Climate change not as threatening to planet - Scientists got their modelling wrong

originally posted by: joemoe
What? The AGW model was wrong? This cannot be! The Ivory Tower cannot make mistakes. Don't worry the new model will be corrected. Just need to drop a couple of inconvenient data points .

Updating views based on new evidence is pretty much what science is all about.

Unlike political dogma...

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Bluntone22
The old climate models are wrong but our new climate models are spot on.....sure they are.

So you agree with the study where it contradicts previous studies, but don't believe when it confirms the impact humanity I having on the climate.

Possibly a little bit of confirmation bias?

Not really.
I think every one of these studies are greatly flawed. They draw a conclusion and when that doesn't end up being correct they adjust their data and draw another conclusion.
In other words, this study has no more credibility than all the previous ones.

People are so demanding lol.
No world wide Modeling of any event will every be to a .06 - .09 degree .

To many unknown factors .

But you don't need models for big even ether .
Just watch the weather channel when Nom Alaska is getting temperatures of 75 % and above in teh summer that is enough to show it getting hot .
Ps nom is right on the Arctic circle a hop skip and jump away from the north pole 75% there is like 138 in death valley .
also even Anchorage Alaska gets over 90 % regular in the summer now .
I live in Florida and many many times its hotter there then HERE ! seen 96 % quite a few times now meen wile we are getting 88 - 91 on and around the same dates .

Earth getting warmer is a fact and its happing much much faster then any models show .
It is a Geometric effect starts slow seams small but quickly dobbles and triples amounts .

Good news is earth had a average temp of 86 % during the dino days so temp rise along will not kill of life .
what will and is killing of life is environment collapse .

Over fishing has gotton many areas on the virge of it . The fertilizer we use has created dead zones so big they will soon merge and the entire gulf of mexico will be a dead zone .

Stop worrying about how warm it is and start worrying about chocking the oceans dead with trash and pollution.
Opps to late We may be able to revers warming but its already past the point of no return with extinction because of greed .

With in the next 10 or 20 years humans will need to ban fishing every ware tring to save what is left of ocean life but again it to late ( shark attacks are on the rise ( not because more people are in teh water but because less fish are in the water . But again dont worrie as the sharks them selfs are dieing off as well .

Heat no heat humans are creating a mass extinction .

a reply to: scubagravy

I believe they can do amazing things with hemp. If I live to be a hundred, I will never understand why my parents and grandparents went along with making hemp illegal.

I prefer to believe the reports stating that the polar bear population is 30,000 plus, that there has been no global warming for the past eighteen years, the Greenland's ice is increasing, and as for Al Gore pronouncement that the north west passage will now be ice free, yeah right, a summer expedition to navigate the north west passage had to be rescued as it got stuck in ice, perhaps my mailbox gets too many news blogs?

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Actually I think I've come across an article that states that the bleaching has more to do with cheap and knockoff brand suntan lotions using something TiO2 in excessive levels.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Actually no, no there isn't.

Well wait, maybe there is a difference. Yep, the difference between telling the truth vs. being a hypocrite.

You see, all that seemingly harmless energy usage to keep the activists warm when it's cold out comes from a big nasty greenhouse gas belching power plant which runs on fossil fuels mined from the earth by big black smoke belching heavy equipment. That natural gas used to warm up the water for a nice warm shower comes from the ground, where it is drilled by great big oil rigs which belch more of those big nasty fumes out into their precious atmosphere. THEN, even worse still, those same big nasty oil rigs then hydraulically fracture the earth to retrieve the gas, oh the horrors.

Nope, no more electricity and natural gas for keeping their hypocrite backsides nice and comfy warm while they study and scheme (aka "research") more ways to rip-off society by coming up with bogus global warming trends and data! No more! If they truly believe in the crap they spew, then they should be doing their part, however small, to eliminate this "carbon footprint" they so dearly covet! Oh, but they'll never do that, will they??? Nope!! Because why? Because they're hypocrites, that's why!

a reply to: Bluntone22

Yeah, they dream up an answer...and then go looking for the question.

