Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
Gadgetmac said:
Sea level data confirms climate modeling projections were right
https://phys.org/news/2021-02-sea-climate.html
Projections of rising sea levels this century are on the money when tested against satellite and tide-gauge observations, scientists find.
Climate model projections of sea-level rises in the early 21st century are in good agreement with sea level data recorded in the corresponding period, a recent analysis has found.
And the scientists who crunched the numbers say the finding does not bode well for sea level impacts over coming decades if greenhouse gas emissions are not reined in.
In an article published recently in Nature Communications, the scientists from Chinese and Australian institutions including UNSW Sydney examined the global and regional sea level projections of two reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) and Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC).
They compared the reports' projections with the observed global and coastal sea level data gathered from satellites and a network of 177 tide-gauges from the start of the projections in 2007 up to to 2018. The scientists found that the trends of the AR5 and SROCC sea level projections under three different scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions "agree well with satellite and tide-gauge observations over the common period 2007–2018, within the 90 percent confidence level."
Study co-author and leading sea-level expert, Professor John Church, says while he thought the projections from modelling would be accurate at the global level, he was pleasantly surprised that they were as accurate at the regional and local level.
Do you have any news pertaining to the models that failed to correctly predict sea level rises? I’m looking for the complete picture. What’s the ratio of failure to success?https://phys.org/news/2021-02-sea-climate.html
Projections of rising sea levels this century are on the money when tested against satellite and tide-gauge observations, scientists find.
Climate model projections of sea-level rises in the early 21st century are in good agreement with sea level data recorded in the corresponding period, a recent analysis has found.
And the scientists who crunched the numbers say the finding does not bode well for sea level impacts over coming decades if greenhouse gas emissions are not reined in.
In an article published recently in Nature Communications, the scientists from Chinese and Australian institutions including UNSW Sydney examined the global and regional sea level projections of two reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) and Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC).
They compared the reports' projections with the observed global and coastal sea level data gathered from satellites and a network of 177 tide-gauges from the start of the projections in 2007 up to to 2018. The scientists found that the trends of the AR5 and SROCC sea level projections under three different scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions "agree well with satellite and tide-gauge observations over the common period 2007–2018, within the 90 percent confidence level."
Study co-author and leading sea-level expert, Professor John Church, says while he thought the projections from modelling would be accurate at the global level, he was pleasantly surprised that they were as accurate at the regional and local level.
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
Sea level data confirms climate modeling projections were right
https://phys.org/news/2021-02-sea-climate.html
Projections of rising sea levels this century are on the money when tested against satellite and tide-gauge observations, scientists find.
Climate model projections of sea-level rises in the early 21st century are in good agreement with sea level data recorded in the corresponding period, a recent analysis has found.
And the scientists who crunched the numbers say the finding does not bode well for sea level impacts over coming decades if greenhouse gas emissions are not reined in.
In an article published recently in Nature Communications, the scientists from Chinese and Australian institutions including UNSW Sydney examined the global and regional sea level projections of two reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) and Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC).
They compared the reports' projections with the observed global and coastal sea level data gathered from satellites and a network of 177 tide-gauges from the start of the projections in 2007 up to to 2018. The scientists found that the trends of the AR5 and SROCC sea level projections under three different scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions "agree well with satellite and tide-gauge observations over the common period 2007–2018, within the 90 percent confidence level."
Study co-author and leading sea-level expert, Professor John Church, says while he thought the projections from modelling would be accurate at the global level, he was pleasantly surprised that they were as accurate at the regional and local level.
Do you have any news pertaining to the models that failed to correctly predict sea level rises? I’m looking for the complete picture. What’s the ratio of failure to success?https://phys.org/news/2021-02-sea-climate.html
Projections of rising sea levels this century are on the money when tested against satellite and tide-gauge observations, scientists find.
Climate model projections of sea-level rises in the early 21st century are in good agreement with sea level data recorded in the corresponding period, a recent analysis has found.
And the scientists who crunched the numbers say the finding does not bode well for sea level impacts over coming decades if greenhouse gas emissions are not reined in.
In an article published recently in Nature Communications, the scientists from Chinese and Australian institutions including UNSW Sydney examined the global and regional sea level projections of two reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) and Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC).
