I want to see the published forecast with some sort of timestamp which I can then validate against actual observations.
You haven't been able to produce what I asked for. Tip: don't blame yourself.
Climate Change Arguing
- Thread starter Socrates2
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I want to see the published forecast with some sort of timestamp which I can then validate against actual observations.
You haven't been able to produce what I asked for. Tip: don't blame yourself.
wont trees take too long to get active?
Theseventhhamster
Brownlow Medallist
10-20 years is a better proposition than never
- Jun 16, 2012
- 12,249
- 9,694
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Whatever dude, the articles literally give you all the references - you can go and confirm them using whatever observations you like (obviously NASA isn't up to your standards so you'll probably want to use whatever index best fits your argument).
The first IPCC report (referenced in that article) is here. None so blind as those who will not see.
You’ve just discovered all you need to know about climate models but refuse to absorb it because it threatens your worldview.
I’ll cut you an even break - nominate a model you trust and we’ll review its results ten years from now.
- Jun 16, 2012
- 12,249
- 9,694
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
You asked for a model - I then gave you half a dozen accurate validated ones and you've ignored them. Anyhow keep claiming you've proved something
We can go with the most recent IPCC modelling for the time: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report_smaller.pdf
I'm sure in 10 years time you'll be much more open minded when presented with overwhelming evidence.
You asked for a model - I then gave you half a dozen accurate validated ones and you've ignored them. Anyhow keep claiming you've proved something
We can go with the most recent IPCC modelling for the time: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report_smaller.pdf
I'm sure in 10 years time you'll be much more open minded when presented with overwhelming evidence.
I said NO PAST-POSTING!
It's hard to predict the future. Really ****ing hard. I'm not about to try but am happy for others to put themselves up for ridicule, e.g. Tim Flannery. Good man, smart man, found some tree kangaroos, but totally out of his depth when it comes to predicting the future. That this guy is considered one of the country's leading voices on climate is a joke. Sorry Tim, but your record speaks for itself.
Last edited:
- Sep 15, 2011
- 31,917
- 48,828
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Jun 16, 2012
- 12,249
- 9,694
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Do you read any of the links posted?
No. I've seen them previously. Observation is knowledge and models are updated constantly as a result. And given the bad habits plaguing climate science, likely retro-tuned to fit observations. I'm sick of repeating myself but you need to produce a forecast published in year X, not a history chart after the engineer re-jigged the model yesterday claiming "See! It works!".
PS I have a racing system to sell you, complete with five years of results indisputably proving profits of 15% on investment. It's infallible. PM me for details.
- Jun 16, 2012
- 12,249
- 9,694
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
The articles outlined the performance of models published in 1973, 1975, 1981, 1988, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2007...
They were predicting temperatures in 2020. Last I checked those years were BEFORE 2020.
There was no rejigging. You seem to be struggling to get your head around that.
Cool once your system is in a peer reviewed journal and works 5 years in the future I'll be sure to call you up!
If a model published in the 70's was accurately predicting global climate, there'd be no need for new ones!
I just don't think you comprehend how complex climate is. Climate science is in its infancy and I will state without fear of contradiction THERE IS NO WAY KNOWN a model based on the state of climate knowledge in the 70's could have accurately predicted global temperature trends over the last 40-50 years.
Number37
Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
- Oct 5, 2013
- 22,293
- 24,320
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Jun 16, 2012
- 12,249
- 9,694
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
You have no idea what you're talking about and refuse to read anything I post. They continually update to improve accuracy. This doesn't mean the earlier estimates were not reasonably accurate but they're continually updating and improving things. It's like saying that if a trading algorithm worked to make money, it should never be updated because otherwise it obviously never worked! Anyhow you refuse to read anything I post so not much point engaging further. Good luck with seeking out the ever dwindling number of climate denialists out there and taking whatever they say as gospel.
OK Sawyer 1972 was not a model but an article published in Nature. Here is a link to the paper itself; I'm not about to pay for it.
His predictions were based on basic greenhouse theory, one of which was the level of CO2 concentration in the year 2000 (not very difficult to extrapolate from the near-metronomic Keeling Curve). He was close but a little over; same with his forecast global temperature rise. He also thought it was nothing to be concerned about.
Most forecasts at that time, long forgotten, were for colder conditions ahead. Sawyer was the outlier, the iconoclast. His pretty accurate throw at the stumps was remarkable in the context of the time.
So we've gone from 'it's indisputable' to 'so what if we're wrong and we waste trillions of dollars with little to no benefit'?
Not to mention the fact we can't support the transition to renewable energy with our minimal technological advancement to date?
Number37
Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
- Oct 5, 2013
- 22,293
- 24,320
- AFL Club
- Sydney
The dude in the red tie is depicting people like you.
ie that's how ridiculous the arguments coming from that side have become.
- Jul 5, 2012
- 24,788
- 40,272
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Kidding, right?
‘The money is there’: the mind-numbing numbers that are almost too big to believe
A $US130 trillion investor club launched by the lords of global finance in Scotland is beyond normal comprehension, so outlandish that one might justifiably suspect a giant con.
- Jul 5, 2012
- 24,788
- 40,272
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Kidding, right?
Now there's a refreshing shot of commonsense.
He has no qualifications in the field.
I dont go to a dentist to get heart surgery.
I dont go to an ent specialist to have a knee operation.
I dont go to an architect to design a car
I dont go to an engineer to develop a chemical to strip paint
Every single profession ive said i wouldnt go to is a person highly qualified - just not on the subject thats required for the job mentioned.
The fossil fuel industry is always putting money into denialists - thing is they are never actual climate scientists. Those guys know the truth.
He's a specialist in climate change and abnormal weather with a Doctor of Science in meteorology. He's been buried rather than torn down because his qualifications are impeccable.
Dont worry - he will find an aircraft engineer or a biologist or a petro-chemical geologist that says its all a hoax.
Climate science draws from various fields including meteorology, oceanography, physics, chemistry, geology etc. Even astrophysicists are getting involved. They all specialise in their own fields and tend to believe their area of expertise is the most important regarding climate. Your assertion isn't valid.
- Sep 26, 2012
- 9,466
- 1,626
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Fifty years till they are contributing to society… let’s cut ourselves some slack…five years at best…
