Scientists Finally Admit Climate Models Are Failing To Predict Global Warming

[charlie]

Oops. The house of lies is crumbling.

A group of scientists recently put out a new study confirming the 15-year “hiatus” in global warming. That study made headlines, but what went largely unnoticed was a major admission made by the paper’s authors: the climate models were wrong.

There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing,” John Fyfe, Canadian climate modeler and lead author of the new paper, told Nature. “We can’t ignore it.”

“Because this result challenges the current theory of greenhouse warming in relatively straightforward fashion, there have been several well-funded attacks on those of us who build and use such datasets and on the datasets themselves,” Christy said.

More at link:
Scientists Finally Admit Climate Models Are Failing To Predict Global Warming

 

[tara]

Oops. The house of lies is crumbling.

I'm sure the folks on Tuvalu would find that reassuring, if they weren't getting innundated by that non-existent sea-level rise.

I think the conclusion you take from the article is a leap from the evidence it contains. So is the authors interpretation. There are three scientists quoted in that article, and none of them say that there is evidence that the long-term global warming trend is not happening.

Are you expecting every single scientific prediction about climate to be 100% precise? And going to reject the whole idea of GCC on the basis of one or two predictions being a bit off? Climate and weather is a complex system. By the time we have complete certainty about all the effects, it will be too late to slow it down.

Would you throw out all Peat's ideas as a pack of lies, just because one person's symptoms didn't quickly resolve when they took thyroid?

That Nature article says global warming has 'slowed down this century', not that it has stopped or didn't exist.

The headline uses the word 'hiatus' inaccurately.

Fyfe uses the term “slowdown” rather than “hiatus” and stresses that it does not in any way undermine global-warming theory.

Fyfe says that his calculations show that the planet warmed at 0.170 °C per decade from 1972 to 2001, which is significantly higher than the warming of 0.113 °C per decade he calculates for 2000–14.

This is warming, just a little slower in this last few years, consistent with other cycles.

Other researchers are investigating variability in the Pacific Ocean, including a measure of sea surface temperatures known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)5. All these things can affect the climate, and mask the longer-term warming trend.

15 years is short, and there are other temperature-affecting cycles at play too. That the temps have increased at all (though less dramatically) even when these cycles usually produces cooling is consistent with the overall trend of increased global temps.

The article notes that some measures of change were lower than predicted aver this century.

"For his part, Karl acknowledges that it is important to investigate how short-term effects might impact decadal trends, but says that these short term trends do not necessarily elucidate the long-term effects of rising greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere."

“What gets obfuscated is the goal of uncovering the warming due to persistent greenhouse forcing [by human emissions],” Karl says. “It is simply not possible to gain insight on that underlying trend from short, segmented 10- to 20-year periods.”

Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, is tired of the entire discussion, which he says comes down to definitions and academic bickering. There is no evidence for a change in the long-term warming trend, he says, and there are always a host of reasons why a short-term trend might diverge — and why the climate models might not capture that divergence.

There are glaciers that have gone already, seas are rising already, oceans are acidifying already, coral bleaching is already happening, and severe weather events and wild-fires have already gotten more severe.

Each IPCC report observes that the climate change effects have gone further than previous reports predicted on several fronts.

 

[Matt1951]

Man made global warming - a stalking horse to sell nuclear power? Well China is building a massive amount of new coal fired power plants. So is India. We will find out about Warming one way or another. Would India and China commit suicide if they truly believed in man made Warming?
Remember in the 1970s the climate models predicted man made global cooling. So will the man-bear-pigs ever admit they are wrong? No matter what the actual evidence is? So cow farts are going to kill us. India has three times as many cattle as the US, do we go to war to kill all of India's cattle?

 

[goodandevil]

Man made global warming - a stalking horse to sell nuclear power? Well China is building a massive amount of new coal fired power plants. So is India. We will find out about Warming one way or another. Would India and China commit suicide if they truly believed in man made Warming?
Remember in the 1970s the climate models predicted man made global cooling. So will the man-bear-pigs ever admit they are wrong? No matter what the actual evidence is? So cow farts are going to kill us. India has three times as many cattle as the US, do we go to war to kill all of India's cattle?

Man made global warming - a stalking horse to sell nuclear power? Well China is building a massive amount of new coal fired power plants. So is India. We will find out about Warming one way or another. Would India and China commit suicide if they truly believed in man made Warming?
Remember in the 1970s the climate models predicted man made global cooling. So will the man-bear-pigs ever admit they are wrong? No matter what the actual evidence is? So cow farts are going to kill us. India has three times as many cattle as the US, do we go to war to kill all of India's cattle?

