Alaskan Polar Bears Threatenedâ¦By Too Much Spring Ice
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/bar...-polar-bears-threatened-too-much-spring-ice-0
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/bar...-polar-bears-threatened-too-much-spring-ice-0
Think the past winter was bad? Get ready for mini Ice Age
- Thread starter gwb-trading
- Start date
An "article" in The Guardian?
How about a scientific assessment? What part of this do you disagree with?
www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2a/pdf/Chapter-1-Models.pdf
Actually, a well written and researched article can be far more informative than a single science paper from a a few individuals but yes... of course they have limitations. They lack resolution. That's why they have probability bands. Similar to moving average envelopes. As a trader, you must know about those. Like a stock price, they rarely move in straight lines. The current world temps are well within the bands.
A huge and somewhat unpredictable factor/limitation is of course the oceans which contain over 90% of the earths heat. It is expected that the ocean's influence will become even less predictable going forward due to the effects of climate change, melting ice etc.
The models were never expected to have perfect predictions. They are about long term trends. The upward trend in world air temps has not been broken. The upward trend in EARTH'S temps, which includes the ocean's heat, is quite steady.
Despite what the Koch bros and friends would like you to believe.
you are lying your ass off fraudcurrents
whether you wish to look at the 95% band (which is what agw nutter scientists consider) or even 97.5% you a are lying your ass off.
here is an agw nutter scientist on the issue...
http://www.spiegel.de/international...lems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html
SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?
Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.
SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?
Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.
whether you wish to look at the 95% band (which is what agw nutter scientists consider) or even 97.5% you a are lying your ass off.
here is an agw nutter scientist on the issue...
http://www.spiegel.de/international...lems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html
SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?
Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.
SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?
Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.
No jem. I am right and I am not lying. I'm telling him the facts. Do you have a problem with facts? Everything I said above is the truth as far as the latest science says. Sorry if that conflicts with your delusions. I will repost it so you can try reading it again....
Actually, a well written and researched article can be far more informative than a single science paper from a a few individuals but yes... of course they have limitations. They lack resolution. That's why they have probability bands. Similar to moving average envelopes. As a trader, you must know about those. Like a stock price, they rarely move in straight lines. The current world temps are well within the bands.
A huge and somewhat unpredictable factor/limitation is of course the oceans which contain over 90% of the earths heat. It is expected that the ocean's influence will become even less predictable going forward due to the effects of climate change, melting ice etc.
The models were never expected to have perfect predictions. They are about long term trends. The upward trend in world air temps has not been broken. The upward trend in EARTH'S temps, which includes the ocean's heat, is quite steady.
Despite what the Koch bros and friends would like you to believe.
Oh, and Storch is obviously ignorant. They certainly do have a good explanation for why the air temps have paused. The oceans absorbed it and aerosols increased. Yes, they did not predict that would happen.
You can't rebut the paper's findings so you stick your little fingers in your ears to shut reality out.
You can't rebut the paper's findings so you stick your little fingers in your ears to shut reality out.
What are you babbling about now? I said I agree with the author's conclusions that climate models have limitations. Has anyone ever said otherwise?
But Storch's statement that there is no compelling explanation for the pause is simply wrong. There is.
Al Gore!
Come on. Admit it. Just reading the name of Al Gore put a smile on your face. Why is that? Because after years of Gore's over the top rantings about global warming, he has turned himself into a laughingstock. That added to his blatantly greedy hypocrisy of selling carbon credit "indulgences" to fellow liberals to assuage their guilt as well as leaving a huge carbon footprint of his own by extravagant electrical usage at his mansion as well as burning big quantities of carbon by travelling around the world on a private jet to warn of global warming is eminently mockable. So what happens when someone asks Gore about this mockery? Well, Politico reporter Darren Samuelsohn did just that in a very polite way and Gore's humorless response generates yet more inadvertent humor due to his global warming absurdities. It starts out with blaming the big mudslide in Washington state on global warming and goes downhill from there as Gore responds to this Politico observation:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gla...ausing-global-warming-mockery-mockable-quotes
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/xf69EEL3WBk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/5WkjPmGnqns" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Come on. Admit it. Just reading the name of Al Gore put a smile on your face. Why is that? Because after years of Gore's over the top rantings about global warming, he has turned himself into a laughingstock. That added to his blatantly greedy hypocrisy of selling carbon credit "indulgences" to fellow liberals to assuage their guilt as well as leaving a huge carbon footprint of his own by extravagant electrical usage at his mansion as well as burning big quantities of carbon by travelling around the world on a private jet to warn of global warming is eminently mockable. So what happens when someone asks Gore about this mockery? Well, Politico reporter Darren Samuelsohn did just that in a very polite way and Gore's humorless response generates yet more inadvertent humor due to his global warming absurdities. It starts out with blaming the big mudslide in Washington state on global warming and goes downhill from there as Gore responds to this Politico observation:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gla...ausing-global-warming-mockery-mockable-quotes
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/xf69EEL3WBk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/5WkjPmGnqns" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Limitations is an understatement. Did you even read the key findings? It's only one page but they're supported in depth in the 140 pages that follow.
I didn't say anything about Storch.