Despite the polar vortex in the U.S., UAH found last month was the 6th-warmest January in 36 years. The last 5 years are again the warmest in their records:
And as long as I am logged in, the only scientific response to this is "So what?". None of us in climate science think that a 36 year run has any relevance at all to the issue on the table (what causes what?). Everyone in climate science knows that today's temperature is materially the same as in the MWP, the Roman, Minoan, Pliocene ... (and, with ice cores from South America etc. these are global phenomena).Everyone in climate science knows the data that even without human civilization, climate change in the historical past has appeared to occur very rapidly. So there is not a lot of reason to think that today is all that special.
But absolutely none of this is relevant to the question: "Are modern human CO2 emissions likely to cause climate increase, perhaps runaway?" None of this explains why climate models made in the last decade fail to predict climate 10 years out. None of this accounts for why (even with the mix of greenhouse gases that you mention in a few posts) although greenhouse gas concentrations are still going up, temperature has not. The forcings are not working, and we do not understand why. Even though the models are supposed to consider the sun, smog .... David, we actually have something called "climate science". Its truths are not achieved by polling "97%" of people, or lawsuits, or Al Gore, or by calling people who have the attitude ("skepticism") central to science "deniers".
Yes, the political class has corrupted the science. Yes, you are (in your own little way) endorsing and perpetuating that corruption. And no, I doubt that you will stop it, since if you do, you will have very little to blog about.
But please at least consider getting yourself an education about what climate science is (all science, for that matter) and acting in accordance with that understanding. Enough. I need to get back to work.
3 comments:
David. It would be helpful if the two graphs had the same x-axis
And as long as I am logged in, the only scientific response to this is "So what?".
None of us in climate science think that a 36 year run has any relevance at all to the issue on the table (what causes what?).
Everyone in climate science knows that today's temperature is materially the same as in the MWP, the Roman, Minoan, Pliocene ... (and, with ice cores from South America etc. these are global phenomena).Everyone in climate science knows the data that even without human civilization, climate change in the historical past has appeared to occur very rapidly. So there is not a lot of reason to think that today is all that special.
But absolutely none of this is relevant to the question: "Are modern human CO2 emissions likely to cause climate increase, perhaps runaway?" None of this explains why climate models made in the last decade fail to predict climate 10 years out. None of this accounts for why (even with the mix of greenhouse gases that you mention in a few posts) although greenhouse gas concentrations are still going up, temperature has not. The forcings are not working, and we do not understand why. Even though the models are supposed to consider the sun, smog ....
David, we actually have something called "climate science". Its truths are not achieved by polling "97%" of people, or lawsuits, or Al Gore, or by calling people who have the attitude ("skepticism") central to science "deniers".
Yes, the political class has corrupted the science. Yes, you are (in your own little way) endorsing and perpetuating that corruption. And no, I doubt that you will stop it, since if you do, you will have very little to blog about.
But please at least consider getting yourself an education about what climate science is (all science, for that matter) and acting in accordance with that understanding.
Enough. I need to get back to work.
Everyone in climate science knows that today's temperature is materially the same as in the MWP, the Roman, Minoan, Pliocene ...
Since you have been coming here I don't think I've seen you present a single piece of evidence. Not one.
This is why I doubt you are a scientist, let alone a climate scientist -- you don't think like one.
Post a Comment