- Joined
- Mar 31, 2013
- Messages
- 63,572
- Reaction score
- 28,941
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
In your case, I'd advise more reading and less poorly thought out posting.
I might take a look, but considering your viewpoint and the very mention of CO2, I have pretty much placed you in the category of a zealot. As such, I doubt seriously your commitment to science and I seriously doubt your understanding of it as well. You have a primarily political agenda, and that causes you to respond critically to any mention of a non-CO2 driver. You may continue to pretend that the prediction track record is on the money, but the facts demonstrate that the track record is abysmal. And yes, I can post links as a testament to AGW prediction failures.
So much still unknown about the Earth climate system. Probably premature to take any drastic action.
If this oscillation is responsible for climate changes, there's not a damn thig we can do about it. Letting eggheads fool with trying to change it could lead to worse outcomes.
I might take a look, but considering your viewpoint and the very mention of CO2, I have pretty much placed you in the category of a zealot. As such, I doubt seriously your commitment to science and I seriously doubt your understanding of it as well. You have a primarily political agenda, and that causes you to respond critically to any mention of a non-CO2 driver. You may continue to pretend that the prediction track record is on the money, but the facts demonstrate that the track record is abysmal. And yes, I can post links as a testament to AGW prediction failures.
Again, I dont do this, highly trained scientists do.
And they pretty much got it right 30 years ago, and basic scientific competence in the field tells us that they will pretty much get it right over the longer term too.
There is some concern that the models have been significantly underestimating the rate of change we have actually seen for things like arctic icecap melt and Greenland melt, as well as potentially irreversible changes in Antarctic ice, so you should be worried that the estimates are too cautious.
I can dig up all kinds of links for you, but they are relying on scientists interpreting scientific data, which requires critical thinking skills, and I'm sure you think they are part of the giant conspiracy anyway.
How Accurate are Future Projections of Climate Change? A Look at Past IPCC Reports Provides Some Answers - The Equation
IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | The Guardian
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-arent-too-alarmist-theyre-too-conservative/
How many degrees Celsius below the predicted consensus mean is the global surface temperature at this point in time?
How many degrees Celsius below the predicted consensus mean is the global surface temperature at this point in time?
I took the link to the WAPO article and it said I reached my monthly limit to read their articles ... I bet you never had that problem.
...and you stopped there.
I'm so proud of you for actually attempting to open a third of the links. Much better effort than usual!
An interesting article. Unfortunately humans are the cause of climate change. All other factors are illusions of the uniformed right. Planet tilt, the sun, the moon, continental drift, asteroid and meteor impacts, super volcanoes, ocean currents, and the millions of other factors we have yet to discover have no effect on climate. Before man there was no climate change. Just ask the know-it-all. There is nothing left to discover that will be of any relevance. Man is the problem case closed.
There you are with the consensus thing again. Tell me what that has to do with the OP, both the temperature you mention and the "predicted consensus mean".
How many degrees Celsius below the predicted consensus mean is the global surface temperature at this point in time?
The “summary for policymakers” of the report, seen by the Mail on Sunday, states that the world is warming at a rate of 0.12C per decade since 1951, compared to a prediction of 0.13C per decade in their last assessment published in 2007.
Other admission in the latest document include that forecast computers may not have taken enough notice of natural variability in the climate, therefore exaggerating the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures.
One of the central issues is believed to be why the IPCC failed to account for the “pause” in global warming, which they admit that they did not predict in their computer models. Since 1997, world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase.
The summary also shows that scientist have now discovered that between 950 and 1250 AD, before the Industrial Revolution, parts of the world were as warm for decades at a time as they are now.
Despite a 2012 draft stating that the world is at it’s warmest for 1,300 years, the latest document states: “'Surface temperature reconstructions show multi-decadal intervals during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950-1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th Century.”
One of the report's authors, Professor Myles Allen, the director of Oxford University's Climate Research Network, has said that people should not look to the IPCC for a “bible” on climate change.
Professor Allen, who admits “we need to look very carefully about what the IPCC does in future”, said that he could not comment on the report as it was still considered to be in its draft stages.
However, he added: “It is a complete fantasy to think that you can compile an infallible or approximately infallible report, that is just not how science works.
“It is not a bible, it is a scientific review, an assessment of the literature. Frankly both sides are seriously confused on how science works - the critics of the IPCC and the environmentalists who credit the IPCC as if it is the gospel."
This post opens a window to your own ignorance. All those things you mention affect climate on various time scales. Which of those are relevant to the global warming event we are currently experiencing? Do you really think that climate scientists think there was no climate change before man came on the scene?
I was going to ask which parts of the material at your links you found to be compelling but I was quaking with laughter at the thought of you actually reading your own links and it came out "whivg pats of wjst y[pu reas wer compekkibg/" so I figured I'd wait a bit.
I'm okay now, thanks for asking.
So which parts of the material at your links did you find most compelling? The headlines?
Guess you still won't read em, huh?
Stand to reason that all of the the contributors that we don't know about yet have yet to be considered.
Science doesn't work with information we don't know, it works with things we do know. Using your logic we could never apply any scientific theory to real word application for fear that we don't yet know it all. We will never know it all.
What is important is to understand the major contributing factors which sufficiently explain observations and experimental results. The combination of solar variation and atmospheric opacity suffice to do so for our understanding of our global climate. The uncertainties grow as we look to smaller scale spatial and time variables.
That is not entirely correct, there are almost always assumed to be some unknown variables,Science doesn't work with information we don't know, it works with things we do know. Using your logic we could never apply any scientific theory to real word application for fear that we don't yet know it all. We will never know it all.
What is important is to understand the major contributing factors which sufficiently explain observations and experimental results. The combination of solar variation and atmospheric opacity suffice to do so for our understanding of our global climate. The uncertainties grow as we look to smaller scale spatial and time variables.
You are the one who asked this: "You may continue to pretend that the prediction track record is on the money, but the facts demonstrate that the track record is abysmal. And yes, I can post links as a testament to AGW prediction failures."
I ask you what that has to do with the OP. You opened the door to that one and I answered.
As to consensus of modelling, that's how it's done from weather forecasting to climate change scenarios, but you wouldn't know that because you "think for yourself".
What? Do you AGW guys eat a box of condescension every morning? You have absolutely no idea what I know or don't know. None.
Sounds like it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?