Climate forecasts may be flawed

Paris - Predictions of unprecedented rainfall extremes in the 20th century driven by global warming turned out wrong, a study said on Wednesday, casting doubt on methods used to project future trends.

A massive trawl of Northern Hemisphere rainfall data for the last 1 200 years revealed there had been more dramatic wet-dry weather extremes in earlier, cooler centuries before humans set off fossil fuel-driven global warming.

This is problematic, said a study in the journal Nature, as the same data models used to anticipate that global warming would cause record rainfall
extremes in the 1900s, are the basis for projections of things to come.

I’m shocked.:eek::wink:

The entire concept of modelling future climates is a little odd. We have only been actively tracking climate data for about a hundred years or so, maybe a hundred and fifty. Our long term historical climate data comes mainly from core samplings. The problem with this is that core samples can only show us the end result of a particular climate period, not all the factors that cause that result. We can make assumptions about what the climate was like based on our current understanding, but we have no real way of knowing how accurate those assumptions are.

For now, we have a very small sample of data from which to draw long term climate predictions. As we track more and more factors over greater periods of time we’ll be able to generate far more accurate models that are accurate much farther out.

You don’t say! :hypno:

Research that doesn’t support ‘consensus’ alarmism is quickly buried.

You can’t remake our global economic system if you only promise ‘more of the same’

Thanks _Abyssinia for posting this.

God bless.


I think it is becoming more clear that the global warming hoax, was a ploy for money and a scheme for power and control.

The 97% shenanigans is a survey that assumes good methodology for data collection (sometimes there was, sometimes there was not), honest data sharing (some of the data has been found to have “changed”), open and transparent reproducible materials and methods (also not done with ALL the data), objective data (some of the data has been found to allegedly be “messaged”), adequate data (a paucity of data has been seen in some cases), a reliable computer model to analyze the data, and not a politically driven motivation.

Then and only then would a computer driven data analysis be acceptable.

All of these assumptions were apparently made, for the 97% scientist affirmation quotes.

Since there have been exposés showing these assumptions to be phony, some of the 97% scientists have openly jumped off that bandwagon.

There is NO 97% consensus.

Global warming is a hoax (at least some of the aspects).

Denise, you need to be careful. New York Attorney General Schneidermann will target you.


Well, the planet hasn’t been warming for 18 years. So there is no “warming” globally.

Also, man does not affect the climate as much as they think. In fact, man’s effect is negligible compared to natural forces. I just think a lot of these folks don’t understand planetary atmospheric fluid dynamics in its entirety.

It is important to do research on the matter, but that research needs to have sound methodology, and a lot of times, it doesn’t.

If my teams used that kind of research in water quality, it would be declared invalid in court proceedings in say a case like Flint.

The atmosphere hasn’t warmed much in the last 18 years, but the ocean has. Deviation from the models means our models aren’t great, it doesn’t mean the planet isn’t warming. It’s really basic physics that as atmospheric CO2 continues to rise the planet will keep absorbing heat.

There is insufficient data to assert that the oceans are warming. Until the completion of the deployment of the Argo buoys around 2003 there has never been a systematic method of collecting global samples. As for the “basic physics” of atmospheric CO2, that there is more involved is shown by the fact that CO2 has increased 11-12% in the last 18 years yet the atmospheric temperature has shown virtually no increase at all. The physics of the atmosphere is anything but basic.


Do most conservatives believe that the sole reason for accepting (man-made) climate change is to “remake our global economic system,” and not to save the planet? Is this their main argument against it?

Accepting the basic physics of CO2 radiative forcing is far removed from the pseudo science that projects 4-8 deg C temp increases from CO2 doubling.

The Argo buoys are giving us more extensive measurements, but we have had a pretty good idea of ocean temperature measurements for at least 50 years (I attended an institution that constructs Argo floats and was involved with the Argo program as a student). Also, I didn’t say atmospheric temperature was rising I said the planet would continue to absorb heat, which means melting ice and higher ocean temperatures. The slowdown of atmospheric warming is probably because we’ve reached a buffer point: the ocean is absorbing massive amounts of heat that would otherwise be heating the atmosphere. As with all buffered systems, there will be a stall and then a rapid rise in atmospheric temperature. The specifics are still being worked on, as our atmospheric models are great, and our oceanic models are great, but the interaction between the two is where improvements need to be made.

If by “great” you mean that you are overall personally impressed with their cleverness, ingenuity and sheer scale. However, the fidelity to the natural physical systems is poor. Just saying the specifics “are still being worked on” is not an answer. They don’t have a handle on the physical systems interactions, which means the models are not adequate for realistic forecasting. They can’t as of yet even verify their theories of the energy balance since the measurement uncertainties of the energy flows are larger than the effects they look for. Please don’t try to make it something it is not. The modeling need a huge amount of work, and it is not clear that our technology and skill is even up to the task.

How can this be?
We had so many people agreeing upon one thing, and it does not happen…

This unreality is a difficult thing, I need an aspirin.

The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it, and error is error even if every everyone believes it.
Bishop Fulton John Sheen (1895 - 1979)

What’s the point of this article other than fuel denier stupidity? I thought Catholics were not opposed to science.

I understood the Argo buoys have shown the oceans are not warming as much as predicted.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit