Jonger Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 I am not a atmospheric scientist yet, but until we can send a satellite into the past, we will never truly know the climate history. We are basically using 50 years of weather and comparing it to the recent 10 years of weather.There is no way icecores are as accurate as a satellite thermometor( don't know the scientific name), we should not even put it in the same chart as satellite data. If a scientist wants to use icecores in a chart/graph they should use the ice that was deposited in 2011 to compare it with ancient ice. If a scientist use satellite data they should only compare it to satellite data. It is soo simple. It will eliminate a lot of varibles. Thats why we have all the debates now days. We are supposed to use reconstructed data as a foundation for plunging our civilization back to the dark ages. If that isnt the intent of the scientists (which I don't think it is) then we are just getting reconstructed data rammed down our throats. Real accurate data is probably 50 years old. Everything before then is garbage. I was going to type more about this, but its a waste of time describing garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 If a "trick" were used to "hide the decline" in temperature, you would have to believe that temperature has in reality fallen since about 1960. Do think global temp has fallen since 1960? Do you really believe the decline referred to temperature at all? If not then why do you and other skeptics persist with this trickery? Its probably inched upward slightly. Its been inching upward for 250 years. Before the little ice age it was probably inching upward for the previous 8000+ years. The natural movement of temps is upward. I'm sure humans probably account for some of it, but barely more then noise on a gauge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srain Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 I'm curious now--what are your degrees in, and what have you published? The same could be said for you. Be very specific with your degrees and what you have published. Provide links to those publications as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phlwx Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Why do many mets become mets? cold and snow. That's arguably one of the worst arguments of why mets become mets I've ever seen. A percentage, yes, are drawn in because of snow or snowstorms as kids but a large percentage have a natural inclination towards all things weather or dealt with other weather disasters as kids which heightened their interest in the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 The same could be said for you. Be very specific with your degrees and what you have published. Provide links to those publications as well. No sir, wxtrix is not the one claiming the proxy/paleo climate record to be "garbage". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Its probably inched upward slightly. Its been inching upward for 250 years. Before the little ice age it was probably inching upward for the previous 8000+ years. The natural movement of temps is upward. I'm sure humans probably account for some of it, but barely more then noise on a gauge. Is that so? The natural trend over the past 8000 years has been downward due mostly to the precession of the equinoxes. You come in here with little background and proclaim climate science to be junk. Then a moderator lends support to your non-scientific "opinion". Typical of how the skeptics get placed on equal ground with mainstream science. It's a sad reality that science is so disrespected when it comes to certain subjects such as biological evolution and global warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srain Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Is that so? The natural trend over the past 8000 years has been downward due mostly to the precession of the equinoxes. You come in here with little background and proclaim climate science to be junk. Then a moderator lends support to your non-scientific "opinion". Typical of how the skeptics get placed on equal ground with mainstream science. It's a sad reality that science is so disrespected when it comes to certain subjects such as biological evolution and global warming. This is absolutely false. It would be better to have an actual discussion rather that calling people out because you disagree with their premise. This is not OT and is an open forum for all to see... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 This is absolutely false. It would be better to have an actual discussion rather that calling people out because you disagree with their premise. This is not OT and is an open forum for all to see... It is not me disagreeing with a premise, it's that of the scientific community. It is because of these type 'discussion' that recent commentators have voiced the opinion that this forum is a joke. Where is the credibility in having to endlessly defend mainstream science against "personal opinion"? This climate forum (and other's like it) portray the true nature of the public debate in general. So, recognizing that it is a free and open discussion (not moderated for scientific content) I will have to reluctantly agree with you. Just bear in mind that this plays right into the agenda of the skeptics/deniers to confuse the general public. That's life I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Earlier on this thread we were trying to understand why persons who certainly knew better were posting arguments that they not only knew were false, but knew would be convincingly rebutted almost immediately. I'm not sure that Jonger meets the criteria - he could be an individual that has not yet been exposed to the vast body of knowledge on this subject, or he may be incapable intellectually or emotionally of assimilating it. I assume that wxtrix was trying to unravel this mystery. It's OK to have and express opinions that diverge from orthodoxy on this or any other subject, but simply restating the arguments of others, that have already been debunked, is both a rude and ineffective method of advancing your cause. There are certain posters who, lacking any credibility themselves, simply attempt to discredit a thread, and hence the site itself. I'm not sure that defending them adds anything to the reputation of the site, unless possibly the objective is to provide a haven for those disseminating untruths as opposed to advancing a knowledgeable discussion? There are I'm sure, arguments to be made on both sides, that don't violate known laws of physics, chemistry or statistics, and these I feel should be explored vigorously. There are neophytes that honestly don't know more than what they've heard in casual conversation, these should be encouraged to learn if there is an interest, or to refrain from disrupting conversations if there is not. For those that are emotionally unable to deal with the prospect that climate has been altered, and not for the better, I'd think that avoidance of the subject might be preferable to continually watching as ones arguments are destroyed. This is probably not a discussion that will add to your sense of well being and it could elicit feelings of despondency. Ignorance, in this case, may provide a semblance of bliss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPizz Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 That last post should be in the science is settled thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 That last post should be in the science is settled thread. What areas of the science are you concerned with being unsettled? Also, does it concern you that the title of this thread implies that the Met Office expects there to be no warming over the next 15 years when they said no such thing. Just trying to advance the discussion without disparaging you, although you are free to disparage mainstream science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewave Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 What areas of the science are you