They compared the reports' projections with the observed global and coastal sea level data gathered from satellites and a network of 177 tide-gauges from the start of the projections in 2007 up to to 2018. The scientists found that the trends of the AR5 and SROCC sea level projections under three different scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions "agree well with satellite and tide-gauge observations over the common period 2007–2018, within the 90 percent confidence level."
Study co-author and leading sea-level expert, Professor John Church, says while he thought the projections from modelling would be accurate at the global level, he was pleasantly surprised that they were as accurate at the regional and local level.
Go find it yourself.
Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
Sea level data confirms climate modeling projections were right
https://phys.org/news/2021-02-sea-climate.html
Projections of rising sea levels this century are on the money when tested against satellite and tide-gauge observations, scientists find.
Climate model projections of sea-level rises in the early 21st century are in good agreement with sea level data recorded in the corresponding period, a recent analysis has found.
And the scientists who crunched the numbers say the finding does not bode well for sea level impacts over coming decades if greenhouse gas emissions are not reined in.
In an article published recently in Nature Communications, the scientists from Chinese and Australian institutions including UNSW Sydney examined the global and regional sea level projections of two reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) and Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC).
They compared the reports' projections with the observed global and coastal sea level data gathered from satellites and a network of 177 tide-gauges from the start of the projections in 2007 up to to 2018. The scientists found that the trends of the AR5 and SROCC sea level projections under three different scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions "agree well with satellite and tide-gauge observations over the common period 2007–2018, within the 90 percent confidence level."
Study co-author and leading sea-level expert, Professor John Church, says while he thought the projections from modelling would be accurate at the global level, he was pleasantly surprised that they were as accurate at the regional and local level.
Do you have any news pertaining to the models that failed to correctly predict sea level rises? I’m looking for the complete picture. What’s the ratio of failure to success?https://phys.org/news/2021-02-sea-climate.html
Projections of rising sea levels this century are on the money when tested against satellite and tide-gauge observations, scientists find.
Climate model projections of sea-level rises in the early 21st century are in good agreement with sea level data recorded in the corresponding period, a recent analysis has found.
And the scientists who crunched the numbers say the finding does not bode well for sea level impacts over coming decades if greenhouse gas emissions are not reined in.
In an article published recently in Nature Communications, the scientists from Chinese and Australian institutions including UNSW Sydney examined the global and regional sea level projections of two reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) and Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC).
They compared the reports' projections with the observed global and coastal sea level data gathered from satellites and a network of 177 tide-gauges from the start of the projections in 2007 up to to 2018. The scientists found that the trends of the AR5 and SROCC sea level projections under three different scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions "agree well with satellite and tide-gauge observations over the common period 2007–2018, within the 90 percent confidence level."
Study co-author and leading sea-level expert, Professor John Church, says while he thought the projections from modelling would be accurate at the global level, he was pleasantly surprised that they were as accurate at the regional and local level.
Go find it yourself.
My questions aren’t silly. Your lack of critical thinking is.
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
Sea level data confirms climate modeling projections were right
https://phys.org/news/2021-02-sea-climate.html
Projections of rising sea levels this century are on the money when tested against satellite and tide-gauge observations, scientists find.
Climate model projections of sea-level rises in the early 21st century are in good agreement with sea level data recorded in the corresponding period, a recent analysis has found.
And the scientists who crunched the numbers say the finding does not bode well for sea level impacts over coming decades if greenhouse gas emissions are not reined in.
In an article published recently in Nature Communications, the scientists from Chinese and Australian institutions including UNSW Sydney examined the global and regional sea level projections of two reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) and Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC).
They compared the reports' projections with the observed global and coastal sea level data gathered from satellites and a network of 177 tide-gauges from the start of the projections in 2007 up to to 2018. The scientists found that the trends of the AR5 and SROCC sea level projections under three different scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions "agree well with satellite and tide-gauge observations over the common period 2007–2018, within the 90 percent confidence level."
Study co-author and leading sea-level expert, Professor John Church, says while he thought the projections from modelling would be accurate at the global level, he was pleasantly surprised that they were as accurate at the regional and local level.
Do you have any news pertaining to the models that failed to correctly predict sea level rises? I’m looking for the complete picture. What’s the ratio of failure to success?https://phys.org/news/2021-02-sea-climate.html
Projections of rising sea levels this century are on the money when tested against satellite and tide-gauge observations, scientists find.
