National Geographic "The War On Science"

The consensus is that warming is happening and that humans are a large part of the driving force.
I haven't heard of any consensus on the future warming rate, and what it may cause to differing regions.

So questioning the accuracy of the models when it comes to future predictions isn't questioning the consensus.

 

The only thing I could add to this statement that science and law isn't the same thing.

There is no habeas corpus in science, so unlike in court of law just because there is no accurate model depicting AGW it does not mean AGW does not exists.

 

I don't understand the use of accurate here, since the sensitivitity predictions are stated in terms of probability.

 

IIRC, there was a survey of "climate scientists" about 5 years ago asking how well they think climate models can project temperature trends 50 years in the future. Something like 2% said very well, and something like 6% said very poorly. So in that survey, the "consensus" was overwhelmingly (~98%) at least somewhat negative about climate model projections. And this was just temperature projections, never mind precip, cloud, or upper flow configuration projections.

For the record, I never said that climate models were "wrong", just that they are unreliable to the point of being little more than a guess.

This isn't the issue, at least that I'm addressing. AGW may clearly exist, but we really don't know how the earth's atmosphere/climate will respond to this warming. In my opinion as someone who has worked with atmospheric models extensively, climate models can't reliably shed any light on that. A warmer climate in and of itself in not a negative, other than maybe rises in sea level, since far more people die from exposure to extreme cold than from extreme heat.

 

No disagreement here, at least on highlighted part.

Sea levels may be of concern if you live on the islands/coastal planes, but they are relatively minor. There are maybe some more dire consequences besides gradual flooding if polar ice melts and thermohaline circulation stops. If it happens we might be following the Permian extinction scenario - there is enough methane captured on the bottom of the ocean in clathrate to wipe out life as we know it.

 

There is a whole slew of dire consequences besides sea level rise -- as if coastal flooding is not bad enough.

Start with ocean acidification
Emerging infectious diseases
Droughts
Floods

Spidey is going to be ecstatic, because it will remind him of the Egyptian plagues.

 

and judgement day?

Honestly after you read on what happened during PTE nuclear holocaust doesn't sound as bad. At least there will be more survivors.
Clathrate gun hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Permian–Triassic extinction event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Thank you for tracking that down. I'm embarrassed I was too lazy to do so.
But generally I prefer looking at raw data and analyses rather than trusting any body of experts, although I can get stymied by the "pay wall" of getting the original studies via the Internet. But ignoring facts in aviation, warfare, and related endeavors is often fatal, so I truly do not understand "flying from the facts". The Scientific American article linke by Bob was informative, but still can't see doing faith based actions if my life is at stake.

 

problem with GW is that it is unlikely to cause catastrophic events in our lifetime. And how many people follow the diet just b/c they may have diabetes or heart attack 30 years down the road (in their lifetime)?

 

Good point although children and grandchildren expand the relevant time frame for me to at least 100+ years. ---> motivated giving away RV and a Saturn to purchase Prius.
Also depends on exactly how point is brought home to person:
Lying in hospital having heart attack symptoms during an angioplasty in 1995 ---> adoption and maintenance of strict Ornish diet for almost 20 years now.
Running aircraft low on fuel over Smoky Mountains and finally landing with less than 1 gallon in tank ---> careful attention to fuel management and reserves over next 400 flight hours.
So people can change given sufficient impetus, not sure how to have that impetus in the case of human-induced climate change.

 

The IPCC climate models have been incorrectly projecting too much warming for over 18 years.
Every minute that the global warming "pause" continues,take the models predictions to a greater inaccuracy.

 

I wonder if these models took into consideration volcanic activity. Also dust storms and iron seeding. And about another 100 things.

Problem with many statistical models that they work well within range they're defined. Not so much outside of. If the model is built on approximation of physical processes then the question becomes if all processes accounted for and weighted correctly.

 

I disagree. The problem with mankind accepting GW is that many of us can't see the catastrophes that are already happening.
This is because rare disastrous events have always happened. Only some are recognizing that these are happening more often, and the results are truly catastrophic.

 

Statistically disastrous weather has been happening less often in a global warming world.Less hurricanes less tornadoes less drought less wildfires.
Only exception is more bullshit from the brainwashed.

 

Tell it to folks living in California.

...but here we go again: GW = weather, and weather is good today, so GW is hogwash.

Irreguardless it is not weather, the retreating permafrost and polar ice should be your concern.

 

Chatting with agricultural extension scientist in Qaqartaq, Greenland, and he is thrilled that warming is both making their ice cap retreat noticeably and making it possible to grow some types of edible plants in the southern sections of the country. But that ice cap alone would raise sea level over 20 feet, IIRC , which inundates large swathes of heavily populated coastal areas. I do not think those millions will submit to being quietly drowned.