Climate change study had 'significant error': experts

[Oddball]

Yeah...I already heard his backpedalling explanation.

Now, with double the CFCs!

 

[westwall]

Simple questions:

What caused the ice-age? --:Lack of cars and industrial exhaust maybe.

What ended the ice age?--: Cow farts?

What caused the little ice-age during the 1700s? Maybe is was that mustang George Washing was driving in the ford commercial...

What ended the little ice-age???

Fact: The climate may be changing, but if it is, it's not being caused by humans, considering the things listed above....that the earth has heated and cooled before (often rapidly) before the existence of humans and before automobiles and industry.

You have no way of knowing that. Just because heating or cooling had some cause in the past, doesn't mean it has the same cause today. You can't take the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed, like the fact that humans put more CO2 into the atmosphere in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year. Make fun all you want, but like many you're just having a politically-motivated, knee-jerk reaction and not thinking it through logically and scientifically.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. And little olfraud proves that he never set foot in a geology class by his approval of this denial of a fundamental maxim of science. Uniformitarianism.

Learn it.

Uniformitarianism

 

[Old Rocks]

Bretz Floods. Chixalub impact. P-T extinction event.

 

[BrianH]

Simple questions:

What caused the ice-age? --:Lack of cars and industrial exhaust maybe.

What ended the ice age?--: Cow farts?

What caused the little ice-age during the 1700s? Maybe is was that mustang George Washing was driving in the ford commercial...

What ended the little ice-age???

Fact: The climate may be changing, but if it is, it's not being caused by humans, considering the things listed above....that the earth has heated and cooled before (often rapidly) before the existence of humans and before automobiles and industry.

You have no way of knowing that. Just because heating or cooling had some cause in the past, doesn't mean it has the same cause today. You can't take the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed, like the fact that humans put more CO2 into the atmosphere in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year. Make fun all you want, but like many you're just having a politically-motivated, knee-jerk reaction and not thinking it through logically and scientifically.

The amount of CO2 in the air is a super small percentage. Did you know that water vapor is a bigger and more consequential green house gas than CO2? Tell me why other planets in our solar system are warming as well? And yes, you can look to the past to learn about the future. That's what we call HISTORY. If you've farted every day at 5:00 A.M. then it's pretty safe to assume that tommorrow you're going to fart at 5:00 A.M.

There's a reason why AGW is still considered a THEORY....because it hasn't been proven yet. I have yet to hear anything or anyone saying "I've proven man made global warming."

 

[Old Rocks]

http://soa.arcus.org/sites/soa.arcu...em-components/pdf/1-1-7-maslowski-wieslaw.pdf

Advancements and Limitations in Understanding and Predicting Arctic Climate Change

Wieslaw Maslowski

Naval Postgraduate School

The rate of decrease of sea ice thickness and volume appears to be much greater than that of sea ice extent
2.
Oceanic heat has contributed critical preconditioning to sea ice melt in the western Arctic since the mid-1990s
3.
Near ice-free summer Arctic might become a reality much sooner than GCMs predict
4.
A regional high-resolutionArctic Climate System Model can address GCM deficiencies and improve predictive skill of climate modelsat seasonal to decadal scales

 

[Old Rocks]

Simple questions:

What caused the ice-age? --:Lack of cars and industrial exhaust maybe.

What ended the ice age?--: Cow farts?

What caused the little ice-age during the 1700s? Maybe is was that mustang George Washing was driving in the ford commercial...

What ended the little ice-age???

Fact: The climate may be changing, but if it is, it's not being caused by humans, considering the things listed above....that the earth has heated and cooled before (often rapidly) before the existence of humans and before automobiles and industry.

You have no way of knowing that. Just because heating or cooling had some cause in the past, doesn't mean it has the same cause today. You can't take the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed, like the fact that humans put more CO2 into the atmosphere in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year. Make fun all you want, but like many you're just having a politically-motivated, knee-jerk reaction and not thinking it through logically and scientifically.

The amount of CO2 in the air is a super small percentage. Did you know that water vapor is a bigger and more consequential green house gas than CO2?

Why do you assume that everyone is as ignorant as you? And you seem to be stating that small percentage are insignificant. If you really believe that, why don't you try taking the same percentage of Potassium Cyanide to your body weight? By your reasoning, that cannot hurt you.

Tell me why other planets in our solar system are warming as well?

They are not. Why don't you research talking points before making yourself look a fool?

And yes, you can look to the past to learn about the future. That's what we call HISTORY. If you've farted every day at 5:00 A.M. then it's pretty safe to assume that tommorrow you're going to fart at 5:00 A.M.

There's a reason why AGW is still considered a THEORY..

Fellow, look up what theory means in scientific language. Again, your ignorance is showing.


..because it hasn't been proven yet. I have yet to hear anything or anyone saying "I've proven man made global warming."

