Climate Change -- conspiracy theory or is it time we all drive a Prius?
Quote: PBguyNew peer-reviewed science discussing the uncertainty in computer models due to clouds and aerosols:
http://www.jpost.com/Enviro-Tech/Israeli-US-Australian-researchers-effects-of-aerosols-on-clouds-climate-change-uncertain-339421
This is not new at all. According to the IPCC's Third Assessment Report (2012):
Quote:While the radiative forcing due to greenhouse gases may be determined to a reasonably high degree of accuracy... the uncertainties relating to aerosol radiative forcings remain large, and rely to a large extent on the estimates from global modelling studies that are difficult to verify at the present time.
Also, a quote from the article is somewhat ominous:
Quote:Although global air pollution occurring through aerosol pollution particles has already reached its peak, carbon dioxide greenhouse gas will continue to rise, Rosenfeld explained.
With a growing amount of greenhouse gases in the air but stagnant or decreasing aerosol supplies performing the mediated cooling effect, a stronger- than-anticipated global warming situation could occur, he warned.
Quote: BoymimboIt was the 4th warmest year on record last year, but man it's cold in New York City.
"Global warming is nowhere to be found. The mean global temperature has not risen in 17 years and has been slowly falling for approximately the past 10 years. In 2013, there were more record-low temperatures than record-high temperatures in the United States."
"As frigid conditions settled over the nation, global-warming alarmists went into full denial mode. We were emphatically lectured that singular weather events are not necessarily indicative of long-term climate trends. True enough, but haven’t we been repeatedly told that weather events such as hurricanes Sandy and Katrina are unequivocal proof of global warming? If we’re really in the middle of a “climate crisis,” is it not remarkable that low-temperature records from the 19th century were shattered?"
"Weather extremes also seem to bring out the lunatic fringe. Of course, when we’re discussing global warming, it’s difficult to tell where the mainstream stops and the fringe begins. We were subjected to the oxymoronic explanation that frigid weather was, in fact, caused by global warming. According to Time magazine, cold temperatures in the United States were a result of global warming forcing the polar vortex southward. But in 1974, the same Time informed us that descent of the polar vortex into temperate zones was a harbinger of a new Ice Age."
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/16/another-year-of-global-cooling/#ixzz2riI7I214
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Source- Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/16/another-year-of-global-cooling/#ixzz2riDrdaZs
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
On geological timescales it's always getting warmer or cooler. Just be happy that the climate is as unusually mild as it is.
Quote: Keyser"Global warming is nowhere to be found. The mean global temperature has not risen in 17 years and has been slowly falling for approximately the past 10 years. In 2013, there were more record-low temperatures than record-high temperatures in the United States."
This is a meaningless and misleading observation. If you look at this graph from the Met Office Hadley Centre you can see similar pauses in warming in the past:
Because of noise caused by natural variations you can always find some arbitrary 10 year period where there has been pauses (that's the purple flat lines in the graph). But the long term trend is still clear. Additionally, you can filter out some of the causes of these pauses (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols, and solar variability) and come up with an adjusted graph that shows that the warming rate is steadily rising (Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011):
Quote: Keyser"According to Time magazine, cold temperatures in the United States were a result of global warming forcing the polar vortex southward. But in 1974, the same Time informed us that descent of the polar vortex into temperate zones was a harbinger of a new Ice Age."
Time magazine should not be the official voice of scientific consensus now or in 1974.
Quote: Keyser"Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/16/another-year-of-global-cooling/#ixzz2riI7I214
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter."
The author of this editorial has only published one scientific paper on climate change and that was back in 1995. He is not a credible source.
Quote: KeyserOn geological timescales it's always getting warmer or cooler. Just be happy that the climate is as unusually mild as it is.
The irony here is that you are citing temperature measurements in the past as collected by climate scientists. These measurements show changes in the past and prove that the climate is sensitive to forcings like CO2. And the overwhelming evidence shows that the changes are now being primarily driven by human activity.
Quote: paisiello
But as the above graphs show the rate of change is unprecedented.
You justify your conclusions with a definitive statement.
Answer these few questions.
