- Joined
- Jan 24, 2013
- Messages
- 4,070
- Reaction score
- 2,449
- Location
- U.S.A.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
CO2 is a requisite to sustain life on this planet. :doh
Thom Paine
And now it's global COOLING! Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a yearAlmost a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012
BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013
Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month
Global cooling: Arctic ice caps grows by 60% against global warming predictions | Mail Online
View attachment 67153507
Do you seriously think a one-year increase in ice area means it's getting colder?
The part you people refuse to even think about is why the models turned out to be incorrect. To you, temperatures falling outside of the model range disproves AGW in of itself. This, of course, is based on fundamental misunderstandings about how climate models work and what their purpose is.
Do you seriously think a one-year increase in ice area means it's getting colder?
In the normal course of things, Humanity can survive the warming we are likely to see.
The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online
View attachment 67153508
CO2 is a requisite to sustain life on this planet. :doh
Thom Paine
So what is your point?
It has indeed been cooler than average in the Arctic for most of the summer. I'm not sure that explains the ice, though, since the ice extent has more to do with the winds there.
Note: The title of the actual article.
compared to Fox's headline
The use of the adjective "wildly" might be a bit much, but the title and headline say basically the same thing.
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate change/Climate model results/over estimate.pdf
so are you deny the existence of the ice age or the mini ice age that ended about 200 years ago?
they predicted that the earth temp would be 2 degrees hotter then when they made that perdition it only risen by .7 degrees and it has stopped
In the normal course of things, Humanity can survive the warming we are likely to see.
I am not so sure that would be a safe statement for the next ice age.
80 to 90% of the last 800,000 years have been spent in an ICE age, I think it is a
high probability it will return.
Kind of narrow-minded of you to think it will not!
Read Cook's abstract, that's not what it says.
About 36% of Scientist writing papers about Climate change, endorse AGW.
Most of the rest do not express a position.
Do you seriously think a one-year increase in ice area means it's getting colder?
No that doesn't disprove the AGW theory, which may be at least partly correct. It does show that the scientists don't know how to predict what will happen to the climate in the future. We should not be basing policy on such predictions.
Hi there Middleground :2wave: By now you've probably read the rest of the thread. post #50 generally sums up the point.
Have a nice eve
Thom Paine
And precipitation. But that's not the point. The point is that a single years worth of data is completely useless for establishing a climate trend.
Yeah, but so is 30 years. For all we know it's a cycle and is starting to turn back the other way.
No it shows that the models up to now have overestimated the warming trend during a particular period. The article suggests why.
It doesn't imply at all the "scientists don't know how to predict" future climate. Both the models and the measurements show global warming. If the actuality is not as bad as the predictions, that's good news. But we still have to deal with the problem, and denying it is pure knownothingism.
No, what we know is that it's not, since the data and models show otherwise.
That's what science does: makes predictions based on data and theories that are supported by fact and reason. The anthropogenic causation of global warming is well understood. The extent and rapidity is not.
That's not really that far off. If the weatherman says it's going to be 80 and it's only 78.7, that's still a pretty good prediction.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?