Scientists narrow global warming range

May 27, 2013

(Phys.org) —Australian scientists have narrowed the predicted range of global warming through groundbreaking new research.

Scientists from the University of Melbourne and Victoria University have generated what they say are more reliable projections of global warming estimates at 2100.

The paper, led by Dr Roger Bodman from Victoria University with Professors David Karoly and Peter Rayner from the University of Melbourne and published in Nature Climate Change today, found that exceeding 6 degrees warming was now unlikely while exceeding 2 degrees is very likely for business-as-usual emissions.

This was achieved through a new method combining observations of carbon dioxide and global temperature variations with simple to project future global warming.

Dr Bodman said while continuing to narrow the range even further was possible, significant uncertainty in warming predictions would always remain due to the complexity of climate change drivers. "This study ultimately shows why waiting for certainty will fail as a strategy," he said. "Some uncertainty will always remain, meaning that we need to manage the risks of warming with the knowledge we have."

The study found 63% of uncertainty in projected warming was due to single sources – such as , followed by future behaviour of the and the cooling effect of – while 37% of uncertainty came from the combination of these sources.

"This means that if any single uncertainty is reduced – even the most important, climate sensitivity – significant uncertainty will remain," Dr Bodman said.

Professor Karoly said the study reinforced the importance of strong action on climate change.

"Our results reconfirm the need for urgent and substantial reductions in if the world is to avoid exceeding the global warming target of 2 degrees needed to minimise dangerous climate change," he said.

Dr Bodman is Postgraduate Research Fellow at Victoria University's Centre for Strategic Economic Studies. Professor Karoly and Professor Rayner are from the University of Melbourne's School of Earth Sciences and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science.

Explore further: Weird weather lingers in Alaska's largest city

More information: Uncertainty in temperature projections reduced using carbon cycle and climate observations, DOI: 10.1038/nclimate1903

Related Stories

Dire outlook despite global warming 'pause': study

May 19, 2013

A global warming "pause" over the past decade may invalidate the harshest climate change predictions for the next 50 to 100 years, a study said Sunday—though levels remain in the danger zone.

Century-old science helps confirm global warming

May 23, 2013

(Phys.org) —Ocean measurements taken more than 135 years ago during the scientific expedition of HMS Challenger have provided further confirmation of human-produced global warming over the past century.

Are tropical forests resilient to global warming?

Mar 10, 2013

Tropical forests are less likely to lose biomass – plants and plant material - in response to greenhouse gas emissions over the twenty-first century than may previously have been thought, suggests a study published online ...

Sophisticated simulations predict future warming

May 22, 2012

The chances of our planet being hit by a global warming of 3 degrees Celsius by 2050 is as likely as it being hit by an increase of 1.4 degrees, new research shows. Presented in the journal Nature Geoscience, the British study ...

Recommended for you

New challenges for ocean acidification research

22 hours ago

Over the past decade, ocean acidification has received growing recognition not only in the scientific area. Decision-makers, stakeholders, and the general public are becoming increasingly aware of "the other carbon dioxide ...

Compromises lead to climate change deal

22 hours ago

Earlier this month, delegates from the various states that make up the UN met in Lima, Peru, to agree on a framework for the Climate Change Conference that is scheduled to take place in Paris next year. For ...

User comments : 66

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dogbert
2.1 / 5 (44) May 27, 2013
"This means that if any single uncertainty is reduced – even the most important, climate sensitivity – significant uncertainty will remain," Dr Bodman said.

Professor Karoly said the study reinforced the importance of strong action on climate change.


Even while admitting the high degree of uncertainty in climate models, the authors then declare that this uncertainty reinforces the importance of strong action on climate change.

AGW proponents have no shame at all.

