Warming whoops: Scientists debate the falling rate of rising temperatures

Started Sep 18, 2013 | Discussions
kcbeatty
Senior MemberPosts: 1,761
Like?
Re: When are you guys....
In reply to Roger99, Sep 19, 2013

Roger99 wrote:

...going to work out that Fox news and Fox news links just won't cut it. If you want to offer anything that is going to be taken seriously you will have to offer up some useful links to legitimate research. You can effectively preach to your own with Fox links but for anyone else concerned with this issue (or any for that matter) you will automatically be dumped rightfully in the crackpot pile. You should avoid Fox media links or any of their affiliates and any right or left winged biased media outlets with political or financial motivations. Show us successfully peer reviewed material from legit scientific community sources and it will be worth a discussion but even hinting that you flick past Fox on a channel hunt pretty much blows you out of the water with any reasonable individual. Any Fox links or Fox interpretations need not be looked into and are not worth the electricity used in the click.

For cryin' out loud kiddies, even Ruperts mother was publicly (and a family member at that level and her generation going public with these concerns speaks the worries she had) ashamed of his abuse of the family media empire for his own nut job power grab and the fact that there are people out there that take his work with more than a grain of salt shames and compromises us all.

I'm sorry your hatred for Fox News blinds you from the truth.  I know it would be a waste of time trying to set you straight, so I won't.

kcbeatty wrote:

The world has warmed 0.05 degrees Celsius (0.09 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade over the past 15 years, a fraction of the 0.2ºC (0.36ºF) per decade rate confidently predicted by the U.N. six years ago, according to a leaked copy of the foremost climate report in the world.

“The rate of warming over the past 15 years (0.05°C per decade) is smaller than the trend since 1951 (0.12°C per decade),” the draft report states.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/17/is-global-warming-actually-far-lower-than-scientists-predicted

That’s the upshot of a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change

that compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990's to the actual amount of warming. Out of 117 predictions, the study’s author told FoxNews.com, three were roughly accurate and 114 overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/climate-models-wildly-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/?intcmp=related

Also there's this:

About a million more square miles of ocean are covered in ice in 2013 than in 2012, a whopping 60 percent increase -- and a dramatic deviation from predictions of an "ice-free Arctic in 2013,"

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/09/arctic-sea-ice-up-60-percent-in-2013/?intcmp=related

The UN will officially release the full report soon. Some how this information was leaked out ahead of the report. They are scrambling to try and rewrite the reports to make them not as damaging to the AGW predictions.

-- hide signature --

Kevin

-- hide signature --

The one serious conviction one should hold is that nothing should be taken too seriously.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle
..oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

-- hide signature --

Kevin

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chato
Forum ProPosts: 44,857Gear list
Like?
Re: Highly misleading..
In reply to kcbeatty, Sep 19, 2013

kcbeatty wrote:

Chato wrote:

kcbeatty wrote:

Chato wrote:

kcbeatty wrote:

So your blogger trumps the UN Climate Scientist's report?

Not at all, The UN Climate Report is more certain then ever about AGW Climate Change.

His point is that your source is giving misleading information EVEN about that coming report.

Dave

Misleading info based on what? What is becoming the biggest problem as I see it is that both sides of this controversy have scientific data backing up their claims. What are the people to do?

A lot of the anti-AGW scientists are keeping quiet about their facts so they won't be attacked by their piers.

No scientist worth their salt has EVER kept quiet because of their peers. This is part and parcel of the "Global wamring is a hoax" nonsense.

Would YOU keep quiet?

I would if it meant loss of funding if I disclose the truth. Research scientists depend on government grants to fund their research, and to put food on their table. There is a lot of money available in the AGW field of research and the alternative energy research.

If you work for NASA or NOAA or a host of other agencies, you don't get "funding." You have a job, and whatever conclusions you come to are simply a part of your job.

You can predict global cooling or global warming or no change at all, it's all the same as far as your job goes.

That is EXACTLY why I call this a myth.

Dave

-- hide signature --

"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tom Rogers
Contributing MemberPosts: 886Gear list
Like?
Re: Warming whoops: Scientists debate the falling rate of rising temperatures
In reply to Todd Ka, Sep 19, 2013

The funding is coming mostly from "big oil" and others who don't want global warming to be a fact.  Hopefully, professors from the left and right are seeking the truth.  GW is not a political issue, but the search for truth.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Roger99
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,147
Like?
Re: When are you guys....
In reply to kcbeatty, Sep 24, 2013

kcbeatty wrote:

I'm sorry your hatred for Fox News blinds you from the truth. I know it would be a waste of time trying to set you straight, so I won't.