Climate model projections of sea-level rises in the early 21st century are in good agreement with sea level data recorded in the corresponding period, a recent analysis has found.
And the scientists who crunched the numbers say the finding does not bode well for sea level impacts over coming decades if greenhouse gas emissions are not reined in.
In an article published recently in Nature Communications, the scientists from Chinese and Australian institutions including UNSW Sydney examined the global and regional sea level projections of two reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) and Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC).
They compared the reports' projections with the observed global and coastal sea level data gathered from satellites and a network of 177 tide-gauges from the start of the projections in 2007 up to to 2018. The scientists found that the trends of the AR5 and SROCC sea level projections under three different scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions "agree well with satellite and tide-gauge observations over the common period 2007–2018, within the 90 percent confidence level."
Study co-author and leading sea-level expert, Professor John Church, says while he thought the projections from modelling would be accurate at the global level, he was pleasantly surprised that they were as accurate at the regional and local level.
Go find it yourself.
My questions aren’t silly. Your lack of critical thinking is.
Anyway, I couldn’t care less about your question, I’m posting the latest scientific studies not answering ad hoc questions dreamed up by you that say nothing about the articles content.
Gadgetmac said:
Maybe that’s because there are only successful results? Who knows...not you obviously.
Anyway, I couldn’t care less about your question, I’m posting the latest scientific studies not answering ad hoc questions dreamed up by you that say nothing about the articles content.
The articles content? It’s about the unbridled joy that one particular model has correctly predicted sea level rises.Anyway, I couldn’t care less about your question, I’m posting the latest scientific studies not answering ad hoc questions dreamed up by you that say nothing about the articles content.
It’s scientific to ask how many models didn’t.
It’s unscientific to just distribute the news of this success with asking the question about how many failures there were.
What I am saying is so banal and obvious, jeez.
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
Maybe that’s because there are only successful results? Who knows...not you obviously.
Anyway, I couldn’t care less about your question, I’m posting the latest scientific studies not answering ad hoc questions dreamed up by you that say nothing about the articles content.
The articles content? It’s about the unbridled joy that one particular model has correctly predicted sea level rises.Anyway, I couldn’t care less about your question, I’m posting the latest scientific studies not answering ad hoc questions dreamed up by you that say nothing about the articles content.
It’s scientific to ask how many models didn’t.
It’s unscientific to just distribute the news of this success with asking the question about how many failures there were.
What I am saying is so banal and obvious, jeez.
The mere fact that a couple of ‘models’ are now vindicated must grate eh?
Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
Maybe that’s because there are only successful results? Who knows...not you obviously.
Anyway, I couldn’t care less about your question, I’m posting the latest scientific studies not answering ad hoc questions dreamed up by you that say nothing about the articles content.
The articles content? It’s about the unbridled joy that one particular model has correctly predicted sea level rises.Anyway, I couldn’t care less about your question, I’m posting the latest scientific studies not answering ad hoc questions dreamed up by you that say nothing about the articles content.
It’s scientific to ask how many models didn’t.
It’s unscientific to just distribute the news of this success with asking the question about how many failures there were.
What I am saying is so banal and obvious, jeez.
The mere fact that a couple of ‘models’ are now vindicated must grate eh?
Don’t answer that, it’s a trap!
This conversation is pretty funny. Cheers!
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
Maybe that’s because there are only successful results? Who knows...not you obviously.
Anyway, I couldn’t care less about your question, I’m posting the latest scientific studies not answering ad hoc questions dreamed up by you that say nothing about the articles content.
The articles content? It’s about the unbridled joy that one particular model has correctly predicted sea level rises.Anyway, I couldn’t care less about your question, I’m posting the latest scientific studies not answering ad hoc questions dreamed up by you that say nothing about the articles content.
It’s scientific to ask how many models didn’t.
It’s unscientific to just distribute the news of this success with asking the question about how many failures there were.
What I am saying is so banal and obvious, jeez.
The mere fact that a couple of ‘models’ are now vindicated must grate eh?
Don’t answer that, it’s a trap!
This conversation is pretty funny. Cheers!
Gadgetmac said:
Sea level data confirms climate modeling projections were right
https://phys.org/news/2021-02-sea-climate.html
Projections of rising sea levels this century are on the money when tested against satellite and tide-gauge observations, scientists find.
