Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Shady

The Global Warming Plateau

Recommended Posts

Pliny, Pliny, Pliny... one of this board's other denying types tried this same BS earlier - I responded, here:

you're pretty late to the game on this one Pliny... try harder next time, hey? :lol:

Ah...yes... that same "everything is bull that doesn't fit the model" argument. But still no admission to any failings of the IPCC through a connection to a political or ideological agenda? That's All that I can find wrong with it, waldo. It "ignores any data that doesn't fit the model"....hmmm...you don't work there, do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah...yes... that same "everything is bull that doesn't fit the model" argument. But still no admission to any failings of the IPCC through a connection to a political or ideological agenda? That's All that I can find wrong with it, waldo. It "ignores any data that doesn't fit the model"....hmmm...you don't work there, do you?

you're responding to a link/post that reflects upon... science (more pointedly, the series of IPCC reports associated with the Working Group I - Physical Science basis aspects of the climate system and climate change). These reports have no, as you say, political or ideological agenda... it's science Pliny - science! You may choose to make your case for political/ideological attachments to the reports from other Working Groups... but not Working Group I and its reports that associate with..... science!

as for your suggestion "data not fitting the model is ignored" (whatever "the/your model" is???), feel free to put up some examples of your declared "ignored data".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The IPCC specializes in getting it wrong....from the percentage of The Netherlands below sea level to the impact of "climate change" on African crop yields.

6a00e008c6b4e58834012875e75520970c.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The IPCC specializes in getting it wrong....from the percentage of The Netherlands below sea level to the impact of "climate change" on African crop yields.

notwithstanding you haven't a clue about anything you spout off about, your googly failed you, once again! We've beat on IPCC "errors" in past MLW threads... none of which associate with WG I... the physical science basis. These "errors" all associate to the WG II reports that have an emphasis on the social sciences.

there are a few actual errors in the WG II report... the two you reference are not "errors". The Netherlands reference statement was one provided to the IPCC directly from a Dutch government agency, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency... ostensibly it was incorrect wording. The Dutch government agency subsequently corrected the statement wording. Of course, miscreants and ne'er-de-wells intent to disparage the IPCC will take extreme liberty at any opportunity they can "finesse".

your other googly worst, the so-called "Africagate", is a reference that in full context and in association with other related references provided is legitimate; i.e., nothing but trumped up blusterbus from miscreants and ne'er-de-wells intent to disparage the IPCC.

like I said, there are a few actual errors in the WG II report... you'll simply need to fire up your googly and put a bit more polish on it, hey!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

like I said, there are a few actual errors in the WG II report... you'll simply need to fire up your googly and put a bit more polish on it, hey!

We know about these obvious IPCC errors and incompetence without yet more fanboy excuses.

pachauri_cartoonl.png?w=640

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

without regard to oceans, heat transfer and ocean heat content... without regard to the >90% of warming that goes into the oceans... simply looking at the long-standing summation of global surface temperature:

global surface temperature: the area-weighted global average of (i) the sea-surface temperature over the oceans (i.e. the subsurface bulk temperature in the first few meters of the ocean), and (ii) the surface-air temperature over land at 1.5 m above the ground.

clip_image002_006.gif
Decadal global combined surface-air temperature over land and sea-surface temperature (°C) obtained from the average over the three independent datasets maintained by the HadCRU, NOAA-NCDCand NASA-GISS.The Horizontal grey line indicates the long term average value ( 14°C).

huh! Plateau?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from a July 3, 2013 World Meteorological Organization (WMO) press release detailing a new WMO report: The Global Climate 2001-2010, A Decade of Climate Extremes

The world experienced unprecedented high-impact climate extremes during the 2001-2010 decade, which was the warmest since the start of modern measurements in 1850 and continued an extended period of pronounced global warming. More national temperature records were reported broken than in any previous decade.

The report, The Global Climate 2001-2010, A Decade of Climate Extremes, analysed global and regional temperatures and precipitation, as well as extreme events such as the heat waves in Europe and Russia, Hurricane Katrina in the United States of America, Tropical Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar, droughts in the Amazon Basin, Australia and East Africa and floods in Pakistan.

The decade was the warmest for both hemispheres and for both land and ocean surface temperatures. The record warmth was accompanied by a rapid decline in Arctic sea ice, and accelerating loss of net mass from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and from the world’s glaciers. As a result of this widespread melting and the thermal expansion of sea water, global mean sea levels rose about 3 millimetres (mm) per year, about double the observed 20th century trend of 1.6 mm per year. Global sea level averaged over the decade was about 20 cm higher than that of 1880, according to the report.

The WMO report charted rising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. Global-average concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose to 389 parts per million in 2010 (an increase of 39% since the start of the industrial era in 1750), methane to 1808.0 parts per billion (158%) and nitrous oxide to 323.2 parts per billion (20%).

Temperatures: The average land and ocean-surface temperature for the decade 2001-2010 was estimated to be 14.47°C, or 0.47°C above the 1961–1990 global average and +0.21°C above the 1991–2000 global average (with a factor of uncertainty of ± 0.1°C).

Precipitation and floods: The 2001-2010 decade was the second wettest since 1901. Globally, 2010 was the wettest year since the start of instrumental records.

Tropical cyclones: Between 2001 and 2010, there were 511 tropical cyclone related events which resulted in a total of nearly 170,000 persons reported killed, over 250 million people reported affected and estimated economic damages of US$ 380 billion. According to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2001-2010 was the most active decade since 1855 in terms of tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic Basin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

more of the same - how alarming! How extreme!

How climate change affected the Arizona wildfire

There's a dangerous but basic equation behind the killer Yarnell Hill, Arizona wildfire and other blazes raging across the West this summer: More heat, more drought, more fuel and more people in the way are adding up to increasingly ferocious fires.

Scientists say a hotter planet will only increase the risk.

More than two dozen wildland fires are burning from Alaska to New Mexico, fueled by triple-digit temperatures and arid conditions. In the Arizona mountain town of Yarnell, a blaze apparently sparked by lightning killed 19 members of an elite firefighting squad who had deployed their emergency shelters Sunday when erratic monsoon winds sent flames racing in their direction.

While no single wildfire can be pinned solely on climate change, researchers say there are signs that fires are becoming bigger and more common in an increasingly hot and bone-dry West.

Wildfires are chewing through twice as many acres per year on average in the United States compared with 40 years ago, U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell told a Senate hearing last month. Since Jan. 1, 2000, about 145,000 square miles have burned, roughly the size of New York, New England, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland combined, according to federal records.

A draft federal report released earlier this year said climate change is stressing Western forests, making them more vulnerable to fires.

Rising temperatures all over the West, for one, have created dangerous, dry conditions.

Over the past 35 years, Arizona has seen dramatic warming, with the state's 10-year average temperature jumping from 59.1 degrees Fahrenheit in 1977 to 61.4 degrees last year — an increase of 2.3 degrees. By comparison, the entire continental U.S.' 10-year average temperature jumped only 1.6 degrees during the same period. Experts say every little spike in temperature makes a big difference.

Climate scientist Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona said unless greenhouse gas emissions are curbed, huge, fierce wildfires will become the norm.

As residents across the West learn to cope, scientists point to the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which in 2007 predicted that warmer summer temperatures were expected to increase fire risk.

Six years later, "we keep seeing more and more amazing fire dynamics," the University of Montana's Running said. "And there's just no reason to believe overall that this is going to go back... We better be ready for more of it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The IPCC is rotting from the head down...now recognized as the political, NOT scientific exercise it has always been:

more trolling cartoons! I see you didn't take up my challenge to actually address the real world glacier retreat. Apparently, you're more interested in less challenging pursuits! :lol: Go with your strengths!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, we are getting to the point where the cartoons are getting trollish... it would be a shame if somebody reported this, and the mods came down with a no cartoon rule or something as the odd well-placed editorial cartoon can add colour to a discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, we are getting to the point where the cartoons are getting trollish... it would be a shame if somebody reported this, and the mods came down with a no cartoon rule or something as the odd well-placed editorial cartoon can add colour to a discussion.

of course, this is his forte, his Raison d'être! Michael, your valid point/reasoning will simply fall deaf to (his) trolling ears!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, we are getting to the point where the cartoons are getting trollish... it would be a shame if somebody reported this, and the mods came down with a no cartoon rule or something as the odd well-placed editorial cartoon can add colour to a discussion.

