Global Climate Change Science News

[Animavore]

Species have survived climate change in the past, but in the past the climate changed imperceptibly slowly and the species had time to adapt.

This isn't rocket science.

No, it's evolutionary science. And it's a myth that climate changed imperceptibly slowly in the past. You should read more.

No. You're right. There has been rapid climate change in the past, at the end of the Permian, for instance.

Read how that turned out.

[mistermack]

Species have survived climate change in the past, but in the past the climate changed imperceptibly slowly and the species had time to adapt.

This isn't rocket science.

No, it's evolutionary science. And it's a myth that climate changed imperceptibly slowly in the past. You should read more.

No. You're right. There has been rapid climate change in the past, at the end of the Permian, for instance.

Read how that turned out.

I know how it turned out.
And if you look around you, you could maybe work it out for yourself. If you knew the basics.

[Animavore]

Species have survived climate change in the past, but in the past the climate changed imperceptibly slowly and the species had time to adapt.

This isn't rocket science.

No, it's evolutionary science. And it's a myth that climate changed imperceptibly slowly in the past. You should read more.

No. You're right. There has been rapid climate change in the past, at the end of the Permian, for instance.

Read how that turned out.

I know how it turned out.
And if you look around you, you could maybe work it out for yourself. If you knew the basics.

You're just saying stuff now.

[Brian Peacock]

Isn't it amazing.
EVERY SINGLE THING that results from warming is catastrophically bad.

What are the odds on that happening?

I don't blame the alarmists for lying, when people are so gullible.

Why would you not lie? Nobody's going to question it.

You're like a pond full of starving fish. They throw you your fodder, and you gobble it up.
Doesn't anybody question anything these days?
The word is rationalia, after all.

Think about it. Or do a bit of reading.
You should be aware that all of the species on earth today have survived temperatures that were much higher than today. We are actually in a warm period of an ice-age.
Ice ages are not the norm. Over millions of years, the Earth has been much hotter as a long term state.
If higher temperatures were catastrophic as in Rum's post, we wouldn't be here, and neither would the majority of species.

But carry on gobbling up your scraps from the alarmists. You know you love it.

Show me your models and your data regarding the climatic effects of sea temperature variation.

The thing is, the current models are alarming. If you don't think there's anything to be alarmed about show us your data.

[mistermack]

Don't try to tell me that YOU worked out that the current models are alarming.
You are taking their word for it.
Just like the gospels, you are only seeing the models that they want you to see. The ones that are not so alarming are discarded. Like all the discarded gospels.

And just like the gospels, you trustingly believe in what you are presented with.

What makes me laugh, is the way that alarmists claim that their models from the eighties were accurate.
This is such a travesty of the truth. When you look into it, their original models had margins of error that grew exponentially as time went on. So that they can now claim that today's temperatures are right inside their predictions. Yes, of course they are. Inside their hugely exaggerated margins of error.

Those models are worthless, and the longer the period, the more worthless they are.

[Brian Peacock]

Don't try to tell me that YOU worked out that the current models are alarming.
You are taking their word for it.
Just like the gospels, you are only seeing the models that they want you to see. The ones that are not so alarming are discarded. Like all the discarded gospels.

And just like the gospels, you trustingly believe in what you are presented with.

What makes me laugh, is the way that alarmists claim that their models from the eighties were accurate.
This is such a travesty of the truth. When you look into it, their original models had margins of error that grew exponentially as time went on. So that they can now claim that today's temperatures are right inside their predictions. Yes, of course they are. Inside their hugely exaggerated margins of error.

Those models are worthless, and the longer the period, the more worthless they are.

You don't have to do the actual hard, diligent scientific work yourself - just provide the scientific papers that support your assertions.

[mistermack]

Other people have done the work for me.

I claim that they can't forecast the climate correctly, and hey presto ! They get it wrong.

I would give the climate industry some credit, if they all agreed on one forecast, with no margins for error.

I wouldn't expect a hundred percent accuracy, but at least it would be an honest attempt.

Try going into the bookies, and betting on who will win the football premiership. With error bars that include all the other teams. You will soon be informed what they think of your "model".

[Brian Peacock]

If the climate cannot be modelled accurately then how can you place any weight on the (as yet to be presented) science which asserts that the overwhelming body of climate research is wrong?

Presto that in your pipe and smoke it.

[mistermack]

If someone told me that he had invented a model that forecast the winner of the football premiership championship for this year, I would be in the same position.
His pick could quite possibly be right. But I'm of the opinion that he's just dressing up a wild guess with some scientific bullshit. The science might be state of the art, the records might be absolutely accurate, the statistics might be undeniable. But he's still bullshitting.
I'm not saying his model has got the wrong team. I'm saying his model can't forecast the winner, and if it does get it right, it's pure chance.

Anyone can make a model and forecast the climate. I can do it.
If I got it right, it wouldn't mean that I knew how to actually forecast the climate. Some forecasts will be right, even if the model is bollocks.

[pErvinalia]

So basically you have nothing at all to back up what you say? Ok.

[Tero]

Still at it?
Any prediction with a number of inputs has margins of error.

[Woodbutcher]

So basically you have nothing at all to back up what you say? Ok.

He has a gut feeling that scientists are wrong. That is all the proof that he needs. Also, he looked out his back window and saw no change. He must be right. All hail mistermac, our new saviour, he will set the record straight with his intuition.

