[–] individualin1984 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

What? They got the models wrong? Wow, this is totally unprecedented in climate science. /s

Good thing they will still get their completely unrelated to their political stance and prejudgements on climate change funding next year.

[–] ardvarcus 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

This implies that any warming is caused by human activity. But humans cause so little global warming, it cannot be accurately measured, and does not rise above background noise in studies. There has been a natural warming trend for the past few decades, but we may have turned down into a natural cooling trend. How long it will last, who can say? Point is, we aren't doing anything to change the global temperature, and if we were, we couldn't do anything to modify it the other way. But the good news is, warmer is better. More CO2 is better. Not just harmless, but greatly beneficial to life on this planet.

[–] Tallest_Skil 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

The world has been cooling since 1880. Global warming doesn’t exist. This is one of the first propaganda pieces preparing sheep for the walk back from the topic.

[–] CrustyBeaver52 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Negative Global Warming. We have to tax you.

[–] jesus_is_lord 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

[–] Thisismyvoatusername 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I am willing to bet another 3 decades will demonstrate even their new models are totally wrong.

[–] carlip 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis

The title of the paper that has been cited as a source for climate change legislation

Their estimates also draw on new findings since 1990 of how atmospheric ozone and aerosols are likely to affect global temperature trends.

Now I maybe mistaken but 2013 occurred AFTER 1990, by about 13 years. So in the 5 years since that paper was published what has changed in atmospheric ozone and aerosols? How has "new data" changed this model and why did it take 5 years when 13 did nothing?

[–] Thisismyvoatusername 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

You are mistaken. It was 23 years, not 13.

[–] carlip 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

oh shit, math is hard. and im old now

[–] qwop [S] 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago  (edited ago)

My interpretation is that it's not new data, but new modeling:

Recent revisions to greenhouse gas forcing and post-1990 ozone and aerosol forcing estimates are incorporated and the forcing data extended from 2011 to 2016. Reflecting recent evidence against strong aerosol forcing, its AR5 uncertainty lower bound is increased slightly.

Translation: the models were crap, we tweaked them, maybe they are less crap now, but who knows.

[–] UsedToBeCujoQuarrel 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I've seen the code to one of the models. It was total crap code, the kind that is only made by a crap FORTRAN programmer. Maybe they are better now that was some time ago. But I doubt it.

[–] ssaa6oo 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Global warming or not, i don't see how not polluting is a bad thing.

load more comments ▼ (4 remaining)