|
Post by jimcripwell on May 23, 2009 19:23:19 GMT
soclod writes "Yes they do" (AGW models predict global temperatures will fall.) Reference please.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on May 23, 2009 19:43:38 GMT
soclod writes "Then temperatures continue rising the skeptic camp will fall into nothingness because you guys have backed well into the cooling corner now. I wonder what will happen when skeptics suddenly realize the models were right - will they excuse themselves that it is just coincidence? "
We must remember the time frame here. There are three basic possibilites for world temperatures over the next 5 years or so. Temperatures will rise; temperatures will stay the same; temperatures will fall. According to Smith et al, half the annual temperatures, according to HAD/CRU, after 2009, will be above 1998. So within 5 years we should have a check as to whether the Smith model is accurate. If temperatures do not rise in the next 5 years, AGW will become somewhat more difficult to maintain. If temperatures fall in the next 5 years, it will be a bonus for the deniers. Looking at what is happening to the sun, we will not reach the maximum of the coming potential Maunder type solar magnetic minimum for at least 20 years. I did not expect to see any significant fall in global temperatures before 2015. All I can hope is that any slight fall that might happen will tend to turn public opinion away from AGW. And, yes, I have always maintained that the experimental data is the "Supreme Court of Science". If global temperatures do, indeed, rise according to the predictions of the warmnaholics, I will have to admit that I was wrong.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 23, 2009 22:13:21 GMT
80% of the sceptic arguments are going to get blown away over the next 5 years. Admitting they are not blown away today is tantamount to saying you are still guessing.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 23, 2009 22:16:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 23, 2009 22:31:10 GMT
If global temperatures do, indeed, rise according to the predictions of the warmnaholics, I will have to admit that I was wrong. I will only go that far if the warming occurs and the solar activity did not change back to the active levels seen in recent decades.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 23, 2009 22:50:21 GMT
LOL! Thanks for admitting the models were wrong. We are getting somewhere. If you think that is a significant admission then, no, we are probably not getting anywhere LOL! So the idea that CO2 is a GHG is enough for you. Thats a rather pedantic view. Sort of tantamount to saying "anytime you strike a flint in a pile of tinder in a forest it is going to cause a runaway forest fire and burn the entire forest down" And that is a model that has repeated itself time after time, the problem is 99.9% of the time the flint is struck the result does not happen. Bottom line is you have to model this stuff to know if the spark causes an out of control fire or not so you end up with some Smokey the Bear advice on how to prevent forest fires while having fun camping and grilling in the wilderness. I'd be a lot more concerned about the Cern Project. The nice thing about the benign little global warming we have seen is that if it turns out we are causing it with CO2 we can stop.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 23, 2009 23:18:45 GMT
Problem is none of these models predicted that the oceans would also get cooler since all they allow for is natural variability of the atmosphere. Thus there is no explanation for the temperature of the globe cooling.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 24, 2009 1:19:22 GMT
If you think that is a significant admission then, no, we are probably not getting anywhere LOL! So the idea that CO2 is a GHG is enough for you. Thats a rather pedantic view. Sort of tantamount to saying "anytime you strike a flint in a pile of tinder in a forest it is going to cause a runaway forest fire and burn the entire forest down" A better analogy is that every time I put on a coat, I expect to get warmer. Sure sometimes the weather will get a lot colder at the same time, or I might go down with the flu or die. But since you'd be quite happy for me to get hypothermia, assuming or hoping that I won't get warm is a case of hope against expectation.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 24, 2009 2:51:43 GMT
LOL! So the idea that CO2 is a GHG is enough for you. Thats a rather pedantic view. Sort of tantamount to saying "anytime you strike a flint in a pile of tinder in a forest it is going to cause a runaway forest fire and burn the entire forest down" A better analogy is that every time I put on a coat, I expect to get warmer. Sure sometimes the weather will get a lot colder at the same time, or I might go down with the flu or die. But since you'd be quite happy for me to get hypothermia, assuming or hoping that I won't get warm is a case of hope against expectation. LOL! Absolutely Steve! But 280 parts per million is about the equivalent of a fishing net with a 5 inch mesh made out of spiderweb strands. All coats I am aware of tend to be quite a bit more dense. . . .and that is what we are suggesting here. You guys seem to like to focus on the fact that more gas in the atmosphere means more warming. Nobody disagrees with that the issue is entirely about how much. I'll take the coat analogy but you will need to prove to me how such a thin coat will make any difference.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 24, 2009 7:12:26 GMT
