climate models wrong

[seahooker]

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

[DaBoz]

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

[DaBoz]

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

[wvit1001]

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


Combing through the data, the researchers calculated a “standardized precipitation index” and then looked at how often the weather deviated significantly from the norm. As Li explains, “Our first task was to analyze the precipitation patterns over time. There was no obvious trend such as an overall increase in rainfall. But it soon became clear that there was increasing variability in the precipitation pattern in the region.”


The findings were dramatic: Li and her colleagues found that an abnormally wet or dry summer in the Southeast was more than twice as likely during the past 30 summers as it had been during the 30 summers before that. From 1948 to 1977, there were just two unusually wet and two unusually dry summers – technically, “rainfall anomalies that exceeded one standard deviation from the norm.” From 1978 to 2007, however, there were six unusually wet and five unusually dry summers.


Using sophisticated statistical techniques to analyze the precipitation data, Li determined that both droughts and deluges had unquestionably increased over this time period in a statistically significant way. The question was: what could be causing these large swings in the region’s summer precipitation?


Unlike a natural variation like El Niño, Li explains, the changes in the intensity and western migration of the NASH result from global warming—primarily from steadily rising sea-surface temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean. As she notes, “Our analysis strongly suggests that the changes in the NASH are mainly due to anthropogenic warming.” In other words, human-induced climate change has caused a prevailing weather pattern to move closer to North America; when that high-pressure area wobbles slightly to the north or south, the consequences are felt more acutely in the southeast’s regional rainfall compared to six decades ago.


“Our understanding of the mechanisms that drive the climate system is far from perfect,” Li says. But she adds that the statistical evidence presented in her research is powerful and should not be ignored. She likens it to the statistical correlations between smoking and lung cancer, which were clear long before the mechanisms of carcinogenesis were clearly understood. “In both cases, the statistical data can give you important information that can help to avoid risk,” she says.


http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/climate-scientist-wenhong-li.html#.VTqRStJVhBc

[wvit1001]

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

[DaBoz]

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.

[wvit1001]

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

[wvit1001]

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

[sweetwater5s9]

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



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

[wvit1001]

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/

[sweetwater5s9]

There are two links, clown...


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.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) . 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.

[wvit1001]

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/