You never 'prove' a theory. You can only falsify a theory. And that has yet to be done for AGW. Here is the facts concerning CO2 and other GHGs.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Feb 10, 2010

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes..."

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

 

[Trajan]

Ten years, no. 90 years? Let's see what happens in the Arctic in the next 20 years.

Climate Change to Continue to Year 3000 : Discovery News

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yeah...I already heard his backpedalling explanation.

Now, with double the CFCs!

It doesn't just cover up the decline, it hides it!

 

[BrianH]

You have no way of knowing that. Just because heating or cooling had some cause in the past, doesn't mean it has the same cause today. You can't take the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed, like the fact that humans put more CO2 into the atmosphere in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year. Make fun all you want, but like many you're just having a politically-motivated, knee-jerk reaction and not thinking it through logically and scientifically.

The amount of CO2 in the air is a super small percentage. Did you know that water vapor is a bigger and more consequential green house gas than CO2?

Why do you assume that everyone is as ignorant as you? And you seem to be stating that small percentage are insignificant. If you really believe that, why don't you try taking the same percentage of Potassium Cyanide to your body weight? By your reasoning, that cannot hurt you.

Tell me why other planets in our solar system are warming as well?

They are not. Why don't you research talking points before making yourself look a fool?

And yes, you can look to the past to learn about the future. That's what we call HISTORY. If you've farted every day at 5:00 A.M. then it's pretty safe to assume that tommorrow you're going to fart at 5:00 A.M.

There's a reason why AGW is still considered a THEORY..

Fellow, look up what theory means in scientific language. Again, your ignorance is showing.


..because it hasn't been proven yet. I have yet to hear anything or anyone saying "I've proven man made global warming."

You never 'prove' a theory. You can only falsify a theory. And that has yet to be done for AGW. Here is the facts concerning CO2 and other GHGs.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Fair enough. You just admitted that it hasn't been proven...and until it does, I'm not going to cry myself to sleep at night worrying about my automobile exaust. And since it hasn't been proven, why do many AGW alarmists attempt to "prove" it on this thread? I already read that one. Here's one:

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Our top story tonight. The number of repeatable laboratory experiment successfully showing rise in temperate as a result of 200PPM increase in CO2 is still zero

 

[westwall]

http://soa.arcus.org/sites/soa.arcu...em-components/pdf/1-1-7-maslowski-wieslaw.pdf

Advancements and Limitations in Understanding and Predicting Arctic Climate Change

Wieslaw Maslowski

Naval Postgraduate School

The rate of decrease of sea ice thickness and volume appears to be much greater than that of sea ice extent
2.
Oceanic heat has contributed critical preconditioning to sea ice melt in the western Arctic since the mid-1990s
3.
Near ice-free summer Arctic might become a reality much sooner than GCMs predict
4.
A regional high-resolutionArctic Climate System Model can address GCM deficiencies and improve predictive skill of climate modelsat seasonal to decadal scales

Using some rather dated material there aren't they!

 

[Old Rocks]

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png

OK, up to date data. And we are still showing a rapid decrease in the ice volume.

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php

 

[Old Rocks]

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

 

[daveman]

Ten years, no. 90 years? Let's see what happens in the Arctic in the next 20 years.

Climate Change to Continue to Year 3000 : Discovery News

"We're all going to die! Errr...someday! Eventually!"

 

[BrianH]

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.

 

[skookerasbil]

You have no way of knowing that. Just because heating or cooling had some cause in the past, doesn't mean it has the same cause today. You can't take the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed, like the fact that humans put more CO2 into the atmosphere in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year. Make fun all you want, but like many you're just having a politically-motivated, knee-jerk reaction and not thinking it through logically and scientifically.

The amount of CO2 in the air is a super small percentage. Did you know that water vapor is a bigger and more consequential green house gas than CO2?

Why do you assume that everyone is as ignorant as you? And you seem to be stating that small percentage are insignificant. If you really believe that, why don't you try taking the same percentage of Potassium Cyanide to your body weight? By your reasoning, that cannot hurt you.

Tell me why other planets in our solar system are warming as well?

They are not. Why don't you research talking points before making yourself look a fool?

And yes, you can look to the past to learn about the future. That's what we call HISTORY. If you've farted every day at 5:00 A.M. then it's pretty safe to assume that tommorrow you're going to fart at 5:00 A.M.

There's a reason why AGW is still considered a THEORY..

Fellow, look up what theory means in scientific language. Again, your ignorance is showing.


..because it hasn't been proven yet. I have yet to hear anything or anyone saying "I've proven man made global warming."

You never 'prove' a theory. You can only falsify a theory. And that has yet to be done for AGW. Here is the facts concerning CO2 and other GHGs.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

How many times have you posted up that very same link s0n?? 300? 400? Maybe........500?

 

[code1211]

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?

 

[Mini 14]

0.000000025 x subset(Z) = ???

Its a number, Old Rocks, not a link or verbiage.

 

[Old Rocks]

go play your games somewhere else, dumbass