Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, I was responding (sarcastic) to the OP who claims "global warming isn't happening." If that were true, who cares if the "imaginary" warming is caused by the actions of man or a natural phenomenon or some combination there-of? If it's not happening than nothing can be blamed for a hallucinatory occurence.
Places like Las Vegas, Phoenix, California's Central Valley etc are demanding that the states of the upper Colorado River Basin release more water from the dams at Lake Powell and Lake Mead due to the increased needs of the lower basin states due to the drought. Unfortunately, the upper basin, including Colorado is also suffering from the effects of drought and the ever increasing population of the cities on Colorado's Front Range. If this keeps up, we're going to see an old time Western water war in the next few years. OP being from Las Vegas should know better, but I supposed he never leaves his seat at the black jack table in some air conditioned casino to look out the window.
Os sorry. I misunderstood your post. Had a few drinks in me last night.
As for model mismatch, only the last decade or so is there a discrepancy, but the models themselves have a wide range of outcomes, from almost no warming in the 20th century to more warming than observed.
A troll's "knowledge" is exposed for what it really is.
If chicagogeorge and fellow-travellers ever turned up at Hot Topic, their "arguments" would be quickly dismembered.
Yes it is, but it is never too late for you to stop trolling. Instead of calling people names and telling everyone that someone else could destroy an argument, why not destroy the argument yourself? I maintain that it's because the scientific evidence is not your side.
Strangely enough, the authors are affirming that there's man-influenced climate change. It's just that they think the models are crappy and overstate the extent of the problem, and we need to refine the science so it becomes more accurate before taking political action. It's a reasonable opinion, though I suspect the problem is more urgent than they do.
Quote:
The two fundamental facts are that carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased due to the burning of fossil fuels, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas, trapping heat before it can escape into space.
What is not a known fact is by how much the Earth's atmosphere will warm in response to this added carbon dioxide.
Strangely enough, the authors are affirming that there's man-influenced climate change.
Why is that strange? Simple farming and clear cutting of forests, and creating vast UHI's are known to influence climate. So yes, man has an impact on climate. RWood seems to think I don't believe this. The question is how much influence does co2 exert over the oceans on human timescales?
The ultimate doomsdayer and creator of the Gaia theory has toned down his rhetoric in his old age.....
Quote:
It will also reflect his new opinion that global warming has not occurred as he had expected.
“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.
“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.
Quote:
He said human-caused carbon dioxide emissions were driving an increase in the global temperature, but added that the effect of the oceans was not well enough understood and could have a key role.
“It (the sea) could make all the difference between a hot age and an ice age,” he said.
He said he still thought that climate change was happening, but that its effects would be felt farther in the future than he previously thought.
It's just that they think the models are crappy and overstate the extent of the problem, and we need to refine the science so it becomes more accurate before taking political action.
What political action can be taken? Tax industry and destroy jobs? Keep 1.3 billion people who currently have no access to electricity in the dark? Humans need cheap energy. There is no getting around that no matter what. We need 16 TW right now. We will need at least 30 TW by 2050. Guess what? We will drill everywhere, and use all the coal and natural gas we can get our hands on. Yes, we will also build nuclear power plants, wind mills, and solar farms too. But no country will forsake its natural resources.
Quote:
It's a reasonable opinion, though I suspect the problem is more urgent than they do.
It is a reasonable opinion, which is why I support it..... But the only evidence to me that may make GW "urgent" is the decrease in Arctic Sea ice (though Antarctic Sea ice is at record highs), which may turn accelerate a feedback mechanism Global temps are in no way any more extreme than they have been in the recent past. Global drought index is has not changed. Hurricane energy index is actually at a 40 year low. And of course temps really haven't budged much in the last 17 years.
And RWood, if you want to defend the indefensible climate models that predict gloom and doom go ahead. No rational human being who has just a kernel of knowledge about the climate will believe that computer projections especially on a regional scale can be taken seriously.
Are we to believe that places like Chicago which average about 2 100F/38C days a year will average 30-40 such days in 75 years as the climate models suggest?
all the while the actual number of 100F+ days are on the decline?
Last edited by chicagogeorge; 02-21-2014 at 09:20 PM..
The last graph isn't a decline, it's probably just random noise, also I hope that the stations are weighted by region otherwise the region of the US with the most stations would count more.
I really don't get the "it's warmed little so far therefore in 75 years warming will also be small" arguements. If CO2 causes warming, the 75 years + forecasts are based on much, much more CO2 in the atmosphere than currently. A small increase in CO2 might be overwhelmed by other natural factors, a larger one would not. I'm not saying I believe (or don't believe) the 75+ year prediction, but I don't think putting information on the current trend says anything on whether that forecast is valid.
Also, whether global warming is "urgent" is a bit more subjective than the question of whether it is happening / humans create it, and something that's partially political rather than just science.
The last graph isn't a decline, it's probably just random noise, also I hope that the stations are weighted by region otherwise the region of the US with the most stations would count more.
We know very well that in the earlier period of that graph most stations were located in the eastern 2/3rds of the US. However, it would be more common to see the western US with more 100 degree days.
While today the number of western stations are much more numerous. That doesn't explain the fact that the most 100+ days occurred in the early half the 20th century
This index should also address the trend in extreme heat episodes
Quote:
I really don't get the "it's warmed little so far therefore in 75 years warming will also be small" arguements. If CO2 causes warming, the 75 years + forecasts are based on much, much more CO2 in the atmosphere than currently. A small increase in CO2 might be overwhelmed by other natural factors, a larger one would not.
We haven't seen a small increase in co2. We have seen a large increase. In fact since 1998 nearly one third of all co2 emissions occurred and warming hasn't accelerated. We've had stasis.
No, we don't know what the future will hold, but what makes us so sure that climate computer models do?
Quote:
I'm not saying I believe (or don't believe) the 75+ year prediction, but I don't think putting information on the current trend says anything on whether that forecast is valid.
Let's face it -- there's nothing anyone can say that will change anyone's mind on the subject. Everyone will quote their scientific sources and charts and it won't make one whit of difference.
At least the discussion keeps us all occupied.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
