Global Warming costs mounting up

[BlasterBates]

Either ill-informed, blinkered, a troll, or just possibly a maverick genius who has overturned several textbooks worth of basic science.

But we can examine the causes of your scepticism if you like. Do you, for example, accept the finding that greenhouse gas accumulation (not just CO2 btw) has caused a radiative imbalance, or forcing, equivalent to an addition 1.6W on average falling on each and every square metre of the planet? And that objects in such an imbalance must get warmer or contravene the Laws of Thermodynamics?

Complete and utter nonsense, now that is a very ill informed statement.

It is well accepted that CO2 alone is NOT responsible for the radiative imbalance, there has to be positive feedback, which is in dispute:


Research « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

[BlasterBates]

You're confusing two concepts - a forcing and feedbacks to that forcing. No climate scientist - Spencer & Lindzen included - disagrees with the increased GHG forcing or that the increased GHGs are anthropogenic in origin.

All the evidence is that positive feedbacks dominate and so the warming directly caused by the radiative imbalance will be amplified. The largest single feedback factor is water vapour. A warmer atmosphere retains more water vapour and becomes more humid - water vapour is itself a powerful greenhouse gas and so warms the planet futher- a positive feedback.

Before anyone objects that this is a purely modelled and theoretical effect - it has been observed, measured and found to be in line with the models, e.g. Dessler 2008 concluded

The existence of a strong and positive water-vapor feedback means that projected business-as-usual greenhouse gas emissions over the next century are virtually guaranteed to produce warming of several degrees Celsius. The only way that will not happen is if a strong, negative, and currently unknown feedback is discovered somewhere in our climate system

Easterbrook has just told too many lies to be worth reading, and Spencer's controversial ideas on negative feedback, even they turn out to be a real phenomenon, are unlikely to scale from the tropical oceans to the whole climate system.

An here's a drop of 1 degree Farenheit in one year.

AMSU-A Temperatures Trends from NOAA-15


Not looking good for the warmingistas. Is this going to bounce back up? no of course not it'll drop quite a bit further and stay down.

Easterbrooks projections are far more accurate than Hansen's fantasies.

Here is an insight into Hansen's state of mind.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/1...uled-by-china/

[BlasterBates]

Yes of course we were in the warm phase PDO so it gets warm for 30 years, but then it stops warming and slowly cools down. The temperatures have been slowly going up since the 17th century. The current rate of rise is no higher than it was between 1910 and 1940.

If you speed your car up from 30 mph to 60 mph and then start slowing down, for a while your car will still be faster than 30 mph.

Takes time to cool down. But it hasn't got any hotter. There has been no statistically significant warming since 1995, and there has been cooling since 2002, although it isn't statistically signifcant. These are Phil Jones words.

By the way 2008 isn't on that list, and 2011 won't be either. 2011-2020 will probably be more like the 1990's or late 1980's, and by 2030 we'll probably be back to temps of the 1970's.

2011 has started off below average, like 2008, so the cooling from 2002 still stands.

Just look at this:

[BlasterBates]

It certainly takes chutzpah to claim a cooling trend after the warmest year in the record!

Average...

You need to go back and do a course on scientific method

You see climate change is all about averages over decades. You're making the elementary mistake of many amateurs of focusing on a single data point, 2010 . The fact is on average it hasn't warmed since the beginning of 2000, and the cooling has begun. 2010 was close to 1998 but 1998 was warmer. No scientist has stated 2010 was the hottest year. GISS put it equal to 2005, and the other temperature records have it slightly cooler than 1998.

You don't do too badly, but show ignorance on certain crucial points.

You need to read this:

Don J. Easterbrook, Research Publications: Global climate change | global warming

Looks like his prediction is coming true.

[pjclarke]

So climate change is all about 'averages over decades', however the trend since 2002 is important, we should refrain from drawing hasty conclusions from a single datum, yet the last fortnight's temperatures are incredibly significant.

Thanks - got that.

I haven't read all of Easterbrook's nonsense, Chris Colose did that dirty job ...

Easterbrook’s analysis is hopelessly flawed, and one is left to wonder just why he would intentionally shoot down his own credibility with such sloppiness. Any support of this work on internet sources is not a support of any actual science or data, but an appeal to authority.

[...]

In short, there is absolutely no science in Easterbrook’s article, and much of it is based on misrepresentations of the IPCC and ignorance of the climate system he is analyzing. His implication that a changing PDO almost assures us for a coming cooling period is just wishful thinking, but he doesn’t understand the difference between a “signal” and “noise” or what the PDO actually does. He effectively assumes that greenhouse gases have had minimal impact, and will do so, without quantifying this argument. As such, there is no basis for his conclusion that global warming is over and that global cooling is awaiting us.

Bye for now.

[EternalOptimist]

Well, I dont know the tractor figures, the endless dull diatribe that you get from the warming zealots. But I recognise sales techniques, emotive language, demonisation and political manouvreing.

It's what made me sceptical in the first place. I am not an expert climateologist, but I am an expert in life. and I know when someone is trying to sell me something

[pjclarke]

Selling what exactly? To quote Jim Prall

[It's a] silly notion that any government would want there to be a problem as tough to deal with as AGW. Nobody can get anywhere on suitable policy response in the U.S. If the leadership knew the problem was fake but wanted to keep people worried about a fake problem, what actual good would that do them?

Power? How exactly does creating a fake problem that you then utterly fail to address give you power?

[DimPrawn]

Selling what exactly? To quote Jim Prall

Basically you (western governments) can tax the sheet out of businesses and people as everyone and everything uses energy and using energy will "destroy the world".

It's a licence to tax the west to oblivion and anyone who stands up against it is a denier and an eco-terrorist.

It's the best extortion racket since Al Capone.

[EternalOptimist]

Selling what exactly? To quote Jim Prall

i chose my words carefully. concentrate on the word zealot

[TykeMerc]

Selling what exactly? To quote Jim Prall

Lets see.

Jumping on the popular green bandwagon - loads of votes in it
Massive tax raising power with a wonderful camouflage so no backlash
Exerting sizable control over peoples lives - power being the ultimate aim of all politicians
Being seen to strive against an unattainable goal supposedly in the interest of the people while on massive junkets all over the place
Impossible "problem" so no real effort required as there are precious few real deliverables

To politicians it's money for old rope with no comeback.