Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents

[WeToddDid2]

https://in.news.yahoo.com/climate-forecasts-may-flawed-says-170007812.html

Climate forecasts may be flawed, says study

Predictions of unprecedented rainfall extremes in the 20th century driven by global warming turned out wrong, a study said Wednesday, casting doubt on methods used to project future trends.

A massive trawl of Northern Hemisphere rainfall data for the last 1,200 years revealed there had been more dramatic wet-dry weather extremes in earlier, cooler centuries before humans set off fossil fuel-driven global warming.

This is problematic, said a study in the journal Nature, as the same data models used to anticipate that global warming would cause record rainfall extremes in the 1900s, are the basis for projections of things to come.

"In the past, on a longer timescale, there have been even larger variabilities," said Ljungqvist.

 

[futurecurrents]

https://in.news.yahoo.com/climate-forecasts-may-flawed-says-170007812.html

Climate forecasts may be flawed, says study

Predictions of unprecedented rainfall extremes in the 20th century driven by global warming turned out wrong, a study said Wednesday, casting doubt on methods used to project future trends.

A massive trawl of Northern Hemisphere rainfall data for the last 1,200 years revealed there had been more dramatic wet-dry weather extremes in earlier, cooler centuries before humans set off fossil fuel-driven global warming.

This is problematic, said a study in the journal Nature, as the same data models used to anticipate that global warming would cause record rainfall extremes in the 1900s, are the basis for projections of things to come.

"In the past, on a longer timescale, there have been even larger variabilities," said Ljungqvist.

from the article

"Do their results invalidate current predictive models? Certainly not. But they do highlight a big challenge for climate modellers, and present major research opportunities both for modellers and climate scientists..."

James Renwick of the Victoria University of Wellington said the predicted wet and dry extremes are "very likely" to materialise in the 21st, century.

Extreme drought and downpours are among many risks that scientists warn about in a warmer world. Others include land-gobbling sea level rise, crop and water shortages, disease spread and wars over dwindling resources.


===================

and precip events ARE becoming larger, as expected.

 

[LacesOut]

I am not impressed that my grammar is bad.

^ Is equivalent to your moron "expert". Who is really only the former.

So what else ya got? I have the 99% of experts, facts and common sense. That doesn't leave you with much. Too bad for you.

Stop saying 99% because you know it's not true.
If that was the case you would be able to prove it with science.
You cannot.

 

[Ricter]

Stop saying 99% because you know it's not true.
If that was the case you would be able to prove it with science.
You cannot.

Even AA doesn't win every contest against two random cards, but the probability it will makes it a good (the best) bet anyway.

 

[WeToddDid2]

from the article

"Do their results invalidate current predictive models? Certainly not. But they do highlight a big challenge for climate modellers, and present major research opportunities both for modellers and climate scientists..."

James Renwick of the Victoria University of Wellington said the predicted wet and dry extremes are "very likely" to materialise in the 21st, century.

Extreme drought and downpours are among many risks that scientists warn about in a warmer world. Others include land-gobbling sea level rise, crop and water shortages, disease spread and wars over dwindling resources.


===================

and precip events ARE becoming larger, as expected.

 

[Ricter]

Exactly why the deniers are losing this argument. Every reasonable hypothesis explaining the warming, except rising GH gas concentrations, has been tested and refuted. The deniers are stuck with "it was warmer long ago!"

This is not to say there will be no more new hypotheses.

 

[WeToddDid2]

Exactly why the deniers are losing this argument. Every reasonable hypothesis explaining the warming, except rising GH gas concentrations, has been tested and refuted. The deniers are stuck with "it was warmer long ago!"

This is not to say there will be no more new hypotheses.

 

[Ricter]

"Science is hard."

 

[WeToddDid2]

"Science is hard."

However, spinning is apparently easy for you.

 

[jem]

what an enormous steaming pile of dung you just posted...

1. show me how science has invalidated natural variation.
2. show me its not the sun or the tides... please don't cherry pick a few studies... look at all the peer reviewed ones. (by the way there are dozens which say the sun and the tides are responsible for some or all the variation._
3. Show me how you refute the data which shows that change in ocean ocean temps precedes change in co2 levels. (change in air temp also leads) Given that fact in the data... how can you state the laggard is the cause of anything?
Really... you must understand that for you to show the laggard is really the leader would take some tremendous science.

Exactly why the deniers are losing this argument. Every reasonable hypothesis explaining the warming, except rising GH gas concentrations, has been tested and refuted. The deniers are stuck with "it was warmer long ago!"

This is not to say there will be no more new hypotheses.