Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

Quote from gwb-trading:

and in what way are charts showing temps from 1950 and later in any relevant to the MWP at 1000 AD.
More...

What relevance does the MWP have to today's AGW?

I'm showing that the current models and observations are still in line.

The models are designed around and meant to predict more current conditions. It is not surprising that are not as good for the distant, poorly measured past.
 
Quote from Lucrum:

Not one? So it's 100% consensus then not 97%? :D
More...

Among all of the world's reputable science orgs, yes, it's essentially 100%.

You see, science orgs can't readily prostitute themselves for the fossil fuel industry interests. Individual "climatologists" can earn themselves much "attention" by being deniers.
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

What relevance does the MWP have to today's AGW?

I'm showing that the current models and observations are still in line.

The models are designed around and meant to predict more current conditions. It is not surprising that are not as good for the distant, poorly measured past.
More...

Even the IPCC itself stated that ALL the models have failed - as demonstrated in the diagram below.

Why have all the models failed you ask? Because they started with the preconceived notion that CO2 caused warming. A theory that is totally incorrect - thereby creating false bias in every model instead of being based on realistic science.

The models not only fail under current conditions; they fail to model any period in the past correctly due to the creators' bias.

CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
 
Quote from gwb-trading:

Even the IPCC itself stated that ALL the models have failed - as demonstrated in the diagram below.

Why have all the models failed you ask? Because they started with the preconceived notion that CO2 caused warming. A theory that is totally incorrect - thereby creating false bias in every model instead of being based on realistic science.

The models not only fail under current conditions; they fail to model any period in the past correctly due to the creators' bias.

CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
More...

Wrong, try again. The models have not failed and the IPCC has not said any such thing. Once again you have posted a misleading bullshit chart. Those temps on your chart are only balloon reading from the mid latitudes. We went through this already. Why can't you understand? Are you that stupid? That chart is not relevant and is denier deception. Get a clue.
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

Wrong, try again. The models have not failed and the IPCC has not said any such thing. Once again you have posted a misleading bullshit chart. Those temps on your chart are only balloon reading from the mid latitudes. We went through this already. Why can't you understand? Are you that stupid? That chart is not relevant and is denier deception. Get a clue.
More...

The chart I posted is the actual reading vs. the models. You can dig in to the IPCC reports and find it.

The chart you posted does not include all the models and is totally incorrect. Please post a chart showing the results of ALL the models (Oh wait, I did - the one from the IPCC.

Maybe you need stop calling intelligent people stupid, start reading the actual data, and open your mind to the truth.
 
The climate in northern Europe immediately after the last Ice Age was about 3 degrees warmer than it is today. "During a period 9700-6100 before the present day, birch and pine trees grew without interruption where glaciers subsequently come to cover the site as a consequence of climate cooling." The glaciers carry down chunks of birch bark as proof.

http://www.kullmantreeline.com/empty_21.html

So what do you find when the glaciers melt - proof that the world was much warmer than it is today.
 
Quote from gwb-trading:

Why have all the models failed you ask? Because they started with the preconceived notion that CO2 caused warming. A theory that is totally incorrect - thereby creating false bias in every model instead of being based on realistic science.
More...
Bullshit.
The fundamental physics behind the greenhouse effect has been part of classical thermodynamics for 150 years and global warming / anthropic global warming is firmly established in the science of molecular physics.

Surely you're aware Classical Newtonian physics allows great precision but not 100% certainty to outcomes when applying basic mathematical laws of motion and gravitation. It is nonsensical to suggest Newtonian physics are wrong because there is uncertainty and an element of error .

It is just as nonsensical to deny the established physics behind greenhouse warming of planetary atmospheres on the back of the same uncertainty.

The arguments against anthropic global warming first need to overcome no less than fundamental basic classical science behind greenhouse global warming.
It would require overthrowing known fact and basic laws of physics which show how and why increasing co2 confines more heat in the atmosphere causing a warming of the planet, and after taking into account associated circumstances .

To insist the science is all wrong only because it is 'only 98% certain', is to join the league of deniers who advise playing russian roulette with a gun whose chamber is only 98% full of bullets.
They beggar belief.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top