From the San Francisco Chronicle :
I went to the APS web site to check on the controversy on the group’s global warming statement, to which Lewis objected. The short version: “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.”
Dissenting physicists urged members to contact APS biggies, who reviewed input from members. According to APS, some “63 percent of respondents supported the existing statement with little or no change, while 37 percent said they opposed the current statement and wanted either no statement or the alternate statement adopted.”
Interesting. In his book, “Earth in the Balance,” Al Gore asserted that 98 percent of scientists believe in global warming. Just last week, a Senate staffer told me that 99 percent of scientists share Gores’ take. Then how could it be at more than a third of APS respondents aren’t on board with the doomsday scenario — even though all the money and prestige and political pressure are on the global-warming alarmist side?
The point here is: If you can’t trust these guys to poll scientists accurately — a pretty simple task — why would you trust their climate models?
The point here is: If you can’t trust these guys to poll scientists accurately — a pretty simple task — why would you trust their climate models?
Not just that, but if we don’t know for sure what the weather will be 5 days from now how can we know anything 50 years from now.
Dr. Tim Ball has some insights. It’s almost an hour interview but well worth watching all the videos.
http://australianconservative.com/2010/10/michael-coren-with-dr-tim-ball/
Thanks. I’ll watch when I can.
Again, Amino, weather forecasting and climate projection are two completely different problems. Weather is chaotic; climate is not. One has to predict individual events; the other only has to predict averages.
Honestly, this is a very old and very, very tired argument.
weather forecasting and climate projection are two completely different problems
Naaaah. They’re both made by humans. If humans don’t know what the weather will be in 5 days they sure in heck darn won’t know 50 years from now.
Hey, I just remembered, you study those graphs yet?
Honestly, this is a very old and very, very tired argument.
If you’re tired you can quit. It’s ok.
Sorry, you’re just wrong. This is not a matter of opinion. Weather forecasting and climate prediction are not the same problem. Here is what you’re saying:
“They can’t predict next week’s weather, so how can they predict that summer will be warmer than winter?”
That doesn’t make any sense, and neither does what you said.
you study those graphs yet?
This is the third and final time I will tell you that I watched your videos.
I know you watched, but you said you didn’t study the graphs.
Did you study the graphs yet?
ChrisD says:
October 10, 2010 at 10:49 pm
“They can’t predict next week’s weather, so how can they predict that summer will be warmer than winter?”
It can’t be that easy. Inaccuracies in the computer model projections have already been found.
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Peer reviewed work showing unreliability of climate models:
……Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean……
International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]
http://www.scribd.com/doc/904914/A-comparison-of-tropical-temperature-trends-with-model-predictions
………………………………………………………………………………………………
Peer reviewed:
…..The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported…..
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4364173/On-the-credibility-of-climate-predictions
Well, Chris, you’re correct in saying it’s a tired old argument.
In only a few years ALL the models were wrong. They’ve already failed.
But since you’re so sure, I’ve got some tropical beachfront property in Antarctica to sell. You could get in before the rush!
You guys are just straining to miss the point. You’re going to get hernias or something.
ChrisD
Weather is chaotic; climate is not
The first statement is unarguably true, but on what basis has it been established that long term averages of weather (aka climate) are not chaotic. Certainly it is the case that temperature variations on all time scales exhibit strong self similarity, a typical feature of chaotic systems.
Not picking on you but, like the assertion that there exists masses of evidence supporting AGW, this assumption is frequently cited but AFAIK never defended
The relative stability of climate is a good indication that it isn’t chaotic. Generally the positive and negative feedbacks present in climate physics do a good job of damping down changes in the forcings, resulting in a fairly stable dynamic equilibrium (see e.g. paleoclimate data for the current interglacial). If it were chaotic it would be flipping between stable states, but there is little evidence of that happening over the sort of timescales involved in climate projections (hundreds of years). It would probably be more accurate to say there is little evidence or theory to suggest that the climate is chaotic.
However the point remains, the fact the prediction horizon for weather forecasting is only five days has no bearing at all on whether climate predictions can be made for fifty years. Climate projections are not made by predicting weather, they are made by repeatedly simulating weather with the statistical properties governed by current understanding of climate physics and then taking averages. Amino was basically demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of how climate modelling is conducted (which suggests he isn’t in the best position to make criticisms).
It’s such a waste of time, effort and energy.
Especially if the linked theory proves to be correct
However scientist do not agree on this subject either:
Sustainable oil production
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/sustainable_oil_production.html
ChrisD,
What is the link that ‘proves’ (in models at least) CO2 drives “catastrophic global warming”?
My understanding is there is a slight provable warming caused by CO2, but the lion’s share of projected “catastrophic warming” in models is attributable to the amplifying effect of positive feedback — a link which no one has been able to establish to my knowledge. IMHO, negative feedback (the moderating properties of H2O, primarily) keeps the climate in balance.
So you want to radically restructure the global economy (in the midst of an economic crisis, no less ), based on a phenomenon the existence of which is not proven?
You’d improve the global economy’s odds just sticking to slot machines.
neill says:
October 10, 2010 at 9:20 pm
My understanding is there is a slight provable warming caused by CO2,
That’s theoretically. There is ongoing study on what H2O does when CO2 is increased in the atmosphere. There is negative feedback from H2O. The amount of negative feedback is still being looked at.
You may not have seen this video that I’ve posted a few times (and I’m sure I’ll post it again) that has an easy to understand explanation of H2O and CO2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofFShSlv8eA
Amino wrote: “There is ongoing study on what H2O does when CO2 is increased in the atmosphere.”
You do know Reginald Newell died in 2003 don’t you?
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2003/newell.html
If someone didn’t check, they might have thought the video was evidence of this ongoing research project.
Neill – sorry, that’s pretty far off topic.
Oy. A few points.
1. “I don’t like this APS statement” is not the same as “I don’t believe in global warming.”
2. This was not a poll, it was an email campaign. It has no statistical validity whatsoever. It’s no more valid than an Internet “poll” or the American Idol voting.
3. There were about 200 emails. APS analyzed the first 180. 37% of 180 is 67. So what we have here is 67 emails from people who don’t like the statement for whatever reason. APS has about 50,000 members. Wow. Impressive.
Soooo, anyone taking this to mean that either (a) the real polls are wrong, or (b) 37% of APS scientists dispute global warming either (a) didn’t read carefully enough or (b) is deluding himself.
ChrisD says:
October 10, 2010 at 9:11 pm
Weather is chaotic; climate is not.
Huh, no kidding.
So, I got a question: what causes ice ages? Ice ages are climate. Why do they happen?
Milankovic cycles are thought to be the trigger – which are very predictable and hence not chaotic.
wow, thats easy too.
Know-it-all replies are predictable too.
Funnily enough Amino, science (real science) does involve knowing things. It happens through a process called “research”, which in its early stages involves reading “journal papers” and “books”. It allows you to have a rational basis for forming opinions, rather than just blindly accepting any evidence that appears to support your prejudices.
Dikran Marsupial says:
October 10, 2010 at 10:01 pm
Milankovic cycles are thought to be the trigger
Of glaciation or ice ages? You meant glaciation?
When was the last ice age without glaciation?
I’m not taking the bait. That kind of arguments is like arguing if Pluto is a planet or not.
LOL, you don’t answer becuase you know full well that the answer to the question would demonstrate the distinction you were trying to make was entirely meaningless. If there is extensive glaciation, it is by definition an ice age – the hint is in the name “ICE age”.
Amino wrote “That kind of arguments is like arguing if Pluto is a planet or not.”, hang on, it was YOU that made the distinction between ice ages and glaciation, not me, ROTFLMAO!!!!
No, it was you that blurred it.
Now you are just openly trolling, I didn’t mention glaciation until after you did, and then only to point out there is no meaningfull difference between glaciation and ice age.
Is Pluto a planet?
Is there a distinction between whether Pluto is part of the Kuiper belt or is a planet?
Sorry, not interested, the troll has been fed enough for one day.
If you want a grown up discussion, go back to the point where you abandoned it and explain the distinction as you see it between glaciation and an ice age.
You do know everything.
D.M. is quite correct, the primary cause is Milankovic cycles, which are predictable and hence not chaotic. And it’s the predictable answer because it’s the correct answer.
Amino: Why are the roads all wet?
D.M.:Because it’s raining.
Amino: You are so predictable.
When are you and Dikran going to publish a work together on ice ages? You both make it sound like you could do published work.
Amino: Why are the roads all wet?
D.M.:Because it’s raining.
Amino: You are so predictable.
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Predicting the future is just like that.
That sort of basic science is in text books these days, rather than papers, try reading some.
Dude, this is pretty basic stuff. What is the point of trying to make something out of the fact that two people both know it?
ChrisD says:
October 10, 2010 at 9:11 pm
One has to predict individual events; the other only has to predict averages.
Wow, that’s so easy. It is only that. You might be needed to help improve those IPCC/global warming climate models. They’re already wrong. They need help.
😉
Amino says:
October 10, 2010 at 7:38 pm
… if we don’t know for sure what the weather will be 5 days from now how can we know anything 50 years from now.
Seems about right to me… trying to disconnect weather from climate has always been a very lame strategy… it is the last resort of computer modellers… which only goes to show how removed from reality they really are / want to be… and if they listened to Piers Corbyn they might begin to understand there are a lot more connections… or perhaps they are just trying to prevent people from joining up the dots.
Poll numbers show that most people are not concerned about global warming. Maybe it’s like that partly because people know we can’t predict the future.
You can forecast it.
And? Forecasts are wrong all the time. They’re wrong most of the time.
Or are you saying forecast are right all the time?
Are you trying to make an argument over the words predict and forecast?
That depends on how exact you are wanting them to be.
Where I live the weather forecast is usually within one or two degrees of actual temps.
Climate forecasts have the problem of not being able to know exactly what solar changes might occur, nor when a volcanic eruption might happen.
Can you predict those?
Regarding the trustworthiness of models, does ChrisD have a response to my above question about feedbacks?
No, he’s too busy feeling like he’s smarter than everyone.
I don’t think I’m smarter than everyone. I do think I’ve spent a lot more time studying the subject than some of the folks here have.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/10/another-brilliant-prediction-from-1969/
ChrisD says:
October 10, 2010 at 11:56 pm
I don’t think I’m smarter than everyone. I do think I’ve spent a lot more time studying the subject than some of the folks here have.
Has this been study of what environmental and political blogs are saying about ‘global warming’?
Nope. I don’t get my science from politicians, amateur bloggers, retired weathermen, TV talking heads, or anyone else who doesn’t know WTF they are talking about. I get my science from scientists, and I’ve read everything I can get my hands on by scientists from both sides.
Sorry, you can’t ask random questions about something I wasn’t talking about and expect a response. It just don’t work that way…
“Wow, that’s so easy. It is only that. You might be needed to help improve those IPCC/global warming climate models. They’re already wrong. They need help.”
They never can be right since ALL of them are unverifiable.
That was so easy!
He he…
lol
“Again, Amino, weather forecasting and climate projection are two completely different problems. Weather is chaotic; climate is not. One has to predict individual events; the other only has to predict averages.”
Does that mean weather forecaster will be 50% wrong in making a 5 days weather forecast.But a world renown AGW believing climatologist writing up a 50-100 years into the future temperature projection.That will 100% correct in claiming that it will be between 3 degrees C to 8 degrees C warmer?
LOLOLOLOL
See how absurd it is?
“Honestly, this is a very old and very, very tired argument.”
Honestly,your replies are absurd.Since climate projections are not credible science and lack the basis of prediction skills forecast.They are UNVERIFIABLE!
Not only that you admit that weather is “chaotic”,thus 50 years into the future of weather years are still going to be “chaotic”.Therefore your claim that climate is not is a perfect example of muddled thinking.
How about going back to the old concept of the “scientific method”?
Global warming is whatever they want it to be. Whatever they want to be true is true.
Championship point-missing.
The point is that weather forecasting and climate prediction aren’t the same problem, so Amino’s argument was nonsensical. Everything you say here is irrelevant to that point.
Nothing I said, for example, implies that climate prediction is either easy or guaranteed to be correct. But you can’t use weather forecasting to say anything about climate prediction. You might as well say that climate prediction is impossible because we can’t predict next year’s Super Bowl winner. It’s makes just as much sense.
LOL right back atcha.
“Nothing I said, for example, implies that climate prediction is either easy or guaranteed to be correct. But you can’t use weather forecasting to say anything about climate prediction. ”
This is sad that my point flew way over your head.
Again I repeat this:
“Does that mean weather forecaster will be 50% wrong in making a 5 days weather forecast.But a world renown AGW believing climatologist writing up a 50-100 years into the future temperature projection.That will 100% correct in claiming that it will be between 3 degrees C to 8 degrees C warmer?”
You stated that they were TWO different problems.I showed why one is valid and other one is worthless.
You could not even see the absurdity in it at all.
Climate trends is a composite of accumulated weather events.
Weather is all important,while climate is a statistical average of many WEATHER events (the ones that actually happens).
What I did was to say both climate models and weather forecasting are done by humans. Humans can be wrong, and are wrong many times. And they have an equal chance of being wrong with computer models as with weather. Since inaccuracies in climate models have already been found and published it would (or rather should) leave everyone with doubts about computer models making 50 to 100 year predictions.
What I did was to say both climate models and weather forecasting are done by humans
No, sir. That is not what you said. What you said was, “We can’t predict weather, therefore we can’t project climate.” That is just plain old wrong. That conclusion cannot be drawn because these are two very different problems.
If your point was simply that both are done by humans, why use weather? Why not say, “We can’t predict the next Super Bowl winner, therefore we can’t predict climate”?
You’re taking what I said out of context.
Scroll up and re-read what I said, in all the comments, not just one.
ChrisD
I don’t think you know it ChrisD, but you are one thing that is predictable.
But you can’t use weather forecasting to say anything about climate prediction. You might as well say that climate prediction is impossible because we can’t predict next year’s Super Bowl winner. It’s makes just as much sense.
Again, Chris, I really don’t think its quite as obvious as this. Climate is, after all, nothing but the statistical aggregation of weather over a period, so the fundamentally chaotic nature of the system under study is not obviously decreased by its aggregation over long periods.
After all, a great many more factors, from solar effects to long term oceanic oscillations, (and probably most importantly something we haven’t even thought of yet) come in to play with the extension of the time periods, so the assumption that chaotic behaviour dissipates over time is frankly just that – an assumption.
Yes, it is. That’s pretty much the whole point. The “chaos” tends to average out over long periods. Whether a particular day is warmer than average or colder than average is chaotic, but over the course of 25 or 30 years the overs and unders tend to cancel each other out. Dice rolling is really a pretty good analogy; individual rolls are chaotic, but the average roll isn’t.
That’s not the only difference, either; it’s just the one that’s usually easiest for people to understand. For example, weather forecasting is an initial values problem, but climate prediction isn’t. That is, today’s weather depends very heavily on yesterday’s, but inital conditions are irrelevant to long term climate. If you know Earth’s energy imbalance and various physical characteristics such as the composition of the atmosphere, you can calculate the average global temperature pretty accurately without knowing anything else. But you can’t calculate today’s weather in Boise like that. It depends too heavily on yesterday’s temperature.
Things like the long term oceanic oscillations that you mention fall into the category of internal variability. Climate modelling doesn’t purport to know what the actual average temperature will be in 2047. It doesn’t really predict that. It predicts the trend line; over a period of time, the actual temperature will fluctuate above and below that trend line.
None of this is to say that climate prediction is easy. It’s not. But it’s not the same problem as weather forecasting.
Peter Wilson: The effects of chaotic behaviour generally are attenuated by long term aggregation. To give a concrete example, a double pendulum is a chaotic system and its exact path cannot be predicted, even though its behaviour is completely deterministic and captured in a few equations. However its long term statistical behaviour is not chaotic, you can work out the probability that the pendulum is in any given state.
To make the analogy closer to climate prediction, consder a double pendulum made of some ferrous metal, with an electromagnet placed to one side. You still can’t predict the exact trajectory of the pendulum (as it is chaotic), you can predict that as the power to the electromagnet increases, the position of the pendulum will become increasingly biased towards the electromagnet. The way you would do this would be to run lots of simulations of the the double pendulum (none of which are expected to reproduce the actual trajectory) and take averages.
Climate projection is based on the same basic idea, simulate and average, it isn’t based on prediction. The maths behind this (Monte Carlo techniques) are very widespread in physics and statistics and have been very successful in a variety of fields (a lot of the development came from the Manhattan project).
ChrisD,
Speaking to the trustworthiness of models is off-topic?
One pathetic excuse for a fig-leaf, sir.
What’s the post topic, Neill? Does it say anything about models? Anything at all?
and I quote:
“…why would you trust their climate models?”
That’s ok. I know why you don’t want to answer the question.
ChrisD says:
October 10, 2010 at 11:49 pm
What’s the post topic, Neill? Does it say anything about models? Anything at all?
Isn’t the context of much of this argument about predictions? Those are made with computer models. And you are saying it’s all very predictable, following well known patterns, as easy as predicting “summer will be warmer than winter”. That quote is from you:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/10/if-you-cant-trust-these-guys-to-poll-scientists-accurately-why-would-you-trust-their-climate-models/#comment-3897
Neil – you are correct, it does mention models. My apologies for that. Nevertheless, the fundamental premise of this story is this: “We can’t trust the models because 67 scientists sent an email saying that they don’t like the AMS statement.” Well, that’s complete nonsense, and that’s what I wrote about. Your post didn’t address anything I said.
Dude, I didn’t say anything about it being easy. I didn’t say it’s “as easy as” predicting that summer will be warmer than winter. Kindly don’t put words in my mouth.
The point of the summer-winter thing was simply to show that it’s possible to predict averages even when you can’t predict individual events very well. It shows that the logic you’re using with the weather prediction/climate prediction comparison is invalid. I made no statement about climate prediction being easy. You can pretend that I did as much as you want, but I didn’t.
ChrisD says:
October 11, 2010 at 12:25 am
Dude, I didn’t say anything about it being easy. I didn’t say it’s “as easy as” predicting that summer will be warmer than winter. Kindly don’t put words in my mouth.
You have double standards. You don’t like to be taken out of context. But you were quick to take me out of context.
ChrisD says:
October 11, 2010 at 12:25 am
Dude, I didn’t say anything about it being easy. I didn’t say it’s “as easy as” predicting that summer will be warmer than winter. Kindly don’t put words in my mouth.
I didn’t.
That is what you said. That was the clear implication. If that was not then you should use an example will infer to the reader what you meant.
That is what you said. That was the clear implication.
Nope. I’ve said it as many times as I’m going to say it. I neither said nor implied that climate prediction is easy. The clear intent of the analogy was to demonstrate that the logic of comparing weather and climate prediction is flawed. You inferred something that was not present.
Here, again, is what you said:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/10/if-you-cant-trust-these-guys-to-poll-scientists-accurately-why-would-you-trust-their-climate-models/#comment-3897
If you did not mean to infer to the reader that predicting future climate is like predicting “that summer will be warmer than winter” then you should say something else other than that.
Those were words you used. That was the image you created.
Please don’t tell me once again that you didn’t.
I know what I said. If you can’t follow the logic, well, I’m sorry, but that is not really my problem.
You expect people to think like you?
It is much more difficult to predict future climate than it is to predict weather 5 days from now. But people that believe in global warming have made ways to rationalize away something that is very difficult. You all make it sound like it’s easier. Some of you have convinced yourselves that it’s easier. And when someone points out that climate models that predict future climate have already been shown to be wrong you find ways to rationalize that away too.
No.
It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat this, it’s false. I never, ever said it was easier. I didn’t imply it. I don’t think it. I don’t believe it. It is a dead parrot.
I said that it’s a different problem, not that it’s an easier problem. Anything about it being easier is in your own mind. It is not in anything I said.
No. But I do hope that they can follow the logic of an argument without injecting stuff that wasn’t there and then claiming, “See? That’s wrong!”
Ok, then it’s just as hard as predicting weather. In that case it’s just as unreliable.
You see, you have no where to go. Every way you look at it you can’t win. It would be easier for you to just admit that predicting the future is so hard humans are unable to do it.
ChrisD says:
October 11, 2010 at 11:00 am
You expect people to think like you?
No. But I do hope that they can follow the logic of an argument
Not everyone will agree with your ‘logic’. It looks logical to you in your paradigm. But, as you have seen in this thread, not everyone thinks like you. You should know that you will be misunderstood. It is up to you to make yourself understood so that no one will miss your point. It isn’t up to other people to figure out what you meant. If you expect that you will always be misunderstood.
ChrisD says:
October 11, 2010 at 10:58 am
Anything about it being easier is in your own mind. It is not in anything I said.
Yes it is something you said. You compared to knowing summer is warmer than winter.
ChrisD says:
October 11, 2010 at 10:58 am
It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat this, it’s false. I never, ever said it was easier. I didn’t imply it. I don’t think it. I don’t believe it. It is a dead parrot.
Ok. Then take some advice and don’t use over simplified examples of summer being warmer than winter if that’s not what you meant. You put yourself into this position. Don’t blame others because they read your comment and were supposed to know you meant something other than what you said.
I’m trying to tell you: other people don’t think like you. You can’t expect that. No one should expect others to think like them.
Analogies are analogies, Amino. It seems that only you expect perfect ones.
I was giving advice, not criticism. It’s up to you if you want to be understood or not.
I had posted this above but it applies here too:
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Inaccuracies in the computer model projections have already been found.
Peer reviewed work showing unreliability of climate models:
……Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean……
International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]
http://www.scribd.com/doc/904914/A-comparison-of-tropical-temperature-trends-with-model-predictions
………………………………………………………………………………………………
Peer reviewed:
…..The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported…..
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4364173/On-the-credibility-of-climate-predictions
====================================================
But we’re being told here it’s easy to predict the future. These computer model should be correct. It sounds so easy that you should just be able to look in a text book and know everything.
Just like those wonderful models the mortgage banking industry depended on to manage loan risk.
Exactly. There was the mortgage bubble. It burst. There is the global warming bubble. It is bursting.
GEP Box (famous statistician) once said “all models are wrong, but some are useful”. Climate modellers are perfectly happy to discuss the defficiencies of their models (try reading realclimate), the fact that climate models do not give perfect hindcasts does not mean that they cannot provide useful projections of future climate. It isn’t as simple as “the models are good” or “the models are bad”, it is more subtle than that, and in order to make an informed judgement you do actually at least need to understand the basic principles of climate projection, which you apparently don’t judging by your use of the tired canard that weather can’t be predicted 5 days in advance, so how can climate be predicted 50 years in advance (or words to that effect).
ChrisD says:
October 11, 2010 at 11:00 am
You expect people to think like you?
No. But I do hope that they can follow the logic of an argument
Not everyone will agree with your ‘logic’. It looks logical to you in your paradigm. But, as you have seen in this thread, not everyone thinks like you. You should know that you will be misunderstood. It is up to you to make yourself understood so that no one will miss your point. It isn’t up to other people to figure out what you meant. If you expect that you will always be misunderstood.
“What I did was to say both climate models and weather forecasting are done by humans. Humans can be wrong, and are wrong many times. And they have an equal chance of being wrong with computer models as with weather. Since inaccuracies in climate models have already been found and published it would (or rather should) leave everyone with doubts about computer models making 50 to 100 year predictions.”
Sure it is all done by homo sapiens.
The difference is that I stated that Weather Forecasters are already statistically 50% wrong when they make a 5 day forecast.PART of their forecast is usually accurate even when it is 5 days long.They adjust the part that is not good enough by the next day.
We all know this is true.
But a number of AGW believing Climatologists are 100% wrong when they post unverifiable 50-100 years into the future Temperature models.The way the IPCC did with their 2001 bucket load number of unverified temperature modeled projections with a large temperature spread.It is JUNK SCIENCE!
We all know this is true.
100% wrong? How would you know, have you travelled into the future?
What % are they right? “How would you know, have you travelled into the future?”
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
In science any claim needs to be verifiable to be credible.
Making 50-100 year into the future predictions/Projections are not credible way to do serious science research.
I could easily make similar claims and dare you to prove me wrong.
How are you going to be able to succeed in doing that?
LOL
It’s not for me to prove the opposite of your claims. You make wild claims that are unproven – the egg is on your face. 😉
Wow, I think we’ve tapped an entirely new energy source: ChrisD wriggling away from answering a question central to the AGW debate. If only we could figure out a way to harness all that energy!
Don’t think it qualifies as ‘clean’ energy though. Increased heart-rate blood pressure leads to greater atmospheric CO2.
I’ll repeat: You don’t get to ask random questions about something that someone wasn’t talking about and then chortle when you don’t get the response you want. That’s not “wriggling,” it’s just not the way it works. Sorry.
Thanks for informing me of what I don’t get to do.
I wasn’t replying to anything you had previously written. I was asking a direct question regarding the trustworthiness of climate models, a subject alluded to in the post header, and that is fundamental to the entire climate debate.
I expected that you would jump at the opportunity to present your argument regarding something so central to the debate.
Oh, well. Take good care of that fig leaf.
Creating fear through predictions:
Michael Crichton, The Language of Fear
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5BRkHSHyCc
“It’s not for me to prove the opposite of your claims. You make wild claims that are unproven – the egg is on your face.”
ROFLMAO!
I simple echoed what modelers do when making 50-100 into the future temperature projections.It is plain that you can not prove me wrong simply because you can not TEST IT!
Yet I am the one who make wild claims and they do not?
No wonder you guys are getting you ass handed to you these days.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Again I ask you how can you VERIFY that I or those crack modelers are wrong?
Is it testable NOW or do we have to wait at least 50 years?
I can envision a lot of dust accumulating on top of many published futuristic climate modeling projections papers.Due to having to wait many decades to see if they any good.
You guys are pathetic!
I take it from your response you’re not able to support your statement with actual evidence?
I take the fact that you do not know what the scientific method is.
I think the argument over ice ages and glaciation would probably have been answered if I had been more specific and said extensive glaciation or not extensive.
Glaciation over most of the earth was what I meant by glaciation. Not all ice ages had extensive glaciation like that.
Comments were coming fast and furious. I should have taken time to specify even though that was happening.
Also, there is evidence that not all ice ages are correlated with Milankovitch Cycles. It is true there is good correlation between Milankovitch Cycles and ice ages. But not with all ice ages.
Henrik Svensmark, Jan Viser and Nir Shaviv have found a wonderful correlation between ice ages and solar activity/cosmic rays. You can see it in this 5 part YouTube series:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1qGOUIRac0
Pingback: USSR Today Global Warming Poll | Real Science