Models or data?

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
15,446
22,643
1
Dateline 1988: The world is heating up way too fast. Models show 1.4C of temperature increases in 2021, even if we drastically reduce greenhouse emissions.

Dateline 2021: Actual increase in global temperatures is 0.49C between 1988 and 2021. This, DESPITE, GHG emissions continuing to rise during the period.

Also Dateline 2021: Global temperatures, as measured/recorded by numerous scientific groups, show declines over the last five years.

Seems like the models need some work.

 

interrobang

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2016
19,703
27,064
1
Models are nothing more than a platform to justify a pre-existing outcome.

It's why covid models have always been so wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sullivan

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
5,085
4,772
1
Dateline 1988: The world is heating up way too fast. Models show 1.4C of temperature increases in 2021, even if we drastically reduce greenhouse emissions.

Dateline 2021: Actual increase in global temperatures is 0.49C between 1988 and 2021. This, DESPITE, GHG emissions continuing to rise during the period.

Also Dateline 2021: Global temperatures, as measured/recorded by numerous scientific groups, show declines over the last five years.

Seems like the models need some work.

failure to attain the predictions on warming is one reason why the mantra changed from "global warming" to "climate change".....because climate has been changing since the beginning of time. Hard to argue against climate change
 

HartfordLlion

Well-Known Member
Sep 28, 2001
21,858
14,729
1
Dateline 1988: The world is heating up way too fast. Models show 1.4C of temperature increases in 2021, even if we drastically reduce greenhouse emissions.

Dateline 2021: Actual increase in global temperatures is 0.49C between 1988 and 2021. This, DESPITE, GHG emissions continuing to rise during the period.

Also Dateline 2021: Global temperatures, as measured/recorded by numerous scientific groups, show declines over the last five years.

Seems like the models need some work.


Think about it, they the missed the temperature delta increase by 3X. If I presented post test results like that I'd get laughed out of the room and it would be very difficult to get anyone to trust any of my analysis for awhile.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski

interrobang

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2016
19,703
27,064
1
And the odds that sea temps rose by even 0.49 are probably part of some creative math
 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
7,996
7,277
1
I'm as conservative as they come, but I find it hard to believe that burning so much carbon, which took thousands or millions of years to become earthen, is having no impact.

My guess is that we are seeing climate change in the form of unusual weather patterns. Earlier this year, where I live, where it rarely snows, we got well over a foot of snow and weeks of zero degree temperatures. This week temperatures will be nearly 20 degrees above normal for a few days.

I'd like to see the statistics on variation, not averages. Variation presents a risk to life forms. Plants and animal life adapt but that takes far more time than a century or two.

What should we do about it? Well, restricting natural gas production in a world that will make that energy up by burning more coal and/or oil is not the answer. And those who would do that sort of thing cannot be trusted to work a problem like this.
 

HartfordLlion

Well-Known Member
Sep 28, 2001
21,858
14,729
1
I'm as conservative as they come, but I find it hard to believe that burning so much carbon, which took thousands or millions of years to become earthen, is having no impact.

My guess is that we are seeing climate change in the form of unusual weather patterns. Earlier this year, where I live, where it rarely snows, we got well over a foot of snow and weeks of zero degree temperatures. This week temperatures will be nearly 20 degrees above normal for a few days.

I'd like to see the statistics on variation, not averages. Variation presents a risk to life forms. Plants and animal life adapt but that takes far more time than a century or two.

What should we do about it? Well, restricting natural gas production in a world that will make that energy up by burning more coal and/or oil is not the answer. And those who would do that sort of thing cannot be trusted to work a problem like this.

We are coming out of a mini ice age so yes there is warming going on. The real questions is how much of it is man made or just natural.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dailybuck777

Ski

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
9,106
10,493
1
We are coming out of a mini ice age so yes there is warming going on. The real questions is how much of it is man made or just natural.

Question 2 is whether this global warming is a bad thing or a good thing? Historically, warm periods don't last that long and life prospers during those times. What if we could artificially extend these warm periods where life flourishes?

vostok_temperature_co2.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: dailybuck777

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
3,957
6,205
1
I'm as conservative as they come, but I find it hard to believe that burning so much carbon, which took thousands or millions of years to become earthen, is having no impact.

My guess is that we are seeing climate change in the form of unusual weather patterns. Earlier this year, where I live, where it rarely snows, we got well over a foot of snow and weeks of zero degree temperatures. This week temperatures will be nearly 20 degrees above normal for a few days.

I'd like to see the statistics on variation, not averages. Variation presents a risk to life forms. Plants and animal life adapt but that takes far more time than a century or two.

What should we do about it? Well, restricting natural gas production in a world that will make that energy up by burning more coal and/or oil is not the answer. And those who would do that sort of thing cannot be trusted to work a problem like this.
It does have a SLIGHT impact, and the direct mechanism is well known.

Put simply, the earth's average temperature is set by the balancing of the incoming solar radiation and outgoing long wave radiation. Carbon dioxide has its effect by absorbing a certain frequency band of the outgoing radiation and re-radiating it in all directions (including some back toward the surface of the earth). So, the more water vapor and the more CO2, the harder it is for heat to escape, so the planet warms.

That is all known, is indisputable, and is easy. The mathematics behind it predict a 1C temperature increase for each doubling of Carbon dioxide.

But with that kernel of truth, people then created (without evidence, and often with evidence to the contrary) POSITIVE feedback mechanisms that increase the warming even more. A perfect example of this is to put a subroutine into the model that increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere as temperature increases slightly. That water vapor blocks even more outgoing radiation, increasing the temperature even more...

In fact, most good studies suggest that the feedback mechanisms are modestly negative, in that a slight increase in temperature causes other mechanisms (like cloud cover) to change to allow more heat to escape.

That's it in a nutshell.

It is criminal the amount of lying and deception that has gone into this issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dailybuck777

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
7,996
7,277
1
A perfect example of this is to put a subroutine into the model that increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere as temperature increases slightly. That water vapor blocks even more outgoing radiation, increasing the temperature even more...

A "subroutine?" I love your choice of words. Takes me back.