Maunder minimum

Originally posted by @wildgrass
yes, and no.

Did you read the article you posted? We've had a dozen posts discussing it but it doesn't appear you know the content. The climate model from 1970 overestimated the increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions post-2000. As you can clearly see, it was remarkably precise up until about the year 2000 (25 years of forecasting). Lucky for us, atmos ...[text shortened]... obal warming? Are they part of the systematic overestimation scheme you so confidently describe?

I didn't look into why one of the IPCC models was underestimating. I'm guessing it is because they didn't take solar activity into account. That is the superior way to predict this according to Piers Corbyn. Don't you agree?

YouTube

Originally posted by @metal-brain
I didn't look into why one of the IPCC models was underestimating. I'm guessing it is because they didn't take solar activity into account. That is the superior way to predict this according to Piers Corbyn. Don't you agree?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R26PXRrgds

Read stuff before you post it as evidence. Otherwise I'm wasting my time reading it.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Read stuff before you post it as evidence. Otherwise I'm wasting my time reading it.

Read what? It is a video. I watched it.

If you claim you read a video you must not have watched it. Who do you think you are fooling?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Read what? It is a video. I watched it.

If you claim you read a video you must not have watched it. Who do you think you are fooling?

The proper response to this...

I didn't look into why one of the IPCC models was underestimating. I'm guessing it is because they didn't take solar activity into account.

...was in the article you posted earlier. The one we were discussing. I thought you had read it.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
The proper response to this...

I didn't look into why one of the IPCC models was underestimating. I'm guessing it is because they didn't take solar activity into account.

...was in the article you posted earlier. The one we were discussing. I thought you had read it.

I read the article, but you are talking about one prediction of many. I would have to look into that one particular prediction to have an idea why it was underestimated. Was the prediction made before or after the pause? Maybe that would explain it. Have you looked into it at all?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
I read the article, but you are talking about one prediction of many. I would have to look into that one particular prediction to have an idea why it was underestimated. Was the prediction made before or after the pause? Maybe that would explain it. Have you looked into it at all?

It's not just the one. Several models underpredicted, as you might expect. Does that factor in to your systematic over-estimation position?

Originally posted by @wildgrass
It's not just the one. Several models underpredicted, as you might expect. Does that factor in to your systematic over-estimation position?

Was the prediction made before or after the pause? Maybe that would explain it. Have you looked into it at all?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Was the prediction made before or after the pause? Maybe that would explain it. Have you looked into it at all?

Come on, obviously the prediction was made in 1981. Read your own references. And yes.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Come on, obviously the prediction was made in 1981. Read your own references. And yes.

I don't see the need to read about an inaccurate model. Maybe an accurate one, but not an inaccurate one.
Wrong is wrong. Climate model predictions are pathetic, but guys like you will claim the opposite no matter how wrong they are. You cannot even admit the obvious and continue to be in denial of the facts.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
I don't see the need to read about an inaccurate model. Maybe an accurate one, but not an inaccurate one.
Wrong is wrong. Climate model predictions are pathetic, but guys like you will claim the opposite no matter how wrong they are. You cannot even admit the obvious and continue to be in denial of the facts.

So glaciers are NOT disappearing, the ocean is not getting deeper each year, Coral reefs are not dying, we are not in a mass extinction event, temperatures are not going up, CO2 only increases after the temperature goes up. Is that about it?

Originally posted by @sonhouse
So glaciers are NOT disappearing, the ocean is not getting deeper each year, Coral reefs are not dying, we are not in a mass extinction event, temperatures are not going up, CO2 only increases after the temperature goes up. Is that about it?

You have a poor memory. This warming trend started over 300 years ago. Of course there is warming, glaciers melting and sea level rise. I expect that from a trend continuing.

Nova lied. Can you acknowledge that or do you think it was an honest mistake by an ignorant person? Would you at least condemn Nova for making your side look either dishonest or stupid?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
I don't see the need to read about an inaccurate model. Maybe an accurate one, but not an inaccurate one.
Wrong is wrong.

Yet again, if the data you posted wasn't worth reading, then stop posting it.

This model is not wrong. Explain why you think it is. What does 20% underestimation over a 40 year period mean? By my estimation from the graph, it looks like this model was off by less than 0.1 degrees in 40 years. Other models are off by 0.1 degrees in the other direction. The trend lines are all headed in the same direction overall, and they look remarkably accurate and well within a reasonable range of error.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Yet again, if the data you posted wasn't worth reading, then stop posting it.

This model is not wrong. Explain why you think it is. What does 20% underestimation over a 40 year period mean? By my estimation from the graph, it looks like this model was off by less than 0.1 degrees in 40 years. Other models are off by 0.1 degrees in the other direction. ...[text shortened]... irection overall, and they look remarkably accurate and well within a reasonable range of error.

If you will recall I did not post that link because I agreed with it. I posted it to show you how the issue is complex and why we are unlikely to agree on anything.
Go back and look. You are misrepresenting my whole point. I have wasted a lot of time reading articles only to find out the data is flawed because no satellite temp data was used or some other flaw because you didn't scrutinize the article yourself, leaving me to do it.
None of those predictions come close to Piers Corbyn's predictions based on solar factors. Corbyn is remarkably accurate, not climate models based on CO2.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
None of those predictions come close to Piers Corbyn's predictions based on solar factors. Corbyn is remarkably accurate, not climate models based on CO2.

Again, if you read the methodology, none of the models are "based on CO2". CO2 is only one of the variables, and it just happens to be one which we as humans have the power to change.

Who's Piers Corbyn and what exactly does his research demonstrate that refutes what we just looked at? Where's the data for the Piers Corbyn climate model study that doesn't account for CO2 but predicts climate change more accurately that the models we just looked at for 40+ years?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
You have a poor memory. This warming trend started over 300 years ago. Of course there is warming, glaciers melting and sea level rise. I expect that from a trend continuing.

Nova lied. Can you acknowledge that or do you think it was an honest mistake by an ignorant person? Would you at least condemn Nova for making your side look either dishonest or stupid?

Warming started 300 years ago. My goodness, could it be that humans are involved since the industrial revolution started on that timeframe? Of course you would deny that one.
That is a given.

The real changes have happened in the last 50 years not 300. Do you deny that ramp up in the loss of glaciers? Also a new report is showing the worlds lakes (fresh water sources) are evaporating at an alarming rate and that alone will create enormous difficulties for societies around the world.

ps://phys.org/news/2018-05-climate-boost-global-lake-evaporationwith.html

*oh Jesus, he used the word 'alarming' again*