Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are down to ‘natural variability’, says study
Duke University study looked at 1,000 years of temperature records
It compared it to the most severe emissions scenarios by the IPCC
Found that natural variability can slow or speed the rate of warming
These 'climate wiggles' were not properly accounted for in IPCC report

By Ellie Zolfagharifard For Dailymail.com


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3052926/Our-climate-models-WRONG-Global-warming-slowed-recent-changes-natural-variability-says-study.html#ixzz3YFjeVHyY
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

You will need to post this at least 10 time in nitwads post to get him to "LOOK" at the link.

You can count "ONE", because I just posted it to him in mine.

https://nicholas.duke.edu/people/faculty/li

(https://nicholas.duke.edu/sites/default/files/styles/headshot/public/image_5353082.jpeg?itok=uzaT8llg)

What proof do you have they are correct nitwad,, you have failed miserably at producing anything but annoying posts on the topic.

They can't even get the number of Hurricanes right. NOR have they allowed for spurious volcanic activity airbornes, as we are currently seeing. Just what have they forecasted correctly nitwad.

More from the author of the study you referenced. 



Global Warming More Moderate Than Worst-Case Models


April 2015


Wehong LI
Patrick Brown


Further comparative analysis of the models revealed another intriguing insight.

“Statistically, it’s pretty unlikely that an 11-year hiatus in warming, like the one we saw at the start of this century, would occur if the underlying human-caused warming was progressing at a rate as fast as the most severe IPCC projections,” Brown said. “Hiatus periods of 11 years or longer are more likely to occur under a middle-of-the-road scenario.”

Under the IPCC’s middle-of-the-road scenario, there was a 70 percent likelihood that at least one hiatus lasting 11 years or longer would occur between 1993 and 2050, Brown said.  “That matches up well with what we’re seeing.”

There’s no guarantee, however, that this rate of warming will remain steady in coming years, Li stressed. “Our analysis clearly shows that we shouldn’t expect the observed rates of warming to be constant. They can and do change.” 


https://nicholas.duke.edu/news/global-warming-more-moderate-worst-case-models

you guys should really stop getting your science from entertainment sources and stick with actual science sources for scientific information.

There is no proof within observational data of warming outside of natural variation.

The natural rate of increase of about 1 deg F (0.5 C) since the LIA (~1500-1900) has not been removed from the IPCC estimations of temperature rise. The  CO2 contribution is negligible or non-existent because there is no credible way to compensate for the sharp cooling from 1940 to the 1970s in the   face of the rapid growth of CO2, nor the similar (to present) rise from 1920 to 1940 in the absence of rapid CO2 growth. See for example, Is    the Earth still recovering from the “Little Ice Age”?:   A possible cause of global warming by   Syun-Ichi Akasofu (7 May 2007) (http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/akasofu_3_07/Earth_recovering_from_LIA_R.pdf) . Another difficulty with accepting   the temperature rise at face value is the evidence that the start of   the use of thermometers in about 1850 comes at the same time as the emergence    from the coldest period in 8,000 years (http://youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA&mode=related&search=).


http://www.physicalgeography.net/physgeoglos/l.html#little_climatic_optimum (http://www.physicalgeography.net/physgeoglos/l.html#little_climatic_optimum)



http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/index.php?topic=207341.msg1648066#msg1648066

sorry sweaty but that link is not to the story you posted.

the actual link for the site where you found this story is below.  It's nothing more than another denier site with no real credentials.  It's mostly just a collection of previously debunked crap.

http://www.climatechangefacts.info/

There are two links, clown...


http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/akasofu_3_07/Earth_recovering_from_LIA_R.pdf (http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/akasofu_3_07/Earth_recovering_from_LIA_R.pdf)

http://www.physicalgeography.net/physgeoglos/l.html#little_climatic_optimum (http://www.physicalgeography.net/physgeoglos/l.html#little_climatic_optimum)

http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/index.php?topic=207341.msg1648066#msg1648066 (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/index.php?topic=207341.msg1648066#msg1648066)


There is no proof within observational data of warming outside of natural variation.

