To those who don't believe AGW is real

[oracleslave]

<pulls up a chair>

Popcorn at the ready...

[EternalOptimist]

Excellent. Perhaps you could tell us why.

I think it was Aristotle who said that a five year old could destroy the most sophisticated philosophy in the world in just five words.
just by asking why ? five times in a row.

[sasguru]

I think it was Aristotle who said that a five year old could destroy the most sophisticated philosophy in the world in just five words.
just by asking why ? five times in a row.

Yes Aristotle was right. Can we get back on point? It's page 10 and I still haven't read any coherent, plausible, cogent criticism of The Royal Society (and most other national science academies) positions on AGW

[EternalOptimist]

I think I watched that episode of the Prisoner.

The computer caught fire...

Why it didn't just say "Syntax Error" I'll never know.

Sin tax ??

I hate that snot gobbler

[ace00]

Your point being?

(Temperature Increase = F(C2) - F(C1) where F(c)=Ln (1+1.2c+0.005c^2 +0.0000014c^3) and c is the concentration in ppm)

Is the formula used to calculate warming through increased CO2.
Turns out to be around 1.3 degree C per century using this equation with IPCC parameters.
I am willing to accept this although I think the numbers are a bit high-side of probability.
AGWsters then run the numbers through a feedback mechanism. Here I disagree. I think the atmosphere is a complex mechanism with +ve & -ve feedback mechanisms. I think the agw theory has the balance wrong in favor of the +ve.
That's the sum of my argument.

[DimPrawn]

Yes Aristotle was right. Can we get back on point? It's page 10 and I still haven't read any coherent, plausible, cogent criticism of The Royal Society (and most other national science academies) positions on AGW

The IPCC 2001 report openly acknowledged uncertainties in modelling climate change in the future. It stated that “because of uncertainty in climate sensitivity, and uncertainty about the geographic and seasonal patterns of projected changes in temperatures, precipitation, and other climate variables and phenomena, the impacts of climate change cannot be uniquely determined for individual emissions scenarios”.

The IPCC 2001 report acknowledged that it was not possible to tell what impact climate change would have on some individual local weather events. It concluded: “There is insufficient information on how very small-scale extreme weather phenomena (eg thunderstorms, tornadoes, hailstorms, and lightning)
may change”.

In otherwords, we haven't got a ******* clue, but more government funding so we can sit around pontificating is more than welcome.

PS. And no mention that since the IPCC report in 2001, global temps have not risen, which makes the predictions for global temps made in 2001 laughably wrong.

HTH

[sasguru]

(Temperature Increase = F(C2) - F(C1) where F(c)=Ln (1+1.2c+0.005c^2 +0.0000014c^3) and c is the concentration in ppm)

Is the formula used to calculate warming through increased CO2.
Turns out to be around 1.3 degree C per century using this equation with IPCC parameters.
I am willing to accept this although I think the numbers are a bit high-side of probability.
AGWsters then run the numbers through a feedback mechanism. Here I disagree. I think the atmosphere is a complex mechanism with +ve & -ve feedback mechanisms. I think the agw theory has the balance wrong in favor of the +ve.
That's the sum of my argument.

Lots of assertions, no evidence for
(1) where you got that equation
(2) why you think AGWers exagerrate the +ve feedback. The "greenhouse effect" is a well understood piece of science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

[ace00]

Lots of assertions, no evidence for
(1) where you got that equation
(2) why you think AGWers exagerrate the +ve feedback. The "greenhouse effect" is a well understood piece of science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

1. Do some research.
2. You completely fail to understand the point.

[DimPrawn]

1. Do some research.
2. You completely fail to understand the point.

sas cannot grasp the simple fact that the main assertion of the IPPCC report, which was based on 1990's data, that global temps will rise due to CO2 is plainly flawed, as the temps have not risen as predicted, ergo the whole report can be dismissed.

Now, can I have my 7 litre V8 back now please?

[DimPrawn]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...g-madness.html

This carefully ignores the latest US satellite figures showing temperatures having fallen since 1998, declining in 2007 to a 1983 level - not to mention the newly revised figures for US surface temperatures showing that the 1930s had four of the 10 warmest years of the past century, with the hottest year of all being not 1998, as was previously claimed, but 1934.

The data never lies. The figures used by the IPCC 2001 report to base their predictions was wrong and has been since revised. The hottest years were in the 1930's and the global temperature has now been falling for many years, yet CO2 in the atmosphere is rising.

Global warming became climate change becomes bulltulip.

The END