Climate model projections of sea-level rises in the early 21st century are in good agreement with sea level data recorded in the corresponding period, a recent analysis has found.
And the scientists who crunched the numbers say the finding does not bode well for sea level impacts over coming decades if greenhouse gas emissions are not reined in.
In an article published recently in Nature Communications, the scientists from Chinese and Australian institutions including UNSW Sydney examined the global and regional sea level projections of two reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) and Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC).
They compared the reports' projections with the observed global and coastal sea level data gathered from satellites and a network of 177 tide-gauges from the start of the projections in 2007 up to to 2018. The scientists found that the trends of the AR5 and SROCC sea level projections under three different scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions "agree well with satellite and tide-gauge observations over the common period 2007–2018, within the 90 percent confidence level."
Study co-author and leading sea-level expert, Professor John Church, says while he thought the projections from modelling would be accurate at the global level, he was pleasantly surprised that they were as accurate at the regional and local level.
Fisticuffs in the comments below that article.https://phys.org/news/2021-02-sea-climate.html
Projections of rising sea levels this century are on the money when tested against satellite and tide-gauge observations, scientists find.
Climate model projections of sea-level rises in the early 21st century are in good agreement with sea level data recorded in the corresponding period, a recent analysis has found.
And the scientists who crunched the numbers say the finding does not bode well for sea level impacts over coming decades if greenhouse gas emissions are not reined in.
In an article published recently in Nature Communications, the scientists from Chinese and Australian institutions including UNSW Sydney examined the global and regional sea level projections of two reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) and Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC).
They compared the reports' projections with the observed global and coastal sea level data gathered from satellites and a network of 177 tide-gauges from the start of the projections in 2007 up to to 2018. The scientists found that the trends of the AR5 and SROCC sea level projections under three different scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions "agree well with satellite and tide-gauge observations over the common period 2007–2018, within the 90 percent confidence level."
Study co-author and leading sea-level expert, Professor John Church, says while he thought the projections from modelling would be accurate at the global level, he was pleasantly surprised that they were as accurate at the regional and local level.
Just like here...
mybrainhurts said:
Gadgetmac said:
Sea level data confirms climate modeling projections were right
https://phys.org/news/2021-02-sea-climate.html
Projections of rising sea levels this century are on the money when tested against satellite and tide-gauge observations, scientists find.
Climate model projections of sea-level rises in the early 21st century are in good agreement with sea level data recorded in the corresponding period, a recent analysis has found.
And the scientists who crunched the numbers say the finding does not bode well for sea level impacts over coming decades if greenhouse gas emissions are not reined in.
In an article published recently in Nature Communications, the scientists from Chinese and Australian institutions including UNSW Sydney examined the global and regional sea level projections of two reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) and Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC).
They compared the reports' projections with the observed global and coastal sea level data gathered from satellites and a network of 177 tide-gauges from the start of the projections in 2007 up to to 2018. The scientists found that the trends of the AR5 and SROCC sea level projections under three different scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions "agree well with satellite and tide-gauge observations over the common period 2007–2018, within the 90 percent confidence level."
Study co-author and leading sea-level expert, Professor John Church, says while he thought the projections from modelling would be accurate at the global level, he was pleasantly surprised that they were as accurate at the regional and local level.
Fisticuffs in the comments below that article.https://phys.org/news/2021-02-sea-climate.html
Projections of rising sea levels this century are on the money when tested against satellite and tide-gauge observations, scientists find.
Climate model projections of sea-level rises in the early 21st century are in good agreement with sea level data recorded in the corresponding period, a recent analysis has found.
And the scientists who crunched the numbers say the finding does not bode well for sea level impacts over coming decades if greenhouse gas emissions are not reined in.
In an article published recently in Nature Communications, the scientists from Chinese and Australian institutions including UNSW Sydney examined the global and regional sea level projections of two reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) and Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC).
They compared the reports' projections with the observed global and coastal sea level data gathered from satellites and a network of 177 tide-gauges from the start of the projections in 2007 up to to 2018. The scientists found that the trends of the AR5 and SROCC sea level projections under three different scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions "agree well with satellite and tide-gauge observations over the common period 2007–2018, within the 90 percent confidence level."
Study co-author and leading sea-level expert, Professor John Church, says while he thought the projections from modelling would be accurate at the global level, he was pleasantly surprised that they were as accurate at the regional and local level.
