Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah I like the approach and that the US military is engaged in it as the largest single consumer of fossil fuels bodes well for fast tracking.

They shoot deniers :D
 
Unfortunately we are more sensitive than previously thought

"Spread in model climate sensitivity traced to atmospheric convective mixing"
Nature 505, 37–42 (02 January 2014) doi:10.1038/nature12829
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html

Abstract

Equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the ultimate change in global mean temperature in response to a change in external forcing. Despite decades of research attempting to narrow uncertainties, equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates from climate models still span roughly 1.5 to 5 degrees Celsius for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, precluding accurate projections of future climate. The spread arises largely from differences in the feedback from low clouds, for reasons not yet understood. Here we show that differences in the simulated strength of convective mixing between the lower and middle tropical troposphere explain about half of the variance in climate sensitivity estimated by 43 climate models. The apparent mechanism is that such mixing dehydrates the low-cloud layer at a rate that increases as the climate warms, and this rate of increase depends on the initial mixing strength, linking the mixing to cloud feedback. The mixing inferred from observations appears to be sufficiently strong to imply a climate sensitivity of more than 3 degrees for a doubling of carbon dioxide. This is significantly higher than the currently accepted lower bound of 1.5 degrees, thereby constraining model projections towards relatively severe future warming.
Click to expand...

Wasn't I just talking about at least a 4 degree rise in average temps by the first decade or two of the next century? Very Interesting
 
dissension in the ranks....

In what is being considered a first by a member of the federal Conservatives, Kitchener-Waterloo MP Peter Braid stated publicly on CBC News Network’s Power and Politics that recent extreme weather and climate change are connected.

“We are seeing the effects, the impacts of climate change,” Braid told host Evan Solomon on Monday. “With climate change comes extreme weather events. We saw that through the floods in southern Alberta, we’re now seeing that with the ice storms in Kitchener-Waterloo and Toronto, with the extreme cold across the country.”

Solomon later asked Braid to confirm he was saying that extreme weather and climate change are related, to which Braid replied, “Absolutely, I’m confirming I said that.”
The statement comes on the same day that two people were arrested in Vancouver after they came within centimetres of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and displayed signs protesting the government’s policies on climate change.
Click to expand...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitch...e-weather-and-climate-change-linked-1.2486494[/QUOTE]
 
Haig said:
If you can't explain the 'pause', you can't explain the cause...

71 new papers reported in 2013 demonstrating the Sun controls climate, not man-made CO2
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/71-new-papers-reported-in-2013.html
Click to expand...

ha i only checked one, because i know earlier work of the ame authors, and it does not show what you claim.

so who is lying? the blog you linked to and you merely parot it in the usual denier way without doing any scource checking? or you know its a lie but run with it anyway because it fits your agenda so well?


http://www.clim-past.net/9/1879/2013/cp-9-1879-2013.html

this paper is listed, yet does not support your claim.... those papers are propably only a list of paper that mentioned solar and climate.....

no wonder people laugh at denier clowns.
 
IPCC Climate Research: Modern Global Cooling Accelerates To Its Fastest Pace In Last 30 Years - 'Unequivocal'
An analysis of IPCC's gold-standard HadCRUT surface temperature dataset not only confirms that global warming is AWOL but is morphing towards a dangerous global cooling trend - the climate research empirical evidence is unequivocal.....over the last decade the current global cooling trend accelerated to its largest 10-year rate during the modern era
The essential facts of this gold-standard empirical evidence?

1. Previous global warming has disappeared (i.e. stalled, paused, terminated and etc.)

2. Using 10-year trends, there has been no extended acceleration of warming since the late 1990s

3. The greatest 10-year acceleration of global warming took place during the early 1980's (well before the massive CO2 emissions of the 1990s and 2000s)

4. Global warming deceleration has existed since the early 2000s

5. The 10-year trend of temperatures has changed to the first significant cooling trend over the last 30 years - it is unequivocal, as of June 2013

6. Human CO2 emissions do not force global temperatures to rise faster (i.e. accelerate to ever higher rates) - note the widely diverging fitted trend curves for both CO2 emissions and global surface temperatures

7. Rapid, dangerous, irrefutable, undeniable, unprecedented, incontrovertible, irreversible and accelerating global warming does not exist, in any form or manner
Click to expand...
6a010536b58035970c0191048a446d970c-pi

http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/07/...fastest-pace-over-30-years-unequivocal-1.html
 
Warmists didn't predict the pause or this intense cold but others did

Arctic invader puts much of Midwest in deep freeze
600

"It affects people that aren't used to cold right now," said Maue, speaking by phone from Tallahassee. "I'm in Florida right now, and they're issuing a wind chill advisory because it's going to go below freezing."

