World's top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrongEnvironmental | 207668 hits | Sep 15 9:54 am | Posted by: N_Fiddledog Commentsview comments in forum You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
|
Their Summary for Policy Makers this year looks like they might be up to their old tricks.
Watts has seen it, and he says juicier edits may come yet.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/16/e ... more-93883
According to him the weather is going to get alot worse or appear to be getting alot worse beccause humanity has decided to live on large bodies of water called oceans, farm in tornado zones, build cities on fault lines, do intelligent things like diverting rivers, creating large lakes held back by decomposing concrete and of course the best one, breeding like rabbits on Viagra.
All factors that weren't present 6 centuries ago. He also said it had alot less to do with humans affecting the atmosphere as it did with mother nature doing what she does best.
Computer model notwithstanding standby for a bumpy ride for the next 6 centuries or so.
Who the hell is mail online and why is this in the news section? This is the actual story http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/?b=news.nationalpost.com/2013/09/15/climate-agency-accused-of-cooling-on-global-warming-as-new-report-lowers-predicted-temperature-increase
Then what's this one?
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... ieves-you/
And this one doesn't have blog in the title.
Who the hell is mail online and why is this in the news section? This is the actual story http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/c ... e-increase
Good ole computer models output much stuff with the words, likely, more likely, probable, possible, maybe imminent, prediction, high possibility etc, and people gobble it up like a big Mac.
Bits and bytes in the software peppered with erroneous input.
If computer models are accurate, then why have Lotto Max.
Doesn't say global warming has gone away, just that they overestimated the sensitivity factor. If they had have just stuck wth the radiative balance equation and ignored trying to calculate the feedback effects, they would have been a lot more accurate for a lot less work.
As to Pluggy--most engineering use models daily. For example, for virtually every large building. Sorry, you're an idiot.
If you want a computer model to predict global warming it will. That, in a nutshell, is the problem with computer models.
The biggest problem in using computers to predict anything is.....
Garbage in >>>>>>>> Garbage out
One missed decimal point or any other inaccuracies input into the system turn the whole prediction into nothing but scrap.
It's not a battle. The vast majority of people accept anthropogenic claimte change. Even some of teh skeptics. I think the skeptics know that there is nothing we can do about it. We have no replacement for oil, oil is probably keeping 2 billion people alive on the planet right now and we--as individuals or species--cannot control the future like we think we can. Bottom line: Global warming is real, but we hve no ability to do anything about it.
To give you an idea the impact oil has on the global economy think of this; the largest oil tankers on the planet each carry enough product to power the global economy for 2 days!!
Oil doesn't just power the global economy, it IS the global economy.
Who the hell is mail online and why is this in the news section?
It's the online version of the Daily Mail - second biggest newspaper in the UK.
Who the hell is mail online and why is this in the news section?
It's the online version of the Daily Mail - second biggest newspaper in the UK.Ok the National Enquirer also has a large following but I wouldn't personally chose it as a credible source. A paper is only as credible as it's reporters and in my view this reporter has used a graph with a questionable scale to deliberately skew findings. As it turns out, this particular "journalist" David Rose has a history of this behavior and so I believe the source is highly questionable. A rag in fact.