So you knowingly posted about an article that refutes your oft-repeated claims?
And of course followed by your usual spamming of diversional attempts to pretend you understand science.
Gavin Schmidt, NASA admit their Climate models are running too hot
- Thread starter JohnLarue
- Start date
And of course followed by your usual spamming of diversional attempts to pretend you understand science.
No it did not
No mention in that article of the satellite record ,which again, shows a marginal cooling
I have been very consistent in claims about the satellite record
If you can not keep up, that is your problem and certainly it is not leave to just make shit up about what I claim
the satellite temp graph was pretty big
you are not very observant,
You can continue to misrepresent yourself , but do not misrepresent me
The big issue here is the admission by your so called experts that their climate models are flawed and they do not understand why
Odd how you avoid that like it is the plague
Well, I did correctly state the models were flawed a long time ago and many times since and guess what?
I was right
I hate to say, "I told you so", but.... I told you so (actually that felt pretty good)
you are annoying, intentionally deceitful and incapable of thinking for yourself
Slither away now,
Last edited:
The thousands of volunteer scientists have been working on this report for years using the latest papers and measurement numbers.
Anybody who is unaware that the earth has already warmed that much is clearly out to lunch.
Roy Spencer, who you quote as the source of your satellite measurements said this:
His measurements do not show any cooling.
You are lying and being incredibly dishonest.
- I believe the climate system has warmed (we produce one of the global datasets that shows just that, which is widely used in the climate community), and that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning contributes to that warming. I’ve said this for many years.
- I believe future warming from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would be somewhere in the range of 1.5 to 2 deg. C, which is actually within the range of expected warming the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has advanced for 30 years now. (It could be less than this, but we simply don’t know).
Validation of a model must be based on reliability
and accuracy of the model as a predictive tool not
one's preference of the outcome of the predictions.
To determine whether it is in close correlation with past
measurements you have to define the quantity measured
first. You also have to ascertain that the correlation is rooted
in correct implementation of the physical basis underling the
climate change process in the model. If the prediction is precise
enough it is a very good sign
even if researchers cannot fully explain results of
climate simulation based on the model. For instance
a climate model that correctly predicts that hurricanes in
the Gulf of Mexico were more intense and frequent in 2000s
than in 2010s would be very impressive. You still have to
be sure the factors causing change of the pattern of
hurricanes are real to rule out the possibility that the
prediction success is fortuitous.
Last edited:
Then they are doing fine, showing that the products you push are causing massive change to the climate of this planet.
you appear to be level headed and you are trying to be open minded and objective
you certainly do not deserve to attacked by a dishonest ideologue like basketcase
i would interested in your opinions on the following
So would you agree that since the current models are producing implausible predictions (ie can't predict the future) and can not replicate the past (see below) then they are fundamentally flawed?
From the original link
Honestly, if these models can not predict the future and can not replicate the past, can they even provide an accurate picture of the present ?
Realistically the present conditions should be the input values
But it would not surprise me if the model "adjustments" even alter the present
and these are the models which are the basis for
- radical and very dangerous public policy changes
- the propaganda intentionally used to scare the living shit out of a whole generation of children.
Last edited:
See chart above.
Oh right, you have to ignore my posts because you can't debate actual science or facts.
larue's pet claim that the satellites don't show warming in the atmosphere so therefore there is no heating on the surface, followed by his claim to nobel worthy infrared radiation theories are debunked by a recent NASA study. The study looked at the satellite data and infrared absorption and found that there is a less than 1% chance that the warming we are experiencing is not human caused. It also confirmed the heat imbalance we created that is warming the planet, showing that his claims about satellite data and infrared are incredibly stupid and wrong.
Joint NASA, NOAA Study Finds Earth's Energy Imbalance Has Doubled - NASA
Researchers have found that Earth’s energy imbalance approximately doubled during the 14-year period from 2005 to 2019.
www.nasa.gov
The model is not the reality.
Every modeller knows this.
It's part of the reason why you have things like the consensus model approach where you have to look at a bunch of different models and see where they are converging.
It's a tool. Like all tools, it has strengths and weaknesses and what comes out of it needs to be checked.
The idea that this isn't happening is silly. The article Johnny Larue cites came out this week but it is discussing an ongoing analysis of the models that has been going on for over two years, in public, in the journals.
I don't believe you are lying about this. I am pointing out that it is not worth the effort to check.
Whether or not the Canadian model was an outlier isn't really important to me and since even you can't remember where you saw it I don't feel like hunting for it.
It doesn't matter much.
Then how did you not notice the cloud discussion?
You're just wrong about this.
Again, this is discussed in the article you claimed to read. How did you miss it?
Yes, we agree. That's why there is constant discussion and iteration of the models as data comes in.
You know these are new models and not the ones from 13 years ago, right?
It seems I do a great deal more than you.
The problems with the models under discussion in the article have been actively discussed and debated in the literature for at least 2 years. I am not saying there is a 2 year deadline on science, that would be ridiculous.
Yes, I honestly think that modelling is acceptable.
That you don't understand what is going on in this article isn't my problem.
Why you post a quote that is an attack on your own position eludes me.
WTF are you talking about.
Seriously, instead of reading climate denier blogs, try reading the referenced article.
it is clear enough
My "oft-repeated" claims are that the satellite records show no net warming while the CO2 has increased significantly
Neither article made any reference to the satellite records , thus neither article refuted my claims
Try to keep up and and maybe think about why you need simple things explained to you multiple times
Is a comprehension issue for you or are you not paying attention??
Both provided the admission that the climate modals are flawed and they do understand why
That is the headline issue in both
That is pretty arrogant, you using the term "denier"
Nobody I know is denying the climate models are flawed
I did state many times the models had to be flawed , especially when they predicted rapid economic growth in third world countries and simultaneously predicting those same countries becoming uninhabitable wastelands.
Can you say logic failure or internally incompatible?
It is hardly my fault they are flawed
Perhaps instead you should be taking your frustrations out on "the scientists" who have been feeding you propaganda based on "Flawed Models'"
Oh, yeah this is the same group who form your "oft-repeated" scientific consensus.
Well that' is another problem for you now isn't?
That was you go to ..... when you were confronted with scientific issues you did not understand
I hate to say I told you so, but I did tell you so
Last edited:
Your oft repeated claim is a lie.
Its a fabrication based on bait and switch, comparing troposphere temperatures with surface temperatures.
Its as fake as fake can be.
This is the latest on the data from satellites, it says there is less than 1% chance you are not full of crap.
Joint NASA, NOAA Study Finds Earth's Energy Imbalance Has Doubled - NASA
Researchers have found that Earth’s energy imbalance approximately doubled during the 14-year period from 2005 to 2019.
www.nasa.gov
The rest of us?...... You and the science / logic challenged Frankfooter???
Ha Ha
you two don't have a clue between you
you really should have asked more questions when upon determining you and he were of the same mind
incidentally who has that mind now?
Lets be clear, I forgotten more about science than either of you propaganda peddlers will ever understand
Still avoiding the real issue of the thread I see?
Let me remind you
Your
No one for you to hide behind from now on
as I recall other than a chart based on "Flawed surface temp data" and a supposed consensus all you had was insults
You have been shown a consensus in science is irrelevant
So if the models are flawed could it be the root cause for this failure is
- inputting "Flawed surface temp data"
- the underlying theory (ie CO2 is the control knob for climate)?
- Climate is far to complex and chaotic to be modelled
Perhaps they should revisit the input surface temp data considering the facts that it is
incomplete ,
error filled,
fiddled with and
biased by the Urban Heat Island affect
Your surface data set is actually a better indicator of urban growth than the impact of a few extra parts per million of an inert gas on climate
perhaps the climate models can be salvaged and used by geography departments or urban planners
And they should also revisit the absurd assumption that water vapor is only a feedback. after all it is the dominate greenhouse gas responsible for 90% of the relevant absorption
This fundamental modelling flaw can be traced back to the
Your climate models are flawed and the activists
I told you so
And now all you are left with is insults
Slither away now
Last edited:
Dude, you were embarrassed so totally and repeatedly that all you could do is put me on ignore.
So now I just have to post a quick debunking for the board to show how incredibly dishonest and moronic your claims are.
So much easier.
Ain't news to me. I've been saying for years Schmidt is a charlatan. His PhD is in mathematics. He's not a trained climate scientist.
Climate scientist is not the holy grail either
I checked out the curriculum for a climate science degrees at one of the Canadian universities
Very short on chemistry, physics , with lots of policy courses and computer simulation training
My guess is Gavin Schmidt has seen very few absorption spectra if any at all and does not have a clue how to interrupt them. And the GHG theory is all about absorption of infrared energy
He has spent the best part of his career number noodling with a computer trying to predict a non linear chaotic system ... and apparently failed . No big surprise
Last edited:
And pretty much anyone on the planet with even a slight understanding of science. When your argument always boils down to claiming that there is some conspiracy among scientists to hide the 'truth'....
p.s. Even the article you mentioned in the OP states that the Earth is warming which is something you keep denying.
what he said is quoted on both the gwpf document and Science magazine in reference to the models being flawed, producing predictions which are implausible and unable to replicate the past.
Do you deny these as the facts of the matter ?
there is no claim, it is crystal clear, he runs NASA GISS and was Frankfooters go to refence when faced with logic and real science.
He & the other modelers were the ones you "oft-repeated" as the unassailable "Scientists" who you unconditionally trusted when you faced logic and real science.
Gavin Schmidt was 'your guy"
Now if you want to throw "your guy" Gavin Schmidt under the bus because he is not a climate scientist, and was unable to perpetuate your lie , then you will need to be upfront about it and not pussy foot about.
That would of course illustrate a rather slithery, back stabing , zero ethics and disloyal nature
Odd how intentional misleading others can put people in untenable positions isn't?
The climate models are flawed and they do not understand why
I told you so
