What 95% certainty of warming means to scientists
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
They seem not to be able to understand the very simple concept of why a 40% increase of the greenhouse CO2 from the burning of FF will raise the temperature of the earth. It's a concept that a ten year old can grasp, but incredibly, Republicans can't. Amazing. And perhaps the best single proof of how dumb pubs are.
What case? What are you retarded? You think WATTSUPWITDAT is on par with NOAA and NASA? I see the problem here. You're a moron. That seem to be the case with all the denialists here. Simply stupid.
It is certainly more on par than http://www.skepticalscience.com/ that is funded by Al Gore's hedge fund and others who will make money off of global warming alarmism.
thats pretty ficken crazy to say considering all the data science has shows co2 trailing warming and we know that as oceans warms they release co2.
and considering we just had a 100% increase in co2 and temps have not gone up for 16 years.
What warms the oceans? The science is showing the sun and perhaps underwater volcanoes?
What causes less sun to come down to warm the oceans..
CO2.
You see how that model works?
Ocean warms CO2 gets released... over time less sun then hits the oceans, earth cools.
now you tell me whose model makes sense..
mine or the agw nutters?
Now tell me... which model has more recent papers backing it?
Let's play Chicken Little over climate
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/23/lawrence-solomon-lets-play-chicken-little/
Climate change models that claim the world will suffer great harm in future are âclose to useless,â pronounces a prestigious new study by Robert S. Pindyck, a physicist, engineer, professor of Economics and Finance at MITâs Sloan School of Management and true believer in perils from global warming. Pindyck is speaking of the gold standard in climate change models â Integrated Assessment Models (IAM), which combine data from both climate models and economic models.
âI couldnât agree more,â says Tom Rand of Torontoâs MaRS group, another true believer. He has dedicated a chapter in an upcoming book to âevisceratingâ the same models that Pindyck shreds. âThe IAM models are garbage.â
So what, says Connie Hedegaard, the EUâs Commissioner for Climate Action. âLetâs say that science, some decades from now, said âwe were wrong, it was not about climateâ, would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?â
So, itâs come down to this â we now have widespread agreement from numerous true believers that the models â the only source of scary scenarios â are junk. But the true believers want us to take action on climate change regardless, out of prudence, on the mere possibility that the sky could be falling. Itâs an âinsurance policy,â Pindyck explains, with other true believers nodding in agreement
(more at above url)
They seem not to be able to understand the very simple concept of why a 40% increase of the greenhouse CO2 from the burning of FF will raise the temperature of the earth. It's a concept that a ten year old can grasp, but incredibly, Republicans can't. Amazing. And perhaps the best single proof of how dumb pubs are.
Plus essentially the entire science community of the world is in agreement.
So not only they have to ignore common sense. They also have to ignore virtually all the world's experts in the subject.
The denialists (Republicans, same thing) are beyond dumb, they are pathologically and seemingly intentionally moronic.
Plus essentially the entire science community of the world is in agreement.
So not only they have to ignore common sense. They also have to ignore virtually all the world's experts in the subject.
The denialists (Republicans, same thing) are beyond dumb, they are pathologically and seemingly intentionally moronic.
No moron. It's more informative. You see, they use the term percent gain in trading for the same reason. You may have heard of it. You probably forgot.
Once again the problem is obvious. The denialists are simply stupid.