In other words, they were completely wrong about the future, but they did a better job modelling the past.
Too funny.
The old Niels Bohr line should be the motto of the IPCC: "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future."
Top scientist resigns admitting gobal warming is a big scam!
- Thread starter PornAddict
- Start date
Too funny.
The old Niels Bohr line should be the motto of the IPCC: "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future."
Nonsense, the study says nothing of the sort. That's just spin, VOC's are known and included already in IPCC projections.
Nope, they models are accurate over the long term, including the present, where as you noted in the bet, temperatures are exactly where they predicted they would be.
That's an article looking at the global implications of an AMOC shutdown, which they say might be a 0.8ºC decrease in global temperatures in the short term.
At least you are looking at more legit sources for a change.
I guess you cannot read at all !!! This is unknown process discovered and it just been published in a latest peer review journal....
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b02388
Global models at the moment assume total emissions of isoprene from all sources - trees, plants, plankton, the lot - of around 1.9 megatons per year. But, according to the new research, the newly discovered "abiotic" process releases as much as 3.5 megatons on its own - which "could explain the recent disagreements" between models and reality.......So far global calculations consider only biological sources," explains Dr Christian George from French lab the Institute of Catalysis and Environment, in Lyon.
With the discovery of the new abiotic sea process, the idea that cutting carbon emissions may not be all that urgent is looking stronger. That's probably good news, as it has emerged lately that efforts to cut carbon emissions to date are having the unfortunate side effect of poisoning us all.
The new research is published here courtesy of the learned learned journal Environmental Science and Technology, and as the Leibniz Institute notes: "Because of the great importance this paper will be open access".
Last edited:
So your AMOC guy must be a "liar," because he says there has been a 15-year "hiatus."
Here's the link to the IPCC's Summary for Policy Makers from its third report in 2001. Please show me where it predicts a "hiatus" of at least 15 years:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/vol4/english/pdf/spm.pdf
Freeman Dyson, arguably the world's most brilliant living physicist, on the AGW models:
"What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what’s observed and what’s predicted have become much stronger. It’s clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn’t so clear 10 years ago."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/11/freeman_dyson_interview/
"What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what’s observed and what’s predicted have become much stronger. It’s clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn’t so clear 10 years ago."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/11/freeman_dyson_interview/
False, since 2014 temperatures have shot up again, and the 2015 temp is within 0.02ºC of the IPCC projections, as per the bet.
Why are you ignoring what has happened the last couple of years?
Take a look at this chart and point out this 'hiatus', please.
So you're saying your AMOC guy is wrong about the "hiatus." Or are you accusing him of "lying"?
As for Freeman Dyson's comments about the growing discrepancies between the predictions and the observed data, your graph doesn't show the predictions (we won't even mention the ridiculous scales on the axes).
But, hey, you obviously feel pretty strongly about your position. You should write to Freeman Dyson to explain to him that he just understand science as well as you do. :thumb:
The claim there was a hiatus has been debunked through research, and recent increases have also shown it to be wrong.
However, climatologists seem to still be under nearly daily barrages by people like you, and Exxon type lobbyists, who want to claim that there was a hiatus.
His research considered those questions, as did the IPCC.
Why do you think he was a 'liar' for looking into those claims?
And just for fun, can you point out this 'pause' or 'hiatus' in the chart below?
Of course you are probably just trying to avoid discussing his claim that climate change could bring on a shutdown of the AMOC that would lead to colder temperatures for the maritimes for about a century, and colder temperatures for the planet for 20-30 years.
That's one of the four 'tipping points'.
The melting of Arctic ice is another.
Last edited:
Nice try. He stated that the "hiatus" is a fact.
"Interestingly, the effect of atmospheric cooling due to an AMOC collapse is associated with heat flow from the atmosphere into the ocean, which has been witnessed during the climate hiatus of the last 15 years."
http://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2015/10/could-the-day-after-tomorrow-happen.page
`
Rather than playing your kindergarten-level games where you try to shift the attribution to me or lie about what he said, just give us a straight answer. Tell us whether or not you think the AMOC guy is right about the 15-year "hiatus."
The hiatus quote came from your AMOC guy and he stated it as a fact.
Rather than playing your kindergarten-level games where you try to shift the attribution to me or lie about what he said, just give us a straight answer. Tell us whether or not you think the AMOC guy is right about the 15-year "hiatus."
