Loss of ice is the key factor. The climate won't change much until most of the ice is gone.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:52 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > Eric, all you have to do is to read about the current long lasting pause > in warming along with the statement from these guys that this pause might > last until 2025. Since the pause was 100% not predicted and instead should > have been a more rapid rise, how much more in error could they be? Of > course, with hindsight, they suggest that there is an, until now, unknown > Atlantic current effect which explains the pause. > > How on earth could you or anybody else believe that they will be correct > in their predictions over a 100 year period with this sort of track > record? Are you confident that they now have all the correct variables > under control? With the sort of error that has arisen, it is entirely > possible that they have missed the boat completely and we might actually be > heading into a cooling period. > > They do not merit a free pass like some seem to imply. Also, it does not > take an advanced degree or the requirement that a skeptic be a > climatologist to evaluate their work. Their model outputs are their > contact to the public and decision makers and anyone can observe how poorly > their predictions match the real world data. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Walker <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 12:56 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming? > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Chris Zell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > This doesn't mean that they need to be able to forecast tomorrow's >> lottery numbers ( in effect) but we should expect that they can create >> predictive graphs that follow emerging reality with a reasonable fit - and >> frankly, that's where the problem seems to be. >> > > Given your acquaintance with the field and familiarity with its complete > failure to predict anything, I am confident that you and others will be > able to draw to our attention to a persistent pattern of failed predictions > that demonstrate, beyond a handful of high-profile news-makers, a chronic > record of a science-that-is-not-a-science. I'm sure you can help us to > better understand the poor state of the field by characterizing the error > of climate science with some specificity -- for example, "no climate model > has had a record of predicting the three-year moving average temperature to > better than 60 percent (10 percent above random) when run over a period of > more than 10 years" (this is an example that I pulled out of thin air). To > demonstrate the failure of a field, obviously we will not be able to do > very much with a handful of prominent failures. We must show that the all > of the work of the field, taken together, is as good as rolling dice for > helping us to understand long term climate change. > > I would be very interested in some quantification of the failure of > climate science. > > Eric > >
