Reply to: Global Warming

[EternalOptimist]

This would be the icing on the cake, if as the Global Cooling takes place the CO2 levels go down.

with a nine month lag. yes that would be telling.

mind you, we would have to employ a modelling expert to factor out the impact of the scrappage scheme

[BlasterBates]

Well....since yesterday, I've learnt that IPCC scientists come to "scientific conclusions" based on a conversation with someone about a news article written by someone else, who based his views on heresay.

This is based on a statistical analysis of available data. Somewhat more credible than that "bunk" about Himalayan glaciers.

This would be the icing on the cake, if as the Global Cooling takes place the CO2 levels go down.

[sasguru]

Must be close to 5, the gurning and drooling village idiots have been let out for their daily constitutional.
Don't climb the stupid tree and fall out of it yet again, you hear?

[BlasterBates]

Where does the CO2 come from?

hmm fascinating...

[Paddy]

Bob Carter is a Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist

For many parts of the climate system, such as the behaviour of turbulent fluids or the processes that occur within clouds, our incomplete knowledge of the physics requires the extensive use of parameterisation (read ‘educated guesses’) in the models, especially for the many climate processes that occur at a scale below the 100-200 km2 size of the typical modelling grid.


Not surprisingly, therefore, the GCMs used by the IPCC have not been able to make successful climate predictions, nor to match the observed pattern of global temperature change over the late 20th century. Regarding the first point, none of the models was able to forecast the path of the global average temperature statistic as it elapsed between 1990 and 2006. Regarding the second, GCMs persistently predict that greenhouse warming trends should increase with altitude, especially in the tropics, with most warming at around 10 km height; in contrast, actual observations show the opposite, with either flat or decreasing warming trends with increasing height in the troposphere.

"The modellers themselves acknowledge that they are unable to predict future climate, preferring the term “projection” (which the IPCC, in turn, use as the basis for modelled socio-economic “scenarios”) to describe the output of their experiments. Individual models differ widely in their output under an imposed regime of doubled carbon dioxide. In 2001, the IPCC cited a range of 1.8 to 5.6 deg. C warming by 2100 for the model outputs that they favoured, but this range can be varied further to include even negative outputs (i.e. cooling) by adjustment of some of the model parameters. Indeed, the selected GCM outputs that IPCC places before us are but a handful of visions of future climate from amongst the literally billions of alternative future worlds that could be simulated using the self-same models."

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.ph...d=395&Itemid=1

[shaunbhoy]

Cue sasguru coming along and telling us we are all cretins that simply don't understand it all.
Bless him..............he is exactly why the word "gullible" was invented! And "simpleton" come to think of it.

[Churchill]

Sorry Guys, we F**ked up!

Oh well. At least the rest of the report is accurate...

The vice-chairman of the UN's climate science panel has admitted it made a mistake in asserting that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) included the date in its 2007 assessment of climate impacts.

A number of scientists have recently disputed the 2035 figure, and Jean-Pascal van Ypersele told BBC News that it was an error and would be reviewed.

But he said it did not change the broad picture of man-made climate change.

[threaded]

Oh, do stop with this, it's about as interesting as AtWs lunch. The global warming crowd have been shown to be a bunch of charlatans peddling bogus science from fiddled data. It's just a new wheeze for TPTB to raise taxes, that's all.

[Spacecadet]

Can you imagine the uproar from climate zealots if the recent weather had been abnormally warm instead fo abnormally cold?

define abnormal in this country

the weather always does whatever it ******* feels like doing!

[David Cameron]

Can you imagine the uproar from climate zealots if the recent weather had been abnormally warm instead fo abnormally cold?

[David Cameron]

I dont vote Tory

You should.

[threaded]

Oh, do stop with this, it's about as interesting as AtWs lunch. The global warming crowd have been shown to be a bunch of charlatans peddling bogus science from fiddled data. It's just a new wheeze for TPTB to raise taxes, that's all.

[Doggy Styles]

Why do we poo-poo economists, yet set stall by climatologists?

They both work in a similar way. Except that economists have more historical data.

[Doggy Styles]

This Dr. Lindzen?

http://unitedcats.wordpress.com/2007...rming-skeptic/

"In 2005, James Annan offered to take Lindzen, the MIT meteorologist, up on his bet that global temperatures in 20 years will be cooler than they are now. However, no wager was ever settled on because Lindzen wanted odds of 50-to-1 in his favour. This meant that for a $10,000 bet, Annan would have to pay Lindzen the entire sum if temperatures dropped, but receive only $200 if they rose.

“Richard Lindzen’s words say that there is about a 50 percent chance of [global] cooling,” Annan wrote about the bet. “His wallet thinks it is a 2 percent shot. Which do you believe?”
"

Really I do know you're not very well educated but to fall for such simple propaganda? Sheesh.

Does a report of someone not taking a bet negate evidence against global warming?

Only asking, like.

[RichardCranium]

Using links to blogs to prove an argument is getting tiresome

That depends upon the quality of the blog, Shirley?