The world consensus about anthropogenic climate change

[Old Rocks]

Rolling Thunder actually believes that his links are peer-reviewed pieces?????????


Then, we have OldRocks posting his blogs.







PEER-REVIEVEWED science. Post that. Evaluate THAT. All you are doing is allowing others to think for you. I understand why, too.

My, my, ol' Si chimes in again. Silly ass, post something to support you assinine point of view.

 

[westwall]

Rolling Thunder actually believes that his links are peer-reviewed pieces?????????


Then, we have OldRocks posting his blogs.







PEER-REVIEVEWED science. Post that. Evaluate THAT. All you are doing is allowing others to think for you. I understand why, too.

Climate response to increasing levels of greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols


Climate response to increasing levels of greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols


J. F. B. Mitchell, T. C. Johns, J. M. Gregory & S. F. B. Tett


Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, Meteorological Office, Bracknell RG12 2SY, UK


CLIMATE models suggest that increases in greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere should have produced a larger global mean warming than has been observed in recent decades, unless the climate is less sensitive than is predicted by the present generation of coupled general circulation models1,2. After greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols probably exert the next largest anthropogenic radiative forcing of the atmosphere3, but their influence on global mean warming has not been assessed using such models. Here we use a coupled oceaná¤-atmosphere general circulation model to simulate past and future climate since the beginning of the near-global instrumental surface-temperature record4, and include the effects of the scattering of radiation by sulphate aerosols. The inclusion of sulphate aerosols significantly improves the agreement with observed global mean and large-scale patterns of temperature in recent decades, although the improvement in simulations of specific regions is equivocal. We predict a future global mean warming of 0.3 K per decade for greenhouse gases alone, or 0.2 K per decade with sulphate aerosol forcing included. By 2050, all land areas have warmed in our simulations, despite strong negative radiative forcing in some regions. These model results suggest that global warming could accelerate as greenhouse-gas forcing begins to dominate over sulphate aerosol forcing.

I particularly like this passage of your drivel

"CLIMATE models suggest that increases in greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere should have produced a larger global mean warming than has been observed in recent decades, unless the climate is less sensitive than is predicted by the present generation of coupled general circulation models1,2. After greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols probably exert the next largest anthropogenic radiative forcing of the atmosphere3, but their influence on global mean warming has not been assessed using such models.

So what they are saying is "the empirical data shows that our projections were completely and utterly wrong. there has been nowhere near what we predicted there would be in terms of ACTUAL recorded global warming so now we have to make up some new threat to panic the natives." OK, so that's my translation...it's fairly accurate though...don't you think?

Par for the course old fraud...and only the true believers will pay any attention to this crap anymore.

 

[westwall]

Rolling Thunder actually believes that his links are peer-reviewed pieces?????????


Then, we have OldRocks posting his blogs.







PEER-REVIEVEWED science. Post that. Evaluate THAT. All you are doing is allowing others to think for you. I understand why, too.

My, my, ol' Si chimes in again. Silly ass, post something to support you assinine point of view.

Why bother? All you post is crap. There's nothing to discuss with your "evidence" it's laughable at best and insulting at worst.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Here in Portland, I hope it warms up 10-15f soon and becomes sunny. We need a nice HOT SUMMER!

Also Westwall one of the reasons I believe the models are less sensitive is they completely over look a important factors that they can't even start to account for and that is CLOUDS. The solar "energy" readmitted back into space from thick clouds is a good percentage(forgot the number).

The funny thing is with a warmer planet=more convective clouds, which are thick and reflective as hell. A more tropical planet would have more of them. Sure the stratus can reflect, so maybe it is not a huge deal, but this is a increase over the tropical areas of our planet none the less.

If I remember that we have only warmed around maybe .3-.4 within the last 60 years. That was having the highest level of solar output in 2,000 years(since the med evil warm period) Of course it warmed up some what more since 1880, but not much. In put in the fact that we where climbing out of a full scale little ice age that was 1.0-1.5c colder then today over the earth and you can then ask your self how? How do we warm up 4-7c within the next 90 years? That is something that will have to happen without the two factors above no longer in place and would be one of the greatest climate changes since the younger dyes. of 8.5-10 thousand years ago.

So are you global warmers saying that our planet is some how going to double the co2 levels in our Atmosphere? I also find this hard to believe being that yes it did rise from 280 to 390 ppm today, but that was over 120-150 years. What your saying is the whole damn thing is going to double on its self in 90 years? Hard to believe.

If I had to guess we won't hit 500 ppm by 2100. In fact if we see another dalton or little ice age the oceans will become colder and act as sinks for the co2. In which will lower the current amount of co2 in the Atmosphere. In to warm up 4c by 2100 we would have to warm at a rate of 4 times that of the last century. Not going to happen dudes.

