Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
And if you were to read the whole context, you would see that he is speaking of the fact that the warming we are seeing is not as much as it should be by the models. So, is the extra heat being stored somewhere, is it being reflected, where is it?
In the meanwhile, we are seeing far more effects from the present rate of heating than any of the models predicted, or predict at present, for that matter.
In other words, you are entirely correct when you state we do not have a good handle on all that is going on in the climatic response to the very rapid increase in GHGs. Unfortunetly, the predictions of the alarmists seem to be rather conservative when compared to what we are seeing now in weather events and in the arctic.
I'm confused by your post. The warming is not as much as the models predict and yet the predictions are rather conservative?
How can the predictions be both too high and too low?
go play your games somewhere else, dumbass
Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly
Sea Ice Volume is calculated using the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) developed at APL/PSC by Dr. J. Zhang and collaborators. Anomalies for each day are calculated relative to the average over the 1979 -2009 period for that day to remove the annual cycle. The model mean seasonal cycle of sea ice volume ranges from 28,600 km^3 in April to 13,400 km^3 in September. The blue line represents the trend calculated from January 1 1979 to the most recent date indicated on the figure. Monthly average Arctic Ice Volume for Sept 2010 was 4,000 km^3, the lowest over the 1979-2010 period, 78% below the 1979 maximum and 9,400 km^3 or 70% below its mean for the 1979-2009 period. Shaded areas represent one and two standard deviations of the anomaly from the trend. Updates will be generated at approximately two-weekly intervals.
Polar Science Center - APL-UW - Arctic Sea Ice Volume
I don't think that anyone doubts that the globe warms. I think associating human activities with it is a bit arrogant of us has humans. Should we clean up our act? sure. Should we find alternative fuel sources that create less polution? Yes. Have people caused global warming? Doubt it.
Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly
Sea Ice Volume is calculated using the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) developed at APL/PSC by Dr. J. Zhang and collaborators. Anomalies for each day are calculated relative to the average over the 1979 -2009 period for that day to remove the annual cycle. The model mean seasonal cycle of sea ice volume ranges from 28,600 km^3 in April to 13,400 km^3 in September. The blue line represents the trend calculated from January 1 1979 to the most recent date indicated on the figure. Monthly average Arctic Ice Volume for Sept 2010 was 4,000 km^3, the lowest over the 1979-2010 period, 78% below the 1979 maximum and 9,400 km^3 or 70% below its mean for the 1979-2009 period. Shaded areas represent one and two standard deviations of the anomaly from the trend. Updates will be generated at approximately two-weekly intervals.
Polar Science Center - APL-UW - Arctic Sea Ice Volume
I don't think that anyone doubts that the globe warms. I think associating human activities with it is a bit arrogant of us has humans. Should we clean up our act? sure. Should we find alternative fuel sources that create less polution? Yes. Have people caused global warming? Doubt it.
Brian, events do not occur in a vacuum. Something causes them. Several times in the geological past we have seen rapid warming as the result of rapid increases in GHGs. Those were caused by volcanic events. Today, the rapid increase of GHGs in the atmosphere is caused by humans burning fossil fuels. However, that does not matter in the least as far as the physics of the situation is concerned.
Whatever the source of the GHGs, the result will still be rapid warming. The link I gave you was the the American Institute of Physics. The information is written by physicists. Real scientists currently practicing their profession.
In NY we got out 5th major dump of AGW this winter with possibly another foot coming in on Tuesday.
(not my house)
go play your games somewhere else, dumbass
CAN'T answer it?
Or don't want to?
go play your games somewhere else, dumbass
CAN'T answer it?
Or don't want to?
Really....either is fine.
But a Scientist would try, if they knew how.
I don't think that anyone doubts that the globe warms. I think associating human activities with it is a bit arrogant of us has humans. Should we clean up our act? sure. Should we find alternative fuel sources that create less polution? Yes. Have people caused global warming? Doubt it.
Brian, events do not occur in a vacuum. Something causes them. Several times in the geological past we have seen rapid warming as the result of rapid increases in GHGs. Those were caused by volcanic events. Today, the rapid increase of GHGs in the atmosphere is caused by humans burning fossil fuels. However, that does not matter in the least as far as the physics of the situation is concerned.
Whatever the source of the GHGs, the result will still be rapid warming. The link I gave you was the the American Institute of Physics. The information is written by physicists. Real scientists currently practicing their profession.
Care to prove that. There is no empirical evidence for any of what you have stated.
Well, poor Portland, Oregon is getting rained on again. Going to be in the mid 50s for the rest of the week, maybe 60+ on the Oregon beaches. On the last week of January.
Had that in February last year. Warm February and March, cool April, May, and June. Wonder what we will see this year. The norm for a La Nina winter is cool and wet. All we have seen thus far is wet. Very brief periods of cool, hasn't been cold yet. Even Eastern Oregon is unusauly warm this year.
Well, poor Portland, Oregon is getting rained on again. Going to be in the mid 50s for the rest of the week, maybe 60+ on the Oregon beaches. On the last week of January.
Brian, events do not occur in a vacuum. Something causes them. Several times in the geological past we have seen rapid warming as the result of rapid increases in GHGs. Those were caused by volcanic events. Today, the rapid increase of GHGs in the atmosphere is caused by humans burning fossil fuels. However, that does not matter in the least as far as the physics of the situation is concerned.
Whatever the source of the GHGs, the result will still be rapid warming. The link I gave you was the the American Institute of Physics. The information is written by physicists. Real scientists currently practicing their profession.
Care to prove that. There is no empirical evidence for any of what you have stated.
Methane catastrophe
And if you were to read the whole context, you would see that he is speaking of the fact that the warming we are seeing is not as much as it should be by the models. So, is the extra heat being stored somewhere, is it being reflected, where is it?
In the meanwhile, we are seeing far more effects from the present rate of heating than any of the models predicted, or predict at present, for that matter.
In other words, you are entirely correct when you state we do not have a good handle on all that is going on in the climatic response to the very rapid increase in GHGs. Unfortunetly, the predictions of the alarmists seem to be rather conservative when compared to what we are seeing now in weather events and in the arctic.
I'm confused by your post. The warming is not as much as the models predict and yet the predictions are rather conservative?
How can the predictions be both too high and too low?
Then read it more carefully. The amount of heat that they have measured in the oceans is not as much as was expected. The amount of heating in the Arctic is far greater than expected. The amount of ice melted, ice caps and mountain glaciers, is more than expected. And the present weather events we are seeing were not expected to begin this soon.
I'm confused by your post. The warming is not as much as the models predict and yet the predictions are rather conservative?
How can the predictions be both too high and too low?
Then read it more carefully. The amount of heat that they have measured in the oceans is not as much as was expected. The amount of heating in the Arctic is far greater than expected. The amount of ice melted, ice caps and mountain glaciers, is more than expected. And the present weather events we are seeing were not expected to begin this soon.
Well, reading what you just wrote, it seems the experts are abslutely befuddled by what they are seeing vs. what they expected to see. Whether they are predicting a result too high or too low, when the result is different than the prediction, they are, in the end, just wrong.
Since they seem to be wrong every time, a nearly unblemished record in this arena, one might suppose they are either just guessing or conforming their predictions to a predefined "goal" result as opposed to a data driven result.
As a tax payer who has some of his taxes wasted on these researched predictions, I would prefer simple guessing as opposed to heavily funded research based prediction as it would still be wrong, but at least would be less costly.
How many times and to what degree must a credentialed person be wrong before he becomes a climate "expert"?
I'm confused by your post. The warming is not as much as the models predict and yet the predictions are rather conservative?
How can the predictions be both too high and too low?
Then read it more carefully. The amount of heat that they have measured in the oceans is not as much as was expected. The amount of heating in the Arctic is far greater than expected. The amount of ice melted, ice caps and mountain glaciers, is more than expected. And the present weather events we are seeing were not expected to begin this soon.
Well, reading what you just wrote, it seems the experts are abslutely befuddled by what they are seeing vs. what they expected to see. Whether they are predicting a result too high or too low, when the result is different than the prediction, they are, in the end, just wrong.
Since they seem to be wrong every time, a nearly unblemished record in this arena, one might suppose they are either just guessing or conforming their predictions to a predefined "goal" result as opposed to a data driven result.
As a tax payer who has some of his taxes wasted on these researched predictions, I would prefer simple guessing as opposed to heavily funded research based prediction as it would still be wrong, but at least would be less costly.
How many times and to what degree must a credentialed person be wrong before he becomes a climate "expert"?
Brian, events do not occur in a vacuum. Something causes them. Several times in the geological past we have seen rapid warming as the result of rapid increases in GHGs. Those were caused by volcanic events. Today, the rapid increase of GHGs in the atmosphere is caused by humans burning fossil fuels. However, that does not matter in the least as far as the physics of the situation is concerned.
Whatever the source of the GHGs, the result will still be rapid warming. The link I gave you was the the American Institute of Physics. The information is written by physicists. Real scientists currently practicing their profession.
Care to prove that. There is no empirical evidence for any of what you have stated.
Methane catastrophe