Maue described the polar vortex as a lobe of dense, cold air that's normally bound in by a jet stream. This one headed south from the North Pole and brought a lot of wind with it.
Click to expand...
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-0107-polar-vortex-20140107,0,5548599.story
 
Trakar said:
In general, "areas of the world" are largely irrelevant to "global" considerations. Just as the last (3-5-10, even 15) year's weather trends are largely irrelevant to "Climate" considerations, which really deal with trends over a minimum of 20-30 years with a preference for periods vastly longer.
Click to expand...

Thank you , I expected that was the answer.

It is just that back a few years ago we had many wonderfully mild winters in a row and all the news and science hype attributed it to Global Warming.

Now the past couple of winters are much colder and I am told it has no bearing as far as climate change .

So will someone please admit that they were speaking in error when they said the warm winters were proof of Global Warming.

Can't have it both ways.
 
Haig said:
If you can't explain the 'pause', you can't explain the cause...

71 new papers reported in 2013 demonstrating the Sun controls climate, not man-made CO2
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/71-new-papers-reported-in-2013.html
Click to expand...

http://www.clim-past.net/9/1879/2013/cp-9-1879-2013.pdf

this paper was listed among those papers that allegedly Show the sun as the Drivers. but actually when you read it, it contradicts that Claim. how come, can you explain how it Shows what you Claim?

or will you like most Deniers, run away from questions?
 
Arnold Martin said:
Thank you , I expected that was the answer.

It is just that back a few years ago we had many wonderfully mild winters in a row and all the news and science hype attributed it to Global Warming.

Now the past couple of winters are much colder and I am told it has no bearing as far as climate change .

So will someone please admit that they were speaking in error when they said the warm winters were proof of Global Warming.

Can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

will you answer my question about that alleged prediction by the IPCC that led your doughter to sell her hosue? or will you run?

btw, yes you can have it both ways. get informed
 
DC said:
will you answer my question about that alleged prediction by the IPCC that led your doughter to sell her hosue? or will you run?

btw, yes you can have it both ways. get informed
Click to expand...

Edited by kmortis: 
Removed comment in breech of Rule 0


IPCC report: Canada at greater risk from climate change
Stronger storms forecast for Atlantic Canada and Ontario, while Great Lakes warming could be 50-per-cent higher than global predictions.

The IPCC report also says that warming near the Great Lakes, which lost more than 70 per cent of their ice cover between 1973 and 2010, could be 50 per cent higher than what is predicted globally.



http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2...arm_more_than_global_rise_says_un_report.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Arnold Martin said:
Edited by kmortis: 
Removed comment in breech of Rule 0


IPCC report: Canada at greater risk from climate change
Stronger storms forecast for Atlantic Canada and Ontario, while Great Lakes warming could be 50-per-cent higher than global predictions.

The IPCC report also says that warming near the Great Lakes, which lost more than 70 per cent of their ice cover between 1973 and 2010, could be 50 per cent higher than what is predicted globally.



http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2...arm_more_than_global_rise_says_un_report.html
Click to expand...


so you are unable to provide a proper source for this alleged prediction that led your doughter to sell her house....
and we are supposed to simply believe you?
as someone else already pointed out, usualy the predictions for the Region you talk about goes into the other direction...........

how come? why are you not adressing my question directly? what do you fear?

are we supposed to believe that your doughter sold her house because of a Report that is not even yet published in a final release? really?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Haig said:
Warmists didn't predict the pause or this intense cold but others did

Arctic invader puts much of Midwest in deep freeze


http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-0107-polar-vortex-20140107,0,5548599.story
Click to expand...

Piers is a nutter. The IPCC don't predict weather.

The so called "pause" has been explained. There is plenty of energy entering the earth's climate system. Most of the energy goes into the oceans, which are still steadily rising due to thermal expansion, improved analysis of the Arctic region shows more warming is happening than previously measured, the sun is a little quieter than normal.
 
Haig said:
If you can't explain the 'pause', you can't explain the cause...
Click to expand...

If the soundbite sounds good, it must be true !

The Sun controls the climate not us
Click to expand...

This is clearly, again, an ideology-driven position. It's a fact that, at a certain point, and given the right amount of activity, we can affect the weather. It's just a matter of how much it requires. It's like saying we can't blow up a mountain because it's always been there. Of course we can. It's just a matter of how much dynamite you have.

Warmists didn't predict the pause or this intense cold but others did
Click to expand...

Put your ideology aside and listen: no one has ever said that the Earth would be warming equally and gradually like a neat graph. Climate is an extremely complex thing, and some areas might experience a whole lot of weird effects. Some people have pointed out that it's hotter than usual in OTHER places of the world, too. It's not as simple as looking out the window, reading your thermometer, and concluding that, since it's cooler than yesterday, global warming is a hoax, like r-j is doing.
 
so the Helicopter Pilot told us his daughter sold her house because the IPCC predicted higher lake levels, 50% higher than global average....

well lets see what the IPCC said about the great lakes.

15.3.2.5. Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Subregion

Scenario-based studies in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence basin conducted over the past 15 years (see Section 15.2.1) have indicated consistently that a warmer climate would lead to reductions in water supply and lake levels (Cohen, 1986; Croley, 1990; Hartmann, 1990; Mortsch and Quinn, 1996; Mortsch, 1998).
Click to expand...

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=585

Lower water levels in the Great Lakes are likely to influence many sectors, with multi-dimensional, interacting impacts (Figure 14.2) (high confidence). Many, but not all, assessments project lower net basin supplies and water levels for the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence Basin (Mortsch et al., 2000; Quinn and Lofgren, 2000; Lofgren et al., 2002; Croley, 2003).
Click to expand...
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch14s14-4.html

so you are either a liar or you raised a very ignorant daughter that got the reports wrong......
 
Last edited:
Haig---my phone shows this thread as 46 pages long so far. When did you jump on board?
I mainly recall those here onboard wth AGW ganging up on Arnold Martin, who is in your camp.
What do you make of papers saying Earths temps are steadily climbing so many decimals Centigrade, while also saying we can/have been measure/ing solar energy output... and that has NOT gone down? (At least i am of that impression here reading all these posts here.)
Are you saying it HAS gone down?...due to these certain types of sunspots?
If THAT is true, what is your theory for the rapid decline in arctic ice, leading to the rise of sea levels if we have been in a 10 year cooling trend?
What do you make of papers saying not just that NH temps have got colder...but when you avg all WORLD temps, that they have gone UP...not down?
Have you reasearched how many scientists are in the global cooling/neutral camp compared to global warming/global AGW camp?
 
If THAT is true, what is your theory for the rapid decline in arctic ice, leading to the rise of sea levels if we have been in a 10 year cooling trend?
Click to expand...

Iame you do need a bit more understanding of how the world works so as to not look foolish.
Sea level rise is not due to loss of Arctic ice. Only melting of land based ice from glaciers and thermal expansion from a warming ocean ( the 900 lb gorilla as far as the deniers are concerned ) will raise sea level.

Solar output is down a shade due to a quiet sun but that is a magnitude below GHG influence.
Keep up the reading ask questions. Haig knows what he's about as a gadfly.....he just beats the denier drum from habit or ideology, not science.

••••

ohhh...breaking....global cooling must be over....one less bit of fodder for the denier crowd :rolleyes:

Antarctic ships escape from ice trap
Two ships - a Russian research vessel and a Chinese icebreaker- break free from Antarctic pack ice after being stuck for days.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
And...havent there been conferences held, worldwide, with various countries in attendance, in trying to come to grips with AGW? Why would this be, if AGW is some hairbrained theory, and not globally accepted yet?
What is your theory on where all the increased manmade CO2 is going? Or do you think that increased CO2 leads to nothing?...and the Earth has its own way of dealing with it?
(I feel like this thread now, which say has been like a hornets nest, just got poked with a stick, by Haig. Lol)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom