68
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
MontereyJack
 
  0  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2011 08:38 am
Tell okie that, Ionus. He keeps quoting central England as if it's a good proxy for the world as a whole (I think he got that from Steve Milloy, the junk scientist).
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2011 07:23 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
okie wrote:
I would love to see good data on rainfall figures for the last century world wide.
You've quoted so often the data from Central England here, okie.
Don't you consider those for a good source any more?
Water Vapor figures for Central England would be better than nothing, Walter. So far, I haven't seen any data for water vapor there or globally.

By the way, turnabout is fair play, is it not? So if you don't like temps for Central England, and demand global temperature figures, why don't you require the same thing for water vapor? Another note, I doubt seriously that amount of rainfall is a one to one correlation to water vapor as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. If you or parados have any evidence that they are a perfect 1 to 1 correlation, let us know.
parados
 
  0  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2011 09:58 am
@okie,
Okie.. almost every place that keeps temperature records also keeps rainfall records.
Do you know what 100% humidity is okie?
parados
 
  0  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2011 10:00 am
@parados,
6000 year record of precipitation in China
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2011 05:13 pm
@parados,
Thats it ? Thats all you got ? How much of the worlds surface is china ? How much of it was China for 6,000 years ? Did they have any wars of unification ? When were those ? Did they have any civil wars, splits into several countries ?

You are really going to have to use science rather than desperate clutching at straws .
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2011 11:41 pm
You didn't even look at the cite, did you, ionus? If you had, you would have realized that the 6000 year record has absolutely nothing to do with Chinese history or Chinese politics or civil wars or splitting of the state. Humans weren't keeping it. Humans at the time didn't even know about it. The record has been obtained in the last several years by analyzing millenia-long deposits of peat. Probably one of your silliest nit-pickings yet. You seriously thought humans could have kept a 6000 year record? That puts it well before the first proto-city-states formed. Who would have kept the record? Sheesh. Actually, parados was citing science.
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 04:11 am
@MontereyJack,
No, the link didnt work first go....I get bored easily with posts from parados . So how indicative is the record ? Does it cover all of China ? All of Asia ? How representative of global rainfall is it, or is that nit picking ? And it isnt a record, it is an observation...did anyone teach the difference to you ?

Quote:
You seriously thought humans could have kept a 6000 year record?
No, I seriously thought parados did....didnt you read the posts where he found out there had been more than one Ice Age ?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 09:24 am
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

Thats it ? Thats all you got ?
Thats a funny one for sure. parados cites statistics on peat moss in part of China for global atmospheric water vapor!
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 11:42 am
IN THE LAST 100 YEARS, THE AVERAGE AND MEAN ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURES INCREASED LESS THAN 1°C (1.8°F)
Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.
Quote:

413
Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review. Briggs, a visiting Mathematics professor at Central Michigan University and a Biostatistician at New York Methodist Hospital, has a new paper coming out in the peer-reviewed Journal of Climate which finds that hurricanes have not increased in number or intensity in the North Atlantic. Briggs, who has authored numerous articles in meteorological and climatological journals, has also authored another study looking at tropical cyclones around the globe, and finds that they have not increased in number or intensity either. Briggs expressed skepticism about man-made global warming fears in 2007. "There is a lot of uncertainly among scientists about what's going on with the climate," Briggs wrote to EPW on December 28, 2007. "Most scientists just don't want the publicity one way or another. Generally, publicity is not good for one's academic career. Only, after reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet," Briggs explained. "It is well known that weather forecasts, out to, say, four to five days, have skill; that is, they can beat just guessing the average. Forecasts with lead times greater than this have decreasing to no skill," Briggs wrote. "The skill of climate forecasts---global climate models---upon which the vast majority of global warming science is based are not well investigated, but what is known is that these models do not do a good job at reproducing past, known climates, nor at predicting future climates. The error associated with climate predictions is also much larger than that usually ascribed to them; meaning, of course, that people are far too sure of themselves and their models," he added. Briggs also further explained the inadequacies of climate models. "Here is a simplified version of what happens. A modeler starts with the hypothesis that CO2 traps heat, describes an equation for this, finds a numerical-approximate solution for this equation, codes the approximation, and then runs the model twice, once at ‘pre-industrial’ levels of CO2, and once at twice that level, and, lo!, the modeler discovers that the later simulation gives a warmer atmosphere! He then publishes a paper which states something to the effect of, ‘Our new model shows that increasing CO2 warms the air,’” Briggs explained. “Well, it couldn't do anything *but* show that, since that is what it was programmed to show. But, somehow, the fact the model shows just what it was programmed to show is used as evidence that the assumptions underlying the model were correct. Needless to say---but I will say it---this is backwards,” he added. (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK) [Updated 01/09/2008]

parados
 
  0  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 02:50 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs,

Climate statistician?
He calls himself Statistician to the Stars
His latest work was ranking Colleges for the Wall Street Journal.
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?page_id=2
Ionus
 
  2  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 04:21 pm
@parados,
Quote:
His latest work was ranking Colleges for the Wall Street Journal.
You dont like statistics and interpreting them has never been your forte . Perhaps that is why you cant see the similarity between statistical work involving colleges and statistical work involving climate . I bet you cant see the similarity between commuting to work on a train and commuting to work on a bus .
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 05:29 pm
@Ionus,
I guess riding to work on a train makes one a "bus rider" in your world Ionus.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2011 06:40 pm
@parados,
Quote:
I guess riding to work on a train makes one a "bus rider" in your world
Your guesses are shockingly inaccurate...made any more guesses about GW ?
0 Replies
 
Adanac
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 03:41 pm
On The Hijacking of the American Meteorological Society (AMS)

James Hansen’s predictions of global warming made before the Senate in 1988 are turning out to be very much less than he had projected. He cannot explain why there has been no significant global warming over the last 10-12 years.

http://tinyurl.com/5waguo9
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 04:48 pm
@Adanac,
There has been warming in the last 10-12 years. It isn't "significant" because you are attempting to use such a short time period so the error in the calculation means that the warming can't be called "significant".

Your claim that there isn't significant warming in the last 10-12 years is a red herring. It ignores the 11 year cycle and where we are in that cycle. It ignores that 10-12 years can be noise in the overall trend. I guess you and Bill Gray are just fine with promoting junk science and pretending it is science.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 04:51 pm
@parados,
Let the cooling begin
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 04:54 pm
@H2O MAN,
I'll bet you whatever amount of money you want to bet that there will be no significant cooling over the next 10 years.
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 05:01 pm
@parados,


You are wrong and you can't afford to loose any money.
We are going back into the weather cycle last seen in the 1970's, some of the coldest weather I have ever experienced.
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 10:32 pm
Would you care to explain what evidence you have for that observation, H2--a prediction that appears to be based on absolutely nothing solid but your whim?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 11:06 pm
@H2O MAN,
I will be happy to bet any amount. Name it.

Oh.. you can't afford to lose it I guess.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 06/21/2021 at 08:47:01