All this cold making the north polar ice cap melt twice as fast as had been thought.
Be more gas fields opening up up there to keep warm apparently
I am very fair. I quite like her hair also, or at least I would if she would tone down the colour a bit.One of the major outcomes of the talkfest was that the Clinton lady complimented La Gillard on her hair.
Be fair Julia, be fair.
Please educate yourself on this matter explod.
One of the major outcomes of the talkfest was that the Clinton lady complimented La Gillard on her hair...
Merely quoting yesterday's news Champ.
Pick on someone who cares
News isn't science or fact Chief.
I'm merely pointing out there has been some recent science regarding factors that affect summer Arctic melt... if you are interested.
But as you indicated, probably don't care about that.
Thanks basilio. Your conversion to a seeker of the truth in such a trivial matter is refreshing. Let's hope it is reflected in your GW posts.
For many years, I was an active supporter of the IPCC and its CO2 theory. Recent experience with the UN's climate panel, however, forced me to reassess my position. In February 2010, I was invited as a reviewer for the IPCC report on renewable energy. I realised that the drafting of the report was done in anything but a scientific manner. The report was littered with errors and a member of Greenpeace edited the final version. These developments shocked me. I thought, if such things can happen in this report, then they might happen in other IPCC reports too.
The choice is no longer between global warming catastrophe and economic growth but between economic catastrophe and climate sense.
Well Calliope when you and the rest of the CC deniers decide to recognise some climate science that is measured, peer reviewed and real instead of the fanciful BS that you don't even bother to quote anymore we might have a discussion.
Again from the spelling and grammar thread:
Questions:
1/ Who else are you labeling with that reprehensible term, denier?
2/ Is the peer review you refer to the same peer review that the IPCC literature uses? (see my above post)
3/ Can non empirical modeling be considered 'fanciful BS' as opposed to empirical observation/data?
1/ Hansen is demonstrably a nutter. Sorry if you have the hots for him, but it's true IMNTBCHO.Start with the mirror Wayne...
I have lost all respect for the climate denier BS after reading through all the distorted lies and rubbish that is thrown up the echo chambers on the internet and then quoted ad nauseum. Even when one carefully points out the deliberate and possibly accidental errors made in these posts they are just summarily dismissed.
I see very few posters who actually follow the evidence or logic. It's far easier to jump to denial and ad hominem attacks.
And while we are discussing such "ad hominem" attacks I am still very, very dirty on your earlier defamation of NASA climate scientist James Hanson. I thought it represented a new low in disrespect of climate science and the leading scientists in that field. But of course it is just another spectacular way to dismiss information you just don't want to recognise.
I have previously discussed many lines of evidence surrounding climate change research. But in this forum that is now clearly a waste of time. In fact I think the whole CC discussion is now a waste of time in ASF.
However, the observations show that both surface temperatures as well as ocean heat content started to increase (during the 1970s and 80s) long after solar activity had reached its plateau (during the 1950s). This is inconsistent with a lagged response to the sun, as suggested by Vahrenholt and Lüning. The relatively steady rate of warming of both ocean and atmosphere over the past four decades indicates that this must be caused by another process. The sun cannot be responsible for the warming of the past four decades, irrespective of how strongly one wishes to amplify its effect.
Updated graphic of total heat content from Church et al 2011
Vahrenholt and Lüning cite the work of Solanki and co-authors in support of their claim. However, Solanki et al made the same point as we do: "This comparison shows without requiring any recourse to modeling that since roughly 1970 the solar influence on climate (through the channels considered here) cannot have been dominant" (Solanki et al., 2003), and: "Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades." (Solanki et al., 2004, referring to their 2003 paper). This is just one of many examples where Vahrenholt and Lüning misinterpret what is written in the literature in order to bolster their point of view.
Whopping Wrong Temperature Change Claim
Solheim claims that "Hansen’s model overestimates the temperature by 1.9 °C, which is a whopping 150% wrong." Yet Scenario A - the emissions scenario with the largest projected temperature change - only projects 0.7 °C surface warming between 1988 and 2012. Even if emissions were higher than in Scenario A (which they weren't, but Solheim wrongly claims they were), they would have to be several times higher for Hansen's model to project the ~2.3 °C warming over just 23 years (1 °C per decade!) that Solheim claims. Solheim's claim here is simply very wrong.
