Let's look at some facts:
1) the geological comparison of co2 and temp from ice core samples show that temp rises hundreds of years BEFORE co2 rises, suggesting that rising co2 is an epiphenomenon of temp rising, not the cause. This time lag has not been refuted, nor explained, by even diehard GW advocates. It is simply ignored.
I addressed this one already - I see you're doing your best to ignore anything which interferes with your beliefs. Long story short, its a measurement error, caused by the way air gets trapped into ice. It was predicted nearly a decade before we could even measure such things. The fact that we see what we predicted is a pretty good sign we got a handle on things...
I provided the detailed links in a past message, either on this thread or another.
2) the IPCC report (the REPORT, not the dumbed down summary for bureaucrats) admits that models of GW are flawed, don't include carbon feedback loops or cloud contributions, and don't include oscillations like El Ninos...all critical flaws considering that the models are expected to do something no climate model is intended to do, namely, predict short term climate change occurring in less than a century (which really makes them glorified meterological forecasts and not climate models at all)
Really? Perhaps you could provide evidence of such. They admit that there are margins of error - no science is without those - but its hardly a flaw. As for the different elements you bring up, all of those are accounted for in some models.
3) the report has a 90% confidence level for its predictions which, for peer reviewed scientific articles, means that their conclusions should be tossed into the circular file as worthless. Try to get the FDA to approve a drug with a 90% chance that it will work. By convention, only conclusions stated to a 95% certainty or greater are publishable. Of course, that's moot here, since their is no statistical calculation in the report to justify a "90%" confidence level anyway. No such calculations can be done for futurologiy (The Patriots have a 93.9% chance of covering the spread Sunday --- sounds stupid doesn't it?) Only Spock could get away with that --- Captain, I estimate our chance of survival as one in 1,276,567.
Absolutely wrong, as I pointed out before. Firstly, a 90% CI is not a p of 0.1. Depending on the variability of a data sets (i.e. the SEM) a .9 CI can be a p of anywhere from 0.008 to 0.064. So its either significant, or in the realm of "probable".
Oh, and while we're on the topic, certainty doesn't exist in science. CI is a well defined scientific term, certainty only exists in fiction.
4) the atmospheric models used for GW are similar in application to the hurricane prediction models which have been staggeringly off base recently; again, this is ignored. If we can't predict MAJOR atmospheric disturbances over a SMALL region ONE year in advance, how can we predict a subtle change in the whole planet 100 years hence to a 90% certainty? Andy, don't listen to 'experts', use your own brain...does this make any sense to you? You don't strike me as someone who would swallow what "experts" say without question in any other arena, why this one?
Not even close. Hurricaes are local weather phenomena driven by 2 or 3 localized factors. Global circulation models (i.e. GW models) are based on completely different physical principals, inputs, and modeling methods.
As for you big/small question, you're just showing your ignorance of where the problems lie. Small scale variations - i.e. weather - involve more factors then can be modeled with todays computers; hence the low accuracy of the predications. Global-scale climate is essentially driven by 2 factors - energy in and energy out. Much easier to model, even when talking about the forces which end up driving those two factors.
5) there isn't a good correlation between co2 and temp even in this century, although GW enthusiasts explain this by the "cooling forces" of Mount Pinatubo and other volcanic activity which throws the recent curves off --- these cooling effects, incidentally, were the same effects that lead these same Einsteins to forecast a new ice age in the 1970s. They may be right, I don't know, but the situation isn't nearly as cut and dry as you say. Besides, the association of temp and co2 may be simply post hoc ergo propter hoc, two unrelated events linked by a common third variable, such as solar activity
Who's graphs have you been looking at?There is an amazing correlation. We have an unprecedented rate of CO2 accumulation, accompanied by an unprecedented rate of temperature rise. Especially in the post-1970's era.
Read the reports, rather than simply appealing to "consensus" and "authority"; the debate is far from settled. I am no climatologist, but when the people say in the reports that their models are "flawed" and prone to significant error in the short periods of time involved, how much of an expert to you need to be?
I've read the actual reports, and many of the scientific papers they were based on. maybe you should do the same - its pretty obvious you haven't. Otherwise you wouldn't bring up "issues" which were predicted before we even confirmed they occurred.
When someone tells me to change my lifestyle based on computer models that don't include the effects of clouds for crying out loud, I mean, exactly how gullible or expert do I need to be to fathom that floater of an idea? Do you have to be Isaac Newton do distrust a climate model that doesn't account for cloud cover??????
Some models do account for cloud cover. The first was published in science back in 2002 or 2003.
So I see your statement as "I've decided to ignore what the scientists have been doing for the last 30-ish years, and based on my outdated concept of where the science stands choose to ignore their modern-day findings".
Bryan
and the term "center of the universe" is not supported by Einstein's theory
