Hence the difference between a skeptic and a global warming liar (i.e. AGW scientist)
I see that another AGW sock puppet answered before me.
If anyone of the AGW advocates can read what the sub-category is here under the Environment section, then I will remind them. It's "Global Warming" and not "Climate Change". It's about global average temperatures continuing to rise and CO2 being the forcing mechanism.
Global Average Temperatures will always be the final measurement that tells us what the planet is doing and how it is reacting to human involvement and their emissions.
When they can get their climate models working right to accurately predict future climate states, then the many skeptics will be subdued. Until then, there is a lot of room for skepticism.
pegminer - I believe you when you say that it is 'easy to show year to year variability is high by looking at a graph', but you have to admit that current long-scale temperature measurements (150 years) can also be deceiving due to the low scale and inaccurate temperature measuring techniques before the 1950s. To say that land measurements in the early 1900s accurately depict the same type of measuring and temperature that we have today is very misleading. Many measurements being off 0.2C in either direction would make a huge difference in global average temperatures especially in these early days of mechanical measuring. We know that happened and we also know that we only had less than 10% as many thermometers back then which leaves plenty of room for science to miscalculate global average temperatures.
We are currently talking about mean temperatures being 0.62C above the established average. I doubt that climate science was as corrupt back in those days but incompetence could have played a big part. Was Arrhenius being corrupt when he calculated the doubling of CO2 in 1896? I don't think so either. Incompetent? To a certain extent. He corrected his calculations later on, but does that mean he was still being incompetent to a certain extent? I still think so, because his models still haven't played out the way he saw it back in 1910.
pegminer - From AR5 : "... In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was
likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence). ..."
Medium confidence?
AR5 : "... For the longest period when calculation of regional trends is sufficiently complete (1901–2012), almost the entire globe has experienced surface warming. ..."
..when calculation of regional trends is sufficiently complete? (Where does this 'not' happen?)
...almost the entire globe has experienced surface warming?
How do they keep getting away with all of their uncertainties and still have a "95% certainty" that humans have caused "Global warming"? (... and I have only skimmed the beginning of AR5's "Summary for Policymakers".)
AR5 : "... Trends have been calculated where data availability permits a robust estimate (i.e., only for grid boxes with greater than 70% complete records and more than 20% data availability in the first and last 10%of the time period). ..."
Robust estimate? Statistical data? Does anyone else "not see" where a 95% confidence level can possibly be achieved?
AR5 : "... There is medium confidence from reconstructions that over the past three decades, Arctic summer sea ice retreat was unprecedented and sea surface temperatures were anomalously high in at least the last 1,450 years. ..."
Ha! Ha! Just look at the double speak. Did they teach that in North Dakota? It doesn't make any difference if it is long term or short term predictions. The clear intent of the failed models is to get our money in the long term and the short term, which is what they are extremely successful at. Just like all con artists historically have been.
Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models.”
In other words, "We don't care what the facts are we want your money and we want to usurp power."
You have mischaracterized what he is saying. The point is that these type of climate models are not intended to forecast climate in the short-term, since over short time periods the effects of adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere can be masked by fluctuations that are unconnected with AGW, but over the long term the effects of AGW will dominate over the short-term fluctuations.
It's easy to see that the year-to-year variability is high by looking at any graph of global "mean" temperature, but eventually temperature rise from AGW will win out over year-to-year variability.
Kano, of course things like GPS are based on science--you probably don't realize it, but part of GPS technology is based on Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, and of course both are based on Maxwell's Equations
EDIT: No, Zippi62, we have had accurate temperature measurements for hundreds of years. The measurements do not have to be accurate to 0.2 to produce a global "mean" temperature to that accuracy--I have explained that in here multiple times.
Another EDIT for Zippi62: I'll agree that we haven't had accurate temperature estimates for 1400 years, but you claimed that we haven't had them since before the 1950's, which is ridiculous. Just keep changing your argument until you find something that works--isn't that the denier credo?
All total bull sh!t, comparing cellphones and GPS to AGW, cell phones and GPS is technology not science.
Failure of climate models vs reality not important, because his reality has failed, he is now in cloud cuckoo land.
Just a statement from a true climate change denier.
Except to dupes of conspiracy theory nonsense, the repeated failure of stock brokers and economists to reliably predict the ups and downs of the U.S. stock market, on a sustained basis, is not a compelling reason for 10 thousand clowns to post copy-cat questions about the "logic" of saying that the failure of those stock market analysts' models is not important to whether finance, Wall Street and the Dow Jones Index are real or a hoax.
Prof in NYTimes: Failure of climate models vs. reality not important since we use them to predict the future
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/opinion/let-science-set-the-facts.html?_r=0
