|
|
Post by matt on Feb 23, 2011 16:12:57 GMT
I was chuckling over the Glenn Beck lists of priorities between traditioal and secular religions the other night. Boy did he nail that!! Traditional: 1)man;2)animals;3)plants;4)earth Secular: 1)earth;2)plants;3)animals;4)man Glen Beck couldn't nail a tack in with a sledgehammer. Those priorities are nothing but lies. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 23, 2011 17:16:47 GMT
since it has been a couple of years since the hockey has been made, I was wondering what the new data makes it look like? It should be going up like crazy right ? We haven't curtailed our use of fossil fuels and we are still stuffing the atmosphere with CO2 . When the hockeystick was first carved there were statements about the possibility that the 1990s were the warmest decade and 1998 was the warmest year of the millennium (in the Northern hemisphere). On the one hand there has been some considerable back-tracking on those statements, on the other, there are a wider range of proxies now. But there has been less back-tracking on claims that the last 50 years were likely the warmest 50 year period in the Northern Hemisphere.. Obviously every year that temperatures remain above 1990s levels this latter claim grows stronger, even if surface temperatures aren't higher than 1998. I guess all the vineyards in Scotland will also add to the evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 23, 2011 18:24:26 GMT
When the hockeystick was first carved there were statements about the possibility that the 1990s were the warmest decade and 1998 was the warmest year of the millennium (in the Northern hemisphere).
On the one hand there has been some considerable back-tracking on those statements, on the other, there are a wider range of proxies now.
But there has been less back-tracking on claims that the last 50 years were likely the warmest 50 year period in the Northern Hemisphere.. Obviously every year that temperatures remain above 1990s levels this latter claim grows stronger, even if surface temperatures aren't higher than 1998. I guess all the vineyards in Scotland will also add to the evidence.
That sounds more like an argument that the gloriously warm temperatures of the past 50 years are here to stay for a longer period than any of our ancestors have had the pleasure to enjoy since before the Vikings got caught in an extended Greenland blizzard. Yea!!!
Is that supposed to be something government should fix?
|
|
|
|
Post by bprimerano on Feb 24, 2011 3:09:56 GMT
Is that supposed to be something government should [take our money to] fix?fyp |
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Feb 25, 2011 19:57:12 GMT
Proof is in the continued use of a tool to predict what will happen when under what conditions.
Seperating global warming and the cause is what the issue is. So is the hockey stick still valid or are they making 'adjustments' to make it fit. Is the increase in CO2, as they claim, increasing the global temps or not? The planet as a whole has not slowed down the production of CO2, and even if we just stopped altogether, the argument was that temps would continue to increase dramatically even if we stopped right now (2 or 3 yrs ago). So trot out the hockey stick and see where it fits !!
So, again, is the temps and the increase in CO2 fitting the projections? And if not, WHY?
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 26, 2011 18:45:54 GMT
spaceman, The temperatures are fitting within the envelope of the model projections (though over the relatively short period of model projections there is quite a lot of leeway).  The models predict roughly 0.1-0.2C of warming per decade, and that is roughly the amount of warming observed. That rate of warming will continue for 2-3 decades even if we stopped CO2 emissions - don't know if you think that counts as "dramatic". The proxy reconstruction arguments are about whether the current extent and rate of warming has occurred in the past. The argument against the hockeystick type reconstructions is that the resolution and sensitivity of the proxies may not be good enough to show a signal of the sort of warming we are seeing now. The longer the current warmth remains and the longer the warming goes on, the weaker that argument gets (unless someone can do a more sensitive proxy reconstruction). |
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Feb 26, 2011 22:13:25 GMT
I was chuckling over the Glenn Beck lists of priorities between traditioal and secular religions the other night. Boy did he nail that!! Traditional: 1)man;2)animals;3)plants;4)earth Secular: 1)earth;2)plants;3)animals;4)man Glen Beck couldn't nail a tack in with a sledgehammer. Those priorities are nothing but lies. They are not an opinion you disagree with- they are vicious lies. Do you know the difference between opiniion and fact, matt? By the way, please do tell us how you nail a tack with a sledge hammer? |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Feb 27, 2011 4:15:47 GMT
Glen Beck couldn't nail a tack in with a sledgehammer. Those priorities are nothing but lies. They are not an opinion you disagree with- they are vicious lies. Do you know the difference between opiniion and fact, matt? By the way, please do tell us how you nail a tack with a sledge hammer? Yes, that was a bit overboard. As to tacks and sledgehammers, I'd push in the tack to set it, then drop the head of the sledge onto the tack. |
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Mar 1, 2011 23:03:17 GMT
They are not an opinion you disagree with- they are vicious lies. Do you know the difference between opiniion and fact, matt? By the way, please do tell us how you nail a tack with a sledge hammer? Yes, that was a bit overboard. As to tacks and sledgehammers, I'd push in the tack to set it, then drop the head of the sledge onto the tack. good answers on both.  |
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Mar 4, 2011 23:37:44 GMT
steve I see the word forecast after the year 2000. I was interested as to the model and the actual. So if those temps are up todate, then the temps have been dropping, but the rate of increase is higher than the 80's and 90's? Is that right, the rate of increase or is that just .2 deg above historical norms? So you used something like bollinger bands for the envelope? The further out you go, in time , the wider the envelope? That doesn't look like the temps are racing upwards. What was the reasoning for the drop off after 1998? Looking at your chart, I don't see more than 2 yrs in a row where it went up. Does that mean that we are in for another drop? If that is the rate, then if we reset the line to start in 1998 or so when it was the highest, then it has been falling. If it is not a rate of increase or decrease, then the numbers are statically unimportant at .2 deg. Because that was the low -.2 deg in the 80's. I am thinking that the temps are in C, so +/- .5 C is in F +/- 1 F? So bascially the range is less than a degree F? So over 30 years the temp has moved less than 1 F. What is your definiton of stable?
You are saying current warming? Which years were those and how much?
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 8, 2011 2:47:26 GMT
Nice discussion:
The main thrust of the paper on page one is that by using proxy data, the MWP is prob approx the same temperature as today.
Unlike Mr. Mann, the author of this paper is comparing apples to apples.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 8, 2011 11:52:12 GMT
spaceman, the 0 point of the graph looks like it represents 2000, so 0.2C is roughly 0.9C above 1900 temperatures. The bands of the envelope represent the spread of all the models that contributed data to the IPCC process. There was no drop off after 1998. 1998 was a blip which went away. It would seem that the CO2 signal has emerged from the noise since the early 1980s. Since then each decade has been warmer than the preceding decades. I expect 2010-2019 will be about 0.2C warmer than 2000-2009.
|
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Mar 8, 2011 13:24:26 GMT
I still didn't see a graph between what was forecast and an actual. The real problem is 2 fold. One is that there is no explaination for any of the cooling in the past. Either from short term cooling, other than explaining it away, or from warming trends between long periods of ice ages. When you can work that into the AGW that would make sense. There has to be an explaination to explain previous periods. Otherwise, none of us knows. To state without question that global warming is caused by CO2 is reckless, or there is an over riding political agenda, or a group of people are trying to effect public policy for their own gain. As to reckless, without a explaination of the previous cooling, we don't know when the next one will occur or how deep the cold will go.
The second thing is that it seems directed entirely at the developed world. The United States in particular.
I want to see what your numbers are, the rate of rise over time.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 8, 2011 14:20:14 GMT
What do you mean? There are lots of explanations.
Indeed. But to state after asking a lot of questions and being challenged by "an over riding political agenda, or a group of people" who "are trying to effect public policy for their own gain", that current warming is likely caused by CO2 is not reckless at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 9, 2011 4:40:17 GMT
|
|
