Blocked by someone trying to deny climate change, LOL!!!

@MartinII Nah. Scientists have a handle on the future if the contributing factors don't change. What they don't have a handle on is if those things will change. And that's a battle between intelligence and ignorance along with self-preservation or greed. It's easy.

@Ynotisay Nah. Scientists can’t predict the future any more than you or I can. They can only make, perhaps well-informed and well-judged, predictions.

@MartinII Actually, what climate scientists have been doing is predicting the past, and thereby building tools to predict the future.

We have 800,000 years of climate data covering 7+ glacial cycles. Scientists can train on some of those cycles, use the training to predict other cycless, and adjust models to reduce prediction errors. The models take into account many variables; here's a model from 25 years ago; the models have only gotten more sophisticated.

[b]http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/climate.html[/b]

These models may not be good for 100,000 years, but they are certainly good for 100+ years.

@MartinII You're not following me. Yes. They can "predict" the future. IF, like I said, the contributing factors remain the same. That's the science part. The human part is the where predictions fail. Which is why scientists don't make them.

@MartinII Oh snap 😂

@MartinII It is correctly called global climate change instead of global warming. Not every location will experience warming due to other changes such as wind patterns and extent of sea ice. And other things like snowfall and rainfall and storm frequency and intensity have been changing as well. Global climate change captures that much better.

@windinhishair Yeah, NASA has a little blurb on the terminology of Global Warming vs. Climate Change underlining your point.
[b]https://climate.nasa.gov/global-warming-vs-climate-change/[/b]

Basically, Global warming refers specifically to anthropogenic global temperatures, whereas climate change refers to the things you've listed and more. Since human habitations are more threatened by storms, sea level rise, and rainfall changes, etc, it makes more sense to use the term "climate change."

@ElwoodBlues The change was made several decades ago, when right-wingers kept showing places that did not experience warming as "proof" that the phenomenon did not occur. So they switched over to the newer and more correct terminology. Of course, it didn't stop the deniers at all.

@windinhishair Not the first time phrases have been changed to appease the ignorant.

@Ynotisay No, and it won't be the last time either. But the ignorant remain ignorant no matter the terminology.

@ElwoodBlues Predicting the past! I love that.

@MartinII A good model should be able to work in both directions. It is often used in model calibration.

@windinhishair Indeed so.Which is why no one in their right mind would deny climate change which, as I said, happens all the time. (This is in response to your comment several days ago.)

@MartinII We are in agreement that climate change is real and has been ongoing for some time.

@windinhishair You cannot predict the past. The past is a matter of fact. You can try to discover the facts, explain them, draw lessons from them, but you can’t predict them. It’s a matter of English!

@MartinII I have a legit question for you. What is it, specifically, that you're fighting AGAINST? And a follow up. Why would you think your opinion, which is clearly influenced by something, be more accurate than that of extraordinarily intelligent people who've committed their lives to scientific exploration?
Please let me know.

@windinhishair No. What I am saying is that climate change, by definition, happens all the time. What you are talking about is climate change in a particular direction, which is a different matter.

@MartinII You are correct from a semantics standpoint. However, you can use a model to "predict" conditions that have already occurred from the model perspective and then compare that to what actually transpired.

@Ynotisay The only thing I’m fighting against is misrepresentation. And my only opinion on the matter is that anyone who claims certainty about the future is wrong.

@MartinII First, there isn't a legitimate climate scientist in the world who claims certainty. That's not how science works outside of some agreed upon truths. Gravity exists. We need oxygen to live. That kind of thing. They DO know that if we maintain the current path the climate WILL respond accordingly. And that's entirely because of the scientific process.

And as far as misrepresentation that means nothing to me. Just like your opinion means nothing. It doesn't change the truth or the facts. And if there's misrepresentation sir it's pretty freaking easy to see where it's coming from. And why.

But the part that fires me up is because of that blatant lies and propaganda around this by those fighting for their profit, along with a host of other issues, is that people are convinced to fight against what's in their own best interest. No different than Trump's strategy. We know how it's done, we know who the audience is and we know the outcome.

Typically I don't care what fools think and do. But when it impacts MY life, and the lives of hundreds of millions,even billions of people, it's nothing but disgusting. The smart and 'good' pay for the ignorant and 'bad." I'm over it. it's pitiful.

@MartinII As pointed out earlier by @Ynotisay, the human component is unpredictable, and one of the ways this shows up is that humans have been cutting their CO2 & methane outputs over the last few decades. So the older models based on 1990 outputs or year 2000 outputs are now in need of adjustment. The "tipping points" predicted earlier have been pushed into the future by humanity's reductions in greenhouse gasses.

Some try to paint this as a failure of the models. In a technical sense, their predictions are no longer accurate, however, it is the publicizing of the models that has driven humanity's change, so in another sense, it's a huge success of the models.


USA per capita CO2 reductions - down over 30% in the past 2 decades! Europe has had less dramatic reductions, but Europeans' avg output started at less than half of ours.