1. How old is the earth?
2. What time period does this graph cover in relation to the age of the planet?
3. Show data that makes your conclusion "unprecedented", such as rates of change, say, 500 years ago, 5000 years ago, 5000000 years ago or any thing you have.
The irony here is that you are citing temperature measurements in the past as collected by climate scientists. These measurements show changes in the past and prove that the climate is sensitive to forcings like CO2. And the overwhelming evidence shows that the changes are now being primarily driven by human activity.
Quote: timberjimYou justify your conclusions with a definitive statement.
Answer these few questions.
1. How old is the earth?
2. What time period does this graph cover in relation to the age of the planet?
3. Show data that makes your conclusion "unprecedented", such as rates of change, say, 500 years ago, 5000 years ago, 5000000 years ago or any thing you have.
(1) 6,018 years according to the Bible. Do they count the year zero or did they skip from -1 to 1?
(2) I don't know how to divide.
(3) Science.
Gee I though everybody knew that the ALIENS control our climate. the main criteria is to keep Bigfoot comfortable.
Quote: boymimbo(1) 6,018 years according to the Bible. Do they count the year zero or did they skip from -1 to 1?
(2) I don't know how to divide.
(3) Science.
I asked a simple straight forward question about a definitive statement P had made. He quickly admitted his statement was wrong and changed it.
For some strange reason you made a feeble atempt at ridicule. I am sorry that you have such a weak position that you find it necessary to respond in such a childish manor.
Yet you do not raise even one quibble with any of the facts that the eminent geophysicist adduces.Quote: KeyserRead more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/16/another-year-of-global-cooling/#ixzz2riI7I214
Quote: paisielloThe author of this editorial has only published one scientific paper on climate change and that was back in 1995. He is not a credible source.
Neither should The Washington Times.Quote: paisielloTime magazine should not be the official voice of scientific consensus now or in 1974.
Quote: SanchoPanzaYet you do not raise even one quibble with any of the facts that the eminent geophysicist adduces.
I actually did, the very first quote. Please re-read my response.
He makes a claim the cold weather is bad for the economy. Well, so is hot weather. People die in heat waves too. Crops are destroyed by hot and dry conditiions; rivers and lakes dry up.
He talks the anecdotal "evidence" that a ship got stuck in the ice and how it's been cold across our part of the world for the past two weeks.
Meanwhile last year was the fourth hottest on record, according to SCIENCE.
Consider the source.
Under the plan unveiled Tuesday, $40 million will go to help cities and towns in Massachusetts shore up the power supply and keep the lights on.
Ten million will be earmarked for the coast, to protect it from rising sea levels.
But will it work?
While Gov. Deval Patrick and others painted a dire picture of what global warming might do to us, others are more skeptical.
MIT Professor Richard Lindzen is a leading international expert on climate change.
“The changes that have occurred due to global warning are too small to account for,” he told WBZ-TV. “It has nothing to do with global warming, it has to do with where we live.”
Lindzen endorses sensible preparedness and environmental protection, but sees what he terms “catastrophism” in the climate change horror stories.
“Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see their eyes bulge,” he says.
“Even many of the people who are supportive of sounding the global warning alarm, back off from catastrophism,” Lindzen said. “It’s the politicians and the green movement that like to portray catastrophe.”
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/01/14/mit-professor-urging-climate-change-activists-to-slow-down/
@Paisiello, Sancho Panza,
Is Richard Lindzen qualified enough for you? :)
Regardless, there hasn't been any real global warming over the last 10 or more years.
“The changes that have occurred due to global warming are too small to account for,” he told WBZ-TV. “It has nothing to do with global warming, it has to do with where we live.”
-Keyser
No, not really. The guy isn't well respected among his peers at all. He leads at nothing.Quote: KeyserMIT Professor Richard Lindzen is a leading international expert on climate change.
Quote: timberjimI asked a simple straight forward question about a definitive statement P had made. He quickly admitted his statement was wrong and changed it.
For some strange reason you made a feeble atempt at ridicule. I am sorry that you have such a weak position that you find it necessary to respond in such a childish manor.
No, you are making points that climate skeptics make all of the time that have been voiced over and over again, so the ridicule is warranted. Read and try to understand the science with an open mind and without the political spin on both sides.
