Climate models are still getting it right?

Home › Groups › aus.invest › Climate models are still getting it right?

Number of messages in the thread: 6

1. Date: 2008-11-09 06:19:55
Subject: Climate models are still getting it right?
From: "Bonzo" <z...@...com> Search message by this author

The Sorry History Of Climate Model Predictions

16 Sep 2008

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and
expecting realistic results."

The computer models upon which the UN's climate panel unwisely founds its
entire case have failed and failed and failed again to predict major events
in the real climate.

a. The models have not projected the current multidecadal stasis in "global
warming":

b. no rise in temperatures since 1998; falling temperatures since late 2001;
temperatures not expected to set a new record until 2015 (Keenlyside et al.,
2008).

c. nor (until trained ex post facto) did they predict the fall in TS from
1940-1975;

d. nor 50 years' cooling in Antarctica (Doran et al., 2002) and the Arctic
(Soon, 2005);

e. nor the absence of ocean warming since 2003 (Lyman et al., 2006;
Gouretski & Koltermann, 2007);

f. nor the behavior of the great ocean oscillations (Lindzen, 2007),

g. nor the magnitude nor duration of multi-century events such as the
Mediaeval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age;

h. nor the decline since 2000 in atmospheric methane concentration (IPCC,
2007);

i. nor the active 2004 hurricane season;

j. nor the inactive subsequent seasons;

k. nor the UK flooding of 2007 (the Met Office had forecast a summer of
prolonged droughts only six weeks previously);

l. nor the solar Grand Maximum of the past 70 years, during which the Sun
was more active, for longer, than at almost any similar period in the past
11,400 years (Hathaway, 2004; Solanki et al., 2005);

m. nor the consequent surface "global warming" on Mars, Jupiter, Neptune's
largest moon, and even distant Pluto;

n. nor the eerily-continuing 2006 solar minimum;

o. nor the consequent, precipitate decline of ~0.8 °C in surface temperature
from January 2007 to May 2008 that has canceled out almost all of the
observed warming of the 20th century.

http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1803
--

Warmest Regards

Bonzo

Show messages with headings

2. Date: 2008-11-09 07:59:48
Subject: Re: Climate models are still getting it right?
From: chemist <t...@n...com> Search message by this author

On Nov 9, 6:19 am, "Bonzo" <z...@...com> wrote:
> The Sorry History Of Climate Model Predictions
>
> 16 Sep 2008
>
> "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and
> expecting realistic results."
>
> The computer models upon which the UN's climate panel unwisely founds its
> entire case have failed and failed and failed again to predict major events
> in the real climate.
>
> a. The models have not projected the current multidecadal stasis in "global
> warming":
>
> b. no rise in temperatures since 1998; falling temperatures since late 2001;
> temperatures not expected to set a new record until 2015 (Keenlyside et al.,
> 2008).
>
> c. nor (until trained ex post facto) did they predict the fall in TS from
> 1940-1975;
>
> d. nor 50 years' cooling in Antarctica (Doran et al., 2002) and the Arctic
> (Soon, 2005);
>
> e. nor the absence of ocean warming since 2003 (Lyman et al., 2006;
> Gouretski & Koltermann, 2007);
>
> f. nor the behavior of the great ocean oscillations (Lindzen, 2007),
>
> g. nor the magnitude nor duration of multi-century events such as the
> Mediaeval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age;
>
> h. nor the decline since 2000 in atmospheric methane concentration (IPCC,
> 2007);
>
> i. nor the active 2004 hurricane season;
>
> j. nor the inactive subsequent seasons;
>
> k. nor the UK flooding of 2007 (the Met Office had forecast a summer of
> prolonged droughts only six weeks previously);
>
> l. nor the solar Grand Maximum of the past 70 years, during which the Sun
> was more active, for longer, than at almost any similar period in the past
> 11,400 years (Hathaway, 2004; Solanki et al., 2005);
>
> m. nor the consequent surface "global warming" on Mars, Jupiter, Neptune's
> largest moon, and even distant Pluto;
>
> n. nor the eerily-continuing 2006 solar minimum;
>
> o. nor the consequent, precipitate decline of ~0.8 °C in surface temperature
> from January 2007 to May 2008 that has canceled out almost all of the
> observed warming of the 20th century.
>
> http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1803
> --
>
> Warmest Regards
>
> Bonzo

Added to which they have not proved that the CO2 in the
oceans is rising even though they have spent millions
on measuring it.

