I'll show this image again.
Does it not raise any questions to you as to why so many different models can be so wrong? The output can only ever be as good as the input. Bad data/assumptions in = bad data out.
Something obviously needs some reworking, but the climate science community seems to be awfully quiet and reluctant to make any adjustments.
In my experience modellers are very open and honest about the uncertainties in their models. I've never heard anyone say that they expect their models to precisely predict year to year, or even decade to decade fluctuations. If you ever go to a modelling conference one of the most repeated phrases that you'll hear is "this is not a crystal ball". If you read papers published by modellers you'll find they are pretty explicit about the uncertainties and assumptions in their models.
I'm not a climate modeller so I'm not really in a position to engage to much in a discussion about the plot you keep attaching. But, my understanding of the issue is that these models are showing a long term trend of increased warming. So far the overall trend has been correct, but it is yet to be seen whether their long term predictions are right or wrong.
I know I shouldn't get involved in this discussion as I really don't know anything about it, but... just looking over that plot you put up, the red and blue lines are actually remarkably close to some of the model predictions. I'm impressed.
From a very recent published paper. It seems that sea level rise has also been greatly exaggerated.
Full paper available here, for those that would assume that I am 'cherry picking'.In view of the data presented, we believe that we are justified to draw the following conclusions:
(1) The official Australian claim [2,3] of a present sea level rise in the order of 5.4mm/year is significantly exaggerated (Figure 3).
(2) The mean sea level rise from Australian tide gauges as well as global tide gauge networks is to be found within the sector of rates ranging from 0.1 to 1.5 mm/year (yellow wedge in Figure 3).
(3) The claim of a recent acceleration in the rate of sea level rise [2,3,12] cannot be validated by tide gauge records, either in Australia or globally (Figure 3). Rather, it seems strongly contradicted [19,21,24,39-41]
The practical implication of our conclusions is that there, in fact, is no reason either to fear or to prepare for any disastrous sea level flooding in the near future.
This does, of course, not mean that we should ignore the problem; just that we study it carefully and with open eyes. The decisive facts must be found in nature itself; ideas and computer models are simply not good enough.
In the US, the current year-to-date shows it is the lowest in at least the last decade.
Link for those who think I am cherry picking.
So to answer beebs, we have looked at all of the natural disasters that you mention, and the answer on all fronts is 'no'.
http://www.afr.com/p/national/combet...rYkTGToixxI6XMThe federal government is set to slash around $100 million in funding for solar and other renewable energy projects to help cover an expected plunge in the price of carbon in three years time.
Funding for manufacturers to adopt low-emissions technology – worth $1.2 billion – and initiatives in regional Australia to improve carbon storage are also likely to be reduced in next week’s budget.
Good start. There are definitely more cuts to be had in this area though. Maybe they are waking up to the false models and failed predictions?
Last edited by Father; 09-05-2013 at 06:12. Reason: added link
And therein lies the problem with the models.
I've watched the goings on heading towards the budget this year with trepidation.
As anyone that ventures into these threads will know -I was against the carbon tax right from the start - the whole premise of it - I said that it wouldn't work, and it is purely a wealth redistribution tax. Others said they thought wealth redistribution is good if it moves the money in the right direction. The problem is that the models weren't just out, they were way out.
Models can and do help in planning for the future. My thoughts from the start were that the carbon tax was rushed. I think the information which has come to light in the last few months backs that up - the models weren't produced with enough research. Sadly the tax is less than 12months old.
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!
Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!