LightCatcher
3.6 / 5 (25) May 27, 2013
There will always be some level of uncertainty. We can rest assured it will not be the 6 degrees but at least 2 degrees. Given our obstinance against taking action we can hope it will be less. But we clearly have no rational basis to expect that.
verkle
1.8 / 5 (29) May 27, 2013
Not sure if the range of uncertainty has been narrowed. While previous sensationalist predictions may have said from +6 to +10 degress, the number now may be a more realistic -2 to +2 degrees.

mememine69
1.5 / 5 (34) May 27, 2013
Climate change science reporting was a war crime!
If scientists after 28 years of intensive research cannot say their climate crisis is as inevitable as they like to say comet hits are then it's not a crisis. Twenty eight years of "maybe" proves 100% it won't be a crisis and save your little tiny catastrophic crisis for a Harry Potter movie. Climate change crisis was a total exaggeration and real planet lovers rejoice at a crisis being averted. The rest of you neocon like fear mongers wanted this misery for our children.
mememine69
1.4 / 5 (34) May 27, 2013
Anyone still spewing a CO2 death for billions of children is a war criminal.
Birger
4.2 / 5 (25) May 27, 2013
Complex stuff is complex.

Dogbert, you realise that "only" 2 degrees of warming will have drastic consequences, don't you? Good luck with rescuing any seafront property in Florida, once the temperature buffer of the upper ocean waters has been saturated. It will take decades so you and other deniers may be safely dead. Too bad about the next generations, though.
BaconBits
3.8 / 5 (18) May 27, 2013
Brilliant display of scientific ignorance here in the comments again.

Statistical modelling of a complex system like the running of a computer data center or the behavior of a galaxy, the results of a presidential election, or the interactions of air, land and oceans on temperature result in a prediction within a range of uncertainty.

The range of outcomes can be narrowed with better techniques as described in this article. Or as Nate Silver showed in the election predictions a meta analysis of all the prediction can show what the most likely outcome might be.

Using those methods we get a glimpse of how the future might look, given what we know. Over the past 30 years we've been methodically chronically what we know that might impact future weather to buy down as much uncertainty as we can. This is what the science of climate requires. Using this refined insight to make a claim that it's going to get warmer and maybe not extremely warmer is a reasonable use of the science.

VENDItardE
1.5 / 5 (31) May 27, 2013
give it up alarmists...the party is over....the game is up.....stop your fkn lies.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (29) May 27, 2013
First it was the "science is settled" now it's not 6 but 2 degrees. This is just the AGW Alarmist propaganda machinery refining their story as their lies catch up to them. As the planet cools, expect more fabrications from them.
Neinsense99
3.2 / 5 (27) May 27, 2013
First it was the "science is settled" now it's not 6 but 2 degrees. This is just the AGW Alarmist propaganda machinery refining their story as their lies catch up to them. As the planet cools, expect more fabrications from them.


You offer only the 'science' of the careful misquote and deliberate distortion. Same old same old....
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (25) May 27, 2013
First it was the "science is settled" now it's not 6 but 2 degrees. This is just the AGW Alarmist propaganda machinery refining their story as their lies catch up to them. As the planet cools, expect more fabrications from them.


You offer only the 'science' of the careful misquote and deliberate distortion. Same old same old....

Hmmm... the stupidity is strong in this one.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (29) May 27, 2013
First it was the "science is settled" now it's not 6 but 2 degrees. This is just the AGW Alarmist propaganda machinery refining their story as their lies catch up to them. As the planet cools, expect more fabrications from them.


You offer only the 'science' of the careful misquote and deliberate distortion. Same old same old....

Hmmm... the stupidity is strong in this one.

The continued stupidity of yours posts is indeed exceedingly strong.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (29) May 27, 2013
"This means that if any single uncertainty is reduced – even the most important, climate sensitivity – significant uncertainty will remain," Dr Bodman said.

Professor Karoly said the study reinforced the importance of strong action on climate change.


Even while admitting the high degree of uncertainty in climate models, the authors then declare that this uncertainty reinforces the importance of strong action on climate change.

AGW proponents have no shame at all.

That owes to their having no need for shame.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (30) May 27, 2013
Anyone still spewing a CO2 death for billions of children is a war criminal.

Tell that to Big Energy, who is responsible for such willful spewing forth of CO2 all in the unholy quest for profit.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (30) May 27, 2013
give it up alarmists...the party is over....the game is up.....stop your fkn lies.

Yes, please do stop your continual empty-headed lies.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (29) May 27, 2013
..., the number now may be a more realistic -2 to ... degrees.

Only to one with no realistic grasp of the facts.
Neinsense99
3 / 5 (22) May 27, 2013
me me and mine indicates quite clearly where a certain 'poster child' is coming from.
plaasjaapie
1.7 / 5 (22) May 28, 2013
The warmist attempts at damage control now that the temperature rise has stalled are hilarious to watch.
Neinsense99
3.1 / 5 (25) May 28, 2013
The warmist attempts at damage control now that the temperature rise has stalled are hilarious to watch.

That is probably because it is a non-existent response to a non-existent 'stall'. Is it so hard to grasp the difference between increase in the rate of rise and a continuing rise at the same or slower rate of increase?
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (29) May 28, 2013
The warmist attempts at damage control now that the temperature rise has stalled are hilarious to watch.

Guess you missed the fact that the cherry-picked HADCRUT data that the denialists are fond of trotting out as proof of flat or declining temperatures actually shows a WARMING TREND from 2008 to 2012.

gregor1
1.5 / 5 (23) May 28, 2013
"
Anyone still spewing a CO2 death for billions of children is a war criminal.

Tell that to Big Energy, who is responsible for such willful spewing forth of CO2 all in the unholy quest for profit.
"
Tell that to rapacious green multinationals (WWF who tried to con $60 billion with carbon credits in Brazil), insurance companies (80 billion in unnecessary premiums), Wall street bankers (Goldman Sacks tries to set up a carbon credit ponzi scheme in collusion with the
US gov.), Al Gore creams off 200 million, and dozens of heavily subsidized renewable energy schemes etc etc.
Big oil morphed into big energy long ago and will be cashing in on the Global warming goldrush like everyone else.
Co2 fear mongering is just an excuse to make a buck. Our children are quite safe
AlexCoe
1.8 / 5 (25) May 28, 2013
The science is never settled, not if it's true science.
Predictions are just that, they may or may not come true. It's only through observation we see what's happened and perhaps, understand why.
The chicken little's who have made numerous false and extraordinary claims that we would render the Earth uninhabitable through AGW have done the scientific community no favors in gaining the publics trust.
Perhaps that isn't such a bad thing in the long run, IF they wake up and get educated about what's going on around them and the political axes that are being ground.
Question EVERYTHING! Truth invites question and open observation, lies invite neither.
More people freeze to death than die of heat related causes, but that MAY change. It certainly isn't inevitable.
I don't believe it's all man made, nor that we should stop looking for cleaner energy sources, but we must weigh the CBR to society and then choose the best answers. Carbon markets are nothing but get rich schemes & power grabs.
deepsand
3 / 5 (30) May 28, 2013
Tell that to rapacious green multinationals (WWF who tried to con $60 billion with carbon credits in Brazil), insurance companies (80 billion in unnecessary premiums), Wall street bankers (Goldman Sacks tries to set up a carbon credit ponzi scheme in collusion with the US gov.), Al Gore creams off 200 million, and dozens of heavily subsidized renewable energy schemes etc etc.
Big oil morphed into big energy long ago and will be cashing in on the Global warming goldrush like everyone else.
Co2 fear mongering is just an excuse to make a buck. Our children are quite safe

Everything that you don;t understand ends up being labeled a conspiracy.

Do you actually know and understand anything about Science? Or, is just a tool for your gaining your own temporary personal pleasures?
gregor1
1.8 / 5 (26) May 28, 2013
Deepsand These are known facts. Conspiracy implies something hidden. You are the conspiracy nutter. Projection, claiming the 'other' is doing something you yourself are doing, is a well known propaganda technique. When there's so much money to be made you guys will resort to anything.