Having spent some 35 years or so watching the machinations of Rupert and knowing his agenda (and having spent a weekend with his son some time ago) I can assure you that Fox has nothing to do with the truth.

As for this "report" it seems to have conveniently avoided any comment on the fact that while atmospheric temperatures haven't risen as much as predicted rise in deep ocean temperatures have more than made up for the discrepancy.

kcbeatty wrote:

The world has warmed 0.05 degrees Celsius (0.09 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade over the past 15 years, a fraction of the 0.2ºC (0.36ºF) per decade rate confidently predicted by the U.N. six years ago, according to a leaked copy of the foremost climate report in the world.

“The rate of warming over the past 15 years (0.05°C per decade) is smaller than the trend since 1951 (0.12°C per decade),” the draft report states.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/17/is-global-warming-actually-far-lower-than-scientists-predicted

That’s the upshot of a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change

that compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990's to the actual amount of warming. Out of 117 predictions, the study’s author told FoxNews.com, three were roughly accurate and 114 overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/climate-models-wildly-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/?intcmp=related

Also there's this:

About a million more square miles of ocean are covered in ice in 2013 than in 2012, a whopping 60 percent increase -- and a dramatic deviation from predictions of an "ice-free Arctic in 2013,"

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/09/arctic-sea-ice-up-60-percent-in-2013/?intcmp=related

The UN will officially release the full report soon. Some how this information was leaked out ahead of the report. They are scrambling to try and rewrite the reports to make them not as damaging to the AGW predictions.

There was no leak apparently.  The report was submitted.  Perhaps it was leaked to a department in Fox  which normally only gets info on material that Rupert allows from the outside world.

-- hide signature --

Kevin

Kevin
-- hide signature --

The one serious conviction one should hold is that nothing should be taken too seriously.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle
..oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Roger99
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,147
Like?
This has been sourced to The Daily Mail in the UK....
In reply to kcbeatty, Sep 24, 2013

...and has been discredited as a combination of intentionally fudging the figures for a biased article and just basic misinterpretation of the report due to bad research and ignorance of the science.

Surprise, surprise.

Guess Fox has run off at the mouth over nothin' agin'.

kcbeatty wrote:

The world has warmed 0.05 degrees Celsius (0.09 sFahrenheit) per decade over the past 15 years, a fraction of the 0.2ºC (0.36ºF) per decade rate confidently predicted by the U.N. six years ago, according to a leaked copy of the foremost climate report in the world.

“The rate of warming over the past 15 years (0.05°C per decade) is smaller than the trend since 1951 (0.12°C per decade),” the draft report states.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/17/is-global-warming-actually-far-lower-than-scientists-predicted

That’s the upshot of a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change

that compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990's to the actual amount of warming. Out of 117 predictions, the study’s author told FoxNews.com, three were roughly accurate and 114 overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/climate-models-wildly-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/?intcmp=related

Also there's this:

About a million more square miles of ocean are covered in ice in 2013 than in 2012, a whopping 60 percent increase -- and a dramatic deviation from predictions of an "ice-free Arctic in 2013,"

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/09/arctic-sea-ice-up-60-percent-in-2013/?intcmp=related

The UN will officially release the full report soon. Some how this information was leaked out ahead of the report. They are scrambling to try and rewrite the reports to make them not as damaging to the AGW predictions.

-- hide signature --

Kevin

-- hide signature --

The one serious conviction one should hold is that nothing should be taken too seriously.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle
..oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
BorisK1
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,025Gear list
Like?
It's the ocean!
In reply to kcbeatty, Sep 24, 2013

Don't you know that all the extra heat is going into this new phenomenon called "the ocean"?

Science can only deal with observable data. Who knew the bloody thing would pop out of nowhere and mess up the predictions?

Now that the ocean happens to be here and affecting the climate, I'm sure they'll add it into the computer models and fix the short-term forecasts any week now.

But not, of course, the long-term trends. Unpredictable little things like oceans, notoriously fickle and prone to appear and disappear at the worst possible moments, could never affect long-term trends.

