Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
kerplunk said:
Real Climate said:
The CERN/CLOUD results are surprisingly interesting…
...All-in-all this is a treasure trove of results (and potential future results) for people tasked with trying to model or understand aerosol processes in the atmosphere...
...In summary, this is a great example of doing science and making progress, even if it isn’t what they first thought they’d find.
...All-in-all this is a treasure trove of results (and potential future results) for people tasked with trying to model or understand aerosol processes in the atmosphere...
...In summary, this is a great example of doing science and making progress, even if it isn’t what they first thought they’d find.
turbobloke said:
RealClimate don't think it's much to write home about.
Isn't settled?
Shirley, someone "who matters" in Climate Science circles will now stand up and put a halt to this IPCC foolishness?
There must be men and women with enough integrity to point out that the science in not settled, the models are not fit for purpose and therefore, any conclusions made on the back of their predictions are by necessity, dubious at most.
There must be men and women with enough integrity to point out that the science in not settled, the models are not fit for purpose and therefore, any conclusions made on the back of their predictions are by necessity, dubious at most.
There's more stand-up comedy around at the mo.
NASA notes sea level is falling in press release but calls it a Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
These rocket scientists can't let the junkscience addiction drop for a second
Oh yes, just remembered - until they retire or move on
Hang on though, are NASA saying that floods were caused by ENSO not by tax gas, that sea level is affected by ENSO in a way that dominates tax gas, and that at the root of it all, recent temperature changes are due to ENSO not tax gas? Cor.
Still not to worry: "We’re heating up the planet, and in the end that means more sea level rise" What a pity the data doesn't say the same thing. Not exactly a tough call. The explanation given for a shift from +3mm/year to -6mm/year doesn't hold water (not my pun) see the link. That is explained by reference to a NASA diagram which is inconsistent with its own explanation. Then in the comments Willis gets a few home truths.
Do take a look at the article and responses to it, the entire piece makes fascinating reading. Having said that, those who can't cope with unthreading obfuscation on RC or with an explanation of it on here - don't bother.
NASA notes sea level is falling in press release but calls it a Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
These rocket scientists can't let the junkscience addiction drop for a second
Oh yes, just remembered - until they retire or move on
Hang on though, are NASA saying that floods were caused by ENSO not by tax gas, that sea level is affected by ENSO in a way that dominates tax gas, and that at the root of it all, recent temperature changes are due to ENSO not tax gas? Cor.
Still not to worry: "We’re heating up the planet, and in the end that means more sea level rise" What a pity the data doesn't say the same thing. Not exactly a tough call. The explanation given for a shift from +3mm/year to -6mm/year doesn't hold water (not my pun) see the link. That is explained by reference to a NASA diagram which is inconsistent with its own explanation. Then in the comments Willis gets a few home truths.
Do take a look at the article and responses to it, the entire piece makes fascinating reading. Having said that, those who can't cope with unthreading obfuscation on RC or with an explanation of it on here - don't bother.
Edited by turbobloke on Friday 26th August 13:26
Blib said:
Shirley, someone "who matters" in Climate Science circles will now stand up and put a halt to this IPCC foolishness?
There must be men and women with enough integrity to point out that the science in not settled, the models are not fit for purpose and therefore, any conclusions made on the back of their predictions are by necessity, dubious at most.
What, you mean a warmist optimist There must be men and women with enough integrity to point out that the science in not settled, the models are not fit for purpose and therefore, any conclusions made on the back of their predictions are by necessity, dubious at most.
It's far worse than that.
There are no wheels on the wagon, the wagon is matchwood, it just fell off a cliff, those on it are spinning like tops as they fall and the public don't believe a word of it any more.
Politicians on the other hand...
Some comments from Watts on the NASA nonsense.
