MIT's global warming prediction

But they won't state what this "theory" is.

What theory are you asking about? A scientific theory is an explanation for some phenomenon. The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life on earth, the big bang theory explains the early stages of the universe. For what are you asking an explanation for?

We have to infer that they are now claiming that a 200PPM increase in CO2 will raise temperature 7 degrees...but of course, they will never say it.

That's a specific prediction of warming rather than a theory. The prediction might be based on theory, but in itself it isn't a theory it's a prediction.

30 years from now, people interviewing real scientists will ask how their universities got duped by the biggest scientific fraud in history and the answer will be "for the money"

More likely the world will be warmer and skeptics will be accepting human greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet but still resisting doing anything about it. 30 years ago skeptics were questioning whether the world had warmed since 1900. Nowadays skeptics wouldn't ever argue that. The history of this subject has been a slow slide by skeptics towards the mainstream science. I suspect that slide is about to accelerate for skeptics have recently put themselves into a falsifiable hole by loudly proclaiming warming has stopped and we are now facing decades of coming cooling due to the Sun, PDO or otherwise mystical natural cycles. There aren't going to be many skeptics left when temperature continues rising in coming years and the promised cooling never materializes.
 
Last edited:

Take a couple minutes and locate the Theory of ManMade Global Warming for the rest of us.
[/QUOTE]


I said nothing manmade whatsoever Frank, you did, and doing so seem to think it's an excuse to deny anything else of significant scientific value

seriously, you deniers are no more honest than those you accuse of being dishonest about the issue
 
But they won't state what this "theory" is.

What theory are you asking about? A scientific theory is an explanation for some phenomenon. The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life on earth, the big bang theory explains the early stages of the universe. For what are you asking an explanation for?

We have to infer that they are now claiming that a 200PPM increase in CO2 will raise temperature 7 degrees...but of course, they will never say it.

That's a specific prediction of warming rather than a theory. The prediction might be based on theory, but in itself it isn't a theory it's a prediction.

30 years from now, people interviewing real scientists will ask how their universities got duped by the biggest scientific fraud in history and the answer will be "for the money"

More likely the world will be warmer and skeptics will be accepting human greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet but still resisting doing anything about it. 30 years ago skeptics were questioning whether the world had warmed since 1900. Nowadays skeptics wouldn't ever argue that. The history of this subject has been a slow slide by skeptics towards the mainstream science.

What Scientific theory explains the phenomenon of "ManMade Global Warming"?
 

Take a couple minutes and locate the Theory of ManMade Global Warming for the rest of us.


I said nothing manmade whatsoever Frank, you did, and doing so seem to think it's an excuse to deny anything else of significant scientific value

seriously, you deniers are no more honest than those you accuse of being dishonest about the issue
[/QUOTE]

I'm denying that a 200PPM increase in CO2 will cause a 5-7 degree increase in temperature.
 
"What Scientific theory explains the phenomenon of "ManMade Global Warming"?"

What scientific theory explains the phenomenon of seasons?

There is no formally named theory
 
"No, not at all. The world operates on its own cycles and the world has been warming for the last 11,000 years on its own. There are subcycles that move between warm and cold like the RWP and the MWP and the 6th Century Climate Catastrophe and the Little Ice Age."

Interestingly though those temperature changes were in tenths of a degree. That they are notable at all speaks volumes about the effects a 2C global temperature rise will have.

And one thing about global temperature changes is they tend to hide the fact the land (where everyone lives) will warm up a lot more than the average.

ipcc_scenario_prediction.gif


modeled_temperature_ipcc.gif


Take A1B for example, that's about 2.5C warming globally over the 21st century. But as you can see from the map that average is dragged down by the oceans. Land temperatures from 2.5C global warming are a lot higher, about 4 degrees C with some areas at high latitudes experiencing as much as 7C warming.

Another little recognized thing is the warming wouldn't stop there. That's the warming by the last decade of the 21st century, what's interesting, but even the IPCC don't go there, is to contemplate how much worse it gets going into the 22nd century. Man is completely hosed by that point as the changes once the world warms that much are very hard to reverse with some changes even being irreversible.





The historical record disagree's with the warmists attempts to disappear the RWP and the MWP. During the MWP England was able to produce enough wine to compete with France.
Something they could never hope to do today. That is a historical fact and it would require far more then a few tenths of a degree to accomplish.
 
"What Scientific theory explains the phenomenon of "ManMade Global Warming"?"

What scientific theory explains the phenomenon of seasons?

There is theory, but I am not aware it has been given a formal name.

So what is it that got "Settled" by this settled science?

There is a theory that no one can even find after a week.
 
And I smell your bullshit.

Really, if you don't have the balls to admit reality, stop posting.
I put this through the "Libberish to English" translator and got the following translation:

"WWWHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!
STOP MAKING ME LOOK LIKE A FUCKING MORAN!!!!!!
I WANNA HAVE GLOBAL FASCISM AND YOU KEEP RUINING MY LIES!!!! WHHAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!"

