Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
turbobloke said:
kerplunk said:
climate sensitivity could be at the high end of estimates
My aunt could be my uncle - even with the chromosomal issue, gender is fluid these days, but so far aunty is still aunty. She's not even a model.Tax gas has been around for many decades and has increased continuously as a (very small) proportion of atmispheric gases. However it has clearly been on holiday (see below).
Aside from loaded assumptions in useless climate models, where is the credible empirical data in support of the above wild conjecture regarding climate sensitivity?
This is from Scafetta et al (2017) and shows peer-reviewed publications with claimed transient climate response and equilibtium climate sensitivity metrics declining significantly over time as the climate system has refused to read IPCC conjecture (pure & applied) and refused to cooperate with inaccurate model predictions of climageddon. The difference over time is embarrassing to the faith, but then Trenberth has already pointed out that IPCC climate scientists have no idea where energy is going - as previously noted it went thataway ^^,
At least two papers published too late for inclusion in Scafetta's own 2017 paper show even lower climate sensitivity.
kerplunk said:
So if I understand you correctly, as far as you're concerned, climate sensitivity could be at the high end of estimates, the planet could rapidly warm several degrees in a short time period, but you see no hazard because the last 30 years have been fine.
Have I got that right?
no, i see no evidence either in recent times or historically that the situation you describe is physically possible. Have I got that right?
wc98 said:
kerplunk said:
So if I understand you correctly, as far as you're concerned, climate sensitivity could be at the high end of estimates, the planet could rapidly warm several degrees in a short time period, but you see no hazard because the last 30 years have been fine.
Have I got that right?
no, i see no evidence either in recent times or historically that the situation you describe is physically possible. Have I got that right?
kerplunk said:
wc98 said:
kerplunk said:
So if I understand you correctly, as far as you're concerned, climate sensitivity could be at the high end of estimates, the planet could rapidly warm several degrees in a short time period, but you see no hazard because the last 30 years have been fine.
Have I got that right?
no, i see no evidence either in recent times or historically that the situation you describe is physically possible. Have I got that right?
Diderot said:
Given the performance (obvious total and utter lack of) the models thus far to predict/project anything resembling any kind of reality
Look, you're not great at this so let me try and help. When you're making baseless assertions you need to at least add a graph of some carefully selected data. Try looking for a temperature one that starts at the El Nino peak in 1998, they're the best ones. When you get the hang of that, you can start citing some research. It doesn't have to support your position (and almost all of the time it won't, obviously), but that's not a problem. For many people, as long as it confirms their bias, you don't have to worry about them checking.
Anyway. Hope that helps.
Back to those model projections versus observations:
Projected warming from the IPCC Third Assessment Report (mean projection – thick black line, with upper and lower bounds shown by thin dotted black lines).
Source: https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2017/10/how...
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
wc98 said:
kerplunk said:
So if I understand you correctly, as far as you're concerned, climate sensitivity could be at the high end of estimates, the planet could rapidly warm several degrees in a short time period, but you see no hazard because the last 30 years have been fine.
Have I got that right?
no, i see no evidence either in recent times or historically that the situation you describe is physically possible. Have I got that right?
Do you still maintain you're a sceptic by the way?
durbster said:
Diderot said:
Given the performance (obvious total and utter lack of) the models thus far to predict/project anything resembling any kind of reality
Look, you're not great at this so let me try and help. When you're making baseless assertions you need to at least add a graph of some carefully selected data. Try looking for a temperature one that starts at the El Nino peak in 1998, they're the best ones. When you get the hang of that, you can start citing some research. It doesn't have to support your position (and almost all of the time it won't, obviously), but that's not a problem. For many people, as long as it confirms their bias, you don't have to worry about them checking.
Anyway. Hope that helps.
Back to those model projections versus observations:
Projected warming from the IPCC Third Assessment Report (mean projection – thick black line, with upper and lower bounds shown by thin dotted black lines).
Source: https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2017/10/how...
The models are always already wrong.
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
wc98 said:
kerplunk said:
So if I understand you correctly, as far as you're concerned, climate sensitivity could be at the high end of estimates, the planet could rapidly warm several degrees in a short time period, but you see no hazard because the last 30 years have been fine.
Have I got that right?
no, i see no evidence either in recent times or historically that the situation you describe is physically possible. Have I got that right?
Do you still maintain you're a sceptic by the way?
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
wc98 said:
kerplunk said:
So if I understand you correctly, as far as you're concerned, climate sensitivity could be at the high end of estimates, the planet could rapidly warm several degrees in a short time period, but you see no hazard because the last 30 years have been fine.
Have I got that right?
no, i see no evidence either in recent times or historically that the situation you describe is physically possible. Have I got that right?
Do you still maintain you're a sceptic by the way?
So is that a greater than 50% probability, or is it a kind of 'unknowable' most likely?
