Forums

IPCC admits that climate models fail (Professor Stein Storli Bergmark, physicist)

IPCC admits that climate models fail (Professor Stein Storli Bergmark, physicist)

IPCC admits himself that climate models fail...climate change by consensus...

Clouds and Climate Professor Henrik Svensmark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgA8zSSC0zI

Svensmark: The Cloud Mystery
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ

The IPCC concluded even as early as 2001 that their research and climate modeling can not be used for long-term predictions of the future climate. For the Panel's Third Assessment Report, paragraph 14.2.2.2 page 774 it says in my translation: "In research and modeling of the climate, we should be aware that we are dealing with a chaotic, nonlinear coupled system, and that long-term predictions of future climate states is not possible. " This I have already mentioned above.

This little known and surprising fact alone disqualifies large parts of the IPCC's work as a basis for practical climate policy.

Then we have the IPCC Synthesis Report from 3 November 2014. It demonstrates IPCC yourself how badly climate models have been with regard to predicting thermal break we've had since 1998. The panel said in the report page 41, in my translation. "For the period from 1998 to 2012, shows 111 of 114 available model simulations of the climate warming trend that is greater than the observations." In plain language this means that the IPCC first tells us that 97% of climate models provide for high temperatures, and that they then want us to continue to have confidence in their model-based scenarios. This should our politicians, editors and climate journalists noting.

The theory of human CO2 emissions as the main driver behind climate change is in fact falsified. Climate models' temperaturprojeksjoner fails rough, and can not be used to develop policy.

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

2. Anthropogenic emissions of CO2 leads to a slight increase of atmosphere temperature.

3. In the years after the last ice age about 11,500 years ago, and in the last 2000 years until the end of the Little Ice Age in the late 1800s has been very significant climate changes that have been driven and guided by natural variation.

4. From the end of the Little Ice Age around 1890 and until today the climate has also changed.

An overwhelming historical climate reality forms the background for "climate realists" vision. Figure 1 shows reconstructions of temperature from isborekjerner Greenland and CO2 content in the atmosphere of Antarctica. The time period extends from the end of the last ice age until about 1950. We see that the temperature has fluctuated violently, that we have four warm periods marked in green, which the far right is the medieval warm period. We also see that we are actually the last 3500 years is a period of a falling trend.

Furthermore, we see that there is any correlation between temperature and CO2. Thus, there is nothing to suggest that CO2 affects temperature.

http://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/fns-klimapanel-innrommer-selv-at-klimamod...

Frank99 | February 10, 2017

There's an entire active thread devoted to this discussion (see "For Mitch"). Perhaps it would be best to post there where a number of knowledgeable and enthusiastic people are already discussing climate change?

FREE ENERGY | February 10, 2017

Thx Frank, I may pay Mitch a visit :-)

SO | February 10, 2017

Why do people even still push this argument? As if CO2 emissions are the only bad ramification of using fossil fuels. Even if climate change wasn't caused by fossil fuel usage, there are MANY undeniable other negatives from using them. If you still doubt that, run your ICE car in your closed garage and find out for yourself.

SO | February 10, 2017

Besides, the man made climate change debate will answer itself over time.

johndoeeyed | February 10, 2017


Your post is rubbish.
The IPCC predictions have been discussed several times on this forum, and have proven to be pretty good.

SCCRENDO | February 10, 2017

@0. Svensmark has a cosmic ray theory but the science doesn't gel.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced...

"The galactic cosmic ray (GCR) warming hypothesis is based on the premise that GCRs can "seed" clouds, and clouds reflect sunilight. So if there are fewer GCRs reaching Earth (because a strong solar magnetic field is deflecting them away), the hypothesis says there will be fewer clouds, more sunlight reaching the Earth's surface, and thus more global warming.

So more solar activity means a stronger solar magnetic field, which means fewer GCRs reaching Earth, which hypothetically means fewer clouds and more warming.

