Mojo Chan, I doubt that facts will convince you but since you asked here is one (there are many more):
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
In spite of the inability of weather models to forecast more than about 10 days ahead, the climate modelers have deluded themselves, their employers, the grant giving agencies, the politicians and the general public into believing that they could build climate models capable of accurately forecasting global temperatures for decades and centuries to come. Commenting on this naive reductionist approach, Harrison and Stainforth say ...
The Holocene (the past ~10,000 years) has so far been a period of relative climatic stability; there has been no change in climatic forcing comparable to the doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations above preindustrial levels that we are likely to see by the middle of this century. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are now higher than they have been for at least the past 650,000 years; human influence on the global climate is profound. That there are severe risks in the future is clear; their details and character are not.
but getting there isn't going to be pretty.
Changes are natural. Trying to prevent changes is not. Especially when those trillions on climate changes can be used somewhere else, on more worthy causes, like saving kids, fighting cancer, bettering education, etc.
The only thing constant about our climates is that it changes. Has always been so and will always be, billions of years in the past and hopefully billions of years in the future.
The fact that something isn't pretty doesn't by itself means you should spend all your money fight it: because fighting it could be even uglier.
A bad outcome can be your best outcome.
the Holocene has been a period of climatic stability.
Now we're seeing change over a much shorter period of time,
and timescales matter.
Like I say all the time, we can have disagreements on how to fix the problem; I don't think that subsidies towards solar and wind is the way to go, but don't let the availability of politically acceptable solutions dictate whether the problem exists in the first place. Better solutions can be found.
Quotethe Holocene has been a period of climatic stability.A period of climatic stabilty means climate instability over a longer horizon. As you pointed out, timescales matter.
QuoteNow we're seeing change over a much shorter period of time,Taking your advice earlier, if you look over a short enough period of time, you have climatic stability! Guaranteed.
Quoteand timescales matter.Absolutely correct. Extrapolating based on a few decades' experience over a horizon of millions / billions of years isn't probably wise, especially among other competing priorities.
For example, who's to say that we / the earth wouldn't thrive in a hotter climate? You sure will help cure famine for example.
We should pay attention to climate changes, as it impacts our long-term well beings and the survival of all of us as a being. However, we should have a rationale and honest discussion, we should evaluate all of our options and get everyone behind it.
The current global warming discussion is anything but that, because it is dominated by a bunch of religious bigots who refuse to let science and rationale work its magic, or who are more interested in lining their pockets with other people's money.
If the problem does exists, it's magnitude and implications wee greatly exaggerated. It's not science anymore, it's religion and politics.
Frankly, I'll take the conclusions of peer reviewed papers by multiple independent groups over a random blog post.
And consider, if a noob like me could pick apart that link you posted earlier in fifteen minutes, how good are the sources of information you have? Are you sure you're on the right side of the fence?
Mojo Chan, I doubt that facts will convince you but since you asked here is one (there are many more):
Sorry, I was referring to the claim that the Florida based group were raising money fraudulently.
As for your graph, a few seconds with Google reveal some evidence that the models are correct:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jul/21/realistic-climate-models-accurately-predicted-global-warming
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
Frankly, I'll take the conclusions of peer reviewed papers by multiple independent groups over a random blog post.
Pick apart? You must be kidding.
Pick apart? You must be kidding.
Go ahead and read the paper linked in the introduction for yourself and see whether it supports the assertion made in the blog post. I dare you.
Look at the observed data (red, below) in the link you posted and compare to IPCC's hokey stick predictions. As I said, grossly exaggerated.
You completely ignored the data shown in that graph. Huge discrepancy between the hockey stick behavior that the alarmists claim and reality.
Look at the observed data (red, below) in the link you posted and compare to IPCC's hokey stick predictions. As I said, grossly exaggerated.
Um. The "hockey stick" graph has nothing to do with predictions, it is a graph of historical data.
And you are inviting us to compare a graph over a thousand years with a graph over forty. Why would anyone expect the shape to be the same?
Magetoo, you keep going around the main point. The huge discrepancy between IPCC predictions and reality. Look at that graph.
That's also a country where its solar power market is collapsing due to the unexpected cut in subsidies to the solar power generators.
Do you have any evidence of that?
Notice how the observations follow the prediction when you remember to include ocean temperatures.
Predicting the past is easy.
Not if you apply the strictest definition of the word "predict" you can't.
Don't encourage him, we won several posts back.
Don't encourage him, we won several posts back.
Or google "Hide the decline"
The ones that won and have been extracting a lot of our hard earned money are the so called 'GIGO' Scientists: