Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 16501 - 16520 of total 20087 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Oct 5, 2014 - 10:55am PT
No surface warming, which was the only metric discussed in the First, Second and Third Assessment Reports. It wasn't until the Fourth Assessment Report, when the "Hiatus" looked to be more than mere noise, that ocean heat content got much attention.

it gets back to the issues of accuracy and precision (or more to the point, variability)

In the run up to the latest IPCC report, the modeling community attempted to perform a "short range" forecast... this was not something attempted previously.

The disagreement between some of the model runs, and the observations, reveals the shortcomings of the models in making a prediction on that short time period. Don't forget that the "normal" time period for averaging is 30 years... oscillations, which represent a lot of the variability, taking place over shorter time periods will average out, and the model inputs have a way of capturing that averaging as input.

The questions regarding the predictions have focused on what the models are missing (not whether or not the models are "correct"). After investigating many possible factors (e.g. volcanic aerosols) the focus is on the ocean-atmosphere energy exchange, with the "deep" ocean recently observed (also not something available to the early IPCC reports).

Explaining these differences between observations and models helps to improve our understanding, and the limits of our models' ability to predict such a short time forecast.

wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Oct 5, 2014 - 03:24pm PT
Credit: wilbeer
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Oct 5, 2014 - 04:01pm PT
How's about you answered your own question.

You should be happy not knowing......

You are a deniers ,denier.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Oct 5, 2014 - 04:27pm PT
Anything positive,apparently.

Denier.
Credit: wilbeer
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Oct 5, 2014 - 04:33pm PT
Denier.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Oct 5, 2014 - 04:39pm PT
Credit: wilbeer
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Oct 5, 2014 - 05:24pm PT
You have no idea what an increase in temperature on the average, of 1.4C Can do to the Earth ,Do you?

Denier of AGW.

.

.


.

.
dirtbag

climber
Oct 6, 2014 - 06:48am PT
From the very first post:

Just wondering, are there any more climate change skeptics out there?

I think the answer is mostly "no." What we have here are mostly climate change cranks.
dirtbag

climber
Oct 6, 2014 - 07:07am PT
Sometimes I feel kind of sorry for you Chief. You have to resort to misquoting people to make some point.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Oct 6, 2014 - 07:18am PT
LOL, Sketch. BaU in AR1 was exponentially increasing emissions.

That's basically linear.

Take another swing?
dirtbag

climber
Oct 6, 2014 - 07:21am PT

Must be your AGW ignorance and total dedication to the political ideology that goes with it.

Yep, that's totally me. You nailed it.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Oct 6, 2014 - 07:43am PT
Scenario A, Sketch? Surely you have radiative forcing data to support that.

Got any radiative forcing data to support your arguments Sketch?
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 6, 2014 - 08:09am PT
Sketch, are you getting all your "information" and arguments from anti-science blogs again?


It's interesting how sciency-sounding mumbo jumbo makes sense to folks who don't understand the science. Here, Sketch is trying to sound like he knows what he's talking about. Heck, those anti-science blogs sure make it sound easy.

The only trouble is he hasn't put the time into scientific study to actually see how flimsy the arguments are on those anti blogs.


But I could be wrong--maybe he does have the research on radiative forcing to back up his claims.

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. After all, the thousands of scientists pouring over the IPCC reports might not know the things that Sketch knows.
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Oct 6, 2014 - 08:27am PT
it's good you've found a place where you can be yourself...
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Oct 6, 2014 - 08:50am PT
The actual radiative forcing is the result of all effects, Sketch, including ghg's, landuse, aerosols, etc.

It is the best single measure of the warming pressure on our planet.

Sure, climate science in 1990 was not as advanced as today, and you can find discrepancies, so good for you, Sketch.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Oct 6, 2014 - 09:01am PT
What's wrong with this picture?

what is a "forcing" and how does it relate to the dynamics of the climate?
Norton

Social climber
quitcherbellyachin
Oct 6, 2014 - 12:32pm PT
Oceans Getting Much Colder


http://www.climatecentral.org/oceans
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Oct 6, 2014 - 01:24pm PT

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/studies-show-how-climate-change-is-baking-australia-18102
crunch

Social climber
CO
Oct 6, 2014 - 02:07pm PT
sketch, thanks for the helpful link to the NASA article:

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/october/nasa-study-finds-earth-s-ocean-abyss-has-not-warmed/#.VDLyjr6bGS0


"The cold waters of Earth’s deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study .... during the same period warming in the top half of the ocean continued unabated."

Some clarification:
"Some recent studies reporting deep-ocean warming were, in fact, referring to the warming in the upper half of the ocean but below the topmost layer, which ends about 0.4 mile (700 meters) down."

This new research sheds light on what's going on the deepest depths, below 1.24 miles.
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Oct 6, 2014 - 05:01pm PT
A reason temperature changes before 1950-1965 are not very predictive for the future is that there was less manmade CO2 at that time.
The added immediate greenhouse effect is related to the difference between the long term CO2 level of (280-300) and the present level which was 310ppm in 1950, 320 in 1965, 400 in 2014.
There is a very slow increase for the first 200 years of the industrial revolution of 280ppm in 1750 to 310 in 1950. After that time, GHGs increase at a faster rate. Looking at the typical CO2 time graph, the added greenhouse effect increases each year. So recent years - the last 30 for example, would have a much higher effect than the previous 30 years.

And it is misguided to expect a linear graph of warming extending before 1960 to have much usefulness.

Additionally, cumulative long term feedbacks (melting, changes in surface reflectivity, release of stored GHGs, etc.) will delay equilibrium, which is why temperature will continue to increase long after GHG levels stabilize.
Messages 16501 - 16520 of total 20087 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews