Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[El Cid]

If you're model is accurate, then I'll accept everything you've been saying.

If on the other hand you struggle to predict the temperature next week and the average temperature next month, then I'll keep my current opinion.

 

Perhaps is a little like predicting the economy?

 

Houses prices up and down, but its a good bet that in 20 years house prices will be higher.

[Cyclone]

There's a reason economists aren't scientists...

 

There's a few key points about the scientific process and one is forming a testable hypothesis that can be used to make predictions, and then trying to prove it to be wrong.

 

If you can't form an accurate prediction, then your hypothesis is wrong.

 

If the temperature has been going up for about ten thousand years, then a hypothesis of "it will be warmer in 20 years" is probably accurate. But it's far too vague to be of any use in identifying the underlying causes.

[angos]

The fact that it has constantly changed in the past (not just changed, it's never been stable) is sufficient. I don't need to explain the mechanism, the evidence is that such mechanisms exist.

 

 

Thats got to be the single daftest reason I have ever seen as an argument against AGW.

 

Without human activity the climate would still have changed, but it would have been cooling and not warming. Yes the climate is cyclical because the suns activity is cyclical and the earth orbit round the sun is cyclical.

 

Solar activity as seen a steady decline in sunspot activity over the last two solar cycles which coincides with a slowing down of AGW, the earth as warmed faster than at any time in the last 10,000 years because of the green houses gasses pumped into the atmosphere by human activity.

 

The normal cycles of the earth will continue regardless of human activity, but human activity does add another dimension to them which can alter the climate by speeding a warming cycle up or slowing a cooling cycle down.

[truman]

Thats got to be the single daftest reason I have ever seen as an argument against AGW.

 

Without human activity the climate would still have changed, but it would have been cooling and not warming. Yes the climate is cyclical because the suns activity is cyclical and the earth orbit round the sun is cyclical.

 

Solar activity as seen a steady decline in sunspot activity over the last two solar cycles which coincides with a slowing down of AGW, the earth as warmed faster than at any time in the last 10,000 years because of the green houses gasses pumped into the atmosphere by human activity.

 

The normal cycles of the earth will continue regardless of human activity, but human activity does add another dimension to them which can alter the climate by speeding a warming cycle up or slowing a cooling cycle down.

 

Why limit your "warming faster" to only 10,000 years? Are the scientists who now predict global melt down the same ones that predicted a "snowball earth" in the 1970's...?

[angos]

Why limit your "warming faster" to only 10,000 years?

 

Why not limit it to 10000 years? Its a reasonably long period of time by which to compare the last 150 years.

 

Are the scientists who now predict global melt down the same ones that predicted a "snowball earth" in the 1970's...?

 

I have no idea which scientists predicted a snowball earth in the 1970's, I also have no idea why you think its relevant.

[El Cid]

Are the scientists who now predict global melt down the same ones that predicted a "snowball earth" in the 1970's...?

 

If you can tell us who predicted that, and it wasnt just a headline in a newspaper, then we would be able to tell you. Was it just one scientist?

[retep]

If you can tell us who predicted that, and it wasnt just a headline in a newspaper, then we would be able to tell you. Was it just one scientist?

 

Here's a clue to one or possibly two of them,

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/sep/19/inside-the-beltway-69748548/

[El Cid]

Here's a clue to one or possibly two of them,

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/sep/19/inside-the-beltway-69748548/

 

In 1975 NASA recommended more research, not action. Which was entirely appropriate to the state of the science at the time. In the last 30 years, of course, enormous progress has been made in the field of climate science.

 

The cooling trend from the 1945 to 1980 now looks more like a slight interruption of an upward trend; just like our 15 year leveling off today will look in the future.

[Cyclone]

Why not limit it to 10000 years? Its a reasonably long period of time by which to compare the last 150 years.

 

 

 

I have no idea which scientists predicted a snowball earth in the 1970's, I also have no idea why you think its relevant.

 

It's relevant because it demonstrates just how immature the science is and just how badly we can get our predictions of what is happening to the climate wrong.

Just 40 years ago we thought there was a new ice age starting. (It's overdue by the way), now some people are predicting the opposite.

Who knows what will actually happen in reality, we've had an unprecedented level of climate stability and are actually well overdue an ice age...

[angos]

It's relevant because it demonstrates just how immature the science is and just how badly we can get our predictions of what is happening to the climate wrong.

Just 40 years ago we thought there was a new ice age starting. (It's overdue by the way), now some people are predicting the opposite.

Who knows what will actually happen in reality, we've had an unprecedented level of climate stability and are actually well overdue an ice age...

 

That prediction could well have been right if not for AGW which is keeping us warm.