Interesting how they can deduce this when they don't even have accurate data for the effect of clouds. Karoly is one of the clowns behind the bogus Gergis paper that was withdrawn after three weeks. He's a well known Green activist. The chance of getting objective science out of him is virtually nil. He's beginning to back pedal to save his skin.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (31) May 28, 2013
The science is never settled, not if it's true science.

Question EVERYTHING! Truth invites question and open observation, lies invite neither.

So, nothing that man has learned over the course of time is empirical truth, but only illusion?

What really needs to be questioned here is your understanding of Science.
deepsand
3 / 5 (29) May 28, 2013
gregor1 demonstrates his disdain for facts that stand contrary to his desired conclusions by giving me a 1 for pointing out that the fact that the cherry-picked HADCRUT data that the denialists are fond of trotting out as proof of flat or declining temperatures actually shows a WARMING TREND from 2008 to 2012.

How very rational of him.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (28) May 28, 2013
Deepsand These are known facts.

"Facts" which are immaterial to matters of Science.

All you've got is an endless stream of policy based complaints. So long as you allow your subjective side to do all of your thinking you'll never learn what is and is not empirically true.

Pattern_chaser
4 / 5 (18) May 28, 2013
Carbon dioxide is a 'greenhouse gas' (a Very Bad Thing). Trees breathe in carbon dioxide, and breathe out oxygen. So we chop the trees down. Those who hope to educate humans are wasting their time. Our inability to curb our own excesses (and our own population) will soon lead to our extinction. Shame.
Neinsense99
2.9 / 5 (23) May 28, 2013
Deepsand These are known facts. Conspiracy implies something hidden. You are the conspiracy nutter. Projection, claiming the 'other' is doing something you yourself are doing, is a well known propaganda technique. When there's so much money to be made you guys will resort to anything.

Interesting how they can deduce this when they don't even have accurate data for the effect of clouds. Karoly is one of the clowns behind the bogus Gergis paper that was withdrawn after three weeks. He's a well known Green activist. The chance of getting objective science out of him is virtually nil. He's beginning to back pedal to save his skin.

So mentally ill he thinks his own projections are the projections of others! Is his presence here just a version of barking at his image in a mirror?
AlexCoe
1.7 / 5 (27) May 28, 2013
Yes deepsand, science is forever changing.
An atom is not the smallest unit of matter, nor is it solid.
If you can't seem to understand the advances in scientific knowledge that happen everyday then you're stuck in your own dogma.
Science is all about having an open mind, being observant and flexible to embrace new knowledge. Personal attacks are of no benefit for science research or discussions of such. Shouting louder doesn't make you correct, it only shows you to be obnoxious and rude.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (24) May 28, 2013

So mentally ill he thinks his own projections are the projections of others! Is his presence here just a version of barking at his image in a mirror?

If AGW Alarmist turds had nerves, then I would have to say one was definitely struck, however, since they don't then this is pure AGW Alarmist turd ignorance. So typical.
Neinsense99
2.7 / 5 (21) May 28, 2013

So mentally ill he thinks his own projections are the projections of others! Is his presence here just a version of barking at his image in a mirror?

If AGW Alarmist turds had nerves, then I would have to say one was definitely struck, however, since they don't then this is pure AGW Alarmist turd ignorance. So typical.
The turd fixation continues...
runrig
3.9 / 5 (14) May 28, 2013
Yes deepsand, science is forever changing.
An atom is not the smallest unit of matter, nor is it solid.
If you can't seem to understand the advances in scientific knowledge that happen everyday then you're stuck in your own dogma.
Science is all about having an open mind, being observant and flexible to embrace new knowledge.....


