Climate modelling wrong

If you know anything about science then "A" paper is not really good enough - the gold standard is a systematic analysis of all the research literature. The IPCC is a systematic analysis and if you HAD read those report/s then you would know just how many papers were analysed for each one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

Some areas they did not have any research on and used "grey" literature or science but for the most part they were very clearly identified

Here is a nice summary of the criticisms of the IPCC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

 

well they have.

a "well educated" person would not be so easily sucked in to unsupported claims about conspiracies, and would have the capacity to differentiate between real science and the distortions presented by denialists.

 

Been there, done that, long time ago. Thats all populist pap. IPCC is a political organization, do your research. You fail.

 

Broad dismissal of content based on a dislike of the organisation

Yep there is a name for that kind of logical fallacy

But even if you dismiss the IPCC there are other systematic analysis which have come to the same conclusion
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...sCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

http://www.discoverlife.org/pa/or/polistes/pr/2010nsf_macro/references/Parmesan_and_Yohe2003.pdf

Two studies showing the impact of climate change on nature

 

Do you have experience using math models to predict physical behavior?

There would be a huge value in being able to predict the path of a hurricane / typhoon (and, that requires a much smaller set of climate data). They aren't even there yet.

We can generally predict weather a day in advance. Much more than a day, the accuracy falls off.

 

Maybe that is because they are cheaper to maintain than chemical toilets? Do you have composting toilets at home?

 

No even our small towns are sewered - where we are putting them is places like this



mostly they are being put in for the Road Train drivers

 

Thanks for making my point.

 

You had a point?

BTW I understand America still has not introduced road trains - we use them a LOT out here - saves on fuel and Co2

 

You missed it? That cost plays the biggest role in adopting "green" technologies.

We used to have dual rigs, government regulation eliminated that. They must be fun to pass when they slowly climb hills.

 

WHaaaaaa????? We weren't even talking bloody "green" technology!! We were just generally talking!

Ye Gods and little fishes!!!

What hills? We are talking Central Australia here - I have had the !#@!@#@ OVERTAKE me on the flat and I was doing over 100 k!! You just pull over and let them pass - they don't stop for about half a mile in any event. But they are cheap, efficient green and iconic - what more can you want

 

You make my point yet again - you have no interest in cost effective green tech - just spend, spend, spend!!!!!

Over 100 k! No wonder you were passed.

Maybe not being able to stop has something to do with why they aren't more popular in the US - a battering ram on wheels.

 

This is the MMGW crowds point - it has to be CO2, because then we can blame greedy capitalist, it is someone's fault - therefore government can fix it.

The only "proof" that CO2 is the problem is "the model". And, that is because, we accounted for everything else - really? Per the title of this thread, the model is wrong - it under predicted. Was there more CO2 hiding in the air we didn't catch?

Or, could it possibly be the model is missing something? Do you have the expertise to verify all interactions in the model are right?, or the forcing factors? Do you know all the potential sources of heat, and mechanism for retaining heat? Did the scientist get them all, and get them right?

Obviously not, because the model isn't working.

The MMGW crowd is so focused on CO2, and that it is all the denialist fault, they ignore the obvious - no matter the cause, we need to mitigate - now.

Increased global temperatures are already releasing stores of methane, when the oceans get hot enough, methane hydrate melt will go into a positive feedback loop. Then you will see a hockeystick.

Or, you can go on about the climate model and how evil CO2 is...

 

I find that hard to believe, given how you handwave away any data that contradicts your political conspiracy theories. It's a quality found in poseur-skeptics, science-rejecting political cultists.

But maybe you can prove me wrong. We have good papers that show the IR flux out of the earth closing down over the CO2 absorption frequencies, exactly as global warming theory predicted. Independent observers consider that to be a smoking gun. Would you agree? Before I waste time on details, I'd like to know you won't move the goalposts.

We know CO2 levels are rising, and by isotopic analysis, we know humans did it. We know solar output hasn't changed in a way that could cause the observed warming. We know there are no orbital factors affecting climate now (except for causing a slight cooling forcing). There are no natural factors that anyone can identify which would cause the warming. However, all the observed data does match what AGW theory predicts.

Occam's Razor says the simplest theory that explains all the observed data is most likely to be correct. That's AGW theory. Yelling "Natural Factors!" is an evasion, not a theory.

 

No, they can't. A lot of folks just aren't that bright. As dumb as some people on message boards are, the average intelligence on message boards is still higher than that of the general population.

I'd guess about one layman out of ten could understand why we have tides _twice_ a day. (The explanation you learned in grade school was oversimplified to the point of being wrong, being that it only explains one tide a day.) But those tides will still happen twice a day, whether or not the laymen understand why. Same with global warming. The CO2 absorption spectrum isn't affected a bit by some people yelling about how they hate Al Gore, therefore AGW theory must be wrong.

 

Anything for an Ad Hom eh???

The word is not "green tech" but "appropriate tech". Out there there is bloody little rain - composting toilets (which are not as cheap as flush kind) are APPROPRIATE for the area - the latest ones actually distill the water so you can wash your hands (I carry "baby wipes and don't use the taps)

Yep! They are BIG sods but they are OUR answer to a big country - and they work and they work VERY well!! We have restrictions on them coming into town - however where I live they are allowed to drive through the main section of town. Most have only 3 - 4 "dogs" (trailers) on the back but if you are driving a small car around town they can look a little frightening!

 

I am very very happy to listen to an alternative explanation

Or failing that an explanation to exactly where the models are wrong
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

As for the methane - don't you think we know about that? Don't you think we want to stop that happening?