AGW scientific consensus

[Jack McOck]

After 15 years of flat temperatures, scientific experts place equilibrium climate sensitivity within a range of 0.5—7°C. We must act now before it's too late!

http://www.economist.com/news/science-a ... -emissions

[Bagatell]

We must act now before it's too late!

Make my own chemtrails?

[Jack McOck]

I'll allow it.

[Jack McOck]

I just found it an interesting read. Especially the margin of 0.5 to 7%. If scientists can achieve such precision, then maybe there's something to this global warming thing after all.

[Jack McOck]

Exactly. And rather than saying something impossibly precise, like that 6 million Jews died in WW2, they're saying something more akin to estimating that between 0.8 and 11.2 million Jews died in WW2—the former figure of course being a lower than the total number of lives claimed by circumcision. From this we could conclude that Hitler's favorite pastime may have been less detrimental to the Jewish people than their own religious traditions.

Perspective—making everyone look intelligent (or stupid) since a very long (or very short) time ago.

[Emissary]

An interesting thing I read a few months back about how all the coal smog in china was actually helping stop temperature increase as much as they could be. So when all that coal is burnt and the smog lifts prepare for ouch time.

[Jack McOck]

The ocean temperature has not stopped going up..

Nope.

[Jack McOck]

Flat since ~'98.

[Jack McOck]

Look at the dates on that graph you posted. Then look at mine. Then at yours. Then at mine.

Flat since ~'98.

Also, yours was for level, not temperature. The "fuck you" is in the details.

[SuburbanThug]

I wonder why all that ice is melting up north...

[Jack McOck]

That's a good question.

[Jack McOck]

Look at the dates on that graph you posted. Then look at mine. Then at yours. Then at mine.

Flat since ~'98.

Also, yours was for level, not temperature. The "fuck you" is in the details.

The sea level rises with temperature because the water expands as it warms.

Off topic.

[andydes]

Hmm, I see. According to some, when the temperature goes up its "natural variation", when it stays the same, it's proof the alarmists are wrong.

When climate models predict a bigger rise in temperature, no one really knows what's happening, or it's all lefty conspiracy, but if one model shows less increase in temperature, that must be the right one. Of course. No doubt, that's one we should use, if it shows we can keep going as we are a little longer.

[stringtapper]

my children's future

Ah fuck, please tell me you're speaking figuratively.

[Jack McOck]

How do you work that one out?

I explain why your graph is completely irrelevant to this post (it doesn't include the last 15 years), and you reply with some random factoid. Hence "off-topic". Or were you trying to suggest that NASA's measurements are wrong?

Either way, "Any Rand" (sic) has nothing to do with this discussion, the starting point of which was the fact that the experts understand absolutely fuck all, as (1), their predictions are so vague that they might as well be nonexistent (a range of 0.5 to 7°C is NOT helpful), and (2), despite their possibly intentional vagueness, their models are still failing.

As you say, "let's stick with the science".