Sentences with phrase «alarmist models»

«Even Climate Alarmist Models Reveal An 80 % CO2 Cut Abysmally Ineffective: By 2050, Warming Reduced By 0.05 °C; Sea Rise Reduced by 0.1» Main Climate Models: Why Do They Have Such A Terrible Prediction Record?

This will mean relying on discredited, worthless alarmist models that routinely spew out predictions unrelated to reality.

It shows that most of the forecast warming from major alarmist models comes from the positive feedback theory, and not from greenhouse gas theory.

That's easy to do with the year 1300, but lately there's been some evidence to suggest that, because the actual climate has spent the entire 21st century refusing to follow the alarmist models and broil the planet, NOAA and NASA have had to resort to cooling the recent past - ie, not the pre-thermometer millennium - old past but the weather - station recorded - temperature living - memory past.

If you believe the alarmist junk and alarmist model output, yes.

Only somebody as blind and deluded as you wouldn't be able to see that Nature has not paid ball with any of the alarmist model predictions.

There is however ongoing and significant research which contradicts this alarmist model based position.

Not exact matches

Despite the «science is settled» and «consensus» claims of the global - warming alarmists, the fear of catastrophic consequences from rising temperatures has been driven not so much by good science as by computer models and adroit publicity fed to a compliant media.

RE: Just a little piecprsteve on the credibility of the authors of the study: Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real - world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

There are other examples of models being too conservative, rather than alarmist as some portray them.

Dr. Richard Lindzen — Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists «are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right.»

In difference to the «alarmist» 11 degrees C interpretation they are suggesting that the model is flawed.

I was at first puzzled by Mr. Lindzen's rhetoric that «alarmists» are «trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right.»

In reality, no climate models predict any probability of warming over 10 C. Of all the alarmist lies, this one takes the first prize hands down.

The almost complete and abject failure of the climate alarmists and their models to actually correctly predict anything at all relating to the global climate after some 25 years of research if we take Hansen's infamous Congressional meeting in 1988 as the starting point for climate alarmist research, has been well documented in numerous places including here..

John S. Theon, formerly chief of all weather and climate research for NASA, and James Hansen's former boss, has just released a statement of his personal skepticism concerning the predictions of climate alarmist James Hansen and of climate models.

We have here 5 STRIKES on the climate models, which are the source of most of the alarmist statements we hear about climate change.

This is particularly significant because many climate - change alarmists conjecture that the reason global temperatures of the 21st century are lower than their faulty climate models originally predicted is that the Earth's oceans are absorbing all the excess heat.

If I could create a bot that would present the alarmist side as arrogant, biased and angry, I'd use David Appell as a model.

Alarmist: «Completely unexpected event x is entirely consistent with our models and — if anything — strengthens our belief in AGW

Consensus Alarmist Climate Theory and Models based on Alarmist Theory is the only thing that shows anything likely to go out of bounds.

Dr. XXX only has Alarmist Theory and Model Output that does not match real data.

What is known for a certainty at this point is that the existing models are wrong — because they failed to accurately predict the data which have now been observed — and they are alarmist — because when globalist bureaucrats use faulty models as their justification for confiscating trillions of dollars from those who have earned them, and giving them to those who did not.

(2) Are there forces that counteract the greenhouse effect that aren't being considered in the climate alarmists» computer models (which might explain how their computer models have proven so inaccurate)?

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer - reviewed science journal Remote Sensing.

National Geographic, like other choristers in the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) alarmist choir, is hyping the latest «climate research,» in this case, the new computer modeling program of a team at the University College of London's (UCL) Institute for Sustainable Resources.

According to climate alarmists, the frequency and severity of this natural hazard should already be increasing in response to model - based predictions of CO2 - induced global warming.

The bad news is that as more is understood about global warming, and as we compare what has happened to what was predicted by the average models (from the actual science, not from popular sensationalized media), the earlier scientific predictions have turned out to be too conservative, not as you say «too alarmist».

