Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
kerplunk said:
Maybe I'm missing something but it seems weird how the paper nowhere mentions that warming IS more enhanced at high latitudes in the northern hemisphere - it's right there in Table 1 (north pole lower trop warming twice as fast as the tropics lower trop) but in the discussion of Table 1 it says:
"According to Hoskins (1991) the expectation for global warming is to be more enhanced at high latitudes near the surface. That is, in the case of global warming occurrence, warming would have been stronger at the poles and would gradually decrease by approaching the equator. However, the pattern depicted in Table 1 does not comply with the gradual increase of the warming with latitude as predicted by the global warming theory."
???
Hoskins is not hemisphere specific. Ergo both north and south hemispheres need to exhibit this behaviour. "According to Hoskins (1991) the expectation for global warming is to be more enhanced at high latitudes near the surface. That is, in the case of global warming occurrence, warming would have been stronger at the poles and would gradually decrease by approaching the equator. However, the pattern depicted in Table 1 does not comply with the gradual increase of the warming with latitude as predicted by the global warming theory."
???
Edited by kerplunk on Friday 5th April 13:26
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
Maybe I'm missing something but it seems weird how the paper nowhere mentions that warming IS more enhanced at high latitudes in the northern hemisphere - it's right there in Table 1 (north pole lower trop warming twice as fast as the tropics lower trop) but in the discussion of Table 1 it says:
"According to Hoskins (1991) the expectation for global warming is to be more enhanced at high latitudes near the surface. That is, in the case of global warming occurrence, warming would have been stronger at the poles and would gradually decrease by approaching the equator. However, the pattern depicted in Table 1 does not comply with the gradual increase of the warming with latitude as predicted by the global warming theory."
???
Hoskins is not hemisphere specific. Ergo both north and south hemispheres need to exhibit this behaviour. "According to Hoskins (1991) the expectation for global warming is to be more enhanced at high latitudes near the surface. That is, in the case of global warming occurrence, warming would have been stronger at the poles and would gradually decrease by approaching the equator. However, the pattern depicted in Table 1 does not comply with the gradual increase of the warming with latitude as predicted by the global warming theory."
???
Edited by kerplunk on Friday 5th April 13:26
Also geographically the southern hemisphere is a lot different from the northern.
So saying "both" here I don't think is a good point science wise and statistically apart from pissing in the wind on an internet forum to prove a point.
XM5ER said:
kerplunk said:
Maybe I'm missing something but it seems weird how the paper nowhere mentions that warming IS more enhanced at high latitudes in the northern hemisphere - it's right there in Table 1 (north pole lower trop warming twice as fast as the tropics lower trop) but in the discussion of Table 1 it says:
"According to Hoskins (1991) the expectation for global warming is to be more enhanced at high latitudes near the surface. That is, in the case of global warming occurrence, warming would have been stronger at the poles and would gradually decrease by approaching the equator. However, the pattern depicted in Table 1 does not comply with the gradual increase of the warming with latitude as predicted by the global warming theory."
???
Feel free to write a rebuttal."According to Hoskins (1991) the expectation for global warming is to be more enhanced at high latitudes near the surface. That is, in the case of global warming occurrence, warming would have been stronger at the poles and would gradually decrease by approaching the equator. However, the pattern depicted in Table 1 does not comply with the gradual increase of the warming with latitude as predicted by the global warming theory."
???
Edited by kerplunk on Friday 5th April 13:26
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
Maybe I'm missing something but it seems weird how the paper nowhere mentions that warming IS more enhanced at high latitudes in the northern hemisphere - it's right there in Table 1 (north pole lower trop warming twice as fast as the tropics lower trop) but in the discussion of Table 1 it says:
"According to Hoskins (1991) the expectation for global warming is to be more enhanced at high latitudes near the surface. That is, in the case of global warming occurrence, warming would have been stronger at the poles and would gradually decrease by approaching the equator. However, the pattern depicted in Table 1 does not comply with the gradual increase of the warming with latitude as predicted by the global warming theory."
???
Hoskins is not hemisphere specific. Ergo both north and south hemispheres need to exhibit this behaviour. "According to Hoskins (1991) the expectation for global warming is to be more enhanced at high latitudes near the surface. That is, in the case of global warming occurrence, warming would have been stronger at the poles and would gradually decrease by approaching the equator. However, the pattern depicted in Table 1 does not comply with the gradual increase of the warming with latitude as predicted by the global warming theory."
???
Edited by kerplunk on Friday 5th April 13:26
My understanding is polar amplification is expected to be robust at the north pole but may take a while to show up at the south pole.
XM5ER said:
kerplunk said:
Not up for discussing then. Thanks for stopping by - cya next time.
Nah. Not really. I CBA with PH anymore, it all got rather groundhog day in 2009, nobody can call me a quitter. 
Just thought I'd drop this into the discussion for those that are interested.
LoonyTunes said:
What happened, did the deniers run out of science?
Here’s your last post........LoonyTunes said:
So no Science once again...just log in, talk rubbish that gets refuted yet again then log out.
Congrats, you actually are the peanut gallery that's been mentioned.
Pure hypocrisy Congrats, you actually are the peanut gallery that's been mentioned.
LoonyTunes said:
Just trying to reignite the thread which seems to have gone cold with Science input. Perhaps Turbobloke or even You could post some stuff that is both Scientific and against the current consensus for it all to fire up again?
The last paper that was linked to seemed fairly clear in stating that AGW doesn’t exist.Doesn't have to adversarial like that really does it, although I guess that's what gets people posting!
Anyway, if anyone's interested in the recent polar amplification topic, over the weekend I came across "The Polar Amplification Model Intercomparison Project (PAMIP)" who released a paper about the project just a couple of weeks ago:
https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/12/1139/2019/gmd-...
From the summary:
Polar amplification – the phenomenon where external radiative forcing produces a larger change in surface temperature at high latitudes than the global average – is robustly simulated by climate models in response to increasing greenhouse gases. Polar amplification is projected to occur at both poles but to be delayed in the Antarctic relative to the Arctic due to strong heat uptake in the Southern Ocean. Arctic amplification appears to be already underway, with recent Arctic warming trends approximately twice as large as the global average and reductions in summer sea ice extent of more than 10 % decade−1. However, recent temperature trends in the Antarctic are non-uniform, with warming over the Antarctic Peninsula and cooling elsewhere, and sea ice extent has actually increased slightly over recent decades in contrast to most climate model simulations.
Anyway, if anyone's interested in the recent polar amplification topic, over the weekend I came across "The Polar Amplification Model Intercomparison Project (PAMIP)" who released a paper about the project just a couple of weeks ago:
https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/12/1139/2019/gmd-...
From the summary:
Polar amplification – the phenomenon where external radiative forcing produces a larger change in surface temperature at high latitudes than the global average – is robustly simulated by climate models in response to increasing greenhouse gases. Polar amplification is projected to occur at both poles but to be delayed in the Antarctic relative to the Arctic due to strong heat uptake in the Southern Ocean. Arctic amplification appears to be already underway, with recent Arctic warming trends approximately twice as large as the global average and reductions in summer sea ice extent of more than 10 % decade−1. However, recent temperature trends in the Antarctic are non-uniform, with warming over the Antarctic Peninsula and cooling elsewhere, and sea ice extent has actually increased slightly over recent decades in contrast to most climate model simulations.
Kawasicki said:
LoonyTunes said:
Just trying to reignite the thread which seems to have gone cold with Science input. Perhaps Turbobloke or even You could post some stuff that is both Scientific and against the current consensus for it all to fire up again?
The last paper that was linked to seemed fairly clear in stating that AGW doesn’t exist.QED
Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 9th April 13:54
kerplunk said:
Kawasicki said:
LoonyTunes said:
Just trying to reignite the thread which seems to have gone cold with Science input. Perhaps Turbobloke or even You could post some stuff that is both Scientific and against the current consensus for it all to fire up again?
The last paper that was linked to seemed fairly clear in stating that AGW doesn’t exist.QED
Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 9th April 13:54
Kawasicki said:
kerplunk said:
Kawasicki said:
LoonyTunes said:
Just trying to reignite the thread which seems to have gone cold with Science input. Perhaps Turbobloke or even You could post some stuff that is both Scientific and against the current consensus for it all to fire up again?
The last paper that was linked to seemed fairly clear in stating that AGW doesn’t exist.QED
Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 9th April 13:54
Kawasicki said:
kerplunk said:
Kawasicki said:
LoonyTunes said:
Just trying to reignite the thread which seems to have gone cold with Science input. Perhaps Turbobloke or even You could post some stuff that is both Scientific and against the current consensus for it all to fire up again?
The last paper that was linked to seemed fairly clear in stating that AGW doesn’t exist.QED
Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 9th April 13:54
Kawasicki said:
LoonyTunes said:
Exactly...now if you could just expand your "in this case" definition out to 97% of the climate science papers published you'd be on a winner.
Rhetoric like that belongs in the politics thread.LoonyTunes said:
I'm busy enjoying the debate going on for a few pages but it always seems to end with a denier either not answering, moving the goalposts, engaging in rhetoric or ad homs or turning it political.
or a warmist swearing and spitting the dummy.i don't thin k i had encountered ludo on ph before. when i was directed here from the politics thread i thought ,oh good, i am going to learn something new here. oh well, how sad , never mind.LoonyTunes said:
Kawasicki said:
LoonyTunes said:
Exactly...now if you could just expand your "in this case" definition out to 97% of the climate science papers published you'd be on a winner.
Rhetoric like that belongs in the politics thread.Kawasicki said:
If only it was so easy to define the warmest year. With future revisions it may change, as we can’t be sure that the data we are recording today is reliable, based on past experience.
citing bom will never work out well in the long run.out of them all that is one organisation i think people will end up with legal trouble in the future. all the rest can produce code and reasonable argument for what they do. not them. utterly ridiculous position for a publicly funded entity to maintain. that the switch to aws would produce higher temps than would be recorded by traditional thermometers is a given.that there is no way to find out by how much is a joke. not one other branch of science would allow that to be hand waved away.Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff