Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Climate scientists have known for a long time that aerosols from volcanic eruptions have a cooling effect (a negative forcing). This is just more fine tuning detail about the cooling effect from aerosols from smaller volcanic eruptions.
"fine tuning". That's code for "we totally screwed up and our climate change models are useless". But, we will continue to pay these leeches to develop more climate models. Someday they may guess correctly.
How can you expect to be taken seriously when all you do is gullibly parrot misinformation and myths from climate science denier bloggers and swallow whatever the tabloid press or media shock jocks (whose job is to increase advertising revenue) tell you?
How can you expect to be taken seriously when all you do is gullibly parrot misinformation and myths from climate science alarmist bloggers and swallow whatever the tabloid press or media shock jocks (whose job is to increase advertising revenue) tell you?
How can you expect to be taken seriously when all you do is gullibly parrot misinformation and myths from climate science alarmist bloggers and swallow whatever the tabloid press or media shock jocks (whose job is to increase advertising revenue) tell you?
"fine tuning". That's code for "we totally screwed up and our climate change models are useless". But, we will continue to pay these leeches to develop more climate models. Someday they may guess correctly.
It's called science sorry if it isn't perfect, do you have a better scientific method than models, maybe looking in the rear view mirror? If you actually read the article you would see that the predictions on volcanoes were also based on models. What scientific methods do you embrace if not models?
What gets me is that the Op link presumes that there is a large AGW component to global warming and that recent volcanic eruptions are merely putting greater warming on 'hiatus'. So you have global warming deniers arguing over a link about global cooling due to volcanic activity that supports the scientific evidence of AGW. The real questions is if the volcanic activity is resulting in a global cooling why are not temperatures plunging?
"fine tuning". That's code for "we totally screwed up and our climate change models are useless". But, we will continue to pay these leeches to develop more climate models. Someday they may guess correctly.
Nope. More research and data like that study just makes the models even more accurate in projecting future long term trends than they already are and increases the confidence levels of the projections.
But please continue to gullibly swallow your misinformed conspiracy theories fuelled by the tabloid press, media shock jocks, and science denier blogs...
adjective1. Showing a tendency to envision things in perfect but unrealistic form:utopian, visionary.
2. Not compatible with reality:
I love how exploiting the poor to benefit the rich is the way of the world, but taking from the rich to benefit the poor is some sort of unnatural unrealistic path to global poverty, with no explanation given.
I love how exploiting the poor to benefit the rich is the way of the world, but taking from the rich to benefit the poor is some sort of unnatural unrealistic path to global poverty, with no explanation given.
Nope. More research and data like that study just makes the models even more accurate in projecting future long term trends than they already are and increases the confidence levels of the projections.
Those climate models have overshot warming over the last 20 years and is being discussed in peer reviewed literature. Here HereHere
Surely you don't disagree that the warming (or lack there of) seen over the last 20 years is at the very least at the lower end of the multi ensemble climate model projections right?
To claim that they are "accurate" in future long term trends means that you believe that by 2030, (according to the models) Chicago fore example is projected to have a summer climate like that of North Arkansas.... And by 2095, the Midwest will be 7C warmer than it is today. In other words, Chicago will resemble Northeast Texas, and St Louis, will have a climate like the Gulf Coast. That's what the models project. Do you actually believe that? Just curious.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