Problem is none of these models predicted that the oceans would also get cooler since all they allow for is natural variability of the atmosphere. Thus there is no explanation for the temperature of the globe cooling. This isn't about predicting a specific event, it's about the models not showing an ever upward year-by-year temperature rise. Some ten year periods in the models show cooling or flat. There is noise over the trend. 10 years is not enough to guarantee what you are seeing is trend rather than noise.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 24, 2009 7:14:30 GMT
A better analogy is that every time I put on a coat, I expect to get warmer. Sure sometimes the weather will get a lot colder at the same time, or I might go down with the flu or die. But since you'd be quite happy for me to get hypothermia, assuming or hoping that I won't get warm is a case of hope against expectation. LOL! Absolutely Steve! But 280 parts per million is about the equivalent of a fishing net with a 5 inch mesh made out of spiderweb strands. 280 parts per million co2 is a thick coat. 280 parts per million oxygen would not be.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 24, 2009 11:00:58 GMT
A better analogy is that every time I put on a coat, I expect to get warmer. Sure sometimes the weather will get a lot colder at the same time, or I might go down with the flu or die. But since you'd be quite happy for me to get hypothermia, assuming or hoping that I won't get warm is a case of hope against expectation. LOL! Absolutely Steve! But 280 parts per million is about the equivalent of a fishing net with a 5 inch mesh made out of spiderweb strands. All coats I am aware of tend to be quite a bit more dense. . . .and that is what we are suggesting here. You guys seem to like to focus on the fact that more gas in the atmosphere means more warming. Nobody disagrees with that the issue is entirely about how much. I'll take the coat analogy but you will need to prove to me how such a thin coat will make any difference. Some sceptics argue that a few ppm of CO2 can't possibly be important. Others argue that CO2 is so potent that all of its affect has already been "used up". Strange. The 5 inch mesh analogy is probably slightly more inappropriate given that CO2 does indeed effectively absorb the radiation around its spectral lines. Every 100ppm of CO2 would make up about a metre thickness of CO2 if you compressed it all down to the surface at surface temperature and pressure. If each 100ppm is a coat, we had 3 coats, we've got a fourth and are currently starting to add a 5th. Yes it has less effect than the others, but I have worn 5 or 6 layers when camping or walking in -10 to -20C temperatures.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on May 24, 2009 13:15:42 GMT
On May 23rd steve wrote "I understand it. You're wrong and they are right."
I have been thinking about how to reply to this. My main contention, based on my training in physics, is that there is no experimental data to support any numerical value of the radiative forcing for a doubling of CO2. That is to say, whenever a numerical value for the radiative forcing for a doubling of CO2 is mentioned, it can only be based on some form of estimate, such as from a non-validated computer model, but has no hard, measured, independently replicated experimental data to support it. I further claim that with current technology, it is impossible to provide such experimental data. Where are these statements wrong, if they are wrong?
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on May 24, 2009 14:44:17 GMT
Problem is none of these models predicted that the oceans would also get cooler since all they allow for is natural variability of the atmosphere. Thus there is no explanation for the temperature of the globe cooling. This isn't about predicting a specific event, it's about the models not showing an ever upward year-by-year temperature rise. Some ten year periods in the models show cooling or flat. There is noise over the trend. 10 years is not enough to guarantee what you are seeing is trend rather than noise. But strangely enough, there have been quite a few predictions the last 10 years by "experts" that we would see a new global temperature record this year or that year. Obviously, you cannot claim that anyone expected this prolonged pause in warming - which should perhaps give us pause before swallowing all of their predictions for the future.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on May 24, 2009 14:46:38 GMT
LOL! Absolutely Steve! But 280 parts per million is about the equivalent of a fishing net with a 5 inch mesh made out of spiderweb strands. All coats I am aware of tend to be quite a bit more dense. . . .and that is what we are suggesting here. You guys seem to like to focus on the fact that more gas in the atmosphere means more warming. Nobody disagrees with that the issue is entirely about how much. I'll take the coat analogy but you will need to prove to me how such a thin coat will make any difference. Some sceptics argue that a few ppm of CO2 can't possibly be important. Others argue that CO2 is so potent that all of its affect has already been "used up". Strange. The 5 inch mesh analogy is probably slightly more inappropriate given that CO2 does indeed effectively absorb the radiation around its spectral lines. Every 100ppm of CO2 would make up about a metre thickness of CO2 if you compressed it all down to the surface at surface temperature and pressure. If each 100ppm is a coat, we had 3 coats, we've got a fourth and are currently starting to add a 5th. Yes it has less effect than the others, but I have worn 5 or 6 layers when camping or walking in -10 to -20C temperatures. Why haven't we seen any acceleration in the warming trend the past 100 years? When will these "extra layers" kick in?
|
|