The natural rate of increase of about 1 deg F (0.5 C) since the LIA (~1500-1900) has not been removed from the IPCC estimations of temperature rise. The  CO2 contribution is negligible or non-existent because there is no credible way to compensate for the sharp cooling from 1940 to the 1970s in the   face of the rapid growth of CO2, nor the similar (to present) rise from 1920 to 1940 in the absence of rapid CO2 growth. See for example, Is    the Earth still recovering from the “Little Ice Age”?:   A possible cause of global warming by   Syun-Ichi Akasofu (7 May 2007) (http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/akasofu_3_07/Earth_recovering_from_LIA_R.pdf) . Another difficulty with accepting   the temperature rise at face value is the evidence that the start of   the use of thermometers in about 1850 comes at the same time as the emergence    from the coldest period in 8,000 years (http://youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA&mode=related&search=).


 (http://www.physicalgeography.net/physgeoglos/l.html#little_climatic_optimum)

yeah, none of them are correct.  they all take you somewhere other than the denier site you copied the story from

here's where the story you copied came from


http://www.climatechangefacts.info/

OOO don't go to denier sites,,, they tell something the left will not here of.  Is that your proof,,, calling everything that proves you wrong a DENIER SITE???



http://cnsnews.com/commentary/stephen-moore/climate-change-single-greatest-misinformation-campaign-world-history

why do you and boz rely on such obviously dishonest tactics to prop up your idiocy?

yeah boz, why would anyone go to real science sites for information on science?  Is that the way your twisted thinking works?

Its not your call, you wasted jerkoff.

Present your case ,and STFU with the shit comments, fkface.

you didn't answer boz, why would you go to denier sites for your science information instead of actual real science sites?

sweaty knows those denier site aren't to be trusted.  he even went as far as trying to post bogus links to try to give them a little validity.

You supposed "Denier sites" are actual scientists ,, or do you deny that??

Did you find some error in their scientific methods that you would care to elaborate upon. We have found a multitude in yours as we have posted multiple times. So who is actually SCIENTIFICALLY correct.

no, they aren't peer reviewed science sites boz. 

they aren't supported or recognized by any actual real scientific organizations as valid science research sites.

if you notice there's a common theme running through most of the stories on denier sites.  they don't lay out any actual information of their own, their stories mostly just argue against the data of actual science studies.

Nitwad would have you believe his OLD data is better info,,  than A NEW RESEARCH STUDY USING THE LATEST INFO.

Your info is NOT PEER REVIEWED,  and we have proven that over and over with multiple links ,, STFU with your BS.

Is that the act of an HONEST person on the topic..

By "peer," you mean fellow libs.

what old data are you talking about?  what new research study are you talking about?

you seem to be blabbering again boz. 

the information I posted from the author is from a peer reviewed study that he and she wrote.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

http://rbutr.com/rbutr/WebsiteServlet?requestType=showLinksByFromPage&fromPageId=2167

Poptech’s list of Confusion « itsnotnova
itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/poptechs-list-of-confusion/ (http://rbutr.com/rbutr/PluginServlet?redirect=2169&fromPlugin=false)
Exposes numerous fallacies, shoddy and often contradictory selection criteria of poptech's list.

900 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm
carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-part-two-using-our-paper-is-mi.. (http://rbutr.com/rbutr/PluginServlet?redirect=2326&fromPlugin=false)
Shows that many of the authors of papers on the list do not support claims that their papers are skeptical of AGW.

the biggest tip off that this list is total bullshit is that it comes from Popular Technology . net, which is a denier website itself.


https://ipka.wordpress.com/2010/10/21/denialist-populartechnology-net-denier-website/

There is no proof within observational data of warming outside of natural variation.