The body of scientific research has determined that GCRs are actually not very effective at seeding clouds. However, the hypothesis is also disproven just by examining the data. Over the past five decades, the number of GCRs reaching Earth has increased, and in recent years reached record high numbers. This means that if the GCR-warming hypothesis is correct, this increase in GCRs should actually be causing global cooling over the past five decades, and particularly cold temperatures in recent years.

On the contrary, while GCRs are up, global temperatures are also way up, and temperatures in recent years reached record highs."

Yes we have had significant temperature swings over the millennia related to natural variation. But the recent CO2 rise due to man's endeavors correlate directly with the temp rise.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation-intermediat...

eandmjep | February 11, 2017

@SO_S90D How Much time? correction, How Much More time? oh wait I guess we could wait for Al Gore to tell us.

tstolz | February 11, 2017

Ever heard of Occam's razor?

Mark Twain has a great quote ... 'It ain't what you don't know that gets you into the most trouble ... it's what you know for sure to be true that just ain't so'

SO | February 11, 2017

Eandmjep - My point is even if the trend goes the other way and the planet gets colder, there are still MANY reasons to switch to renewables over fossil fuels. Take the climate change argument and it's STILL an obvious thing to do.

SO | February 11, 2017

...take the climate change argument "out" and it's

SO | February 11, 2017

tstolz - I also consider the ramifications if I am wrong one way or the other.

There are not very many downsides to switching over to renewables like solar.

tstolz | February 11, 2017

Funny ... I was poking at the other side.

For sure, the most reasonable conclusion based on the evidence is that fossil fuels are bad ... thus Occam's razor.

A willingness to consider alternate paradigms is difficult for everyone .. but key to advancing science.

SO | February 11, 2017

I figured you were. :-)

SCCRENDO | February 11, 2017

@eandmjep. And your point is? Science is not clairvoyance like Trump's policies and the beliefs of the fact illiterate. Science can predict with a reasonable amount of certainty what will happen under certain circumstances. But conditions can change and hence the predictions. Hopefully things change in a positive direction making us look like alarmists. But I am not optimistic because ther are too many of you around. Al Gore is not a scientist. He is just smart enough to listen to smart scientists.

dchuck | February 11, 2017

Not be flippant but who cares. Politics, the intricacies of the Scientific method and what data to include or exclude in modeling, et al.

I want an electric car.

- Because it is cheaper to run than a gas car.
- Because i don't have to open my garage door in -20c weather to run a my car in order for it to heat up.
- So I don't have to go to a gas station, especially in -20c weather.
- I don't have to go to a dealership to buy it
- I can take it in once a year for service instead of every 3 months.

I want to put solar on my house.

- because it makes my monthly electricity bill cheaper.
- because it will pay for itself in the long run.
- Because i will have an electric car.
- because it will make my house worth more money if i want to sell it.

I want a Tesla PowerWall.

- Because i want the lights to stay on if the power goes out.
- Because i want to store the energy from my solar panels, Instead of selling it to the power company.

Solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal have a fundamental advantage over any other method of producing energy (including Nuclear) The fuel costs nothing.

One day my home will run on its own with no power from the outside world and it will not cost me a dime. The price of all the hardware will be part of the purchase price of the home, just like windows, garages, and every other convenience item that have been added to the family home over the last couple of hundred years.

You don't need to believe in Climate change, the money will speak for itself.

SCCRENDO | February 11, 2017

@dchuck. You shouldn't be flippant. Glad many people are doing the right thing, even if it may be for the wrong reasons. However when we discredit the reasons it allows us the justification to switch back to our previous ways when circumstances change.

FREE ENERGY | February 11, 2017

dchuck....the money will speak for itself.

BozieB | February 11, 2017

It has Always been about the money. Money will give you the ability to pursue the necessary path to "freedom & security" which allows for time to think about helping your fellow man and this little blue marble called home.
Therefore the motto "Follow The Money"

SCCRENDO | February 11, 2017

Sure the money speaks. That's why we need clean energy incentives and fossil fuel penalties. That's why we need to follow the science. And that's why BS masquerading as science needs to be refuted.

