Now look up the European excess deaths from the cold each year… Spoiler, it’s way more than from the heat by like, 10-1
2 Likes
I’m not going to ignore historical science. This isn’t warm, by historical standards.
Earths climate is a constant state of change. We’re not close to as hot as we were 10,000 years ago when Mastodons were eating wild flowers in Siberia.
Are you just going to ignore the fact that the Antarctic ice shelf has been steadily growing?
Are you just going to ignore that the Arctic still has ice cover and polar bears, 14 past the dire propagandist predictions?
Have you noticed that acid rain hasn’t destroyed the forests? Emerald Ash Bores and Gypsy Moths, yes. Acid Rain, no.
Have you noticed the reforestation in the Sahara?
Climate Change is historically cyclical, and, its predictable. We are exactly where we should be in the cycle. Look at the charts, for yourself.
“Science” isn’t “science”, if it’s not questioned. You need to ask some questions.
3 Likes
And how old were these people who died. No ac can do that when its hot out side.
All of that is taken into account in climate models that show current warming is unprecendented and manmade. Of course there have been warmer periods. The Earth is billions of years old.
The reforestation in the Sahara is a result of climate change, the warming is changing rainfall patterns. Look it up. But that means that rainfall won’t be going where has for centuries, meaning reforestation in one place will result in drought in another, including places where there are massive forests, like Canada.
People who think that “climate has always changed” and that is the bottom line are seriously mistaken.
All of the objections cited in this thread have been addressed by science. People can look it up but I won’t hold my breath.
3 Likes
Humans aren’t exactly helping. Could it be Earth’s cycles? Maybe but we don’t really know. The problem is people think humans have nothing to do with it even though we contribute to climate change.
The biggest thing is both sides claim that science backs them up
Both sides say they won’t hold their breath.
Historically the models haven’t proven accurate in most debates regardless of topic
5 Likes
Prompt: Are climate change models inaccurate, if so, describe how much.
Answer: Climate models are not perfectly precise, but they have been broadly accurate in projecting the amount of global warming over recent decades, with typical global temperature errors on the order of a few tenths of a degree over several decades when emissions are specified correctly.
How accurate have climate models been?
Studies that compare past model projections with what actually happened find that most models from the 1970s onward got the amount of global warming roughly right when evaluated against real greenhouse gas emissions.
In a review of 17 historical models, 14 produced global average temperatures that matched observations closely once their emission assumptions were corrected, usually within about 0.1–0.2°C per decade of the observed trend.
For example, James Hansen’s influential 1988 model over‑predicted warming by about 50% because it assumed higher future methane and other greenhouse gas emissions than actually occurred, but when scientists reran the model with the emissions we really had, the relationship between greenhouse gases and temperature lined up “pretty much dead on.”
This pattern—getting the physics right but sometimes mis‑guessing future human behavior—is common in long‑range climate projections.
Where models are most reliable
Climate models are strongest at:
- Global mean temperature trends: They have consistently captured the overall warming of about 0.9°C since around 1970.
- Large‑scale patterns: They reproduce many broad features, such as rising temperatures, increased frequency of heatwaves, and more intense downpours in many regions.
Because these models are grounded in physical laws (energy balance, fluid dynamics, radiative transfer), they are particularly robust for questions like “how much warming for a given amount of CO₂.”
Multiple independent assessments and agencies conclude that, despite uncertainties, we “know enough to trust our climate models” for broad trends and policy‑relevant questions about future warming.
Where and how they are inaccurate
The main inaccuracies tend to show up in finer‑scale details rather than in the global temperature trend:
- Regional climate: Models struggle more with specific regions such as the tropical Pacific and Southern Ocean, where observed temperature and circulation patterns diverge from simulations.
- Precipitation and storms: They often misrepresent storm duration, spacing between storms, and rainfall intensity, typically simulating longer but less intense storms than observed.
In terms of “how much” they are off, recent global assessments point to noticeable but not catastrophic discrepancies: for some key regions and circulation features, biases can be large enough to affect projections of storm tracks, marine ecosystems, and regional rainfall, even while the global warming signal remains well captured.
For near‑term global temperature forecasts (10–20 years), simple statistical models can perform about as well as complex global climate models, suggesting that natural variability limits precision on these shorter horizons.
Uncertainty versus inaccuracy
It helps to distinguish between two things:
- Physical uncertainty: Some processes—like clouds, aerosols, and small‑scale turbulence—are difficult to represent perfectly in models and contribute to uncertainty in exactly how fast warming will proceed.
- Socioeconomic uncertainty: Long‑term projections must assume future emissions, land‑use, and policies, which are inherently uncertain and can dominate the difference between what a specific scenario projects and what actually unfolds.
When researchers rerun older models using actual historical emissions instead of the assumed ones, the projected warming usually falls very close to observed values, indicating that much of the “inaccuracy” people see comes from scenarios about human choices, not from broken climate physics.
That’s why scientists typically present a range of future outcomes under different emission pathways rather than a single precise “forecast.”
1 Like
LOL.
I knew that was coming.
5 Likes
Well, I asked an objective, neutral question.
I have asked AI similar questions from the opposing point of view of my own many times. It always comes back the same, the science backs manmade climate change being real, and the models, while imperfect, are broadly accurate.
I don’t know what else to say. People are going to come up with the same lame objections and data anecdotes that are not meaningful. Nothing will convince them, so I will rest my case here.
1 Like
Can’t cure common cold, or even generate true random numbers, but dead on predicting climate change. Humans have long overestimated their abilities. That’s one thing you can accurately predict.
5 Likes
Well, nobody said “dead on”.
Everything contributes to the climate… Sun activity, orbital cycles, population boom, etc… I laugh at people who think they can control it. Humans innovate their way out of problems… It’s why we’re on top of the food chain. Funny thing is, from my POV, this is all going to change drastically in the next 50 years due to developed countries dropping below the replacement rate. Couple that with the quantum leaps forward in technology through Ai that’s on the horizon… We have zero idea what’s really coming, or how to fix it… But we’ll figure it out, humans will adapt to their environment. What I do know is, we’re not going to tax our way out of this (or any) problem 
2 Likes
I’m not going to comment on the particular subject matter of this discussion, but it’s important to recognize that different AI models are not necessarily objective, and have shown to lean one way or another on issues such as these based on the programming of their parent company.
i.e. You can’t ask an “objective, neutral question” to a cloud AI and expect to get an objective, neutral answer.
Feel free to do your own research into what I’m talking about here.
5 Likes
Even if you want to concede that humans are changing climates. Which if you breathed the air in Mexico City circa 1990s is undeniable. The Earth will recover shortly after we’re gone. 100 years is long to us, drop in the bucket for Earth. Can humans kill themselves off? Sure. But won’t be because of Greta’s concerns.
2 Likes
There are far more specific points to make regarding model failures on most scientific debates including this one. The AI response and then the assumed superior knowledge claim you end with is also very typical. On both sides of these debates.
But, not the place to discuss as Weasel pointed out.
3 Likes
5 Likes
Im just hoping it will clear up a little by Friday.
2 Likes
Well, you have people continuing with the discussion after I stopped yesterday, and then you have Touchdownmypants bringing up taxes in a scientific debate, which is political. If we could debate the science like adults, we could talk about why forest fires are increasing rapidly, and agree to disagree on the cause without getting bent out of shape.
Yeah, Fukishima sure isn’t helping! Seems like “science” would be better served focusing on finding a way to stop that radiation from spewing into the Pacific, warming it, and, contaminating the fish they put on the store shelves, while they tell us not to eat the fish we catch in our lakes.
I’ve been hearing these lies since the 60’s when it was, “global cooling” and the on coming man made ice age. Then, “acid rain”. Then, “global warming”. Now, “Climate Change”.
Bullshit! Call it what it is. “Man made global hysteria”…for the profit of the elite. It’s fine for them to pollute, just not us pee ons.
Btw, I was alive when paper was bad for the environment and plastic was the answer. People bought that bullshit, too!
Butter, eggs, lard, were the enemy. Rancid seed oils were good.
Guess who pays the scientists?
1 Like
It’s mid July and we’re talking.
Yeah, I did that.
1 Like