It's confirmation bias of the highest order.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: ScepticScot

Actually no, no there isn't.

Well wait, maybe there is a difference. Yep, the difference between telling the truth vs. being a hypocrite.

You see, all that seemingly harmless energy usage to keep the activists warm when it's cold out comes from a big nasty greenhouse gas belching power plant which runs on fossil fuels mined from the earth by big black smoke belching heavy equipment. That natural gas used to warm up the water for a nice warm shower comes from the ground, where it is drilled by great big oil rigs which belch more of those big nasty fumes out into their precious atmosphere. THEN, even worse still, those same big nasty oil rigs then hydraulically fracture the earth to retrieve the gas, oh the horrors.

Nope, no more electricity and natural gas for keeping their hypocrite backsides nice and comfy warm while they study and scheme (aka "research") more ways to rip-off society by coming up with bogus global warming trends and data! No more! If they truly believe in the crap they spew, then they should be doing their part, however small, to eliminate this "carbon footprint" they so dearly covet! Oh, but they'll never do that, will they??? Nope!! Because why? Because they're hypocrites, that's why!

Yes the 'Activists' are the ones pointing out exactly that. Energy creation is generally environmentally damaging and maybe it would be good if we were a bit less wastefull and tried generating more from renewable sources.

The idea that it is hypocritical to be concerned about the environment and still use electricity is really beyond stupid.

Here's a simple test...

145 million years ago dinosaurs roamed around freely in Colorado, the biggest and meanest of the dino's. The polar ice caps didn't even exist then.

Today, 145 million years later, it's far, FAR, too cold to support reptilian life like that in Colorado. Heck, not even alligators can survive in Colorado.

The ocean's surface (Mean Sea Level) was fully 300 feet higher than it is today. Why? Because Antarctica and North Pole.

Game, set...match.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Do all these same 'activists' all live on solar and wind with everything they do to stay nice and comfy? Nope. Do they all swear off all modes of motorized transportation including cars and mass transit? Nope, not even close.

See the trend here????

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: ScepticScot

Do all these same 'activists' all live on solar and wind with everything they do to stay nice and comfy? Nope. Do they all swear off all modes of motorized transportation including cars and mass transit? Nope, not even close.

See the trend here????

Saying we should reduce CO2 emissions is not the same as saying we should or even could have 0 CO2 emissions.

Not sure how you are difficulty with that concept.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
I think every one of these studies are greatly flawed. They draw a conclusion and when that doesn't end up being correct they adjust their data and draw another conclusion.
In other words, this study has no more credibility than all the previous ones.

This will end up being the most logical comment in this thread.

For those caring to be able to read an entire article instead of a pay-to-read article (whose page is fully flooded with ads...go figure), I found one at T he Australian.

Here's an interesting snippet:

According to the models, keeping the average temperature increase below 1.5C would mean that the world could emit only about 70 billion tonnes of carbon after 2015. At the present rate of emissions, this “carbon budget” would be used up in three to five years. Under the new assessment, the world can emit another 240 billion tonnes and still have a reasonable chance of keeping the temperature increase below 1.5C.

“That’s about 20 years of emissions before temperatures are likely to cross 1.5C,” Professor Allen said. “It’s the difference between being not doable and being just doable.”

So, iff'n my math-uh-matical skills are working, not only were the models wrong (compared to new models...let that sink in), they were wrong by 343% concerning the available "carbon budget," and the time frame for said "budget" to be reached by between 400% and 667%.

From the same story:

Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford and another author, said: “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations.” He added that the group of about a dozen computer models, produced by government institutes and universities around the world, had been assembled a decade ago “so it’s not that surprising that it’s starting to divert a little bit from observations”.

Divert a little bit.

A "little bit," in my opinion, is not a margin of error of 343% or 400% or 667%. Admit it, scientists, you effed up the models, which are 10 years old, and all of us who have been paying attention as to how these effed-up models have not been reflecting reality have been ridiculed, called "deniers," and basically disregarded because, well...consensus? And of course, all--every single one--of the incorrect projections have been on the hot side.