The earth is 4.5 billion years old, and the historical records that have been extracted throughout time does not reflect the degree of global warming and carbon dioxide change in such a short time that we've seen in the last 150 years, so it is unprecedented. It doesn't mean it hasn't happened. It just hasn't happened in the period where climate records exist. There are no sources that could increase or decrease the planetary concentration of carbon dioxide in the magnitude that it has changed EXCEPT via anthropogenic sources.
There is a direct link between the carbon dioxide in the air and atmospheric absorption. Laboratory tests show carbon dioxide absorbs radiation. Satellite measurements confirm less radiation is escaping to space at carbon dioxide absorptive wavelengths. Surface measurements find more radiation returning back to Earth at these same wavelengths. The result of this energy imbalance is the accumulation of heat.
It's really that simple. Anyone with an understanding of basic chemistry and physics understands this and would never refute this fact without getting kicked out of their classroom.
The challenge now is to figure out how the atmosphere responds to the extra input of heat, and we know some of the answers, but not all of them. We know that the ocean is absorbing alot of the extra carbon, which is acidifying the ocean and destorying corals. We know that clouds and aerosol concentrations are affected, but the effect of these has uncertainties.
All of this reminds me of the gigantic battle people had over CFCs back in the 80s. The refridgerant industry claimed doom that never happened. Papers were published that claimed that CFCs weren't harmful. CFCs were eliminated and the refridgerant industry thrived, and the ozone layer is slowly restoring itself.
Quote:@Paisiello, Sancho Panza,
Is Richard Lindzen qualified enough for you? :)
Regardless, there hasn't been any real global warming over the last 10 or more years.
“The changes that have occurred due to global warming are too small to account for,” he told WBZ-TV. “It has nothing to do with global warming, it has to do with where we live.”
-Keyser
Lindzen is qualified enough to make his claim, and I agree that overpoliticizing the issue is the wrong thing to do.
But his paper on climate change have been widely discredited. He is essentially using a known uncertainty (cloud cover) and stating that the effects of increased cloud cover are enough to counterbalance all of the warming effects of carbon dioxide. That paper was discredited: "Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained "some stupid mistakes" in his handling of the satellite data. "It was just embarrassing," he said in the Times interview. "The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque."
The scientific consensus is that clouds do have some cooling effect, not enough to counteract the effect of CO2.
Quote: KeyserIs Richard Lindzen qualified enough for you?
At least he publishes in peer reviewed journals. However, he is on the right side of this graph:
Quote: KeyserRegardless, there hasn't been any real global warming over the last 10 or more years.
Please re-read my previous post which counters this meaningless statement.
Quote: paisielloThis is not new at all. According to the IPCC's Third Assessment Report (2012):
Also, a quote from the article is somewhat ominous:
If it wasn't "new at all" then why would a prestigious journal like Science publish it?
I think many people are simply unaware of the uncertainty and the lack of skill in some GCMs used by the IPCC.
http://www.jpost.com/Enviro-Tech/Israeli-US-Australian-researchers-effects-of-aerosols-on-clouds-climate-change-uncertain-339421
Quote: PBguyIf it wasn't "new at all" then why would a prestigious journal like Science publish it?
I wasn't aware that Science or any journal for that matter would reject a submittal simply because it wasn't new.
Quote: PBguyI think many people are simply unaware of the uncertainty and the lack of skill in some GCMs used by the IPCC.
And apparently a prestigious journal like Science is also unaware?
The piece does seem to have quite a bit of meat on the bone:Quote: boymimboHe talks the anecdotal "evidence" that a ship got stuck in the ice and how it's been cold across our part of the world for the past two weeks.
"The mean global temperature has not risen in 17 years and has been slowly falling for approximately the past 10 years. In 2013, there were more record-low temperatures than record-high temperatures in the United States. At the end of the first week in January, a brutal spell of cold weather settled over most of the country. Multiple cold-temperature records were shattered across the country. Some sites experienced frigid conditions not seen since the 19th century. Chicago and New York City broke temperature records set in 1894 and 1896, respectively. . . .
The operation of power grids, gas pipelines and oil refineries was disrupted. Passengers on Amtrak trains were left stranded, and thousands of flights were delayed or canceled. By Jan. 7, the media were reporting at least 21 deaths directly related to the cold.
The January freeze caused $3 million in damage to vineyards in Ohio. Citrus crops in Florida apparently escaped damage, but California growers were not so lucky. A weeklong spell of cold weather in early December damaged up to half of the state’s $1.5 billion citrus crop."
Quote: boymimboMeanwhile last year was the fourth hottest on record, according to SCIENCE.
The Bloomberg report on the NASA numbers provides additional perspective:
"Including 2013, nine of the 10 warmest years occurred this century. Average temperatures last year were 0.07 degrees Fahrenheit below the 2010 record, according to the agency in its analysis of 133 years of data. The warmest years, 2010 and 2005, were associated with a disruption of the atmosphere over the tropical Pacific known as El Nino that leads to warmer sea-surface temperatures. It’s counterpart, La Nina, is a cooling of the equatorial Pacific Ocean.
Last year was more neutral, Schmidt said. An El Nino trend likely to develop later this year may push average annual temperatures higher, he said."
Quote: SanchoPanzaThe piece does seem to have quite a bit of meat on the bone:
"The mean global temperature has not risen in 17 years and has been slowly falling for approximately the past 10 years. In 2013, there were more record-low temperatures than record-high temperatures in the United States. At the end of the first week in January, (anecdotal...)
Quote:The Bloomberg report on the NASA numbers provides additional perspective:
"Including 2013, nine of the 10 warmest years occurred this century. Average temperatures last year were 0.07 degrees Fahrenheit below the 2010 record, according to the agency in its analysis of 133 years of data. The warmest years, 2010 and 2005, were associated with a disruption of the atmosphere over the tropical Pacific known as El Nino that leads to warmer sea-surface temperatures. It’s counterpart, La Nina, is a cooling of the equatorial Pacific Ocean.
Last year was more neutral, Schmidt said. An El Nino trend likely to develop later this year may push average annual temperatures higher, he said."
You realize that the first quotes contradict the last, right? And the rest of "evidence" -- aka the 'polar vortex' over the United States is meaningless compared to the trends. While we were freezing our asses off, the rest of the northern hemisphere was nice and comfy. Australia was sweltering over record heat.
You can look at a graph and pick a time period and see a downward trend. In this case, climate skeptics pick 1998 as the starting point for their trend line to state that the earth is cooling....
...but the trend over the last 150 years in ALL aspects of the climate should give you pause.
Of course, if you believe that these graphs are made up by the world-wide scientific community, then there is a tornado in Kansas waiting to take you to the yellow brick road...
Over to you, AZ.
Just another one of those nature-driven situations that "science" cannot easily resolve. At any rate, Schmidt was just probably voicing a fervent hope to help justify his agenda.Quote: boymimboYou realize that the first quotes contradict the last, right? And the rest of "evidence" -- aka the 'polar vortex' over the United States is meaningless compared to the trends. While we were freezing our asses off, the rest of the northern hemisphere was nice and comfy. Australia was sweltering over record heat.Quote:The Bloomberg report on the NASA numbers provides additional perspective:
"Including 2013, nine of the 10 warmest years occurred this century. Average temperatures last year were 0.07 degrees Fahrenheit below the 2010 record, according to the agency in its analysis of 133 years of data. The warmest years, 2010 and 2005, were associated with a disruption of the atmosphere over the tropical Pacific known as El Nino that leads to warmer sea-surface temperatures. It’s counterpart, La Nina, is a cooling of the equatorial Pacific Ocean.
Last year was more neutral, Schmidt said. An El Nino trend likely to develop later this year may push average annual temperatures higher, he said."
Even your climate skeptic scientist that Keyser brought up a few posts ago states that global warming is human made via greenhouse gas emissions. He just disputes the magnitude of the change because he believes that cloud coverage offsets this effect, and he has been proven wrong.
There are two basic facts and one conclusion that you need to understand:
(1) The increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by humans.
(2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps incoming solar radiation and heats the atmosphere, GIVEN no other inputs. This is why CO2 is a "greenhouse gas"
Therefore, the increase in CO2, caused by humans, has the potential to warm the atmosphere.
The entire climate change 'industry' relies on these two facts.
Quote: paisielloQuote: PBguyIf it wasn't "new at all" then why would a prestigious journal like Science publish it?
