You are wrong about the fidelity of the models - they have repeated demonstrated that they are overly sensitive and over predict temperatures by about 2x. This has been demonstrated by Christy and Spencer and Curry and other independent sources. As I already stated, the contribution from anthropogenic sources and climatic trends to the recent temperature increases can not be determined. Catastrophic temperature increases require positive feedbacks from the slight amount of warming from additional CO2 and it has not been shown that this is fully understood or can be modeled with fidelity. I will state this again, increases in CO2 alone are incapable of increasing the temperatures significantly and the feedbacks are not fully understood. You can continue to believe what you want and seek out sources to support your theories but there is ample, independent evidence to support the fact that we don't know whether there is a problem or not. Part of the problem is the recent surface temperature record and homogenization. Fortunately we also have satellite temperatures. This is the position of numerous, independent, well regarded researchers. Those of us who have actually developed models, as opposed to those who get their information from biased sources, understand this. You can prattle on about deniers and tabloid topics all you want. I only care about the science. Ultimately we may find that numerically modeling the climate is an intractable problem just like usable, deterministic weather simulations past 15 days may also prove to be an intractable problem. I prefer to have discussions with people who actually worked in this discipline so don't feel the need to respond.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueash
The specious argument that the huge majority of climate scientists who acknowledge the human contribution to global warming and the likely severe consequences of that warming, are somehow all part of conspiracy to produce false data and lie to the public because they are being paid off by someone to do it is completely laughable. The only certain source of money is the oil and gas industry which openly funds the Heartland Institute to produce reports denying the science of almost everyone else.
Of course first the deniers claimed there was no global warming, claimed the data showing the upward trend was bad data, or outright lies. Screams of fraud about the emails from the Climatic Research Unit, proving that the scientists were making it all up.. but it was a big nothing and proved nothing.
So instead the deniers changed their attack. Instead of saying there was no global warming [that attack failed], they switched to saying it wasn't due to any human causes. Or if it is due to human causes the contribution is so small, or if it is entirely human caused society will not ever change so there is nothing you can do and wouldn't it be great to grow bananas in Canada.
Here is the simple truth. The temperature of both the atmosphere and the oceans is rising. The rise is completely consistent with the models that use predictions of the effects of CO2 from human activity as the major source of the temperature change. No model using sun spots or earth wobbles or clouds or the lack of pirates provides an explanation of what has been clearly and undeniably seen over the last 50 years.
As to my graph being "hopelessly out of date" as it only goes to about 2012. Here are links to several more recent reports all of which extend the data and show exactly the same conclusion.. the mainstream climate scientists predictions have been accurate.
UNFCC, ScienceNordic, American Geophysical Union Harvard, Guardian , The US government,
Worth noting once again in this Sept 2018 report produced by the Trump administration..
This report even includes, for the deniers, specific comments about sunspots, volcanoes, El Ninos, and lots of graphs and charts, again showing how accurate the climate models have been. |