It's no evidence at all of anything then, eh? Nobody should point to their results and say they predict anything at all. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...the-earths-surface-has-decelerated-viewpoint/ To be sure, both sets of data points show an mean annual change of +0.01C during the 2000s. But, if current trends continue for just a few more years, then the mean change for the 2000s will shift to negative; in other words, the warming would really stop. The current +.01C mean increase in temperatures is insufficient to verify the climate change projections for major warming (even the low end +1-2C) by mid-to-late century. A peer reviewed study in Nature Climate Change published in 2013 drew the same conclusion: “Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models,” it says.
You already said that. So I said that you're against all science (since all its methods are nonlocal, i.e. usable anywhere in the universe, to which you object). Then I asked why you use a computer. In oother threads, you strangely have no trouble linking to science articles when you like the conclusions.
I'm not against all science. Now you're being silly. I'm against bogus science, and misusing models like the alarmists do is bogus science.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling There is no reason to assume any climate model is accurate enough. They never will be. They are contrary to what is found in reality:
Nobody should point to their results and say they predict anything at all. Does reading it twice help you get the point?
That's a very interesting website. http://alfinnextlevel.wordpress.com/ The first article about how the US is going to get dumber because we're allowing Mexicans to breed too much in our country is very enlightening.
What makes you think the Washington Post would publish that graph? http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/ http://judithcurry.com/2013/02/22/spinning-the-climate-model-observation-comparison/
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2...rong-and-valuable/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 I’m overdue to draw your attention to two fresh, and very different, discussions of climate science by Gavin Schmidt, the longtime climate modeler at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. ... Here’s an excerpt from the transcript, which can be explored in full here: …Models are not right or wrong; they’re always wrong. They’re always approximations. The question you have to ask is whether a model tells you more information than you would have had otherwise. If it does, it’s skillful…. I could go through a dozen…examples: the skill associated with solar cycles, changing the ozone in the stratosphere; the skill associated with orbital changes over 6,000 years. We can look at that too, and the models are skillful. The models are skillful in response to the ice sheets 20,000 years ago. The models are skillful when it comes to the 20th-century trends over the decades. Models are successful at modeling lake outbursts into the North Atlantic 8,000 years ago. And we can get a good match to the data. Each of these different targets, each of these different evaluations, leads us to add more scope to these models, and leads us to more and more complex situations that we can ask more and more interesting questions, like, how does dust from the Sahara, that you can see in the orange, interact with tropical cyclones in the Atlantic? How do organic aerosols from biomass burning, which you can see in the red dots, intersect with clouds and rainfall patterns? How does pollution, which you can see in the white wisps of sulfate pollution in Europe, how does that affect the temperatures at the surface and the sunlight that you get at the surface? …
Not really. Are you literally arguing that computer modeling is entirely useless? That is obviously incorrect, so I assume that's not what you mean, but it does seem to be what you are saying. barfo
They are all there is that predicts future warming at alarming levels. I can create a model of how many stupid responses I'll get from you about this subject. 8n Where n is my number of posts. I'd be happy to have it peer reviewed, too. Hey MarAzul, you agree? I'm probably making a poor assumption. Maybe it's 2n. But 8n is the result I want! Or maybe, to you, it's 0n.
They are all there is, huh? Translation: computer models are useless because I disagree with the conclusion. barfo
Translation: they're wrong all the time. The NASA modeler affirms it. So if they're wrong, why trust them? Because they wrongly predict a desired outcome. Chicken Little.
Make up your mind. You keep saying you believe in science, but don't believe in one of its central methodologies, simplistic modeling. You and I have now gone around this circle about 3 times.
Climate models are one of the central methodologies of all science? Wow, that's big news. Write a paper, and maybe you can get it peer reviewed or something. Guess what? In science, Models don't need to be anything to do with computers. Simplistic models are great. Climate can't be modeled with a simplistic model, or any other kind of model. Accurately, that is.
The models are wrong, but so are all models. But they still provide our best scientific estimation. Perhaps the scientists aren't accounting for some input or are over characterizing the effect of inputs they are using. But that doesn't mean there isn't tremendous benefit and information to glean from these modelings. And it certainly doesn't meant the general trends that almost every single model concludes is wrong. This past May was the warmest May on record, that's not prediction, that's fact. And the more of those data points that align with the modeling shows that although the models aren't correct, they do show important trends. Denny, I understand not buying into every new finding and every model, and it makes sense to view new data with a critical eye. But what doesn't make sense are your assumptions that many thousands of scientists are in cahoots to dupe the public. What doesn't make sense is your conclusion without evidence that none of the greenhouse gasses will make a difference because it's just a drop in the pond. The truth of this situation is likely somewhere in between the doomsday sayers and deniers. But even if the results are coming slower than predicted, that still means that mankind is affecting our climate. All it means is that all is not lost, we still have time to actually curb our poisonous practices, we still have time to affect changes needed to keep this earth providing over the long haul. I have used hyperbole in many threads, but I have used none in this post. I'm not making some extremest statement, I am not pointing to some model showing Nevada as new beachfront. I am simple saying the vast majority of these scientists agree for a reason, and it's not to get NIH grants, it's because to the best of our knowledge, from the people who's job it is to study these issues, man is affecting climate change, and that change is likely to increase.
Show me the trick to hide the decline. The models are nothing to base policy upon or to base prediction upon. You have to stop with the Warmest May in History bullshit. It's no evidence of climate change AT ALL. The experts claimed we'd have worse hurricanes. In the years since those predictions, it's been the opposite. I mean they cannot be more wrong. Why listen to them at all until they can make a real compelling case that's grounded in something more than the equivalent of astrology. You know, astrology makes predictions, too.
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf I haven't read this yet, but its a 20+ page booklet put out by the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences about climate change. I'm going to read it today and I hope you do too. Afterward we can discuss what does and does not make sense. You can research what aspects of this are challenged and what evidence they have that it's bs. But this is a pretty comprehensive breakdown of the current evidence, what we know and what we don't know.