[Brian Peacock]

If someone told me that he had invented a model that forecast the winner of the football premiership championship for this year, I would be in the same position.
His pick could quite possibly be right. But I'm of the opinion that he's just dressing up a wild guess with some scientific bullshit. The science might be state of the art, the records might be absolutely accurate, the statistics might be undeniable. But he's still bullshitting.
I'm not saying his model has got the wrong team. I'm saying his model can't forecast the winner, and if it does get it right, it's pure chance.

Anyone can make a model and forecast the climate. I can do it.
If I got it right, it wouldn't mean that I knew how to actually forecast the climate. Some forecasts will be right, even if the model is bollocks.

Hmm. You seem to think that carbon science is akin to winning the football pools - a lottery, a wild guess. And your reason for this? Climate is a complex system that resists all attempts at accurate prediction. I'll grant that the accuracy of the current models, their predictive power as it were, is an important consideration - indeed, vital. Nonetheless the models can, already have, and will continue to predict global atmospheric and sea temperature trends and to predict the range of effects these rises will engender. Yet, apparently, because they cannot predict if it will rain in the afternoon of Wednesday 13 February 2019 (an appropriate equivalent of you football championship prediction) then they are somehow flawed, inaccurate, wrong.

I understand your assertions, but what is your reasoning based on? What is your justification, because, as I'm sure you are aware, the security of any claim rests upon the grounds of their justification? If your assertions are supported only by themselves, or by similar unsupported assertions, then your logic is circular and your reasoning flawed. This is where your position stands at present - ball deep in unreasoned illogic. So, again, it is important to your case -- that is; important to raising your position from the realms of blind assumption towards a logical, critically robust explication of the observable facts -- for you to support your claims by, for example, pointing us to the climate science papers which demonstrate the true facts of climate dynamics as you see them. And while you're at that, it would also be necessary for you to support your subordinate point as to how and why these (as yet to be presented) papers represent a more valid and valuable science than the overwhelming body of climate science published so far.

[Animavore]

Notice MM keeps focusing on the models, as if the models constitute evidence of climate change, then attacking the models for not being pitch perfect accurate to dismiss the whole science as lacking evidence.

That's weak shit.

We have evidence and testable experiments to show CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You can do this yourself with household objects.

We can see clearly in core samples and tree fossils CO2 levels show a strong correlation with temperatures.

We know the Earth is warming in the lower atmosphere and cooling in the up. This is only consistent with something in the lower atmosphere trapping heat and not letting it escape I to the upper. So no. Not the Sun or cosmic rays as both would affect the atmosphere evenly.

We know the Sun is going through a cooling phase anyway in its fluctuating cycle while the Earth still warms.

We can measure that animals are migrating North and South away from the equator.

We can observe plants blooming out of season and with them the insects that feed off them.

We have photos that show glaciers retreating and mountaintops losing their ice caps.

We can measure clearly sea level rise.

And so and and so forth. Dismissing the model isn't good enough. It's like dismissing the Darwinian tree of life because scientists change their mind based on fresh evidenced and changed a grouping of a species or reversed the order of two branches. You need to explain the evidence in a way which is consisten and concordant. Like a wise man once said; the map is not the terrain. The model serves as a guide to what's happening, but it isn't what actually happens. Any more than the seeming jumps in the fossil record are what happened.

Denialists haven't been able to provide a consistent or concordant model which accounts for the observation and evidence. They always leave something or other out. They point to ice expanding in the Antarctic to say the ice sheets aren't melting while ignoring the Artic. They draw a line from an El Nino high to a cyclic low to say there's no warming. They point to land temperatures while ignoring sea. Etc.

Even MM seems confused. He first states that there hasn't been warming in 20 years (factually wrong) then later posts a video of a guy who claims cosmic rays are responsible for the warming MM says hasn't been happening, then mentions something about water vapour being ignored by climate scientists, again for a phenomena he wavers between saying is not happening and is happening for any other, mutually exclusive, reason than what scientists are telling us.

He flip flops like a fish floundering on the land.

[mistermack]

If everybody is making their own different predictions with their own different models, it stands to reason that someone's prediction is going to be right. It doesn't mean that they know what they are doing.
Just as one lottery winner gets the right numbers. It doesn't mean he has the ABILITY to predict the lottery.

If climate science had got together, twenty years ago, and agreed on ONE model, (without the famous error margins) then we could all have a look, and see how close they got. Without that, the various models and predictions are just a bunch of lottery picks. They might use all sorts of science to attempt to find a winning formula, but until it's tried and tested, it's of no more value than a blindfold and pin. Because people use science and get it wrong all the time. People riding exploding space shuttles would tell you that, if they could.

So people keep writing, "where is your data?".
I don't need any. Climate has never been accurately forecast, except by the multiple hit-and-miss wallahs.
So the starting position is, "if you claim you can do it, prove it"
So my position is, the forecasts are nothing but hit-and-miss, and the only thing that would show otherwise, is one single official climate forecast, without error margins, that showed reasonable accuracy over at least a 10 year period. Preferably 20.

Error margins are a joke. Nobody expects perfect accuracy. But the IPCC error margins are just saying, "we don't really know, and this is by how much we think we don't know".

And then they claim they got it right.