Climate change study had 'significant error': experts

[daveman]

You are right, of course. This is so far a hypothesis. AGW does not yet rise to the level of a theory. There has recently been warming. Prior to that there was cooling and prior to that warming. The cooling period of the Little ice Age went on for about 250 to 400 years.

Our current warming has continued for about 230 years if we are to buy into the AGW story line.

The Medieval Warm period last for centuries also. During that warm period, things for humanity were pretty good. During the Little Ice Age, not so much.

We know that Glaciers are receeding to levels prevelant in a time about 5000 years ago. This means we are warming to that level: a level persistant between 8000 and 3000 BC.

Set in a historical perspective, the panic diminishes and we see a simple ebb and flow of climate change.

Superimposing the musings of those who seek funding or who covet the wealth of one nation for another does not add as much light as it adds heat to the debate. Pun intended.

Now you're just making things up. AGW is far beyond the hypothesis stage. You can't make something so, just by saying it. As for your analysis, it fails a basic test of logic to be considered proof of anything. Just because something had a particular cause or time course in the past, doesn't prove that this time there isn't a different cause and time course, particularly given the fact that humans emit more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year!

And that shows that volcanos emit comparitively small amounts of CO2. Compared to ALL of nature, Man causes emissions between 3 and 4 percent of the total with nature emitting the rest.

The leading scientist in the world on the subject is Dr. James Hansen. His three scenarios from 1988 projected climate change based on three different possible emission patterns for CO2. The actual emissions turned out to be higher than the highest projection.

The actual temperature rise turned out to be lower than the lowest prediction.

The actual rise in temperature could be plotted better by simply averaging the past temperature increase and projecting that into the future.

In other words, the increase in CO2 has had no effect on the rate of warming.

Is this evidence the kind that moves a hypothesis into the theory category? Not for my money. One might wonder why, instead, the scientific community so stridently proclaims that something not proven is proven.

-35 in upstate New York doesn't proclaim runaway warming to me.

That's why they started calling it "global climate change" instead of "global warming"...so that whatever happened, they can blame it on American SUVs.

 

[mdn2000]

Climate change has won, they built billions in Wind Turbines, thousands of regulations and laws have been passed, prices are rising, the elite Democrat politicians are getting rich, as are the ever so quiet Republicans.

The money has been lost, I bet its over a trillion dollars, I bet you the housing crisis is part of a cover up, blame everything on housing. Ignore how much Congress screws with energy policy. Over one thousand laws were passed regarding energy in the last two years, I would bet money that in the last twenty years we have had over ten thousand laws passed concerning energy, I bet you its over twenty thousand laws.

Denmark's corporations were bankrupt until the USA passed laws mandating we buy Denmark's Wind Turbines.

Spain is in financial ruins with tens of billions of dollars spent on Green Energy, we are giving money to Spain, we are bailing out Spanish corporations which I believe are only semi-private, Spain is a very socialist country.

Climate change won, Climate change has made millions for Al Gore, Al Gore passed laws and regulations as a politician mandating the use of Wind Turbines and Green Energy. Not just millions but hundreds of millions of dollars, must be nice to be an elite Democrat politician. Riches and money follow after leaving office, a political position used for personal financial gain to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Huge payoffs for Ex-Presidents and Vice-Presidents.

Climate change won, it made the rich, richer. Climate change was never meant to do more.

 

[IanC]

You are right, of course. This is so far a hypothesis. AGW does not yet rise to the level of a theory. There has recently been warming. Prior to that there was cooling and prior to that warming. The cooling period of the Little ice Age went on for about 250 to 400 years.

Our current warming has continued for about 230 years if we are to buy into the AGW story line.

The Medieval Warm period last for centuries also. During that warm period, things for humanity were pretty good. During the Little Ice Age, not so much.

We know that Glaciers are receeding to levels prevelant in a time about 5000 years ago. This means we are warming to that level: a level persistant between 8000 and 3000 BC.

Set in a historical perspective, the panic diminishes and we see a simple ebb and flow of climate change.

Superimposing the musings of those who seek funding or who covet the wealth of one nation for another does not add as much light as it adds heat to the debate. Pun intended.

Now you're just making things up. AGW is far beyond the hypothesis stage. You can't make something so, just by saying it. As for your analysis, it fails a basic test of logic to be considered proof of anything. Just because something had a particular cause or time course in the past, doesn't prove that this time there isn't a different cause and time course, particularly given the fact that humans emit more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year!

And that shows that volcanos emit comparitively small amounts of CO2. Compared to ALL of nature, Man causes emissions between 3 and 4 percent of the total with nature emitting the rest.

The leading scientist in the world on the subject is Dr. James Hansen. His three scenarios from 1988 projected climate change based on three different possible emission patterns for CO2. The actual emissions turned out to be higher than the highest projection.

The actual temperature rise turned out to be lower than the lowest prediction.

The actual rise in temperature could be plotted better by simply averaging the past temperature increase and projecting that into the future.

In other words, the increase in CO2 has had no effect on the rate of warming.

Is this evidence the kind that moves a hypothesis into the theory category? Not for my money. One might wonder why, instead, the scientific community so stridently proclaims that something not proven is proven.

-35 in upstate New York doesn't proclaim runaway warming to me.

Trenberth actually stated that he thinks the null hypothesis should be flipped. that CO2 skeptics should have to prove that something else is causing the warming, and that CO2 should be the default position. of course he also thinks the floods and droughts are bonifide proof, a la Old Rocks. its scary that one of the top 'climate scientists' is obviously at odds with the tenets of science.