@0. So time to stop BS posts that contain inaccurate science. Glad you are a Tesla supporter for whatever reason. But let's not pretend that climate science is wrong.

dchuck | February 11, 2017

@SCCRENDO

If you think your going to change Zero's mind, or if you think he will stop posting contradictory articles your sadly mistaken.

The point of my post is that things will change regardless of peoples doubts on climate change. The only thing Incentives and Penalties will do is speed up the inevitable. it might take 10 years for the balance to tip but when it does there will be no turning back and there is nothing Zero can post that will change it.

mschaffer11 | February 11, 2017

Who are you really 0? Did you understand you were posting nonsense that has been completely debunked in the peer reviewed science publications or just a late arrival latching onto bad ideas?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-t...

SCCRENDO | February 11, 2017

@mschaffer11 +1.
@dchuck. I agree he will likely continue posting. Habitual deniers are pretty persistent. They main purpose to address them directly and point out their false statements is for those bystanders who are trying to learn. Also it does no harm to reinforce our own understanding of the topic.

SCCRENDO | February 11, 2017

@dchuck. It does get tiresome. I keep re linking the same studies. But it needs to be done

david.jones24 | February 11, 2017

You're never going to get all of humanity to agree with your position, be it believer or denier of climate change.

The great thing about where Tesla (and renewables in general) is taking us is that it soon won't matter. Even the people with no skin in the game (in their minds) will value the economics, stability in case of natural disasters in regards to power consumption, and flexibility that the renewable energy generation will bring. (At a smaller cost than fossil fuels, soon enough. In fact, a reality already in parts of our world)

SCCRENDO | February 11, 2017

@david.jones24. Very optimistic. Hope you are right.

grega | February 12, 2017

I don't usually post on this topic, because there is little to add. But I would like to quote Elon:

“The greater the change to the chemical composition of the physical, chemical makeup of the oceans and atmosphere [due to increased carbon emissions], the greater the long-term effect will be. Given that at some point they will run out anyway, why run this crazy experiment to see how bad it will be? We know it’s at least some bad, and the overwhelming scientific consensus is that it will be really bad.”
www.businessinsider DOT com.au/elon-musk-talks-fossil-fuels-with-wait-but-why-2015-8

Xsighted | February 12, 2017

The starting point of this discussion was that the IPCC models cannot be used for long term prediction. This is important. As the climate deniers point out there is great deal of uncertainty. Things in fact could be a much worse than the IPCC models predict, especially in the long term.
There are reasons to believe that we have already put more CO2 into the atmosphere than is consistent with any climate humans could survive in. This may explain Elon's interest in tunnels and Mars. Many of us will survive the next 50 years but I would not want to look much beyond that.

SCCRENDO | February 12, 2017

@grega and xsighted. Good points.

Uncertainty is of course a common denier argument. Except they do not understand what the uncertainty is. It is certain that AGW and climate change is occurring. It is the rate and degree that is being debated. It's like one group saying the world will end on Tuesday and another group saying Friday. The denier argument would be. Gee they are not sure if is Tuesday or Friday so it is all wrong. Let's ignore it unless they can all agree it will happen at 5:31pm on Wednesday.

Mike83 | February 12, 2017

Climate Change deniers are lazy bums.;-)

SCCRENDO | February 12, 2017

@MIke. That too

johndoeeyed | February 12, 2017

@Xsighted
The IPCC predictions have, in fact, turned out to be conservative so far.

Dofpic | February 12, 2017

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warmi...

I find it interesting that when someone offers a contrary opinion they are labeled "deniers" as opposed to addressing the facts presented.

"Anyone who says that Climate science is settled does not understand the climate and certainly does not understand Science." Dr Richard Lindzen professor of atmospheric physics MIT.

RedShift | February 12, 2017

Hey dofpic, aren't you quick to label those who disagree with you 'snowflakes'? Stop protesting sweetie. You aren't so pious.

Also, for every Lindzen, I can show 10 much more accomplished scientific figures who vehemently disagree with your Lindzen.

johndoeeyed | February 12, 2017

@Dofpic
The facts have been addressed multiple times.
Please bother to read the posts on this thread.
Please bother to read the available information on the web.
You have a proven track record of misrepresenting yourself and lying on this forum. Nothing you post should be trusted.

