|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 1, 2014 1:37:40 GMT
Local weather does not equal global climate This is the big straw-man that is so often thrown out that I find SO *&^$% FRUSTRATING when talking to a non-skeptic. It's a meaningless argument. We all know this. We're not stupid. You're avoiding the question when you throw it out. Sorry if I sound harsh, but *&%^$% someone, PLEASE actually address the REAL questions, and the REAL weaknesses in the non-skeptical arguments, at least! There are weaknesses in the skeptical argument?
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Nov 1, 2014 2:41:56 GMT
We'll take ya here in Nor Cal. Thanks for the offer but tectonics don't agree with me. LOL They are just unexpected E tickets.
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Nov 2, 2014 20:08:15 GMT
Taken from The Australian this morning:
[BURNING coal for electricity must be eliminated by 2100 unless carbon dioxide emissions are captured and stored, according to a key report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The IPCC Synthesis Report brings together the findings of three major documents produced by thousands of scientists, which found human influence on the Earth’s climate system was clear and growing but could still be kept within a manageable range.
The report acknowledges the rise in global average surface temperatures has slowed or “paused” over the past decade but says this does not override the long-term upward trend.
It says to keep global temperature increases below 2C, carbon dioxide emissions need to be cut by between 40 per cent and 70 per cent from 2010 levels by mid-century and to zero by 2100.
To achieve this, renewable energy, nuclear, and carbon capture and storage would increase their share of energy supply from 30 per cent today to more than 80 per cent by 2050 and 90 per cent by 2100. To keep global temperature increase below 2C, “fossil fuel power generation without CCS is phased out almost entirely by 2100”, the report says."]
I would think this represents desperation in front of next year's Paris meeting.
There is a surly acknowledgement of the "pause", but it appears that all the other failed forecasts are just being ignored.
Future science historians will look back on this period, and will compare it with other failed theories.
The distinguishing point will be that this is the largest and most expensive scientific disaster in history.
Besides which, I rather expect temperatures to be on a solid downward trajectory by November 2015. Paris might be extremely cold.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 2, 2014 20:13:25 GMT
The AGW supporters are getting really desperate anymore. Time is not their friend, as each year the divergence widens.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Nov 2, 2014 20:29:36 GMT
The AGW supporters are getting really desperate anymore. Time is not their friend, as each year the divergence widens. that's how you can tell it is a political movement. If it was about the science they would be looking at where their hypothesis went wrong and looking for other answers. They haven't accomplished what they wanted to politically so the calls get more strident as it becomes ever more obvious they were wrong. But you knew that.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 2, 2014 20:44:52 GMT
The AGW supporters are getting really desperate anymore. Time is not their friend, as each year the divergence widens. that's how you can tell it is a political movement. If it was about the science they would be looking at where their hypothesis went wrong and looking for other answers. They haven't accomplished what they wanted to politically so the calls get more strident as it becomes ever more obvious they were wrong. But you knew that. Based on the actual science presented at this time....yep.
|
|
zaphod
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 210
|
Post by zaphod on Nov 2, 2014 21:56:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 2, 2014 22:52:37 GMT
IPCC in its death throes, methinks.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 2, 2014 23:00:44 GMT
Would be nice if The Guardian didn't block any "real world views".
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Nov 3, 2014 4:44:28 GMT
I want to try and refute an article I have just read about oceanic heat content.
Anyone know where I can find a reliable graph of how the total heat content of the world's oceans has changed?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 3, 2014 5:28:31 GMT
I want to try and refute an article I have just read about oceanic heat content. Anyone know where I can find a reliable graph of how the total heat content of the world's oceans has changed? Bing Bob Tisdale.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 3, 2014 5:47:43 GMT
What did the article say?
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Nov 3, 2014 11:18:25 GMT
This was from the Climate section of the Business Spectator:
[According to him – and an array of mass conspiracy theorists – the smoking gun that exposes their plot is that global warming has apparently stopped since 1998 and, Newman warns us, we may even be about to descend into a global war driven by global cooling (See: We’re ill-prepared if the iceman cometh).
But before you go on a shopping spree to stockpile thermals, winter woollies, guns and ammunition, can I suggest you read IPCC – a primer for conspiracy theorists. This article helps to explain that the IPCC is not some monolithic standing army of United Nations employees, but more a process whereby a disparate group of researchers from a wide array of universities and other research institutions across many countries come together to co-operate in summarising the research literature on climate change.
Once you’ve reassured yourself there’s no need to revive Joseph McCarthy from the dead to investigate the IPCC, you might then want to read about whether global warming really has stopped. The article IPCC rebuff to the global warming sceptics explains that even if the rate of surface temperature rise has slowed in the last decade (it is still the hottest decade on the instrumental record, by the way, and the last 30 years are likely the hottest 30-year period in the last 1400 years) this misses the bigger picture of heat absorbed by the ocean. In the end this slowing in the rate of temperature rise is likely to be temporary. If you’re wondering what has been driving extra heat into the ocean then you could also read Another scientific dagger to the deniers.]
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 3, 2014 13:47:48 GMT
There was a paper published recently that dispelled the idea the heat is hiding in the oceans. I think the hockey stick had comments on it.
Might be in the threads here as well.
|
|
|
Post by drkstrong on Nov 3, 2014 18:46:53 GMT
"There was a paper published recently that dispelled the idea the heat is hiding in the oceans."
Actually it did not. There is an imbalance between the heat increase in the oceans (which is large) and the heat that some models claim should have been stored in the oceans. This can mean that (1) heat is being transported deeper into the oceans than thought until now, (2) the models are wrong, (3) the uncertainties are larger in the either the measured or modeled energy storage, or (4) the heat is going somewhere else. The paper just CLAIMS to have eliminated only (1).
Remember it is a single paper that has not been independently confirmed by other researchers. It could be wrong until it is confirmed.
|
|