Just like here...
Kawasicki said:
The articles content? It’s about the unbridled joy that one particular model has correctly predicted sea level rises.
From my quick read this appears to be incorrect. It is a paper evaluating the multi model ensembles used to produce the AR5 predictions. So the overall predictions published by the IPCC agree with observations. Doubtless you can root around and find individual models that get it wrong, but that's irrelevant in this context.STR160 said:
As there should be. Surprised Gadget doesn't post on Phys (he might, I don't recognise his user name if he does) and share his faith with prayers to Greta and Gore.
Once again nothing to say and saying it loudly. Your swapping around of user names is more interesting than your post.STR160 said:
Gadgetmac said:
Once again nothing to say and saying it loudly. Your swapping around of user names is more interesting than your post.
I changed my user name slightly....oh the drama. Still using the same profile. Maybe I should be investigated for being a big oil shill? 
Got any science?
Gadgetmac said:
STR160 said:
Gadgetmac said:
Once again nothing to say and saying it loudly. Your swapping around of user names is more interesting than your post.
I changed my user name slightly....oh the drama. Still using the same profile. Maybe I should be investigated for being a big oil shill? Got any science?
As for the science, yes, lots thanks. Some of which you've shared is good, but doesn't quite support your cause as you think it does.
Thankfully the science isn't settled yet
STR160 said:
Gadgetmac said:
STR160 said:
Gadgetmac said:
Once again nothing to say and saying it loudly. Your swapping around of user names is more interesting than your post.
I changed my user name slightly....oh the drama. Still using the same profile. Maybe I should be investigated for being a big oil shill? Got any science?
As for the science, yes, lots thanks. Some of which you've shared is good, but doesn't quite support your cause as you think it does.
Thankfully the science isn't settled yet
It’s small pockets of the Internet that will never accept it, people like you, but you’re not in a position of power and neither are those who think like you so it effectively makes no difference.
Almost weekly I post the latest AGW studies/reports and it’s usually only ever one or like yesterday maybe two from a couple of sources fresh that day. It’s only the ones I’m interested in that I post though.
For instance I don’t post about coral bleaching, changes in farming and bird migration etc together with other similar papers that don’t ‘ring my bell’.
Do you know how many reports/papers/studies I discard each day from posting on here that mention AGW as a factor...it’s at least 2 new ones almost every weekday, all year. Do you know how many actually mention that AGW is in dispute or not what is claimed? It’s Zero...I’ve never seen one in at least the last 2 years. Thats from Phys.org, Science Daily and Nature. There are many others.
The science is effectively settled bar the fine tuning.
Gadgetmac said:
Sadly the science is all but settled. It’s just a case of fine tuning now. The Paris accord gives some indication of how settled it is as almost all nations on earth now accept the science and are to a greater or lesser extent moving forward based on it.
It’s small pockets of the Internet that will never accept it, people like you, but you’re not in a position of power and neither are those who think like you so it effectively makes no difference.
Almost weekly I post the latest AGW studies/reports and it’s usually only ever one or like yesterday maybe two from a couple of sources fresh that day. It’s only the ones I’m interested in that I post though.
For instance I don’t post about coral bleaching, changes in farming and bird migration etc together with other similar papers that don’t ‘ring my bell’.
Do you know how many reports/papers/studies I discard each day from posting on here that mention AGW as a factor...it’s at least 2 new ones almost every weekday, all year. Do you know how many actually mention that AGW is in dispute or not what is claimed? It’s Zero...I’ve never seen one in at least the last 2 years. Thats from Phys.org, Science Daily and Nature. There are many others.
The science is effectively settled bar the fine tuning.
The Paris accord was nothing but a political thing. Science was just there as a guest attendee...It’s small pockets of the Internet that will never accept it, people like you, but you’re not in a position of power and neither are those who think like you so it effectively makes no difference.
Almost weekly I post the latest AGW studies/reports and it’s usually only ever one or like yesterday maybe two from a couple of sources fresh that day. It’s only the ones I’m interested in that I post though.
For instance I don’t post about coral bleaching, changes in farming and bird migration etc together with other similar papers that don’t ‘ring my bell’.
Do you know how many reports/papers/studies I discard each day from posting on here that mention AGW as a factor...it’s at least 2 new ones almost every weekday, all year. Do you know how many actually mention that AGW is in dispute or not what is claimed? It’s Zero...I’ve never seen one in at least the last 2 years. Thats from Phys.org, Science Daily and Nature. There are many others.
The science is effectively settled bar the fine tuning.
People like me, not in a position of power...exactly. Position of power... political...this whole thing is only settled in the political sphere.
So nice of you to read all the papers published to save all of us from doing it for ourselves. You must be a true expert on it all by now...
Let's cast our minds back to xmas 2019 when I contacted the college Prof from Berkeley (I think), challenging him on his report which suggested ALL papers published now fully support AGW...he didn't care that of the 20 or so papers I randomly selected from his list that there was no mention of climate/AGW/related matter. The point is, your comment of "it's zero" is about as accurate as zero.
Please name me one, just one, other single field of the sciences to which the science is settled.
STR160 said:
Gadgetmac said:
Sadly the science is all but settled. It’s just a case of fine tuning now. The Paris accord gives some indication of how settled it is as almost all nations on earth now accept the science and are to a greater or lesser extent moving forward based on it.
It’s small pockets of the Internet that will never accept it, people like you, but you’re not in a position of power and neither are those who think like you so it effectively makes no difference.
Almost weekly I post the latest AGW studies/reports and it’s usually only ever one or like yesterday maybe two from a couple of sources fresh that day. It’s only the ones I’m interested in that I post though.
For instance I don’t post about coral bleaching, changes in farming and bird migration etc together with other similar papers that don’t ‘ring my bell’.
Do you know how many reports/papers/studies I discard each day from posting on here that mention AGW as a factor...it’s at least 2 new ones almost every weekday, all year. Do you know how many actually mention that AGW is in dispute or not what is claimed? It’s Zero...I’ve never seen one in at least the last 2 years. Thats from Phys.org, Science Daily and Nature. There are many others.
The science is effectively settled bar the fine tuning.
The Paris accord was nothing but a political thing. Science was just there as a guest attendee...It’s small pockets of the Internet that will never accept it, people like you, but you’re not in a position of power and neither are those who think like you so it effectively makes no difference.
Almost weekly I post the latest AGW studies/reports and it’s usually only ever one or like yesterday maybe two from a couple of sources fresh that day. It’s only the ones I’m interested in that I post though.
For instance I don’t post about coral bleaching, changes in farming and bird migration etc together with other similar papers that don’t ‘ring my bell’.
Do you know how many reports/papers/studies I discard each day from posting on here that mention AGW as a factor...it’s at least 2 new ones almost every weekday, all year. Do you know how many actually mention that AGW is in dispute or not what is claimed? It’s Zero...I’ve never seen one in at least the last 2 years. Thats from Phys.org, Science Daily and Nature. There are many others.
The science is effectively settled bar the fine tuning.
People like me, not in a position of power...exactly. Position of power... political...this whole thing is only settled in the political sphere.
So nice of you to read all the papers published to save all of us from doing it for ourselves. You must be a true expert on it all by now...
Let's cast our minds back to xmas 2019 when I contacted the college Prof from Berkeley (I think), challenging him on his report which suggested ALL papers published now fully support AGW...he didn't care that of the 20 or so papers I randomly selected from his list that there was no mention of climate/AGW/related matter. The point is, your comment of "it's zero" is about as accurate as zero.
Please name me one, just one, other single field of the sciences to which the science is settled.
I'll tell you what, feel free to visit the sites I mentioned and come back with a list of published papers that deny AGW or Climate Change in the last 2 years. I'll wait.
The science around MMGW isn't 100% settled, nothing can ever be that certain but it does pass all of the tests to be considered as almost settled.
As for other fields of almost settled science I'd hazard a guess that evolution is all but settled now unless you have some other fantastical explanation to usurp it.
I can't remember, are you one of those who think the climate is warming but it's not due to man or that it's not warming at all?
Gadgetmac said:
Sadly the science is all but settled.
The science is effectively settled bar the fine tuning.
Make your mind up. It is or isn't settled. 99.99999999% isn't "fully settled". All but/nearly/close means that everything is still game and open to be radically changed.The science is effectively settled bar the fine tuning.
Climate change is real, and always has been. Myself and others are not so religiously fanatical about the impending catastrophe that you so clearly are.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff