http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17488450 if temps rise by 3C, we will be in for a very big shock. I hope that we learn to cooperate and address this issue, instead of bickering over it.
More doom and gloom from models that are never right http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the...e-researchers-admit-co2-models-are-wrong.html http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/20...te-data-shows-climate-models-are-wrong-again/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/
scientists are generally a better source of information on scientific issues than opinion pieces by scientifically illiterate bloggers.
The pieces use scientific data. When you have nothing you attack the source. Climate models have been wrong so what you are showing is a history or wrong models
No I used sources that showed proof that models have been wrong. I see no one showing proof of models that were right.
the models in recent years may not hae been 100% accurate all the time (some have inderstated the impact) but they have generally been able to show the trend. the model in question is factoring current events, and is therefore showing the likelihood of temperature increases greater than a number of previous models. note, Julian Hunt identifies a problem with the model, but does not dispute the temp increases as being unlikely - and provides his reasons for saying so. The information that is factored into models influences their accuracy (or otherwise), and the more information we get, the better the modelling.
They have not been 100% accurate at all and that is why someone tries to use different weighted averages of them to come up with 3 or 4 likely outcomes.
History shows it is natural not man http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...eated-medieval-times-human-CO2-emissions.html
its about interpretation .... anyone with any knowledge of climate change knows that we cn see there are a number of factors that influence warming. what we know though is that the CURRENT warming is not part of a natural cycle. but you know that. unless ....
I see you refuse to read the link http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...eated-medieval-times-human-CO2-emissions.html
Whoops a piece from the "Daily fail" in the UK' You do know that the "National Enquirer" has more credibility?
ummm ... ypou do know that it is a scientific fact that the earth has experienced climate chnage due to a range of factors? if I saidto you that you could break your arm if you fell out of a tree .. would you argue that because people have broken their arms playing sport, that it isn't true that you can break your arm falling out of a tree? as to the study - I would prefer to see the original source, or at least one from a reliable media outlet, rather than seeing an article from one of the poorest quality media sources in the UK.
It is not known because it is both not proven nor have computer models predicted the current non warming period. There are other factors that may be in play and that is why it is called science, the quest to find the answer. After all, these are all guesses based on current science. The alarm-ism is political in nature.
no - neither is gravity. Do you deny that too? What "current non warming period". You mean the hottest decade ever recorded? And these "other factors that may be in play" are.....!?!?!? Pixie dust? "Science" can be found in the decades of research and thousands of published papers that tell us that anthropogenic emissions are causing the planet to warm. Denial of this is not "science".
Once again you attack the source because you can find no fault with the article. So you have proof the Syracuse university study is wrong?
Once again you just attack the source because you can find no fault with the article. Sure the author of the research being referenced found a serious problem with the article in that it was crap - but he would say that, wouldn't he. Look...over there - it's Al Gore in an aeroplane!!!!
That is from a Global warming blog I can find no other source to show he said that Sinclair is as believable as Al Gore. Without another source to show proof i will not believe it
hmmm the author/scientist refutes a tabloid journalists interpretation of his findings and you believe the journalist? the delusion lies deep within you...