Jump to content

  • Member Statistics

    17,610
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NH8550
    Newest Member
    NH8550
    Joined

At What Point Will You Accept the Existence/Non-Existence of AGW?

Jmister

By Jmister,
in Climate Change

What threshold of temperature change by 2050 and 2100 will cause you to admit in the existence/non-existence of AGW?  

16 members have voted

  1. 1. It is the year 2050. You finally admit AGW is occurring and is a global issue if the global temperature has risen by __ degrees C above the 1981-2010 mean:

    • 0 to 0.5
      2
    • 0.5 to 1.0
      0
    • 1.0 to 1.5
      1
    • 1.5 to 2.0
      2
    • 2.0 to 2.5
      4
    • 2.5 to 3.0
      0
    • >3.0
      1
    • Never - climate has changed rapidly in the past and this is nothing new!
      6

  2. 2. It is the year 2100. You finally admit AGW is occurring and is a major global issue if the global temperature has risen by __ degrees C above the 1981-2010 mean.

    • 0 to 2
      2
    • 2 to 4
      5
    • 4 to 6
      3
    • 6 to 8
      0
    • 8 to 10
      0
    • >10
      0
    • Never - climate has changed rapidly in the past and this is nothing new!
      6

  3. 3. It is the year 2050. You finally admit AGW is NOT a major global issue if the global temperature has changed by __ degrees C from the 1981-2010 mean.

    • < -1
      1
    • -1 to -0.5
      1
    • -0.5 to 0
      2
    • 0 to 0.5
      3
    • 0.5 to 1
      6
    • Never - AGW is already a global issue and will continue to be!
      3

  4. 4. It is the year 2100. You finally admit AGW is NOT a major global issue if the global temperature has changed by __ degrees C from the 1981-2010 mean:

    • < -2
      1
    • -2 to 0
      2
    • 0 to 2
      10
    • 2 to 4
      0
    • 4 to 6
      0
    • 6 to 8
      1
    • Never - AGW is already a global issue and will continue to be!
      2

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply
LocoAko

LocoAko

Posted
Posted

Ugh... no it's not. It's really not at all like that.

 

As a meteorologist, it bothers me that so many other meteorologists try to extrapolate their ideas of "uncertainty" in weather forecasting to the science of climatology. A weather forecast is a forecast of the variability, the "noise". A climate forecast is a forecast of the trends, the "mean". The uncertainties in the two aspects are not comparable.

 

Why even bother? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoastalWx

CoastalWx

Posted
Posted

I agree . We're looking at two totally different behavioral domains. There is no "uncertainty" in the radiative forcing increase via increasing CO2/CH4....the system must heat up to a significant degree. At least initially.

That said, I'm sure there are additional forcings and feedback loops that we have yet to uncover. My studies are mostly in paleoclimate, and there are a number of large historical climate swings that still need explaining. We can track these swings to the precession and obliquity harmonics, but their very abrupt nature suggests an amplifying mechanism that is very sensitive to the equator-to-pole thermal gradient/distribution of insolation.

As Shakespeare said, the past is prologue. I think that applies here very well.

 

I think he was trying to get at some of those uncertainties...or stuff we don't quite have an answer for. You guys are being a little hard on him..I'm sure he knows the basic physics on CO2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...