Koch funded climate skeptic declares global warming is real

this is where science comes into to play.

prove it troll. where is your science.

In short we know...
as the oceans warm they release co2.

Scientists are now speculation CO2 then increases clouds. Recently studies now guess those clouds net cool.



Yes so net result of it is to warm. At no level that it would ever conceivably reach would it ever cool. So bringing up the cooling bullshit is just that.....bullshit. So of course that's what you and jerm do.
 
I understand .. but you don't. You still gonna be yacking about CO2 when we trend back to the cold? Oh wait ... you won 't be around for that. Perhaps one of your offsping will be as challenged as you and carry on your ranting.

And again I ask WHY you IGNORE thousands of years of graphs? Is it because they don't meet the end result you want?

What is your highest level of education? A GED?


Ummmm. We are not worried about 50,000 years from now but the next five hundred. The cycles you are talking about are irrelevant to our time frame.
 
this is where science comes into to play.


Funny you should mention science oh crazy one. This is what science predicts will happen.


dn17051-1_672.jpg
 
science has no working models... therefore that chart is debunked horsecrap.
all the scientists now admit climate sensitivity is much lower than they were modeling.

Funny you should mention science oh crazy one. This is what science predicts will happen.


dn17051-1_672.jpg
 
science has no working models... therefore that chart is debunked horsecrap.
all the scientists now admit climate sensitivity is much lower than they were modeling.


You have no working brain. These models are still valid. Asshole. You are wrong again.
 
I did exaggerate... 87 of 90 agw models failed, 2 are on the verge of failure and one russian one which is not like the others has not failed.
 
even agw nutter scientists... admit the failure... sort of...


"Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations."



http://www.spiegel.de/international...lems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html

Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.

SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?

Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.

SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?

Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.

SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?

Storch: There are two conceivable explanations -- and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn't mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.
 
from the la times -- the IPCC vice chair...

Wow --- will you shut the hell up now you liar fraudcurrents.... the IPCC vice chair admits the models failed.


http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/22/science/la-sci-climate-change-uncertainty-20130923
...
Curry isn't the only one to suggest flaws in established climate models. IPCC vice chair Francis Zwiers, director of the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium at the University of Victoria in Canada, co-wrote a paper published in this month's Nature Climate Change that said climate models had "significantly" overestimated global warming over the last 20 years — and especially for the last 15 years, which coincides with the onset of the hiatus.

The models had predicted that the average global surface temperature would increase by 0.21 of a degree Celsius over this period, but they turned out to be off by a factor of four, Zwiers and his colleagues wrote. In reality, the average temperature has edged up only 0.05 of a degree Celsius over that time — which in a statistical sense is not significantly different from zero. ...
 
Back
Top