WAS not is.
Once again you act like scientists aren't allowed to update their findings based on new evidence.
p.s. Your Dutch study showed only 9% of scientists said there was no warming this century.
Here new evidence ...this proof that global warming and all their climate model is crap!!! This proof beyond reasonable doubt that the climate alarmist been all along wrong!!! Billions of dollar spend/waste for nothing!! Those money could had been spend on health care or research in cancer or other diesase like MS or Alzhiemer.
Hopefully this will be the the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'
This peer review article is the game changer.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/0...ctor_discovered_ahead_of_paris_climate_talks/
GLOBAL COOLING process discovered as Paris climate deal looms
'Could explain recent disagreements'
30 Sep 2015 at 11:28, Lewis Page
As world leaders get ready to head to Paris for the latest pact on cutting CO2 emissions, it has emerged that there isn't as much urgency about the matter as had been thought.
A team of top-level atmospheric chemistry boffins from France and Germany say they have identified a new process by which vast amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are emitted into the atmosphere from the sea - a process which was unknown until now, meaning that existing climate models do not take account of it.
The effect of VOCs in the air is to cool the climate down, and thus climate models used today predict more warming than can actually be expected. Indeed, global temperatures have actually been stable for more than fifteen years, a circumstance which was not predicted by climate models and which climate science is still struggling to assmilate.
In essence, the new research shows that a key VOC, isoprene, is not only produced by living organisms (for instance plants and trees on land and plankton in the sea) as had previously been assumed. It is also produced in the "microlayer" at the top of the ocean by the action of sunlight on floating chemicals - no life being necessary. And it is produced in this way in very large amounts.
According to an announcement just issued by the German government's Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research:
Atmospheric chemists from France and Germany, however, can now show that isoprene can also be formed without biological sources in the surface film of the oceans by sunlight and so explain the large discrepancy between field measurements and models. The new identified photochemical reaction is therefore important to improve the climate models.
Global models at the moment assume total emissions of isoprene from all sources - trees, plants, plankton, the lot - of around 1.9 megatons per year. But, according to the new research, the newly discovered "abiotic" process releases as much as 3.5 megatons on its own - which "could explain the recent disagreements" between models and reality.
"We were able for the first time to trace back the production of this important aerosol precursor to abiotic sources. So far global calculations consider only biological sources," explains Dr Christian George from French lab the Institute of Catalysis and Environment, in Lyon.
VOCs such as isoprene are known to be a powerful factor in the climate, as they cause the formation of aerosol particles. Some kinds of aerosol, for instance black soot, warm the world up: but the ones resulting from VOCs actually cool it down substantially by acting as nuclei for the formation of clouds. It has previously been suggested that production of VOCs by pine forests could be a negative feedback so powerful that it "limits climate change from reaching such levels that it could become really a problem in the world."
With the discovery of the new abiotic sea process, the idea that cutting carbon emissions may not be all that urgent is looking stronger. That's probably good news, as it has emerged lately that efforts to cut carbon emissions to date are having the unfortunate side effect of poisoning us all.
The new research is published here courtesy of the learned journal Environmental Science and Technology, and as the Leibniz Institute notes: "Because of the great importance this paper will be open access". http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b02388
Last edited:
His prediction that the "hiatus" is over is speculative -- but it doesn't matter.
The fact that there has been a hiatus for at least 15 years confirms the predictions of unprecedented warming were spectacularly wrong.
At least your ridiculosity is consistent. Observations matching projections can not be classified as 'spectacularly wrong'. Seems all you have are catch phrases.
If you took the time to read it it actually supports AGW as the major factor. All it does is explain why there might have been a slower rate of warming over the early 20th century than previously expected.
Thank you for providing the evidence that further supports the science.
I guess you dont know how to read!! This evidence further support global cooling!! !
You and Frankfooter have something in common...both of you dont know how to read!!
Atmospheric chemists from France and Germany, however, can now show that isoprene can also be formed without biological sources in the surface film of the oceans by sunlight and so explain the large discrepancy between field measurements and models. The new identified photochemical reaction is therefore important to improve the climate models.
With the discovery of the new abiotic sea process, the idea that cutting carbon emissions may not be all that urgent is looking stronger. That's probably good news, as it has emerged lately that efforts to cut carbon emissions to date are having the unfortunate side effect of poisoning us all.