The natural rate of increase of about 1 deg F (0.5 C) since the LIA (~1500-1900) has not been removed from the IPCC estimations of temperature rise. The  CO2 contribution is negligible or non-existent because there is no credible way to compensate for the sharp cooling from 1940 to the 1970s in the   face of the rapid growth of CO2, nor the similar (to present) rise from 1920 to 1940 in the absence of rapid CO2 growth. See for example, Is    the Earth still recovering from the “Little Ice Age”?:   A possible cause of global warming by   Syun-Ichi Akasofu (7 May 2007) (http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/akasofu_3_07/Earth_recovering_from_LIA_R.pdf) . Another difficulty with accepting   the temperature rise at face value is the evidence that the start of   the use of thermometers in about 1850 comes at the same time as the emergence    from the coldest period in 8,000 years (http://youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA&mode=related&search=).


http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/index.php?topic=207341.msg1648066#msg1648066

Sweaty's just being stupid now. He was dishonest before now he's just being stupid.

That means nitwad can't dispute your post.

"OLD DATA" DEFINITION,,, ALL DATA USED BEFORE APPLICATION OF THIS NEW INFO.

I celebrated Earth Day by feeding trees the stuff they crave - carbon dioxide!

Let's see what the author of the study you referenced actually has to say herself of the subject, shall we -


where did you get her as the author of the Duke Study I referenced?

From the study itself dummy.  You didn't really reference the study you just referenced someone else's take on it.  I like hearing what the actual author of the study said about it.

'By comparing our model against theirs, we found that climate models largely get the 'big picture' right but seem to underestimate the magnitude of natural decade-to-decade climate wiggles,' Brown said.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3052926/Our-climate-models-WRONG-Global-warming-slowed-recent-changes-natural-variability-says-study.html#ixzz3YH1fhtuX[/COLOR]]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3052926/Our-climate-models-WRONG-Global-warming-slowed-recent-changes-natural-variability-says-study.html#ixzz3YH1fhtuX (http://[COLOR=#003399)
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bBOTTqvd0r3Pooab7jrHcU&u=MailOnline) | DailyMail on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bBOTTqvd0r3Pooab7jrHcU&u=DailyMail)





So the BIG PICTURE IS CORRECT, it's just the variability that is wrong...



THANKS for clearing that up.

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.



Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies (http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full). By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

Nitwad keeps asking why I go to "DENIER " sites.  While he only goes to "ALARMIST" sites

Why doesn't HE go to "DENIER" sites,,, Because HE DOES NOT WANT THE FULL TRUTH. He won't even click on anything that brings doubt to the MMGW farce.

Total dishonesty.

The natural rate of increase of about 1 deg F (0.5 C) since the LIA (~1500-1900) has not been removed from the IPCC estimations of temperature rise. The  CO2 contribution is negligible or non-existent because there is no credible way to compensate for the sharp cooling from 1940 to the 1970s in the   face of the rapid growth of CO2, nor the similar (to present) rise from 1920 to 1940 in the absence of rapid CO2 growth.

http://oneworld.org/2009/11/11/heat-this (http://oneworld.org/2009/11/11/heat-this)

If the model was not incomplete or flawed, they could forecast the weather next year, but right now the Farmers Almanac has a better track record.

 Additionally "peer" review itself is not scientific and has no scientific basis. So all this smoke an mirrors while moving the goal posts BS won't play today.

MMGW has become more political than scientific...

On the 24 April 2015 edition of CBS Evening News, a NASA scientist made a surprising admission about climate change during a report about an erupting volcano in South America. Correspondent Michelle Miller turned to Dr. Allegra LeGrande, who detailed how the gases from a volcanic eruption can lead to a reduction in the amount of sunlight that reaches the Earth. Le Grande added that "this is a small component of why we're not as warm today as the climate models predicted we would be seven years ago."

http://cnsnews.com/video/newsbusters/shocker-cbs-earth-not-warmas-climate-models-predicted