concerned with being unsettled? Also, does it concern you that the title of this thread implies that the Met Office expects there to be no warming over the next 15 years when they said no such thing. Just trying to advance the discussion without disparaging you, although you are free to disparage mainstream science. The Met Office really doesn't know what the global temperature pattern is going to be over the next 15 years. I don't believe that they acknowledge any forecasting skill over decadal or longer time scales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 The Met Office really doesn't know what the global temperature pattern is going to be over the next 15 years. I don't believe that they acknowledge any forecasting skill over decadal or longer time scales. The Met Office was pretty clear in their report that they predict that there will be substantial warming in the future. Here is the link to the actual UK Met Office paper - Decline in solar output unlikely to offset global warming http://www.metoffice...output-research An exerpt relevant to future warming: It found that the most likely outcome was that the Sun's output would decrease up to 2100, but this would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCC's B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions). To warm the expected 2.42 C in the next 88 years would take a rate of about 0.28 C/decade. This is much higher than the current (depending on whose figures you believe) warming of 0.15 - 0.18 C/decade. I take that to mean that the UK Met Office not only expects warming, they expect accelerated warming assuming BAU on GHG emissions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewave Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 The Met Office was pretty clear in their report that they predict that there will be substantial warming in the future. Here is the link to the actual UK Met Office paper - Decline in solar output unlikely to offset global warming http://www.metoffice...output-research An exerpt relevant to future warming: It found that the most likely outcome was that the Sun's output would decrease up to 2100, but this would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an http://www.ft.com/in...l#axzz1lRqq5RTB warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCC's B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions). To warm the expected 2.42 C in the next 88 years would take a rate of about 0.28 C/decade. This is much higher than the current (depending on whose figures you believe) warming of 0.15 - 0.18 C/decade. I take that to mean that the UK Met Office not only expects warming, they expect accelerated warming assuming BAU on GHG emissions. It really doesn't matter what they expect since they have no skill at long range forecasting. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8462890.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 It really doesn't matter what they expect since they have no skill at long range forecasting. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8462890.stm Who do you feel has greater skill? And what is their long-term warming forecast? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewave Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Who do you feel has greater skill? And what is their long-term warming forecast? These long range climate forecasts are kind of like cold psychic readings. The more general that you leave the forecast, the greater the chance that you can claim that it was correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 These long range climate forecasts are kind of like cold psychic readings. The more general that you leave the forecast, the greater the chance that you can claim that it was correct. I haven't seen that plot before and it looks interesting. Could you please share the link to it so I can better understand their scenarios. Offhand it looks like Scenario B is closest to what we've seen since the plot was created in 2005. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 It really doesn't matter what they expect since they have no skill at long range forecasting. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8462890.stm They are trying to predict short term variability with not the greatest of success. I don't put to much stock in a 15 year forecast either. All I can tell you is that over the long term (decades) global temps will keep on rising. The globe will not warm equally everywhere, Europe may warm faster than the U.S. and Greece more so than England. To this point the far northern latitudes have warm twice as fast as the global average. Trying to determine the state of the atmosphere over England next summer is a whole lot more difficult a task compared to saying by the middle of this century global temps will be at least several tenths of a degree warmer than today. I can confidently say that because the mechanism causing the warming is only growing stronger with time. There is no question that it will remain in place, unlike all the multiple variables which go into predicting next summer's weather in _____________ as opposed to __________. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewave Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 They are trying to predict short term variability with not the greatest of success. I don't put to much stock in a 15 year forecast either. All I can tell you is that over the long term (decades) global temps will keep on rising. The globe will not warm equally everywhere, Europe may warm faster than the U.S. and Greece more so than England. To this point the far northern latitudes have warm twice as fast as the global average. Trying to determine the state of the atmosphere over England next summer is a whole lot more difficult a task compared to saying by the middle of this century global temps will be at least several tenths of a degree warmer than today. I can confidently say that because the mechanism causing the warming is only growing stronger with time. There is no question that it will remain in place, unlike all the multiple variables which go into predicting next summer's weather in _____________ as opposed to __________. It's really the extent of the warming that is at issue. I don't see anything currently on the horizon that would reverse the long term warming trend coming out of the Little Ice Age. But scientists leading with the most extreme scenarios hurt their credibility .I understand the experimental nature of long range forecasts and only fault the forecasters when they oversell the certainty of their forecasts before they verify. http://journals.amet.../2011BAMS3139.1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 It's really the extent of the warming that is at issue. I don't see anything currently on the horizon that would reverse the long term warming trend coming out of the Little Ice Age. But scientists leading with the most extreme scenarios hurt their credibility .I understand the experimental nature of long range forecasts and only fault the forecasters when they oversell the certainty of their forecasts before they verify. http://journals.amet.../2011BAMS3139.1 Very good article you posted there. I scanned through it and will read it more completely later. Yes, we agree that it is the extent of the warming which is at issue. Climate sensitivity has not been pinned down to an exact number, and an exact number likely does not exist. Each instance of climate change in the past and future could have it's own unique sensitivity to a given forcing. The best estimates cluster in the range of 2C-4.5C for climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2. I think the claim by skeptics of global warming and climate change are considered to be settled science and that scientists believe the outcome can be positively known is way overblown. Plenty of uncertainty is acknowledged. What that means though is that we can no better rule out the more extreme outcomes than the lesser ones deemed within the range of uncertainty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.