Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
TimG

It's the [Climate Polcy] Stupid!

Recommended Posts

That has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.
You must be one of the spoiled little rich kids in the environmental movement.

Thanks for stopping by.

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The situation is this: the IPCC models predicted more warming than has occurred but there is a lot of variance within the models. This means some argue the lack of warming does not actually falsify the models. On the other hand, if trends continue the models will be falsified in 5-10 years. So we are really in a limbo period where one can plausibly argue that the models are both right and wrong. On the sceptic side we also have the ocean heat content (OHC) which has also failed to rise as predicted.

Much clearer. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The models have grossly under predicted the warming we are going to see in the next fifty years.

The 2001 IPCC projected temperature models to 2050 and beyond shows a wide temperature variation.But they show at the bottom end of the projected rise to be about .2 C for the first decade.

HadleyCrut

RSS

UAH

Cooling,Flat to a slight warming of about .1C

The IPCC are too warm by a lot and this is based on the AGW hypothesis.

The warming trend since the mid 1800's continues on a linear trendline.There is no accelerating warming trend ongoing at all.Still falls within the "natural" warming trend of the last 150+ years.

By the way how can you know it it is grossly underestimated,when those 50 years have not happened yet?

:lol:

Edited by sunsettommy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok but as I said, a correlation graph would be helpful.

I never said it wasn't.

However the point he makes is so obvious,that even YOU should be able to understand it.

There has been NO CHANGE IN THE TREND LINE SINCE 1880! The warming continues to fall on the trendline.

It is NOT accelerating or decelerating.

There is no discernible CO2 effect visible in the trend.Quoting Steve over what you fail to understand:

Without the sulfate cooling effect, the graph then shows constant warming since 1880 – despite the fact that very little CO2 was accumulating in the atmosphere prior to the 1940s

That is the point he was making.

1880 to 1940 CO2 went from 280 ppm to about 315 ppm

LINK

That is only a 35 ppm increase in FIRST 60 years.Far less than the yearly rate of increase after 1940,which is more than doubled,to about 65 more ppm.That after the NEXT 60 years produced twice as much total increase.

Getting it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Slight cooling" or zero ? The distinction is important. The trend fell short of 'significant warming' up until recently (2010?) but they weren't calling it 'slight warming'.

It's flat.

Hadley Crut shows a clear cooling since 2001.

But RSS shows a flat rate.

UAH shows a slight warming rate.

They are all well below the IPCC 2001 projected (based on the AGW hypothesis) modeled temperature increase rate to year 2050 and beyond.For the first decade ending later this year.It was projected to be a .2 C increase.This is the LOW end of the projected temperature increase.

UAH shows about half that.

That means the AGW hypothesis is failing.It is way too warm.

When will that ever sink into your head?

Very damaging ? I don't see that. If they change the degree of warming by some decimals then is that very damaging ? Only to the hopeful.

It take you have never read the IPCC reports making the temperature projections.They published it in 2001 and essentially the same projections again 2007.It is a list of climate models super imposed on a chart.Showing the projected temperature ranges.Based on the AGW hypothesis.

Try this LINK and see for yourself what a prominent Lukewarmer thinks about the temperature trends and the data behind it.

IPCC Central Tendency of 2C/century: Still rejected.

It is undeniably warming from the mid 1800's to now.But the last 10 years it is not.A data based refutation of the IPCC temperature projections for the first decade.

It's constantly being revised, so no concerns here.

Why give me this unsubstantiated B.S?

It is NOT "constantly" being revised.The IPCC reports are supposed to be the Gold standard and supporter of the AGW hypothesis.The 2007 report temperature models has not changed much from the 2001 report.

HERE is a link showing the small changes.

Hadley Crut is the favored temperature data center,by the IPCC group

2001-2011

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why 'the source' ? They consolidate scientific findings and comprise a body of governance, I would say. I'm not even sure if governance is the word, it may just be a central body that reviews the science.

But why call them 'the source' ? The sources are the scientific papers.

I gather you have no idea what the IPCC is about.

:blink:

I'm asking you honest questions and playing along nicely here, so I would thank you to do the same.

We got through the discussion of your cherrypicking examples well enough, let's continue to move forward in a positive way, I say.

You have been making a lot of replies,indicating that you know so little about it.Yet when I post links to base information.You seem to just blink and make mostly irrelevent replies.

Cherrypicking complaint is one example of your refusal to see the point I made.I had to repeat my point several times before you caught on.

You went on and on over Steve's undeniable no change in the warming trend since 1880 point.You complained that he did not post the CO2 along with the temperature series.Anyone who actually read the information.Would already have known that CO2 rise from 1880 to 1940 was very small.Far less than the last 60 years.

Most AGW believers concentrate on the CO2 increase from 1970 onward,because that is the common dateline they say AGW is visible and accelerating.The dateline they think really matters.

You have a strong tendency to post replies that are free of data or relevance to what we are talking about.Just post nitpicking stuff is all you have.

How about you stop pretending that you what you are talking about and try discussing it instead of continually being adversarial in your factless replies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sunsettommy originally wrote:

You need to see the link again.It shows the undeniable zero trend from 1979-1994.It is a GREEN line.

I already stated the parameters I used: global temperatures, full time scale. I didn't use a subset of years but the whole scale.

I DID post the GLOBAL TEMPERATURES data to make that chart.What the hell are YOU talking about?

This is what you originally stated:

No ! That's great. First thing I picked was HADCRUT global meanglobal mean - every sample. A warming trend is clear there.

To what I posted HERE

I posted using UAH data.You are talking HadCRUT.

???

You are a mess!

Since you never disputed the actual data and chart.I have posted.Why give me the B.S?

Here is the full post I made that you feebly replied to in the first place.

You need to see the link again.It shows the undeniable zero trend from 1979-1994.It is a GREEN line.

The 1998 event is a step up warming.Then from 2001 to now,it is back to about zero.That is the BLUE line.

This is based on the satellite data.

Most of the warming that significantly effected the trend.Occurred in 1977 and 1998.They are called STEP warming.Where the trendline was abruptly lifted upward to a new level.

YOU never factually disputed any of it.

Not only that it clearly states it is a WARMING trend.All I did was to show that most of the warming was in just a few years of the 32 years shown in the chart.The rest of the time it was almost flat.

I showed that using the UAH data from 1979 to 2011 as a warming trend.But Using HADCRUT data for just the years 2001 to 2011.It is cooling.

Yet YOU keep making dumb statements,that does NOT even dispute what I wrote.I posted valid temperature data and you post in replies with B.S. against them.

Why are you doing it Mike?

:lol:

Edited by sunsettommy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow. That was painful. It's hard to see what Lindzen is complaining about when all 4 reviewers - including the one he requested - determined that the paper wasn't of adequate quality to be published.

No it is your ignorance of the practice,that is being displayed there.

This LINK has Dr. Motl explaining what really transpired there:

Editors, reviewers, and bias

Selected excerpts:

When you look what was going on with the submission, you can have no doubts that Lindzen and Choi have received a "special treatment". First, it's normal for the PNAS authors to choose their reviewers. Obviously, this policy can't produce a full-fledged peer review. However, it's being used in a big majority of other submissions to PNAS.
Now, Chou (not to be confused with Choi) is surely competent when it comes to the very detailed content of the paper - energy fluxes in the atmosphere, and so on. It's clear why they didn't like it even though his "detachment" from Richard has safely exceeded those 4 years that PNAS requires.

Go ahead and read the link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots to get to here, S. Tommy:

I never said it wasn't.

...

There is no discernible CO2 effect visible in the trend.Quoting Steve over what you fail to understand:

It seems that you agree that a correlation graph would be useful and you don't see a CO2 effect visible. Ok, so let's look at a correlation graph to start then...

Here you go: File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

Hadley Crut shows a clear cooling since 2001.

But RSS shows a flat rate.

UAH shows a slight warming rate.

They are all well below the IPCC 2001 projected (based on the AGW hypothesis) modeled temperature increase rate to year 2050 and beyond.For the first decade ending later this year.It was projected to be a .2 C increase.This is the LOW end of the projected temperature increase.

UAH shows about half that.

That means the AGW hypothesis is failing.It is way too warm.

Some of this is your assertions (which I don't trust, since you're not a climate scientist as far as I know) and some of it are claims from others (which are more interesting to me) You also acknowledge that there is a LOW end of the project increase (implying that there is no absolute consensus on the warming rate) so I don't know how the hypothesis could be failing rather than just being adjusted downwards as you seem to acknowledge is happening now.

I suppose if it gets down to zero or insignificant numbers we can all declare warming dead - and celebrate.

I gather you have no idea what the IPCC is about.

Yes I do - and as I said you need to separate policy (as in government, as in intergovernmental - the 'I' in IPCC) from the science.

You have been making a lot of replies,indicating that you know so little about it.

You don't seem to be picking up on my points. For example, you mix up the messages of advocates and those of scientists, and when I point out that I'm talking about the SCIENCE, you ask me if I know what the IPCC is about.

You have a strong tendency to post replies that are free of data or relevance to what we are talking about.Just post nitpicking stuff is all you have.

As I have pointed out, you mix up your own assessments with those of reputable scientists. I'm not sure if what you type is from you - your comment on the data - or from the referenced material. If it's just your words, then I feel comfortable just replying without reference. But, I'll try to pay more attention to the links you provide - please help me out by using the quotes feature, next to the link referred to.

I DID post the GLOBAL TEMPERATURES data to make that chart.What the hell are YOU talking about?

This is what you originally stated:

Quote

No ! That's great. First thing I picked was HADCRUT global meanglobal mean - every sample. A warming trend is clear there.

To what I posted HERE

I posted using UAH data.You are talking HadCRUT.

???

You are a mess!

Since you never disputed the actual data and chart.I have posted.Why give me the B.S?

I went to the link, and found a tool that I can use to examine the data, so I did. I ignored the time period and methods you provided and plotted everything. I don't like being provided with little time slices, such as the 1998 anomaly. I'm still waiting for you to follow up on your claim that Mann was cherry picking with that one. Was he ?

----------------

No it is your ignorance of the practice,that is being displayed there.

This LINK has Dr. Motl explaining what really transpired there:

My ignorance ? Then you proceed to post a link to a multi-page catty gossip sheet with stuff such as this:

His most cited paper on optical pumping has over 1,000 citations which - together with lots of other influential papers - makes him an order of magnitude more successful a research than mediocre scientists such as Andrew Dessler. Happer has actually studied fluid dynamics, too.

Still, Andrew Dessler finds it appropriate to call Happer "incompetent".

Dessler DIDN'T call him that in any of the links you posted, so is it ignorant for me to not know that when you haven't posted evidence ? This amounts to a gossip column, except the subjects of gossip are far less attractive.

So, moving forward:

- How about 1 post in response to 1 post ? Brevity is close to godliness.

- Cut down on the nastiness, because it makes me less interested in wanting to play.

- Follow up on my points as I follow up on yours. For example, your statement:

"DR. Mann et al.stated that 1998 is the warmest year in last 1,000 years." I said that it sounded like cherrypicking to me, but was it him who said it or ScienceDaily gleaning it from the reports ? We never found out. (I will modify my views on these folks when they misstate things.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You must be one of the spoiled little rich kids in the environmental movement.

Thanks for stopping by.

Watt an amazing come back...bravo retard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...