It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: PeterMcFly
There does seem to be some politics going on at the IPCC, though I don't really follow all the logic. The part I do follow is that people like Al Gore who have a carbon credit business stand to gain from the carbon credit market and can't be seen as unbiased for that reason.
a reply to: stormbringer1701
I'm used to looking at more pure science, or relatively unbiased engineering, but there does seem to be some politics going on in this field, in addition to the science, doesn't there?
a reply to: Kali74
Thanks for the link! That one worked.
originally posted by: pikestaff
Climate models leave out clouds, those white things that float about above us, that drop snow, hailstones, rain, shield the earth from sun rays, and generally mess us about, so the rain, snow, hailstones and cooling effect is not included, and climatologists tell us that the earth is cooling/warming/ staying the same?? really? This information came from Judith Curry's blog climate etc., that lady is a climatologist.
From other news sites, sea ice in general is at its highest since 1988, there has been no mean average global temperature rise in 16 years,
European summers have been crap for the last five years, last three years snow in most unusual places, very low hurricane count last year, California drought finally broken, two awefull north American winters, N.o A.ctual S.cience
A.loud has admitted last year might not have been the hottest, as the difference is hundredths of a degree C' .
originally posted by: ketsuko
And when someone tells me they believe in Global Warming based on the models ... I can't quite take them seriously since the models themselves can't really be taken all that seriously.
originally posted by: jrod
The computer models have a tough enough time predicting weather a week out.
Those who attack these so called 'climate models' as if debunking them somehow debunks climate change and the notion of global warming are truly living in the dark ages of science.
The long term weather models still need some work, even though (in)accuweather can give a 2 week forecast, it is seldom accurate 2 weeks or often just 1 week out.
originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Who knows if climate change is man made or not.
What we do know is the stakes are high and it's not a risk worth taking.
Most present-generation climate models simulate an increase in global-mean surface temperature (GMST) since 1998, whereas observations suggest a warming hiatus. It is unclear to what extent this mismatch is caused by incorrect model forcing, by incorrect model response to forcing or by random factors. Here we analyse simulations and observations of GMST from 1900 to 2012, and show that the distribution of simulated 15-year trends shows no systematic bias against the observations. Using a multiple regression approach that is physically motivated by surface energy balance, we isolate the impact of radiative forcing, climate feedback and ocean heat uptake on GMST—with the regression residual interpreted as internal variability—and assess all possible 15- and 62-year trends. The differences between simulated and observed trends are dominated by random internal variability over the shorter timescale and by variations in the radiative forcings used to drive models over the longer timescale. For either trend length, spread in simulated climate feedback leaves no traceable imprint on GMST trends or, consequently, on the difference between simulations and observations. The claim that climate models systematically overestimate the response to radiative forcing from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations therefore seems to be unfounded.