And yet he's still head of NASA's GISS program.
Hmm, who do we trust, you or NASA?
Gavin Schmidt, NASA admit their Climate models are running too hot
- Thread starter JohnLarue
- Start date
Hmm, who do we trust, you or NASA?
Well perhaps a slight understanding of science is not good enough , particularly when you arrogantly demanding everyone must change their lives
You have a slight understanding of science and you got it wrong, unconditionally backing the " scientists: who do not seem to understand what their "flawed models" are doing
absolutely not
The argument is that CO2 is not the control knob for climate and that the satellite dats shows now net warming. ie no climate emergency
Nothing about a conspiracy there
The fact there are about 100 often cited models all of which have consistently run too hot for years is no co-incidence
There is obviously a lot of communication and collaboration amongst the modelers (you know sort of like Michael Mann and Phil Jones were collaborating during climate gate) and voila: group think with incentives
That is a natural conclusion if one asks why "How could all of them get it wrong"?
Now if you want to call that a conspiracy that is your choice
You could throw in the fact this lot attacked, ostracized and intentionally torpedoed the careers of scientists who raised an opposing view
Bizarre behavior for men / women of science do you not agree?
More like irrational uncompromising activists with an agenda (Michael Mann, Katherine Hayhoe) rather than disciplined unbiased learned seekers of scientific truth
Is that sick disgusting behavior the result of a conspiracy?
Perhaps you can suggest something else which sets this particular set of
There you go again, arrogantly using the phrase "denier/ deny" despite this new revelation . A little humility when proven wrong is more appropriate
Nobody is denying the models are flawed
Re: the planet warming
Not according to the satellite data
The article is referring to the flawed surface temperature record
Likely one of the sources of error as the input data into the "flawed models"
The first rule of scientific model building is GIGO (garbage in, garbage out)
The issues with the surface temp record are well known and documented , but have been ignored , trivialized or dismissed
and now the output is garbage
That is pseudoscience
I told you so
Last edited:
It takes a special kind of ineptitude to post a commentary about an article detailing how models are constantly monitored, upgraded and how they deal with issues to then turn around and say they don't understand why there are problems.
The frigging article does exactly what you say they can't do.
larue clearly only has a slight understanding of science as his views about the greenhouse effect would have him failed out of high school science and laughed out of university.
We can count on you to interrupt them, I'll bet.
You don't have to trust Johnny, you can just let him interrupt the absorption spectra!
I love this!
"Nothing about a conspiracy here. I'm just pointing out that they talk a lot and trade notes and then coordinate to attack people they disagree with as if they are secretly not scientists but have some kind of agenda!
p.s. I am not a crackpot."
Come on. His reading comprehension isn't as bad as Tee Jay's.
I think it is, either that or he just refused to read the original article.
He has some basic chemistry yet get things so incredibly wrong there has to be something going on, either dunning kruger or total lack of reading comprehension.
Massive Like.
I know quite a bit about models, and a model needs to be robust in chaotic systems, meaning that it is not thrown off by relatively small changes in inputs etc. Change things a bit, it should still more or less come up with the same answer.
From what I have seen, climate models are quite the opposite: delicate. Furthermore, they assume that our planet's climate (among other things) is also delicate, whereas I believe it is quite the opposite. Life has been around for hundreds of thousands of years.
There is all sorts of talk of extinctions due to global warming, in spite of the evidence that these same species managed just fine in hotter conditions in the past.
When all this is ignored/distorted, it bears the fingerprint of a political agenda, which is using this 'crisis' to re-engineer the world in line with their own political viewpoint.
It is pretty obvious the models were developed to produce a desired outcome
That is not scientific research
The sixth great extinction has nothing to do with models.
Try again.
As for the climate models, you've got thousands of scientists from around the world working on these things.
Your hunch about sensitivity is about as valid a point as larue's ignorance about the greenhouse effect.
You could read the many discussions of the models and what is going on with them in the literature and see how robust the are.
Larue, you're projecting again.
.
What would you like to know?
As opposed to your contribution, which is what again ?
Diddley squat ?
All one hundred models ran too hot, updating in lockstep with each other for years, maybe decades
that is no coincidence
You are more than welcome to offer up an alternative explanation to "group think with benefits"
Or do you just "deny" that all one hundred in lockstep and all wrong is implausible itself ?
All 100 from multiple countries just happened to make the same mistake ?
Can I sell you a bridge?
Do not lose sight of the fact these models are flawed, unable to predict the future and they can not even replicate the past
Ask Roger Piekle, Peter Ridd, Murray Selby, Herman Hind, Patrick Michaels, Bjorn Longborg, Judith Curry, Matt Ridley, Fred Singer, Roy Spencer, John Christy Richard Linzen or William Happer what happens to your career and funding if you speak the truth on this issue or try to publish your findings
There are many more , but unless you are totally stunned or capable of deluding yourself , you should get the picture
Do you mean like 100 hundred different models all projecting results which are implausible? And they do not know why
The models are flawed and they are the basis for all the "Climate Emergency" propaganda
You know the propaganda which has intentionally been used to scare the living shit out of a whole generation of children
A whole generation of kids intentionally traumatized . Think about the repercussions of that
Yet you seem to think "that's OK"
I am not a big fan of people who abuse children for personal or political gain
Actually you arep.s. I am not a crackpot."
If you have very little understanding about the issue you need to get educated before having an opinion
Ignorant and arrogant is a real bad combination
I suggest you to lose one or the other to start
Last edited:
Why is a guy who produces "flawed Climate Models" the head of NASA GISS?
Obviously he does not have "the Right Stuff"
Gee could Al Gore have had something to do with his appointment??
