Wow... The feedback in that book about Mann from other reputable climate scientists such as Curry is just scathing.
We should send Futurecurrents a copy of this book.
The 95% consensus is now just 43%
- Thread starter WeToddDid2
- Start date
Wow... The feedback in that book about Mann from other reputable climate scientists such as Curry is just scathing.
We should send Futurecurrents a copy of this book.
So? He's wrong about almost all the above and he whore for the FF industry/conservative think tanks and is not a climatologist. Is this what you consider good science? LOL
a. if you read your paper you see this statement, confirming the models failed. I will then give you the translation of this paragraph...
here is your paper's explanation for the failure... (which you were denying for the past few years.)
"Combined, the apparent discrepancy between observations and simulations of global temperature over the past 15 years can be partly explained by the way the comparison is done (about a third), by the incorrect radiative forcings (about a third) and the rest is either due to climate variability or because the models are slightly over sensitive on average. But, the room for the latter effect is now much smaller."
b. and now for the correct translation...
1. 1/3 of the failure is due to the fact we could not fudge temperature records fast enough.
2. 1/3 of the failure (at least) is due to the fact the Sun and the Tides really have a big influence on temperature.
3. 1/3 of the failure is because co2 trails global warming and cooling and does not drive it.
here is your paper's explanation for the failure... (which you were denying for the past few years.)
"Combined, the apparent discrepancy between observations and simulations of global temperature over the past 15 years can be partly explained by the way the comparison is done (about a third), by the incorrect radiative forcings (about a third) and the rest is either due to climate variability or because the models are slightly over sensitive on average. But, the room for the latter effect is now much smaller."
b. and now for the correct translation...
1. 1/3 of the failure is due to the fact we could not fudge temperature records fast enough.
2. 1/3 of the failure (at least) is due to the fact the Sun and the Tides really have a big influence on temperature.
3. 1/3 of the failure is because co2 trails global warming and cooling and does not drive it.
Last edited:
From the idiot wetodddidtoo's post above...............
"The recent cold winters and expanding polar ice caps are ominous signs of a global cooling that has already begun, maintains David Dilley -"
lol, what an idiot, and this is the kind of douchebag that right wing denier morons like wedidtoddintheasstoo rely on. Almost funny, but more pathetic.
"The recent cold winters and expanding polar ice caps are ominous signs of a global cooling that has already begun, maintains David Dilley -"
lol, what an idiot, and this is the kind of douchebag that right wing denier morons like wedidtoddintheasstoo rely on. Almost funny, but more pathetic.
Last edited:
I clicked around and saw nothing.
You are going to have to produce some papers showing man made co2 causes warming.
Perhaps you could cut and paste the links. I will click on a few but I hope you read them first to make sure they are not the failed models discussed above.
You are going to have to produce some papers showing man made co2 causes warming.
Perhaps you could cut and paste the links. I will click on a few but I hope you read them first to make sure they are not the failed models discussed above.
your article confirmed the models failed and now you resort to this troll crap.
let me give it to you again...
"Combined, the apparent discrepancy between observations and simulations of global temperature over the past 15 years can be partly explained by the way the comparison is done (about a third), by the incorrect radiative forcings (about a third) and the rest is either due to climate variability or because the models are slightly over sensitive on average. But, the room for the latter effect is now much smaller."
b. and now for the correct translation...
1. 1/3 of the failure is due to the fact we could not fudge temperature records fast enough.
2. 1/3 of the failure (at least) is due to the fact the Sun and the Tides really have a big influence on temperature.
3. 1/3 of the failure is because co2 trails global warming and cooling and does not drive it.
let me give it to you again...
"Combined, the apparent discrepancy between observations and simulations of global temperature over the past 15 years can be partly explained by the way the comparison is done (about a third), by the incorrect radiative forcings (about a third) and the rest is either due to climate variability or because the models are slightly over sensitive on average. But, the room for the latter effect is now much smaller."
b. and now for the correct translation...
1. 1/3 of the failure is due to the fact we could not fudge temperature records fast enough.
2. 1/3 of the failure (at least) is due to the fact the Sun and the Tides really have a big influence on temperature.
3. 1/3 of the failure is because co2 trails global warming and cooling and does not drive it.
Bold, underline and blue mine.
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/spot-the-vested-interest-the-1-5-trillion-climate-change-industry/
Climate Change Business Journal estimates the Climate Change Industry is a $1.5 Trillion dollar escapade, which means four billion dollars a day is spent on our quest to change the climate. That includes everything from carbon markets to carbon consulting, carbon sequestration, renewables, biofuels, green buildings and insipid cars. For comparison global retail sales online are worth around $1.5 trillion. So all the money wasted on the climate is equivalent to all the goods bought online.
This post misquotes the study. You can read it here: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/ipdf/10.1021/es501998e
57% of these respondents being "less than 95% sure" hardly suggests that they don't think anthropogenic causes are the primary drivers; it simply shows that, as good scientists, they recognize that complete certainty is not easy to come by.
This post is a disingenuous representation of the results of the study.
57% of these respondents being "less than 95% sure" hardly suggests that they don't think anthropogenic causes are the primary drivers; it simply shows that, as good scientists, they recognize that complete certainty is not easy to come by.
This post is a disingenuous representation of the results of the study.