On 07/08/2019 16:04, Graham P Davis wrote:
On 07/08/2019 08:50, dennis@home wrote:
On 07/08/2019 08:08, Graham P Davis wrote:
On 06/08/2019 13:03, dennis@home wrote:
On 06/08/2019 08:24, JGD wrote:
On 05/08/2019 22:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
We know that there can be a considerable lag (40-50 years, maybe
more) for a given CO2 level to have its FULL effect on polar ice
melt, sea-level etc.

Hoe ****ing convenient for the climate shysters


Don't you just hate it when those pesky facts get in the way!

Actually no climate scientists says that there will be a 50 year lag.

What, not apart from all of them you mean.


They didn't predict a lag in the '70s when they said things were
warming really fast.
Now there is a pause the models failed to predict they are saying
there is a lag just to hide the fact the models don't actually work.


There is no pause. There has been no significant pause since 1970.
http://www.scarlet-jade.com/science/...e-change/#data



Â*Â*rubbish there has been little warming for the last 20 years compared
to what was predicted.

The graph in this section includes the predictions. See how the actual
temperature parallels the curve for the forecast based on a CO2
sensitivity of 3.0 (a rise of 3C for a doubling of CO2).

http://www.scarlet-jade.com/science/...ange/#analysis


don't let the idea that the last few hottest years have all been
recent fool you into thinking its significant, we are on a plateaux
and you would expect the hottest years to be on that plateaux.


Did you look at the graph?


Of course and its not the models from the '70s/'80s where they predicted
everything incorrectly.

Now if the models used to produce those graphs and predictions are
correct in ten years time you may have a point, until then they are not
a proven science. Just at the models from '7os/'80s are shown to not be
science as they didn't work!

Remember science is a process, you decide how something works and then
prove it. So far the models are unproven, the science is not settled
whatever you say.