Scientists may have figured out why a potent greenhouse gas is rising. The answer is scary.

[Nationalist]

4 hours ago, robosmith said:

You have NOT posted anything that says "faulty models and assumptions that produce over the top results" today.

Your SA article is 10 years old and models have improved GREATLY since then.

NASA Study Reveals Compounding Climate Risks at Two Degrees of Warming

Have you even noticed that extreme storms have set records here for the last year at least? Almost every week we see severe weather detailed in the Midwest and East.

Robo...you just posted another article full of "could"s.

Bye...

[gatomontes99]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

I don't believe the 10 yo models did a very good job with water vapor and cloud cover.

Here is a paper from 2020 that outlines some of the improvements in today's models.

New Generation of Climate Models Track Recent Unprecedented Changes in Earth's Radiation Budget Observed by CERES

 

 

From your own source:

However, model biases could play a critical role (McGregor et al., 2018) in explaining why coupled models are not able to simulate the observed SST pattern during the hiatus (Coats & Karnauskas, 2017; McGregor et al., 2014). We thus caution that consistency between AGCM simulations and observations at interannual timescales is not a guarantee of success in projecting future climate, as other processes operating at longer timescales likely also matter.

--------------------------------

IOW, the models bias toward AGW and that makes them inaccurate.

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Robo...you just posted another article full of "could"s.

Bye...

You have nothing better but somehow you're sure of THAT.

The models you cite are over 10 years OLD and I've proven they are much better now because of CERES.

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

From your own source:

However, model biases could play a critical role (McGregor et al., 2018) in explaining why coupled models are not able to simulate the observed SST pattern during the hiatus (Coats & Karnauskas, 2017; McGregor et al., 2014). We thus caution that consistency between AGCM simulations and observations at interannual timescales is not a guarantee of success in projecting future climate, as other processes operating at longer timescales likely also matter.

--------------------------------

IOW, the models bias toward AGW and that makes them inaccurate.

"Not a guarantee" does not mean they are wrong at any given time. There is also "not a guarantee" that the previous failure  to track the hiatus always means longer term inaccuracy.

[CdnFox]

8 hours ago, robosmith said:

"Not a guarantee" does not mean they are wrong at any given time. 

But it does mean they weren't necessarily right at any time. Which means they're useless

[robosmith]

On 7/16/2025 at 8:19 AM, CdnFox said:

But it does mean they weren't necessarily right at any time. Which means they're useless

FAR FROM USELESS, the models are getting BETTER ALL THE TIME. Duh

Meanwhile all you've got is BULLSHIT.

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, robosmith said:

FAR FROM USELESS, the models are getting BETTER ALL THE TIME. Duh

But you describe them as being useless. And getting better doesn't mean that they're of any use, if you have something that's absolutely useless and then you raise it to 90% useless you can say it's getting better but it's still useless.

Sounds like you accidentally spoke the quiet part out loud and deep down you know they're useless. 

[eyeball]

The models are certainly useless at getting right wingers to pay attention - but you could say the very same thing about a two x four upside their heads.

[robosmith]

8 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The models are certainly useless at getting right wingers to pay attention - but you could say the very same thing about a two x four upside their heads.

Imperfect models do NOT negate the KNOWN physical laws.

The models do not reflect major tipping points like freeing the fossil methane that is trapped under the permafrost and is already bubbling to the surface in the Arctic. 

[CdnFox]

44 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The models are certainly useless at getting right wingers to pay attention - but you could say the very same thing about a two x four upside their heads.

You're right, you should try something more effective.... like a carbon tax!   

[Nationalist]

ROFLMAO!

Showing the unreliabilty of climate freaks and their predictions has ol' robo-dweeb pi55ing his Underalls.

Edited July 17, 2025 by Nationalist

[robosmith]

14 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

ROFLMAO!

Showing the unreliabilty of climate freaks and their predictions has ol' robo-dweeb pi55ing his Underalls.

Showing the IGNORANCE of ^dropout looking like a FOOL.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

Showing the IGNORANCE of ^dropout looking like a FOOL.

You're a drop out?

[robosmith]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You're a drop out?

Apparently ^you are because you don't know what '^' means.

[CdnFox]

9 hours ago, robosmith said:

Apparently ^you are because you don't know what '^' means.

looks like I stayed in school longer than you because you don't know what mockery means  LOLOL