Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

A lack of another explanation.

 

That is not how science works. There is proof that similar warmings have occurred 9 times in the last 10,000 years (the Holocene) with no change in CO2. Where is the proof that the current warming is the result of human CO2 emissions ???

 

Even if they did read it, there is math in there.

And the idea that one must change anything, so that the wrong assumptions fit today goes right over some people's heads.

Say I predict Trump wins because of impeachment or something, but then something happens later, like in this case Chinese scooters..., then Trump loses, I go back and make change to the assumptions and then my model says Trump lost, they claim it is not science and must have been Jive Turkey, Mary Poppins, and Dick Tracy.

 

You are claiming that changing a model so that it “predicts” the past means that the modified model will accurately predict the future ??? That’s ludicrous.

 

Self-serving conjecture

 

And there is no way in hell an ICE core can tell us everything that was happening before or during.

You can hypothesize that something happened to cause those "similar warmings," but you cannot discount current more accurate data with real time measurements by advanced equipment of solar activity...simply because you can't get further than a hypothesis about the previous warmings.

To disprove current data you must go beyond hypothesis, and you can't do it because the ancient Egyptians didn't have weather...satellites.

 

I didn't say anything about changing a model, I said assumptions, that is the data in the model. I might assume no car gets more than 50mpg, or that the wings of a P-3 will never be built in Korea, so my model is using old data, then a car gets 50mpg, the wings are built in Korea, I enter then new data, and we get a Kia.
Dude, think, who the frack predicts the past?

 

Obviously something caused previous similare warmings (and coolings) but it was not increased human CO2 emissions.

The surface temperature time series data are a mess. In some cases the original data has been purged and is unavailable. Plus everytime that it is "adjusted" it goes in the favor of increased global warming. The best that can be said is that this data shows a warming trend but to attempt to quantify the global average temperature (which is a seriously flawed concept in itself) is ridiculous.

Satellite data has only existed for 40 years. That is insufficient time to determine anything about the global climate.

 

There is no data in the models.

Notice the quotation marks around the word "predict" in my post ?? Now go back and look at the OP.

 

What do you think goes in an equation, spam?

 

I thanked it because I agree with it.

 

~ Life on this planet evolved under high CO2 conditions ( probably why life on Earth is carbon-based ? ) and mostly under much warmer conditions.
Right now we are colder and very low on CO2. What on Earth makes some think making it colder still, and lowering CO2 even further, is a good idea?
IPCC? The UN? NASA ? Why no public debates on the matter ? Why do the climate "experts" refuse interviews ? If anyone still believes their track record of predictions, there is lovely beachfront property in Arizona for sale cheap !

 

An equation is a means to predict outcomes based on application of the scientific method or curve fitting. They are based on data.

 

And National Review notes that the National Park Service is complaining it doesn't have enough money to take down the signs it put up in Glacier National Park in 2010 saying the glaciers would be gone in 2020.

Beware the Boogeyman Alarm

The glaciers in Glacier National Park have been shrinking for more than 100 years (as the USGS points out, since 1900 “the mean annual temperature for GNP and the surrounding region has increased [by] 1.8 times the global mean increase”), so on current trends they’ll be gone someday “in the next few decades.” Who knows how long current trends will last, though? A 1923 Associated Press report said the glaciers would “almost disappear” in 25 years. So, gone by 1948. In 1936, the Arizona Republic reported that the glaciers would “vanish within 25 years.” So, 1961. A 1952 AP report alluded to “naturalists” who said the glaciers would be gone in 50 years. So, 2002. In 2009, National Geographic News asked, “No More Glaciers in Glacier National Park by 2020?” A New York Times report a few years ago pushed the date back to 2044.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020...ver&utm_content=most-popular&utm_term=seventh

 

Great video regarding the 97% consensus.

 

Every time I ask "well what exactly is the proper and correct temperature for the earth" I get crickets.

 

Then you agree that the models have been adjusted so that they “predict” the past and thereby can be used to accurately predict the future.

 

The advanced equipment if available to Cleopatra would have told her that the gods, or death of Caesar, did not cause the drought. The lack of CO2 emissions as an explanation for a warming does not mean nothing else caused it; it is the lack of advanced technology in real time that deprives us of an explanation for then, but not for now.
Satellite data isn't mainly about collection of events but telling us what is happening now, with the Sun...; you must have another explanation than just Spam (meat product) caused it.

 

Politics. The left manufactures a “crisis” and then claims that only they can save humanity. We also see what Eisenhower warned about - the government take over and politicization of science.

 

What? The data used for predicting things in the future can change, because like Ben Bova, the Soviets don't exist for his Mars book, 2001 a space odyssey, oh, look, no spinning wheels in space... The equations, or model, remains the same, the data used changes because people are really bad at predicting human behavior. The models that worked were the ones that did not make wild assumptions.

 

Of course the previous warmings and coolings had caused. But changing atmospheric CO2 was not one of them. Why is that the claim now ???

 

You just argued that the models cannot be used.

 

Which has been the point all along. If, as the AGW faithful preach it, seemingly, the goldilocks version of temperature was 1865 which we know to be the end of a fairly cool/cold epoch on the earth. So, according to these acolytes the temps then must be freezing and unable to produce sufficient food to feed the planet...

And now, we've seen something like ~.9C in "average" global temps, the hysteria begins. Because even though we've seen global "averages" higher than what we see today, the AGW mongers are insistent that this time, it's bad. It's like bad marketing for sequels from hollywood... And not much different or better...

 

I clicked the link just because I wanted to see one of the signs that were posted and were being removed, I was disappointed to not see them because it would have given me a good monday morning giggle.

 

Do you think CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?