Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[unbeliever]

Overwhelmingly.

 

The fossil fuel industry has been running a lot of front organisations to cast doubt and confusion with bad science.

 

You linked to http://www.climatedepot.com which is by "Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow". Most of their funding comes from Donors Trust, which is a vehicle for rich conservative philanthropists and their organisations to distribute money to projects that match their ideology of low government regulation and “free markets”.

 

Donors Trust gave $125m to climate denial organisations over 3 years

 

For unethical scientists, there is a lot more money to be had from climate denial.

 

Yet the overwhelming consensus is that climate change is happening and we are already around half way to the 2C "sensitivity".

 

That's not the sensitivity.

[El Cid]

So you admit that there was a pause?

 

 

If you say there was a pause, there was a pause; does it matter?

 

If February is warmer than January, does it matter if February has 3/4 very cold days?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#/media/File:Global_warming._Short-term_variations_versus_a_long-term_trend_(NCADAC).png

 

We have had a warming planet, for around 100 years, a very short time frame, when it comes to our climate.

 

---------- Post added 06-02-2017 at 17:47 ----------

 

To what level of accuracy were the instruments used to measure those temperatures calibrated?

 

 

The instruments used may have been very accurate, but I believe that we fall way short in measuring the global climate accurately.

[unbeliever]

The hypothesis that the last 50-100 years of temperature increase is primarily anthropogenic is hard to reconcile with a >10 year period of zero-correlation between CO2 levels and global mean temperature.

[El Cid]

The hypothesis that the last 50-100 years of temperature increase is primarily anthropogenic is hard to reconcile with a >10 year period of zero-correlation between CO2 levels and global mean temperature.

 

Its the only mainstream credible theory.

[unbeliever]

Its the only mainstream credible theory.

 

Anthropogenic CO2 is a factor. Nobody serious disputes this. It's all the same general theory. This is a quantitative matter.

[convert]

If you say there was a pause, there was a pause; does it matter?

 

If February is warmer than January, does it matter if February has 3/4 very cold days?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#/media/File:Global_warming._Short-term_variations_versus_a_long-term_trend_(NCADAC).png

 

We have had a warming planet, for around 100 years, a very short time frame, when it comes to our climate.

 

---------- Post added 06-02-2017 at 17:47 ----------

 

 

The instruments used may have been very accurate, but I believe that we fall way short in measuring the global climate accurately.

 

Of course it matters that there was a pause, none of the models predicted it?

 

If they failed to predict it, why should we trust the models (why models by the way, why more than one if we're to deem it accurate?)

 

As for January and February, please don't confuse weather with climate.

 

We have had a warming planet for many more years than the last 100, in fact it's been warming since the last ice age. CO2 levels have been much higher than current levels, did my car cause that?

 

I'd guess you don't want to comment meaningfully about instrument accuracy, statistical significance or error bars.

[truman]

I may be being a bit simplistic here but are the models capable of being run in reverse? If so should the CO2/Temp correlation match real world figures ..ie the actual figures observed in the past.. It's just a random thought..

[unbeliever]

I may be being a bit simplistic here but are the models capable of being run in reverse? If so should the CO2/Temp correlation match real world figures ..ie the actual figures observed in the past.. It's just a random thought..

 

Hindcasting. This is how they validate their models.

The problem is that there are a lot of loosely bound or unbound parameters and therefore a variety of solutions that hindcast correctly.

The real check (to my mind) is to look at the forecasts. There are forecasts now that are 20 years old. Those forecasts are not doing well which makes me suspicious.

Edited February 7, 2017 by unbeliever

[Robin-H]

Hindcasting. This is how they validate their models.

The problem is that there are a lot of loosely bound or unbound parameters and therefore a variety of solutions that hindcast correctly.

The real check (to my mind) is to look at the forecasts. There are forecasts now that are 20 years old. Those forecasts are not doing well which makes me suspicious.

 

Are they not doing well?

 

No model can be expected to be exact, and the climate has been warming by an amount within the range of model predictions.

 

Since 1990, global surface temperatures have warmed at a rate of about 0.15°C per decade, within the range of model projections of about 0.10 to 0.35°C per decade.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jul/31/climate-models-are-even-more-accurate-than-you-thought

 

The new research [from 2013] also found that, compared to the forecast, the early years of the new millennium were somewhat warmer than expected. More recently the temperature has matched the level forecasted very closely, but the relative slow-down in warming since the early years of the early 2000s has caused many commentators to assume that warming is now less severe than predicted. The paper shows this is not true.

 

Allen said: "I think it's interesting because so many people think that recent years have been unexpectedly cool. In fact, what we found was that a few years around the turn of the millennium were slightly warmer than forecast, and that temperatures have now reverted to what we were predicting back in the 1990s."

 

He added: "Of course, we should expect fluctuations around the overall warming trend in global mean temperatures (and even more so in British weather!), but the success of these early forecasts suggests the basic understanding of human-induced climate change on which they were based is supported by subsequent observations."

Edited February 7, 2017 by Robin-H

[El Cid]

Of course it matters that there was a pause, none of the models predicted it?

 

 

I am still waiting for someone to post an alternative theory, instead we get nature, natural causes or we dont know.