Unthreaded
Hmm, I come back and the debate has moved into fantasy land.
It seems some people really do believe in astrology and think it's laughable that some of us are sceptical.
Historical estimates of past climate changes suggest that the recent changes in global surface temperature are unusual.But historical measurements don't suggest that at all. Look at the warming from 1900 to 1950 and compare that trend with the industrialised period of 1950 to 2000. Nothing unusual is suggested.
Still at least this is an innovative argument.
Instead of "The imagined future is alarming compared with the present"...
We now have "The imagined past makes the present look alarming".
It's only the empirical evidence that opposes the fantasy.
M Courtney
Climate science appears to be obsessively focused on modeling – Billions of research dollars are being spent in this single minded process. Climate Modeling Dominates Climate Science By PATRICK J. MICHAELS and David E. Wojick
Great article at WUWT, that EM won't read, as he prefers his models computer adjusted to match the failed predictions.
golf charlie
EM, have you given up on the ECS Thread? Kristian's points remain unanswered, and yet ECS seems to be a bit of a problem for all the Computer Models, that you are so attached to.
golf charlie
EM, you are clutching at Strawmen, but can't be drowning as sea level rise is not happening as predicted by the models.
Your beloved Computer Models continue to overheat. Turn them off before they catch fire, and check for some basic faults in the original wiring.
golf charlie
EM "Multiple lines of evidence support attribution of recent climate change to human activities:"
Do they? If so, please do tell us how much, and what proportion of the hiatus is due to human activities.
golf charlie
The models work just fine.
May 19, 2016 at 10:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man
EM - if you believe that, you'll (as the Duke of Wellington is said to have said) believe anything. But I think we had figured that out already.
Martin A
EM, Ed Hawkins graph indicates that the 'projections' of the pause started several years after the pause had already begun. This is the typical standard we have come to expect from climate "science".
michael hart
Harry Passfield, Martin A
You need to update your straw men. The models work just fine.
These are Ed Hawkins' and Tamino's comparisons of models and observations. Perhaps you could use them to justify your belief that the models do not work.
Note Ed Hawkins' second graph. This shows the confidence limits for the original 2005 based ensemble runs in Pale grey. The second ensemble, forcing adjusted to 2011, are in dark grey.
The observed temperatures, the blue line, slot neatly into the forcing adjusted projection. The pause is accurately projected.
Entropic man
Computer-based climate models are unable to replicate the observed warming unless human greenhouse gas emissions are included.
An unvalidated model is no more than an embodiment of a hypothesis. In this case, the hypothesis that CO2 emission resulting from human activity causes warming.
EM - it's a tautology. A tautology does not constitute "a line of evidence". How can you come up with nonsense like that while professing to be interested in science?
Martin A
Obviously! Outwith models climate science doesn't actuality exist.