On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 21:26:24 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 19:38:13 +0100, Java Jive
On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 17:44:00 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:
It is one of the several weaknesses in the AGW
There is no weakness of any significance.
In which case, why have the models been predicting global temperatures
significantly higher than those observed in almost the last couple of
Because they're talking about long-term trends over many decades, and
these are shorter-term decadal variations and cycles which mask those
long-term trends over the shorter-term.
Either the values of some of the parameters used in the
modelling are wrong, because they are difficult to measure precisely,
or there are other parameters that have not been considered or
included, or both.
Climatologists can't even predict the next El Niņo
Can you? Don't tell me that it's not your job, because, AIUI, it's
not necessarily theirs, probably too short a timescale to interest
most of them, and certainly so for anything more than passing
relevance to AGW.
let alone explain
why it happens, so it's not too surprising they can't get the global
They have been getting the temperatures reasonably accurately over the
Why don't you just admit it?! You're just another climate denialist,
peddling the usual pseudo-science that denialists use ...
Obfuscation by the introduction of straw-men such as water-vapour.
Obfuscation by deliberate confusion of timescales.
Sowing of FUD by introduction of weather-related irrelevancies.
Climate models aren't perfect, nobody's pretending they are and those
who create them are always trying to improve them, but they're the
best tool we've got for predicting far into the future, and deliberate
attempts to sabotage their public credibility by sowing politicised
FUD is irresponsible, and if you are really an ex-scientist, which on
your showing here I'm beginning to doubt, you should know better.
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at: