"For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected." http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data...
Alarmists are picking the most odd forms of battle lately (e.g. water vapor??). I wonder what's going on?
They call others anti-science and then state that climate science doesn't make any warming predictions. The whole purpose of science is to make predictions and then check them against real world data. I just don't get it. Maybe they are becoming unraveled?
This is the problem with a lot of this stuff, its fundamentally NOT science. Science must be testable. If you're hypothesis makes a prediction that cannot be verified or falsified for a HUNDRED YEARS, its worthless. Its like saying Jesus will come down out of the clouds a hundred years from now I can't prove that won't happen. We just have to wait until the date comes and goes. That's the problem with these climate predictions, by the time the "red line" actually passes the model that predicted it is long forgotten, the people who made it retired. A scientific hypothesis that makes claims that cannot be falsified is not science at all, and while climate science is a very real and important science, predictions that stretch centuries into the future are not.
Again you shown an appalling knowledge of the English language. And instead of going to the Science itself, you entirely rely on "journalists' interpretations" of what a particular scientist has said. And you then extrapolate that to "scientists" so the opinion of one 'scientist' suddenly becomes the general opinion of the entire scientific community.
Your first 2 links are related to the same scientist, Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, whose research indicated that the arctic COULD be ice free by 2013, an assertion which the journalists in question apparently found too unclear so the freely changed it into something more attractive. It is only when one read the articles that one realizes that that what was being said was actually far less conclusive.
Your third link is a 2012 article in which another single scientist who "predicted the final collapse of Arctic sea ice in summer months within four years". Last time I checked, 2012 plus 4 = 2016 which means there's still 3 more years to go to find out whether this single scientist was right or not.
Your last 2 links also describe an instance where a single scientist, Dr David Viner, predicted that "within a few years winter snowfall will become 'a very rare and exciting event'" and again you extrapolate that as being representative of the entire scientific community. It is not. Scientists in general do not use such conclusive language and prefer to express that there is always some level of uncertainty. That applies to every single scientific field.
If the opinions of single scientists quoted in 'the media' were all of a sudden representative of the entire scientific community, then vaccines cause autism, evolution does not exist and alien life has (again and again) been found on meteorites (as your beloved Daily Mail has claimed over and over again).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy...
In July my solution was implemented where the Alien organism is located. In November 2012 Our Satelites reported Ice accumulation on different parts of earth. My Global teams and i believe my solution deleted Global Warming November 2012. Mike/ Global command
Yes I do too. I think, "The Earth has a fever," is just about as clear as you can get. Also we were given the infamous 'hockey stick' to prove their point.
One only has to go and get Jimmy Hansen's speech in front of Congress back in the eighties. You remember, the one where they turned off air conditioners in the Capital to influence the Congressmen. Then they even laugh about it, now.
Notice how 'appalling' your English is. Why your bringing up those 'crackpots' is not what is really true. Ha! Ha! Your question, although not of your own origination, refers to 'scientists' whether crackpot or not.
As to the 'could' vs. 'would' interpretation, Professor Wieslaw Maslowski had ample opportunity to correct the matter, if he thought there was some misrepresentation. This fact leads one to believe that Professor Wieslaw Maslowski got the desired results.
< Scientists in general do not use such conclusive language and prefer to express that there is always some level of uncertainty. That applies to every single scientific field.>
Do you think we would have put a man on the moon with an uncertainty in the science of trajectory? Why are they now enacting legislation regarding AGW and ACC if, in their minds, there was an uncertainty? The tax in Australia is very certain. Obama giving $100,000,000,000 to the UN in the name of Global Warming is very certain.
Just too many of these 'saviors of the earth' try to play with our minds and make it seem that it is the real people who are disillusion and that we don't see what we see. It is the same as the alcoholic not seeing himself as an alcoholic and thinking everyone else is wrong.
Sheldon Whitehouse pulled out a stairstep graph and claims it will heat up again . Only pricing Carbon will stop it.
Prices are high enough .
Anyone else "remember" scientists "predicting it was supposed to be much warmer by now"?
I do.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7139797.stm
http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/arctic-ice-free-by-2013.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-collapse-sea-ice
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/24/snowfall-a-very-rare-and-exciting-event/
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
Some have convenient memories.
