Greenland glacier hits record speed

What is it, something like 97% of peer reviewed scientists agree there is climate change? Years upon years of anomalous weather in SE Australia where I live. Melbourne has had 7 days over 40 degrees C this summer (equal top amount ever, with still at least 6 weeks of hot weather to go), while England floods and North America freezes.

But no, it's only the Earth doing what comes naturally, despite things matching extremely closely to what the computer models of 20 years ago predicted.

For how long can people bury their heads in the sand and say nothing is happening?

reply to post by cuckooold


"Matching closely" is not "total proof". And in the scientific method (the true scientific method, not the canned version which media serves us), a theory is never 100% certain as long as it's not proven totally, beyond doubts.

Otherwise I could just tell you that I have a tail, but only when you're not looking. You couldn't prove me wrong, but that wouldn't mean it's not BS.

reply to post by swanne


Is there total proof for anything?

It's close enough for me, a more acceptable hypothesis than anything else on the table.

cuckooold
reply to post by swanne

 

Is there total proof for anything?

Yes. Special Relativity is one great example.

For how long can people bury their heads in the sand and say nothing is happening?

For how long will GW monopolize everything which is happening in the World?

reply to post by swanne

GW kicked every other hypothesis out so efficiently that I, as a member of the public, don't even hear about them.

Really?
You haven't heard the one about cosmic rays?
You haven't heard the one about the Sun is getting hotter?
You haven't heard the one about volcanoes?

reply to post by swanne


I read a lot of stuff here on ATS, members pulling out all sorts of charts proving we're actually getting cooler and entering an ice age. From where I sit, a general warming trend (and plenty more 'extreme' climate events) seems to be evident, a global 'cooling' phenomenon seems to have much less (if any) evidence in its favour.

reply to post by Phage


They all have been discredited by mainstream.

reply to post by cuckooold


Well from where I sit, the global warming looks like a joke.

reply to post by swanne

Yes. Because they lack evidence to support them.
But I thought you said you never heard them.

While I am not disputing extreme weather I want to point out something that seems pretty common in the modern world and that is ,"If I haven't heard of something it must be new or it must be made up or it must be nefarious" syndrome.

I have seen a few different threads here where people have tried to imply that a polar vortex is some fancy new name by TPTB to explain cold weather.

1. The first records describing a Polar Vortex are from the late 1800s
2. The official classification took place in the 1950s.
3. All of this has happened before and will happen again (go BSG)

Just because a person doesn't know about something doesn't make it fake.

The deniers remind me of those that didn't believe Noah and made fun of and criticized him and then ended up banging on the doors trying to get in. If you can't see something is changing your truly lost.

reply to post by cuckooold


And it appears the other 3% of peer reviews are working from different models. They need better methods for determining ancient core samples from what I read, but the short term science is certain - salinity and deep water temps have changed, which equals weather changes. Thus - walk outside to see for ourselves.

We dispute how impactful those trapped carbons are when melt happens. I agree with most research in that they will have a significant impact (are having a significant impact). What occurs naturally is affected by the unnatural. Everything acts on everything else. We can't say the crap we spew into the air will not affect anything.

swanne
reply to post by cuckooold

 

Well from where I sit, the global warming looks like a joke.

Then you're sitting in a cave and you must be one of my fellow cavemen!

Out of all the peer reviewed papers and scientist....How many have been PAID to investigate this? And if i recall it was not actually that high. it was 97 percent of the scientist they used to study it. So they made findings to get more funding to investigate more. its a gravy train.

I f the scientist were paid to study this in any way its BIASED.

Dianec
There are almost 30,000 peer-reviewed studies on global warming since 2008.

And so what did we learn from all this? It takes 30,000 morons to change a light bulb.

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?

Phage
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?

Hang on Phage, I just became a believer in the last 10 seconds, as hell just froze over. We actually agree on something lol.

reply to post by Phage



Umm Volunteers usually work for no pay right? 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.

The planet has been warming and cooling itself for eons. 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.

reply to post by yuppa

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.

Right, because of course, all scientists are independently wealthy and don't have to work for a living.

But which models have been "proven wrong?" Here's what the IPCC says about them. Can you be more specific?
www.climatechange2013.org...

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.

Maybe. But there is a difference between weather and climate.

reply to post by Phage

But which models have been "proven wrong?" Here's what the IPCC says about them. Can you be more specific?

No reply from yuppa yet. But i can.

He said "proven flawed" , i think. Both terms apply.

Climate models used by the IPCC for projections of future climate change systematically overestimate the real world response of Global Mean Surface Temperatures to increasing greenhouse gas emissions. The discrepancy between observed temperature trends and model simulations is significant and unprecedented under all assumptions. Thus, rejecting the null hypothesis that the observed and model trends are equal.


As summarized by the IPCC.

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 11.3.6.3). This downward scaling is, however, not sufficient to explain the model-mean overestimate of GMST trend over the hiatus period.

www.climatechange2013.org...

It's not an easy task to reconcile increasing discrepancies and uncertainties with the increased confidence in past and future projections. But they somehow managed it.