ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
i agree, to some extent, but don't have any confidence that the policy makers (and the UN, now :doh: ) have any ability to do it right
still, it'll be nice when they get the tesla's down under 20k
Top physicist on climate change....
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
i agree, to some extent, but don't have any confidence that the policy makers (and the UN, now :doh: ) have any ability to do it right
still, it'll be nice when they get the tesla's down under 20k
gcthomas
New member
2009 is a long way to go back for a developing science. Nothing more recent, like in the last half decade?
Quetzal
New member
Agree with you there, the price on the Tesla's is still too rich for my blood. But back to the OP... I will be honest. I hope they did botch it. I hope they screwed up. I hope this is all one big mistake. I hope the theories are wrong and the planet is just as healthy as it was 500 years ago. But... the data just doesn't seem to support it right now. That's all.
brewmama
New member
Even if it is a huge waste of money, has its own fairly horrible detrimental effects on parts of the environment, and the political outcome will cause massive harm to the poor of the world?
Quetzal
New member
Implementation would certainly need to be done carefully.
brewmama
New member
Are you cherry picking my posts?
gcthomas
New member
You are cherry picking enough for both of us here.
brewmama
New member
For 223 months, since January 1997, there has been no global warming at all (Fig. 1). This month’s RSS temperature shows the Pause setting a new record at 18 years 7 months.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/08...temperature-standstill-extends-to-233-months/
“The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 220 months from December 1996 to March 2014 – more than half the 435-month satellite record,” says Christopher Monckton, an English lord and noted global warming skeptic. Monckton has been researching and tracking global warming data for years.
“The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us,” Monckton says.
Satellites measure the lowest reaches of the Earth’s atmosphere and that data is formulated into temperature readings. Most government climate agencies, however, rely on land and sea surface temperature readings to come up with their global climate measures. While both measures have their setbacks, they both show that warming a has been much more moderate than predicted.
A new study by Duke University researchers found that the world has not warmed as fast as previously predicted. Duke scientists found that “natural variability” has dominated the temperature record, causing observed changes in the temperature record from year to year.
Researchers reconstructed a 1,000-year temperature record and “found that climate models largely get the ‘big picture’ right but seem to underestimate the magnitude of natural decade-to-decade climate wiggles,” said Patrick T. Brown, a doctoral student in climatology at Duke University.
“Our model shows these wiggles can be big enough that they could have accounted for a reasonable portion of the accelerated warming we experienced from 1975 to 2000, as well as the reduced rate in warming that occurred from 2002 to 2013,” Brown said.
What does all this mean? Brown said it means that predictions of dire global warming are likely overblown and that a “middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now.”
“Statistically, it’s pretty unlikely that an 11-year hiatus in warming, like the one we saw at the start of this century, would occur if the underlying human-caused warming was progressing at a rate as fast as the most severe [UN] projections,” Brown said. “Hiatus periods of 11 years or longer are more likely to occur under a middle-of-the-road scenario.”http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/24/global-warming-pause/
brewmama
New member
Ha ha! You're very funny!
If climate scientists were involved in a grand conspiracy to promote global warming, wouldn't they have fudged this data to make it look like the Antarctic ice sheet was shrinking?
ClimateSanity
New member
Boy, do I!
If you are going to use UAH and RSS to support your position, you must also take the data that contradicts your position. RSS shows no warming for 18+ years
gcthomas
New member
You quote Monckton? Hahaha!
He is the guy who wrongly told Congress he was a member of the UK's upper chamber, has claimed that he was a Nobel Prize winner, and that he had invented a cure for HIV.
He is a crank.
gcthomas
New member
Cite?
ClimateSanity
New member
1850 was the end of the little ice age. The earth climate has steadily warmed since then. If there was an uninterrupted stable temperature from 0 A.D. until 1850 A.D. You might have a point. There were two major periods of warming since 1850. That was from roughly 1910 to 1935 and from 1975 to 1998. If you remove those two periods, the warming has been slight. There are two good causes for both of those accelerated warming periods. For 1910 to 1935, the Tunguska meteor explosion and for 1975 to 1998, the rapid increase in the use of CFC's.
I can explain why both causes are more likely than CO2 if you wish.
Quetzal
New member
I can cherry pick data, too. But when you look at the entire set of data you will see it supports the idea that the earth is getting warmer.
brewmama
New member
In case you forgot, they did do that, along with along with all the surface temp data they adjust and "homogenize". They also tried spinning as fast as their little pens could write as to how this new info doesn't mean that a net decrease of ice won't happen in the future. And I'm not saying it's a "grand conspiracy", just that they are on record now and don't want to look bad or lose their massive funding. Where would they be if global warming was wrong?
brewmama
New member
Since the little ice age, yes. But not much for awhile. And certainly not to the tune of the dire predictions, or to the correlation of CO2 increase. Why should we listen to them, when they have been so wrong?
brewmama
New member
I don't care if you don't like him, you can't rebut his data. And I'm sure you also don't listen to Michael Mann, who claimed he was a Nobel Prize winner, right?
And what about Roy Spencer? I suppose you don't like him either.
Quetzal
New member
Because the data supports them.
brewmama
New member
Do you always ignore whatever people say to you?
What data supports that CO2 is the driving force in the worldwide climate?