Future Timeline

[BethesdaWX]

That not how temps looked. Link it and peer reviewed paper

How about OBS instead of modeling? This is used in peer review.

[skierinvermont]

Why do you keep posting a graph of the last 15k years when we are discussing the last 1k years? I don't know about you, but I can't even see the period of 1k years all bunched up at the end of that graph. You posted Moberg et al... the SAME reconstruction the IPCC is using.

Are you suddenly deciding you no longer like Moberg et al.?

[skierinvermont]

How about OBS instead of modeling? This is used in peer review.

The graph I posted IS observations. The colored lines are models, the black is reconstruction overlap. It is a comparison of observations to models. The observations are based on reconstructions such as Moberg et al. WHICH YOU HAVE POSTED YOURSELF.

Are you suddenly deciding you don't like Moberg et al.?

[BethesdaWX]

But your Data is Flawed, We have better proxies in Ice core high-resolution deuterium, dD and d18O where sediments/particulates deposited around the Globe are trapped In the ice core, and is easy to determine the GLOBAL temperature from such.

MWP was found to be warmer, much warmer, without CO2 increase. TSI does not correlate.

Still waiting for Volcanic Evidence from You, and TSI. Wheres your PAPER?

Peer reviewed paper in Ice core: http://epic.awi.de/P...ns/Ste2009a.pdf

- TSI, according to the IPCC, can only account for about 5% our current warming, despite that fact that the modern Max was higher than the Medieval max. TSI varies <1% thru each 11yr Cycle. It has never correlated long term.

- Volcanism cannot account for a century of LIA temps 1-2C Colder than the MWP, nor the 2-3C spikes dips throughout the holocene. So you're essentially arguing that 95% of the spikes/dips in the Holocene were Volcanism caused.

- We know that The Holocene featured Jumps/Variations of 1-3C constantly...only attributable to the Sun. Again, solar influence affected temps on the order of several centigrade.

- Geomag AA index was Not Counted as a Forcing in the IPCC report, nor was GCR..LLCC was counted as a positive feedback....one of this is true.

[skierinvermont]

No credible source says the MWP was 1-2C warmer than the LIA.

Moberg et al. (the source YOU cited) is the peer reviewed source which shows the most historical variation. It shows the MWP as .8C warmer than the LIA.

The IPCC models replicate this change accurately based solely on TSI and volcanism.

[BethesdaWX]

No credible source says the MWP was 1-2C warmer than the LIA.

Moberg et al. (the source you cited) is the peer reviewed source which shows the most historical variation. It shows the MWP as .8C warmer than the LIA.

The IPCC models replicate this change accurately based solely on TSI and volcanism.

what the f**king sh*t?

1) False. This is actually a Nice site, a sexy global interactive Map of hundreds of Peer reviewed MWP studies, its sweet.....go to this link....Click the Map....All are peer reviewed studies showing the MWP was warmer globally than today, and the LIA difference is shown at anywhere at 0.6 - 2.2C (yes, I've read them all lol ). There are hundreds of them. http://www.co2scienc...map/mwpmap.html

2) Incorrect. IPCC says solar cannot contribute more than 10%.....Link me to ONE paper saying that Volcanism corresonds to the other 90%.

[WeatherRusty]

what the f**king sh*t?

I gotta get some sleep bro, I'll continue the debate in the morning

But before I hit the sheets....

1) False. This is actually a Nice site, a sexy global interactive Map of hundreds of Peer reviewed MWP studies, its sweet.....go to this link....Click the Map....All are peer reviewed studies showing the MWP was warmer globally than today, and the LIA difference is shown at anywhere at 0.6 - 2.2C (yes, I've read them all lol ). There are hundreds of them. http://www.co2scienc...map/mwpmap.html

2) Incorrect. IPCC says solar cannot contribute more than 10%.....Link me to ONE paper saying that Volcanism corresonds to the other 90%.

CO2 Science is not a scientific site, it is a skeptic site with a pre-defined agenda.

[BethesdaWX]

CO2 Science is not a scientific site, it is a skeptic site with a pre-defined agenda.

Based on what?

It is a very scientific site, it never uses anything unless its Peer Reviewed and published...if the study is refuted, they remove it. Co2 science is more "scientific" than SkepticalScience, WUWT, Realclimate, Any other blog on the Web in regards to climate, WUWT, RC...all have made glaring errors. All Co2 Science does is Link Peer reviewed Studies on Past Climate Change, and how it compares to today.

So yes, their agenda is truth.

yet you support the notion that republicans deny the Earth has warmed...which is a load of sh*t, mr. Conspiracy theorist.

[tacoman25]

CO2 Science is not a scientific site, it is a skeptic site with a pre-defined agenda.

What exactly makes it non-scientific? Real Climate is run (mostly) by scientists, yet it definitely has a pre-defined agenda as well. There is bias both ways, my friend.

[WeatherRusty]

What exactly makes it non-scientific? Real Climate is run (mostly) by scientists, yet it definitely has a pre-defined agenda as well. There is bias both ways, my friend.

Well first of all CO2 Science is a family owned for profit business:

History

Second of all, they write and print their own descriptions rather than presenting the original study abstracts. Why not allow the original authors of the studies to summarize their work rather than the Idzo family putting their own spin to it?

And they don't hesitate to mention...Co2 is plant food!

[BethesdaWX]

Well first of all CO2 Science is a family owned for profit business:

History

Second of all, they write and print their own descriptions rather than presenting the original study abstracts. Why not allow the original authors of the studies to summarize their work rather than the Idzo family putting their own spin to it?

And they don't hesitate to mention...Co2 is plant food!

They Quote Scientists Directly, and only use peer reviewed science.

And Guess what?..........IPCC does the same exact thing! Takes other scientists work, Peer reviewed or Not, and Uses it to write Public Policy.....Difference is, IPCC cannot even get the elevation of Britian right. Remember, the Himilayan glaciers will be gone in 35 years, and the rainforests are drying up! How terrible!

Good thing they were all errors based of BS non peer reviewed activist studies...

Mr. Numbnut

[WeatherRusty]

They Quote Scientists Directly, and only use peer reviewed science.

And Guess what?..........IPCC does the same exact thing! Takes other scientists work, Peer reviewed or Not, and Uses it to write Public Policy.....Difference is, IPCC cannot even get the elevation of Britian right. Remember, the Himilayan glaciers will be gone in 35 years, and the rainforests are drying up! How terrible!

Good thing they were all errors based of BS non peer reviewed activist studies...

Mr. Numbnut

If I were to be interested in CO2 science I might consider going here before I would a family owned site: SEE HERE

[BethesdaWX]

If I were to be interested in CO2 science I might consider going here before I would a family owned site: SEE HERE

Again, the science is done by Scientists/Peer reviewed data...what does that have to do with the site it is presented on?

The data presented on the CO2Science blog is more related to Past Climate Variations.

Thats like me saying " I use GISS because its warmest". Or "I use UAH because its Coldest"

[VAwxman]

In fact, piracy may be more relevant because pirate's black flags have low albedo, altering the earth's energy budget.

I do have to admit, I got a laugh from this one.

[VAwxman]

So have we settled the argument yet? I have not read the last two pages but assume it is a continuation of the exact same arguments from each side repeated over and over

[BethesdaWX]

its kinda silly, doubt it'll never be settled.

[Isotherm]

So have we settled the argument yet? I have not read the last two pages but assume it is a continuation of the exact same arguments from each side repeated over and over

I haven't read the thread at all, anything worthwhile? It seems no matter the thread topic, it always reverts back to the same old stuff.

[BethesdaWX]

I haven't read the thread at all, anything worthwhile? It seems no matter the thread topic, it always reverts back to the same old stuff.

Thats why I made the General AGW Debate thread, hoping to avoid this.

I'll make a statement that has nothing to do with CO2, and a certain member responds by Ripping me, and making a long string of Hypothetical claims involving CO2 and why I should Shut the F**k up.

It gets old. In case you're wondering, this is the first "off-topic" post

WeatherRusty

By 2056 under a business as usual scenario CO2 concentration should be approximately doubled since pre-industrial times.

The full forcing (3.7W/m^2) by a doubling of CO2 will be in place. However the climate system will not yet have reached equilibrium with that forcing. That equilibrium will require an additional few decades. Depending on how additional atmospheric forcings such as methane and aerosols have progressed, the net forcing will be somewhat more or less than the forcing from CO2 alone.

If we take the anticipated 0.2C/decade average value as most likely, then we should have experienced about another 1C of warming by 2056. Added to the 0.8C we have experienced to date the world should have warmed something like 1.8C since pre-industrial times. However another 1C will remain in the pipeline if the equilibrium climate sensitivity is approximately 3C, which would not be fully realized until late century.

Has nothing to due with the Topic at Hand, and Ignores the issue of Feedbacks which make CO2 warming impossible to determine. The Only way AGW works out is if The feedbacks are positive echoed throughout the Climate system. if they are negative, CO2 warming becomes almost unmeasurable.

And the evidence is against any notion that the climate system is loaded with positive feedbacks.

In fact, the radiative imbalance created by the excess CO2 is too small to measure by our current satellites, which can only measure deviations over 3 watts per Square meter, so we actually cannot persisely measure exactly what causes AGW.

Since we have no way of measuring/determining these feedbacks, its a loss to attempt to implement theories into models...thats where we get our predictions from.

[superjames1992]

So have we settled the argument yet? I have not read the last two pages but assume it is a continuation of the exact same arguments from each side repeated over and over

Welcome to the Climate Change Forum, where the same arguments are rehashed over and over and no one actually changes there mind (just like AP)!

I will admit that reading this forum and other info on the AGW debate has shifted my views a little towards the pro-AGW side, though. I still believe that AGW is over-exaggerated for political regions (just as the outright deniers have their political motivations, as well), but I do believe that we have caused the Earth to warm to some degree since 1800. I do believe that there are natural processes at work, however.

Oh, and I read that future timeline and there seem to be a lot of far-fetched things in there. It was an interesting read, though. From looking at the past, I think it is safe to say that there will be technologies that we never even dreamed of in 50-100 years. Likewise, technologies we expected to occur will not have been developed.

[BethesdaWX]

Welcome to the Climate Change Forum, where the same arguments are rehashed over and over and no one actually changes there mind (just like AP)!

I will admit that reading this forum and other info on the AGW debate has shifted my views a little towards the pro-AGW side, though. I still believe that AGW is over-exaggerated for political regions (just as the outright deniers have their political motivations, as well), but I do believe that we have caused the Earth to warm to some degree since 1800. I do believe that there are natural processes at work, however.

Oh, and I read that future timeline and there seem to be a lot of far-fetched things in there. It was an interesting read, though. From looking at the past, I think it is safe to say that there will be technologies that we never even dreamed of in 50-100 years. Likewise, technologies we expected to occur will not have been developed.

Well, I think everyone is/should be "pro AGW", as I am myself. The confict is regarding "Minor" AGW and "Catastrophic" AGW. It would be silly to say that CO2 is not a GHG, and that it cannot warm the planet.

There are 2 major steps regarding AGW.... Forcing and Feedback. I agree with IPCC in regards to Forcing, If there were no feedbacks, warming from CO2 would equal about 1C per doubing. The second, and hotly debated issue, are the feedbacks.

The assumption by the IPCC, is that the feedbacks to CO2 are predominately positive rather than negative, reflecting a Highly sensitive climate system, thus the range of 2-4.5C per doubling. However, much of that is pure assumption... as the largest issues here are Clouds, Water Vapor, and The Oceans, impact on Global weather phenomenon/GCC, & past climate changes. There is a huge reservoir of evidence supporting the idea that the forcings are predominately negative, rather than positive. Otherwise, the climate system would have self-destructed a long time ago.

So

1), The warming is assumed to be Man-Made by the IPCC in the first place to begin research.

2), Feedbacks are poorly understood (IPCC even states they "do not understand clouds"), and clouds could single-handedly end AGW, or make it much worse.

3), Impacts from Oceanic Oscillations, such as PDO/AMO/IOD, etc, are completely thrown out of the equation, and assumed to have no impact on GCC (clouds) and GWP, which is absurd.

4), The Sun is a Mystery, and a potentially huge player aside from TSI.

There is substantial evidence that Feedbacks within the Climate system are very negative in the tropopause, Low Level Clouds, oceans & their impacts on Clouds & Global Weather Patterns, Frequency of El Nino/La Nina and their Long term impact on Clouds/Sea Ice. The Climate System has always regulated itself from internal imbalances. As in, Terrestrial Climate Forcings have always been met with Negative feedbacks throughout history. This is how the Climate System regulates itself. Otherwise, the Immense warming/Positive feedbacks seen in the Time of the Dinosaurs would have burned the Planet to Smolders of Ash (figuratively of course) Unless of course, it was initiated by the climate system itself, (aka, not CO2).

What has driven the Climate in the Past have been changes in external forcings themselves, not internal forcings, which oscillate in wave-like patterns. Over the Past many Millions of years, CO2 has risen and fallen as a response to temperature increase, lagging temperature by over 800 years. It has never "caused" significant warming., it has only accompanied it, in an 800 year lag.

So yes, most likely, AGW has some merit in regards to Minor changes, but as for significant changes, I feel we'll be falling flat on our faces in 30 years or so.

[WeatherRusty]

Thats why I made the General AGW Debate thread, hoping to avoid this.

I'll make a statement that has nothing to do with CO2, and a certain member responds by Ripping me, and making a long string of Hypothetical claims involving CO2 and why I should Shut the F**k up.

It gets old. In case you're wondering, this is the first "off-topic" post

WeatherRusty

By 2056 under a business as usual scenario CO2 concentration should be approximately doubled since pre-industrial times.

The full forcing (3.7W/m^2) by a doubling of CO2 will be in place. However the climate system will not yet have reached equilibrium with that forcing. That equilibrium will require an additional few decades. Depending on how additional atmospheric forcings such as methane and aerosols have progressed, the net forcing will be somewhat more or less than the forcing from CO2 alone.

If we take the anticipated 0.2C/decade average value as most likely, then we should have experienced about another 1C of warming by 2056. Added to the 0.8C we have experienced to date the world should have warmed something like 1.8C since pre-industrial times. However another 1C will remain in the pipeline if the equilibrium climate sensitivity is approximately 3C, which would not be fully realized until late century.

Has nothing to due with the Topic at Hand, and Ignores the issue of Feedbacks which make CO2 warming impossible to determine. The Only way AGW works out is if The feedbacks are positive echoed throughout the Climate system. if they are negative, CO2 warming becomes almost unmeasurable.

And the evidence is against any notion that the climate system is loaded with positive feedbacks.

In fact, the radiative imbalance created by the excess CO2 is too small to measure by our current satellites, which can only measure deviations over 3 watts per Square meter, so we actually cannot persisely measure exactly what causes AGW.

Since we have no way of measuring/determining these feedbacks, its a loss to attempt to implement theories into models...thats where we get our predictions from.

In post #3 a question was asked by the starter of this thread, which I answered. I am truly sorry. I kneel before Bethesda and beg forgiveness.

[BethesdaWX]

In post #3 a question was asked by the starter of this thread, which I answered. I am truly sorry. I kneel before Bethesda and beg forgiveness.

the question was: I notice it's calling for global temps to rise 3c by the year 2056. Is there any reputable source calling for anything even close to that?

Answer to that is simly No... and has nothing to do with making a prediction ignoring feedbacks I know it seems like I'm just being an Ass...but once one post goes off topic, everything flies off the Handle. I'm a part of it too, believe me, I'm a good 50% of the issue at times.