 

[Old Rocks]

The rate of increase in the worldwide emmissions of CO2 has been exceeding best estimates for the past two decades. Now we have another factor. The permafrost and arctic ocean clathrates are emitting huge amounts of CO2 and CH4.

EIA - 2010 International Energy Outlook

World Carbon Dioxide Emissions

World energy-related carbon dioxide emissions rise from 29.7 billion metric tons in 2007 to 33.8 billion metric tons in 2020 and 42.4 billion metric tons in 2035—an increase of 43 percent over the projection period. With strong economic growth and continued heavy reliance on fossil fuels expected for most of the non-OECD economies under current policies, much of the projected increase in carbon dioxide emissions occurs among the developing non-OECD nations. In 2007, non-OECD emissions exceeded OECD emissions by 17 percent; in 2035, they are projected to be double the OECD emissions (Figure 10).

 

[Old Rocks]

Another point, the carbon sinks, the oceans and forests, are now taking up less CO2, and will be taking up even less in the future.

The oceans are becoming saturated and warmer, they could become net emitters as the warming continues. And we are destroying more and more of our forests worldwide.

 

[Si modo]

Rolling Thunder actually believes that his links are peer-reviewed pieces?????????


Then, we have OldRocks posting his blogs.







PEER-REVIEVEWED science. Post that. Evaluate THAT. All you are doing is allowing others to think for you. I understand why, too.

My, my, ol' Si chimes in again. Silly ass, post something to support you assinine point of view.

As you've not posted any peer-reviewed science, you've supported it yourself. My comments on it are based on your own link. It's called reading, thinking critically, and commenting.

Again, it's not rocket science. It's not even science, just remedial critical thought. And, you cannot even get into the stadium to play at science if you cannot even think critically.

 

[Old Rocks]

Lindzen does not speak for MIT. Here are the real researchers from MIT.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html

The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

That model is on its face, non-scientific because it is not falsifiable.
1. It assumes climate sensitivity (If a model must assume its conclusion, duh.)
2. The data set of possible output all indicate warming irrespective of the dataset input. On its face, that is also non-falsifiable.





Non-scientific.


So basic.

You know, Si, you are running with a really erudite crowd. Aren't you so proud to have Frank, Walleyes, Suckee, Elvis, and the other intellectual giants on this board in your corner? Yessiree..... old gal, yer lookin' good, you and the whole bunch of wingnuts.

 

[Si modo]

Rolling Thunder actually believes that his links are peer-reviewed pieces?????????


Then, we have OldRocks posting his blogs.







PEER-REVIEVEWED science. Post that. Evaluate THAT. All you are doing is allowing others to think for you. I understand why, too.

Climate response to increasing levels of greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols


Climate response to increasing levels of greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols


J. F. B. Mitchell, T. C. Johns, J. M. Gregory & S. F. B. Tett


Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, Meteorological Office, Bracknell RG12 2SY, UK


CLIMATE models suggest that increases in greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere should have produced a larger global mean warming than has been observed in recent decades, unless the climate is less sensitive than is predicted by the present generation of coupled general circulation models1,2. After greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols probably exert the next largest anthropogenic radiative forcing of the atmosphere3, but their influence on global mean warming has not been assessed using such models. Here we use a coupled oceaná¤-atmosphere general circulation model to simulate past and future climate since the beginning of the near-global instrumental surface-temperature record4, and include the effects of the scattering of radiation by sulphate aerosols. The inclusion of sulphate aerosols significantly improves the agreement with observed global mean and large-scale patterns of temperature in recent decades, although the improvement in simulations of specific regions is equivocal. We predict a future global mean warming of 0.3 K per decade for greenhouse gases alone, or 0.2 K per decade with sulphate aerosol forcing included. By 2050, all land areas have warmed in our simulations, despite strong negative radiative forcing in some regions. These model results suggest that global warming could accelerate as greenhouse-gas forcing begins to dominate over sulphate aerosol forcing.

Sad, but I doubt you even realize what you posted with that abstract.

 

[Si modo]

Lindzen does not speak for MIT. Here are the real researchers from MIT.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html

The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

That model is on its face, non-scientific because it is not falsifiable.
1. It assumes climate sensitivity (If a model must assume its conclusion, duh.)
2. The data set of possible output all indicate warming irrespective of the dataset input. On its face, that is also non-falsifiable.





Non-scientific.


So basic.

You know, Si, you are running with a really erudite crowd. Aren't you so proud to have Frank, Walleyes, Suckee, Elvis, and the other intellectual giants on this board in your corner? Yessiree..... old gal, yer lookin' good, you and the whole bunch of wingnuts.

