Done

Done.

Done, 2 guesses

Dr, if computer models are not science, where do computers occur in nature? Also when you say a computer model is the only evidence, then you're calling bullshit on Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize. OK, I will give you that. g,no guesses

Computer models need constant tweaking just to get them to agree with any historical period for which we have accurate data. But once they produce correct results for any particular time period, they generally spew garbage for the rest of the time where we have data to compare with the computer results.

I think you should rethink those statements. I'm taken aback by such insensitive irreverent utterances coming from you, lol. You're making the computer gods very angry.

Computers just aren't powerful enough to model weather accurately. Things like clouds need to be modeled on a granularity of a few meters, but the best computer models can only divide things up on a granularity measured in kilometers.

You do see what you're doing, right? Using science to deny science on a scalar level? I know you are familiar with Gordon Moore's Law. Watson, come here, I need you... all 16 petabytes... soon to be exabytes... or will it be yottabytes...

But we aren't there yet.

Ah but we are. Watson now resides in the cloud.

Ironic, isn't it?

Good night, Dr.

Good night Jack.

Climate models are NOT the only proof of climate change. "Observations of the climate system are based on direct physical and biogeochemical measurements, remote
sensing from ground stations and satellites; information derived from paleoclimate archives provides a long-
term context. Global-scale observations from the instrumental era began in the mid-19th century, and
paleoclimate reconstructions extend the record of some quantities back hundreds to millions of years.
Together, they provide a comprehensive view of the variability and long-term changes in the atmosphere, the
ocean, the cryosphere, and the land surface." (IPCC) In other words, the models are derived from our best physical understanding of the changes that occur. They are tools, just as every physics law is only an approximation of nature but our best understanding and a tool to describe and predict.

by the way: ng/ng

done

Many of the same 'experts' on global warming, were the same hysterics in the 80s for global cooling. Finally they decided on the nebulous term, climate change. The IPCC is a politicized and largely discredited organization. Google, while leftist and committed to profiting off the farce of climate change, can still be used to research the IPCC and see for yourself that they are not as reliable a source as they claim. Additionally, many of the same people who claim the settled science of climate change also argue against the very settled science confirming that their are only 2 sexes...

thank you Mr O, eloquently put.

I don'y think you addressed my examples TallMike, it's happening now. The Barrier Reef is suffering from the increasing temperatures and wilder storms. The pacific islands are slowly watching the sea rising with nowhere to go. But hey lets just deny it, burn more fossil fuels, make it worse but at least we'll create a few American jobs.

Start

ding

TallMike, if it was politicians making claims then I would want to see how science agreed or refuted their claims. As it is, politicians are either listening to scientists regarding climate change or they are listening to industry lobbies. If it really was pseudo-science then we would agree.

kaos, the nature of climate change name changes is a reflection of science being a non-static, ongoing endeavor. The specifics are explained at https://pmm.nasa.gov/education/articles/whats\n-name-global-warming-vs-climate-change

kaos, climate scientists don't tend to delve into the biological sciences that include study of gender and sex. As to the number of sexes, see http://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16\n943

People who believe the deniers believe them for their reasons. The deniers deny for economic reasons. No different than the Tobacco industry citing "medical" research that smoking does not cause cancer all the while their own research showed it does. The extraction industries, NASA, the Pentagon, WHO, UN, etc.. all have research on Climate Change. The only party who denies is the party that has an economic stake in denying. Follow the friggin money.

Phil, where was the calamity when Greenland was freezing over from 400ad to 1100ad...the entire land mass was buried under an ice shelf. If you can reconcile this one Item then I may consider a conversation. However, if the holes in the analysis are intentionally disregarded to create the foundation for the argument of one side...at best its suspect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_s\nheet

High School geography. Iceland volcanoes, Greenland glaciers. Melting glaciers not good. Sea level rise change of ocean currents etc...

go

dwg

DONE

Penguin, I did not say anything about politicians making claims. What I said was: "I decry pseudo-science driven by politicians and others who steer research efforts towards predetermined conclusions."

If you want us to follow the path you have suggested, why don't you take the lead? Choose a politician who has made claims about global warming or climate change and see how science agreed or refuted the claims. If you don't know where to start, it might be an interesting exercise to apply to Al Gore and the claims he made in his film An Inconvenient Truth. Remember that you were the one who said: "if it was politicians making claims then I would want to see how science agreed or refuted their claims," so be sure to check out all the objections as well as all the expressions of agreement.

Phil: You did not ask me to discuss each of your examples of natural disasters in detail, you simply listed them as reasons why you were not sure what I meant by: "There have also been many wildly inaccurate forecasts of climate disaster." I responded with four examples of extremely significant and inaccurate forecasts. The disasters you listed do not make those inaccurate forecasts any more accurate, do they? I also commented on the context within which your examples should be considered, the key questions that need to be researched, and the challenges of performing meaningful research of those questions, and so I find it curious that you say I did not address your examples.

Mr. O: global warming is more than the simple assertion that average global temperatures have risen in the last 150 years or so. No one is disputing that. Global warming is the assertion that the rise in temperature is caused by human activity and will continue with disastrous effects unless human activity is radically altered.

I dispute the notion that human activity makes any significant contributions to global warming. I dispute the notion that we can do anything to stop it. I dispute the notion that we even need to stop it, first because the consequences of global warming in the past (yes this is not the first time the globe has warmed) have been beneficial and because it is just as likely to stop of its own accord as to continue. Remember, the current global warming spell saw most of the warming occur before 1940 before industrial activity was truly significant, and now the warming seems to have slowed or even stopped even though industrialization has been accelerating at an ever increasing pace.

So yes, the only "evidence" for global warming is computer climate models. Just observing that the climate has gotten warmer proves nothing.