By 2015 and especially 2020, it will be obvious to anyone with a brain that the Alarmists have got it wrong, as the climate continues not to play along with their simplistic, biased computer models.

Given the preponderance of alarmist climate models that predicted significant warming, this fact alone should be reason enough for regulators and scientists to reassess their conclusions.

I do not expect any extant model to survive the next 20 years» worth of data collection, but I think that the data collected to date do not clearly rule out very much — though alarmist predictions made in 1988 - 1990 look less credible year by year.

I think we can safely assume that if there was even one model that showed anything like a reasonable agreement with observations the alarmist propaganda machine would have made sure that it was on the front page of every newspaper in the land and at the top of every news bulletin.

Are all of the alarmist warmistas in a world - at - risk tizzy over projections of catastrophe by computer models, or are they engaged in making predictions of impending doom, based on models and all manner of other misinterpreted evidence and made up nonsense?

When Alarmists say that ENSO's short term effects must balance to zero over the long run they are doing a priori science using the assumptions of the «radiation - only» model.

As has been mentioned earlier, I think an accurate historical perspective (evidence) of the past 50,000 years (to include our early Holocene) would go a long way in building interest from alarmists and skeptics in addressing the problem from a factual perspective (what has happened) rather than a mindless modeling game (what answer do we want to make happen).

The Swedish professor tells the BAZ that he became a skeptic of alarmist climate science early on because «the [UN] IPCC always depicted the facts on the subject falsely» and «grossly exaggerated the risks of sea level rise» and that the IPCC «excessively relied on shaky computer models instead of field research.»

In fact, most uncertainties in the alarmist pseudo-science are internal contradictions and consequences of its shoddy practices: cherry picking data, making conclusions based on statistically insignificant observations, declaring trends based on variations that are within error margins, relying on computer models that contradict principles of the information theory, forging forecasts for unreasonably long time periods, etc..

GCM models are all the alarmist can point to, as the planet laughs at their hubris.

In 2009 he sent the infamous email — exposed during Climategate — lamenting the fact that global temperatures weren't playing in accordance with the alarmists» computer models:

The models, of course, are built by the alarmists and, of course, yield the results they desire.

It is frustrating that the alarmists can get away with their flawed models and get all the public attention, while the real scientific work stays within this sphere, outside the public reach which it deserves.

A a a a a a a a a agitated alarmists am an an And and and any apart apple apple argue ask at back bodies Bowring but But by call Cambridge can can century change Christopher climate climate climatology dare dare day denier discovery distance does drop each England enquire It experience expert explodes field force from global global global global Grantham Gravitation greatest greet have have he He head him How I I I I I I I I I in in in in in in invalidates inversely is is is is is is is is Isaac Isaac Isaac's it it It It Law law lay Let Lincolnshire living looking looks Lucasian made man masses Mathematics me mind models my my Newton Newton no nobody nonentity nonsense Nonsense Nonsense

A second major issue is the use of semi-empirical models, which Willem de Lange and Robert Carter found to be the most alarmist of all the techniques they reviewed in their study of global sea - level change.

, it will take Enron style accounting for alarmists to account for it, but common sense will ultimately prevail, and C02 will be shown, even by Hansen and his modelled muddle, to have little effect, about 1 degree C per doubling, not 1.5 to 6C.

I am somewhat embarrassed by the fact that one of the worst, most alarmist computer models is paid for by Canadian tax payers.

I'm interested in both the hyper - alarmist views and the extreme hard science debunkings (slayers, Tallbloke, gravity model, etc).

Most scientists now believe the alarmists are giving FAR too much weight to the greenhouse effect and too little or NO weight to any other of many known factors in their computer models.

Alarmists accept far more science, it's skeptics by and large who seek to shutdown funding for climate science and deny things like the surface records and the use of climate models.

Climate realists are increasingly telling the alarmists to stop computer - modeling Earth as if it were a greenhouse!