Global Warmists back off on prediction

[wolf]

From July 2007 Discover Magazine

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by wolf

From July 2007 Discover Magazine

Wow what a great article - I especially found this part compelling

"Yes, but you have to give the sun a role. If you include the sun in the right way, the effect of CO2 must be smaller. The question is, how much smaller? All we know about the effect of CO2 is really based on climate models that predict how climate should be in 50 to 100 years, and these climate models cannot actually model clouds at all, so they are really poor. When you look at them, the models are off by many hundreds percent. It’s a well-known fact that clouds are the major uncertainty in any climate model. So the tools that we are using to make these predictions are not actually very good."

[xoxoxoBruce]

This is the biggest whodunit, ever.

[Squid_Operator]

It's all part of normal temp flexuation. Weirder stuff was happening in the 1920s.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Fluctuation.

[Clodfobble]

Fluc you white people too!

[yesman065]

Does this mean Al Gore can pack up, admit he was wrong, apologize to millions and go home now?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Not likely, considering we don't know that he's wrong, yet. Neither do we know if he's right. I suspect it's somewhere in the middle and I'd suggest we stop playing politics and redouble our(collective) efforts to find the truth.

If there is things that will truly help, make a significant difference, we should nail them down and implement them.... rather than siphoning off effort and money into feel good measures that are a waste.

[yesman065]

I agree that we should do what we can, but for him to make as many UNFOUNDED claims as he has is rediculous and he should be called out on them. If we, as a collective, can make a difference, then by all means let do it. But if we are having virtually no impact on the situation - why then should we spend time, energy and resources on something that we have no control over. That is an even bigger waste. Lets put those resources toward something we actually can do that will make a difference in the world.

[Happy Monkey]

All of his claims are well founded. Nothing in science is certain, but he does have good science on his side.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Since I didn't see his movie, I'll take your word for it. But that doesn't apply to all the rest of the claims I've seen presented in the press and on the net... even here in the (french horns) Cellar.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

All of his claims are well founded. Nothing in science is certain, but he does have good science on his side.

His claims belong in the science perverted for politics thread. He has outdated rather poor science on his side. That has been discussed also - the facts as they are coming out show that his science did not take into account certain factors which negate his claims. Sun flares and the cloud issues are just two of them.

[tw]

From the July 2007 article in Discover Magazine:

His studies show that cosmic rays trigger cloud formation, suggesting that a high level of solar activity—which suppresses the flow of cosmic rays striking the atmosphere—could result in fewer clouds and a warmer planet.

And then what five scientists from the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change say in an August 2007 article in Scientific American entitled The Physical Science behind Climate Change:

Suggestions that cosmic rays could affect clouds, and thereby climate, have been based on correlations using limited records; they have generally not stood up when tested with additional data, and their physcial mechanisms remain speculative.

[yesman065]

I'd really like to read either of your articles - could you correct the link go to the relative info/article please?

[Happy Monkey]

There's a search box on Scientific American. They won't give you the article for free, unfortunately.