Al_U_Card Posted January 1, 2014 Report Share Posted January 1, 2014 Or maybe a little help from their "friends"? http://www.kusi.com/video?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=9686594 Because you never know who your real friends are...Not to be "denied" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted January 2, 2014 Report Share Posted January 2, 2014 Deniers say one thing, but scientists say another: Global temperatures to rise at least 4°C by 2100 According to a December 31 news release from the University of New South Wales, scientists estimate that by 2100, global average temperatures will rise at least 4 degrees Celsius if carbon dioxide emissions are not scaled back. Additionally, researchers say that the continued increase in global average temperatures will result in an additional 4 degrees Celsius by 2200. The findings appear in a recent article in the journal Nature, and may explain one of the great unknowns of climate sensitivity: the role of cloud formation, and whether this will have a positive or negative influence on global climate change. “Our research has shown climate models indicating a low temperature response to a doubling of carbon dioxide from preindustrial times are not reproducing the correct processes that lead to cloud formation,” said Steven Sherwood, a professor from the University of New South Wales’ Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science. “When the processes are correct in the climate models the level of climate sensitivity is far higher. Previously, estimates of the sensitivity of global temperature to a doubling of carbon dioxide ranged from 1.5°C to 5°C. This new research takes away the lower end of climate sensitivity estimates, meaning that global average temperatures will increase by 3°C to 5°C with a doubling of carbon dioxide.” The key to this narrower – albeit much higher – estimate is found in the real world observations around the role of water vapor in cloud formation.Looks like the Koch brothers and Exxon will have to write even larger secret checks... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted January 2, 2014 Report Share Posted January 2, 2014 Deniers say one thing, but scientists say another: Global temperatures to rise at least 4°C by 2100 Looks like the Koch brothers and Exxon will have to write even larger secret checks...The upshot of this "study" is that the "best" models for cloud effects are those that are the "hottest" (furthest from REAL temperatures). Did you notice that the 2nd draft of the latest IPCC report has now LOWERED their temperature "projections"? Perhaps those big cheques will be needed to defray the costs of that Antarctic excursion stuck in the ice.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel1960 Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Deniers say one thing, but scientists say another: Global temperatures to rise at least 4°C by 2100 Looks like the Koch brothers and Exxon will have to write even larger secret checks... There have always been those marking dire predictions for self-recognition. Witness some of the past failures: Arctic sea ice will disappear by 2013, polars bear populations will decrease markely due to the decling sea ice, the Himalayas will melt by 2030, there is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be attainable, England will run out of coal by 1900, hundreds of millions of people will die in the 1970s due to mass starvation, the world will run out of petroleum by 1992, and natural gas by 1993, by 1985, air pollution will have reduced the sunlight reaching the Earth to one half, plunging us into an ice age, If trends continue, the Earth will be 11 degrees colder by 2000, by 1980 all imprtant animal live in the sea will be extinct, using computer models global warming will raise average temperatures 2 degrees by 2010, by 1995 the heartlands of North America nad Eurasia will be desolation with horrific droughts causing crop failurs and food riots. I could go on and on about predictions that failed to materailize. Most are main in an attempt to influence policy, then the claimant can attest that his/her work has averted a crisis. I take all these predictions with a grain of salt - preferrably on me margarita. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 Climate change? http://www.geoffstuff.com/Macquarie%20Island%20Temper.JPG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onoway Posted January 18, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 Climate change? http://www.geoffstuff.com/Macquarie%20Island%20Temper.JPGJust saw a headline that some parts of Australia are saying they are in the worst drought ever. Guess it depends on where you choose to measure. Another arctic vortex is supposedly set to hit the North American midwest and east in a couple of days or so, possibly worse than the one a week or so ago. They say dry sand is a good insulator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 Climate change?Do you have evidence to suggest that Macquarie Island represents a good proxy for global climate? Do you have the record log for changes in instrumentation and measurement techniques during the observation period? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel1960 Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 Just saw a headline that some parts of Australia are saying they are in the worst drought ever. Guess it depends on where you choose to measure. Another arctic vortex is supposedly set to hit the North American midwest and east in a couple of days or so, possibly worse than the one a week or so ago. They say dry sand is a good insulator. In 2013, the U.S. witnessed more record low temperatures than high for the fist time in 20 years. 2014 is already off to a much colder start. Through Saturday, there have been 1131 new record lows (almost 10% of the entire 2013) compared to just 290 record highs. The next Arctic blast is likely to add to that total. Compare that to the previous trends: http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2009/chrisburtExtremeTempsthrough2008.png Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 Question: If anthropomorphic anthropogenic global warming staves off a coming ice age, is that a good thing or a bad thing? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 In 2013, the U.S. witnessed more record low temperatures than high for the fist time in 20 years. 2014 is already off to a much colder start. Through Saturday, there have been 1131 new record lows (almost 10% of the entire 2013) compared to just 290 record highs. The next Arctic blast is likely to add to that total. Compare that to the previous trends: http://www.wundergro...through2008.png We are discussing climate change, not weather. Besides, as has probably been mentioned several hundred times earlier in this thread, one of the effects of global warming is more extreme weather, both hot and cold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 Question: If anthropomorphic global warming staves off a coming ice age, is that a good thing or a bad thing?Silly question, everyone knows that all results of global warming are automatically bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 Question: If anthropomorphic global warming staves off a coming ice age, is that a good thing or a bad thing?Anthopogenic, not anthorpomorphic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel1960 Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 We are discussing climate change, not weather. Besides, as has probably been mentioned several hundred times earlier in this thread, one of the effects of global warming is more extreme weather, both hot and cold. Actually, the exact opposite is expected. The warming caused by an increase in atmospheric gases, namely CO2 and water, will lead to moderation in temperature. As been seen in over the past three decades, temperatures have increased most during winter, at night, and in the Arctic. The warmest temperatures have only increased slightly. The result has been a large decrease in extreme cold temperatures. New lows were becoming a rarity during the warming decade of the 90s and stagnately warm decade of the 2000s. Similarly, the most extreme weather events, tornadoes, have been decreased fro several decades. The recent deviation is more indicative of a cooling climate. Granted, this can be more accurately classified as weather, however, this condition has occurred for sufficient time for event the most ardent desbelievers to acknowledge the trend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 Actually, the exact opposite is expected. The warming caused by an increase in atmospheric gases, namely CO2 and water, will lead to moderation in temperature. As been seen in over the past three decades, temperatures have increased most during winter, at night, and in the Arctic. The warmest temperatures have only increased slightly. The result has been a large decrease in extreme cold temperatures. New lows were becoming a rarity during the warming decade of the 90s and stagnately warm decade of the 2000s. Similarly, the most extreme weather events, tornadoes, have been decreased fro several decades. The recent deviation is more indicative of a cooling climate. Granted, this can be more accurately classified as weather, however, this condition has occurred for sufficient time for event the most ardent desbelievers to acknowledge the trend.Sorry to disagree. Changes observed from decade to decade do not constitute a change in climate. That is variance. And, IMHO, it is weather, not climate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel1960 Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 Art,I would agree that changes over three decades constitutes weather variance. In fact, I would not rule out longer timeframes being just variance. The decrease in tornadic activity correlates quite well with increasing temperatures over the past half century. The record highs/lows also correlates, but to a lesser degree. In the U.S., no state has set a record high temperatures since 1994, and 50% of record highs were recorded in the 1930s. Only one new record low has been set this century, and 50% were set prior to WWII. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 Anthopogenic, not anthorpomorphic.Well excuse me all to Hell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 climate=long term weather. so weather is the main factor along with time.too say climate is not weather is just silly. variance variancePhrase Houghton Mifflin n.noun 1.The act of varying. 2.The state or quality of being variant or variable; a variation. 3.A difference between what is expected and what actually occurs. 4.The state or fact of differing or of being in conflict. 5.A discrepancy between two statements or documents in a proceeding. 6.License to engage in an act contrary to a usual rule. a zoning variance. 7.The square of the standard deviation. 8.The number of thermodynamic variables, such as temperature and pressure, required to specify a state of equilibrium of a system, given by the phase rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 What a treat! Lindzen was asked whether models had improved. He cited something called the quasi-biennial oscillation – where the wind in the upper atmosphere blows from one direction for 26 months and then from the other for 26 months. “It’s very well-observed . . . but no model got this. And yet we knew the physics of it.” He said that a technique called “parameterisation” was being used to fudge the physics. “The things they can’t resolve, they force the model to behave the way nature is observed to do. Is that an advance? I don’t know . . . You can add complexity to a model but it hasn’t helped them to do major things with ocean processes.” Ian Mearns: (seeming to understand): You don’t think the models are reliable? Lindzen: No! Of course not! If you can’t get TODAY’s distribution of regional climate right why would that be reliable for the future? A must-read, if only for the obtuseness of the alarmist rhetoric... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted February 27, 2014 Report Share Posted February 27, 2014 In models we trust? I am just old enough to recall the frigid 50's and the soggy 60's. That 60 year semi-cycle is also somewhat evident in the CET record (Central England Temps) going back to the 1700s. Are we in a stall, a descent or a pause? Time will tell but not those damn computer models that only show warming apace.... http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/cmip5-90-models-global-tsfc-vs-obs1.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted February 27, 2014 Report Share Posted February 27, 2014 In models we trust? I am just old enough to recall the frigid 50's and the soggy 60's. That 60 year semi-cycle is also somewhat evident in the CET record (Central England Temps) going back to the 1700s. Are we in a stall, a descent or a pause? Time will tell but not those damn computer models that only show warming apace.... http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/cmip5-90-models-global-tsfc-vs-obs1.jpg The idiot doesn't even understand the pictures that he's posting to support his argument. 1. The solid black line that shows a steady upward trend is an ensemble (probably the average) of a large number of individual models2. The individual models show plenty of variance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted February 27, 2014 Report Share Posted February 27, 2014 At the risk of posting for the second time in the global warming thread, has anyone else read Nate Silver's book? He has a chapter on climate science and Bayesian analysis, I thought that was a nice read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted February 27, 2014 Report Share Posted February 27, 2014 Interesting points (no, not his head, although that is peculiarly fascinating....) as far as variability and Bayesian priors go, this too is interesting. http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/fig-1-tcr-post-cmip5-79-13-temp-trends_ca24sep13.png?w=720&h=480 And since professor emeritus Lindzen isn't crazy about the models either, perhaps someone else is wrong on this topic... http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/fig-3-tcr-post-cmip5-tcrs-ross.png?w=756&h=463 Nic Lewis has some good commentary on the use of appropriate priors in various TCR studies. Observations trump theories... R. Feynman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted February 27, 2014 Report Share Posted February 27, 2014 And since professor emeritus Lindzen isn't crazy about the models either, perhaps someone else is wrong on this topic... If you're looking for a source of error, it probably lies with Richard Lindzen.His track record over the last 30 years has been abysmal. Here's a list of his greatest hits on the climate side of thingshttp://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm If you prefer, we can delve into his explanations why cigarette smoking isn't related to cancer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 2. The individual models show plenty of variance Most not near the actual data we are experiencing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 Ahhh yes. Skeptical Science. The site of serial mis-quoting (See Michael Mann's legal pleadings vs. Steyn), comment tampering, survey twisting, Nazi wannabee, cartoonist turned expert science communicator? ROTFLMAO Next, I suppose that Gavin Schmidt's most recent hand-waver about "coincidences" being responsible for the last 17 years of no warming, will be venerated and presented as proof of concept? Holy Lemony Snicket! The models are all they have and with every passing day, the "projections" are shown to be as worthless as their position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.