On 07/08/2019 19:32, Graham P Davis wrote:
On 07/08/2019 18:14, dennis@home wrote:
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!

The predictions used to produce those graphs are from the 70s and
earlier. The CO2 curve with a sensitivity of 3.0 is taken from the GARP
paper of 1975, as is the data for the prediction based on climate
cycles. The CO2 curve with sensitivity of 2..0 was the calculation made
by Callendar in 1938. In fact, the 3.0 figure consists of a contribution
from CO2 giving a sensitivity of 2.0Â* plus other factors such as water
vapour. In other words, the contribution calculated to be from CO2
hadn't changed since 1838.It's obvious from the curves that the
predictions are still working.

Sawyer, in 1972, predicted that rising CO2 emissions would raise the
global temperature by 0.6C. It actually rose by 0.5C. In the GARP paper
of 1975, a rise by the end of the century of about 0.5C was predicted.
The rise was 0.45C (to nearest 0.05C). How can you say those models
didn't work? Or aren't those predictions accurate enough for you? Do you
prefer the prediction based on climate cycles (also from the 1975 GARP
paper) that the temperature during the last quarter of C20 would fall by
almost 0.1C to a value not seen since The Little Ice Age?

It's not only the warming of the troposphere which was correctly
predicted. So was the rapid warming of the Arctic and the cooling of the
stratosphere. The thing that hasn't been correctly predicted is the
rapid melting of the Arctic Sea-ice; that was underestimated.


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.


The predictions of the changes in atmospheric temperatures, as I have
shown, were correct. The science has been settled.



How can it be true when it states they are using the 2018 data?