bokningar

That's what happens when you forget to deliver your brown envelope.

You don't want to understand, but there is a lot of other tings that makes them far from exact. There is so many variables. And a lot that science don't know for sure yet. And this is a stochastic system. If you want to believe that it is just not knowing what politicians will do that's up to you.

Just trying to make you understand that this is modulations and they aren't exact.

So that is what makes them bad at recreate what we know has happened in the past as well??

Read my posts again.

Nothing, this is what I have been saying all the time. This is model's and they are not close to exact. They can't even make them work good to recreate what has happened in the past. And no serious scientist is trying to say that this models is correct. It is a lot they don't know and understand yet. It is good the new boss of IPCC is a bit more humble to this.

I'll give you one more chance. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/figures/technical-summary

Here you go https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/figures/technical-summary And from the new link you just posted "If you constantly communicate the message that we are all doomed to extinction, then that paralyzes people and prevents them from taking the necessary steps to get a grip on climate change," he said. "The world won't end if it warms by more than 1.5 degrees," Skea told Der Spiegel. "It will however be a more dangerous world." Surpassing that mark would lead to many problems and social tensions, he said, but still that would not constitute an existential threat to humanity. The international community's stated target is currently to limit global warming to the 1.5 degrees Celsius target, even though UN estimates suggest that the current commitments made by countries are actually likely to fall far short of their nominal goal. The UN estimates that within roughly a decade, the target is liable to be breached.

I asked if YOU believed that the Chines population is 800 million and not 1,4 billion? Just trying to understand what kind of ferry-tails you do believe in. And that the magic 1,5 degrees is a climate catastrophe seams a bit of when not even the new head of IPCC think so. He is quite optimistic about the outcome. https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/ipcc-chef-jim-skea-bei-1-5-grad-erwaermung-geht-die-welt-nicht-unter-a-13dd35aa-1a80-41b8-b966-911015fd9085

It is from the IPCC report YOU gave the link to. And I told you it is Figure TS 1 . And now you want me to explain it for you??

As an example Figure TS.1 if you follow SSP1 it will be around 10 degrees less change in temperature compare to when you follow SSP5

Sorry, don't understand.

I did read it, and their models give a lot of possible outcomes. Read again. And that the 1.5 degrees higher temperature will create a huge crises if we can't stop it is just another quite questionable number.

So you believe that China population is only has around 800 million, And that 1.5 degrees higher temperature every one is talking about is a serious crises for the world?

Scientists can make predictions based on current data and trends The IPCC model's has a very broad spectrum of possible outcomes. And since we keep adding around 100 million people to this planet every year and China keeps starting up a new coal power-plant more or less every week. We better hope new understanding of how the climate works will calm down the worst crises ideas.

If you bother to lock at my earlier posts you will see more scientists that I have quoted. And that we are discussing a stochastic system and we can only make educated guesses about the climate. No real scientist claim they know for sure what the climate will be 100 years from now.

I don't think you believe this is the same thing as really asking every scientist in the world if we have an imminent climate crises now. Nobody is contesting the fact that human activity increasing the amount of co2 and that is making it warmer. What the cc religion fail to recognize is that there is a lot we don't know. We don't even know how h2o interact with this complex system.

Could you provide a link to that study where all of the worlds scientists has been asked what they think about this please.

Nice going, attack people that isn't native English speaking for not using correct grammar. You really don't have much good fact to use do you. And that number 95 % is just fiction. Do you really there is a study of what all scientists think? Scientist admits the ‘overwhelming consensus’ on the climate change crisis is ‘manufactured’ https://nypost.com/2023/08/09/climate-scientist-admits-the-overwhelming-consensus-is-manufactured/

People that didn't believed that earth was flat and the center of the universe was wrong, until they where right. It is funny how knowledgeable people often are less sure about stuff and more humble about the possibility they can be wrong. And fools are 100 % sure they are right.

There is a lot of science to at least be able to discuss this in a respectful way. The role of Earth's orbital changes in controlling climate was first advanced by James Croll in the late 19th century. Later, the Serbian geophysicist Milutin Milanković elaborated on the theory and calculated that these irregularities in Earth's orbit could cause the climatic cycles now known as Milankovitch cycles. They are the result of the additive behavior of several types of cyclical changes in Earth's orbital properties. Relationship of Earth's orbit to periods of glaciation Firstly, changes in the orbital eccentricity of Earth occur on a cycle of about 100,000 years. Secondly, the inclination or tilt of Earth's axis varies between 22° and 24.5° in a cycle 41,000 years long. The tilt of Earth's axis is responsible for the seasons; the greater the tilt, the greater the contrast between summer and winter temperatures. Thirdly, precession of the equinoxes, or wobbles in the Earth's rotation axis, have a periodicity of 26,000 years. According to the Milankovitch theory, these factors cause a periodic cooling of Earth, with the coldest part in the cycle occurring about every 40,000 years. The main effect of the Milankovitch cycles is to change the contrast between the seasons, not the annual amount of solar heat Earth receives. The result is less ice melting than accumulating, and glaciers build up. Milankovitch worked out the ideas of climatic cycles in the 1920s and 1930s, but it was not until the 1970s that a sufficiently long and detailed chronology of the Quaternary temperature changes was worked out to test the theory adequately. Studies of deep-sea cores and their fossils indicate that the fluctuation of climate during the last few hundred thousand years is remarkably close to that predicted by Milankovitch. A problem with the theory is that these astronomical cycles have occurred for many millions of years, but glaciation is a rare occurrence. Astronomical cycles correlate with glacial and interglacial periods within a long-term ice age, but do not initiate ice ages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation

At least I posted 2 links to real scientific studies that should make anyone think again. This is very complex things and the way most people seams to address this is like religion. We believe and all who say something that not fit our believes/religion is bad. There where times when people believed that earth was flat and the center of the universe. Anyone who argued against that was in big trouble.

Very good scientific argument

Calling people "climate deniers" is just a way for people that believe in the "climate crises religion" to ignore facts that doesn't fit the religion, instead of having a open discussion and look all facts.

There is many ,mostly professor emeritus, since active scientists get their grants revoked if they say anything that doesn't fit the "right" narrative. Here is an other one using official data from many different public sources. Just look at it with open eyes.