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.
reply to post by swanne
Is there total proof for anything?
For how long can people bury their heads in the sand and say nothing is happening?
GW kicked every other hypothesis out so efficiently that I, as a member of the public, don't even hear about them.
There are almost 30,000 peer-reviewed studies on global warming since 2008.
reply to post by yuppa
Out of all the peer reviewed papers and scientist....How many have been PAID to investigate this?
Out of all the people you know...how many work for no pay?
Right, because of course, all scientists are independently wealthy and don't have to work for a living.
Theses scientist if they are serious would give up all funding and do it pro bono if they truly believe what they are saying,but th emodels have been proven flawed they use but they keep doubling down hoping people are stupid enough to fall for it just because a man in a lab coat says so.
Maybe. But there is a difference between weather and climate.
The only reason it looks like weather is increasing is the news cycle is now 24 hrs and more people have ability to report it now.
But which models have been "proven wrong?" Here's what the IPCC says about them. Can you be more specific?
Almost all CMIP5 historical simulations do not reproduce the observed recent warming hiatus. There is medium confidence that the GMST trend difference between models and observations during 1998–2012 is to a substantial degree caused by internal variability, with possible contributions from forcing error and some CMIP5 models overestimating the response to increasing GHG and other anthropogenic forcing.
The CMIP5 model trend in ERF shows no apparent bias against the AR5 best estimate over 1998–2012. However, confidence in this assessment of CMIP5 ERF trend is low, primarily because of the uncertainties in model aerosol forcing and processes, which through spatial heterogeneity might well cause an undetected global mean ERF trend error even in the absence of a trend in the global mean aerosol loading.
The discrepancy between simulated and observed GMST trends during 1998–2012 could be explained in part by a tendency for some CMIP5 models to simulate stronger warming in response to increases in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentration than is consistent with observations (Section 10.3.1.1.3, Figure 10.4).
Averaged over the ensembles of models assessed in Section 10.3.1.1.3, the best estimate GHG and other anthropogenic (OA) scaling factors are less than one (though not significantly so, Figure 10.4), indicating that the model-mean GHG and OA responses should be scaled down to best match observations.
This finding provides evidence that some CMIP5 models show a larger response to GHGs and other anthropogenic factors (dominated by the effects of aerosols) than the real world (medium confidence). As a consequence, it is argued in Chapter 11 that near-term model projections of GMST increase should be scaled down by about 10% (Section 220.127.116.11). This downward scaling is, however, not sufficient to explain the model-mean overestimate of GMST trend over the hiatus period.