Is The Sun Causing The Current Climate Change?

[stlfisher]

We all know it's generally accepted, but it's also misguided, as proven by the fact that 95% of their models/predictions are wrong. That's not science, that's guessing. And darn poor guessing at that.

You keep alluding to the models being wrong. That is not an argument for our against climate change. They are models which are guesses. Our best weather models still get the details wrong all the time, but they do a remarkable job at predicting the large scale synoptic features and pattern changes in the long term. They struggle with details up until the day of and sometimes still get it wrong. But they tell us it is going to storm, temperature changes, and if it is going to rain usually well advance. The models predicting sea rise and warmer temperatures are certainly valid, but they won't get the exact amounts correct. If you need those details as evidence that is never going to happen. The only way it would be possible is to have all the variables that never change...again that is not going to happen.

Climate change is real, and I believe we are the cause. To deny it IMO is just silly. I agree we are going nowhere fast so I only hope that an alternative fuel becomes viable soon enough that it is economically feasible to use. Otherwise, as stated above our legacy of destruction will doom us long before anything else.

[Al Agnew]

Well, I'm getting dragged back in. I just saw a graph in the latest Audubon Society magazine, which basically devoted their whole issue to climate change and what it may do to bird populations. The graph depicted actual global temperatures for each year since 1950, and the range of temps predicted by the various climate models that Jeb says have been wrong. Understand, the models do two things. They go back in time, taking all available factors in, and predict what the temps should have been, and then go forward in time to predict what they should be in the future. There are different temperature outcomes in each model because modeling IS an inexact science. In fact, from the most pessimistic model to the most optimistic there's generally about 0.6 degrees centigrade in any given year. And of course, short term yearly climate is variable; it doesn't go up or down steadily from year to year, so it's impossible for any model to predict exactly what the global temp average will be in any given year. Maybe that's what Jeb means by saying the models are continually wrong.

So here is a photo I snapped of the graph:

Note that global average temps have stayed within the range of the models, with only a couple of places where they have been at or near the most optimistic model. A couple of years they have been close to the most pessimistic model, but mostly they've stayed somewhere near the middle range. Note that ALL the models show a gradual temperature rise as the years go by. Note that global temps have shown the same gradual temp rise when the yearly bumps are smoothed out.

Note also that in the last decade or so, temps do appear to have leveled off if you take out the yearly bumps, going from staying in general in the middle of what the models predict to getting close to the bottom, or what the more optimistic models predict. IF that trend continues, yep, the real temps will start to go under the gray area covered by the models, and the models will have been wrong. But it's far too soon to say that the models are wrong at this point.

See the peak back around 1998? The non-scientists who disagree with AGW point to that year and say that there has been no significant rise in global temps since 1998. But you can see that 1998 was one of those outlier years when it was way hotter than the general trend. Smooth out that bump along with the others, and you'll see that temps didn't start to level off until the mid-2000s, and that there have been a couple of years since then that were still slightly hotter than 1998.

[oneshot]

Until a scientist can part the red sea, their "facts and figures" seem pretty far fetched to me.

I was thinking the same.

oneshot

[fishinwrench]

I was thinking the same.

oneshot

Do they actually have to DO IT, or can someone just say they did ?

[Al Agnew]

I was thinking the same.

oneshot

Well, heck, let's just go with the supernatural and not worry about science at all, then.

[Justin Spencer]

Do they actually have to DO IT, or can someone just say they did ?

That's written in a book so it must be true, hard to make that up, there was probably video of it all over fox news and cnn.

[fishinwrench]

Yep sure enough. Must be true cuz here's the footage.

Moses Parts the Sea - The Ten Commandments (6/10):

They can't claim that no animals were harmed in the making.... because one of the chariots runs over a duck!

[fishinwrench]

Does this piece fit here ?

http://m.omaha.com/news/nation/study-links-changing-winds-to-warming-in-pacific/article_8ed4388b-2024-5ccf-9467-9b3f7289d088.html?mode=jqm

[Old plug]

I am just sitting here with my 410 waiting to kill a Armaldillo. My 7th this year just in my immeadiate area alone. Back 7-8 years ago never seen one in my life. They were a animal of areas with a warmer average normal temperatures. Most people arounf here refer to them as vermin. Amd that they are. But the worst vermin on the plant is the human animal. The distruction of all these other vermin. pales by what we do to the planet and each other.

[jeb]

You keep alluding to the models being wrong. That is not an argument for our against climate change.

I guess not, since the climate has always changed and always will. It is certainly an arguement against believeing what the AGW/CC evangilists want us to buy into though, since they use those models for their sky is falling predictions.

They are models which are guesses. Our best weather models still get the details wrong all the time, but they do a remarkable job at predicting the large scale synoptic features and pattern changes in the long term. They struggle with details up until the day of and sometimes still get it wrong. But they tell us it is going to storm, temperature changes, and if it is going to rain usually well advance.

I guess you're talking about short term weather models here. The evangilist tell you one has nothing to do with the other. But to me, they have to be compared. If we can't reliably forecast local weather data for even 30 days out, it's just simply beyond obvious we can't predict climate many decades out, or even a few years.

Climate change is real, and I believe we are the cause. To deny it IMO is just silly.

I don't know how anyone can say that when all the evidence so far says otherwise. To me, it seems silly to believe we are "the cuase", as you put it, when we KNOW ice ages have come and gone w/o us even existing.