|
Post by ebrainsh on Feb 24, 2010 17:42:13 GMT
U.N. Climate Panel to Announce Significant ChangesEXCLUSIVE: U.N. Climate Panel to Announce Significant Changes By Ed Barnes - FOXNews.com In the wake of its swift and devastating fall from grace, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) says it will announce "within the next few days" plans to make significant changes in how it does business. www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/24/exclusive-climate-panel-announce-significant-changes/A leopard doesn't change their spots; is there any chance the IPPC will change theirs? E
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Feb 24, 2010 23:01:57 GMT
A leopard doesn't change their spots; is there any chance the IPPC will change theirs? E No, their charter assumes the A part of AGW as a given and that won't change.
|
|
|
Post by ebrainsh on Feb 27, 2010 22:38:39 GMT
January the Hottest We've Ever Seen"It's not warming the same everywhere but it is really quite challenging to find places that haven't warmed in the past 50 years," veteran Australian climate scientist Neville Nicholls told an online climate science media briefing. "January, according to satellite (data), was the hottest January we've ever seen," said Nicholls of Monash University's School of Geography and Environmental Science in Melbourne. "Last November was the hottest November we've ever seen, November-January as a whole is the hottest November-January the world has seen," he said of the satellite data record since 1979. www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre61o16a-us-climate-warming/Is there any supporting documentation to this claim or has Nicholls gone insane? E
|
|
|
Post by socold on Feb 27, 2010 23:31:09 GMT
A leopard doesn't change their spots; is there any chance the IPPC will change theirs? E No, their charter assumes the A part of AGW as a given and that won't change. The A part of AGW is scientific fact. It's a scientific fact that human activity influences the climate. The IPCC is tasked with assessing the risk of that.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 28, 2010 0:32:01 GMT
No, their charter assumes the A part of AGW as a given and that won't change. The A part of AGW is scientific fact. It's a scientific fact that human activity influences the climate. The IPCC is tasked with assessing the risk of that. As its 'scientific fact' you will be able to produce cited evidence of that won't you SoCold NOT models - observational science.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Feb 28, 2010 1:55:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Feb 28, 2010 1:58:45 GMT
LOL never mind that AGW violates the second law of thermal dynamics.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Feb 28, 2010 2:00:01 GMT
I heard evolution does too...
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 28, 2010 2:50:20 GMT
Once again....so we approach the temps of the Roman warm period....or .........gasp.......the early Holocene. And the downside to warmer temps is? ?? So far from observation evidence, the hurricanes are no different, in fact potentially less, than in the past. I won't even go on with other things that have been shown to be pure BS. So......the downside to a warmer climate is?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 28, 2010 4:28:13 GMT
Your only task left must be then to explain why the globe is not warming as advertised, which the IPCC doesn't Edit: grammar
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 28, 2010 10:26:16 GMT
Sorry SoCold there is evidence that CO 2 has reached higher levels than that found in the Vostok ice cores not that it is higher than in the past 200 years from atmospheric sampling. Then we have the unfortunate fact that the oceans are not warming as they should - especially if you rely on the TOTALLY hypothetical 3.7WM -2 (I can chase you down the rat hole of the IPCC definition of radiative forcing if you want about slab atmospheres with no convection or hydrologic cycle and no albedo changes ) As I said in my post NO MODELS and 3.7WM -2 is just that. You make the assumption that because there is IR absorption in a small part of the IR spectrum that this must increase global temperatures. When there is no observational evidence to that 3.7WM -2 effect indeed there CANNOT be observational evidence of this in the atmosphere as it CANNOT be held as an unresponsive slab while CO 2 is magically doubled in atmospheric concentration and 'well mixed' throughout the atmosphere. When there IS observational evidence it does not support the 'well mixed gas' ideas at all nor does it appear to show the industrial heartland hotspots that would be expected. airs.jpl.nasa.gov/AIRS_CO2_Data/About_AIRS_CO2_Data/This is observational science SoCold - although I have no doubt that the image will like other contrary observations, be 'adjusted' to be in line with the AGW models. For those who are more interested in how and why - this satellite image appears to show the concentration of CO 2 in the weather bands of the Ferrel Cells. It also means that outside these areas there are windows where IR in the CO 2 band can radiate with less hindrance.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Feb 28, 2010 14:17:06 GMT
Sorry SoCold there is evidence that CO 2 has reached higher levels than that found in the Vostok ice cores not that it is higher than in the past 200 years from atmospheric sampling. The current science shows that co2 levels today are higher than any point in the past million years, and perhaps longer - 15 million years, given that there is no reason to expect co2 to have diverged from it's interglacial-glacial cycles observed in ice cores. There is evidence of continued heat accumulation in the oceans: Radiative forcing is a well defined term and the 3.7wm-2 is well pinned down. It represents a significant energy imbalance if co2 is doubled. The error range in the calculation does not provide an opportunity to pretend a doubling of co2 has no planetary energy balance implications. Here's some further empirical evidence for manmade global warming: www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htmI am not assuming the response, although a response of some kind is necessitated by the laws of physics - which is why it is scientific fact that human emissions of co2 influence the climate, and which is why the IPCC were set up to assess the risk of that. As for the temperature part of the response, prominent scientific studies have found a significant temperature response from increasing co2 levels: agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/papers-on-climate-sensitivity-estimates/Changes in outgoing longwave radiation have been detected and are consistent with the expected radiative forcing from greenhouse gases: agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/We wouldn't expect to see industrial heartland hotspots in such an image because co2 emitted from the surface mixes. It's not contrary. The image shows co2 at between 382ppm and 390ppm, which is a very tight relative range. Twenty years ago that image would have shown co2 between 350ppm and 358ppm. Today it's showing between 382ppm and 390ppm. The rise in co2 is bigger than the variance in a single month (let alone a single year)
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Feb 28, 2010 17:58:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 1, 2010 1:24:48 GMT
Sorry SoCold there is evidence that CO 2 has reached higher levels than that found in the Vostok ice cores not that it is higher than in the past 200 years from atmospheric sampling. The current science shows that co2 levels today are higher than any point in the past million years, and perhaps longer - 15 million years, given that there is no reason to expect co2 to have diverged from it's interglacial-glacial cycles observed in ice cores. There is evidence of continued heat accumulation in the oceans: Radiative forcing is a well defined term and the 3.7wm-2 is well pinned down. It represents a significant energy imbalance if co2 is doubled. The error range in the calculation does not provide an opportunity to pretend a doubling of co2 has no planetary energy balance implications. Here's some further empirical evidence for manmade global warming: www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htmI am not assuming the response, although a response of some kind is necessitated by the laws of physics - which is why it is scientific fact that human emissions of co2 influence the climate, and which is why the IPCC were set up to assess the risk of that. As for the temperature part of the response, prominent scientific studies have found a significant temperature response from increasing co2 levels: agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/papers-on-climate-sensitivity-estimates/Changes in outgoing longwave radiation have been detected and are consistent with the expected radiative forcing from greenhouse gases: agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/We wouldn't expect to see industrial heartland hotspots in such an image because co2 emitted from the surface mixes. It's not contrary. The image shows co2 at between 382ppm and 390ppm, which is a very tight relative range. Twenty years ago that image would have shown co2 between 350ppm and 358ppm. Today it's showing between 382ppm and 390ppm. The rise in co2 is bigger than the variance in a single month (let alone a single year) Sigh The hockey stick is alive and well in SoCold's earth view. 1. The Vostock Ice Cores are a PROXY measure. They are taken at a place that is guaranteed to have the lowest CO 2 concentration AND the CO 2 has been shown to diffuse out of the air bubbles that are analyzed into the ice surrounding the bubbles. This means that the values found are arbitrary and more to do with diffusion than with the original CO 2 value which is as low as possible on Earth in any case. This is why the dates of the Vostock cores had to be moved arbitrarily in order to get a close enough match to the actual measured CO 2 - "hide the decline" comes to mind 2. I know you are sold on 3.7WM -2 but it is a hypothetical value based on an instantaneous doubling of CO 2 well mixed into the atmosphere with all other aspects of the atmosphere held completely constant as an unresponsive slab. In other words it is hypothetical and can never happen. The value is therefore of no import in the real world. I feel that this is where you live SoCold in a hypothetical unreal world where no hypothesis is falsifiable. 3. CO 2 was measured higher in the past than in the Vostock ice cores. This is inconvenient as the AGW hypothesis requires that CO 2 is at exceptional levels now. So AGW just disregards the record and invents the new one based on polar ice cores. This is as scientific as depending on the growth rings of a single tree in the Yamal peninsula
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Mar 1, 2010 2:31:34 GMT
This is as scientific as depending on the growth rings of a single tree in the Yamal peninsula LOL the tree ring proxies have problems as well and I'm not talking about the cherry picking that was done. There was a recent study that showed tree rings respond to cosmic rays more than they do temp or precip. Here is a link to the article on WUWT: Cosmic Rays and tree growth patterns linked
|
|