Since the IPCC has such a long history of producing baloney, it’s little wonder that so many people currently have doubts about their new, soon-to-be-released report.
I STILL chose to wait for the actual IPCC report to come out.
try debunking the inability to produce a model that works. If it doesn’t work in the short term there is nothing to suggest it will gain accuracy in the long term. That’s a given.
The oceans aren’t going to rise 50 feet in the next half century yet energy technology will continue beyond anything you can imagine in the next 50 years without any input from the IPCC.
It’s time you got off this fantasy of yours that the world is coming to an end. It’s not.
No give no evidence whatsoever, only your say so.
Like if there were no previous ones, and that is a hint that once again, you did not read the tread, more ignorance.
And that is only just showing ignorance, once again, the point stands, it is high time that you complain to the ones that are giving you false information.
And that just washes away one of the main complaints the contrarians (that are usually conservatives) make for the reason why we should do nothing, cost. In reality they ignore the full costs of doing nothing.
And yes, the full article points that the more likely ocean rise is a big part of those costs.
And thank you for showing all that in reality you are depending on a straw man for your sorry point, scientists are not talking about the world coming to an end, and neither do I, you need to check my past posts and ***learn ***that I’m on the record of busting the alarmism of the ones that claim that this issue means the end of the world, the point is that not doing something will mean more costs for the future and likely wars and more pain that could be prevented but for the inaction of many conservative leaders of today that depend on false information to make policy.
Let me get this straight. You think making a model that works backwards but not forwards is a testament to the accuracy of the model? If only bookies would accept bets after the game.
ah, I see, it’s not a problem except for global wars. Got it.
And thanks for let us know that indeed you do not know how models are used.
And you are only showing to all that you do not check the links or quotes, it is not only wars for resources that is the danger but it has to be mentioned also that the US armed forces do look at what the scientists report to conclude that indeed this issue has military implications, more costs for today and the future thanks to assuming that it would be cheap to do nothing now.
The economist I quoted reports that indeed ocean rise will generate more costs just by the simple logic that just a few feet in ocean rise means that hurricanes will be more damaging to the cities in their path.
I know that I can make one work backwards. I know the IPCC doesn’t know why theirs doesn’t work forwards. I know you don’t understand the difference.
so which is it, is the world going to hell in a handcart or not. Pick one.
That’s not quite fair; IIRC, he’s currently signed on for a forwards-looking at-least-a-tenth-of-a-degree-per-decade-in-global-average-temperature prediction by the IPCC, which will prove true or turn out to be utterly false in fairly short order.
So if its utterly wrong again, what will be the response? Global warming is real but we’re just not sure how long it will take?
I don’t see where it matters. Unless it’s going to flood my basement next week I’m not worried about it. We have the technology available to radically change our energy consumption if we needed to. It’s not 1930 and it’s not going to happen overnight.
I’m giving the IPCC yet another chance to prove, actually prove, that global warming is occuring and that man-made CO2 is the cause of it. Proof that can be duplicated, not more unproven claims that are to be accepted and never questioned.
Your particular debate style isn’t going to change anyone’s mind about global warming.
The IPCC has had over two decades to prove their theory. And there’s the disappearance of the IPCC’s man-made inputs and the computer modeling that originally suggesting global warming, the infamous hockey-stick chart that magically removed the little ice age time period, the four (4) dead polar bears that proved that polar bears die but nothing about how they died or how it’s related to global warming, and the scientists who helped gather the IPCC’s data but objected to the way the IPCC used/twisted their work. All these things have to be considered when considering the IPCC’s results and the claims of it’s devoted followers.
I’m still willing to give the new, soon-to-be-released IPCC report a chance to actually prove it’s claims. In spite of your enthusiastic support of the unreleased report and your personal insults.
It is not an insult to show that you are coming to this discussion with a mess of ignorance.
This new report coming is the fifth, so you are not even aware of how many chances, or if it appropriate to talk about “chances”, and only on discredited sources is where one can get the “news” that they are getting it wrong.
Far from it, they report on what the best science offers from the few years previous to one of the reports. One of the early reports included a graph that was accurate only for northern Europe, in it the local event than later began to be known as the “medieval Warm Period” was hailed by contrarians as the **final **and greatest bit to show that nature could be the reason for the warming observed recently.
It was not, then subsequent reports got more data from other continents and then the graph, the so called hockey stick showed that even the medieval warm period was not as warm as what we are seeing in the past 15 years.
So what the IPCC is showing is the current consensus and input from the latest science, but as usual the contrarian media is continuing to fool people like you. Look at their sites and sources and you can still see even the old graph shown as the best that it was, when it was presented by the IPCC, but it was superseded by the latest research and data.
What that incident shows is that what the deniers used to misrepresent the latest science was only adequate for the day, and it does not matter that they got one of their more stupid points out of the IPCC itself, they then tell others to **ignore **the latest reports, continue using the old information as the final truth and imagine that! They **still **fool many that way.
The Republicans are picking that up right now, as a citizen you need to tell them to choose wisely.
Nope, the information linked to already shows that the IPCC models continue to hit the range of most possible outcomes, insisting that it is not only tells others that ignorance is preferred to the evidence.
And it also avoids dealing with the fact that the best and most famous skeptical scientists continue to get their models wrong, remember, for a science discussion even if you insist that a group got it wrong you have to point at the ones that are doing it correctly, no such luck here for the contrarian media.
I linked to the article that said the IPCC couldn’t explain the cooling that has occurred. They don’t have a model that accurately predicts the warming trend. This is not up for debate.
No one has any comment on my point that 95 percent likely is still far from certain?
It is, your publication is not a science one to begin with and your interpretation is way off base, I linked to the more valid reports and the note from years ago of Latif that reports on the expected “pauses”. Your information is misleading and not only that, the article from Reuters reports that:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/16/us-climate-report-idUSBRE97F0KM20130816
“Experts surer of manmade global warming but local predictions elusive”
Indeed just what I have posted before in other threads and reported about what the actual scientists are doing.
“The main scenarios in the draft, using more complex computer models than in 2007 and taking account of more factors, show that temperatures could rise anywhere from a fraction of 1 degree Celsius (1.8 Fahrenheit) to almost 5C (9F) this century, a wider range at both ends than in 2007.”
“Experts say that the big advance in the report, due for a final edit by governments and scientists in Stockholm from September 23-26, is simply greater confidence about the science of global warming, rather than revolutionary new findings.”
What I can see so far from your posts is just the spin from denier sites, the Reuters piece does not say that the predictions are failing.
The Guardian report from the OP once again mentions that the model issues are at the regional level not at more wider areas or global.
The “medium confidence” bit you are latching on continues to say that contrarians should not use the slowdown of surface temperatures as a justification to be complacent, and they link to this article from skeptical science (Remember them? the same ones from the links that you have refused to check?):
So yeah, we are clearly still within those boundary conditions, thus the models are still currently correct from the previous report, and the ones coming are bound to be better, so please do not get stuck in the past “say so’s” from the contrarian media.
I’m not sure were you are getting at, for perspective just remember that just about 33% of smokers will die of all the possible ailments connected to tobacco smoke, yet the warnings are clear nowadays. And as a society we acted to limit the use of it. (It has to be remarked once more that many influential groups denying any danger from smoking moved to also deny that AGW is a problem.)
When you look at the context, your claim of 95% being as “far from certain” has the problem that the IPCC has already numbers for far from certain items:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-6.html
I mean, would you say that they would be reporting ‘far, far, far, farthest, snowball in hell’ levels if they had reported that the confidence they had was at 33% or less?