The reason this myth persists is that certain individuals desperately want Hansen and co. to be "wrong", so once they arrive at that desired conclusion, their brains shut down and they don't investigate further to see what Hansen being "wrong" means (what it means is that fast feedback climate sensitivity is ~3 °C, which is what Hansen currently argues). I still have yet to see a climate contrarian perform an intelligent and throrough analysis of Hansen's 1988 projections. Solheim, Michaels, Christy, etc. all stop when they reach the convenient "Hansen was wrong" conclusion.
In fact I think the whole CC discussion is now a waste of time in ASF.
Wayne if you insist on calling James Hansen a "nutter" (which is kinder than you previous piece of disparagement) then you stand as either delusional or a liar. Take your pick.
And in any case if you had any semblance of respect for the topic you wouldn't be debasing the discussion by smearing one of the most respected scientists in the field. You may as well smear everyone else as well.
With regard to Vahrenholt's observations. There are quite extensive analysis of the deliberate or accidental errors he has made. The most detailed account is carried by climate scientist Bart Verheggen. Probably one of the most critical errors made by Vahrenholt was attempting to claim that the sun was responsible for current global warming. Part of Verheggens response was as follows
It was also interesting to note how Vahrenholt misused the work of Solanki in trying to bolster his argument.
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress...nse-to-fritz-vahrenholt-and-sebastian-luning/
With regard to the comparison between models and empirical evidence .
Vahrenholt was again echoed by the climate denier chambers when he promoted a piece from Prof. Jan-Erik Solheim which attempted to argue that James Hansen's projections in 1988 were way off the mark.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/...ate-forecast-of-1988-a-whopping-150-wrong/See
Again this was a litany of misrepresentations. Start with the simple figure of just how much of a temp increase James Hansen was projecting
The analysis then goes on to highlight the changes in greenhouse gas emissions that were not recognized by Solheim and the use of distorted temperature data.
The conclusion? Hansen's forecasts in 1988 run on 1988 computers with then current climate models were around 40% too high. He thought the climate sensitivity was about 4.2 degreesC for a doubling of CO2. It turns out the real world sensitivity figure is 3 degrees C for a doubling of CO2.
So where does this leave us ?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/simply-wrong-solheim-hansen-88.html
Start with the mirror Wayne...
I have lost all respect for the climate denier BS after reading through all the distorted lies and rubbish that is thrown up the echo chambers on the internet and then quoted ad nauseum. Even when one carefully points out the deliberate and possibly accidental errors made in these posts they are just summarily dismissed.
I see very few posters who actually follow the evidence or logic. It's far easier to jump to denial and ad hominem attacks.
And while we are discussing such "ad hominem" attacks I am still very, very dirty on your earlier defamation of NASA climate scientist James Hanson. I thought it represented a new low in disrespect of climate science and the leading scientists in that field. But of course it is just another spectacular way to dismiss information you just don't want to recognise.
I have previously discussed many lines of evidence surrounding climate change research. But in this forum that is now clearly a waste of time. In fact I think the whole CC discussion is now a waste of time in ASF.
The conclusion? Hansen's forecasts in 1988 run on 1988 computers with then current climate models were around 40% too high. He thought the climate sensitivity was about 4.2 degreesC for a doubling of CO2. It turns out the real world sensitivity figure is 3 degrees C for a doubling of CO2.
So where does this leave us ?
The reason this myth persists is that certain individuals desperately want Hansen and co. to be "wrong", so once they arrive at that desired conclusion, their brains shut down and they don't investigate further to see what Hansen being "wrong" means (what it means is that fast feedback climate sensitivity is ~3 °C, which is what Hansen currently argues). I still have yet to see a climate contrarian perform an intelligent and throrough analysis of Hansen's 1988 projections. Solheim, Michaels, Christy, etc. all stop when they reach the convenient "Hansen was wrong" conclusion.
Calliope doesn't give a fig about science so nuff said there.
Your science beliefs are very selective. If I remember correctly you are a Creationist!
Che ?? Che !!!! Please, remind me when I said/suggested/ even remotely inferred I was a creationist ??
Is that a denial? Are you indeed a denier? Both the old and new testaments of the bible have numerous warnings that because god created the world he can also destroy it. They all follow your adopted philosophy that unless we repent the world will be destroyed by fire flood and famine etc.
Like the prophets of old you have continually warned us that unless we accept the Gospel according to you and your 1000 scientists we are doomed to be be cooked, drowned, or starved in the coming holocaust. In fact you have suggested that it is too late now to avoid it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?