Remember me
▼ Content

Has the IPCC underestimated GW?



Page 1 of 212>
Has the IPCC underestimated GW?19-10-2015 18:11
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
From;
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-ipcc-underestimated-climate-change/

Projection: In 1995, IPCC projected "little change in the extent of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets... over the next 50-100 years." In 2007 IPCC embraced a drastic revision: "New data... show[s] that losses from the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have very likely contributed to sea level rise over 1993 to 2003."


Whilst this is factually true the extent of the rise is microscopic;

http://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2180.epdf?referrer_access_token=GRtH6G5-EXU55TPY1I-ApNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0M9PGwIyKjSmktz08GZvRoP37INiMvzLVtRRDIv-MLPDppSJjfYeaMtooULYGxMj6vMyVw0ot_c282R1kchge37mzsWwDUI07sg8zRHptxyPUyHQORNuz5BXnQ96hrNj-zPqO3Ym6qJhSYy1XU6DhT02A5Iego-7XnOdBJJw2mNFRz0V2k9MgixCWG5kRSRfXl9tfTG3t3ArVM_wqJK-_zw&tracking_referrer=news.nationalgeographic.com

Over the period 1992 to 2010 a mean annual GrIS of 12.9 Gt/yr was observed.


Personally I cannot see to the detail of hundredths of a mm. Thus when I say microscopic I mean exactly that.

This I present as evidence of a high level of "sexing up" the numbers coming out of climate science.

If there is any evidence that the IPCC figures are indeed on the low side please tell me how this can be given the lack of warming since they came out in 1998.
19-10-2015 19:10
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
Tim the plumber wrote:If there is any evidence that the IPCC figures are indeed on the low side please tell me how this can be given the lack of warming since they came out in 1998.[/color]

This is a question better suited for the Global Warming believers who care what the IPCC preaches.

I don't even know what "climate" is supposed to be, much less how it's supposed to be changing, what its units of measure are or whether that's even important in any of the IPCC sermons.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-10-2015 19:43
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
IBdaMann wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:If there is any evidence that the IPCC figures are indeed on the low side please tell me how this can be given the lack of warming since they came out in 1998.[/color]

This is a question better suited for the Global Warming believers who care what the IPCC preaches.

I don't even know what "climate" is supposed to be, much less how it's supposed to be changing, what its units of measure are or whether that's even important in any of the IPCC sermons.


Climate is the sum of weather. In order to describe it you need to make clear what period you are looking at and what aspect of you want to deal with. Averages are very often misleading as they will fail to describe the often most important parts of the climate of a region or even day.

It is reasonable to describe over all climatic conditions as being mild on global scale today as we are in the middle of an interglacial period.

It is reasonable to talk about how many degrees we are warmer than the depths of the ice age.

Measuring climatic temperatures to the hundreths of a degree is silly. This is because temperature is very difficult to measure to that level of accuracy at the best of time. Doing it outside and over large areas is just nuts. The figures for weather stations are often accurate to + or - 2 degrees c.

Hopefully this will allow the discussion to move forward.
19-10-2015 20:15
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
Tim the plumber wrote:
[color=blue]Climate is the sum of weather.

Tim, the weather is the sum of the weather. In the news we call it "meteorology". I'm not sure what "sum of weather" would even mean. What is the sum of, say, a cloudy day with light rain added to a cooler but sunny day with a slight haze?


Tim the plumber wrote: In order to describe it you need to make clear what period you are looking at and what aspect of you want to deal with.

Great. What was the earth's "climate" for the hour between noon zulu and one o'clock p.m. this past Wednesday?

What is a "climate" aspect?

Tim the plumber wrote: Averages are very often misleading as they will fail to describe the often most important parts of the climate of a region or even day.

Averages are not just misleading; they are usually nonexistent. What is the average coin flip? How many families have 3.7 people?

Tim the plumber wrote: It is reasonable to describe over all climatic conditions as being mild on global scale today as we are in the middle of an interglacial period.

