The world has barely 10 years to get climate change under control U.N. scientists say
- Thread starter Charlemagne
- Start date
So you are saying you know more than NASA which gave the 97% figure.
i will wait for the answer.
I wouldn't use the word 'cycles', I would say that the climate changes and continues to change.
Humanity came into existence during a rare interglacial period which we are rapidly ending.
Now answer my question.
What are these 'cycles' and what is the mechanism that causes them?
That's the same question I asked you previously.
Can you answer now using the legit info from NASA?
No, all you proved is that your opinion has nothing to back it up.You proved my point Frankie
That's the opposite of science.
That's just hot air, bullshit, nonsense, denial.....
OMG, are you ever fucking stupid, kirk.
SPECTACULARLY WRONG!!!
You posted a chart that compares atmospheric temperature with predictions for surface temperature.
You deniers are so fucking stupid that you are incredibly easy to fool, you are the definition of an easy mark.
Let me offer you some Florida real estate, its ocean front and perfectly situated for swimming.
Do you really believe this stuff you post?
Can you not see how fucking stupid that is?
OMG.
So stupid.
But Christy also ignores the importance of what forcings were used in the CMIP5 simulations. In work we did on the surface temperatures in CMIP5 and the real world, it became apparent that the forcings used in the models, particularly the solar and volcanic trends after 2000, imparted a warm bias in the models (up to 0.1ºC or so in the ensemble by 2012), which combined with the specific sequence of ENSO variability, explained most of the model-obs discrepancy in GMST. This result is not simply transferable to the TMT record (since the forcings and ENSO have different fingerprints in TMT than at the surface), but similar results will qualitatively hold. Alternative explanations – such as further structural uncertainty in the satellites, perhaps associated with the AMSU sensors after 2000, or some small overestimate of climate sensitivity in the model ensemble are plausible, but as yet there is no reason to support these ideas over the (known) issues with the forcings and ENSO. Some more work is needed here to calculate the TMT trends with updated forcings (soon!), and that will help further clarify things. With 2016 very likely to be the warmest year on record in the satellite observations the differences in trend will also diminish.
The bottom line is clear though – if you are interested in furthering understanding about what is happening in the climate system, you have to compare models and observations appropriately. However, if you are only interested in scoring points or political grandstanding then, of course, you can do what you like.
So the anomaly of +/- 0.5 between the actual prediction and observation is really remarkable when all the factors are taken into account.
The bottom line is clear though – if you are interested in furthering understanding about what is happening in the climate system, you have to compare models and observations appropriately. However, if you are only interested in scoring points or political grandstanding then, of course, you can do what you like.
So the anomaly of +/- 0.5 between the actual prediction and observation is really remarkable when all the factors are taken into account.
What I am saying is NASA, led by alarmist Gavin Schmidt (who btw is not a climate scientist), is playing politics by quoting a figure from studies that have been debunked for flawed methodology.
Are you calling Dr. Judith Curry stupid? That's where the chart is sourced. I think she knows what she's talking about. As does Dr Christy. The models predictions are worthless. The underlying science of AGW theory demands lower-mid troposphere warming. It isn't there. Two independent records (satellite and weather balloons) validate that. Back to the drawing board.
I'm saying they have no way of knowing that for sure, and here's why:
Lets say there were no humans on earth in the last 100 years, so obviously no manmade CO2 output.
How do we know for sure earth wouldnt have warmed up 0.8C in those last 100 years naturally??
And if CO2 did play a part, how much of a part??
Is it responsible for the full 0.8c?? Is it 50%? Is it 10%? Is it 99%??
No scientist could ever answer that with absolute certainty. Its impossible to measure
Judith Curry is dishonest.
She's smart enough to fool you, but not smart enough to fool anyone who has even just part of their brain still functioning.
Your chart is a piece of shit you just gobbled up without even taking a little whiff first.
That you still think its good, after me pointing out the really basic and stupid attempt to fool you, shows you are totally clueless.
Check it yourself, if you're smart enough.
You fell for a stupid whopper.
Atmospheric measurements vs surface projections.
Its true that you may never be smart enough to understand, but yes, 97% of scientists say with 95% confidence that man is changing the climate.
How much?
Once again, for the umpteenth time, I'll post this Bloomberg interactive page that details all the forcings on the climate and their influence.
Data courtesy of NASA.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
See if you're smart enough to figure out how much man is changing the climate.
Funny how NASA and other sites use the term "cycles". But I suppose you know more than them
Nobody knows for sure.
NASA says its most likely due to solar activity. Some people say its earth's orbit.
Others say volcanoes have played a part in the past.
But those are all just theories, nobody knows for sure
Frankie, you're not fooling anybody. You're not smarter than anyone here, and you're certainly no climate change expert.
You didnt even know earth had warming/cooling cycles, then you tried to bullshit your way out of it by saying......uhm....I wouldnt use the term "cycles".
"I know more then NASA does".....herp derp
Once again the Climate Change Deniers cannot decipher that the actual predictions are within the error of all the actual data from the major satellites around the Globe.
So the anomaly of +/- 0.5 between the actual prediction and observation is really remarkable when all the factors are taken into account. Is this so difficult for them to understand!!
So the anomaly of +/- 0.5 between the actual prediction and observation is really remarkable when all the factors are taken into account. Is this so difficult for them to understand!!
What are you talking about NASA has said it is highly likely that it has been caused by human activity. Not solar activity.
Lest say hypothetically there have been human on the earth for the last 100 years. You are making yourself look foolish with these posts.
I'm apparently smarter then you, and more importantly, have a much better bullshit detector.
I'm also smart enough to state that the scientists who work on climatology are smarter than me as well.
If you go back through this thread you'll note that I never said whether or not there are climate cycles. All my questions were to get you to state your beliefs.
I've also never said I was an expert, only that you guys are really easy to fool.
Now you asked a stupid question that has been answered multiple times.
I posted a good answer.
After checking the bloomberg page, what do you really think is changing the climate of the planet?
I was talking about earth's natural warming/cooling cycles over the past millions of years when humans werent around. Try to keep up with the thread
Says the guy who still believes RussiaGate is a real thing and Trump will be impeached over it.
You will believe anything the MSM tells you and your bullshit detector is a broken piece of shit
Liar!!!
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ientists-say&p=6247239&viewfull=1#post6247239
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've read that Bloomberg page you posted and I'll give a lengthy response later today when I have more time.
And my response will come with articles straight from NASA's site, not some left-wing rag like Bloomberg
LOL. You are talking about natural warming cycles tio attempt to explain what nasa and 97% of climate scientists have said is extremely likely to be caused by human activity. NOT NATURAL WARMING CYCLES. I guess you are relying on alternative facts.