 BorisK1's gear list:BorisK1's gear list
Olympus Tough TG-1 iHS Olympus E-3 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus Zuiko Digital 11-22mm 1:2.8-3.5
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Roger99
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,147
Like?
Exactly...
In reply to BorisK1, Sep 24, 2013

BorisK1 wrote:

Don't you know that all the extra heat is going into this new phenomenon called "the ocean"?

Science can only deal with observable data. Who knew the bloody thing would pop out of nowhere and mess up the predictions?

Now that the ocean happens to be here and affecting the climate, I'm sure they'll add it into the computer models and fix the short-term forecasts any week now.

But not, of course, the long-term trends. Unpredictable little things like oceans, notoriously fickle and prone to appear and disappear at the worst possible moments, could never affect long-term trends.

Yes, thank you.

90% of the heat has been going to the deep ocean it turns out (as explained in the real report rather than the Fox media fantasy version) and when it has sunk enough the thermal inertia has some nasty potentials.  Of course Fox leaves the ocean out of it all of the time.  Some nasty little things going on there they really don't want to focus on it seems.  Alas, just no real way to spin the numbers in their favor.

Someone has really got to do something about Rupert.  The guys a git leading a git army.

-- hide signature --

The one serious conviction one should hold is that nothing should be taken too seriously.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle
..oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
BorisK1
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,025Gear list
Like?
There's only one little question
In reply to Roger99, Sep 24, 2013

BorisK1 wrote:

Don't you know that all the extra heat is going into this new phenomenon called "the ocean"?

Science can only deal with observable data. Who knew the bloody thing would pop out of nowhere and mess up the predictions?

Now that the ocean happens to be here and affecting the climate, I'm sure they'll add it into the computer models and fix the short-term forecasts any week now.

But not, of course, the long-term trends. Unpredictable little things like oceans, notoriously fickle and prone to appear and disappear at the worst possible moments, could never affect long-term trends.

Yes, thank you.

90% of the heat has been going to the deep ocean it turns out (as explained in the real report rather than the Fox media fantasy version) and when it has sunk enough the thermal inertia has some nasty potentials.  Of course Fox leaves the ocean out of it all of the time.  Some nasty little things going on there they really don't want to focus on it seems.  Alas, just no real way to spin the numbers in their favor.

Someone has really got to do something about Rupert.  The guys a git leading a git army.

-- hide signature --

The one serious conviction one should hold is that nothing should be taken too seriously.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle
..oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

A few simple questions, if you don't mind: This massive ocean, with its humongous heat inertia, where has it been before? If it didn't just appear out of thin air, why didn't it stop the earlier warning? And finally, how come nobody predicted it would do so now?

 BorisK1's gear list:BorisK1's gear list
Olympus Tough TG-1 iHS Olympus E-3 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus Zuiko Digital 11-22mm 1:2.8-3.5
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Roger99
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,147
Like?
Re: There's only one little question
In reply to BorisK1, Sep 24, 2013

BorisK1 wrote:

BorisK1 wrote:

Don't you know that all the extra heat is going into this new phenomenon called "the ocean"?

Science can only deal with observable data. Who knew the bloody thing would pop out of nowhere and mess up the predictions?

Now that the ocean happens to be here and affecting the climate, I'm sure they'll add it into the computer models and fix the short-term forecasts any week now.

But not, of course, the long-term trends. Unpredictable little things like oceans, notoriously fickle and prone to appear and disappear at the worst possible moments, could never affect long-term trends.

Yes, thank you.

90% of the heat has been going to the deep ocean it turns out (as explained in the real report rather than the Fox media fantasy version) and when it has sunk enough the thermal inertia has some nasty potentials. Of course Fox leaves the ocean out of it all of the time. Some nasty little things going on there they really don't want to focus on it seems. Alas, just no real way to spin the numbers in their favor.

Someone has really got to do something about Rupert. The guys a git leading a git army.

-- hide signature --

The one serious conviction one should hold is that nothing should be taken too seriously.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle
..oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

A few simple questions, if you don't mind: This massive ocean, with its humongous heat inertia, where has it been before? If it didn't just appear out of thin air, why didn't it stop the earlier warning? And finally, how come nobody predicted it would do so now?

The nature of this warming event is that it is happening far faster than any other warming event in discoverable history.  It is the effect of releasing millions of years of naturally deposited carbon into the system in the space of 150 years.  Other warming events have been far more gradual and the thermal and carbon sink action of the oceans had time to even things out around a mean.  Now things are happening faster than natural systems can cope with.  So far we have been coasting on mild effects but we are lining up some pretty impressive tipping points, one or two of which have some very attention getting potential.

-- hide signature --

The one serious conviction one should hold is that nothing should be taken too seriously.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle
..oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tom Rogers
Contributing MemberPosts: 886Gear list
Like?
Re: Warming whoops: Scientists debate the falling rate of rising temperatures
In reply to kcbeatty, Sep 24, 2013

Some people on this forum seem to be obsessed with the accuracy of models as opposed to looking at the data.  The models will remain imperfect because of the complexity of weather.  Don't confuse models with data.  Glaciers are disappearing all over the planet.  We can make a model predicting how fast that will continue to happen.  You should care less about the model, and be more interested in data.  If you want to see glaciers in Glacier NP, you had better plan to go soon.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
BorisK1
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,025Gear list
Like?
Re: There's only one little question
In reply to Roger99, Sep 24, 2013

BorisK1 wrote:

BorisK1 wrote:

Don't you know that all the extra heat is going into this new phenomenon called "the ocean"?

Science can only deal with observable data. Who knew the bloody thing would pop out of nowhere and mess up the predictions?

Now that the ocean happens to be here and affecting the climate, I'm sure they'll add it into the computer models and fix the short-term forecasts any week now.

But not, of course, the long-term trends. Unpredictable little things like oceans, notoriously fickle and prone to appear and disappear at the worst possible moments, could never affect long-term trends.

Yes, thank you.

90% of the heat has been going to the deep ocean it turns out (as explained in the real report rather than the Fox media fantasy version) and when it has sunk enough the thermal inertia has some nasty potentials. Of course Fox leaves the ocean out of it all of the time. Some nasty little things going on there they really don't want to focus on it seems. Alas, just no real way to spin the numbers in their favor.

Someone has really got to do something about Rupert. The guys a git leading a git army.

-- hide signature --

The one serious conviction one should hold is that nothing should be taken too seriously.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle
..oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

A few simple questions, if you don't mind: This massive ocean, with its humongous heat inertia, where has it been before? If it didn't just appear out of thin air, why didn't it stop the earlier warning? And finally, how come nobody predicted it would do so now?

The nature of this warming event is that it is happening far faster than any other warming event in discoverable history.  It is the effect of releasing millions of years of naturally deposited carbon into the system in the space of 150 years.  Other warming events have been far more gradual and the thermal and carbon sink action of the oceans had time to even things out around a mean.  Now things are happening faster than natural systems can cope with.  So far we have been coasting on mild effects but we are lining up some pretty impressive tipping points, one or two of which have some very attention getting potential.

-- hide signature --

The one serious conviction one should hold is that nothing should be taken too seriously.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle
..oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

Are you saying that the ocean's heat inertia only just now started to "react" to the initial wave of warming, the one from 150 years ago?

 BorisK1's gear list:BorisK1's gear list
Olympus Tough TG-1 iHS Olympus E-3 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus Zuiko Digital 11-22mm 1:2.8-3.5
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
heinzguderian
Senior MemberPosts: 1,108
Like?
Re: There's only one little question
In reply to Roger99, Sep 24, 2013

Roger99 wrote:

BorisK1 wrote:

BorisK1 wrote:

Don't you know that all the extra heat is going into this new phenomenon called "the ocean"?

Science can only deal with observable data. Who knew the bloody thing would pop out of nowhere and mess up the predictions?

Now that the ocean happens to be here and affecting the climate, I'm sure they'll add it into the computer models and fix the short-term forecasts any week now.

But not, of course, the long-term trends. Unpredictable little things like oceans, notoriously fickle and prone to appear and disappear at the worst possible moments, could never affect long-term trends.

Yes, thank you.

90% of the heat has been going to the deep ocean it turns out (as explained in the real report rather than the Fox media fantasy version) and when it has sunk enough the thermal inertia has some nasty potentials. Of course Fox leaves the ocean out of it all of the time. Some nasty little things going on there they really don't want to focus on it seems. Alas, just no real way to spin the numbers in their favor.

Someone has really got to do something about Rupert. The guys a git leading a git army.

-- hide signature --

The one serious conviction one should hold is that nothing should be taken too seriously.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle
..oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

A few simple questions, if you don't mind: This massive ocean, with its humongous heat inertia, where has it been before? If it didn't just appear out of thin air, why didn't it stop the earlier warning? And finally, how come nobody predicted it would do so now?

