of simple science | Ars Technica
---
When Easterbrook started looking into the processes followed by climate modeling groups, he was surprised by what he found. “I expected to see a messy process, dominated by quick fixes and muddling through, as that's the typical practice in much small-scale scientific software. What I found instead was a community that takes very seriously the importance of rigorous testing, and which is already using most of the tools a modern software development company would use (version control, automated testing, bug tracking systems, a planned release cycle, etc.).”

“I was blown away by the testing process that every proposed change to the model has to go through,” Easterbrook wrote. “Basically, each change is set up like a scientific experiment, with a hypothesis describing the expected improvement in the simulation results. The old and new versions of the code are then treated as the two experimental conditions. They are run on the same simulations, and the results are compared in detail to see if the hypothesis was correct. Only after convincing each other that the change really does offer an improvement is it accepted into the model baseline.”
---

Everyone should read the article, but I expect most denialists won't, since it basically shoots down all of their nonsense concerning the models. They'll also have to add Ars Technica to their list of forbidden sources.

Oh, good job by Skook of showing crank denialist Judith Curry lying about some supposed lack of warming. She seems to relish the adulation she gets from her new status as denialist cult hero, so she reliably makes up the stories that the cult wants to hear. That means her reputation is shit with honest scientists, but she no longer cares about that.

Who cares??!!!


My side is winning!!



20 graphs presented here >>>>

http://www.businessinsider.com/people-are-losing-hope-for-green-energy-2012-11?op=1

 

[asterism]

Looks like computer experts should have written these models instead of rank amateurs in Climatology fields.

But computer experts _did_ write the models. Where did you get the idea they didn't? Oh, that's right, partly from me. But I have no problem admitting error, as only cultists declare themselves to be infallible.

Why trust climate models? It?s a matter of simple science | Ars Technica
---
When Easterbrook started looking into the processes followed by climate modeling groups, he was surprised by what he found. “I expected to see a messy process, dominated by quick fixes and muddling through, as that's the typical practice in much small-scale scientific software. What I found instead was a community that takes very seriously the importance of rigorous testing, and which is already using most of the tools a modern software development company would use (version control, automated testing, bug tracking systems, a planned release cycle, etc.).”

“I was blown away by the testing process that every proposed change to the model has to go through,” Easterbrook wrote. “Basically, each change is set up like a scientific experiment, with a hypothesis describing the expected improvement in the simulation results. The old and new versions of the code are then treated as the two experimental conditions. They are run on the same simulations, and the results are compared in detail to see if the hypothesis was correct. Only after convincing each other that the change really does offer an improvement is it accepted into the model baseline.”
---

Everyone should read the article, but I expect most denialists won't, since it basically shoots down all of their nonsense concerning the models. They'll also have to add Ars Technica to their list of forbidden sources.

Oh, good job by Skook of showing crank denialist Judith Curry lying about some supposed lack of warming. She seems to relish the adulation she gets from her new status as denialist cult hero, so she reliably makes up the stories that the cult wants to hear. That means her reputation is shit with honest scientists, but she no longer cares about that.

Why trust the models? Read the OP. They are uniformly wrong in exaggerating warming. Only two of them predicted too little warming, the rest all predicted too much.

As for the article, it's good to see that some sanity has finally been let into Climate Science. Perhaps moving forward things will be better, but we all know how bad the data has been mangled in the past and that is what forms the basis for the AGW hysteria.


I find it telling that you dismiss Judith Curry just because she's an actual expert that disagrees with you, an obvious non-expert. Is there any AGW skeptic you find credible?

 

[bripat9643]

As Ive said for years.....the AGW crowd has always been desperate to cling to the established narrative.

Rejecting mainstream science without cause is by far the more desperate modality.

There's plenty of cause.

 

[flacaltenn]

Looks like computer experts should have written these models instead of rank amateurs in Climatology fields.

But computer experts _did_ write the models. Where did you get the idea they didn't? Oh, that's right, partly from me. But I have no problem admitting error, as only cultists declare themselves to be infallible.

Why trust climate models? It?s a matter of simple science | Ars Technica
---
When Easterbrook started looking into the processes followed by climate modeling groups, he was surprised by what he found. “I expected to see a messy process, dominated by quick fixes and muddling through, as that's the typical practice in much small-scale scientific software. What I found instead was a community that takes very seriously the importance of rigorous testing, and which is already using most of the tools a modern software development company would use (version control, automated testing, bug tracking systems, a planned release cycle, etc.).”

“I was blown away by the testing process that every proposed change to the model has to go through,” Easterbrook wrote. “Basically, each change is set up like a scientific experiment, with a hypothesis describing the expected improvement in the simulation results. The old and new versions of the code are then treated as the two experimental conditions. They are run on the same simulations, and the results are compared in detail to see if the hypothesis was correct. Only after convincing each other that the change really does offer an improvement is it accepted into the model baseline.”
---

Everyone should read the article, but I expect most denialists won't, since it basically shoots down all of their nonsense concerning the models. They'll also have to add Ars Technica to their list of forbidden sources.

Oh, good job by Skook of showing crank denialist Judith Curry lying about some supposed lack of warming. She seems to relish the adulation she gets from her new status as denialist cult hero, so she reliably makes up the stories that the cult wants to hear. That means her reputation is shit with honest scientists, but she no longer cares about that.

Why trust the models? Read the OP. They are uniformly wrong in exaggerating warming. NOT ONE of them predicted too little warming, they all predicted too much.

As for the article, it's good to see that some sanity has finally been let into Climate Science. Perhaps moving forward things will be better, but we all know how bad the data has been mangled in the past and that is what forms the basis for the AGW hysteria.


I find it telling that you dismiss Judith Curry just because she's an actual expert that disagrees with you, an obvious non-expert. Is there any AGW skeptic you find credible?

Judith Curry is not just an expert in her field. She's one of the MOST QUALIFIED and PRODUCTIVE experts in Climate Science.

It's more likely that Mammooth would draft most of Browns and Jets for his fantasy team.

 

[daveman]

Looks like computer experts should have written these models instead of rank amateurs in Climatology fields.

Wouldn't have helped, we simply do not know enough about how weather climate and systems evolve and are created. We are real good at OBSERVED data on weather but no good on climate models.

We simply do not know enough.

We're good at observing data...and climatologists are good at cherrypicking it.

 

[loa]

...notice the climate crusaders steer waaaaaaay clear of this thread. Happens all the time.....they want stuff like this to fall away from the face page of the forum asap.

Curry is one voice of many. And for the Republicans to repeatedly use her is like a bad case of confirmation bias.

That said, what else have you got? Not much from what I see here. (so far)

K.

 

[Abraham3]

As Ive said for years.....the AGW crowd has always been desperate to cling to the established narrative.

Rejecting mainstream science without cause is by far the more desperate modality.

Hey.....I didn't write the headline s0n!!!

I didn't say you did.

The Mail (a paragon of a technical reference source there) seems to have omitted all mention of the rapidly warming ocean. And I love the comments that it was the "computers" that created the faulty predictions.

Well, you fellows have been badmouthing the IPCC nonstop since the day your first heard the name. Assuming that this is, in fact, the final draft; did they get this wrong?

You are correct that the problem is NOT who wrote the software. The problem is an inadequate understanding of a very complex system. That lack of understanding has led to at least two problems: one, a failure to understand or even be aware of this long term PDO/ENSO variability and, two, any acceptance of the idea that anthropogenic global warming has stopped.

 

[flacaltenn]

...notice the climate crusaders steer waaaaaaay clear of this thread. Happens all the time.....they want stuff like this to fall away from the face page of the forum asap.

Curry is one voice of many. And for the Republicans to repeatedly use her is like a bad case of confirmation bias.

That said, what else have you got? Not much from what I see here. (so far)

K.

Didnt read the OP for this thread didya?

FACTS dont matter but politics does?
Try again and tell us this story is not much.

 

[ScienceRocks]

and this is why we get historic thousand year floods every few years on earth the last decade

 

[PMZ]

and this is why we get historic thousand year floods every few years on earth the last decade

Read up on random cause versus assignable cause. You statistical ignorance is showing.