Climate Change report on Canada

Locutus

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
45
48
65
the climate changes. it has always changed.



 
mentalfloss

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
If there's one thing that all sides of the climate debate can agree on, it's that climate has changed naturally in the past. Long before industrial times, the planet underwent many warming and cooling periods. This has led some to conclude that if global temperatures changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and plasma TVs, nature must be the cause of current global warming. This conclusion is the opposite of peer-reviewed science has found.

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?
 
petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,569
11,515
113
Low Earth Orbit
mentalfloss said:
If there's one thing that all sides of the climate debate can agree on, it's that climate has changed naturally in the past. Long before industrial times, the planet underwent many warming and cooling periods. This has led some to conclude that if global temperatures changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and plasma TVs, nature must be the cause of current global warming. This conclusion is the opposite of peer-reviewed science has found.

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?
Click to expand...

It tells it's going to get really f-cking cold real f-cking soon.
 
Tonington

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Zipperfish said:
Beat me to it.

I've also noted that WUWT doesn't deny anthorpoegnic climate change any more. Now it's catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. #WUWT #hedgingourbets
Click to expand...

Incremental moving of goal posts. A decade from now they'll deny ever being deniers, or be first rate odd old cranks.
 
petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,569
11,515
113
Low Earth Orbit
mentalfloss said:
To your first part, the sun does influence climate, but the science has found temperatures still increase, even when solar cycles are at their lowest point. If global temperatures strictly followed solar cycles then temperatures would periodically go down to match them.

With respect to CO2 lagging:

To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:

Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles
CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?


That was a whole bunch of rhetoric just to say 'we hate executive summaries'.
Click to expand...




CO2 lags? Did you miss the soda pop link about how a liquid releases gases as it warms. That why it lags behind interglacial warming. As it warms it sure as sh-it can't on more so kiss the ocean acidiciation by CO2 good-bye.

Read a few of these: http://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=KAJGU6ixB8eC8Qfw2oHgDA#q=geomagnetism+and+ocean+currents&spell=1
 
Last edited:
pgs

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
26,718
7,027
113
B.C.
petros said:
It tells it's going to get really f-cking cold real f-cking soon.
Click to expand...
Probably not before it gets really fing hot . But I will check in next winter .

Tonington said:
Incremental moving of goal posts. A decade from now they'll deny ever being deniers, or be first rate odd old cranks.
Click to expand...
Hmmn I probably am on these same posts a decade ago being a denier and have still will be a denier .
That said if we as a society spent half the time and effort on cleaning our on enviroments the world would be a much better place .
Victoria I am talking to you .
 
mentalfloss

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
darkbeaver said:
Click to expand...

These long-time climate doubters inflate minor points of dispute to suggest that models are “spectacularly wrong” and “0 for 10.” But over the long term, climate models have been right on target, and we have a wealth of evidence supporting the picture they paint of the dangers of unmitigated climate change.

One of the few science sources named in the WSJ article is the 2012 State of the Climate report published by NOAA. However, Christy and McNider apparently chose to ignore the main findings from that report, including the continuation of warming trends at the Earth surface, sea surface, upper ocean, and deep ocean. The most recent IPCC report found that, while variations exist on the scale of 10-15 years, over the long term models closely reproduce observed trends for both surface and upper ocean temperatures. The State of the Climate report also notes the observed long-term cooling of the stratosphere, just as climate models predict (and a result that only occurs when human influence is incorporated into the models of the Earths’ climate).

From this comprehensive overview the climate models seem to be doing quite well. But Christy and McNider assert that we should be ignoring these indicators, and instead hinge everything only on mid-tropospheric warming, “the fundamental sign” of climate change. They don’t explain why mid-tropospheric warming is fundamental, and in fact there is much less evidence for the significance of mid-tropospheric temperatures than there is for other indicators. This is part of the reason why mid-tropospheric temperatures aren’t part of the top-line findings of the 2012 State of the Climate report. As for the tropospheric temperature record.

McNider and Christy Style Themselves Revolutionary But Defend Inertia | Climate Science Watch
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom