Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard
Paging aerohead:
If I understand this correctly, Mann underestimated the problem.
[The last two minutes is advertising] |
Our local universities have open TED Talks and community discussions. The organizers invite professors of climate and earth sciences to attend to form a panel to answer questions.
My question is always "Which climate model is the most accurate"? This usually sparks good discussion among the panel members.
This can be summarized by this link to a NASA paper via JPL.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/s...524e30f3c80493
Back checking the models with the best data sets ( global temperatures taken since 1970 via satellites ) shows over a dozen of them are accurate. This is good science.
However, asking the question "do these models take into account all inputs to the climate biosphere whether they be human or natural carbon cycle responses"?
Of course, the models do not take them all into account. They are simply models.
The other question of, "is Mann's graphical use of 200 year historical climate cells proper"? They agree it is. I thus counter with the statement , "so it is ok to use a 50 year time cell in testing the veracity of the climate models"?
They become strangely uncomfortable with this but counter with "we believe with great certainty that the models will be supported as we move forward".
We Believe.
The meetings usually devolve into "action now"! What do we need to do?
I offer the solution that nuclear power can solve all our problems and mitigate or eliminate the "existential threat to humanity".
A lot of yelling about how "bad" nuclear power is usually follows.
I am certain this has nothing to do with science and saving humanity.
Just so you know, I believe in human caused climate change. Where I differ with the popular movement is the degree of climate interference we as humans have and what we should do about it.