All computer Climate Models Proven INCORRECT

The top result was:

Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming -- Solomon et al. 327 (5970): 1219 -- Science

So, no the Goggle search results haven't been scrubbed.

 

Huh? How do you reconcile your topic heading with this from the article you cite:

"Experts say their research does not undermine the scientific consensus on man-made climate change, but call for 'closer examination' of the way computer models consider water vapour..."

"Solomon said the new finding does not challenge the conclusion that human activity drives climate change. 'Not to my mind it doesn't," she said. "It shows that we shouldn't over-interpret the results from a few years one way or another.'"

Also, I could not find the 25% - 30% error you claim she "clearly states."

Further, she says here that the impact of her findings are at the decadal - 10-year- level, which is a very small blip on the scale of climate change. In fact, her quote above admits this very fact.

BTW, the science is, in science terms at least, settled. There is no serious debate among climate scientists about the connection between fossil fuel CO2 and warming. The only real debate now is whether the models have actually underestimated the speed of change and if so, by how much.

 

ONE person claims that computer models are incorrect, and you title this thread "All computer Climate Models Proven INCORRECT"????????????

That's just silly!!!!!!!!!!!

We know you are an AGW denier. But here's the facts: No computer model is absolutely correct, in part because climate is not an exact science, and in part because without infinite computing capability it is necessary to approximate by pretending that the atmosphere consists of chunks, rather than molecules. But we are dumping CO2 into the atmosphere like there's no tomorrow, and this is affecting global climate.

The denialist arguments are originating in corporations and associations of corporations that profit from selling and burning carbon-containing fossil fuels, and are bogus. But of course they have the veneer of science, adequate to boondoggle a scientifically-illiterate population, handicapped by a sub-standard education system and their own laziness when it comes to educating themselves.

We don't even need a computer model to see that this much carbon cannot fail to have significant effects on climate. And you don't have to be Karl Marx to know that the old, backward-thinking, cigar-smoking capitalists running Big Oil and the Big Three U.S. auto makers don't give a fowling Bunny if the climate goes all to hell, as long as they get their seven-figure bonuses for screwing the country and the world.

 

By all means we should be taking a close look at 'the iris effect'. It has been traeted extensively in the literature. In some ways it culd be called the last, best hope with atmospheric CO2 increasing rapidly. And no strong governmental countermeasures presently being offered.

Iris says about 1 degree C per CO2 doubling. The other models, on a 100-yr horizon, say 3 degrees (with a range of uncertainty that does not quite include 1 degree C).

The disparity not yet addressed by the Lindzen group is that for the last several glacial cycles, 3 degrees C per CO2 doubling has been a better fit (to the proxies).
Rather than just wondering about that, you have inspired me to email the question to RSL directly. I'll let you know what comes of it.

 

How you went from seeking the truth to pegging the origin of AGW, a concept that originated in the late 1800's, to Enron and Goldman is beyond me.

Soloman is indeed one of the most respected climate scientists in the world. Had you read your own citation carefully you would have noted that her research is as likely to explain the flattening in temperature increases this past decade as it is the accelerated increases during the nineties.

Most importantly, her research indicates further study is needed before reaching any strong conclusions. And as noted, she does not in any way feel this study negates the human role in a warming planet.

In fact, you might find some of her other work enlightening:

Global Warming Is Irreversible, Study Says : NPR
Susan Solomon on Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere - ScienceWatch.com

As for Lindzen, his work is sound enough to get published, but many of his conclusions, especially those minimizing human climate impacts, have been strongly challenged by other climate scientists. He is certainly well respected by the skeptic community, but perhaps that's what you meant.

 

I think confidence in Susan Solomon's research is well-placed, but read this one as well before you sign anything

Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions PNAS 106(6): 1704–1709.​

The more recent water-vapor study 'unearthed' here will probably help explain how decadal-scale variations should be dealt with in century to millenial scale climate models. Sounds good to me.

With all due respect I am not quite prepared to substitute mojo's understanding of Lindzen's research for my own. Will let you know if that changes though...

 

OK, so what you meant to say is that Lindzen is one of the most respected climate scientists in your world. Time will tell how accurate your b.s. meter is. Mine is spiking at your Enron/Goldman attribution, although I'm still not entirely sure what you accuse them of.

From where I sit it seems climate scientists were steadily increasing the volume on AGW for quite a while before policy makers finally took note, and capitalists that we are immediately started looking for economic incentives to effect change. For all his faults, Ken Lay was one of the early business leaders to embrace sustainability concepts. Perhaps that's related to your perspective.

As for Mann vs. Lindzen, rather than gauge on physical appearance, I tend to look to how their respective papers have been responded to by subsequent papers and research. Mann wins hands down vs. Lindzen on that scale, but for the sake of argument I'd be glad to remove both from the discussion and go with the consensus position of those remaining....

 

That's funny. Had you checked out my second Soloman link you'd have found an interview just this month related to that year old paper. Sure sounded secure in her support of AGW to me.

What's obvious to you isn't at all obvious to me. As you pointed out she's one of the most respected climate scientists in the world, in a position to help steer the boat as well as rock it. Her latest research is important, but I can't see her conclusions aligning with your own.

 

Talk about a srawman!

To blame global warming "hype" on Ken Lay and Goldman is laughable!

Get a grip!

 

Does the truth hurt Icarus? Thats where it comes from. Goldman stands to make billions if cap and trade is passed