The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by All Darc

Computers are mathematic. Mathematic it's only so good as the data and the equations for simulate events.

We don't have all data and all equations to simulate the entire planet, since we don't have how to get it right. Sun light and sun effect on magnetic filed, oceans, atmosphere, and even vulcanic and magma flux after the crost.

Despite some alarming and apocaliptic sentences, I think Earth it's changing fast.

A bit off now. May I ask someone about the soldering schmemes in a typical solar panel?
Not all cell are soldered in paralel, otherwise the final output in volts would bemuch higher.
Some help, please.

This climate change is a joke compared to the end of the last ice age.

In most panels the cells are in serries. Each cell only makes like a 1/2 volt. Your 72 cell panels make about 48 volts and 60 cell panels make about 35 volts.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by freebeard

It gets complicated. Instead of Thunderfoot watch EVTV. https://www.youtube.com/user/marionrickard/videos



https://www.youtube.com/user/Suspicious0bservers

If you quote S0 I already know the answer.

[TheEnemy]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

1. So the computer model source data is publicly available?
2. The antartic has not been gaining ice?
Which of the computer models have been correct?
If all these computer models were correct then why did the ipcc say that all the models were failing because they were over estimating the effect CO2 was having by double what it was.
Where is the death spiral we were promised?
Why isn't the plant warming faster?
That sure is a lot of blind faith for something that isn't a religion.

1. Yes, it is hard to find but I was able to use it to build a model of my own.
2. https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ 2018 is a bit higher than average, 2017 was a bit below average. The arctic is a bit below average this year. Bottom of the page for the Antarctic.
There have been some that have been close but due to the nature of the beast it will never be 100% due to the use of proxy data which sometimes all we have.

I haven't seen the IPCC say that, can you provide the source?

The rest is because it has become too politicized and the regular claims are actually not supported by many of the core scientists who have been with it for decades now.

Edit: There is data showing that the thickness in much of the antarctic is decreasing even though the total coverage is remaining the same.

[oil pan 4]

Just search something to the effect of "ipcc CO2 over estimate".
Neal said he knew of no such announcement, couldn't find it and I was able to find it within 10 seconds of Google searching.

[TheEnemy]

I must be blind as well I only found one news article from BBC that talked about it.

[oil pan 4]

Well you don't expect the true believers to openly advertise how wrong they were do you?
Or try bing since Google has already been accused of burying "denier results".
That pretty much confirms it too, I searched for it right after the ipcc released the CO2 thing and got about 10 results.
Now only one comes up. Google and their Jedi mind tricks, "these are not the results we want you looking for" lol.

[freebeard]

Bing Is Not Google. Ha!

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ipcc+CO2+over+estimate

A full page and then Load More.
________

edit:
https://www.startpage.com/do/asearch

Adds a page each time you click Next. But you can limit it to Any Time/Last -24 hours/-week/-month/-year

[TheEnemy]

I may have found your references for it, then when and looked at the IPCC AR4 and AR5 synthesis reports.

Between AR4 and AR5 page 9

AR4 SYR Synthesis Report - Figure 5.1

http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report..._FINAL_SPM.pdf

went from approx 2.5C to approx 1.75C for a doubling to 500ppm.

[Xist]

Red Point, did you watch the video that Sendler linked? Has anyone else? I have not seen any comment about it. I think that it is absolutely relevant to this conversation. Here it is again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D99qI42KGB0

Oil Pan, please show one unedited clip of Gore saying the poles would melt by 2010. When I checked the other day I found references to 2013, which I still do not think Neil Blanchard wants to accept.

[niky]

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ic...elt-gore-2014/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsioIw4bvzI

He is referring to sea ice.

And the possibility that sea ice will disappear within the next few years.

We're still on track to get there, eventually.

-

Again, howeer, Al Gore is NOT a scientist. He is almost as guilty of misreading the data analyses as deniers are.