No they didn't.
Members banned from this thread: evince, domer76, archives, Nomad and Micawber |
Again it says nothing. I will explain. There is no computer model that can predict warming or cooling of the Earth because the ultimate factors that cause this are just not all known. The fact that the models are wrong actually confirms this. Global warming due to pollution is a wishlist of certain humans, it has no basis in fact.
No they didn't.
"Do not think that I came to bring peace... I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34
These are the guys who did the carbon budget for the IPCC. It's for real, man. Sorry. It means that when we were saying the climate models overstated warming, we were right. And it's by a lot. They calculated based on two things. 1)The natural carbon sinks are greater than modeled due to the increased uptake of co2 by plants. As the concentration increases plants are able to get more co2 and they are then able to use water more efficiently as well which increases their growth. Historically plants respond to increased concentration by evolving to reduce stomatal density. Science!
2)The climate models forecast too much warming and they finally had to admit it and recalculate. Science!
This is the first walkback and long overdue. Hopefully the stranglehold over this subject will loosen, but you guys are religious about your beliefs. You even doubt your truth bringers when they have bad news. LOL
And it's the official team who does the IPCC budgets.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...06261916302495
Oops, I may have been repeating misinformation. I can not verify my claim above, Sorry. Will keep looking for now, but I was wrong. I read it at Climate etc, which I trust greatly, but it was in the comments. Might have been someone making it up.
There is a reason jpp climate deniers always link to some obscure website no one has ever heard of, but not to the actual publication.
In the actual publication, the authors are unequivocal and unambiguous that global warming and human CO2 emissions are closely connected, and they articulate the urgency for mitigation and reductions of GHG emissions.
Computer models and data need to be constantly updated and refined as science progress. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of science understands that. But, word games do not change a single thing about the underlying science, and the long term risk to the planet.
Nature Geoscience | Article
Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C
"The Paris Agreement has opened debate on whether limiting warming to 1.5 °C is compatible with current emission pledges and warming of about 0.9 °C from the mid-nineteenth century to the present decade.
....Hence, limiting warming to 1.5 °C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation. Strengthening near-term emissions reductions would hedge against a high climate response or subsequent reduction rates proving economically, technically or politically unfeasible.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...ry-information
Seriously, why are you such an arsehole? Nobody is denying that CO2 has a climate forcing effect, I guess with your Russian background rewriting history just comes as second nature to you.
The world has warmed more slowly than had been predicted by computer models, which wereon the hot side and overstated the impact of emissions on average temperature, research has found. Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London and one of the studys authors, admitted that his previous prediction had been wrong. He stated during the climate summit in Paris in December 2015: All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy. Speaking to The Times, he said: When the facts change, I change my mind, as Keynes said.
Ben Webster, The Times, 19 September 2017
To have the discrepancy between climate model predictions and reality acknowledged in Nature Geoscience is good. It has already resulted in a substantial debate about this most fundamental approach to assessing the impact of man-made climate change, demonstrating once again thatthe science is definitely not settled. Assumptions made about important details of climate science that were accepted a decade ago are becoming increasingly frayed. Let us hope that a new era of scientific reality will replace the far-to-simple messages previously proclaimed to the public.
David Whitehouse, GWPF Observatory, 19 September 2017
Last edited by cancel2 2022; 09-23-2017 at 02:10 AM.
Predictions are just predictions. In the case of climate change there is no doubt that it is occurring. Whether or not it is occurring exactly as some have predicted is not important in the general concept. That said, the deniers will always be deniers regardless of any contradictory information that might be discovered or communicated to them. Rather than argue the case with them it's usually better to consider and work on actual scientific models and let the chips fall where they may. It is important to note that the genuine scientists that actually look at facts and demonstrated information continue to hold their findings as reasonably accurate and their predictions have proven true even though they might be only approximate. It's also important to note that those that deny the science of climate change continue to deny it regardless of the overwhelming evidence against their mere "opinions." The deniers have no science to back their claims up. They are repeatedly proven wrong on every accord.
Last edited by Zippity Doo Da; 09-23-2017 at 02:12 AM.
So are you saying that scepticism is no longer an essential aspect to the scientific method? So should we just take the over egged predictions as gospel without any recourse to rigorous scrutiny? I have a scientific background, it sounds to me that you'd be happier with Scientology.
No. I am not saying that at all. I invite all science to produce their findings and discuss them on an intelligent level with open mindedness and a learned level of competence and discernment. I've found that in this stage of the scientific analyses of climate change there have been certainties generally agreed upon by the overwhelming majorities of interested parties and that have been demonstrated to my satisfaction to be pretty much on target and reasonably researched. Also at this stage of the scientific analyses there are those that simply disagree with only their disagreement to show for it. They have nothing scientific at all to demonstrate their "opinions" as accurate or worthy of serious concept entertainment. I am also scientifically inclined and I've run across several self-named scientists that have proven to me that they are not worthy in any way to proclaim themselves as competent to contribute in any meaningful way to the particular subjects in which they have chosen to debate. That's life.
And the investigations continue,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Oops
30% according to whom and by what data can that be affirmed? I operate from legitimate data analyses without any pre-determined expectations. Considering the agenda driven analyses and remarks from the denier crowds I experience almost total dismissal of them. I do appreciate hearty debate but I shutter the unfounded opinions without evidence that the deniers tend to blather about.
And the investigations continue,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Bookmarks