Yes, we have much to learn about the underpinnings of reality. But that is not the same as finding a different cause for GW "out of the ether". Radiative physics is sound and proven science.
The chicken little's who have made numerous false and extraordinary claims that we would render the Earth uninhabitable through AGW have done the scientific community no favors in gaining the publics trust.


Got a time machine have we?
Who knows what the future holds - they may well be true.
Give me links to some of your "numerous false and extaordinary claims" please, along with the evidence gained from your time machine..
deepsand
2.6 / 5 (25) May 28, 2013
Deepsand These are known facts. Conspiracy implies something hidden. You are the conspiracy nutter. Projection, claiming the 'other' is doing something you yourself are doing, is a well known propaganda technique. When there's so much money to be made you guys will resort to anything.

Interesting how they can deduce this when they don't even have accurate data for the effect of clouds. Karoly is one of the clowns behind the bogus Gergis paper that was withdrawn after three weeks. He's a well known Green activist. The chance of getting objective science out of him is virtually nil. He's beginning to back pedal to save his skin.

So mentally ill he thinks his own projections are the projections of others! Is his presence here just a version of barking at his image in a mirror?

In essence, yes, as is likewise the case for many of the denialists.
deepsand
2.6 / 5 (25) May 28, 2013
Yes deepsand, science is forever changing.

If you can't seem to understand the advances in scientific knowledge that happen everyday then you're stuck in your own dogma.
Science is all about having an open mind, being observant and flexible to embrace new knowledge.

There is a distinct difference between saying that we do not know all and saying that we know nothing.

Claiming the latter leads to the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam in every instance.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (25) May 28, 2013

So mentally ill he thinks his own projections are the projections of others! Is his presence here just a version of barking at his image in a mirror?

If AGW Alarmist turds had nerves, then I would have to say one was definitely struck, however, since they don't then this is pure AGW Alarmist turd ignorance. So typical.

Perhaps, if AO can find his way to the Emerald City, the Wizard of OZ might both grant him a brain and cure him of his egregious case of potty mouth.
gregor1
1.7 / 5 (22) May 29, 2013
So I'm mentally ill now? Your mentor, Lysenko, would be proud of you. Like you and your intellectual thug mates, he was unable to accept real world evidence as it came to light. His science was settled and he had scientists confined to gulags to prove it.
Then, if scientists can make statements like this "Our results reconfirm the need for urgent and substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions if the world is to avoid exceeding the global warming target of 2 degrees needed to minimise dangerous climate change," with out any evidence that 2 degrees warming will be dangerous at all and when their study shows they really don't have a clue, then I guess you don't need evidence to diagnose the mental health of strangers you've never met.
The "2 degrees will be dangerous" meme was created by climate Nazi Stefan Ramsdorf who was later to admit he pulled it out of his backside.
http://www.forbes...s-global
Neinsense99
2.7 / 5 (21) May 29, 2013
Now the Gregorian Ranter drones on with his projections of communist sympathies and inane references to decades-old cherry-picked events in another hemisphere, throwing in a gratuitous Nazi reference (sorry, but my father fought them) to make his lack of a cogent argument even more apparent than it already was.
MnemonicMike
1.6 / 5 (19) May 29, 2013
"Narrow global warming range"? Not really... their predictions were simply wrong and they're trying to save face. The first tries at AGW prediction have failed and therefore the hypothesis fails, folks... you can't keep adjusting the guesses and hope that you're right. That's not science. Whoever is writing all these "let's assume global warming is confirmed" needs to be fired once they assume global warming is "confirmed", but at the same time needs to have the numbers massaged to a new range.
MnemonicMike
1.4 / 5 (19) May 29, 2013

In essence, yes, as is likewise the case for many of the denialists.


A "denialist" is someone who hasn't intelligence to realize that the AGW hypothesis just failed, once people start "changing the range". If the first predictions were wrong by these people, why on earth would you bet even more heavily on the second set of *guesses*?
Neinsense99
3.1 / 5 (21) May 30, 2013

In essence, yes, as is likewise the case for many of the denialists.


A "denialist" is someone who hasn't intelligence to realize that the AGW hypothesis just failed, once people start "changing the range". If the first predictions were wrong by these people, why on earth would you bet even more heavily on the second set of *guesses*?

Because science isn't done like they do it on television or in the movies, for one thing. You probably know that, but since you are trying to seed doubt by creating unrealistic expectations, it doesn't matter to you.
Neinsense99
3 / 5 (20) Jun 01, 2013

So mentally ill he thinks his own projections are the projections of others! Is his presence here just a version of barking at his image in a mirror?

If AGW Alarmist turds had nerves, then I would have to say one was definitely struck, however, since they don't then this is pure AGW Alarmist turd ignorance. So typical.

I'm not surprised to see you use "turd" twice in one short comment. Anyone interested in studying limited vocabulary without limits to volume can do what I did: a Google search for site:phys.org antigoracle + turd
That returned 5 pages of results, 50 separate phys.org articles where antigoracle has commented and the word "turd" is used, usually more than once.
Neinsense99
3.1 / 5 (21) Jun 01, 2013
Climate change science reporting was a war crime!....

mememine69 has been saying the same hyperbolic nonsense for more than five months now.:
1 / 5 (1) Jan 16, 2013 Climate BLAME science is a war crime.

mememine69 2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 12, 2013 Climate change science reporting is a war crime!

1.6 / 5 (21) Apr 29, 2013 Climate change science is a war crime!

mememine69 1.7 / 5 (23) May 27, 2013 Climate change science reporting was a war crime!

1.3 / 5 (23) May 27, 2013 Anyone still spewing a CO2 death for billions of children is a war criminal.

And many more. Isn't it time to get a new schtick? After all, Google gives two pages of results on just one site where she/he/it spews the same fact-free rhetoric ad nauseum. Google site:phys.org mememine69 + war + crime
Neinsense99
3 / 5 (20) Jun 01, 2013
Climate change science reporting was a war crime!
...Climate change crisis was a total exaggeration and real planet lovers rejoice at a crisis being averted. The rest of you neocon like fear mongers wanted this misery for our children.


"Won't somebody think of the children!" Blah blah blah... You can only think of me me and mine, while spewing the same slanderous allegations again and again, here or under a different name on CBC.

You've been saying climate science is a 'war crime' since 2011, and you've tried to make science and science reporting equivalent to sexual abuse by priests:
mememine69 1.7 /5 (18) Jun 03, 2012
Climate change scientists have done to science what abusive priests did for religion.

Now climate change has done to journalism and science what abusive priests did for the Catholic Church.


Have you met an emotional hot-button issue manipulation that you didn't like?
Neinsense99
3 / 5 (20) Jun 01, 2013
Anyone still spewing a CO2 death for billions of children is a war criminal.

In many jurisdictions, libel is a crime.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Jun 01, 2013
"Narrow global warming range"? Not really... their predictions were simply wrong and they're trying to save face. The first tries at AGW prediction have failed and therefore the hypothesis fails, folks... you can't keep adjusting the guesses and hope that you're right. That's not science. Whoever is writing all these "let's assume global warming is confirmed" needs to be fired once they assume global warming is "confirmed", but at the same time needs to have the numbers massaged to a new range.


I've met glass-half empty people like you aplenty in regard the weather forecasting. You display the same psychological inability to reason your way through a probabilistic and nuanced process - such that you reflexively say ... it's wrong. ie black or white - not grey?
You expected GW to continue at the same rate, without variation? You are unaware of overlying climate drivers( ENSO, Solar, Aerosols )? Of course you are. The very epitome of scientific intelligence.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (20) Jun 04, 2013
You are unaware of overlying climate drivers( ENSO, Solar, Aerosols )

Yet these are the very same things the AGW Alarmists discarded as inconsequential in their dishonest pursuit to blame man made CO2.
Neinsense99
3 / 5 (18) Jul 05, 2013
You are unaware of overlying climate drivers( ENSO, Solar, Aerosols )

Yet these are the very same things the AGW Alarmists discarded as inconsequential in their dishonest pursuit to blame man made CO2.

I admire your consistency in repeatedly making short, science-free posts again and again. Well, actually, now that I think about it more, I don't admire it.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (20) Jul 06, 2013
You are unaware of overlying climate drivers( ENSO, Solar, Aerosols )

Yet these are the very same things the AGW Alarmists discarded as inconsequential in their dishonest pursuit to blame man made CO2.

Either you are incredibly ignorant of the facts or you here blatantly lie.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (20) Jul 06, 2013
So, their "science" is settled, yet they need these continuous fabrications to defend its failings.
If you don't find this unsettling then welcome to the AGW Alarmist cult where they call this science.
Neinsense99
2.9 / 5 (17) Jul 06, 2013
So, their "science" is settled, yet they need these continuous fabrications to defend its failings.
If you don't find this unsettling then welcome to the AGW Alarmist cult where they call this science.

Socrates, you are not.
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (18) Jul 06, 2013
Yes deepsand, science is forever changing.
An atom is not the smallest unit of matter, nor is it solid.
If you can't seem to understand the advances in scientific knowledge that happen everyday then you're stuck in your own dogma.
Science is all about having an open mind, being observant and flexible to embrace new knowledge. Personal attacks are of no benefit for science research or discussions of such. Shouting louder doesn't make you correct, it only shows you to be obnoxious and rude.

Here, here!
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (17) Jul 06, 2013
You are unaware of overlying climate drivers( ENSO, Solar, Aerosols )

Yet these are the very same things the AGW Alarmists discarded as inconsequential in their dishonest pursuit to blame man made CO2.

I admire your consistency in repeatedly making short, science-free posts again and again. Well, actually, now that I think about it more, I don't admire it.
Hypocrite much?

The fact is, antigoracle's statement is entirely correct.

VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 06, 2013
"So, their "science" is settled" - Anti-Gore-Tard

"The fact is, antigoracle's statement is entirely correct." - UbVonTard

We agree.
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (11) Jul 06, 2013
"Yet these are the very same things the AGW Alarmists discarded as inconsequential" - Anti-Gore-Tard

If they are inconsequential as you claim then why are they included in the Global circulation models?

Oh, I know the anser tho that one... You are a liar.

Lying is a way of life to Conservatives.
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 06, 2013
""Narrow global warming range"? Not really... their predictions were simply wrong and they're trying to save face." - MnemonicTard

Since the new range of predictions is contained within the old range, it is quite impossible for the old range to be considered wrong.

Unless of course you are ignorant of science.

Is that your excuse Mike?
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (18) Jul 07, 2013
So, their "science" is settled, yet they need these continuous fabrications to defend its failings.
If you don't find this unsettling then welcome to the AGW Alarmist cult where they call this science.

You are like an insane woodpecker looking for a grub in a block of concrete.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (18) Jul 07, 2013
Yes deepsand, science is forever changing.
An atom is not the smallest unit of matter, nor is it solid.
If you can't seem to understand the advances in scientific knowledge that happen everyday then you're stuck in your own dogma.
Science is all about having an open mind, being observant and flexible to embrace new knowledge. Personal attacks are of no benefit for science research or discussions of such. Shouting louder doesn't make you correct, it only shows you to be obnoxious and rude.

Here, here!

ROTFLMAO. Can't even correctly set forth a simple "Hear, hear."
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (18) Jul 07, 2013
You are unaware of overlying climate drivers( ENSO, Solar, Aerosols )

Yet these are the very same things the AGW Alarmists discarded as inconsequential in their dishonest pursuit to blame man made CO2.

I admire your consistency in repeatedly making short, science-free posts again and again. Well, actually, now that I think about it more, I don't admire it.
Hypocrite much?