Show messages with headings

3. Date: 2008-11-10 19:55:22
Subject: Re: Climate models are still getting it right?
From: "Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@c...com> Search message by this author

chemist wrote:
> On Nov 9, 6:19 am, "Bonzo" <z...@...com> wrote:
>> The Sorry History Of Climate Model Predictions
>>
>> 16 Sep 2008
>>
>> "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and
>> expecting realistic results."
>>
>> The computer models upon which the UN's climate panel unwisely
>> founds its entire case have failed and failed and failed again to
>> predict major events in the real climate.
>>
>> a. The models have not projected the current multidecadal stasis in
>> "global warming":
>>
>> b. no rise in temperatures since 1998; falling temperatures since
>> late 2001; temperatures not expected to set a new record until 2015
>> (Keenlyside et al., 2008).
>>
>> c. nor (until trained ex post facto) did they predict the fall in TS
>> from 1940-1975;
>>
>> d. nor 50 years' cooling in Antarctica (Doran et al., 2002) and the
>> Arctic (Soon, 2005);
>>
>> e. nor the absence of ocean warming since 2003 (Lyman et al., 2006;
>> Gouretski & Koltermann, 2007);
>>
>> f. nor the behavior of the great ocean oscillations (Lindzen, 2007),
>>
>> g. nor the magnitude nor duration of multi-century events such as the
>> Mediaeval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age;
>>
>> h. nor the decline since 2000 in atmospheric methane concentration
>> (IPCC, 2007);
>>
>> i. nor the active 2004 hurricane season;
>>
>> j. nor the inactive subsequent seasons;
>>
>> k. nor the UK flooding of 2007 (the Met Office had forecast a summer
>> of prolonged droughts only six weeks previously);
>>
>> l. nor the solar Grand Maximum of the past 70 years, during which
>> the Sun was more active, for longer, than at almost any similar
>> period in the past 11,400 years (Hathaway, 2004; Solanki et al.,
>> 2005);
>>
>> m. nor the consequent surface "global warming" on Mars, Jupiter,
>> Neptune's largest moon, and even distant Pluto;
>>
>> n. nor the eerily-continuing 2006 solar minimum;
>>
>> o. nor the consequent, precipitate decline of ~0.8 °C in surface
>> temperature from January 2007 to May 2008 that has canceled out
>> almost all of the observed warming of the 20th century.
>>
>> http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1803
>> --
>>
>> Warmest Regards
>>
>> Bonzo
>
> Added to which they have not proved that the CO2 in the
> oceans is rising even though they have spent millions
> on measuring it.

The same old ridiculous lie. lol

Show messages with headings

4. Date: 2008-11-10 20:12:23
Subject: Re: Climate models are still getting it right?
From: "DeadFrog" <D...@V...net> Search message by this author

"Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@c...com> wrote in message
news:4JSdnXmx_LgxDIXUnZ2dnUVZ_h2dnZ2d@giganews.com..
.
> chemist wrote:
>> On Nov 9, 6:19 am, "Bonzo" <z...@...com> wrote:
>>> The Sorry History Of Climate Model Predictions
>>>
>>> 16 Sep 2008
>>>
>>> "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and
>>> expecting realistic results."
>>>
>>> The computer models upon which the UN's climate panel unwisely
>>> founds its entire case have failed and failed and failed again to
>>> predict major events in the real climate.
>>>
>>> a. The models have not projected the current multidecadal stasis in
>>> "global warming":
>>>
>>> b. no rise in temperatures since 1998; falling temperatures since
>>> late 2001; temperatures not expected to set a new record until 2015
>>> (Keenlyside et al., 2008).
>>>
>>> c. nor (until trained ex post facto) did they predict the fall in TS
>>> from 1940-1975;
>>>
>>> d. nor 50 years' cooling in Antarctica (Doran et al., 2002) and the
>>> Arctic (Soon, 2005);
>>>
>>> e. nor the absence of ocean warming since 2003 (Lyman et al., 2006;
>>> Gouretski & Koltermann, 2007);
>>>
>>> f. nor the behavior of the great ocean oscillations (Lindzen, 2007),
>>>
>>> g. nor the magnitude nor duration of multi-century events such as the
>>> Mediaeval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age;
>>>
>>> h. nor the decline since 2000 in atmospheric methane concentration
>>> (IPCC, 2007);
>>>
>>> i. nor the active 2004 hurricane season;
>>>
>>> j. nor the inactive subsequent seasons;
>>>
>>> k. nor the UK flooding of 2007 (the Met Office had forecast a summer
>>> of prolonged droughts only six weeks previously);
>>>
>>> l. nor the solar Grand Maximum of the past 70 years, during which
>>> the Sun was more active, for longer, than at almost any similar
>>> period in the past 11,400 years (Hathaway, 2004; Solanki et al.,
>>> 2005);
>>>
>>> m. nor the consequent surface "global warming" on Mars, Jupiter,
>>> Neptune's largest moon, and even distant Pluto;
>>>
>>> n. nor the eerily-continuing 2006 solar minimum;
>>>
>>> o. nor the consequent, precipitate decline of ~0.8 °C in surface
>>> temperature from January 2007 to May 2008 that has canceled out
>>> almost all of the observed warming of the 20th century.
>>>
>>> http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1803
>>> --
>>>
>>> Warmest Regards
>>>
>>> Bonzo
>>
>> Added to which they have not proved that the CO2 in the
>> oceans is rising even though they have spent millions
>> on measuring it.
>
> The same old ridiculous lie. lol
>

I haven't been on here for months. I am amazed that people are still
responding to a "chemist" who doesn't know the first thing about chemistry.

Show messages with headings

5. Date: 2008-11-10 23:00:02
Subject: Re: Climate models are still getting it right?
From: Michael Dobony <s...@s...net> Search message by this author

On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:55:22 -0600, Ouroboros_Rex wrote:

> chemist wrote:
>> On Nov 9, 6:19 am, "Bonzo" <z...@...com> wrote:
>>> The Sorry History Of Climate Model Predictions
>>>
>>> 16 Sep 2008
>>>
>>> "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and
>>> expecting realistic results."
>>>
>>> The computer models upon which the UN's climate panel unwisely
>>> founds its entire case have failed and failed and failed again to
>>> predict major events in the real climate.
>>>
>>> a. The models have not projected the current multidecadal stasis in
>>> "global warming":
>>>
>>> b. no rise in temperatures since 1998; falling temperatures since
>>> late 2001; temperatures not expected to set a new record until 2015
>>> (Keenlyside et al., 2008).
>>>
>>> c. nor (until trained ex post facto) did they predict the fall in TS
>>> from 1940-1975;
>>>
>>> d. nor 50 years' cooling in Antarctica (Doran et al., 2002) and the
>>> Arctic (Soon, 2005);
>>>
>>> e. nor the absence of ocean warming since 2003 (Lyman et al., 2006;
>>> Gouretski & Koltermann, 2007);
>>>
>>> f. nor the behavior of the great ocean oscillations (Lindzen, 2007),
>>>
>>> g. nor the magnitude nor duration of multi-century events such as the
>>> Mediaeval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age;
>>>
>>> h. nor the decline since 2000 in atmospheric methane concentration
>>> (IPCC, 2007);
>>>
>>> i. nor the active 2004 hurricane season;
>>>
>>> j. nor the inactive subsequent seasons;
>>>
>>> k. nor the UK flooding of 2007 (the Met Office had forecast a summer
>>> of prolonged droughts only six weeks previously);
>>>
>>> l. nor the solar Grand Maximum of the past 70 years, during which
>>> the Sun was more active, for longer, than at almost any similar
>>> period in the past 11,400 years (Hathaway, 2004; Solanki et al.,
>>> 2005);
>>>
>>> m. nor the consequent surface "global warming" on Mars, Jupiter,
>>> Neptune's largest moon, and even distant Pluto;
>>>
>>> n. nor the eerily-continuing 2006 solar minimum;
>>>
>>> o. nor the consequent, precipitate decline of ~0.8 °C in surface
>>> temperature from January 2007 to May 2008 that has canceled out
>>> almost all of the observed warming of the 20th century.
>>>
>>> http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1803
>>> --
>>>
>>> Warmest Regards
>>>
>>> Bonzo
>>
>> Added to which they have not proved that the CO2 in the
>> oceans is rising even though they have spent millions
>> on measuring it.
>
> The same old ridiculous lie. lol

Is that the best response you can come up with? PROVE it is a lie.
Provide an alternative.

Show messages with headings

6. Date: 2008-11-11 00:15:59
Subject: Re: Climate models are still getting it right?
From: "zbnoo" <z...@...com> Search message by this author

"DeadFrog" <D...@V...net> wrote in message
news:TA0Sk.41191$YS4.17003@newsfe28.ams2...
>
> "Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@c...com> wrote in message
> news:4JSdnXmx_LgxDIXUnZ2dnUVZ_h2dnZ2d@giganews.com..
.
>> chemist wrote:
>>> On Nov 9, 6:19 am, "Bonzo" <z...@...com> wrote:
>>>> The Sorry History Of Climate Model Predictions
>>>>
>>>> 16 Sep 2008
>>>>
>>>> "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and
>>>> expecting realistic results."
>>>>
>>>> The computer models upon which the UN's climate panel unwisely
>>>> founds its entire case have failed and failed and failed again to
>>>> predict major events in the real climate.
>>>>
>>>> a. The models have not projected the current multidecadal stasis in
>>>> "global warming":
>>>>
>>>> b. no rise in temperatures since 1998; falling temperatures since
>>>> late 2001; temperatures not expected to set a new record until 2015
>>>> (Keenlyside et al., 2008).
>>>>
>>>> c. nor (until trained ex post facto) did they predict the fall in TS
>>>> from 1940-1975;
>>>>
>>>> d. nor 50 years' cooling in Antarctica (Doran et al., 2002) and the
>>>> Arctic (Soon, 2005);
>>>>
>>>> e. nor the absence of ocean warming since 2003 (Lyman et al., 2006;
>>>> Gouretski & Koltermann, 2007);
>>>>
>>>> f. nor the behavior of the great ocean oscillations (Lindzen, 2007),
>>>>
>>>> g. nor the magnitude nor duration of multi-century events such as the
>>>> Mediaeval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age;
>>>>
>>>> h. nor the decline since 2000 in atmospheric methane concentration
>>>> (IPCC, 2007);
>>>>
>>>> i. nor the active 2004 hurricane season;
>>>>
>>>> j. nor the inactive subsequent seasons;
>>>>
>>>> k. nor the UK flooding of 2007 (the Met Office had forecast a summer
>>>> of prolonged droughts only six weeks previously);
>>>>
>>>> l. nor the solar Grand Maximum of the past 70 years, during which
>>>> the Sun was more active, for longer, than at almost any similar
>>>> period in the past 11,400 years (Hathaway, 2004; Solanki et al.,
>>>> 2005);
>>>>
>>>> m. nor the consequent surface "global warming" on Mars, Jupiter,
>>>> Neptune's largest moon, and even distant Pluto;
>>>>
>>>> n. nor the eerily-continuing 2006 solar minimum;
>>>>
>>>> o. nor the consequent, precipitate decline of ~0.8 °C in surface
>>>> temperature from January 2007 to May 2008 that has canceled out
>>>> almost all of the observed warming of the 20th century.
>>>>
>>>> http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1803
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Warmest Regards
>>>>
>>>> Bonzo
>>>
>>> Added to which they have not proved that the CO2 in the
>>> oceans is rising even though they have spent millions
>>> on measuring it.
>>
>> The same old ridiculous lie. lol
>>
>
> I haven't been on here for months. I am amazed that people are still
> responding to a "chemist" who doesn't know the first thing about
> chemistry.

I am amazed that people are still responding to AGW kooks who don't know the
first thing about science or meteorology.

--

Warmest Regards

Bonzo