Claims that climate models overestimate warming are "unfounded", study shows

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/201...erestimate-warming-are-unfounded-study-shows/

Yet another denier talking point debunked. Climate models prove to be a very accurate method of predicting future climate change. Are they 100% accurate? No. But they do appear to be a good way to determine a long term trend in climate change.

Those models currently predict massive warming in the next century if nothing is done to combat the rise in CO2 emissions.

 

Why are you so concerned? Climate changes all the time. How is this more important than ISIS or the economy? If China and India and other countries don't cooperate, what can you do? You will be dead in a hundred years.

 

Because climate change would cost billions of dollars, create famines across the world and thus create global instability. If it gets bad enough it could cause us to lose entire cities like Miami or New Orleans. ISIS is not a threat to us. They're not going to take any of our cities. Climate change might.

Climate change does not happen without a reason. And in this case the reason is purely man-made. If we can stop doing what we're doing to cause it or at least do something to counteract it we should.

 

Had we bought into it back in 1997, we'd never stop paying the scam ransom.

 

"The claim that climate models systematically overestimate the response to radiative forcing from increasing greenhouse concentrations therefore seems to be unfounded."

SEEMS..... Damning evidence indeed... All this from a blog even... Thanks for this "convincing" article!

 

Give us what percentage your solutions will produce? I don't know a single person that denies that climate in fact changes, it always has, but my question to the agenda driven loons, what is the percentage we will get to mitigate and control climate as you say we can?

 

Well, if Peter Ferrara says it, then it must be so.

 

The source isn't a blog. The source is the report the blog cites. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7536/full/nature14117.html

This is just a reader's digest version of what the study says.

 

Hmmm, I thought Meteorologists weren't real climate scientists.

Jochem Marotzke - Max Plank Institute for Meteorology.

You know what they say about statistics.

Lies
Damned Lies
And Statistics

 

Jochem Marotzke is a physicist with a PHD in physical oceanography and is well published in climate science.

 

From your own source:

"Most present-generation climate models simulate an increase in global-mean surface temperature (GMST) since 1998, whereas observations suggest a warming hiatus. It is unclear to what extent this mismatch is caused by incorrect model forcing, by incorrect model response to forcing or by random factors."

Seems pretty damning to "most present-generation climate models" to me. If they're so accurate, why the "mismatch"? Oh, seems like internal variability says the authors. That's another way of saying the models suck because they don't account for this variability, if it exists.

 

So? Scientists with better pedigree are called 'deniers' because they don't toe the line with the current PC line on AGW..

 

...ok, lets pass a law to outlaw passing gas.... would that help?

 

It might keep the Congress Critters mouths shut.

 

There is a difference between "global warming" and "AGW"

No one is going to deny the climate changes, however it would be silly to even assert that man is responsible for "climate change" which is exactly what the factions behind AGW want you to believe.

Furthermore, I find it funny an organization that has been in the tank of the AGW movement had done a study that confirms their AGW religion.

Studies are absolutely useless because "studies" presently are conducted by shady people who want to further an agenda. There is no "partial" in their findings - they already have their political opinion and they will do anything to prove that opinion and scientifically speaking that is hardly science and - in fact - intellectual dishonesty.

 

Hows 1/20,000th of a degree sound, for the mere cost of $160b over 10 years?

[video=youtube;Zw5Lda06iK0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw5Lda06iK0[/video]

 

Does Ferrara work for ALL of these? GISS, HadCRUT4, NCDC, RSS and UAH.

 

Yeah, that's the usual government investment acumen

 

Why outlaw when I can run my car on it?

 

The world is coming to an end but what do I care? I'll be dead.

 

Yeah it's unfounded that every single one was wrong.... DOH!!!!!!!! Are there really people that dumb out there to believe this nonsense? They have even admitted to them all being wrong.

 

Obviously not, otherwise he wouldn't misrepresent their data. Here is how you show the trend in climate data:


Global temperature 1979 to present – monthly values (crosses), 12-months running mean (red line) and linear trend line with uncertainty (blue)

 

Just another Warmie climate change fairy tale.

 

Like the last model that predicted all the permanent ice would be gone by now?

Oh yea, that model was wrong.

lol

 

And we can't do a damn thing about it.

Stop wasting your time and our time.

The climate has been changing for the last 4.6 billion years.

We are still coming out of the last ice age.