"No doubt there are mathematical geniuses that could translate you post."
None of the words or terminology in my post are not English.
But, in simple terms:
To make accurate forecasts, going far out into the future, about problems that are complex is incredibly hard - virtually impossible - to do.
All self-respecting scientists will know that, because that is one of the very first things taught in scientific methodology lectures that form part of any credible BSc. degree.
"And like weather forecasts that were poor a few decades ago, climate predictionss are getting better by the day."
The only way that assertion can be demonstrated with sufficient statistical reliability is to take a representative sample of objective and impartial scientists/forecasters that have been making climate predictions over preceding decades, identify and isolate all the dependent variables that influence the climate, other than carbon emissions, and assess to what extent those forecasts are improving based on actual recorded data.
I've searched for such audit studies, and enquired of others who might know of their existence; to date, none forthcoming.
"Also the climate scientists predictions that a 1m rise in sea levels by the end of this century are on the cards are IMO conservative. "
The "IMO" bit in your last sentence is duly noted.
I'll see your "IMO" with my own "IMO", that being, "Maybe, maybe not."
But, again, we can debate this kind of stuff until the cows come home; the real issue is what to do about the increasing emissions.
Because, on that note, it is sadly ironic that just since I started actively reading, and discussing the subject - which is a mere 12 or 18 months ago - close to an extra one billion tonnes of CO2 has gone into the atmosphere. That's the same as two -and-a-half time the entire Australia's worth of emissions
And that is despite all the protesting, demanding and keyboard bashing in the world's richest countries that has occurred over that time (and indeed over some time preceding that).
.
Expand