I wasn't aware that Science or any journal for that matter would reject a submittal simply because it wasn't new.
And apparently a prestigious journal like Science is also unaware?
Do you think papers get published in leading scientific journals without presenting some new information? If they do then what's the point? I could take existing knowledge from other papers and simply put it together in a new way and publish it. That's not the point of peer-reviewed science.
No Science is well aware of the uncertainty. It's the public that's mostly unaware since uncertainties aren't readily discussed. Some people don't want the public to be aware of the uncertainties.
Quote: PBguyDo you think papers get published in leading scientific journals without presenting some new information? If they do then what's the point? I could take existing knowledge from other papers and simply put it together in a new way and publish it.
That happens all the time. Your own reference appears to be an example.
The uncertainties are discussed all the time. Your own reference appears to be an example.Quote: PBguyIt's the public that's mostly unaware since uncertainties aren't readily discussed. Some people don't want the public to be aware of the uncertainties.
Quote: boymimboScientists are well aware of this. Politicians and the public are not.
Except, I guess, those members of the public and those politicians that are looking for reasons to reject it.
Quote: paisielloThat happens all the time. Your own reference appears to be an example.
The uncertainties are discussed all the time. Your own reference appears to be an example.
When information is presented to the public the uncertainties are often either glossed over or not mentioned at all. Let me give you some recent examples - here are the actual headlines from the web reporting on new research:
Extreme El Nino weather to double in frequency, study says
Unchecked global warming 'will double extreme El Niño weather events'
Current rate of carbon emissions will double devastating El Niño weather events: study
Do you see anything in those headlines that suggest ANY uncertainty in the results? Yes I know they're just headlines but that's partly my point. These headlines scream that it WILL HAPPEN. The truth is this is just another computer model with results indicating that strong El Nino events will likely be more frequent. How reliable are these models? No way to know.
Of course the paper itself is paywalled so there is no way to know exactly what it claims without paying for the expensive access:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n2/full/nclimate2100.html
Quote: CBCThis latest research based on rainfall patterns suggests that extreme El Nino events are likely to double in frequency as the world warms, leading to direct impacts on extreme weather events worldwide," Cai concluded.
But the headlines are wrong. It should way "may" or "likely" in the headline.
Quote: PBguyOf course the paper itself is paywalled so there is no way to know exactly what it claims without paying for the expensive access:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n2/full/nclimate2100.html
Eat your heart out:
Increasing frequency of extreme El Niño events due to greenhouse warming.pdf
Quote: boymimboIf you read the CBC article, the following quote can be found:
Quote: CBCThis latest research based on rainfall patterns suggests that extreme El Nino events are likely to double in frequency as the world warms, leading to direct impacts on extreme weather events worldwide," Cai concluded.
But the headlines are wrong. It should way "may" or "likely" in the headline.
Just because the CIMP models say it will happen does that really even mean it's "likely"? Or do we just have an unproven model prediction that may or may not actually happen?
Quote: paisielloEat your heart out:
Increasing frequency of extreme El Niño events due to greenhouse warming.pdf
Thanks for the link!
Can you point out where they state the uncertainty of their findings?
Quote: ARTICLE
Here we present climate modelling evidence for a doubling in the occurrences in the future in response to greenhouse warming. We estimate
the change by aggregating results from climate models in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phases 3 (CMIP3;
ref. 10) and 5 (CMIP5; ref. 11) multi-model databases, and a perturbed physics ensemble
Note the word "estimate". When you read the paper, you can see the assumptions that they used to come up with the estimate and that that they are using climate models which all climatologists know are fraught with assumptions.
NASA Data: Global Warming Still on “Pause,” Sea Ice Hit Record
Written by Alex Newman
NASA Data: Global Warming Still on “Pause,” Sea Ice Hit Record
"Despite the alarmist “climate” claims made in an official press conference, the latest temperature data from two U.S. government bureaucracies actually show that the “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming that began some 17 years ago is still ongoing. The findings for last year, unveiled to reporters by NASA and NOAA on January 21, also showed that Antarctic sea ice extent in September of 2013 was the highest ever documented since records began.