Plus the rainforest, endangered species, old growth forests, peak oil, loss of coral reefs, habitat restoration, it goes on and on and on and there's only one message: poverty is good. If we don't want to be improverished and live in the mud, we're stereotypically base and greedy humans.

 

[tara]

Man made global warming - a stalking horse to sell nuclear power?

I know there are people using this argument, but it's a pretty crappy excuse for nuclear power - doesn't make it any safer than it ever was. Where do you put nuclear power plants and spent fuel anyway, let alone when sea-level is rising and there's a shortage of land?

China commit suicide if they truly believed in man made

While it is still building a horrible number of new coal plants, China is also investing much more heavily in developing alternative technology than the US. I think they are taking it seriously to some extent.

So cow farts are going to kill us. India has three times as many cattle as the US, do we go to war to kill all of India's cattle?

There is research ongoing on how to reduce methane emissions from ruminants. Attending to appropriate feed, ans well as considering the specific microbiota involved, seem to be a couple of threads being pulled.
Personally, I'd say there are of lot of smarter things to do than go to war or kill a lot of cattle all at once.
For instance:
- urban design in cities to reduce the dominance of fossil fuel guzzlers, and to reduce the need for long commuting
- developing and deploying housing and transportation and cooking methods that are designed for improved energy efficiency
- reorganising our economies to not depend on massive overconsumption on wasteful non-necessities
- quite waging environmentally destructive wars (eg ban the development an use of enriched uranium munitions, land-mines, etc) - we can't afford to make more land toxic.
- investing in sustainable energy generation technology
- set up a cap and user-pays system for GHG emissions
- making sure India and China and other developing countries get to use such technology so they can avoid getting as hooked on fossil fuels as the West (and parts of the Middle East) did
- get going with mitigation to protect people from the inevitable consequences of the climate change that are already unavoidable (while still doing our best to avoid pushing the irreversible tipping points)

I reckon climate justice might involve the biggest per-capita emitters reducing their emissions as a priority.

According to this
List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
US per capita emit more than 4 times as much CO2-equivalent GHGs as China, and more than 15 times as much as India. (Note that this is not just about technical advancement - Denmark and Germany, for instance, are further down the list than US, Australia, NZ, not to mention Qatar and UAE nearer the top.)
I think the Indians might reasonably consider themselves unfairly targetted if you go after their cattle.

 

[Ideonaut]

I'm sure the folks on Tuvalu would find that reassuring, if they weren't getting innundated by that non-existent sea-level rise.

Inundated on Tuvalu? Not according to this. How much is sea level rising?

I'm open-minded, but the no-global-warming arguments and evidence seem more convincing to me: CLIMATEGATE: A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY (UPDATED FOR WINTER 2015-2016) | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

I see plenty of evidence for changing climate and weather tho. Winters are not as cold as they used to be here in Seattle. As to what is causing climate change and screwed up weather, I think it would be good to bring out into the open what the chemtrails that f--- up the sky on an almost daily basis are all about. Deliberate weather manipulation seems probable.

 

[tara]

Inundated on Tuvalu? Not according to this. How much is sea level rising?

Did you read that article? Look at the graphs of sea level rise?
It uses reason and evidence to debunk the myth that sea level is not rising. The Intermediate tab goes into deeper explanation than the Basic one.

Sea levels are measured by a variety of methods that show close agreement - sediment cores, tidal gauges, satellite measurements. What they find is sea level rise has been steadily accelerating over the past century.

 

[tara]

I think it would be good to bring out into the open what the chemtrails that f--- up the sky on an almost daily basis are all about.

Under some weather conditions, the entirely recognised contrails left by normal jet traffic can hang a round for hours. The water vapour probably does contribute somewhat to climate change. Probably reducing unnecessary air traffic would be wise.

 

[tara]

I'm open-minded, but the no-global-warming arguments and evidence seem more convincing to me: CLIMATEGATE: A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY (UPDATED FOR WINTER 2015-2016) | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.

and more explanation here:
Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy

and here:
What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?

You are aware that extreme and previously unusual snow events are consistent with the predictions of global climate change, right?

 

[tara]

I think it would be reasonable if the people who are applying skepticism to claims about anthropogenic climate change used similar skeptical criteria for assessing the claims of climate change denialists.

It's seems that some people are ready to take one or two missed predictions or exaggerated claims as evidence (proof even), that there is no such thing as climate change, or that it has nothing to do with human-released greenhouse gases.