The nature of this warming event is that it is happening far faster than any other warming event in discoverable history. It is the effect of releasing millions of years of naturally deposited carbon into the system in the space of 150 years. Other warming events have been far more gradual and the thermal and carbon sink action of the oceans had time to even things out around a mean. Now things are happening faster than natural systems can cope with. So far we have been coasting on mild effects but we are lining up some pretty impressive tipping points, one or two of which have some very attention getting potential.

My concern wit all this is that they were so sure they knew what was happening, but patently they did not understand how the system works. The models were fundamentally wrong.

I am quite happy to accept revised models, that is what science is all about, but if we go with what you say about observing data, then that shows us that despite a huge increase in CO2, temperatures have not risen. The oceans appear to be another model, which, quite frankly, I have little confidence in.

-- hide signature --

The one serious conviction one should hold is that nothing should be taken too seriously.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle
..oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kcbeatty
Senior MemberPosts: 1,761
Like?
Re: This has been sourced to The Daily Mail in the UK....
In reply to Roger99, Sep 25, 2013

Roger99 wrote:

...and has been discredited as a combination of intentionally fudging the figures for a biased article and just basic misinterpretation of the report due to bad research and ignorance of the science.

Surprise, surprise.

Guess Fox has run off at the mouth over nothin' agin'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scientists-confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought--computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html

In this link is the report from the Daily Mail. It does not look close to what you are spouting off about.

"The Mail on Sunday has obtained the final draft of a report to be published later this month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the ultimate watchdog whose massive, six-yearly ‘assessments’ are accepted by environmentalists, politicians and experts as the gospel of climate science."

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has changed its story after issuing stern warnings about climate change for years."

"They recognise the global warming ‘pause’ first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997.

lThey admit large parts of the world were as warm as they are now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250 AD – centuries before the Industrial Revolution, and when the population and CO2 levels were both much lower.

lThe IPCC admits that while computer models forecast a decline in Antarctic sea ice, it has actually grown to a new record high. Again, the IPCC cannot say why."

kcbeatty wrote:

The world has warmed 0.05 degrees Celsius (0.09 sFahrenheit) per decade over the past 15 years, a fraction of the 0.2ºC (0.36ºF) per decade rate confidently predicted by the U.N. six years ago, according to a leaked copy of the foremost climate report in the world.

“The rate of warming over the past 15 years (0.05°C per decade) is smaller than the trend since 1951 (0.12°C per decade),” the draft report states.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/17/is-global-warming-actually-far-lower-than-scientists-predicted

That’s the upshot of a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change

that compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990's to the actual amount of warming. Out of 117 predictions, the study’s author told FoxNews.com, three were roughly accurate and 114 overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/climate-models-wildly-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/?intcmp=related

Also there's this:

About a million more square miles of ocean are covered in ice in 2013 than in 2012, a whopping 60 percent increase -- and a dramatic deviation from predictions of an "ice-free Arctic in 2013,"

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/09/arctic-sea-ice-up-60-percent-in-2013/?intcmp=related

The UN will officially release the full report soon. Some how this information was leaked out ahead of the report. They are scrambling to try and rewrite the reports to make them not as damaging to the AGW predictions.

-- hide signature --

Kevin

-- hide signature --

The one serious conviction one should hold is that nothing should be taken too seriously.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle
..oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

-- hide signature --

Kevin

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Roger99
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,147
Like?
Re: This has been sourced to The Daily Mail in the UK....
In reply to kcbeatty, Sep 27, 2013

kcbeatty wrote:

Roger99 wrote:

...and has been discredited as a combination of intentionally fudging the figures for a biased article and just basic misinterpretation of the report due to bad research and ignorance of the science.

Surprise, surprise.

Guess Fox has run off at the mouth over nothin' agin'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scientists-confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought--computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html

In this link is the report from the Daily Mail. It does not look close to what you are spouting off about.


-- hide signature --

Kevin

Exactly!  That's the problem.

-- hide signature --

The one serious conviction one should hold is that nothing should be taken too seriously.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle
..oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Roger99
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,147
Like?
Re: There's only one little question
In reply to BorisK1, Sep 27, 2013

BorisK1 wrote:

BorisK1 wrote:

BorisK1 wrote:

Don't you know that all the extra heat is going into this new phenomenon called "the ocean"?

Science can only deal with observable data. Who knew the bloody thing would pop out of nowhere and mess up the predictions?

Now that the ocean happens to be here and affecting the climate, I'm sure they'll add it into the computer models and fix the short-term forecasts any week now.

