Predictions are by definition open to error. They may be based on the best data available in a situation like climate change, and they may be used to test theories. The sad thing is ice caps appear to be melting faster than and to more of an extreme than earlier predictions. The real science is in examining the available evidence. That means it's currently happening or has already happened. While that stuff can be used to make predictions and test out what was hypothesized.
Let's see what NASA has to say: No mention of magnitude there. Much! Oh wow. Unprecedented within the past 10,000 years or more. So maybe there was some precedence 18,000 or 60,000 years ago? If so, then how did any living organism survive? Most? That hardly sounds like 97%, which I would is "nearly all".
The IPCC models are exactly that -- predictive models. This is at the core of the global warming argument. The models have been horrible at both forecasting AND backcasting climate change impacts. A model that does not work is of no value. It's strange that this concept even has to be explained to people. It shows you how little the AGM supporters really know about the overall issue. The movement has become a movement driven by emotions. The AGM supporters are afraid to reverse their position, despite what the data is telling them.
Skeptical Science have a running summary of the global warming and climate change myths. Lots of them are being repeated in every GW thread. Link below. What's also cool is there are up to 3 levels of "what the science says". Basic, Intermediate, Advanced. http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php .... the latest one about model have been horrible at forecasting is here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
And from the National Climate Data Center: So the biggest contributor to global warming seems poorly understood in terms of its "feedback" mechanisms? Does this "huge scientific uncertainty" throw a wrench into most scientists' climate models? How do they deal with this uncertainty?
All of it is science. You cannot dismiss something as not science because the prediction accuracy is poor. The entire reason to study the past evidence is to create a working model that enables you to predict the future. The accuracy of those models is exactly how to judge how well the data was interpreted. You haven't written anything that back ups "predicting isn't the science part".
Sure it is another factor that makes it more complicated to model but your own article doesn't challenge the idea of human caused global warming. It supports it.
You're right that climate change is happening faster than they predicted. The mistake they made in interpreting the data wasn't that man climate change isn't real, it's that predictions were too minimal in the reactions. There are also different predictions from different people that all also use the proven man made climate change as their data. http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/3/30/ipcc-climate-changeglobalwarmingimpacts.html
Incredible the inability people have in the D&D to read the part where they typed something completely wrong. "predicting isn't the science part" Brilliant. I can't believe you are a teacher.
It isn't the proven science part. That's true. As I said predicting uses the science and so if you want to get into the semantics of it, that's fine. Nothing about the predictions being wrong indicates a lack of man made global warming. You can focus on that which is way more important than the semantics you've chosen to focus on, or you can look at the trees instead of the forrest. I'm fine either way.
Excuse me, but the entire global warming movement is predicated on a prediction of higher temperatures in the future. Using models that have been proven wrong.
The predictions made have been exceeded. I provided the link. Please note that climate change predictions were exceeded. The predictions didn't go far enough.
97% of climate scientist believe human actions are causing global warming, but not 97% believe it is the main driver of the current global warming trend. But to me, what really distances me from the AGW doomsday believers is the way these uncertainties are treated. It seems like uncertainties that favor AGW theories are highlighted while those that throw a wrench into the argument are largely ignored. For example, NASA's website state that there are only data extending back to 1978 on solar radiation levels. So, climate scientists have 36 years of full datasets. Is it me, or does this seem like a rather small sample size when comparing anthropogenic effects to these 10,000 and 100,000 year climate cycles? Another one would be the odd presumption that CO2 is the biggest contributor to the greenhouse effect. It is not - water vapor is. From what I can gather, the IPCC's report has almost no mention of anthropogenic water vapor emissions. What is more, the US EPA uses that information to say that anthropogenic sources are the greatest contributor to increased greenhouse gas emissions. With no mention of water vapor, is that an accurate or honest claim? The most relevant mention of water vapor from the IPCC comes from here: The last statement use to appear on NASA's website but they have since remodeled the cite, taking the statement down.
You guys in Houston better start selling now and picking up property in Waco. http://www.motherjones.com/environm...ds=10203853317432513&fb_action_types=og.likes
13' sea level rise in the next 50 to 200 years. Goodbye Houston, Manhattan, Florida, New Orleans.....
My kids will have to deal with all the relatives in Houston/League City/the region coming to Austin and begging for a place to pitch a tent. I doubt that I'll be around.
laughing my ass off at the panic piece. it's no wonder why you can't convince so many people especially coming from somebody whose job is tied to natural disasters (rimrocker). Have to cut through the self-interest...
I would hope the survival of humanity is in all of our interests. Of course perhaps you're just a troll bot... that would explain a lot actually. Still waiting for your response over here buddy. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=254513&page=3
The apocalyptic predictions vary, but always, the only way to save humanity is to allow governments to confiscate/redistribute more of our wealth and restrict/control more of our activity.
