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.
AGW is fear porn, designed for left-minded folks to accept cuts in the social safety net and standard of living that otherwise would not pass muster in only but right-wing circles and their love affair with taxes, spending, and deficits.
i'd say 5 years. if this upcoming el nino doesn't produce something evivalent to the 97-98 el nino in terms of global temperature increase, i'll become much more sceptic.
i'd say 5 years. if this upcoming el nino doesn't produce something evivalent to the 97-98 el nino in terms of global temperature increase, i'll become much more sceptic.
We have had 17 and 8 months without any warming according to the RSS data. This is bad for the CAGW camp because we were told that 17 years without warming would falsify the AGW theory. Of course, not wanting to give up one's pet theory, the goal posts have been moved into the future. It's like the JWs predicting the Second Coming, and then when it didn't happen they would "get a new revelation" that it was really another date a few decades later.
This is not really a right/left issue, though the left and right are not evenly divided on the issue for several reasons. For one, Environmentalists are mostly left-wing, and for another, the solutions largely appeal to the left.
I used to believe in CAGW until I saw an Inconvenient Truth. Since then I've been of the opinion that the Apocalypse is not going to happen because the claims are largely false and not backed by the scientific data. It very well may be that humans are playing a large role in warming, but there is not one shred of evidence that I've seen that points to this being a bad thing.
There are pros and cons to a warmer planet, and it seems to me that the pros win. I think there are three reasons why people assume that cons win. 1) The naturalistic fallacy (natural warming is good, but unnatural warming is bad), 2) The conservative fallacy (Things are always better the way they used to be), and 3) the spotlight fallacy (given the fact that extreme weather occurs daily, we keep seeing it in the news and assume it's getting worse which it is not).
There are pros and cons to a warmer planet, and it seems to me that the pros win. I think there are three reasons why people assume that cons win. 1) The naturalistic fallacy (natural warming is good, but unnatural warming is bad), 2) The conservative fallacy (Things are always better the way they used to be), and 3) the spotlight fallacy (given the fact that extreme weather occurs daily, we keep seeing it in the news and assume it's getting worse which it is not).
Not going to give mine in this post, but here's Tamino's take:
The red lines correspond to two standard deviations of the global temperature trend (in this case from GISS) of 1975 to 2007, and then extrapolated into the future. If global warming stops, with enough time the difference in results in the "no warming hypothesis" vs "continued global warming" should be obvious. The white part to the right of 2008 corresponds to the region where data would support both hypotheses. The blue would invalidate the "continued global warming hypothesis" while the red would invalidate the "no warming hypothesis". To prevent a fluke year from invaliditing either hypothesis, tamino required two (not necessarily consecutive) years out of the range.
This was made in 2008. Should be an easy way to check where we are now, but looking at the graph perhaps five more years would be necessary with this test.
Warming will probably continue in the long term, with prolonged pauses and even dips if ocean cycled dictate. The question posed is will warming be catastrophic like the models predict within the next several decades. I doubt it.
Warming will probably continue in the long term, with prolonged pauses and even dips if ocean cycled dictate. The question posed is will warming be catastrophic like the models predict within the next several decades. I doubt it.
How much warming the models predict depends on the amount of greenhouse gas emissions. The catrosphic scenairos involve rapidly increasing carbon dioxide emissions in the future. The ones with flat or decreasing emissions don't predict that much warming.
Our current emissions path is above the worst case scenario A1F1, and we have been on that path for at least as long as the "pause", yet observations show model overshoot on temps.
So why would I believe the climate models 75 years out when they have shown to overestimate warming now?
Last edited by chicagogeorge; 04-15-2014 at 06:35 PM..
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.