'In my corner'?

I'm wondering what that has to do with anything logical or scientific. Or, are you still stuck on consensus having something to do with scientific discovery? It's hard to tell when you are flailing so.

Surely, you can let us all know, being the amateur scientist soiling science by playing at it that you are.

 

[Old Rocks]

Rolling Thunder actually believes that his links are peer-reviewed pieces?????????


Then, we have OldRocks posting his blogs.







PEER-REVIEVEWED science. Post that. Evaluate THAT. All you are doing is allowing others to think for you. I understand why, too.

Climate response to increasing levels of greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols


Climate response to increasing levels of greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols


J. F. B. Mitchell, T. C. Johns, J. M. Gregory & S. F. B. Tett


Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, Meteorological Office, Bracknell RG12 2SY, UK


CLIMATE models suggest that increases in greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere should have produced a larger global mean warming than has been observed in recent decades, unless the climate is less sensitive than is predicted by the present generation of coupled general circulation models1,2. After greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols probably exert the next largest anthropogenic radiative forcing of the atmosphere3, but their influence on global mean warming has not been assessed using such models. Here we use a coupled oceaná¤-atmosphere general circulation model to simulate past and future climate since the beginning of the near-global instrumental surface-temperature record4, and include the effects of the scattering of radiation by sulphate aerosols. The inclusion of sulphate aerosols significantly improves the agreement with observed global mean and large-scale patterns of temperature in recent decades, although the improvement in simulations of specific regions is equivocal. We predict a future global mean warming of 0.3 K per decade for greenhouse gases alone, or 0.2 K per decade with sulphate aerosol forcing included. By 2050, all land areas have warmed in our simulations, despite strong negative radiative forcing in some regions. These model results suggest that global warming could accelerate as greenhouse-gas forcing begins to dominate over sulphate aerosol forcing.

Sad, but I doubt you even realize what you posted with that abstract.

My, my, waxing a bit idiotic today are we, old gal? Of course I realize that it is an abstract. Had I posted from the article, since it is available only to subscribers or those that pay for it, it would not have been legal.

You did notice that it was a peer reviewed article, did you not? And that it stated unequivically that AGW is occuring.

 

[Old Rocks]

That model is on its face, non-scientific because it is not falsifiable.
1. It assumes climate sensitivity (If a model must assume its conclusion, duh.)
2. The data set of possible output all indicate warming irrespective of the dataset input. On its face, that is also non-falsifiable.





Non-scientific.


So basic.

You know, Si, you are running with a really erudite crowd. Aren't you so proud to have Frank, Walleyes, Suckee, Elvis, and the other intellectual giants on this board in your corner? Yessiree..... old gal, yer lookin' good, you and the whole bunch of wingnuts.

'In my corner'?

I'm wondering what that has to do with anything logical or scientific. Or, are you still stuck on consensus having something to do with scientific discovery? It's hard to tell when you are flailing so.

Surely, you can let us all know, being the amateur scientist soiling science by playing at it that you are.

Birds of a feather

 

[Si modo]

You know, Si, you are running with a really erudite crowd. Aren't you so proud to have Frank, Walleyes, Suckee, Elvis, and the other intellectual giants on this board in your corner? Yessiree..... old gal, yer lookin' good, you and the whole bunch of wingnuts.

'In my corner'?

I'm wondering what that has to do with anything logical or scientific. Or, are you still stuck on consensus having something to do with scientific discovery? It's hard to tell when you are flailing so.

Surely, you can let us all know, being the amateur scientist soiling science by playing at it that you are.

Birds of a feather

Not much logical about that, yet, you expect us to respect what you say on a scientific subject. Amazing.

You're not even able to get admission to the stadium.

 

[Si modo]

Climate response to increasing levels of greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols


Climate response to increasing levels of greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols


J. F. B. Mitchell, T. C. Johns, J. M. Gregory & S. F. B. Tett


Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, Meteorological Office, Bracknell RG12 2SY, UK


CLIMATE models suggest that increases in greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere should have produced a larger global mean warming than has been observed in recent decades, unless the climate is less sensitive than is predicted by the present generation of coupled general circulation models1,2. After greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols probably exert the next largest anthropogenic radiative forcing of the atmosphere3, but their influence on global mean warming has not been assessed using such models. Here we use a coupled oceaná¤-atmosphere general circulation model to simulate past and future climate since the beginning of the near-global instrumental surface-temperature record4, and include the effects of the scattering of radiation by sulphate aerosols. The inclusion of sulphate aerosols significantly improves the agreement with observed global mean and large-scale patterns of temperature in recent decades, although the improvement in simulations of specific regions is equivocal. We predict a future global mean warming of 0.3 K per decade for greenhouse gases alone, or 0.2 K per decade with sulphate aerosol forcing included. By 2050, all land areas have warmed in our simulations, despite strong negative radiative forcing in some regions. These model results suggest that global warming could accelerate as greenhouse-gas forcing begins to dominate over sulphate aerosol forcing.

Sad, but I doubt you even realize what you posted with that abstract.

My, my, waxing a bit idiotic today are we, old gal? Of course I realize that it is an abstract. Had I posted from the article, since it is available only to subscribers or those that pay for it, it would not have been legal.

You did notice that it was a peer reviewed article, did you not? And that it stated unequivically that AGW is occuring.

Oh.....


my......


Gawd.


I didn't comment about your knowing it is an abstract.

"Sad, but I doubt you even realize what you posted with that abstract."


But, you demonstrate your reading comprehension skills, so I can understand why you posted the abstract.

 

[Si modo]

Come on, Rocks and/or RollingThunder. Tell us again how consensus has everything to do with science. You know you want to.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The rate of increase in the worldwide emmissions of CO2 has been exceeding best estimates for the past two decades. Now we have another factor. The permafrost and arctic ocean clathrates are emitting huge amounts of CO2 and CH4.

EIA - 2010 International Energy Outlook

World Carbon Dioxide Emissions

World energy-related carbon dioxide emissions rise from 29.7 billion metric tons in 2007 to 33.8 billion metric tons in 2020 and 42.4 billion metric tons in 2035—an increase of 43 percent over the projection period. With strong economic growth and continued heavy reliance on fossil fuels expected for most of the non-OECD economies under current policies, much of the projected increase in carbon dioxide emissions occurs among the developing non-OECD nations. In 2007, non-OECD emissions exceeded OECD emissions by 17 percent; in 2035, they are projected to be double the OECD emissions (Figure 10).

Wow! Wow! WOW!!

Those projections have big numbers in them! At that rate, in the year 25,875, Earth atmosphere will resemble the atmosphere of Venus!

Wow!

WOW!

How many metric tons of gas in Earth atmosphere? Remind me again? Is that a big number too?

 

[Big Fitz]

Another point, the carbon sinks, the oceans and forests, are now taking up less CO2, and will be taking up even less in the future.

1.Prove its happening with a scientific, independently repeatable test so your work can be checked by honest vendors.

2. Then prove that this is a bad thing to occur.

3. Then prove it's our fault or that we have the capability to stop it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Another point, the carbon sinks, the oceans and forests, are now taking up less CO2, and will be taking up even less in the future.

1.Prove its happening with a scientific, independently repeatable test so your work can be checked by honest vendors.

2. Then prove that this is a bad thing to occur.

3. Then prove it's our fault or that we have the capability to stop it.

1.Prove its happening with a scientific, independently repeatable test so your work can be checked by honest vendors.

Warmers just point to places and times when it's warmer and say: Thar she blows!! Global Warming off the port bow!

 

[Zander]

Sad, but I doubt you even realize what you posted with that abstract.

My, my, waxing a bit idiotic today are we, old gal? Of course I realize that it is an abstract. Had I posted from the article, since it is available only to subscribers or those that pay for it, it would not have been legal.

You did notice that it was a peer reviewed article, did you not? And that it stated unequivically that AGW is occuring.

Oh.....


my......


Gawd.


I didn't comment about your knowing it is an abstract.

"Sad, but I doubt you even realize what you posted with that abstract."


But, you demonstrate your reading comprehension skills, so I can understand why you posted the abstract.

I have peer reviewed this post and find it 100% accurate!

 

[westwall]

Another point, the carbon sinks, the oceans and forests, are now taking up less CO2, and will be taking up even less in the future.

The oceans are becoming saturated and warmer, they could become net emitters as the warming continues. And we are destroying more and more of our forests worldwide.

This is factually inaccurate old fraud....once again you have strayed into my realm. The oceans are the biggest processor of CO2 when the plant life can no longer handle the overflow (and that hasn't happened in 5 million years or so BTW) and the result is the creation of limestone. 5 million years ago is the last time there was an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans processed it into dolomite (a form of limestone) in shallow seas all over the globe.

I suggest you look at the formation of sedimentary rocks and how going from the beach out you get first a sandstone then a mudstone and finally in the deeper seas, far enough away from the heavier sediments, you get limestone formation....but only if you have enough CO2 in solution. No CO2 no limestone formation....and there has been no limestone formation (other than some true exotics) in 5 million years.

Quit peddling nonsense. Take a geology class so at least you have SOME knowledge of what you are blathering.