Greenhouse effect may not cause greater temperature variability after all

This appears to be good news because it means that man made global warming may not lead to more frequent occasional extremely cold winters after all.

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-climate-extreme-winters.html

However, it says:
"..Temperature extremes will therefore become rarer as this variability is reduced. But this does not mean there will be no temperature extremes in the future. "Despite lower temperature variance, there will be more extreme warm periods in the future because the Earth is warming," says Schneider. The researchers limited their work to temperature trends. Other extreme events, such as storms with heavy rain or snowfall, can still become more common as the climate warms, as other studies have shown.
..."

+ there is the big thorny issue of sea level rise. So we still have got a big problem.

Originally posted by humy
This appears to be good news because it means that man made global warming may not lead to more frequent occasional extremely cold winters after all.

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-climate-extreme-winters.html

However, it says:
"..Temperature extremes will therefore become rarer as this variability is reduced. But this does not mean there will be no temper ...[text shortened]...
..."

+ there is the big thorny issue of sea level rise. So we still have got a big problem.

So what is worse, more tornadoes or higher seas? Probably we will be getting both.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So what is worse, more tornadoes or higher seas? Probably we will be getting both.

I would personally guess that, at least potentially depending on the magnitude of sea level rise, higher seas are much worse given that many of our major cities and much of our most fertile food-producing land is very close to sea level.

I don't like the sound of this:-

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/10-feet-of-global-sea-level-rise-now-inevitable

But at least it is unlikely, I think, to get quite that bad for the next ~100 years so there is plenty of time to adapt (if we are smart )

Originally posted by humy
... (if we are smart )

... which we are not.

Because if we were smart we wouldn't have his prolem at all. We are everything but smart to let it go this far.

Originally posted by humy
This appears to be good news because it means that man made global warming may not lead to more frequent occasional extremely cold winters after all.

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-climate-extreme-winters.html

However, it says:
"..Temperature extremes will therefore become rarer as this variability is reduced. But this does not mean there will be no temper ...[text shortened]...
..."

+ there is the big thorny issue of sea level rise. So we still have got a big problem.

More junk science based on climate models? How many times must climate models fail miserably before you finally disregard any assertions based on them?

"+ there is the big thorny issue of sea level rise. So we still have got a big problem."

14 cm per century is a big problem? How much did sea level rise last year?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
More junk science based on climate models? How many times must climate models fail miserably before you finally disregard any assertions based on them?

"+ there is the big thorny issue of sea level rise. So we still have got a big problem."

14 cm per century is a big problem? How much did sea level rise last year?

The biggest problem is when people label scientific findings as junk science when the result contradict their opinion...

Originally posted by Metal Brain
More junk science....

So you even dismiss the finding that suggests that "man made global warming may not lead to more frequent occasional extremely cold winters after all. " as "junk science"?
Didn't you notice that, despite your warped opinion, this result would presumably be in agreement with your opinion?
Or didn't you even bother to read what you are dismissing before unintelligent shouting your mouth off shooting your own foot?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
More junk science based on climate models? How many times must climate models fail miserably before you finally disregard any assertions based on them?

What is your alternative to modelling? Tea leaves?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
The biggest problem is when people label scientific findings as junk science when the result contradict their opinion...

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Climate models are unreliable and have failed miserably in the past. There are too many variables to rely on ANY predictions by climate models.

Climate models are also only as good as the people who program them and nobody programs them the same. The result is that none of the climate models agree with each other. I'm calling climate models junk science because that is exactly what they are. I have proved it time and time again even though humy refuses to accept that fact.

Originally posted by humy
So you even dismiss the finding that suggests that "man made global warming may [b]not lead to more frequent occasional extremely cold winters after all. " as "junk science"?
Didn't you notice that, despite your warped opinion, this result would presumably be in agreement with your opinion?
Or didn't you even bother to read what you are dismissing before unintelligent shouting your mouth off shooting your own foot?[/b]

Climate models are unreliable and are therefore junk science. Just because you refuse to accept that proven fact does not make you right.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
What is your alternative to modelling? Tea leaves?

Sadly, tea leaves are probably just as good at predicting climate as climate models.

Here is an excerpt from the link below:

"Talk about the models. What is a computer model, and what isn't it? What is its purpose in science?

There are many kinds of computer models. But the ones that people mostly talk about these days are the giant models that try to model the whole global atmosphere in a three-dimensional way. These models calculate important parameters at different points around the globe--and these points are roughly 200 miles apart--and at different levels of the atmosphere. You can see that if you only calculate temperature, winds, and so on at intervals of 200 miles, then you cannot depict clouds, or even cloud systems, which are much smaller. So until the models have a good enough resolution to be capable of depicting clouds, it's very difficult to put much faith in them."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Climate models are unreliable and have failed miserably in the past. There are too many variables to rely on ANY predictions by climate models.

Climate models are also only as good as the people who program them and nobody programs them the same. The result is that none of the climate models agree with each o ...[text shortened]... hat they are. I have proved it time and time again even though humy refuses to accept that fact.

So you call science that doesn't meet your opinion as science junk, and science that meet your opinion that sound science. You define science from your opinion, either as junk science or sound science.

When the majority of the scientific cllimate society come up with results that doesn't fit you and the minority you belong to, then it is junk science.

Sounds like the creationists methods of debating to me.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Climate models are unreliable and have failed miserably in the past. There are too many variables to rely on ANY predictions by climate models.

It is not the fact that there are "too many variables" or even that measurements are not accurate. Climate is a chaotic system
so it will never be predictable
however
it is possible to allocate probabilities to outcomes and see general trends.

And while different models differ in their detail the overall picture from all
respected sources is approximately the same. If you want to argue about
how long it will be before we ruin the planet fine. You can sit back and laugh if scientists are out by 50 years.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
So you call science that doesn't meet your opinion as science junk, and science that meet your opinion that sound science. You define science from your opinion, either as junk science or sound science.

When the majority of the scientific cllimate society come up with results that doesn't fit you and the minority you belong to, then it is junk science.

Sounds like the creationists methods of debating to me.

"When the majority of the scientific cllimate society come up with results that doesn't fit you"

I challenge that assertion. The majority of climate scientists do NOT support predictions from climate models. A lot of people seem to think since a majority of climate scientists accept that man is contributing to global warming that they can believe alarmist predictions based on climate models are also accepted by climate scientists. They are NOT! This is the lie being pushed on people. You apparently were duped into this lie as well.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
It is not the fact that there are "too many variables" or even that measurements are not accurate. Climate is a chaotic system
so it will never be predictable
however
it is possible to allocate probabilities to outcomes and see general trends.

And while different models differ in their detail the overall picture from all
respected sources ...[text shortened]... be before we ruin the planet fine. You can sit back and laugh if scientists are out by 50 years.

Show me an accurate prediction by climate models. I can show you a miserable failure of all climate models. Show me why I should have faith in them.