@ScottAdamsSays The IPCC recently erased this page:
https://web.archive.org/web/20181103051332/https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/501.htm …
It stated clearly:
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible"
IPCC doesn't want us to know this.
-
-
Replying to @EcoSenseNow
Everyone knows you can't predict the average temperature with precision a hundred years in the future. The alarmist argument is more along the lines of "every model shows dire temperature increases, so that much we know for sure." Except the Russian one, perhaps.
14 replies 14 retweets 34 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
The point is, we can't "know" it for sure. As in "impossible" due to that pesky thing called chaos. Have you read "Chaos" by Gleick? Only the solar cycles offer some predictability in the short term. The Grand Solar Minimum hypothesis is gaining ground.
6 replies 26 retweets 83 likes -
Replying to @EcoSenseNow
I did financial modeling for a living. You don't need to convince me that 80-year predictions are bullshit. But if EVERY model pointed to doom, albeit at different rates, that would concern me.
20 replies 7 retweets 28 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @EcoSenseNow
Every model is based on the false idea that CO2 causes warming. It has a corollary relationship with warming, not causal. As oceans warm they release it, cool they absorb it. It's being used to consolidate gov power, while ignoring real problems like Fukushima, pollution, etc
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RCarletonFreedo @EcoSenseNow
You realize most of the climate skeptics agree with the general idea that CO2 increases warming, right?
7 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
He means the models have been calibrated based on the unproven claim that all of the recent warming has been caused by CO2... I hope...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
No. Most skeptics agree CO2 raises temperature.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
We agree. But if you assume ALL the recent past warming was due to CO2, the sensitivity comes out too high which leads to overheated projections.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
No one assumes that. They assume the opposite. For the past.
-
-
By past I meant 1980-2000
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Accepted
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.