What is a "climatic condition"?

Tim the plumber wrote: It is reasonable to talk about how many degrees we are warmer than the depths of the ice age.

This is temperature. What does this have to do with "the sum of weather"?

Tim the plumber wrote: Measuring climatic temperatures to the hundreths of a degree is silly.

I think that referring to a temperature as a "climatic temperature" is silly. Can you just say "temperature"?

Tim the plumber wrote: This is because temperature is very difficult to measure to that level of accuracy at the best of time.

It's easy to measure temperature to an arbitrary degree of precision with sufficiently precise equipment.

Tim the plumber wrote: Doing it outside and over large areas is just nuts. The figures for weather stations are often accurate to + or - 2 degrees c.

Absolutely correct. Error compounds when extrapolating for areas that have no measurements. Far too small an amount of the earth's surface is covered for there to be any computation of an average global temperature within any meaningful accuracy.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-10-2015 23:52
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@everyone - perhaps what you're missing in all the physical numbers is the chemistry.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
20-10-2015 15:44
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
IBdaMann,

If you are going to debate on a climate-debate forum it is sort of necessary to accept that the word can have meaning.

That it is always necessary to define what exactly you are talking about with such a general term is something I think we are agreeing about if coming at it from the opposite side.

You can say that the average temperature of the surface of the earth is "x".

You can say that this is higher than the depths of the ice ages. You can also say this is lower than most of the history of the planet. Both are right.

If you want to go into finer and finer detail untill you say that outside at the moment the climate here is fine and I am about to go and mow the lawn the that is also OK but it's a bit of a misuse of the world climate. That's more weather.

My point, and I think yours, is that you can desacribe the climate in Cuba as hot and sunny in a very nice way. And as an average that's fine. But it is important to understand that there are hurricanes that will come across yearly and if you are building a house there it is these events which you should build against not the nice weather.
20-10-2015 17:40
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Tim the plumber - SCORE! One for you there!

I retract any further reference to TtD as of reading your most recent post above (please excuse any other TtD remarks which may have occurred in the past 24 hours prior to my seeing this post).


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
20-10-2015 18:18
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
Tim the plumber wrote:If you are going to debate on a climate-debate forum it is sort of necessary to accept that the word can have meaning.

That's a foul on your part. Of course any string of symbols can have a meaning. You don't get to shirk your responsibility for clarifying exactly what meaning you assign are assigning to a particular string of symbols by declaring that you simply don't want to.

"Climate" is not defined in the body of science. You, however, are throwing the word around as if there is some standard defined meaning. To me "Climate" is the temperature inside my car which I can adjust with my "climate control." I'm guessing this is not the meaning you intend. If it isn't then yes, you need to clearly define the term and state that this is your definition. Others might have a problem with your definition. Others might have problems with your logic under your definition. You don't get to avoid all such criticism by hoping no one notices that you have not defined your terms.

Tim the plumber wrote: You can say that the average temperature of the surface of the earth is "x".

...and here we run into the question of validity. I can certainly take the temperature outside my house, at midday, on the first Monday of each month, add them, divide by twelve and declare that to be the average temperature of planet earth. Would you accept that value as "earth's average temperature." Of course not. In fact, just to get a usably accurate surface temperature (not including the atmosphere as a whole) would require hundreds of millions of evenly-spaced, calibrated and synchronized temperature sensors.

We don't have that. So, no, we cannot say, with any validity, the average temperature of the surface of the earth is "x". Whenever anyone makes some kind of claim regarding the earth's temperature, no valid dataset is ever presented, no math(s) is(are) provided and no margin of error is specified. Climate lemmings nonetheless don't ask for any of this; they simply eat up the report and treat it as a gospel truth.

What was earth's average temperature yesterday at noon zulu?

Tim the plumber wrote: You can say that this is higher than the depths of the ice ages. You can also say this is lower than most of the history of the planet. Both are right.

Both are speculations based on empirical evidence. Nobody has ever been able to "take the earth's temperature." We might have misinterpreted the empirical evidence.

Tim the plumber wrote: If you want to go into finer and finer detail untill you say that outside at the moment the climate here is fine and I am about to go and mow the lawn the that is also OK but it's a bit of a misuse of the world climate.

You don't own the word. You don't get to declare whose usage is a "misuse" of the word. You still bear full responsibility for specifying exactly what you mean when you say/write "Climate" and for declaring that it is your definition. No one else is at fault if you fail to clarify.

Tim the plumber wrote: My point, and I think yours, is that you can desacribe the climate in Cuba as hot and sunny in a very nice way. And as an average that's fine. But it is important to understand that there are hurricanes that will come across yearly and if you are building a house there it is these events which you should build against not the nice weather.

That is not my point. Weather is weather. I don't need any other word to stand in place of weather. When I use the word "Climate" I am clear that I am speaking about the temperature at the moment inside my car. I hold everyone under the same requirement to specify what s/he means by the term. Typically those who use the term know they are pulling chit out of their azzes and will seek to EVADE by mocking those who "don't know the difference between Climate and weather."

Essentially, the term "Climate" is mostly used by religious, scientifically illiterate, dishonest ffuccs.

Warmazombies use the word "Climate" to mean some intangible, unfalsifiable, spiritual entity about which they can make strange assertions about weather that no one can prove to be false because they are always poised to declare "Climate is not weather."


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-10-2015 18:42
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Tim the plumber - don't give up Tim. You got him on the ropes now. Consider this:

IBdaMann just said "Climate" is not defined in the body of science., and with that single line, he has put everyone at the:

1. International Journal of Climatology, and...

2. Journal of Climatology, and...

3. Journal of Climatology & Weather Forecasting...

OUT OF BUSINESS!

Nice going IBdaMann. And I thought you were the one who stood for strong economic growth! On second thought, maybe they were run by a bunch of Marxists like IBdaMann.
20-10-2015 18:48
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
IBdaMann,

There are data sets out there. This site goes into some detail of the accuracy etc.

https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/global-temperature-data-sets-overview-comparison-table

I think we are argueing the same point. I agree that the simplistic use or idea of climate as a homogonized blob is wrong. That was my point about building in the Carribean.

Despite this it is possible to look at the data and come to some conclusions. It is clearly warmer in England than it was 100 years ago. It is a lot warmer than 200 years ago.

There are those who argue that this is all down to human release of CO2. That is silly. If the changes in CO2 levels due to human activity pre-1815 had the slightest effect on the world's climate then the comparitively massive amounts of CO2 we now pump out would be drastically changing the world's temperature. As drastically as Trafn's dreams of Venus II. Since this is clearly not happening the idea that CO2 was responsible for the warming from 1800 till 1900 is out.

That leads to the next obvious question; If the climate could warm all by it's self then why do we know that the warming 1970 to 1998 was our fault? I am afraid to tell the alarmists;- we don't know that we had anything to do with it. In fact the lack of warming after 1998 despitte the accelerated CO2 release strongly impies that the whole idea is dead.
20-10-2015 19:12
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Tim the plumber - good going, but beware. IBdaMann's thing is semantics (he's the definition guy).

As to your statement that ...the comparitively massive amounts of CO2 we now pump out would be drastically changing the world's temperature. As drastically as Trafn's dreams of Venus II. Since this is clearly not happening... I would disagree.

So far, these massive amounts of CO2 would only be responsible for minor fluctuations in global temperatures, and even that might be questionable as many other factors still contribute to these minor fluctuations (i.e. - fluctuations measured in factors of "0.xxx"). CO2 is, however, a powerful primer for pending events in our near future like nithane, and it will be events like nithane which will kickstart our planet down the road to true GW (i.e. - fluctuations measured in 10's or 100's of degrees).

Anyways, keep him on the ropes and your guard up. In the meantime, I think you and I are addressing my above comment in another thread where you're going to give me feedback on my text.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
20-10-2015 20:21
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
trafn wrote:
So far, these massive amounts of CO2 would only be responsible for minor fluctuations in global temperatures, and even that might be questionable as many other factors still contribute to these minor fluctuations

Science predicts nature, it doesn't list guesses at possible outcomes.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-10-2015 21:05
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMarxistMann - then for your Marxist satisfaction, I suggest you file my statement under predictions.

I'm sure you can find plenty of room for it in that empty filing cabinet where you had once hoped to store all your falsifiable models.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
20-10-2015 22:49
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
There are those who argue that this is all down to human release of CO2. That is silly. If the changes in CO2 levels due to human activity pre-1815 had the slightest effect on the world's climate then the comparitively massive amounts of CO2 we now pump out would be drastically changing the world's temperature.


Actually, there has been no pause in sea ice melt, glacial melt, ice sheet melt, or ocean temperature increases. Water has a much higher heat capacity than air, and it is likely that the 'pause' in surface atmospheric temperatures is due to increased ocean uptake of heat:

http://www.nature.com/news/indian-ocean-may-be-key-to-global-warming-hiatus-1.17505

Since the ocean has a much higher heat capacity than the atmosphere, a lot more energy is required to raise its temperature. Therefore, the vast amount of CO2 that we 'pump out' is drastically changing the world's temperature.
20-10-2015 22:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
climate scientist wrote:
There are those who argue that this is all down to human release of CO2. That is silly. If the changes in CO2 levels due to human activity pre-1815 had the slightest effect on the world's climate then the comparitively massive amounts of CO2 we now pump out would be drastically changing the world's temperature.


Actually, there has been no pause in sea ice melt, glacial melt, ice sheet melt, or ocean temperature increases. Water has a much higher heat capacity than air, and it is likely that the 'pause' in surface atmospheric temperatures is due to increased ocean uptake of heat:

http://www.nature.com/news/indian-ocean-may-be-key-to-global-warming-hiatus-1.17505

Since the ocean has a much higher heat capacity than the atmosphere, a lot more energy is required to raise its temperature. Therefore, the vast amount of CO2 that we 'pump out' is drastically changing the world's temperature.


But that scenario would cause vastly increased convective storm activity, which we have not seen. You are describing warm water under cold air.
20-10-2015 23:04
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
But that scenario would cause vastly increased convective storm activity, which we have not seen. You are describing warm water under cold air.


Yes, on average the surface ocean is warmer than the atmosphere at the surface (although it depends on where you are, and what time of year). The mean surface atmospheric temperature is ~14-15 degrees C, whereas the mean surface ocean temperature is about 17 degrees C. The planet has had a slighter warmer surface ocean for a long time. Some of the heat uptake by the ocean is transported to the mid and lower ocean, where it does not have contact with the atmosphere. So this is why we have not seen a great change in storm activity, although storm activity is predicted to increase with future climate change. I guess that my point is that a 0.1 deg C raise in ocean temperature is a more drastic change in a way, than a 0.1 deg C raise in atmospheric temperature, because so much more energy is required to change the ocean's temperature than the atmosphere's temperature.
21-10-2015 00:14
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - instead of vastly increased convective storm activity, would you admit to there being mild or moderately increased convective storm activity?


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
21-10-2015 00:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
climate scientist wrote:
But that scenario would cause vastly increased convective storm activity, which we have not seen. You are describing warm water under cold air.


Yes, on average the surface ocean is warmer than the atmosphere at the surface (although it depends on where you are, and what time of year). The mean surface atmospheric temperature is ~14-15 degrees C, whereas the mean surface ocean temperature is about 17 degrees C. The planet has had a slighter warmer surface ocean for a long time. Some of the heat uptake by the ocean is transported to the mid and lower ocean, where it does not have contact with the atmosphere. So this is why we have not seen a great change in storm activity, although storm activity is predicted to increase with future climate change. I guess that my point is that a 0.1 deg C raise in ocean temperature is a more drastic change in a way, than a 0.1 deg C raise in atmospheric temperature, because so much more energy is required to change the ocean's temperature than the atmosphere's temperature.


Warm water rises, just like warm air rises. Any warmer water will appear at the surface and make contact with the colder air (assuming your model) and vastly increased convective activity.
21-10-2015 00:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - instead of vastly increased convective storm activity, would you admit to there being mild or moderately increased convective storm activity?


No. Warmer water and colder air creates a violent conflict in energy. Extremely strong convective activity will occur to rebalance the system as a whole.

Remember, the model being contemplated here is warmer ocean water and cooler air.
21-10-2015 01:00
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - you said No. Warmer water and colder air creates a violent conflict in energy.

Yes, they do, and those conflicts are often called tornadoes and hurricanes.

Are you saying we're having the same or even possibly milder tornadoes and hurricanes now than in prior decades or centuries?


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
21-10-2015 03:41
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
trafn wrote:
Are you saying we're having the same or even possibly milder tornadoes and hurricanes now than in prior decades or centuries?


Are you saying that these last two years showed higher Atlantic storm activity than every other two year combination dating back to the Industrial Revolution when all the earth's problems began?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-10-2015 06:34
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdasMarxistischeMensch - the last two years? Good question.

But perhaps the better question is this:

Are you saying that these last two point five years showed higher Atlantic storm activity than every other two year combination dating back to the Industrial Revolution when all the earth's problems began?

Better yet, let's really put on our thinking caps and try this one:

Are you saying that these last three point five years showed higher Atlantic storm activity than every other two year combination dating back to the Industrial Revolution when all the earth's problems began?

Or how about this brain teaser:

Are you saying that these last four point five years showed higher Atlantic storm activity than every other two year combination dating back to the Industrial Revolution when all the earth's problems began?

Then again, have you ever considered....

* - I've temporarily adjusted your moniker to honor it being National Socialist Science Month in Germany.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
21-10-2015 10:23
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Warm water rises, just like warm air rises. Any warmer water will appear at the surface and make contact with the colder air (assuming your model) and vastly increased convective activity.


You seem to be confusing warming water and warm water. The warmest ocean waters are at the surface, and tropical surface waters are warmer than polar waters. The sub surface ocean is warming, but this does not make it warmer than the surface waters, just warmer than it was before. Bottom waters are also warming. Again, they are still cooler than the over lying waters, but warmer than they were before. Ocean circulation tends to be polewards at the surface. At the poles, the warmer, tropical water cools. When sea ice forms, the salt is left in the underlying water (since ice is not salty). This underlying water is therefore cold, and very salty, meaning that it is very dense, so it sinks. The thing is that the polar water sinking today is warmer than the polar water sinking 50 years ago. So the deep oceans are warming, but they are not warmer than the surface waters.

This is not my model. I have simplified a lot, but the detailed versions can be found here:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/oceans/glodap/glodap_pdfs/Thermohaline.web.pdf

http://earth.usc.edu/~stott/Catalina/Deepwater.html

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-2-2.html
21-10-2015 12:47
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
trafn wrote:
@Tim the plumber - good going, but beware. IBdaMann's thing is semantics (he's the definition guy).

As to your statement that ...the comparitively massive amounts of CO2 we now pump out would be drastically changing the world's temperature. As drastically as Trafn's dreams of Venus II. Since this is clearly not happening... I would disagree.

So far, these massive amounts of CO2 would only be responsible for minor fluctuations in global temperatures, and even that might be questionable as many other factors still contribute to these minor fluctuations (i.e. - fluctuations measured in factors of "0.xxx"). CO2 is, however, a powerful primer for pending events in our near future like nithane, and it will be events like nithane which will kickstart our planet down the road to true GW (i.e. - fluctuations measured in 10's or 100's of degrees).

Anyways, keep him on the ropes and your guard up. In the meantime, I think you and I are addressing my above comment in another thread where you're going to give me feedback on my text.


Since the earth has had periods of being much hotter, much higher CO2 levels and both at the same time without showing any signs of doing a Venus, I consider it impossible for that to happen.

Past history is a better guide than a currently fashionable but utterly unsupported hypothesis.
21-10-2015 12:50
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
trafn wrote:
@IBdaMarxistMann - then for your Marxist satisfaction, I suggest you file my statement under predictions.

I'm sure you can find plenty of room for it in that empty filing cabinet where you had once hoped to store all your falsifiable models.


The point of there being a lack of falsifiable models is that there is thus a lack of decent science.

If the model can never be shown to have failed it is useless as a tool of science.

Given that the predictions of the IPCC were that a rise in CO2 would result in a rise in temperature and the CO2 has risen even more sharply than they predicted without any rise in temperature we can clearly see that the past 18 years have shown the model to be wrong. It has been falsified.
21-10-2015 13:00
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Past history is a better guide than a currently fashionable but utterly unsupported hypothesis. [/color]

It's not an hypothesis. It is merely a conjecture.

An hypothesis is derived from a falsifiable model. No falsifiable Global.Warming model exists from which to derive any Global Warming hypotheses.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-10-2015 13:13
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Given that the predictions of the IPCC were that a rise in CO2 would result in a rise in temperature and the CO2 has risen even more sharply than they predicted without any rise in temperature


This is not true. Atmospheric temperature has risen as predicted by the IPCC:

"For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. "

From AR4 report (2007)

Global temperature rise will likely be at least 0.2 deg C higher in 2017 than in 2007. The fact that there is no global warming is a myth:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

I'm not sure why you think that atmospheric CO2 has risen faster than the IPCC predicted? Do you have any evidence to back up this statement. Atmospheric CO2 has risen as it is expected to, given the fossil fuel emissions of the last decade.

Perhaps you are confused by articles, such as the one below, which states that CO2 emissions have risen faster than expected (largely due to a surge of growth in Asia):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1553508/CO2-rising-three-times-faster-than-expected.html
21-10-2015 13:43
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
climate scientist wrote:
This is not true. Atmospheric temperature has risen as predicted by the IPCC:

How did you come by this divine knowledge? Was it a "climate" miracle?

For all anyone knows, and that includes you, atmospheric temperatures might very well be decreasing right now.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-10-2015 13:50
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
How did you come by this divine knowledge? Was it a "climate" miracle?


Nope. Measurements of temperature. No miracles...

[hint: you need to click on the links...]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm
21-10-2015 14:31
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Tim the plumber - yes, historical CO2 levels are believed to have been drastically higher than they are today. However, they got that way over millions of years which is consistent with natural causes, not in a few decades as we're seeing now which is consistent with AGW.

As to falsifiable models, they are like any good tool of science: you must first understand their strengths and weakness. Falsifiable models are best used when there are a lot of knowns and only a few unknowns. Climate change science is still a fairly new field of study, therefore, to impose passing falsifiable models as the standard for being included in the body of science is to cut off the conversation before it has even begun. For example, what sense would it have made to have demanded a passable falsifiable model for AIDS to be deemed a disease that actually existed until after the discovery of HIV?

Sometimes you just need to be patient.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
21-10-2015 14:37
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdasMarxistischeMensch* - you wrote For all anyone knows, and that includes you, atmospheric temperatures might very well be decreasing right now.

Interesting thought, except for the fact that anyone who has a calendar that goes back a century or so realizes that they're rising.

Perhaps it's time to invest in a new Farmer's Almanac. That one you've been recycling from the 40's just isn't serving you well anymore.