But not, of course, the long-term trends. Unpredictable little things like oceans, notoriously fickle and prone to appear and disappear at the worst possible moments, could never affect long-term trends.

Yes, thank you.

90% of the heat has been going to the deep ocean it turns out (as explained in the real report rather than the Fox media fantasy version) and when it has sunk enough the thermal inertia has some nasty potentials. Of course Fox leaves the ocean out of it all of the time. Some nasty little things going on there they really don't want to focus on it seems. Alas, just no real way to spin the numbers in their favor.

Someone has really got to do something about Rupert. The guys a git leading a git army.

-- hide signature --

The one serious conviction one should hold is that nothing should be taken too seriously.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle
..oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

A few simple questions, if you don't mind: This massive ocean, with its humongous heat inertia, where has it been before? If it didn't just appear out of thin air, why didn't it stop the earlier warning? And finally, how come nobody predicted it would do so now?

The nature of this warming event is that it is happening far faster than any other warming event in discoverable history. It is the effect of releasing millions of years of naturally deposited carbon into the system in the space of 150 years. Other warming events have been far more gradual and the thermal and carbon sink action of the oceans had time to even things out around a mean. Now things are happening faster than natural systems can cope with. So far we have been coasting on mild effects but we are lining up some pretty impressive tipping points, one or two of which have some very attention getting potential.

-- hide signature --

The one serious conviction one should hold is that nothing should be taken too seriously.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle
..oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

Are you saying that the ocean's heat inertia only just now started to "react" to the initial wave of warming, the one from 150 years ago?

The "reactions" have been going on for about thirty to fifty years.  The deep ocean warming has only recently been observed along with deep ocean acidification from the oceans role as a carbon sink.  That warming has only been accelerating in recent years as carbon passed levels that the system could cope with to current expectations.  What we need to be concerned with are tipping points where areas of concern pass a threshold and alter conditions dramatically.  One of the main ones is the North Atlantic conveyor current that keeps the northern hemisphere warm.  The dynamics of its flow are being disrupted by warmer northern oceans and polar ice melt dumping excess fresh water changing the specific gravity of the current and taking the definition out of the mechanism.  That has been showing signs of slowing over the past five years and if it fails it is the mechanism that causes ice ages.

The initial wave of the industrial revolution did have effects back then but they were no more than similar ones caused by acute events like the Krakatoa eruption.  These were minor by comparison and were eventually soaked up by natural mechanisms.  The current awareness started in the late sixties, early seventies when a Southern ocean atmospheric survey found levels of carbon to be far higher than were predicted.  Six months later another survey was mounted to take samples for analysis to determine the source of the elevated levels.  It proved to be industrial and car exhaust pollution.  That sparked the start of the development of predictive models to see if the increased carbon was going to have any effect.  All the short term predictions came to pass over a five year period and that is when the researchers started to notify governments.  Since then all has been going pretty much as expected but the greater long term models remain in debate with the oil companies trying to derail the research.

-- hide signature --

The one serious conviction one should hold is that nothing should be taken too seriously.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle
..oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Roger99
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,147
Like?
Re: There's only one little question
In reply to heinzguderian, Sep 29, 2013

heinzguderian wrote:

My concern wit all this is that they were so sure they knew what was happening, but patently they did not understand how the system works. The models were fundamentally wrong.

I am quite happy to accept revised models, that is what science is all about, but if we go with what you say about observing data, then that shows us that despite a huge increase in CO2, temperatures have not risen. The oceans appear to be another model, which, quite frankly, I have little confidence in.

That's a misconception.  The models have always been evolving and it has always been stated as such.  In the eighties the oil companies latched on to the fact that outcomes were uncertain and exploited this to disprove the science in the public sphere.  There has never really been any doubt that there would be detrimental effects but there have been (as there usually is in science) two or three models.  The old cooling earth model only lasted about ten years until readings showed another trend.  The outcome of this isn't off the table though because if the north Atlantic conveyor fails we will have an ice age but aside from this warming has been the trend for decades now.  Here in Melbourne for example we have been getting tornadoes where we never had them before for about ten years now and this year has been one of about five when we have been getting a number of summer electrical storms in mid September when normally we would get one around mid December.  Cyclone seasons are more energetic, massive flooding is now annual rather than every seven to ten years and bushfire seasons are flat out every year.  Temperatures are certainly rising.

As for Ocean models they are simpler to predict and they are going as expected.  Acidity is increasing in the oceans to the point that creatures that rely on calcium deposition to develop exoskeletons and shells have a reduced shell density 2/3rds of what they were getting 20 years ago and we have been getting massive jelly fish swarms that have been demolishing already strained fishing sites.  You should go to Japan and talk to fishermen.  They have no doubt as to what is happening.  Same as the farmers in most parts of the world.  They are traditionally a conservative voice that have observed the changes reported and don't dispute them.

I see that it is worth considering that Australia is the first region that changes like this tend to be observed before they reach other countries and it is easy to sell a lot of Americans on the idea that nothing is really happening but here it is for the most part accepted as common knowledge.  Everyone has noticed that something is happening.

All I can really say is that if you want more certainty from your scientists then let them do their job.

-- hide signature --

The one serious conviction one should hold is that nothing should be taken too seriously.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle
..oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Roger99
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,147
Like?
Re: Warming whoops: Scientists debate the falling rate of rising temperatures
In reply to Tom Rogers, Sep 29, 2013

Tom Rogers wrote:

Some people on this forum seem to be obsessed with the accuracy of models as opposed to looking at the data. The models will remain imperfect because of the complexity of weather. Don't confuse models with data. Glaciers are disappearing all over the planet. We can make a model predicting how fast that will continue to happen. You should care less about the model, and be more interested in data. If you want to see glaciers in Glacier NP, you had better plan to go soon.

The people you are referring to have no interest in data, models or anything they heard before yesterday and only then from Fox news.  They just don't want their world to change and denying the bleedin' f'n obvious makes that possible in their version of reality.  Try to reason with them, sure but expect a lot of tedium.  They won't actually read anything unless they agree with it and you won't get any discussion, only school yard standard insults.  Kinda sad really but ignorance really is bliss.  I just hope they don't have kids.  Irritating thing is that, just as intended, they derail rational conversation on the subject just about everywhere they infest the web.

-- hide signature --

The one serious conviction one should hold is that nothing should be taken too seriously.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle
..oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Roger99
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,147
Like?
More like a fairy tale. (nt)
In reply to Brian D. Schneider, Sep 29, 2013

Brian D. Schneider wrote:

kcbeatty wrote:

The world has warmed 0.05 degrees Celsius (0.09 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade over the past 15 years, a fraction of the 0.2ºC (0.36ºF) per decade rate confidently predicted by the U.N. six years ago, according to a leaked copy of the foremost climate report in the world.

“The rate of warming over the past 15 years (0.05°C per decade) is smaller than the trend since 1951 (0.12°C per decade),” the draft report states.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/17/is-global-warming-actually-far-lower-than-scientists-predicted

That’s the upshot of a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change

that compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990's to the actual amount of warming. Out of 117 predictions, the study’s author told FoxNews.com, three were roughly accurate and 114 overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/climate-models-wildly-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/?intcmp=related

Also there's this:

About a million more square miles of ocean are covered in ice in 2013 than in 2012, a whopping 60 percent increase -- and a dramatic deviation from predictions of an "ice-free Arctic in 2013,"

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/09/arctic-sea-ice-up-60-percent-in-2013/?intcmp=related

The UN will officially release the full report soon. Some how this information was leaked out ahead of the report. They are scrambling to try and rewrite the reports to make them not as damaging to the AGW predictions.

-- hide signature --

Kevin

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/18/climate_change_denier_article_updated_still_riddled_with_errors.html

-- hide signature --

The one serious conviction one should hold is that nothing should be taken too seriously.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle
..oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Henry Schobin
Forum ProPosts: 12,780Gear list
Like?
Re: Highly misleading..
In reply to Wheatfield, Oct 1, 2013

Wheatfield wrote:

Chato wrote:

kcbeatty wrote:

So your blogger trumps the UN Climate Scientist's report?

Not at all, The UN Climate Report is more certain then ever about AGW Climate Change.

His point is that your source is giving misleading information EVEN about that coming report.

So the AGW deniers are saying that because the climate isn't warming as fast as predicted a decade ago that the fact it is still warming doesn't count, and it isn't warming up, even though it is?

Have I got it straight?

No you got it wrong as usual.

-- hide signature --

Always remember, whenever you declare someone the dumbest person on Earth, someone else will stare at their screen intently, cross their arms and say ‘Challenge accepted’.

-- hide signature --

Rethink your last comment.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads