Love the way they keep changing the 'goal posts'. First, they claimed humans were responsible for warming since the industrial revolution and now it's '1950s' (they started there because the 40s cooled after a warm 1930s). First humans drove the climate without a doubt but now it's '95%...maybe, sorta' and all of our past climate change models and predictions were way off. Believe us this time...pretty please. We are super serial.

Just don't think people take the IPCC seriously anymore.

Maybe the cookie was never in the jar in the first placedave123321

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="theone86"]

Again, that's not what I'm getting from your link.

theone86

That CO2 isn't as powerful or influential as once thought.

Don't expect them to outright say CO2 isn't as powerful as once thought but that's essentially what they're doing. Why? Because their low, medium and high estimates were always based on a formula based on the amount of CO2 and that CO2 having certain impact.

This is like catching a kid with a cookie with the cookie jar being open with no cookies left and the kid admitting he has the cookie but can't adknowledge how it got in his hand.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

That's not what I'm reading from your link.

I think they underestimated the impact of methane as opposed to underestimating the impact of CO2.

theone86

Even their low predictions were off and not because of CO2 levels but because CO2 isn't as powerful or influential on climate as once thought.

Again, that's not what I'm getting from your link.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

I never said they didn't predict exponential growth, I said they can be off on the amount of growth in emissions.  Do you still want to keep going at this, or will you finally be able to wrap your head around this quite simple concept?

You're simply wrong, as always.

theone86

Where they were way off is the influence of CO2 itself no the amount of CO2. CO2, and especially human created CO2, are a tiny percentage of the greenhouse gases. They are only now admitting they overestimated CO2 impact.

That's not what I'm reading from your link.

I think they underestimated the impact of methane as opposed to underestimating the impact of CO2.

Even their low predictions were off and not because of CO2 levels but because CO2 isn't as powerful or influential on climate as once thought.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

Say it one more time...just one more time. 

HoolaHoopMan

Some people really will go to great lengths to hold on to their misguided understanding of science.

jimkabrhel

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Some effect sure.HoolaHoopMan

Say it one more time...just one more time. 

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

Interesting graph showing how off the IPCC predictions have been:

Slow_Show

Whoever put that graph together doesn't know what mean, err, means. 

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

I never said CO2 levels stopped rising, I said their rise has been less than previously predicted.  If previous models estimated the rise in CO2 to be by a factor of ten and new models by a factor of five then the rise in emissions has been less than previously thought and their estimates on eventual warming will be lower.  

theone86

And they were still way off. CO2 simple isn't as influential as they once thought.

I never said they didn't predict exponential growth, I said they can be off on the amount of growth in emissions.  Do you still want to keep going at this, or will you finally be able to wrap your head around this quite simple concept?

You're simply wrong, as always.

Where they were way off is the influence of CO2 itself no the amount of CO2. CO2, and especially human created CO2, are a tiny percentage of the greenhouse gases. They are only now admitting they overestimated CO2 impact.