taken seriously by a troll like you? you are the troll who has no proof man made co2 is causing warming. you are the person making unsupported claims. go on... with all your supposed scientists... just present us a few who believe in the scientific method and show that man made co2 is causing warming.
I posted this on the other thread.. I thought this is a nice review. ----------------- SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this? Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year. SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now? Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase. SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts? Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations. SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models? Storch: There are two conceivable explanations -- and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn't mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes. http://www.spiegel.de/international...lems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html
on the other thread fraudcurrents produced a lie about temps not going up being selected example based on an el nino in 1998. this was my response. ---- what a bunch of bullshit, fraudcurrents. Its not a select example. Temps have not been going up to 20 years depending on the temp record you use. Just look at the chart... temps are not going up. its not a statistical trick. You have a weak brain if you think that chart is going up. In fact if you read the fine print you will see temps are going down (within the margin for error) ... and it does not have the 1998 el nino in it. [/QUOTE]
[img}<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/4rLRObEhC4I?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>{/img] if we cut co2 in half we may lose or atmosphere. our planet has be sequestering carbon dixoide for milions of years in chalk and limestone. We are at historically very low levels.
I have to post this again... since fraudcurrents is still lying. http://www.spiegel.de/international...lems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this? Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year. SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now? Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase. SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts? Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations. SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models? Storch: There are two conceivable explanations -- and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn't mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Uif1NwcUgMU?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
a quote from another thread made by lucrum. ...The 97 Percent Problem and âControversialâ Science Curry used the 97 percent consensus figure without letting on at all that the statistic is misleading. The most recent origin of that claim is from geologist James Powell, who presented it in a study in January 2014, but even he admitted that his methods were subjective. Marc Morano of the website Climate Depot criticized Powell for failing to define what âaccepts man-made global warmingâ meant, making his characterizations of scientific studies meaningless. In fact, thousands of peer-reviewed studies cast doubt on man-made climate change and many scientists have differing views. In 2010, Marc Morano released a collection of more than 1000 scientists who âchallenged man-made global warming claims.â Similarly the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change aggregated âthousands of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that do not supportâ man-made climate change... Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/sean-lo...#ixzz2yLg5MxhV
http://nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2b/pdf/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf nice report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change There is genius to the NIPCC now when nutter morons use their spurious appeals to the IPCC and its bogus stats we can say NIPCC.