If you look at the claims of the denialists, many of them are mostly holes and little substance - they don't tell a coherent story that explains the available data, and they don't deal with the physics of the known effects of GHGs. Why are the standards so low for this position?
In the article linked in the original post, it doesn't meet Peat's minimal criteria that the conclusions should follow from the data.

 

[mt_dreams]

You know the cow methane issue is supporting some sort of agenda b/c they never talk about the massive amount that is trapped in snow, and in foliage, something we are unearthing everyday to plant more crops.

The contrails left from certain planes does not account for the amount that have been spotted in the sky over the last 10 years. The military has been studying this stuff for a long time, one doesn't have to stretch the imagination to assume they have been testing out its capabilities on home turf. The people in my fantasy dreams would look at contrails and go, look at that poison, they wouldn't be debating if it was contrails, chemtrails, or plane farts ... ok maybe the last one would occur.

It is government procedure to flood any issue (be it reported or a conspiracy) with a lot of bogus information in order to sink/muddy the real info. That's why it's so difficult to get true data/info on things like climate change, chemtrails, ufos, etc.

I would take climate change more seriously if they detached it from the carbon tax grab. It will easily be a trillion dollar industry with the way things are looking. This year alone carbon taxes surpassed 50 billion, and will easily hit 100 billion by 2020. It's tough for me to not assume this is the agenda when there's that much money on the table.

China & all other non first world nations should be allowed to develop using coal without being shamed by us first world snobs. Going back a couple hundred years, travelers would know they were close to the major cities by the smog in the air, and this is no different to present day china.

Unless we're willing to spend the extra money to build looping nuclear plants which don't have byproduct, our fist order of business is to stop using nuclear. I like how the current regime keeps talking about the carbon issues of energy, but totally avoids all the info on the disastrous effects of the nuclear accident from a couple of years ago. It's easy to spot agendas when they're being so obvious about what info they choose to pass on to the citizens.

 

[tara]

I would take climate change more seriously if they detached it from the carbon tax grab.

Climate scientists were warning of it al ong time before the politicians started talking about doing anything about it.

You favour the big polluters having free access to acquire the commons that should rightfully belong to everybody?

without being shamed by us first world snobs.

I agree it's hypocritical for westerners to criticise the developing world for GHG emissions - it is our industrialised countries that created most of the problem, after all. Esp. when the west continues to buy large amounts of stuff produced at the cost of large current emissions in other countries.

The solutions to this that I can see include facilitating technology transfer from countries that are leading in this, to quit buying unnecessary stuff that produces GHG emissions elsewhere. And probably to stop interfering with democratic tendencies in other countries, so they have a better chance of meeting the needs of their populations, rather than the wants and profits of the west.

to stop using nuclear.

I'm all in favour of stopping using nuclear power ASAP. It's inefficent energy-wise anyway, and only makes money for it's owners because it is subsidised. If sustainable energy production were intelligently subsidised to that extent, it would be miles ahead of where it is now. Obviously, the long-term harmful effects of radiation emissions from plants, transportation, and long-term storage of spent fuel have made it an unsuitable practice from the beginning.

Aside from the catastrophic failures in Japan recently, how do you feel about that nuclear reactor that had to be shut down for flooding in the US a couple of years ago - esp. in the context of sea level rise and increases in extreme events that are likely to mean greater frequency and severity of flooding in some of those places?

 

[Zachs]

Who cares if its man made or a natural phenomenon. We are destroying the planet. The place we live. If we keep doing what we are doing the planet will be inhabitable in a few generations or less. Why argue over whether or not we are causing it, just be a good human being and try to do better for the planet. Seriously.

 

[aquaman]

Man made global warming - a stalking horse to sell nuclear power?

About a billion times more likely that man made global warming is being covered up by huge US/international oil, gas and car companies looking to maintain their share prices. Just recently it came out that scientists in the US were selling their names to oil companies to add to "research" that challenges global warming.

 

[mt_dreams]

Climate scientists were warning of it al ong time before the politicians started talking about doing anything about it.

You favour the big polluters having free access to acquire the commons that should rightfully belong to everybody?


I agree it's hypocritical for westerners to criticise the developing world for GHG emissions - it is our industrialised countries that created most of the problem, after all. Esp. when the west continues to buy large amounts of stuff produced at the cost of large current emissions in other countries.

The solutions to this that I can see include facilitating technology transfer from countries that are leading in this, to quit buying unnecessary stuff that produces GHG emissions elsewhere. And probably to stop interfering with democratic tendencies in other countries, so they have a better chance of meeting the needs of their populations, rather than the wants and profits of the west.