The fact is, antigoracle's statement is entirely correct.

Both your claim and his are patently false, as has been sufficiently addressed already.
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (14) Jul 07, 2013
You are unaware of overlying climate drivers( ENSO, Solar, Aerosols )

Yet these are the very same things the AGW Alarmists discarded as inconsequential in their dishonest pursuit to blame man made CO2.

I admire your consistency in repeatedly making short, science-free posts again and again. Well, actually, now that I think about it more, I don't admire it.
Hypocrite much?

The fact is, antigoracle's statement is entirely correct.

Both your claim and his are patently false, as has been sufficiently addressed already.

Claiming they're false, and claiming they have been addressed when they haven't, are the patent lies. But spambots, like you, aren't well versed in truth, are you?

ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (17) Jul 07, 2013
Yes deepsand, science is forever changing.
An atom is not the smallest unit of matter, nor is it solid.
If you can't seem to understand the advances in scientific knowledge that happen everyday then you're stuck in your own dogma.
Science is all about having an open mind, being observant and flexible to embrace new knowledge. Personal attacks are of no benefit for science research or discussions of such. Shouting louder doesn't make you correct, it only shows you to be obnoxious and rude.

Here, here!

ROTFLMAO. Can't even correctly set forth a simple "Hear, hear."
LOL. How do you hear printed text?

Maybe I should have written, "Read, read." perhaps?

Spambots have no sense of irony.

deepsand
3.1 / 5 (17) Jul 07, 2013
You are unaware of overlying climate drivers( ENSO, Solar, Aerosols )

Yet these are the very same things the AGW Alarmists discarded as inconsequential in their dishonest pursuit to blame man made CO2.

I admire your consistency in repeatedly making short, science-free posts again and again. Well, actually, now that I think about it more, I don't admire it.
Hypocrite much?

The fact is, antigoracle's statement is entirely correct.

Both your claim and his are patently false, as has been sufficiently addressed already.

Claiming they're false, and claiming they have been addressed when they haven't, are the patent lies. But spambots, like you, aren't well versed in truth, are you?

The public record puts the lie to your lamentations.

VendicarE
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2013
"Idiot spambot. That's only true if you're measuring isolated parts of the system. The whole system's temperature increases." - UbVonTard

Wrong again, my little Conservative Moron. The temperature of the system of boiling water remains static while the water turns to steam.

It is a property of phase transitions that 11 year olds know, and you are clueless about.

What a shame you never graduated from grade 6.

Look at it this way, dung for brains, if the steam were hotter than the water it would cool by heating the water, thereby negating the implied reason for it's existence.

Poor Dung for Brains UbVonTard. He knows less about how the world works than an 11 year old.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (17) Jul 07, 2013
Yes deepsand, science is forever changing.
An atom is not the smallest unit of matter, nor is it solid.
If you can't seem to understand the advances in scientific knowledge that happen everyday then you're stuck in your own dogma.
Science is all about having an open mind, being observant and flexible to embrace new knowledge. Personal attacks are of no benefit for science research or discussions of such. Shouting louder doesn't make you correct, it only shows you to be obnoxious and rude.

Here, here!

ROTFLMAO. Can't even correctly set forth a simple "Hear, hear."
LOL. How do you hear printed text?

Maybe I should have written, "Read, read." perhaps?

Spambots have no sense of irony.

UTubas have no sense.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (13) Jul 08, 2013
So, their "science" is settled, yet they need these continuous fabrications to defend its failings.
If you don't find this unsettling then welcome to the AGW Alarmist cult where they call this science.

Socrates, you are not.

An ignorant AGW Alarmist turn you are.
Neinsense99
2.7 / 5 (12) Jul 08, 2013
So, their "science" is settled, yet they need these continuous fabrications to defend its failings.
If you don't find this unsettling then welcome to the AGW Alarmist cult where they call this science.

Socrates, you are not.

An ignorant AGW Alarmist turn you are.

Turn?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.