* - I've temporarily adjusted your moniker to honor it being National Socialist Science Month in Germany.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
21-10-2015 15:14
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
climate scientist wrote:
Given that the predictions of the IPCC were that a rise in CO2 would result in a rise in temperature and the CO2 has risen even more sharply than they predicted without any rise in temperature


This is not true. Atmospheric temperature has risen as predicted by the IPCC:

"For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. "

From AR4 report (2007)

Global temperature rise will likely be at least 0.2 deg C higher in 2017 than in 2007. The fact that there is no global warming is a myth:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

I'm not sure why you think that atmospheric CO2 has risen faster than the IPCC predicted? Do you have any evidence to back up this statement. Atmospheric CO2 has risen as it is expected to, given the fossil fuel emissions of the last decade.

Perhaps you are confused by articles, such as the one below, which states that CO2 emissions have risen faster than expected (largely due to a surge of growth in Asia):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1553508/CO2-rising-three-times-faster-than-expected.html


Given that emissions have risen faster than expected I was under the impression that this had indeed translated into higher actual levels. If it has not then that would be a massive nail in the coffin for the whole CO2 rise is humanity's fault idea.

If 2017 is 0.2 degree c higher than 2007 that would be some evidence to support GW. The fact that 2007 was not 0.2 c warmer than 1997 is a bit of a weak point. If 2017 is to be track for this warming it will need to be 0.4 degree c warmer than 1997. It will need to get a shimmy on to achieve that.

At what point do you decied that the predictions are not happening? 2017 if there has been no significant warming? 2027? How long does it take? When is it faslified?
21-10-2015 16:12
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Tim the Drivel Queen* - you stated At what point do you decied that the predictions are not happening?

At what point do you, Timothy, realize that CO2 is not the real concern here?

* - if one wishes to fully appreciate our dear Tim's new moniker, please refer to this post:

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/key-threats-of-climate-change--d6-e755-s40.php#post_3707


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 21-10-2015 16:56
21-10-2015 16:34
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
trafn wrote:
@Tim the plumber - yes, historical CO2 levels are believed to have been drastically higher than they are today. However, they got that way over millions of years which is consistent with natural causes, not in a few decades as we're seeing now which is consistent with AGW.

As to falsifiable models, they are like any good tool of science: you must first understand their strengths and weakness. Falsifiable models are best used when there are a lot of knowns and only a few unknowns. Climate change science is still a fairly new field of study, therefore, to impose passing falsifiable models as the standard for being included in the body of science is to cut off the conversation before it has even begun. For example, what sense would it have made to have demanded a passable falsifiable model for AIDS to be deemed a disease that actually existed until after the discovery of HIV?

Sometimes you just need to be patient.


1, What has the speed of the build up got to do with the understanding of the final situation?

2, How do you know how long it took to get to those levels?

3, Just because we did not know what was the mechanism of the disease did not stop us understanding a lot about the disease. The falsifiable model was that it was caused by HIV. If there had been discovered lots of people with HIV whjo did not go on to develope AIDs then this would have shed doubt on the idea that HIV caused AIDs. In the same way the high levels of CO2 not causing temperature increases causes the idea that high levevls of CO2 cause temperature increases. Easy.
21-10-2015 19:07
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Tim the plumber:*

1. I take a bullet and toss it gently at your chest. It bounces off your chest onto the floor causing you no harm. I then pick up that same bullet, place it in a gun and fire it at you from point-blank range. Now you are dead. So, do you get the difference the speed of change has to do with it?

2. If you're talking about past levels of CO2, they've been accurately measured through deep ice core samples. If you don't know what those are, you can google them.

3. In the beginning they did not know what the cause of AIDS was. Originally, it was called GRID (Gay Related Immunodeficiency Disease) and it was classified as a cancer which afflicted only homosexuals. The discovery of HIV came years into the process, and if anyone had demanded "Show me a falsifiable model or all research stops" in the first year or two, then people would still be dropping dead from GRID. It's not time for demanding a falsifiable model for climate change science, yet. It's still too early for that (i.e. - too many unknowns).

* - ask an intelligent question, get an intelligent answer.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
22-10-2015 03:20
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
trafn wrote: I then pick up that same bullet, place it in a gun and fire it at you from point-blank range. Now you are dead. So, do you get the difference the speed of change has to do with it?

So Global Warming has kinetic energy? ...but it's data?

The discovery of HIV came years into the process, and if anyone had demanded "Show me a falsifiable model or all research stops" in the first year or two, then people would still be dropping dead from GRID.

No one would say that. However, had someone had asked for a falsifiable GRID model under threat of demanding redoubled research efforts, HIV might have been discovered sooner.

trafn wrote: It's not time for demanding a falsifiable model for climate change science, yet. It's still too early for that (i.e. - too many unknowns).

The time for a falsifiable Global Warming model is now. The Global Warming religion needs to go the way of GRID in deference to actual useful science.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-10-2015 03:29
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@climate scientist, Ceist and Tototo only - many people argue, and reasonably so, that the current changes we're seeing from M2C2 are minuscule and measured in 0.xxx's. Yet, given things like the lag time factor and trigger points, how large of a change do you think we should see in environmental factors before we take action to prevent M2C2?


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
22-10-2015 03:44
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
Sorry for butting in,

trafn wrote: many people argue, and reasonably so, that the current changes we're seeing from M2C2 are minuscule and measured in 0.xxx's.

I though you were the only one. For whom else are you speaking?

trafn wrote: Yet, given things like the lag time factor and trigger points, ...

What the hell are those supposed to be? Your book makes no mention of them. Why weren't they important enough to include in your book if they are critical to "Climate" change?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-10-2015 10:25
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
@ Ceist, Tototo and trafn only

I think that small changes mean a lot in the climate system. Just think about the amount of energy needed to heat the ocean by 0.1 deg C. It's a lot! In 2013, humans burnt almost 10 billion tonnes of carbon. That's a lot of carbon, and it only raised atmospheric CO2 by about 2 to 2.5 ppm, and yet it is still significant.
22-10-2015 12:57
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
trafn wrote:
@Tim the plumber:*

1. I take a bullet and toss it gently at your chest. It bounces off your chest onto the floor causing you no harm. I then pick up that same bullet, place it in a gun and fire it at you from point-blank range. Now you are dead. So, do you get the difference the speed of change has to do with it?

2. If you're talking about past levels of CO2, they've been accurately measured through deep ice core samples. If you don't know what those are, you can google them.

3. In the beginning they did not know what the cause of AIDS was. Originally, it was called GRID (Gay Related Immunodeficiency Disease) and it was classified as a cancer which afflicted only homosexuals. The discovery of HIV came years into the process, and if anyone had demanded "Show me a falsifiable model or all research stops" in the first year or two, then people would still be dropping dead from GRID. It's not time for demanding a falsifiable model for climate change science, yet. It's still too early for that (i.e. - too many unknowns).

* - ask an intelligent question, get an intelligent answer.


1, The depth to which a bullet will penetrate a human is a function of it's kinetic energy relitive to the human and the degree of resistance of the human flesh and any other material it will go through.

The effect of CO2 in the air is not dependant upon what level it was yesterday. It is a what is it now question. If you can show any mechanism for your supposed "momentum of change" effect then you will have done something spectacular other wise you are just spouting drivel.

2, I know how the various past levels of CO2 have been estimated.

3, The fact that people, mostly gay, were droping dead was know. The mechanism was searched for but we knew that there had to be something. If some of them had been showing the same sympthoms without HIV then there would have been questions about the validity of that mechanism.

Your total inability to show any mechanism or even accept that there has to be such a thing means that all your thoughts on this subject are just drivel. Unlucky.
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Has the IPCC underestimated GW?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Early IPCC Reports908-07-2019 07:48
What makes IPCC scientists sure warmer air hundreds of millions of years ago due to7106-06-2019 23:39
The IPCC in 20138225-05-2019 07:21
How come they never let a Chinese be in IPCC or UN climate department?229-04-2019 01:38
What makes IPCC thinks CO2 is better than O2 at trapping heat?028-04-2019 15:40
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact