| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Occam Super Burner

Joined: 12 Feb 2007 Posts: 1441 Location: Toledo
|
Posted:Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:35 am Post subject |
    |
|
| cornheat wrote: | Interesting articles available at www.icecap.us and
http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=21153&cid=39&cname=NBR
Science based upon facts in search of truth will trump hysterical propoganda driven pseudoscience in search of public funding and bureaucratic favor in the long run.
CO2 is natural compound essential to the cycle of life. We live in a carbon based world. Carbon is all around us and essential to all life. Life is good. Humanity is part of the natural world like any other creature, not a foreign intruder introducing discordance into the universe. Energy is good and has fueled the advance of civilization since the discovery of fire. The sun is the source of all light energy and primary driver of climate on planet earth. Climate change happens in cycles from cold to hot to cold to hot according to earth's relationship to its sun and far beyond the inconsequential influence and control of humanity. There is no magic lever to push or chain to pull for small minded bureaucrats to control climate in pursuit of lasting climate security.
|
Not sure what this has to do with Climate Models, Cornheat. You are merely dishing up a long tedious proclamation of truisms peppered with absurdity. So what was the point of announcing the obvious?. You seem to think that placing an unsupported proposition such as- "far beyond the inconsequential influence and control of humanity" - in the middle of bromides like "energy is good" somehow supports your contention. A contention that defies common sense as well as volumes of scientific research. Even your lead AGW Denier, Pielke, has said "the evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is incontrovertible as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council report and in our research papers"
Humanity and you - in so much as you are human - are responsible for the care of the planet and responsible for the consequences of your actions and inactions. Time to grow up, Daddy isn't going to come rescue you when you get into trouble. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
mddorogi Super Burner

Joined: 17 Oct 2006 Posts: 1115 Location: Ann Arbor, MI
|
Posted:Thu Apr 10, 2008 6:23 pm Post subject |
    |
|
| Quote: | | in the middle of bromides like "energy is good" |
Bromides... Fantastic! I'll have to use that at work and see what kind of funny looks I get. _________________ Mark
Dell Point Europa |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Occam Super Burner

Joined: 12 Feb 2007 Posts: 1441 Location: Toledo
|
Posted:Tue Jan 06, 2009 1:32 pm Post subject |
    |
|
Where the warming comes from...
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Occam Super Burner

Joined: 12 Feb 2007 Posts: 1441 Location: Toledo
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Occam Super Burner

Joined: 12 Feb 2007 Posts: 1441 Location: Toledo
|
Posted:Tue Jan 06, 2009 2:24 pm Post subject |
    |
|
Short term projections
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Occam Super Burner

Joined: 12 Feb 2007 Posts: 1441 Location: Toledo
|
Posted:Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:14 am Post subject |
    |
|
Water Vapor Feedback Loop Will Cause Accelerated Global Warming, Professor Warns
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090219152132.htm
ScienceDaily (Feb. 20, 2009)
Andrew Dessler, a professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences who specializes in research on climate, says that warming due to increases in greenhouse gases will lead to higher humidity in the atmosphere. And because water vapor itself is a greenhouse gas, this will cause additional warming. This process is known as water vapor feedback and is responsible for a significant portion of the warming predicted to occur over the next century.
“It’s a vicious cycle – warmer temperatures mean higher humidity, which in turn leads to even more warming,” Dessler explains.
The perspective by Dessler and co-author Steven Sherwood of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales is published in the journal Science. In the article, they review and summarize the peer-reviewed evidence in support of a strong water vapor feedback and conclude that the evidence supporting it is overwhelming.....
“For years, there was a debate over this mechanism, with some even questioning if the water vapor feedback existed at all. But recent work on this feedback has moved its existence and strength beyond argument,” Dessler adds.....
“Everything shows that the climate models are probably getting the water vapor feedback right,..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
xracer Super Burner


Joined: 27 May 2006 Posts: 1529 Location: Michigan
|
Posted:Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:24 pm Post subject |
    |
|
| Occam wrote: | Water Vapor Feedback Loop Will Cause Accelerated Global Warming, Professor Warns
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090219152132.htm
ScienceDaily (Feb. 20, 2009)
Andrew Dessler, a professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences who specializes in research on climate, says that warming due to increases in greenhouse gases will lead to higher humidity in the atmosphere. And because water vapor itself is a greenhouse gas, this will cause additional warming. This process is known as water vapor feedback and is responsible for a significant portion of the warming predicted to occur over the next century.
“It’s a vicious cycle – warmer temperatures mean higher humidity, which in turn leads to even more warming,” Dessler explains.
The perspective by Dessler and co-author Steven Sherwood of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales is published in the journal Science. In the article, they review and summarize the peer-reviewed evidence in support of a strong water vapor feedback and conclude that the evidence supporting it is overwhelming.....
“For years, there was a debate over this mechanism, with some even questioning if the water vapor feedback existed at all. But recent work on this feedback has moved its existence and strength beyond argument,” Dessler adds.....
“Everything shows that the climate models are probably getting the water vapor feedback right,..... |
Another polished turd not unlike the Santer et al gem or the Antarctic warming garbage.
http://landshape.org/enm/dessler-zhang-and-yang-fail-significance-tests/ _________________ St. Croix Auburn |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
xracer Super Burner


Joined: 27 May 2006 Posts: 1529 Location: Michigan
|
Posted:Tue Mar 10, 2009 8:29 pm Post subject |
    |
|
| Occam wrote: | Short term projections
 |
prediction
Noun
1. the act of forecasting in advance
2. something that is forecast in advance
BTW Occam, there is no heat "in the pipeline". _________________ St. Croix Auburn |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Occam Super Burner

Joined: 12 Feb 2007 Posts: 1441 Location: Toledo
|
Posted:Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:53 am Post subject |
    |
|
| Quote: | | BTW Occam, there is no heat "in the pipeline". |
Xracer, your posts are getting more and more enigmatic. I understand your strategy, ie don't make any declarative statements that can be challenged, just ask questions and make irrelevant or ambiguous statements that we are supposed to assume are pregnant with meaning.
Last edited by Occam on Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:56 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Occam Super Burner

Joined: 12 Feb 2007 Posts: 1441 Location: Toledo
|
Posted:Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:45 am Post subject |
    |
|
| xracer wrote: |
prediction
Noun
1. the act of forecasting in advance
2. something that is forecast in advance
|
Case in point, you don't declare the chart is not a real forecast you post a dictionary definition of forecast, presumably to imply I don't know the definition of forecast or the chart is not a real forecast. But last I heard 2005 and 2025 come after 1990, date of this IPCC forecast.
Or has your programming been changed from automated GW Denier Talking Points Poster to an automated Trolling Dictionary?
Last edited by Occam on Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:27 am; edited 5 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Occam Super Burner

Joined: 12 Feb 2007 Posts: 1441 Location: Toledo
|
Posted:Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:51 am Post subject |
    |
|
Global warming skeptics used to claim the earth was not warming, the warming was an artifact of instrumentation and the urban heat island effect their favorite boogeyman. The scientific basis for this rested mostly on the UAH satellite data which showed no warming 1979 into the late 90s. Only a minority of scientists believed the original satellite data because it was contrary to ocean temperature changes as well as surface temperatures on land and sea and contrary to observed effects of warming like melting glaciers, a shrinking polar icecap and rising sea levels; ie the satellite data was the odd man out.
It was later found that this was caused by a drift problem in the satellite data; this and the small time period covered by the satellite record swamped the warming trend with noise and data bias. The errors were found in the satellite data, the problems corrected and behold the satellites also showed warming. This ended "the globe isn't warming" debate within the scientific community, though it still survives among the less educated skeptics and amongst the professional and zealous amateur GW Deniers.
We now have a 30 year record of satellite data of the troposphere temperature to compare to the surface temperature measurements. You can see they show a nearly identical warming trend. Statistically speaking, we can't say with high confidence whether the surface or troposphere trend is larger or whether they are identical, but we can say they are close to each other and the surface and troposphere have warmed over this period.
You can also see the variance in the annual temperatures about the trend is almost 3x larger in the troposphere than the surface temperature; since it is in the troposphere where the GHG solar amplification takes place, a wider swing in troposphere temperatures were expected by climate theorists.
These and many other data are the reason scientist now say global warming is "unequivocal".
Last edited by Occam on Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:54 pm; edited 8 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jdeere5220 Serious Burner


Joined: 28 Jan 2009 Posts: 730 Location: Michigan
|
Posted:Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:37 am Post subject |
    |
|
I for one have never claimed that the earth has not warmed. Nor would I claim the earth has not cooled. Of course it has done both, many times.
Looks to me like it has even done both in the chart you are showing us.
I just doubt that mankind has had much to do with it. _________________ Maxim M250 outdoor corn/pellet burner
Old Beat-up Gravity Box
I support Global Warming |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Occam Super Burner

Joined: 12 Feb 2007 Posts: 1441 Location: Toledo
|
Posted:Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:49 am Post subject |
    |
|
| jdeere5220 wrote: | I for one have never claimed that the earth has not warmed. Nor would I claim the earth has not cooled. Of course it has done both, many times.
Looks to me like it has even done both in the chart you are showing us.
|
In other words you haven't said anything. Hard to refute that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Occam Super Burner

Joined: 12 Feb 2007 Posts: 1441 Location: Toledo
|
Posted:Wed Apr 15, 2009 11:58 pm Post subject |
    |
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Occam Super Burner

Joined: 12 Feb 2007 Posts: 1441 Location: Toledo
|
Posted:Fri Jul 09, 2010 9:15 pm Post subject |
    |
|
Heat Waves Commonplace in the US by 2039
ScienceDaily (July 9, 2010) — Exceptionally long heat waves and other hot events could become commonplace in the United States in the next 30 years, according to a new study by Stanford University climate scientists.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100708122617.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|