Go ahead and report them as "trollish".....take your best shot. These "cartoons" are in the public domain as valid criticism of the IPCC and its leadership, colossal mistakes, and FAILED working group review process.

Are you the judge of what is "well placed" and appropriate ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go ahead and report them as "trollish".....take your best shot. These "cartoons" are in the public domain as valid criticism of the IPCC and its leadership, colossal mistakes, and FAILED working group review process.

Are you the judge of what is "well placed" and appropriate ?

valid criticism??? Says you! Colossal mistakes??? Says you! But hey, you sort of got one right... the working groups review process took a few hits over the WG II "errors"... the very few real legitimate ones. But again, no errors - none... in the WG 1 physical sciences based reports. You can gloat all you want over the insignificant "errors" within the social sciences based WG II report. Have at er! :lol:

on edit: as for the review process, look for a tightening up in the next iteration (this fall, early spring). I trust you'll find other things to bark about - yes?

Edited by waldo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

valid criticism??? Says you! Colossal mistakes??? Says you! But hey, you sort of got one right...

Again, I don't need IPCC fanboy acknowlegment or affirmations of the obvious "working group" mistakes. The political cartoons from around the world communicate how badly the IPCC has fared in popular media. No wonder some here wish to censor such biting criticism (i.e. cartoons).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I don't need IPCC fanboy acknowlegment or affirmations of the obvious "working group" mistakes. The political cartoons from around the world communicate how badly the IPCC has fared in popular media. No wonder some here wish to censor such biting criticism (i.e. cartoons).

:lol: now you're the victim being censored! Here's a thought: your selectively chosen cartoonarama show, from your declared "popular media", just might be a lil' skewed, a lil' biased - ya think? Again, the scientific based reporting is sound. The few 'social sciences' related errors were of no consequence... this has all been beaten up pretty good in long past MLW threads. It's old news but, apparently, you think there's mileage to be had there! You need to get with the times, hey?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: now you're the victim being censored! Here's a thought: your selectively chosen cartoonarama show, from your declared "popular media", just might be a lil' skewed, a lil' biased - ya think?

Even if that were true, so what ? Do you think that only your brand of bias and alarmist views can be presented here ? Why so much protest over opposing views ?

Oh wait...we know why...all such "denier" criticism must be silenced...not just countered. No more cartoons !!!

What are IPCC fanboys so afraid of ?

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

without regard to oceans, heat transfer and ocean heat content... without regard to the >90% of warming that goes into the oceans... simply looking at the long-standing summation of global surface temperature:

global surface temperature: the area-weighted global average of (i) the sea-surface temperature over the oceans (i.e. the subsurface bulk temperature in the first few meters of the ocean), and (ii) the surface-air temperature over land at 1.5 m above the ground.

clip_image002_006.gif

Decadal global combined surface-air temperature over land and sea-surface temperature (°C) obtained from the average over the three independent datasets maintained by the HadCRU, NOAA-NCDCand NASA-GISS.The Horizontal grey line indicates the long term average value ( 14°C).[/size]

huh! Plateau?

Holy cow!! Over the last century it has risen a whole, well almost a whole, centigrade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for admitting that IPCC fans and alarmists are very troubled by criticism in popular media.

Popular media criticizing IPCC fans and alarmists!!! It's the end of the world for sure!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy cow!! Over the last century it has risen a whole, well almost a whole, centigrade.

move along now Pliny... you've tried this same tired talking point in the past. You can remain isolated in your comfy bubbleWorld fully believing, fully projecting, that there have been no related consequences of increased warming... no negative impacts, none whatsoever.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...