UK flooding again

[unbeliever]

Or a no,

 

http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/17/satellites-earth-is-nearly-in-its-21st-year-without-global-warming/

 

As you rightly point out, and I mentioned briefly earlier, the satellite data does not show the same warming trend as the ground station data. This may indicate problems with the corrections being applied to the ground station data, and with the overall quality of that data. On the other hand, the satellite measurements are less direct and don't go back nearly as far. Still it's one amongst many reasons to question the great consensus.

 

Yet another problem with the ground station data is urbanisation. Over several decades rural ground stations have become urban ground stations and are therefore subject to direct anthropogenic warming.

 

It's not clear that the world is warming rapidly now (last 20 years). There's little doubt that the temperature trended upward over the previous few decades. Still the slow-down/suspension in warming came as a surprise to the climatologists and was not predicted. They do have explanations for it now primarily from natural factors which were not included in earlier models. At the very least it is grounds to question the reliability of the modelling.

Edited January 5, 2016 by unbeliever

[El Cid]

At the very least it is grounds to question the reliability of the modelling.

 

But there is no alternative theory that stands up to scrutiny.

[sgtkate]

But there is no alternative theory that stands up to scrutiny.

 

Isn't this a bit like the argument for religion? That because we have no alternative credible theory that explains the creation of the universe that God must have made it?

[El Cid]

Isn't this a bit like the argument for religion? That because we have no alternative credible theory that explains the creation of the universe that God must have made it?

 

That is when it comes back to how much you believe what you read online or in the press.

We know a lot of stuff, but its a question of whether you believe 10% or 95%

 

The risk risk of believing that the earth is flat, is only a danger if you get near the edge; are we near the edge of un-reversable climate change?

[unbeliever]

That is when it comes back to how much you believe what you read online or in the press.

We know a lot of stuff, but its a question of whether you believe 10% or 95%

 

The risk risk of believing that the earth is flat, is only a danger if you get near the edge; are we near the edge of un-reversable climate change?

 

I'm not sure what the 10% and 95% refer to.

The hypothesis of a flat earth is directly testable in the real world. No assumptions or computer models are required. It is therefore a false analogy.

[Eric Arthur]

Apart from the basic CO2 warming effect, what parts of the science of climate change have you determined to be "sound"?

 

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, as a hard edged scientist, on some ways that you could establish that the world is not subject to man made climate change. Maybe you can also include your acceptable margin for error.

[El Cid]

I'm not sure what the 10% and 95% refer to.

The hypothesis of a flat earth is directly testable in the real world. No assumptions or computer models are required. It is therefore a false analogy.

 

I was referring to the time when they believed the earth to be flat. The science says that climate change is above 90% certain, how certain are you, of your different view?

[unbeliever]

I was referring to the time when they believed the earth to be flat. The science says that climate change is above 90% certain, how certain are you, of your different view?

 

What does that mean?

Climate change is 90% certain. What's 90% certain?

[Eric Arthur]

What does that mean?

Climate change is 90% certain. What's 90% certain?

 

That was the IPCC's conclusion on the level of certainty. I believe it's gone up recently.

 

---------- Post added 05-01-2016 at 12:42 ----------

 

Could you tell us about the science behind your own conclusions?

[unbeliever]

That was the IPCC's conclusion on the level of certainty. I believe it's gone up recently.

 

But what are they certain of?

If it's the existence of a CO2 warming effect, there's no argument.

If it's a substantial enhancement of that effect via positive feedbacks then that's far more dubious.

 

---------- Post added 05-01-2016 at 12:46 ----------

 

Could you tell us about the science behind your own conclusions?

 

The models assume a strong positive feedback effect which turn a 1ºC increase in temperature per CO2 doubling into a much larger effect. If the models have overestimated this effect then we're back to around 1ºC per doubling, or maybe 2ºC. That's what the hard science of the greenhouse effect tells us. At the rate mankind produces CO2 we'd have a job to double it more than once from present levels in which case we don't really have a problem.

This matter can only be decided quantitatively. Qualitative arguments get us nowhere.

Edited January 5, 2016 by unbeliever