Our cooling world
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
I don't know if 2014 being th ehottest year on the instrumetnal record is official yet. It's pretty close with 2010 adn 2005, I think. I imagine you'll see spike whenwe get a strong El Nino year though. Although, El Nino itself may have changed ita behaviour due to ocean warming.
It was hotter a few hundred years back so to say this or any recent year is the hottest is preposterous.
There is abso?utely nothing to panic about. Nobody is going to die.
We're all going to die but none of us will die from anthropogenic global climate disruption.
It will among the hottest on the sintrumental record. It probably was not hotter during the Medieval Warm period, though there is a small possibility it might have beeen. based on the uncertainty bars.
I'm not panicking. Everybody is going to die.
Crawling out of the coldest period in 10,000 years is a good, natural thing. Feeding stupid people misinformation of it being something new to humanity is a fraud of epic proportion and needs to be stopped.
Go ahead clean up but focus on sulpher in emissions and you have my blessing.
Go ahead clean up but focus on sulpher in emissions and you have my blessing.
please sir! Stop your porkies. Per PAGES 2k reconstruction:
Green dots show the 30-year average of the new PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve shows the global mean temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onwards. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999 ) with its uncertainty range (light blue).
"natural"??? No, the principal causal tie, the burning of anthropogenic sourced fossil-fuels, is anything but your stated "natural"! And again, still waiting on you to provide your correlation between your targeted period of past warming and today's relatively recent warming... still waiting. And, of course, you always (purposely) fail to point out the comparative rates of warming... in the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.
There is nothing good or evil about physics.
I agree 100%. Telling people that emissions of COI2 are not likely warming the atmosphere is also a fraud of epic proportions. The whole denier bit is a fraudulent game. The scinetific heavyweights--Lindzen, Spencer, Dyson--readily admit that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are warming the atmosphere. They just disagree that it will be catastrophic, or argue that the uncertainty makes the impacts difficult to predict. The deniers deliberately and repeatedly try to obfuscate this--as evidenced, for example, by you and Eagle Smack repeatedly posting pictures of drywall whenever the conversation gets technical.
Lindzen is now retired/gone emeritus; aka "a gun for hire" to any denier interest/organization... his decades long past work gave him some chops; however, he repeatedly got debunked in his recent last decade work trying to substantiate his position for "the lowest of the low climate sensitivity". The 90+ year old geezer Dyson has long-ago reached his best before date... but, as you say, he agrees with the AGW theory but his big "beef" is with the predictive capability of models/modeling. There is, of course, that infamous interview of Dyson where's he asked to speak to the specifics of models/modeling that he has concerns over... where he indicates he's not a subject expert and doesn't really know anything about climate models/modeling... and that at his age he's not prepared to even attempt to make him self knowledgeable in that regard. Spencer is just a charlatan fraud... plain and simple; his failed science is LEGION!
Giving the whole Holocene picture makes CO2 a hard sell. Manipulation of a miniscule slice of time laden with doomsday scenarios plays on primordial fears which push logic to the wayside and it creates a divide and conquer situation which furthers the manipulation into more divides and suppression of reality.
Just look at what it does to the minds of drywallers.
You don't have to be a subject expert to know that there is large uncertainty in models where chaos and complexity play a huge role.
I don't agree with the IPCC on climate sensitivity. (Climate sensitivity, in layman's terms, is the predicted increase in average global temperature for every doubling of CO2. Thus a climate sensitivity of 2 means that doubling CO2 would increase temperatures by 2 deg C.) Personally, my view is that the climate senisitivty should not be considered a constant, but a variable and is probably dependent on several parameters and variables, few of which are understood.
Climate sensitivity dropped from a minimum of 2 to 1.5 from AR4 to AR5.
My own guess is that climate sensitivity will change as things progress. It will likely be stay low (less than 1.5; perhaps even less than 1) until a transition state is reached at which point it will jump significantly.
Mighty nice of you, thank you. All these drywalling pics may help when I start my new bathroom next month.
Ever notice the miniscule rise in temperature that has waldo's knickers in a knot all start with the advent of more accurate measuring devices?
Dyson is one of the smartest guys in the world, and a scientist, so, to my mind, he bears listening to. He says he knows nothing of the models, but when you read his stuff it's clear that he acrtually has more understanding than most people. I think that Dyson is given more press than he really should, given that he's not a subject matter expert, but that's becasue his name is legendary in physics. And, to my origianl point, he is akspetic but he readily admits a role for humans in changing the climate.
And I agree with you, uncertainties are high. Particularly with respect mid-topospheric humidity adn clouds. I think many of the scientists are aware of that, but on the layman's end of things, I think a lot of AGW proponents don't understand that.
In that equation, lambda is a constant. They do have transient and equilibrium climate sensitivity in some discussions, but still the climate sensitity (lambda) is a constant.. If it were a function of other variables it would be notated differently, as functions are.
I focused on the minimum to bolster my argument that I think the climate sensitivity is generally lower than that predicted by the IPCC. I base that on observational evidence to date. Based on the instrumental temperature record, the climate sensitivty is below 1, I believe.
The observational evidence to date is an increase in global average temeprature of about 0.8 deg C and an increase in CO2 from about 280 to 400 ppm.
I suspect that climate sensitivites will be low until they reach a critical limit at which time the system will bifurcate and settle into a new equilibrium/homeostasis. This is typical of the behaviour of complex systems, in my experience.
Try & keep this one clean guys. Much (never all) of the more
repulsive and blatant trolling has been expunged from this
Thread over the last couple of months, in an effort to make
it more inviting to those interested in the topic to review and
debate the issue.
repulsive and blatant trolling has been expunged from this
Thread over the last couple of months, in an effort to make
it more inviting to those interested in the topic to review and
debate the issue.
which certainly doesn't speak to any semblance of long-term feedback influence... let alone a true representation of shorter-term. Notwithstanding, of course, the so-called warming that still remains "in the pipe" and hasn't yet come forward to effect an impact on surface temperature.
again, you can't argue for low(er) climate sensitivity without providing a rationalization (vis-a-vis sensitivity) for the significant warming observed in the distant past. Your bifurcate point is suggestive of a "tipping point"... please sir, a certain brand of denier goes absolutely wonky when "tipping points" are spoken of!
if refuting/debunking the continual denier C&P wizardry put forward around here is your interpretation of 'knickers in a knot'... hey, I'll wear that one allDayLong! In any case, the real significance of the relatively recent warming is the rate of that warming. As I said previously, the current rate of warming is, "roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming".