Climate Change And Global Warming Updated Analysis

[guidoLaMoto]

Originally Posted by waltcolorado

Just for the record.. looks like no reference to back up this way incorrect claim.
.

There are 1000s of references sighted in that search...Did you read them all?

You cherry pick (apparently an inborne weakness in the warmists) and then claim my statements are wrong.

Let's change the argument, then...How do explain the lack of warming (only a few hundreths of a degree-- well below the sensitivity of the data gathering) in the last 20 yrs?..Go check the UAH & RSS satellite records if you doubt that's true.

No warming for 2o yrs while co2 levels have risen 10% during that period.

You point out that the cooling we saw was 50 yrs ago (!)-- obviously ignorant of the 60 yr cycle of temps seen in the record that goes back from several sources for the last 140 yrs, and the Central Anglican Record that goes back 400 yrs.

Don't form opinions until you have all the data. and are equiped to analyze it....Have you ever questiojned why the over-lapping graphs of [co2] and temps presented by the Warmists always have exactly the same slope, despite the fact that co2 levels have increased by 40% since the beginning of the Industrial Age, but temps have only increased by 0.3% (0.8*K/288*K) during that period?....It's a form of lying by mis-representing the data-- the only way the Warmists can present their case.

[waltcolorado]

Some guy on the internet said IPCC predictions were way off but then could not back it up with a reference.

As that poster said, there are good references on this subject, here is one of them https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis...lobal-warming/

IPCC is a world wide organization of the best and brightest climate scientist, how accurate has the IPCC been. The first IPCC report from 32 years ago (1990) was mentioned

Despite a best estimate of climate sensitivity a tad lower than the 3C used today, the FAR overestimated the rate of warming between 1970 and 2016 by around 17% in their BAU scenario, showing 1C warming over that period vs 0.85C observed. This is mostly due to the projection of much higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations than has actually occurred.

Predicting the future means getting the model of CO2/ green house sensitivity plus all the feedback mechanisms correct but also basically predicting population increase and how much CO2 or other impacts that population will generate. I find it rather remarkable to only be off 17% with a prediction from 32 years ago.

Interesting that terrestrial global temperature measuring like Hadcrut show slightly more warming than Satellite based measurements such as UAH. Hadcrut are direct land or ocean measurements of temperature and Satellite must "look" through the atmosphere, sort of like having to look through a blanket on a bed to see how warm it is under the blanket. Both types of measurements have merit and clearly show warming but show slightly different numbers.

You will notice that the IPCC predictions are based on Hadrut terrestrial data. You need to look at the past to predict the future. If someone (likely with their hands in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry) wants to try and show IPCC inaccuracy, notice that they always will compare IPCC results to the satellite data. A prediction based on the slightly higher terrestrial data will of course show an overestimate if compared to the satellite data. Just another trick to deceive the gullible.

[guidoLaMoto]

Originally Posted by waltcolorado

If someone (likely with their hands in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry) wants to try and show IPCC inaccuracy, notice that they always will compare IPCC results to the satellite data. A prediction based on the slightly higher terrestrial data will of course show an overestimate if compared to the satellite data. Just another trick to deceive the gullible.

You don't know what the satellite data records and how it is used....It is a calculated, "best fit" curve based on comparing hsotorical, thermometer readings on the surface to the absobtion spectrums recorded from above...That's why they periodically "update" the reports as the algorithm in use proves to diverge from the thermometer readings. The satellites don't record temps. They rercord abosrbtion intensity at four different wave lenghts.

The two satellite groups, UAH and RSS, each have their own algorithm. That is why the two records are very close, parallell to each other, but one slightly warmer than the other. They use the same data but treat it slightly differently mathematically.

The advantage of satellite data is that it covers ~90% of the globe in a regular grid pattern. The ground based system covers much less of the globe (almost none of the polar regions) with a proponderance of stations concentrated in the US and western Europe.

When the USSR fell in the early '90s (coincidently just when "GW started"-- a lack of money forced the closing of 1800 Siberian weather stations. How much influence did that have on raising the average of the world temps reported from then on?

But then, you knew all this and took it into consideration when you formed your opinions, right?

Prediction vs reality http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uplo...ns-628x353.jpg

[Colorado Rambler]

Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto

Again, take your pick of the documented failures of predictions.-- https://duckduckgo.com/?t=avast&q=fa...ictions&ia=web

One reference in defense of a position is not good academic technique, and we must conclude that your constant harping on "references" means you are incapabe of analyzing the data or thinking for yourself....

I look first at the methods to evaluate the credibility of the data, then look at the data, then draw my own conclusions-- usually rsulting in several possible explanations, each of which will need to be evaluateed with further studies...That's called 'The Scientific Method."

BTW- UN predicted warmong 4-6deg C by now (that's ~7- 11 deg F)...It's only warming at 0.13deg/ decade C since the satellite record began 40 y/a.... 6- (0.13 x 4) = 5.48 C or 9.86 deg F on the high side , and 4- (0.13 x 4) = 3.52 deg C or 6.26deg F on the low side for how much they are in error. ....(6.26 + 9.86) / 2 = 8.04 deg F. QED.

Try searching for "valid climate predictions." You will be amazed at the results - I guarantee it.