|
Post by trbixler on Oct 23, 2010 13:08:55 GMT
"A Strange Problem with the IPCC Numbers" "The IPCC says that the expected change in temperature arising from a change in forcing is equal to the change in forcing times the climate sensitivity. The IPCC provides values we can use to estimate the total human and natural forcing change since 1850. The IPCC also proves estimates for the climate sensitivity. These can be multiplied to provide the IPCC expected temperature change since 1850. The value derived (best estimate per IPCC numbers = 1.4 °C warming since 1850) is twice the observed warming (HadCRUT best estimate = 0.7°C warming since 1850)." wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/23/a-strange-problem-with-the-ipcc-numbers/#more-26886
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 23, 2010 18:18:03 GMT
See the first comment for the answer.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Oct 23, 2010 21:40:28 GMT
See the first comment for the answer. Considering we're not likely to warm significantly (if at all) over the next 30-40 years...its only going to get worse, socold.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 24, 2010 1:27:24 GMT
See the first comment for the answer. Considering we're not likely to warm significantly (if at all) over the next 30-40 years...its only going to get worse, socold. socold is counting on the heat "in the pipeline" nonsense which is completely untestable not to mention this "missing heat" must have bypassed the upper 700m of water undetected. In other words, observations don't support the meme but it is nonetheless a truth. That this unmeasured heat "in the pipeline" is assumed to be responsible for an additional futuristic 1 degree Fahrenheit more global warming ‘in-the-pipeline’ – warming that will occur this century without any further increases of greenhouse gases, GHG (CO2) have increased since the 7 years after this prediction was based, but neither OHC or surface warming have. See, that's the beauty of a an unfalsifiable hypothesis. No matter what happens, warmologists always claim to have an out, or an excuse if you will, for why observations don't match the prediction. Let's hear it socold, you say the answer is in the first comment. At some point you've got to produce evidence to support your argument. Where is the evidence, or what is the excuse? Everyone should read Hansen's "smoking gun" and compare his "proof" to the observations. Such a travesty. www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2005/Imbalance_20050415.pdf
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Oct 24, 2010 7:18:25 GMT
LOL, not only is some of the heat missing...more of it is getting lost in that never detected pipeline. OHC is falling.
EDIT:Oh yeah, and didn't the OHC also drop about .5C recently...due to the discovery of an error?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 24, 2010 12:16:49 GMT
"A Strange Problem With Stove Manufacturer Numbers" A guest post by by Willis Eschenbarr
The International Council of Stove Manufacturers (ICSM) state that the expected change in temperature arising from a stove being turned on full gas will boil water. Yet the observed value is far lower than this. I put a pot of water at room temperature on the stove and turned the gas on high. One minute later I measured the temperature of the water. It was just 5C higher than room temperature. Not boiling. So how can they claim the stove will boil water when observations show it only caused a 5C increase in temperature? Maybe I've missed something, but I can't think of anything obvious....
First Commenter: You are assuming that the pot of water is in equilibrium with the stove. Look at the committed projection in the ICSM report. There is still more warming expected even if the stove is left on.
Socold: The first commenter is correct.
Detractors: socold is counting on the heat "in the pipeline" nonsense which is completely untestable
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 24, 2010 12:21:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Oct 24, 2010 14:17:16 GMT
"A Strange Problem With Stove Manufacturer Numbers" A guest post by by Willis Eschenbarr The International Council of Stove Manufacturers (ICSM) state that the expected change in temperature arising from a stove being turned on full gas will boil water. Yet the observed value is far lower than this. But the oceans operate in a closed loop even at levels far beyond any previous global temperature....much less the trivial increases we've seen. Their ability to move heat will only increase. In the mean time its going to take ages for their heat to manifest (half a millennium) from ANY GHG forcing, by which time most of the CO2 will be gone again. So your pot on the stove analogy is incorrect...and even properly applied (a constantly refilled pot) it comes out against strong AGW.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Oct 25, 2010 4:34:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Oct 25, 2010 9:59:05 GMT
When all this is over everyone will marvel at the number of "corrections" that were interpreted as additional warming. I'm really starting to get concerned that MOST of the observed warming...is nothing but a bunch of individuals fudging their own country's temperature record up to fit the expectations. With the OHC adjustment we've lost an immense amount of suspected energy and once again dropped us to a rather lackluster linear trend.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 25, 2010 21:24:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 25, 2010 23:43:31 GMT
Is that a Japanese implementation of UHI theory as the graphic does not say who did the adjustments.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 26, 2010 2:37:53 GMT
Is that a Japanese implementation of UHI theory as the graphic does not say who did the adjustments. Is that a Japanese implementation of UHI theory as the graphic does not say who did the adjustments. I'll wager it is GISS, but socold is leaving us guessing ;D Everyone knows that UHI stopped in 1990 just like the graph depicts How do we know that? It ends at zero........ Yes the GISS algorithm truly is a wonder of climate science. tinyurl.com/2ejvze3In the twentieth century, the mean temperature in six large cities in Japan, including Tokyo and Nagoya, risen 2 – 3 ℃, while the globally averaged temperature risen 0.6 ℃. The trend of urban heat island phenomena in those large cities in Japan is significant even compared with the trend of the global climate change.
|
|