J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
They are distorting it, they are taking the temperature difference at the end of the time period and averaging it, that doesn’t work.
- Status
E
Ender
Guest
This objection is pure invention. You have no idea who “they” are or what “they” did. In fact Hans von Storch is one of Germany’s leading climate scientists as well as a believer in AGW. Beyond that, however, he is also an honest scientist who goes where the facts lead him.
Ender
M
magnet
Guest
What does work?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
On the other hand we have Roy Spencer, one of the chief critics of global warming, and director of the satellite measuring system who said,
“I’ve always cautioned fellow skeptics that it’s dangerous to claim no warming,” Spencer said in a phone conversation. “There has been warming. The question is how much warming there’s been and how does that compare to what’s expected and what’s predicted.”
as reported here. That same article shows that the “hiatus” is over.
E
Ender
Guest
Spencer’s comment is generic; there is nothing in it to suggest it applied to the last 20 years. Very few people hold to the idea that there has been no warming at all in the last century.
Nor is this assertion any more accurate. The article did not claim that the hiatus was over. What it said was that January and February of this year were the warmest on record. The amount of warming over the past 18+ years is not determined by those two months. Once again, more is claimed than is supported either by the evidence or by the scientists reporting it.
The above was stated in the article you cited, but it presents a problem. According to the theory of AGW, the greatest warming should be seen in the tropics, not around the Arctic Circle. If CO2 really is warming the atmosphere then why isn’t the warming appearing where it is supposed to?
Ender
M
magnet
Guest
Actually, dramatic heat buildup in the Equatorial regions is moderated by outward flow of air poleward.
Hot air from the Equator flows toward the poles. The polar regions have so little solar radiation compared with the tropics, they act as an air and heat sump. Since the volume of Equatorial air is so huge compared with the volume of polar air, geo air circulation patterns show a build up pressure in the vicinity of the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn with a consequent downward air flow. This is why most of the world’s deserts are located astride these two latitudes. Poleward of these latitudes is the zone of maximum exchange of polar air and air from the Tropics. That is the reason for the stormy nature of the North Pacific, North Atlantic, and Cape Horn of South America. It is also a major reason why Europe,the United States, and Japan have so many storms. In North America, and Asia, the land areas closest to the poles receive relatively little precipitation. Some have applied the term Arctic deserts.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
If Spencer is not overly concerned about the last 20 years and is content to speak of the last 100 years, why do you focus so intently on the “hiatus”? I think it is pretty clear the Spencer is not on board with the “no warming in 20 years” claim that I see voiced here so often.
No, but when you add in those two months it does affect the trend in a positive manner - a trend that was already positive. Listen to Spencer. Focus on the amount of warming if you want to be critical of the theory, because saying there is no warming just cannot be supported.
As magnet showed, this is the problem when we apply our own layman theories as to how things are supposed to happen.
T
Theo520
Guest
That’s a silly comment.
Scientists frequently issue a press release or go on the record that some journalist has misrepresented their research. I claim they are complicit in the deception since they usually reserve this action for correcting non alarmists.
A lower ECS, with some other adjustments has excellent hind-casting and predictive value.
The research in the OP will reduce the model ECS, after it’s absorbed and further validated.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
You are deflecting the discussion from the fact that climate scientists have not made the outlandish claims that was attributed to them earlier in this thread. When it was pointed out that the outlandish claims were media exaggerations, you then blamed the scientists for what the popular media has said. You sure will go to some lengths to discredit climate scientists.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
There is an excellent discussion of the use of press releases to represent or misrepresent science here:
sepp.org/twtwfiles/2016/TWTW6-25-16.pdf
It was published just two days ago.
And it also mentions that July 1st is the date for nominations of Jackson Award winners.
E
Ender
Guest
My concern is with what I see as a bait-and-switch argument. There are two different questions here: has global warming occurred (over the last 100 years or so), and is global warming occurring now (as determined by the last 20 years or so). Spencer’s comment pertains to the first question, and is in no way applicable to the second.
Two months is not a trend, no one here has asserted that there has been no long term warming, and Spencer’s comment is simply irrelevant to the question of whether warming is occurring now.
What you dismiss as my own “layman theory” was pulled from the IPCC AR4 report. They are the ones who put together the graphs showing the heat signatures of different sources. It was magnet who’s theory was his own, not mine.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
The Hotspot was the heat signature of greenhouse warming as determined by the IPCC. Once again, reality and theory are not playing nice together.
Ender
T
Theo520
Guest
Most are complicit and some play an active role, like Mann. The point is relevant and not a deflection. People with integrity ensure their findings are properly represented.
Luckily, the recent CERN findings will cut the alarmists off at the knees, they will no longer have their worst case 4-9 C warming scenario to justify Armageddon outcomes to earth systems. Maybe then we can start focusing on real solutions to address real risks.
T
Theo520
Guest
Here is a perfect example of this abuse, of hiding the probabilities to spread alarmism, by National Geographic in this example. The research in predicated on RCP 8.5 model projections. In this scenario CO2 levels rise above 1200 ppm and all the nasty feedback assumptions are true, so temps increase over 8 deg Celsius.
Antarctica Could Lose Most of Its Penguins to Climate Change
The article is heavy on catastrophic alarmism but fails to temper it with any perspective on the probability of this world ending scenario.
Antarctica Could Lose Most of Its Penguins to Climate Change
The article is heavy on catastrophic alarmism but fails to temper it with any perspective on the probability of this world ending scenario.
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
That happens to be the high emissions scenario so naturally the bad stuff is also high.
T
Theo520
Guest
RCP 8.5 assumes rapid population growth and that we quickly burn through all our coal and oil reserves. It’s already not happening.That happens to be the high emissions scenario so naturally the bad stuff is also high.
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
That’s only one scenario.
T
Theo520
Guest
But it’s the scenario used exclusively by apocalyptic research,
like my link to the penguins are all gonna die etc.
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
No, it says
The tone of the article is concerned, but it does note that there are refuges where they could survive the warming.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Not only wrong, but VERY WRONG…
I just posted about how the scientists themselves may have been grossly underestimating climate change in several different ways: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=14020143#post14020143
T
Theo520
Guest
The take away was GW will kill many penguins and it didn’t really mention the probabilities.
You should stop defending bad journalism
- Status