Well, you can’t fake it forever I guess…when Envisat was launched, showed falling sea levels and they adjusted it back up to what the computer climate models said sea level rise should be……they can’t keep adjusting it back up forever……………
I am getting confused again. Last year the Warmista were telling me that the floods and droughts were because of global warming. Now they need to have the floods and droughts caused by La Nina/El Nino so that they can use it to explain falling sea levels, but Global warming is still going to make the sea level rise again after its finished whatever it is off doing this year, (Alerting Aliens to our presence perhaps). I need them to get their story straight. It is enough to make one want to row to a random point in the Canadian arctic to get away from it all.
It’s pretty clear what’s happening: global warming is evaporating the oceans. Extrapolating this trend in models, I find that by 2100 there will be a sea level of zero. That’s right, no more oceans. Maybe you denialists don’t need oceans, but there’s no reason the rest of humanity has to be dragged down with you.
NASA = HOGWASH. We need to stop funding this corrupt, bureaucratic propaganda machine.
Let’s see, sea level rise is proof of Global Warming and sea level drop is more proof of global warming
Obama said, “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow”
That last one sounds like it came from an interview with Johann Hari.
Well, you can’t fake it forever I guess…when Envisat was launched, showed falling sea levels and they adjusted it back up to what the computer climate models said sea level rise should be……they can’t keep adjusting it back up forever……………
I am getting confused again. Last year the Warmista were telling me that the floods and droughts were because of global warming. Now they need to have the floods and droughts caused by La Nina/El Nino so that they can use it to explain falling sea levels, but Global warming is still going to make the sea level rise again after its finished whatever it is off doing this year, (Alerting Aliens to our presence perhaps). I need them to get their story straight. It is enough to make one want to row to a random point in the Canadian arctic to get away from it all.
It’s pretty clear what’s happening: global warming is evaporating the oceans. Extrapolating this trend in models, I find that by 2100 there will be a sea level of zero. That’s right, no more oceans. Maybe you denialists don’t need oceans, but there’s no reason the rest of humanity has to be dragged down with you.
NASA = HOGWASH. We need to stop funding this corrupt, bureaucratic propaganda machine.
Let’s see, sea level rise is proof of Global Warming and sea level drop is more proof of global warming
Obama said, “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow”
That last one sounds like it came from an interview with Johann Hari.
Clouds always seem to have been a stumbling block - even for the 'gurus' at the IPCC.
They don't seem to know if they raise or lower temps - and now we know that they have no knowledge of a (major) factor in the formation of clouds.
Added to the recent admission by the Met Office that it has had to resort to major tweakage in its modelling to account for lack of ocean surface temperature rises, then this adds to the evidence which we knew all along.
(1) Climate Science is in its infancy
(2) To understand the climate is to understand pretty much every physical mechanism occurring on the planet
(3) To model the climate, you pretty much have to create a 'virtual world' plus solar and other planetary influences
(4) Computational techniques and computer hardware or not yet able to do this - even if the 'knowledge' of all the interactions were present (which it is not).
As a species - we're not quite ready to forecast what's going to happen to our planet in the medium to long term!
Politicians, however, do make such forecasts. I guess they must therefore not be part of the human race.
QED
They don't seem to know if they raise or lower temps - and now we know that they have no knowledge of a (major) factor in the formation of clouds.
Added to the recent admission by the Met Office that it has had to resort to major tweakage in its modelling to account for lack of ocean surface temperature rises, then this adds to the evidence which we knew all along.
(1) Climate Science is in its infancy
(2) To understand the climate is to understand pretty much every physical mechanism occurring on the planet
(3) To model the climate, you pretty much have to create a 'virtual world' plus solar and other planetary influences
(4) Computational techniques and computer hardware or not yet able to do this - even if the 'knowledge' of all the interactions were present (which it is not).
As a species - we're not quite ready to forecast what's going to happen to our planet in the medium to long term!
Politicians, however, do make such forecasts. I guess they must therefore not be part of the human race.
QED
So, chances of a 3rd hard winter with lots of heavy snow and widespread travel misery for many?
Im going for 99.9% certain, however i await the wise telling me that dispite having 2 foot of snow in my garden,it was the warmest winter in all of recorded history but more taxes will stop it from being such.
Im going for 99.9% certain, however i await the wise telling me that dispite having 2 foot of snow in my garden,it was the warmest winter in all of recorded history but more taxes will stop it from being such.
A.J.M said:
So, chances of a 3rd hard winter with lots of heavy snow and widespread travel misery for many?
Im going for 99.9% certain, however i await the wise telling me that dispite having 2 foot of snow in my garden,it was the warmest winter in all of recorded history but more taxes will stop it from being such.
Last December was cold, the entire Winter was much more average. Spring was a drought, again Spring/Summer has been much more average. This shows nothing more than the stupidity of looking at short term events and trying to discern any sort or meaning. However in modern times the pattern repeated several times has been that when we have severe cold spells in Winters, they appear in clusters - like in the mid-late 80s. So the chances are there will be some severe cold spells this coming Winter, if we go several years without any, then mild & wet will resume as the best bet.Im going for 99.9% certain, however i await the wise telling me that dispite having 2 foot of snow in my garden,it was the warmest winter in all of recorded history but more taxes will stop it from being such.
Different to wwhat was previously thought - which wasn't settled.
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2011/08/24/newly-d...
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2011/08/24/newly-d...
turbobloke said:
There's more stand-up comedy around at the mo.
NASA notes sea level is falling in press release but calls it a Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
These rocket scientists can't let the junkscience addiction drop for a second
Oh yes, just remembered - until they retire or move on
Hang on though, are NASA saying that floods were caused by ENSO not by tax gas, that sea level is affected by ENSO in a way that dominates tax gas, and that at the root of it all, recent temperature changes are due to ENSO not tax gas? Cor.
Still not to worry: "We’re heating up the planet, and in the end that means more sea level rise" What a pity the data doesn't say the same thing. Not exactly a tough call. The explanation given for a shift from +3mm/year to -6mm/year doesn't hold water (not my pun) see the link. That is explained by reference to a NASA diagram which is inconsistent with its own explanation. Then in the comments Willis gets a few home truths.
Do take a look at the article and responses to it, the entire piece makes fascinating reading. Having said that, those who can't cope with unthreading obfuscation on RC or with an explanation of it on here - don't bother.
3.2mm a yearNASA notes sea level is falling in press release but calls it a Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
These rocket scientists can't let the junkscience addiction drop for a second
Oh yes, just remembered - until they retire or move on
Hang on though, are NASA saying that floods were caused by ENSO not by tax gas, that sea level is affected by ENSO in a way that dominates tax gas, and that at the root of it all, recent temperature changes are due to ENSO not tax gas? Cor.
Still not to worry: "We’re heating up the planet, and in the end that means more sea level rise" What a pity the data doesn't say the same thing. Not exactly a tough call. The explanation given for a shift from +3mm/year to -6mm/year doesn't hold water (not my pun) see the link. That is explained by reference to a NASA diagram which is inconsistent with its own explanation. Then in the comments Willis gets a few home truths.
Do take a look at the article and responses to it, the entire piece makes fascinating reading. Having said that, those who can't cope with unthreading obfuscation on RC or with an explanation of it on here - don't bother.
Edited by turbobloke on Thursday 25th August 17:21
I remember we were told that sea levels would rise 5 meters by a week next tuesday
to reach 5 meters at this huge increase in sea levels will take 1500 years
A meter will take 312 years
Ill not start buying sandbags yet being 100 meters above sea level but its in my diary to buy them at some point in the next 30,000 years
turbobloke said:
At the current rate of sea level fall we'll be walking across to France never mind about sandbags
On the wider front with information coming through against warmist doctrine, it's amazing that the science isn't settled - people will be in shock
A perfectly natural phenomenon in our planet's history. Hasn't stopped mankind from getting to where he is today though.On the wider front with information coming through against warmist doctrine, it's amazing that the science isn't settled - people will be in shock
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff