Prove it with quotes from the report.
We both know you can't.
Its just more bullshit you read on a denier site, copied here yet didn't actually read the report to confirm what it says.
Go on, prove it or admit you've been caught out yet again.
The world has barely 10 years to get climate change under control U.N. scientists say
- Thread starter Charlemagne
- Start date
We both know you can't.
Its just more bullshit you read on a denier site, copied here yet didn't actually read the report to confirm what it says.
Go on, prove it or admit you've been caught out yet again.
You can use them as examples of extreme weather events, not as trends.
And by the way, this conversation is about global climate change, why do you keep trying to change it to only local weather?
And yet thats exactly what he was inferring, using that example as a global warming trend
Fine, lets talk about global warming/cooling cycles that earth goes through.
Do you now finally admit they exist??
How about you stop trying to change the subject and answer my questions for once
You have to read the entire article. The timing was wrong. The conclsion was not. The train ius coming.
That's an understatement. The entire prediction was completely baseless, as the IPCC acknowledged.
For crying out loud.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
There is also this quote from Page 37 of the technical summary of the report:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf
It's not good enough to provide Frankfooter with the primary source. The so-called expert on the "science" needs me to read it to him.
Proving once again that Frankfooter clearly never completed high school.
They did not acknowledge that. in fact they said that the boarder conclusion is unaffected. read the report.
The train is coming.
First sentence of the story: "The UN's climate science body has admitted that a claim made in its 2007 report - that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035 - was unfounded."
The prediction came from claims made in a string of magazine articles, not any scientific evidence.
FAIL
You claimed they said this:
Nowhere in that report do they say they were wrong, only that volcanic action added a small drop in global temp.
And as you also know, the supposed 'pause' from 1998 never happened and those original IPCC projections were actually quite good.
https://slate.com/technology/2016/03/the-global-warming-pause-never-happened.html
Typical moviefan bullshit claim, folks.
Wow.
One error made in a 1998 interview that came out in the 2007 report.
And that's the only error you and your team of science deniers can find?
Amazingly excellent work.
Only one minor error from an 11 year old report!
LOL. Read the report. You have made my point. The sentence you have produced says clearly "... by 2035". It goes on the say that the "broader conclusion is unaffected", the broader conclusion being that the glacier is melting.
The train is coming. It may just be late relative to the prediction in the report.
Who has taken just one fall and one summer season season to explain the Global warming / climate change?? Read both the links that I posted and then we can discuss further.
This precise study has also displayed the effect of climate change on the Hurricanes. All the proof is in the pudding and yet all you do is mention stuff that you read from some random alt right wing website:
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
To answer your question, yes the waters to me seem warmer than some of the winters in the past 20-30 years.
So are you saying that the disappearance of the ice / snow in the Arctic is false?
One last time: "There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends...."
That means they were wrong.
Don't be fooled by the obscure language -- the wording is deliberately obscure, at the directions of "governments" that didn't want the biggest news in the report to be easily quoted.
Writer Fred Pearce (a believer in man-made global warming) described in an article linked below how politicians deliberately altered the language to make it obtuse.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/has_the_un_climate_panel_now_outlived_its_usefulness
Wrong again. The temperature predictions in the report were wrong, as was -- according to you -- the prediction that it is now "too late" to do anything.
Unless, of course, you do believe it's "too late" and that we should do nothing at this point. :thumb:
Or not.
I don't know what will happen hundreds or thousands of years from now. Neither do you. Neither does the IPCC.
It's pointless to debate a future none of us will ever see.
Let's stick with measurable time frames. We know the prediction about the Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035 was wrong. Debating what may or may not happen in Captain Kirk's century is pointless.
You are wrong. Scientists can predict what will happen whether or not they can predict when it will happen. And it is not thousands of years. I do not know that it is hundreds of years. You may not care but I care about the planet that my grandchildren and great grandchildren etc will inherit.
You seem to think that unless the world comes to an end it is pointless to attempt rto change things. All it will take is crop yields to go down a little or water levels to rise a little or hurricanes to be more often and more severe and you will see how the world will change and the billions it will cost. I have no idea how old you are but i am on my 60's and I expect that unless we start doing somersetting now or soon I will see those effects in my lifetime.
You have. If it wasnt relevant to global warming then why did you mention it??
Science is about making precise predictions that can be compared with real-world observations.
You fully admit there is no time frame in this speculation about what may happen to glaciers in the future. Thus, whether you believe the predictions or not, that speculation is not science.
(By the way, your level of compassion has nothing to do with science. Whether you care a great deal about the future of the planet -- or not at all -- has no bearing on the accuracy of your predictions.)
I agree to a point. Scientists have predicted the consequences of global warming. The fact that they are unable to predict with precision when the end will come does not change the validity of the predictions. The consequences are already being experienced. The timing of catastrophic consequences are apparently harder to predict. Even if they are off by 50 years (and I personally have no idea) in the scheme of things and the history of the planet that is an insignificant variation.
And yes my level of compassion is purely personal and has no bearing on the predictions of others but it is influenced by the predictions of others.