The establishment media and the taxpayer-funded climate alarmists, as usual, tried to avoid the troublesome issues — or they at least tried to confuse the public by citing dubious theories purporting to explain the conflict between reality and the climate predictions. However, experts said the latest temperature data offered further evidence that United Nations theories and forecasts surrounding alleged catastrophic man-made global warming are simply wrong.
Perhaps the most broadly overlooked element in the latest data presented by NOAA and NASA is the fact that, as The New American has been reporting for months, Antarctic sea ice extent was at never-before-seen highs throughout much of 2013. In March of last year, meanwhile, ice coverage was the second largest on record. The previous record highs were set in 2012, only to be overtaken in 2013." -Written by Alex Newman
-Keyser
Quote: Sabretom2Oops, time to dig up some dirt on Mr. Newman.
Or NASA
Quote: boymimboA fact is reported. We spin. You decide. FoxNews.
So just because FNC questions what someone is saying you call is "spin?"
Perhaps you would rather read "Pravda?"
This is a technical paper geared toward a specifically trained audience. I don't have the expertise to interpret what they are saying with any authority. Given that disclaimer, however, if you look at the end of their paper they have a section about the statistical significance of their findings.Quote: PBguyCan you point out where they state the uncertainty of their findings?
Especially in an era when meteorologists have such a lousy record forecasting even 48 hours in advance.Quote: PBguyJust because the CIMP models say it will happen does that really even mean it's "likely"? Or do we just have an unproven model prediction that may or may not actually happen?
Pravda probably has more truth than FoxNews does. There must be some study done somewhere....
Quote: Keyser...the latest temperature data from two U.S. government bureaucracies actually show that the “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming that began some 17 years ago is still ongoing.
This is an oft repeated and misleading statement. Please refer to the previous posts here and here that have already addressed this.
Quote: KeyserAntarctic sea ice extent was at never-before-seen highs throughout much of 2013. In March of last year, meanwhile, ice coverage was the second largest on record. The previous record highs were set in 2012, only to be overtaken in 2013.
Another misleading statement. What is missing in this claim is the distinction between sea ice (the ice that forms in the winter and melts in the summer) and land ice (the ice that has taken 1000's of years to form). Yes, it's true that sea ice is increasing. Among other things this is because of increased precipitation and because of increase melt-water from land ice. If you look at land ice you see that it is actually been decreasing (Shepherd, 2012):
Quote: boymimboNo, Fox doesn't even question. They just spin it to something like Keyser reported. And if it's an actual fact that doesn't fit their boss' political agenda, then they question it.
Pravda probably has more truth than FoxNews does. There must be some study done somewhere....
Let me guess, you think this goes back to FNC burrying the gwb 1970s DUI story on the eve of he 2000 election?
Quote: PBguyJust because the CIMP models say it will happen does that really even mean it's "likely"? Or do we just have an unproven model prediction that may or may not actually happen?
Your question strictly is about computer models making future predictions.
Firstly, you can calibrate your models based on past data and, secondly, you can test your models by extreme events that happen such as the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991:
Taken from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 FAQ 8.1, Figure 1. Global mean near-surface temperatures over the 20th century from observations (black) and as obtained from 58 simulations produced by 14 different climate models driven by both natural and human-caused factors that influence climate (yellow). The mean of all these runs is also shown (thick red line). Temperature anomalies are shown relative to the 1901 to 1950 mean. Vertical grey lines indicate the timing of major volcanic eruptions. (Figure adapted from Chapter 9, Figure 9.5. Refer to corresponding caption for further details.)
From this graph you can definitely see the large variation in the computer models, no question that there is some uncertainty there. But the two conclusions to be taken from this are:
1) Whenever a large enough volcanic eruption happened the models predicted and the observations agreed that there was a temperature drop.
2) The trend for the last 100 years shows that the models and observations are in relatively close agreement overall.
We are talking about a complicated system here. Just like the human body being subjected to a cancerous growth we cannot be expected to give accurate predictions, rather only likely scenarios of possible outcomes based on past data. And if 90% of the doctors you consulted recommended you undergo a certain treatment would you forgo it simply because of the inherent variability and some doubts raised by the other 10%?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/copenhagen-and-global-warming-ten-facts-and-ten-myths-on-climate-change/16467