Regardless, this is EXACTLY the type of BS that we skeptics have been addressing over and over again, but quite honestly, I'm happy to give credit where credit is due: They have admitted this mistake.

Now, however, I'm wondering if it will be another decade before they realize how wrong these new projections may be and if they will admit that they were wrong again. Also, will they revamp the theory of AGW and find out where the models went wrong?

Sure, there's a chance that the new models may align with actual observations, but we are years away from knowing--it'll be an interesting wait, I'm sure.

Now, to slowly back away from this thread...

a reply to: pthena

No it's miraculously changing their Outlook so that it is possible for humans to change it which was one of the biggest arguments against taking the measures necessary to curb it because there was no possibility of stopping it based on their modeling in other words, this just supports that they're full of s*** again trying to get what they want.

Jaden

Wow, it's been a tough year for Globalists and "science" fakery. It's like a light is being shone into the great abyss of darkness, the deceitful malleability of statistics and modeling, and the real killer: group think.

Let the prevarication and double-speak begin (again.) Phage?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: myselfaswell
My point is that the study which your OP touts, says that, if adhered to, the Paris agreement goals for limiting CO2 emissions in the near term may actually be able to restrict global warming to the goal of 1.5º through the 21st century. If not, there is no chance of that occurring.

Was it really that hard to understand? Did you read what the study says? No? You just went with what someone told you the study says? You shouldn't do that.

So the part about the models being wrong, is ....wrong?

Wait are climate change deniers now using a climate change model to say it's happening?

This is confusing.

The thing about models particularly complex weather models is they are predictions. People get stuck on the dates, times, shapes, but they are workstill in progress.

The real solution is to fix lobbying to limit donations and out of proportion influence so that new innovation can make it to the market place without dieing from monopoly tactics companies like GE use.

Let the best most efficient machines replace the old one. If you get rid of the cheater system in the energy sector and all the crony capitalism you will see the innovation reach the marketplace much faster.

Ten birds with two stones.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: myselfaswell
My point is that the study which your OP touts, says that, if adhered to, the Paris agreement goals for limiting CO2 emissions in the near term may actually be able to restrict global warming to the goal of 1.5º through the 21st century. If not, there is no chance of that occurring.

Was it really that hard to understand? Did you read what the study says? No? You just went with what someone told you the study says? You shouldn't do that.

So the part about the models being wrong, is ....wrong?

So are you agreeing with this study which confirms human impact on global warming?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: myselfaswell
My point is that the study which your OP touts, says that, if adhered to, the Paris agreement goals for limiting CO2 emissions in the near term may actually be able to restrict global warming to the goal of 1.5º through the 21st century. If not, there is no chance of that occurring.

Was it really that hard to understand? Did you read what the study says? No? You just went with what someone told you the study says? You shouldn't do that.

So the part about the models being wrong, is ....wrong?

So are you agreeing with this study which confirms human impact on global warming?

If I say yes, what do you win?

LOL, I am a computer nerd. So my opinion on AGW is worth as much as Phages opinion on my toenail fungus.

But I have been of the belief that we don't know a whole lot about AGW, Climate Change, or whatever you wish to call it. I think "scientists" have been trying to prove a hypothesis with the idea that coming to the conclusion advertised is paramount. Which isn't really science, as much as it is...advertisement. (IMHO)

I believe it's entirely possible that we don't contribute much at all to warming, but we do a smashing job of polluting the seas, the land, the air, and space.

When those who make claims like we are "past the point of no return" are still consuming 10-50 times the resources the average human does, it kind of makes the whole thing look like a joke, and sadly, those who champion the cause, are blind to the Hippocracy.

So in conclusion, we may in deed be contributing to a warming earth, but then again, we may not. What this article states, is that some of the doom was a bit over hyped. If you have a new article that states something different, I'd read it.