[Climate Change] Lake Erie up to 60% Covered in Ice

Global warming slowdown: No systematic errors in climate models, comprehensive statistical analysis reveals:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150202114636.htm

 

What exactly are you questioning? This statement?

All that is saying is the GHG likelihood of being UNPRECEDENTED against the past 800k.

I don't know where you are talking about co2 not being a warming agent in the past - the analysis actually argues against that if you read the whole thing. It specifically says that it is "virtually certain" that glaciation can not occur at current co2 levels as prior glacial periods only happened at co2 level on par with pre-industrial levels.

It also states that glacial periods the temp changes at a rate of 1 degree per - wait for it - 1,000 years!

We're seeing warming of .5 degrees in 50 years. Or 10x faster than glacial warming (caused by orbital forcing).

You're just not interpreting things correctly here. Read the full report and understand what the context of the statements are.

 

Nobody ever suggested that the models were wrong because of "systemic errors". Rather, the obvious reason that the models have been wrong is because of random (i.e. natural) variations in the Earth's climate.

Another straw man by the natural climate change deniers, put to rest.

 

If a system is random then it can not be modeled. You do understand this concept right?

 

You are confused on what the article is saying, which I assume from your response you did not bother to read, and what the phrase "systematic errors" means. If you think global warming is due primarily to "natural variations" and is not driven by what we are doing, then you do in fact believe the models are systematically flawed.

 

The models of the warmists have been predicting warming at a pretty substantial rate since 1998, which has not occurred. In fact, every year up until now has been cooler than 1998, even by the periodically skewed and fabricated measurements of the scientists that support the AGW alarmism movement.

Of course we have not even examined the possibility yet that the 2014 increase of four one-hundredths of a degree is based on bad data, but you can be sure that an close evaluation of that will be forthcoming in the months to come. And no, we will not just be "trusting" these people about any of this, for obvious reasons.

In fact, the reason why the 1998 date is used for comparison is because that is the year of the previous high that the 2014 temperature supposedly is an increase over, by four one-hudredths (0.04) of a degree (at least there is a 38% chance that it did anyway, according to the NASA scientists).

And while you accuse skeptics of choosing a high point to compare the temperature increase with (which the NASA scientists did also, since 2014 temperature is perhaps a four one-hundredths of a degree increase over the 1998 temperature), you and the alarmists routinely choose low points on the trend, from which an upswing would have been expected even if no human had ever lived on this planet. Why is picking a high point on the trend any more objectionable than picking a low point on the trend. In fact, it isn't.

Pot meet kettle.

Also, there is no proof that any heat has gone into the oceans. That is just wild conjecture by the warmists, who realize that their AGW models have failed and that their theory is not proving out the way that they had hoped that it would, and are throwing this wild guess out as a "Hail Mary" attempt to try and save their AGW hypothesis from outright ridicule and scorn.

 

Actually, if you do not realize that these people are completely F.O.S., it is you that is confused. Here is a quote from the article, which I did read:

"However, the gap between the calculated and measured warming is not due to systematic errors of the models, as the skeptics had suspected, but because there are always random fluctuations in Earth's climate, according to a comprehensive statistical analysis."

Naturally. Rather than refuting the position of the skeptics, such as myself, they are in fact confirming it.

 

What do you think is meant by "random fluctuations"? Climate change is based only on randomness in nature? If so, you are totally misinterpreting the statement.

 

Actually, from that statement alone I can tell you with 100% certainty that I know a great deal more about statistical modeling than you do, which includes a better understanding of what the word random means in this context.

If the Earth's climate was truly random, then there would be no point in modeling it, that would be true. But the Earth's climate is not "random". The suggestion that it is, is just wildly incorrect. And the authors of the article are not trying to suggest that they believe that it is either, to be fair to them.

 

That is Sweet Lou that apparently believes that.

 

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about, then.

If you agree with the results of the statistical study that the models do not have systematic errors and that random fluctuations in climate rather than flaws in the model's assumptions explains the over-prediction of the last 15 years, then what about the article are you disputing?

 

If you want to engage in semantic word parsing games around how to explain why the 70+ models of the AGW alarmism movement have all been substantially wrong, and all in the same direction, to the hot side, I will leave that to you.

You are missing the forest for the trees. The models have been consistently wrong, substantially so. And it is these models that all of the alarmist hysteria has been based off of.

Yes, the Earth has warmed, depending on when you start the measurements. I am partial to the last ice age, when New York City was estimated to have glaciers two miles thick covering Central Park. Since that time the Earth has certainly warmed, and nearly all that ice melted, with almost no appreciable contribution from man to speak of.

Yes, the prediction models that serve as the foundation of the AGW alarmism movement have been routinely and consistently wrong and all to the hot side. Try to explain those results away however you like. I know that is what you people do 100% of the time, as you refuse to entertain any evidence that contradicts your AGW alarmism doctrine. You discredit yourself and your hysterical movement by your inflexibility and your devout closed-mindness on this subject.

 

I'm just trying to understand what you're thinking.

The key question is what is wrong with the models, if anything, that they would be off on their predictions over the last 15 years. That's what the study described in this article is trying explain.

You are asserting that there is no contribution from man. How did you arrive at this conclusion?

The conclusion of the study shows that models which assert the opposite, that the warming is due primarily to contributions from human activity, have not been falsified by the observations in recent years -- contrary to what you are saying.

The evidence you are referring to is, in fact, being explicitly and carefully considered by this study. That is the very point of it. Again, I don't understand what you're disputing in the article, other than it didn't reach the same conclusion you've decided must be true.

 

He's thinking like a paid Koch advocate, a debater trying to stymie reasonable actions for self profit.

Here't the thing: at best, and I am being charitable, our dissenters render projection studies questionable down to a coin toss. Given the consequences versus the costs, wouldn't it be the better choice right now to direct civilization toward a lower CO2 footprint> innovating new industries and new jobs rather than enriching the riskier status quo?

 

In this thread, there have been two studies that said models are indeed accurate, even almost spot on. Links provided for both.

If you said the models have been wrong, provide link to studies that said models have been wrong. A pretty graph doesn't do it, because we all know you will pick an arbitrary timeline, where as I said before, can tell any story (cooler or hotter) and is worthless. Again, provide your link.

 

LOL. The first one was B.S. (it was yours) and the second study is actually trying to provide an explanation for why the models were wrong.

There is no question the models have been wrong, as you and everyone knows very well. The models have been predicting steady increases in temperatures, and 2014 is the first increase we have seen since 1998. Sixteen years without an increase (if in fact this even was an increase, as there is only a 38% chance that there was, according to NASA) was not what we have been hysterically told was going to happen.

And of course even if the four one hundredths of a degree increase is accurate (a big if for several reasons), that is such a remarkably small temperature change that it really only establishes that temperatures continue to be flat over this period, which is in fact a more truthful telling of what has actually been happening here.

 

Where is your source and link? I don't want to argues with your beliefs. I want to see your source. Do you have any?

 

As far as the studies, it is what is. Your beliefs is what prevent you from accepting the result of those studies. There is nothing anyone can do to change your mind - that's your responsibility. So, it's a waste of time to argue that. I just want to see your source. If you don't have any, there is nothing else to said.

 

I am not your research assistant. If you want to try to refute anything I have posted, feel free to do so.