Remnant | February 13, 2017

@johndoeeyed (February 12, 2017)

@johndoeeyed
The facts have been addressed multiple times.
Please bother to read the posts on this thread.
Please bother to read the available information on the web.
You have a proven track record of trolling, that is, misrepresenting yourself, the facts, and the science, sowing discord and invective, and of lying on this forum.

Nothing you post should be trusted.

McLary | February 13, 2017

"And that's why BS masquerading as science needs to be refuted."
"But let's not pretend that climate science is wrong."

There is not a single climate model that is correct. Back testing of every model shows the inputs must be altered to match the known, recent past. According to the scientific method, including null theory, each and every one of those models should be rejected.

But jackasses, who pretend to know science, insist we all bow to authority, and surrender to flawed rubbish, just in case.

Have you watched Al gore's CO2 experiment on the web? It has been posted for years. It is absolute rubbish, and outright fraud. The father of modern AGW fearmongering is a fraud and a simple huckster.

A simple scientific question, though I don't expect anyone credible to answer. How much warming is caused by pollution reduction? IE SO2 reductions.

SCCRENDO | February 13, 2017

McLary. Post examples and explain what is wrong with the models. You sound like Trump
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/trump-says-he-has-been-tr...

codyb12889 | February 13, 2017

@SO_S90 has it exactly right. Whether you believe in climate change or not the simple fact is it is proven that pumping garbage into the air is going to have a negative effect on our bodies.

Go walk down any major street in any large city and tell me how you love that sweet sweet smell of fresh smog being pumped into your lungs.

Go walk out of the convenience store when it is hot outside after some ICEhole has left his car running in front of the store and tell me how great that blend of humidity and hot toxic gases feels. Make sure to take a big puff since you seem to love it so much.

Go tell that people of China that walk around in face masks how pollution is good since climate change is made up by liberals.

johndoeeyed | February 13, 2017

@Remnant
You said "You have a proven track record of trolling, that is, misrepresenting yourself, the facts, and the science, sowing discord and invective, and of lying on this forum."
That statement is false.
Please give an example of each.

johndoeeyed | February 13, 2017

@McLary
Why is it that you do not provide any evidence for your claims?
Please provide a peer-reviewed paper to support your statements.
PS:
All the science showing the earth is not flat is flawed.

SCCRENDO | February 13, 2017

@dofpic. Meteorologists are not scientists. Ask Mitch. He went to Texas A&M and didn't learn science. He admits to being the blue collar guy. Not the smart guy who understands climate. Climate and weather prediction are very different. So what's your point???

johndoeeyed | February 13, 2017

@Dofpic
Science is decided by peer-reviewed published papers.
It is not decided by articles inn trash tabloids such as the Daily Mail.
PS:
The majority of members of meterological societies (i.e. weather organisations) accept the science for Climate Change. eg: http://blog.ametsoc.org/news/new-survey-shows-ams-members-positions-on-c...

bigd | February 13, 2017

Whatshisface" http://blog" Another blog from are "peer reviewed " group :-)

SCCRENDO | February 13, 2017

The Lamar Smith nonsense has been refuted on many threads. Even if NOAA was slow in releasing data there is nothing in the data that would refute climate change or change the overall hypothesis. But I guess it is beyond your comprehension.
@bigd. Peer reviewed??? Which peers???
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-data-manipulation-at-noaa/
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/noaa-temperature-datas-accuracy-...

FYI. No skeptical science link here

johndoeeyed | February 13, 2017

@bigd
You show your ignorance and banality more with each post.
The link I provided was not to science, which should have been obvious, but rather to a survey. In the link there is a link to the actual survey. It shows that most meteorologists accept AGW, which contradicts your stance.

bigd | February 13, 2017

Allcapsguy you really do not understand what you have read do you?

bigd | February 13, 2017

Poor whatshisface and his reading comprehension shows up again. I said the pear review group and yet you source a blog. Hypocrites is what I was referring to :-)

SCCRENDO | February 13, 2017

@bigd. Please explain it to me. LOL.

Pages