First, I have not demanded anyone change their mind or their actions. That is just a figment of whatever victim complex fuels your conspiracy theory.
Second, I admit that I am not an expert in climate science. I have enough understanding to be able to refute the bullshit you peddle but otherwise I take the time to listen to what actual experts say. Almost every single one of the experts have looked at the evidence and have concluded that CO2 production by people is playing a role in making the atmosphere warmer. The only debate in the scientific community is how much impact we have, the long term impact it will have on world climates, and what can be done about it.
You on the other hand are still trying to pretend the world isn't warming while referring to articles that clearly state otherwise.
But if it makes you happy to keep spamming essentially irrelevant materials, I won't stop you.
You make an interesting conclusion from those details. Most people in the scientific community know that the diverse factors affecting climate are complex and are working to continually improve the modelling. That is how science works.
On the other hand, you seem to be suggesting we reject any scientific advances unless they are complete. That would be like refusing to use condoms because they only prevent STDs most of the time.
First paragraph - more or less, so far so good, science advances, who doesn't know that, don't see where I said science doesn't advance. But with modelling it is important to not curve fit the data. And when you say "interesting conclusion" - am I safe in saying that you see something unusual or irregular in my conclusion? Nothing I said remotely relates to that, so I don't know why you refer to my post on this. Please enlighten me with specific references to my words.
2nd paragraph - where do I suggest that we reject scientific advances till they are complete? There is no basis for your statement.
Be specific.
Overall your comment about my comment seems to have zero to do with what I actually said.
Otherwise you are merely making assertions without buttressing them with evidence and reason. Assertions about the physical world are one thing, but assertions about what I said when it is clearly there in front of you indicates a blind determination to ignore reality.
So let me help you out.
In my post, what leads you to conclude that I "reject any scientific advances until they are complete? Other than "Massive like", there are 5 sentences. Tell me which one clearly states what you say.
Thanks.
Last edited:
You support the AGW nonsense , therefore you support the demand that everyone must change their lives in order to save the planet. It is real simple
You have proven you never understood or have forgotten a lot of fundamentals of physics
In your dreams, not even close
It was quite disturbing to watch you claim to be an engineer and them fumble through some relatively basic science, get it completely wrong and think you had won via insulting me
You demanded I use an equilibrium state equation to disprove a time series of temperature changes ???
You were given the formulae and the inputs in a research paper and somehow you used a different equation, got the wrong answer and claimed the published paper equation had to be wrong. ???? WTF ?????
The blunt honest truth is your scientific understanding is marginally better than Frankfooters and that is pretty bad
You mean experts like Gavin Schmidt ?
He admitted his model is flawed, it can not even replicate the past so ... he is an expert no more
And the 100 most cited models all produced the same running too hot problem, in lockstep .... like they all had made the same mistakes, so they are experts no more
Group think with incentives ?
Based on the output from flawed models, using flawed input data
So the conclusion is flawed...... back to the drawing board
And when we look at real atmospheric measurements of temperature by the satellites as of June there is only a net marginal cooling
so that conclusion by your experts , does not match the experimental data..... back to the drawing board
Actually not at all , not even close
- Emissions declined by 7% in 2020, yet the CO2 concentrations levels just kept on climbing just like before the economic lockdowns , raising serious questions about the carbon cycle model (oops another model by "Climate Scientist's / activists / computer jockeys with an agenda) and mans actual contribution to co2 atmospheric concentration
- There needs to be a serious review to determine how these modelers could all be so wrong. Was it group think with incentives ? or something else ????
- There needs to be honest and open debate on the scientific question. Debate which your so called experts have absolutely refused to participate in. They need to humbly listen to skeptical scientists if it is really the truth they seek
- The questions should be focused on improved understanding the extremely complex climate, rather than an exclusive effort to prove the false narrative of AGW
- There needs to be turnover of personnel. Your so called experts dropped the ball The behavior of some of these so called experts towards colleagues with a different view. and their refusal to debate the issue should have participated dismissal long ago
- The IPCC needs a wholesale personnel change over, or a complete disbandment. Activists need to be replaced with real scientists . Particularly in the area of recommendations to policy makers
- No more pseudoscience
You see this is exactly why you are a scientific illiterate
You were given a perfectly logical explanation that the article was referring to flawed surface temperature records and you were shown the atmosphere temperature record with no net warming
You chose to ignore both, not discuss them, not evaluate them but just ignore them outright.
You do not have a god damn clue about science
Science is about attention to detail and testing your theory against experiment. It is defiantly not about ignoring what does not fit into your theory, which is exactly what you continue to do
You have proven you never understood or have forgotten a lot of fundamentals of science
and you continue to prove your scientific ignorance with each post
Frankly you have repeatedly proven you are not even remotely qualified to determine what is relevant or irrelevant
Oh just in case you forgot
The climate Science models are flawed
I told you so
Last edited:
When a science fool thinks he is smarter than the head of NASA's GISS you know he's a special case of dunning kruger.
What a ridiculous statement
An incorrect scientific conclusion is not a scientific advancement
Climate science has likely set real scientific discovery back by decades
In this case the propaganda has already been distributed, we have been told "the science is settled" and the devastating and completely foolish action plan is already being put in to place
and now we have the so called experts admitting the models are flawed. The flawed models on which all the doom and gloom predictions are based.
The science was never even close to being settled
It is the equivalent of a false STD test which you now have to explain to your wife, family and girlfriend
Perhaps a second opinion is warranted before destroying lives / relationships
The Greenhouse Effect was first described in 1824.
There are zero legit scientists who think it doesn't exist or have an effect on the climate.
Only a total scientific ignoramus would make such a claim.
