Scepticism Of Man Made Climate Change

[VillagePlank]

Yes, my hangover is getting the better of me: 0.0092C * 280 = 2.85C, 90% of which is = 2.57C

Edited May 13, 2013 by Sparkicle

[VillagePlank]

Doing it for since 1959 (1959-2012) gives us an empirical upper bound climate sensitivity estimate of 2.22^oC for a doubling of 280ppm.

 

Current consensus is around 3C +/- 1.5C, here

Edited May 13, 2013 by Sparkicle

[barrel1234]

Thats just ridiculous, It assumes that all warming has been caused by CO2 and it ignores every other variable.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Thats just ridiculous, It assumes that all warming has been caused by CO2 and it ignores every other variable.

 

Not quite. Look at post number 98 by Sparkicle on the previous page.

Though I think that will please you even less!

[ANYWEATHER]

Joe B an eminent meteorologist , reflects the fact that back in 2009 the 2 meter global temps would fall, amongst a lot of mockery etc. Info from, ncep cfsr /cfsv2 global 2 meter temperature anomaly. From http://www.weatherbell.com

Edited May 23, 2013 by pottyprof

[Methuselah]

Joe B an eminent meteorologist , reflects the fact that back in 2009 the 2 meter global temps would fall, amongst a lot of mockery etc. Info from, ncep cfsr /cfsv2 global 2 meter temperature anomaly. From http://www.weatherbell.com

Wasn't 2009 the warmest ever recorded? Edited May 23, 2013 by pottyprof

[ANYWEATHER]

Well. I thought it was 1998 as the benchmark!!??

Edited May 23, 2013 by pottyprof

[BornFromTheVoid]

By most accounts (GISS, HadCRUT4) to warmest years on record are 2010, 2005 then 1998.

I think only on UAH has 1998 still the warmest, but then UAH has the highest rate of warming since 1998.

Edited May 23, 2013 by pottyprof

[keithlucky]

Why we should work harder to raise co2 level   http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/why-we-should-work-hard-to-raise-co2.html

Edited May 13, 2013 by keithlucky

[Methuselah]

Why we should work harder to raise co2 level   http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/why-we-should-work-hard-to-raise-co2.html

I think I'll stick to producing methane!

[ANYWEATHER]

I think I'll stick to producing methane!

Well keep eating lots of Beef and throwing away your rubbish!!!

[knocker]

I think I'll stick to producing methane!

 

I'll leave that to the termites.

[VillagePlank]

Top ten annual anomlies (HadCRUT4)

 

2010 0.540

2005 0.536

1998 0.523

2003 0.498

2006 0.492

2009 0.490

2002 0.487

2007 0.478

2004 0.440

2012 0.435

Edited May 14, 2013 by Sparkicle

[VillagePlank]

Thats just ridiculous, It assumes that all warming has been caused by CO2 and it ignores every other variable.

 

You have to remember two things. This places an empirical upper bound on climate sensitivity due to CO₂ of 2.22^oC under the assumption that 2007 climate drivers list is accurate and correct and that the effect is linear. Both assumptions are, as far as I know, untrue, with recent IPCC leaks placing a greater weight on enhanced solar forcing (beyond TSI) and feedbacks and feedforwards are not accounted for. (EDIT: of course they are! by definition they are included in the observational record!)

 

Also remember that this is change in temperature from 280ppm to 560ppm; we've only just hit 400ppm, so there's a long looong way to go yet. We've added 120ppm since the industrial revolution, and to get to 560ppm we need to add another 160ppm. We're not even half-way there yet.

Edited May 14, 2013 by Sparkicle

[Methuselah]

 

Top ten annual anomlies (HadCRUT4)

 

2010 0.540

2005 0.536

1998 0.523

2003 0.498

2006 0.492

2009 0.490

2002 0.487

2007 0.478

2004 0.440

2012 0.435

 

That means Joe B was, surprise, surprise, wrong again...

[Mark Neal.]

That means Joe B was, surprise, surprise, wrong again...

 

Yep. Still blasting a way on twitter about how we are all blind at the thought of climate change, when his statements are far from the truth....

[Gray-Wolf]

Why are all those top ten temps in this period of global cooling???? How can that be right?

Edited May 23, 2013 by pottyprof

[loafer]

Why are all those top ten temps in this period of global cooling???? How can that be right?

 The anomalies are compared to an historic period, rather than the period in which they occurred. If you look, the anomalies themselves are relatively consistent, i.e. the temperature was largely flat. Edited May 23, 2013 by pottyprof

[pottyprof]

Thanks to Sparkicle and BFTV for explaining the CO2 temperature problem in a way that puts most climate sites to shame.

Many thanks guys.

[Methuselah]

But 2010 was in fact warmer than 2009. So why, apart from obfuscation, is Joe B blethering on about explaining the 'fall'?? If said 'fall' hasn't actually occurred, what's the point in 'explaining' it!

[VillagePlank]

Thanks to Sparkicle and BFTV for explaining the CO2 temperature problem in a way that puts most climate sites to shame.

Many thanks guys.

 

No worries I think it's useful to make the mistakes (from me) public, and work through them. It exposes method, thought processes etc etc etc. And, hopefully, helps out a few people along the way.

[keithlucky]

Alaska cold records continue to tumble

http://www.newsminer.com/news/local_news/more-record-lows-hit-interior-locations/article_8ea38680-bd2f-11e2-b62c-0019bb30f31a.html

 

[pottyprof]

And then they say it's not about money?

http://www.carbonwarroom.com/

I agree with the ideas but wouldn't it be better if they did this kind of thing regardless of climate change?

This site is from a guy who likes to pump hydrocarbon exhaust fumes directly into the higher reaches of the atmosphere. He has also increased this by adding more flights throughout the US. Sorry Richard but I've no interest in hypocrites.

[Southern Storm]

I noticed a link that hasn't been posted on here,it is about the latest climbdown from the global warming movement, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22567023

 

Does anyone else get the impression that the global warming house of cards is about to collapse?

I can only imagine that they will point to this in a few years time and say, Look yes we where off, but only a little.

 

I've heard people say so many times on here that the the science is settled,

 

Well it doesn't seem like it to me!

Edited May 23, 2013 by pottyprof

[BornFromTheVoid]

I noticed a link that hasn't been posted on here,it is about the latest climbdown from the global warming movement, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22567023

 

Does anyone else get the impression that the global warming house of cards is about to collapse?

I can only imagine that they will point to this in a few years time and say, Look yes we where off, but only a little.

 

I've heard people say so many times on here that the the science is settled,

 

Well it doesn't seem like it to me!

 

The science is largely settled, in so far as we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its increase has contributed to at least most of the warming since the mid 20th century.

 

There is of course uncertainty in a few areas, such as in how sensitive the climate is to CO2. 

 

Your link doesn't suggest a climb down (global warming movement? what are you trying to imply with that?). It just suggests the atmospheric warming may not be as fast over the next few decades, but in the long run, there is no real change to recent predictions. If many studies come out that back up this viewpoint, then it may become more established, but in the long run, it's consistent with the IPCC predictions.

 

There will be changes within the scientific understanding of climate. This doesn't mean that every one that suggests things might not be too bad is a climb down. Similarly, not every study that suggests things could be worse has to be politicised lefty propaganda. Viewing the scientific publication in a more neutral stance will help to see past the real politicised propaganda.

 

But if you read about the study via WUWT or conversely, some climate catastrophist blog page, you will end up a horribly distorted viewpoint of what the study actually invovled and the meaning of its conclusions (not saying you do, thunderman24, but in general)

Edited May 23, 2013 by pottyprof