wow your are like those people you read about in psychology class who refuse to change their worldview because it is too emotionally painful. Guess what --- your model is no longer valid. Those models attributed too much forcing to CO2 and too little to oceans and sun. Your patriarch Phil Jones admitted it... in that quote I just presented you. Everything you believe is premised on a foundation which has washed away. Just about everything you believe about man made CO2 is now wrong to some degree.
So once again you are posting the 97% nonsense Even in the recent article you posted, there is nowhere near a 97% concensus on global warming. Your article outlined how a University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor went out and surveyed 3,146 scientists, nearly all of them working for universities or foundations funded with global warming research dollars. As outlined in the results, only 82% thought that human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Here is the quote: Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second. This is a long way off from 97%.
Modeling complex processes is incredibly difficult particularly when the data needed to validate the model is obtained over very long periods of time. An good example is ship building. For over a hundred years the maritime industry has used a linear model for ocean surface wave height. That model was thought to be reasonably sound and it successfully predicts surface wave height in laboratory water tanks where scientists induce wave action and compare the results to the Standard Model. The model predicts that ships should not encounter surface waves larger than approximately 60 ft. So the marine architects and shipbuilders have designed and built ships that can withstand the forces associated with ocean surface waves that do not exceed approximately 60 ft. But there were anecdotes from ship captains and crews claiming that they encountered much larger waves at sea. There were ships coming into port with damage that indicated that they were caused by forces larger than one could associate with a 60 foot wave. There was some photographic evidence as sometimes a crew member would manage to take a picture of a wave before it struck their ship. It is difficult to accurately estimate wave height from a photograph so that evidence was not convincing enough to stimulate a reexamination of the Standard Model. There was also more ships going missing every year than was predicted by the Standard Model. In the late 90s an oil drilling platform in the North Sea was instrumented with highly accurate surface wave height sensors. The platform itself was firmly attached to the bottom of the sea so there was very accurate knowledge of the height of the oil drilling platform with respect to the Earth's ellipsoid, geoid height above ellipsoid and terrain height above geoid. Data from this platform very clearly showed rogue waves striking the platform with wave heights above 90 ft. There was sufficient data and confidence in the calibration of the sensors was good enough that the data was taken seriously and the maritime industry started to come to grips with the fact that there are rogue waves occurring worldwide that sometimes exceed 100 ft height. That meant that every large ship on the seas was underdesigned and could be sunk in minutes by a rogue wave. The Standard Model did not work. It was suspected that there is some non-linearity in ocean surface wave interaction that was not accounted for by a linear model. Finally a number of scientists applied the wave equation from quantum mechanics (Schrödinger) which predicted rogue waves exceeding 100 ft wave height. A german scientist took data from a satellite whose instruments I calibrated (TOPEX/Poseidon) and used the radar altimeter data and precise knowledge of the satellite height above the surface and started literally finding huge rogue waves all over the world. There were dozens of large rogue waves occurring at any given moment. Now there was a bit of a panic because every ship in existence was not designed to withstand the large waves and the costs of designing and building ships robust enough to withstand a 100 foot wave were prohibitive and could not be absorbed by the shipping industry fast enough to make the vessels safe. They implemented a plan to gradually increase the strength of new ships and used the satellite data to alter the paths that container ships, cruise ships and military vessels take to avoid the areas where the rogue waves occur most often. Models are often wrong. Disregarding inaccuracies of climate models used to make socioeconomic decisions that impact millions upon millions of people is dangerous and irresponsible. When scientists become emotionally invested in their analysis outcomes there are many laypeople out there like futurecurrents who will latch onto the inaccurate results and use them to advance their unrelated agenda. Futurecurrents, for instance, simply wants to see everyone taxed massively. For him AGW is just a manufactured crisis that he can use to push socialism and its attendant taxation. http://kingfish.coastal.edu/physics/msci301/stewart/Chap16.pdf http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/RogueOceanWaves/
I'm firmly convinced you work for the propaganda section of the KKK. If not ,I'm sure they'd hire you, because you unwittingly spout their message loud and clear every day.
Now there's an understatement if there ever was one. It's especially ironic that persons on a trading forum cannot grasp this truth. Myself I have little scientific training but the disturbing trend I see is: More and more experts get all discombobulated and attached to thinking their model is literally the "REALITY" as opposed to an idea possibly explaining observed phenomenon... and they wonder why the great unwashed (like myself) think they are a bit stupid.
Wow you guys are dense. Three separate studies show 97% agreement among publishing CLIMATOLOGISTS ,,,NOT SCIENTISTS You can ignore that fact but to say it in public simply makes you stupid. Oh but all the climate scientists are in on a conspiracy. LOL You denier idiots are a joke.
So, given that the levels of the dominant greenhouse gas has gone up 35% - mostly from the burning of fossil fuels - in the last 150 years what do expect should happen? Come on. I know you can figure it out.