Yep, you're correct again, but no one has proven (especially not mathematically) that our poisonous drops/drips of CO2 could cause the claimed changes.

 

BTW I have never siad CO2 is poisonous.

Climate models are a statistal answer to that question and the greenhouse effect is the hypothesis that best fits the data. Or at least that's what the consensus seems to be.

 

But the models do not fit the observable changes, and that's a real problem.

The models did/do not show the temperature plateauing from 1998 and then dropping, but that is what happened. Also, the models for sea level rise do not reflect what has happened.

So what do they do? Change the model! Changing the hypothesis or admitting it is flawed surely would be better?

This really isn't the way forward.

Geezer

 

Try this, it's quite interesting

Global cooling: the new kid on the block

 

An interesting read no doubt, but.....

"The moral of the story - don't use short term weather patterns to draw conclusions about long term climate trends"

Like using 40 years worth of data to predict how a 4.5 billion year old climate system will change then?

Geezer

 

We both know that the climate models are based upon a significantly longer time series than 40 years, so why say that...for effect??

 

Well, they are not. We simply do not have accurate world wide temperature data, especially for upper atmosphere, for more than 40 years. Hell, even 200 years would be insignificant, let's be honest.

Geezer

 

Big time WRONG!

 

[QUOTE=Martin2005;8336853]So my link, or post with grapch, is less valid?

 

[QUOTE=Martin2005;8336931]Wrong. What is now lake Taupo (Toe-pour), NZ (It is STILL active, albeit submerged, to this day along with all the others in the region). Don't recall when...but it was several tmes bigger than Krakatoa.

 

Most, not all, are based on assumption.

 

No - Climate models are another guess. What defines the parameters? The changes in the model? The degree / scope of the model?

All the controls in place within a model are based upon a series of assumptions, and there is absolutely NO guarantee that these assumptions are anywhere NEAR correct.

They are just pretty graphs that look good. You may as well stick a copy of the Last Supper up a powerpoint slide and use it as a model for Climate change.

 

Econometric models look for correllations between variables and a constant (not assumptions).

As I said all modelling starts with a hypothesis, then that hypothesis is statistically tested. So it's not about assumptions, the problem that can arise in the process are that you don't have all the key variables, overfitting the data, or just plain old bad modelling.

 

At the beginning of this year, climatologists predicted, based on models and rate the of melting ice based on historic data, that there was a high probability that for the first time in recorded history that there would be no ice at the North Pole the summer just gone (what summer!?) and that it would be possible to reach by boat! Well they got it wrong since we witnessed ol' Clarkie and his team reached it by car!

Could it be possible that the same climatolists be wrong about their global warming hypothisis?

 

yes

 

Well - the pole that they drove to was the Magnetic North Pole not the Geographic one that the climatologists are referring to, so this is not a good example.

 

Oh I dunno, magnetic north is considerably further south than the geographic one, so it would be at considerably more risk of being in the melt area, yet patently it was not.

Geezer

 

Ok based on opinions, facts and research presented on this board and quite frankly why thr IPCC doesn't use scoobynet as a source of research is beyond me. I predict the ice cap will indeed melt away completely next summer. This would then pave the way for Clarkson to race to the north pole in the Toyboata!

 

The line showing average number sunspots clearly goes up, shrink the temperature scale on the left which is clearly arbitrary, increase the scale on the right and you have a very significant corelation. It is very simple to decieve using scaling on graphs.

 

Martin, you would do well to look at all the information about global temperatures, and there is a great deal available, in a completely unbiased manner instead of just believing what we have been told by one side of the scientists and blindly accepting it.

Les

 

How mant times Les?

How many times do I have to repeat that I do not blindly believe anything?

If you keep saying the same thing over and over it doesn't suddenly become true you know!

Using this logic I should accuse you of blindly choosing to not believe.


I'm editing this post because I'm feeling a bit 'war weary' aften the 4 kids burnt to death thread, and I don't want anymore rows (btw thanks for your support on that, I thought I was going mad).

Time will tell who's write or wrong on this subject, personally I hope you are right and the current theory that I buy into is flat wrong.

 

This summer, we've had daliy temperatures consistently 10-13c below "nomal". Today it's about 32c, tomorrow it'll be down to well below what is usual at this time of year. Severe ice storms in the central US. There's not much warming going on right now.

 

As you say Martin-time will tell. I supported you that time because I thought you are right of course.

Les

 

Officially...

Sydney extreme rainfall in summer 2007−08

The coolest summer (2007) in 11 years indeed. The first 15 days of summer have been very cool. Pretty inconvenient.

But Krudd747 has just given AU$1b of taxpayers money to coal and aluminium businesses to "fight" this climate change BS!