I'm all in favour of stopping using nuclear power ASAP. It's inefficent energy-wise anyway, and only makes money for it's owners because it is subsidized. If sustainable energy production were intelligently subsidised to that extent, it would be miles ahead of where it is now. Obviously, the long-term harmful effects of radiation emissions from plants, transportation, and long-term storage of spent fuel have made it an unsuitable practice from the beginning.

Aside from the catastrophic failures in Japan recently, how do you feel about that nuclear reactor that had to be shut down for flooding in the US a couple of years ago - esp. in the context of sea level rise and increases in extreme events that are likely to mean greater frequency and severity of flooding in some of those places?

Yes politicians have only recently made this front page news, but things have been happening behind the scenes for a while now. I'm not sure when scientists started making climate correlations, but, E Rothchild, along with a high ranking Un official from Canada (can't remember his name) lobbied in the late 70s & 80's to get the ball rolling. Roth set up a world bank to handle third world loans for the IMF, but it's ultimate purpose looks like it's rooted in the carbon tax. The canadian UN official from above now works as an adviser in beijing.

I would prefer to fix both the ethical & frugality skills of governments before giving them billions of more dollars to spend. Outside of extreme circumstances, imo, when a government runs a deficit, they've effectively failed.

I'm not in support of big polluting fat cats, or people who own those stocks to pocket more money. As we've seen with things like tobacco, & gas, when tax laws are put into effect, these corporations simply pass on that tax to the citizens. So in the end, the citizens end up paying a tax directly to the government. If this would mean people would use less energy, buy less things, etc, then I would perhaps be open to this ... but looking around I don't have that type of faith in the majority around me. So in the end, you'll have 1st world citizens paying an extra tax to clear their conscience from the impending doom that will hit poorer nations. This wont stop the things you've mentioned (possible regional flooding, possible nuclear plant issues, etc) from happening, so it's tough for me to be enthusiastic about the tax.

The only way out is to shift the conversation to the habits of 1st world citizens. Topics like France, and a couple of other cities banning food waste is an ex of what politicians should really be focusing on. I would gladly accept a tax on food waste, as this would within a generation reshape how we interact with the commodity which is a big chunk of our energy expenditure.

 

[Nighteyes]

When I Think about this topic I always immediately Think about over population. I Think a lot of all this is caused by that. I mean we are getting more and more people to consume The natural ressources and naturally at some point we Will have spent it all or no longer able to support our species with The current rate of resource/energy renewal. Then we Will either have to move to another place in The near Universe or hope for a radical shift in Technology to allow resource renewal at a higher rate than what is being used.

Man takes up more and more space, and requires more and more resources. Growth in a closed system Cannot be sustained indefinitely.

Not saying we should not do anything - we all do what we Can and must. Call me pessimist or realist, it is a matter of perspective. I Think a lot of this is inevitable due to The Nature of our species.

 

[Ideonaut]

Did you read that article? Look at the graphs of sea level rise?

No, I didn't, Tara--just read it cursorily. Now that I look futher, I see that you are right--I'm wrong. Thanks for the correction. This guy Paul Beckwith, Climate System Scientist is alarmed about climate change and seems quite credible.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

I think the conclusion you take from the article is a leap from the evidence it contains. So is the authors interpretation. There are three scientists quoted in that article, and none of them say that there is evidence that the long-term global warming trend is not happening.
”

But you see we should wait until we are certain. I mean just think of the scenarios. There is the probably scenario where is will kill billions, and the unlikely ones where it will kill almost everyone or next to no one.

I mean if we think of the world as our home, what would you do? Would you out in a few hundred dollars to make sure it doesn't burn down while you are sleeping in it or take a risk of it killing you and everyone you love, until you are 110% sure? Obviously you wait until you know for certain.

 

[baggywrinkle]

How can climate be discussed here if the understanding on how weather works is wrong??weather works by the movement of electrons and protons not by hot air rising to produce lighting as an example
So all the theorising is false
Just as peat has explained health and medicine to our satisfaction
Another professor named james mccanney has for years confirmed his own weather and cosmic theories that comets are not dirty snowballs and are actual massive electric discharge events for example
His books are banned
Has reinvented the windmill
Solved oldest known maths problem of calculate prime numbers that isbreaking encryption
So please re educate yourselves just as you have done re peat
Because sadly ignorance prevails on climate change

 

[Such_Saturation]

But how did we land on one then