Bob Carter's lecture ....

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Andre, Apr 6, 2008.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    You are not quoting the IPCC.

    I was referring to Andre's contention that his graph there showed non-rising temps, when it doesn't.

    If you actually read the article you are quoting, you will find that it does contain some standard CO2 denialist BS - such as that the global warming alarmists require temperatures to rise steadily in direct match with the CO2 boost, which they don't (everyone expects temperatures to fluctuate, as always, under CO2 boost regimes) - and also some interesting stuff, such as that the extra water vapor from the CO2 boost warming does seem to be condensing into clouds and damping the greenhouse boost by reflecting light.

    That's always been an area of interest and uncertainty - a major reason the model predictions have such wide error bands. Clouds are the main wild card in predicting the CO2 boost effects.

    So that would be great, maybe, if extra clouds kept things from getting out of hand reliably from now on, regardless of Ninas and glacial melts and so forth. Of course extra clouds have their own downside, if you're farming say, but that could be borne.

    Cross your fingers.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. kazakhan Registered Abuser Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    915
    I never claimed i was quoting the IPCC. Quite clearly i was pointing out the claims others had made about the IPCC.
    I didn't read it

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    None of those claims add up to the IPCC denying that a general rise in average global atmospheric temperatures is a likely consequence of the human boosting of CO2 concentrations.

    Again:no one, or at least no one with sense, expects temps to simply track CO2 concentration in its steady jigging rise. Temps have gone up and down in the past, all thsoe factors are still operating, temps will go up and down in the future. But they will probably (if the CO2 acts as expected) go up a little higher, plateau at higher levels, drop a little less, than in the past.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Hippikos Registered Member

    Messages:
    58
    So, the average global temperature (if that even exists) has risen a staggering 0,4 degrees the last 150 years, there's no increase anymore since 1998, the warmest year in the 20th century was 1934 and all future forecasts (or trends as IPPC says) are based on incomplete computer models.

    All models are wrong, some are useful.

    To me all that is a storm in an A-cup.
     
  8. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    You clearly know nothing about the issue. Are you interested in learning anything?
     
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    It exists, it has been measured (with some uncertainty), and it has risen possibly three times as much as your figure there in 150 years.

    Although even a .4 C degree rise in only 150 years would be significant. You do recognize that, right ?

    As far as there having been no increase since 1998, there has been an increase since 1994 and 2002. Why not use one of those years as your base, if you want to make that kind of argument ?
     
  10. Andre Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    889
  11. Hippikos Registered Member

    Messages:
    58
    Enlighten me.
    I bet you can't even feel the difference between 15,0 and 15,4 degrees.
    Can't see an increase from 2004 in the latest Hadley and MSU graphs, can you? I do see an increase in CO2, but why not in temperature as the alarmists are telling us?
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    I can feel the difference between rain and snow. It rained in January in west central Minnesota again this year - eleven or twelve consecutive now.

    No model prediction of CO2 effects includes monotonic increase in average global temps, even by decade I think - certainly not year by year. What "alarmists" are you talking about ?
     
  13. Cazzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,031
    It also snowed in MN in January, Feb, Mar, and even April of this year......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I love how Global Warming Alarmists cherry-pick warm spots and times.

    Oh my god, record cold temperatures : http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CEFD71238F936A35752C1A967958260
    This proves an ice age is coming !
     
  14. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    This is where the "denialist" gang part company with rationality: If global temperatures have increased by an average 0.4 degrees, what do you think that means? That summer will be 0.4 degrees warmer?

    Only a total moron would think that, are you a total moron?
     
  15. Hippikos Registered Member

    Messages:
    58
    Always funny to see how AGW believers react to skeptical questions. I wonder if that's in their genes? Must be a religious thing.

    Anywayz, can you feel the difference of 0,4 degrees (or average 0.00266 degr. per year over the last 150 years)? Because that's how it is, no matter what spin you're trying to give it.

    How about the Nobel Prize Winner Rev.Gore or NASA boss Hansen? They state that even IPCC is wrong and that we are rapidly nearing the tipping point and that unless we take painful action immediately to reduce CO2, temperatures will run away from us. Surely in that case we should see some correlation even in the short term.
     
  16. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    But you have no idea what "short term" means, in the context you also assume yourself to be speaking from.
    The thing is, climate varies over long periods (150 years isn't a long period, except for short-term humans), but it changes quickly sometimes, at least that's what the proxy evidence seems to point to - sudden changes over relatively short periods - after a change in forcing is caused by orbital precession say, there's a bit of a delay as things warm up, then the climate "tips" into another state, a warmer state (or a colder state, for the last few mil years, or long enough to be more or less forever in our case, there have been the two states, warm and cold, in the climate record).

    So, you could say that the climate is bistable, like a flip-flop circuit. Lots of oscillations in climatic patterns are known about: ENSO, the MJO, the carbon cycle (that has a bit longer period), and the glacial-interglacial cycle is another, but we're messing with a key element (we don't actually know how much we're messing, i.e. how sensitive the climate is to the changes we're making) by altering CO2 levels.
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    It snows in Jan, Feb, Mar, of almost every year, and Apr of many. It snows in May once in a while.

    When it has snowed in May for a dozen consecutive years, we'll note the trend.

    I love how people who use their politics to criticize climate forecasts use political language - like "cherry-picking" - to refer to numerical averages and trends. This is commonly about one paragraph after they have said something like "temps have decreased since 1998, contrary to alarmist predictions".

    Yes. I can feel the difference between rain and snow, in January.

    Edit in: everybody recall the posts a couple weeks back that claimed the Arctic sea ice was back in full force, making up for the entire loss the "alarmists" had noticed ? And this has been a cold winter, in general, we all agree ? Update: http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=04&fd=20&fy=1998&sm=04&sd=20&sy=2008
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2008
  18. Cazzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,031
  19. Cazzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,031

    But it's true. "Human Caused" Global Warming Alarmists DO Cherry-Pick unusually warm situations to add to their alarmist rhetoric.
     
  20. Andre Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    889
    It seems that a downward trend is called natural variation and an upward trend is called catastrophic global warming due to greenhouse gas emission.
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Not on this forum. Here all the cherrypicking has been done by you, Andre, and the rest of the non-alarmist types.

    latest example:
    When it has snowed in May for a dozen consecutive years, we'll note the trend, OK ?
     
  22. Skylark Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    55
  23. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    You will have to let us know when Superior returns to its average water levels to refute all the "OMG its GW rearing its head here" media claims in 2007.
     

Share This Page