Let's review...

The sun went through its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

Russia experienced its hottest summer in recorded history going back 1,000 years.

And you can't accept the reality of it.

But thanks for bringing up the sun's activity. It just proves how powerful the increase in CO2 actually is.




And NOAA said that GW had no hand in it at all. That it was a combination of meteorolgical events that caused a blocking in the atmosphere that caused the warming. Or don't you know how to read their reports. Or do you just plug your ears and go "lalala" because you don't like what they're saying?
 
The historical record disagree's with the warmists attempts to disappear the RWP and the MWP. During the MWP England was able to produce enough wine to compete with France. Something they could never hope to do today. That is a historical fact and it would require far more then a few tenths of a degree to accomplish.

England has never competed with France for wine. Trade was heavily one sided from France to England.

England has more vineyards today than it ever had in history. If vineyards are metric for temperature then England is warmer today.

In reality though wine making is not a good proxy of temperature as there are more important drivers of wine making in england than temperature.
 
"No, not at all. The world operates on its own cycles and the world has been warming for the last 11,000 years on its own. There are subcycles that move between warm and cold like the RWP and the MWP and the 6th Century Climate Catastrophe and the Little Ice Age."

Interestingly though those temperature changes were in tenths of a degree. That they are notable at all speaks volumes about the effects a 2C global temperature rise will have.

And one thing about global temperature changes is they tend to hide the fact the land (where everyone lives) will warm up a lot more than the average.

ipcc_scenario_prediction.gif


modeled_temperature_ipcc.gif


Take A1B for example, that's about 2.5C warming globally over the 21st century. But as you can see from the map that average is dragged down by the oceans. Land temperatures from 2.5C global warming are a lot higher, about 4 degrees C with some areas at high latitudes experiencing as much as 7C warming.

Another little recognized thing is the warming wouldn't stop there. That's the warming by the last decade of the 21st century, what's interesting, but even the IPCC don't go there, is to contemplate how much worse it gets going into the 22nd century. Man is completely hosed by that point as the changes once the world warms that much are very hard to reverse with some changes even being irreversible.





The historical record disagree's with the warmists attempts to disappear the RWP and the MWP. During the MWP England was able to produce enough wine to compete with France.
Something they could never hope to do today. That is a historical fact and it would require far more then a few tenths of a degree to accomplish.
I didn't realize that thermometers went 100 years into the future with such 'accuracy'!

Should I be alarmed yet? Or can they start telling me the winners of the next 30 superbowls?
 
The historical record disagree's with the warmists attempts to disappear the RWP and the MWP. During the MWP England was able to produce enough wine to compete with France. Something they could never hope to do today. That is a historical fact and it would require far more then a few tenths of a degree to accomplish.

England has never competed with France for wine. Trade was heavily one sided from France to England.

England has more vineyards today than it ever had in history. If vineyards are metric for temperature then England is warmer today.

In reality though wine making is not a good proxy of temperature as there are more important drivers of wine making in england than temperature.




They did for a short while. Recorded in the Domesday Book are 139 sizeable vinyards. 52 were owned by the Church (mainly Benedictine Monastary's), 11 by the Crown, and 67 by noble families. In the 19th century there were 8 of them. The intervening period is known as the Little Ice Age. Frost Fairs were held on the Thames. That's kind of a hint.
As far as cold affecting grapes I give you Californias experience...




. "The economic loss from the early April hard freeze in California’s Central Coast wine grape vineyards could total as many as 5 million cases of wine.

Veteran coast grape grower Dana Merrill of Templeton, Calif., made that estimate based on a yield loss of 2 tons per acre on 27,000 acres of grapes. He figures production in the Paso Robles area could drop by 54,000 tons.

Merrill made his prediction in an exclusive Western Farm Press e-newsletter, GrapeLine, which went out recently to subscribers.

Merrill owns and manages about 6,000 acres of vineyards on the Central Coast.

You can read more of what Merrill had to say by visiting recent issues of GrapeLine at Western Farm Press | Subscribe where you can also subscribe to future, exclusive issues.

GrapeLine is written by the Farm Press staff and sponsored by Chemtura.

Also, in the latest issue of the twice-monthly grape growers e-newsletter, Sonoma County’s Duff Bevill talks about what is shaping up to be an “average” crop in that premium North Coast wine grape producing county.

So far, his vineyards have escaped any frost, insect and disease threats and the marketing is picking up steam.

“We’ve already sold some Cabernet Sauvignon to several wineries that came out earlier this year. We’re now talking with half-a-dozen buyers about selling other varieties,” Bevill says.

Bevill Vineyard Management LLC is based in Healdsburg, Calif.

He talks more about the progress of this year’s crop in the latest GrapeLine."


Central Coast frost loss could total 5 million cases of wine | Grapes content from Western Farm Press
 

Forum List

Back
Top