From the time we have had the ability to more accurately determine temperatures around the globe — using satellites — guess what? The warming stopped. As Bob Carter noted there has been, “no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998 [and]… lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979.”
Comment on IPCC AR5 weakens the case for AGW by Wagathon
↧
↧
Comment on Antarctic sea ice saga by kim
Reached Maria on the red phone.
==========
↧
Comment on IPCC AR5 weakens the case for AGW by David Appell
GaryM wrote:
Cold invading the US from the Arctic was a regular occurrence in the 70s.
Where can I find that data?
↧
Comment on IPCC AR5 weakens the case for AGW by David Appell
phatboy wrote:
The Arctic ocean is almost entirely iced over once more.
But the melting ice is affecting the jet stream only now?
See the work of Jennifer Francis of Rutgers. Or watch her lecture here:
http://climatecrocks.com/2012/09/22/the-weekend-wonk-jennifer-francis-on-arctic-sea-ice/
↧
Comment on IPCC AR5 weakens the case for AGW by brent
Job Opening @ UNEP
The United Nations Environment Programme is to undertake an “Inquiry into the Design of a Sustainable Financial System: Policy Innovations for a Green Economy”, with its core objective being to identify and develop financial market policy and regulatory options, based on global best practice, which would deliver a step change in their effectiveness in channelling capital to green investments.
A small team is being assembled to support the set-up phase with two Co-Directors, together with a Head of Communications, which will make up the Inquiry`s leadership team. A Programme Officer is required to provide Programme support to the leadership team.
https://gprs.unops.org/pages/viewvacancy/VADetails.aspx?id=4524
↧
↧
Comment on IPCC AR5 weakens the case for AGW by Chris Quayle
That’s pretty good, as was Zappa, but my favourite is Moonlight on Vermont, by Beefheart,. Absolutely brilliant, as is the rest of the album :-).
Chris
↧
Comment on IPCC AR5 weakens the case for AGW by David Appell
The Old Farmer’s Almanac has a better track record than the climatists of Western academia with their GCMs.
They don’t predict (or project) the same thing. So comparing them is meaningless.
Besides, you have already made it clear that you will dismiss climate models no matter what results they give, so your claims about them are meaningless.
↧
Comment on IPCC AR5 weakens the case for AGW by David Appell
Well, predicting something before it actually happens would be good,
Successful predictions of climate science:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2013/02/successful-predictions-of-climate.html
↧
Comment on Is global warming causing the polar vortex? by timg56
Max,
“Certainly the polar vortex existed before man-made climate change”
It most certainly did.
They simply referred to it with a different name(s).
↧
↧
Comment on The Fundamental Uncertainties of Climate Change by lolwot
Shame that the arctic vortex griping the US at the moment will have realigned the voter’s sights on the threat of climate change then isn’t it.
↧
Comment on The Fundamental Uncertainties of Climate Change by Eunice
“It’s not about an optimal climate, it’s about keeping the current climate we’ve got rather than randomly perturbing it and risking disaster.”
Current climate we’ve got?
Here’s a fun game.
Go find the latitude-time plot of temperature anomalies:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/cdrar/do_LTmapE.cgi
and of precipitation anomalies:
http://static.trunity.net/files/190701_190800/190792/figure3-15-l.png
Pick any decade you like and declare that the way climate should be.
Then look at all the latitude bands you have declared to have higher or lower temperatures or precipitation.
There is no ‘normal’ climate.
↧
Comment on The Fundamental Uncertainties of Climate Change by lolwot
“There was no question of attribution for 9/11″
there are skeptics even on 9/11 you know
↧
Comment on The Fundamental Uncertainties of Climate Change by Wagathon
Exactly, Generalissimo FingerOnTheTriggger. We use statistics to tease out reality from a sample of it. But, when we have reality right there in front of us we don’t need a sample, just open eyes. The global warming alarmists simply do not wish to accept what they see.
↧
↧
Comment on The Fundamental Uncertainties of Climate Change by GaryM
“Given current trends in greenhouse gas emissions, sea levels are expected to rise at an accelerating rate in the future, and scientists project an increase in California’s sea level of up to 61 centimeters (24 inches) by 2050 and 167 centimeters (65.7 inches) by 2100….”
167 centimeters, 5 1/2 feet, of sea level rise on the California coast by 2100? Really?
“For high emissions IPCC now predicts a global rise by 52-98 cm by the year 2100.”
Now forget how inaccurate the GCMs are. California under Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown has decided the IPCC is not alarmist enough. It has underestimated the future sea level rise this century by half.
↧
Comment on The Fundamental Uncertainties of Climate Change by Generalissimo Logician
Garth Paltridge almost fouls out with a double-down on a fallacy within 100 words of each other. The No True Scotsman Fallacy to be precise. To whit:
"<b>no scientist close to the problem and in his right mind</b>, when asked the specific question, would say that he is 95% sure that the effect of clouds is to amplify rather than to reduce the warming effect of increasing carbon dioxide. If he is not sure that clouds amplify global warming, he cannot be sure that most of the global warming is a result of increasing carbon dioxide.
Bear in mind too that <b>no scientist close to the problem and in his right mind</b>,
↧
Comment on The Fundamental Uncertainties of Climate Change by lolwot
Eunice the Earth has different climate states.
As even skeptics will admit in more lucid moments when they describe “medieval warm period” and “little ice age” as two very different global climate states.
You could also compare glacial and interglacial.
Human emissions threaten to push the Earth into an unprecedented (means never happened before) superinterglacial.
↧
Comment on The Fundamental Uncertainties of Climate Change by Tonyb
Scott
The eu has emasculated us, which is why ordinary people hate Them
Tonyb
↧
↧
Comment on The Fundamental Uncertainties of Climate Change by Eunice
“So you are denying that floods and droughts happen?”
You are denying that floods and droughts have always happened as part of normal variation.
But you’re on pretty shaky ground claiming droughts are a part of warming when in the US, anyway, the PDSI actually indicates LESS drought over the century.
Floods are more difficult to assess because humans change drainage and floodplains ( and levees ). But there too, the US record does NOT indicate any effect on the wet/dry portion:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/uspa/index.php?area=wet-dry&month=0
↧
Comment on The Fundamental Uncertainties of Climate Change by GaryM
Oh no! R. Gates has found a press release by “climate scientists” that says it’s worse than we thought!
What are the odds?
↧
Comment on The Fundamental Uncertainties of Climate Change by Luis Gutierrez
Isn’t is possible that climate change skeptics suffer from the same problem?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