Do you think there's much uncertainty in the obs btw? Do they give a reasonable estimate of what's happening?
Edited by kerplunk on Friday 15th February 00:48
I know it's only weather but Hawaii recorded snow at its lowest level ever,
this extra heat in the climate is really cold isn't it?
A Canadian relative sent me a picture of his friends house with a large moose on the roof,
It had got up there because the snow was up to the gutter at the side of the house, the damage caused would make an interesting read without the pictures in an insurance claim.
this extra heat in the climate is really cold isn't it?
A Canadian relative sent me a picture of his friends house with a large moose on the roof,
It had got up there because the snow was up to the gutter at the side of the house, the damage caused would make an interesting read without the pictures in an insurance claim.
PRTVR said:
I know it's only weather but Hawaii recorded snow at its lowest level ever,
this extra heat in the climate is really cold isn't it?
I posted this article the other day - it explains how a warming climate affects weather events of all kinds:this extra heat in the climate is really cold isn't it?
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/02/how-do-we-...
PRTVR said:
A Canadian relative sent me a picture of his friends house with a large moose on the roof,
It had got up there because the snow was up to the gutter at the side of the house, the damage caused would make an interesting read without the pictures in an insurance claim.
You can't say that without sharing the photo It had got up there because the snow was up to the gutter at the side of the house, the damage caused would make an interesting read without the pictures in an insurance claim.
durbster said:
PRTVR said:
I know it's only weather but Hawaii recorded snow at its lowest level ever,
this extra heat in the climate is really cold isn't it?
I posted this article the other day - it explains how a warming climate affects weather events of all kinds:this extra heat in the climate is really cold isn't it?
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/02/how-do-we-...
PRTVR said:
A Canadian relative sent me a picture of his friends house with a large moose on the roof,
It had got up there because the snow was up to the gutter at the side of the house, the damage caused would make an interesting read without the pictures in an insurance claim.
You can't say that without sharing the photo It had got up there because the snow was up to the gutter at the side of the house, the damage caused would make an interesting read without the pictures in an insurance claim.
I loved the probability chart, do you know when it was produced ?
I ask as when did a high probability of cold become the norm, all reports I have read were of less cold, it's almost as if the looked out the window and decided we need a cold sticker
No doubt they have a plague of locusts sticker on standby.
If we have extreme cold and heat will not that affect the global average temperature and show up as a fall in temperature, logically it cannot get warmer with record cold ?
Sorry no picture, it's on my wife's Facebook account and you no us deniers don't do technology
Well you certainly don't do tech when it suits
You say "if we have extreme cold and heat will that not affect the global average temperature..." and the simple answer is that a bad winter locally (ie the USA) might have no impact on the global average as it is obvious that a small rise in other places can very easily negate that. Globally speaking the USA isn't that big covering approximately 1.9% of the Earth's surface. The same is true to an even greater extent if you take a freak Summer or Winter in the UK.
Anyway, do you mind not using Averages around here, some don't like it.
You say "if we have extreme cold and heat will that not affect the global average temperature..." and the simple answer is that a bad winter locally (ie the USA) might have no impact on the global average as it is obvious that a small rise in other places can very easily negate that. Globally speaking the USA isn't that big covering approximately 1.9% of the Earth's surface. The same is true to an even greater extent if you take a freak Summer or Winter in the UK.
Anyway, do you mind not using Averages around here, some don't like it.
durbster said:
Diderot said:
Given the performance (obvious total and utter lack of) the models thus far to predict/project anything resembling any kind of reality
Look, you're not great at this so let me try and help. When you're making baseless assertions you need to at least add a graph of some carefully selected data. Try looking for a temperature one that starts at the El Nino peak in 1998, they're the best ones. When you get the hang of that, you can start citing some research. It doesn't have to support your position (and almost all of the time it won't, obviously), but that's not a problem. For many people, as long as it confirms their bias, you don't have to worry about them checking.
Anyway. Hope that helps.
Back to those model projections versus observations:
Projected warming from the IPCC Third Assessment Report (mean projection – thick black line, with upper and lower bounds shown by thin dotted black lines).
Source: https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2017/10/how...
Opps!
zygalski said:
Does that not show an upward trend?
A yes or no will do
Is there established (not conjectured) causality to humans in any global temperature trend up or down?A yes or no will do
Yes or no as above.
Also if you're reducing the skill of models to that of tossing a coin (warming or cooling) then just say so.
zygalski said:
Does that not show an upward trend?
A yes or no will do
I believe the proper spelling of the word is..A yes or no will do
Oops.
Yes, I was about to post that if you are using the HadCRUT and UAH datasets as your 'proof' then you have to accept Global Warming is real.
It would be good if graphs posted show both axis descriptions but I assume the x axis is from approx 1975 to about 2012.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff