You know why!
---------------------------
Scientists were given money to prove that CO2 was causing "Global Warming" by Margaret Thatcher back in the late 80s. Since then they have built huge-mongus computers to prove it and they still don't understand the climate system. They have proclaimed that our climate system is non-linear and chaotic, but they won't concede that they are still a long ways from totally understanding it.
---------------------------
I call it "climate arrogance".
--------------------------
"The objective, according to GISS scientists, is to provide an estimate of temperature change that [could be] compared with predictions of global climate change in response to atmospheric carbon dioxide, aerosols, and changes in solar activity."
"... could be ..."?
http://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...
-----------------------------------
Climate Realist - It's been a parade of money since then. You can join if it is within your will. All of Climate Science is Government funded!
100% of scientists believe in climate change. When they built the pyramids in Egypt, the location was a lush green forest. Did their chariots cause climate change? We know that there is climate change. The real question is if it is man made. Are we polluting the air so much that we are causing it? The answer is no. The solar flares can have a lot to do with climate change. Volcanoes can help cause climate change. This earth is so huge we can not affect it the way that the government states that we can. Climate change-yes. Man made-no. Can man control the weather?
Speaking of trolls, I remember once in the Army we camped beneath a bridge. We had to tell people we lived under the bridge. Awkward.
I like the correlation of 97 percent of alarmists being leftists. That is certainly closer to the truth than 97 percent of scientists being alarmists.
And where do you get your figure about 97% of climate change predictions being wrong?
Some of the things that you may have heard about, such a s hurricanes, are hypotheses about the effects of global warming, not about whether or not it is happening. Some recent evidence could indicate that global warming results in strong upper atmospheric wind shear, which suppresses hurricanes. Hurricanes being suppressed has its own implications; more hurricanes if they happened would be a negative feedback. Fewer hurricanes is evidence that climate sensitivity is very high.
Some predictions that are successful
1. Amount of se ice is decreasing.
2. Sea surface temperature is increasing.
3. The temperature over the oceans is increasing.
4. Absolute humidity is increasing.
5. Occean heat content is increasing.
6. Absolute humidity is increasing.
7. The air temperature near the surface is increasing
8. Glaciers are shrinking.
9. Snow cover is decreasing.
10. The temperature ove land is increasing.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010...
11. The thermosphere is shrinking.
12. Less heat is escaping into space.
13. The stratosphere is cooling.
14. The tropopause is rising.
15. The amount of oxygen in the air is decreasing.
16. There is more fossil fuel carbon in the air.
17. 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide are being added to the atmosphere each year.
18. NIghts are warming faster than days.
19. More heat is returning to Earth.
20. There is more fossil fuel carbon in coral.
http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-c...
Pat
That's what I call a long time between pay days.
If that were true, you'd be on it.
As with most nonsense from deniers you are not being "overly generous" you are being overly vague, deniers have to be vague because the reality is they simple make up and exaggerate the errors.
The primary projection is that temperature will rise and it is, deniers claim the rise has fallen below the projections yet look at the actual projections the IPCC use
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data...
and the denier statement is simply not true, current rise is around 0.6c above the mean
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators#g...
and it's pretty easy to see in the first link this is a little above the A2 (red) projection, one of the higher ones, the denier claim that temperature has fallen below the projections is fantasy.
But I think you know this which is why you list none of the so called failed projections.
I've seen deniers do this before many times, and it always comes back to nonsense from blogs, you have no real evidence and you know it, hence the need to try and change the subject when you are challenged. Certainly a number of projections have indeed been wrong, like the original estimates on how quickly the Arctic sea ice would take to melt, originally it was thought this might be by 2100, then 2050 now it's thought it will be ice free in Summer by ~2030. Here is an example of denier trying to twist the facts as 2030 is the official estimate from groups like NSIDC, denier tried to invent much closer dates based one the work of just one scientist and peddle them as the official date a number that varied between 2011-2013 a time most real scientists have said repeatedly is not going to happen, yet now deniers are taking their own myth and claiming it has failed.
Not sure how it could fail if it was never actually a real projection.
Deniers seem to excel at this sort of embellishment a report that stated the Himalayas where not melting as fast as first thought was twisted to claim AGW had stopped and exaggerated though several versions from the Himalayas have stopped melting, to the Himalayas are expanding.
The same with the brief dip in Arctic sea ice melt seen in 2011, deniers again claimed it proved that AGW was over, if that is the case then what does the return to melt seen since then mean, hard to say for a denier as they seem very unwilling to talk about it anymore.
So (not that you will actually answer) but what 97% are you referring to, given sea level is rising, glacial ice is melting and temperatures are the highest they have been in the modern record, this year is set to land again in the 10 warmest years and the latest reports are that permafrost is also starting to melt, the projection was this would not happen for decades, yet is happening now, so yes some projections are indeed wrong, but not in ways that help the denier cause.
Or are you playing that now tiresome game of trying to talk about projections that are still decades away and claiming they should have happened by now, this is a rather sad game deniers seem to think makes them look clever but sadly it's quite the opposite.
But then deniers seem to enjoy making themselves look foolish, take the, now several times repeated, claim of an only 1% rise in temperature, only denier maths could make 0.8c, into 1% of 14c.
still quoting from the (old) article written in 2005, 2006 & 2007 again? my answer is read the article again. start over with your research. open your mind to 2013 and beyond, instead of what's been debunked from the past. you answer your own questions.
It's better for you to be a troll than for you to ask normal questions, because on your regular questions you never care about the answers, and often choose ones that are demonstrably wrong.
You seem to have no interest in learning anything, so being a troll is about the most you can aspire to.
EDIT: Yes, but as I recall you didn't really believe it.
97 percent of cats prefer whiskers cat food
science confirms this
Oh no! there's a huge conspiracy within the scientific community
run for your lives!
Greenies are liberals. They honor failure. They gave Hillary a medal for Benghazi. They hail Al Gore, a proven fraud, and bestow on him a Nobel Prize. Michael Mann is a hero among the greenies, because he tried to make people aware. James Hansen was given total credence, even though his predictions never came true and he was caught cooking the books. Phil Jones is honored even though he was caught cooking the books. Just look at Paul Ehrlich, a butterfly expert from Stanford, in his publications, he has 0% accuracy. With the thousands of predictions, at least a few should be right. President Obama was given a Nobel Prize before he did anything.
Most people pick winners and losers, greenies just pick losers.
Why are climate change predictions wrong 97% of the time (or am I being overly generous)
Because you get your information from flawed sources (WUWT) rather than actually finding out what real scientists actually say
