3 ms·

Whether or not the problem is real does not validate the concept that the models are trustworthy. It's possible to get the "right" answer in the wrong way, esp

Whether or not the problem is real does not validate the concept that the models are trustworthy. It's possible to get the "right" answer in the wrong way, especially when the "right" answer is a somewhat fuzzy binary answer and not something that is more narrowly falsifiable.

acqq 11y ago
The article I've linked to has enough details that refute these assumptions. The modes are trustworthy for the purpose they are made but not for short term weather forecasts (e.g. the effects of one particular El Nino), they are based on the proper science, the deniers confuse short term weather forecasts with the climate trends and the climate trends match the models. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201412 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201412 "The globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for 2014 was the highest among all years since record keeping began in 1880." What do you mean under the "fuzzy binary answer"? The scientists of the whole world produced much more detailed material: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/index.shtml http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/index.shtml
- Shivetya 11y ago
  how short is short term? predictions for twenty to fifty years out are nothing but hedge bets. all the alarmism that many spread in the late 90s and early 2000s about how dire the weather would be by now never panned out. hence, just what is short term and what is long term? let alone, as pointed out by the Dyson, China and India alone negate anything we can do.
  - acqq 11y ago
    Note again: "The globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for 2014 was the highest among all years since record keeping began in 1880." The science identified the reason for it, it was estimated long ago and it's known. Long term means that we can, as maybe too simplified example, expect on the average only once in decades to get the new whole-world all times high (the fluctuations are the property of the system) but that they will steadily come, the trend is: "hotter" on the average. Not every single year. > predictions for twenty to fifty years out are nothing but hedge bets. Wrong. CO2 in atmosphere, the impact of it are the facts, and the speed it increases isn't something that can change much without willful action. > all the alarmism that many spread in the late 90s and early 2000s about how dire the weather would be by now never panned out. Please any citation of "alarmism" from the real scientists (that is, an example of something such claimed by scientist, that was since disproved and that was believed by more than a few percent of scientists). The IPCC reports are the result of the world's climate scientists.
    - T-A 11y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_IPCC_Fourth_A...
      - acqq 11y ago
        The current report is the Fifth from 2014, you link to the entry about some criticisms of the Fourth report completed in 2007 and I don't understand what these mean to you. I don't see anything really significant that disproves the overall conclusions.
        T-A 11y ago
        > I don't understand what these mean to you They answer your request, > Please any citation of "alarmism" from the real scientists (that is, an example of something such claimed by scientist, that was since disproved and that was believed by more than a few percent of scientists). assuming of course that you stand by your closing statement from that post, > The IPCC reports are the result of the world's climate scientists.
        acqq 11y ago
        What do you believe was actually a case of "alarmism" in the report from 2007 that was since disproved and that actually makes a difference?
        T-A 11y ago
        I am sure you are quite capable of clicking the link and reading the items under "Content issues" on your own.
        acqq 11y ago
        I also assume the same regarding the "Response to criticisms" section. There wasn't anything significant: "there is nothing remotely identified" "that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change." (from the "open letter from 255 members of the U. S. National Academy of Sciences including 11 Nobel laureates") or "Overall the summary conclusions are considered well founded, none have been found to contain any significant errors."

acqq 11y ago

The article I've linked to has enough details that refute these assumptions. The modes are trustworthy for the purpose they are made but not for short term weather forecasts (e.g. the effects of one particular El Nino), they are based on the proper science, the deniers confuse short term weather forecasts with the climate trends and the climate trends match the models. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201412 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201412 "The globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for 2014 was the highest among all years since record keeping began in 1880." What do you mean under the "fuzzy binary answer"? The scientists of the whole world produced much more detailed material: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/index.shtml http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/index.shtml

Shivetya 11y ago
how short is short term? predictions for twenty to fifty years out are nothing but hedge bets. all the alarmism that many spread in the late 90s and early 2000s about how dire the weather would be by now never panned out. hence, just what is short term and what is long term? let alone, as pointed out by the Dyson, China and India alone negate anything we can do.
- acqq 11y ago
  Note again: "The globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for 2014 was the highest among all years since record keeping began in 1880." The science identified the reason for it, it was estimated long ago and it's known. Long term means that we can, as maybe too simplified example, expect on the average only once in decades to get the new whole-world all times high (the fluctuations are the property of the system) but that they will steadily come, the trend is: "hotter" on the average. Not every single year. > predictions for twenty to fifty years out are nothing but hedge bets. Wrong. CO2 in atmosphere, the impact of it are the facts, and the speed it increases isn't something that can change much without willful action. > all the alarmism that many spread in the late 90s and early 2000s about how dire the weather would be by now never panned out. Please any citation of "alarmism" from the real scientists (that is, an example of something such claimed by scientist, that was since disproved and that was believed by more than a few percent of scientists). The IPCC reports are the result of the world's climate scientists.
  - T-A 11y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_IPCC_Fourth_A...
    - acqq 11y ago
      The current report is the Fifth from 2014, you link to the entry about some criticisms of the Fourth report completed in 2007 and I don't understand what these mean to you. I don't see anything really significant that disproves the overall conclusions.
      - T-A 11y ago
        > I don't understand what these mean to you They answer your request, > Please any citation of "alarmism" from the real scientists (that is, an example of something such claimed by scientist, that was since disproved and that was believed by more than a few percent of scientists). assuming of course that you stand by your closing statement from that post, > The IPCC reports are the result of the world's climate scientists.
        acqq 11y ago
        What do you believe was actually a case of "alarmism" in the report from 2007 that was since disproved and that actually makes a difference?
        T-A 11y ago
        I am sure you are quite capable of clicking the link and reading the items under "Content issues" on your own.
        acqq 11y ago
        I also assume the same regarding the "Response to criticisms" section. There wasn't anything significant: "there is nothing remotely identified" "that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change." (from the "open letter from 255 members of the U. S. National Academy of Sciences including 11 Nobel laureates") or "Overall the summary conclusions are considered well founded, none have been found to contain any significant errors."