Big freeze could signal global warming 'pause'

[TykeMerc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

I've never taught in a special needs school, but it must feel remarkably like this: you've got to pound the facts into a very small receptacle indeed.

When do you propose to present the "facts" and scientific theory in a rational manner? If you intend to simply carry on trolling with abuse then I'll stop asking and just ignore your posts on the subject.

I would like to see a compelling argument in support of AGW as at this point there have been none that convinced me on the Internet and you've not put your views forwards.

[Spacecadet]

I've never taught in a special needs school, but it must feel remarkably like this: you've got to pound the facts into a very small receptacle indeed.

You need help

[Platypus]

I would like to see a compelling argument in support of AGW as at this point there have been none that convinced me on the Internet

I just stumbled on this lecture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio

So far, quite interesting. Definitely recommended.

[EternalOptimist]

When do you propose to present the "facts" and scientific theory in a rational manner? If you intend to simply carry on trolling with abuse then I'll stop asking and just ignore your posts on the subject.

I would like to see a compelling argument in support of AGW as at this point there have been none that convinced me on the Internet and you've not put your views forwards.

There are no facts.
There are several theories that lead to a set of conclusions.

The first theory is the greenhouse effect. The earth radiates energy, some gasses reflect heat back to the earth and therefore act as a blanket. Methane, water vapour and lastly (and insignificantly) CO2

The second theory is that human activity can alter the proportion of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. If the proportion changes enough, the climate can be affected. The main gas affected by human activity is C02.

If all of this is true, we should see evidence of climate change. This is where the Hockey stick comes in. There were graphs produced that showed quite clearly the climate warming, just when the theories said it would.

So what happens next ? well we need to produce paradigms and models to predict the future. It is these models that predict rising sea levels, melting ice and grapes in Greenland.

[sasguru]

When do you propose to present the "facts" and scientific theory in a rational manner? If you intend to simply carry on trolling with abuse then I'll stop asking and just ignore your posts on the subject.

I would like to see a compelling argument in support of AGW as at this point there have been none that convinced me on the Internet and you've not put your views forwards.

On the previous thread I suggested a simple experiment to confirm the feedback effect of CO2. I also suggested obtaining the temp. datasets that are availaible in the public domain (use google) and plotting them in Excel.

The latter shows temps are rising and the former suggests a possible mechanism.

Unfortunately all I get back is long-discredited propaganda put forward by thinly-disguised "think tanks" run by vested interests.
So I decided to banter with the idots on their own level.


HTH

[Platypus]

I just stumbled on this lecture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio

So far, quite interesting. Definitely recommended.

I just spent an hour watching this lecture (by a historian).

The science and scientists, predictions and models, come out rather well.

Frederick Seitz & co do not.

As a former believer in AGW, more recently becoming sick of all the scare stories and tending rather to the belief that it's all hype and lies, I'm now back to the view that AGW is in fact real - it seems that the early predictions of warming made in the 50's - 70's have indeed come to pass.

[AtW]

As a former believer in AtW, more recently becoming sick of all the SKA news and tending rather to the belief that it's all hype and lies, I'm now back to the view that AtW is in fact real - it seems that the early predictions of failure made few years ago have indeed come to pass.

FTFY

[shaunbhoy]

it seems that the early predictions of warming made in the 50's - 70's have indeed come to pass.

Eh? In the 60-70s scientists were predicting an Ice Age!!!

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3213/D...Ice-Age-Claims

[Platypus]

Eh? In the 60-70s scientists were predicting an Ice Age!!!

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3213/D...Ice-Age-Claims

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_R...Global_warming

In 1957, Revelle co-authored a paper with Hans Suess that suggested that the Earth's oceans would absorb excess carbon dioxide generated by humanity at a much slower rate than previously predicted by geoscientists, thereby suggesting that human gas emissions might create a "greenhouse effect" that would cause global warming over time. Although other articles in the same journal discussed carbon dioxide levels, the Suess-Revelle paper was "the only one of the three to stress the growing quantity of CO2 contributed by our burning of fossil fuel, and to call attention to the fact that it might cause global warming over time."

1964 Report

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/cisst/O...0EPW.FINAL.pdf

In 1979 the subject was addressed by the JASON committee—the reclusive group of highly cleared scientists who gather annually to evaluate scientific and technical problems for the U.S. government—and whose members have included some of the most brilliant scientists of our era, including physics Nobel Laureates Hans Bethe and Murray Gell-Mann.

The JASON scientists predicted that atmospheric CO2 might double by the year 2035, resulting in mean global temperature increases of 2-3o C, and polar warming of as much as 10-12o C. This report also reached the White House, where Frank Press, Science Advisor to President Carter, asked the National Academy of Sciences for a second opinion. An Academy committee, headed by MIT meteorologist Jule Charney, affirmed the JASON conclusion: “If carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we] find no reason to doubt that climate changes will result, and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.”

etc.

[BlasterBates]

Comparison of model predictions to measurments

It seems to me that global warming, which is undisputed between 1979-1998, has nevertheless been exagerated.

The Antarctic ice cap has changed in shape but not size, and it looks like the Polar ice cap even as of last year has gained a significant amount of ice. Oceans are cooling somewhat, and the hottest year ever is 1998 is moving further and further back into history.

Other research shows that glaciers in the Alps were melting faster in the 1940's (before global warming) than they were in the last couple of years. In fact the mini-ice age ended in 1850 and they've been receeding ever since, they're still longer then they were in the Roman period.

No doubt 1998 was the high point of the century, and that the globe was warming, also no doubt that 1998-2010 there has been a slight cooling. This cooling looks set to continue for the next decade or so.

Who knows what causes the warming or cooling but I think the dire predictions were over done.