What Do We Think About Climate Change

//news.bbc.co.uk
The UN has demanded a 'review' of the IPCC.
why? because know-one believes what they say!
how about Dr Rajendra Pachauri a M Eng who never used his degree?
I think he will be up there with Gore on an illegal share pumping scheme charge.
One of the gems was that to show the inconvient truth in schools in the uk they had to warn students that much of the fact was fiction.
Maybe there is one fact to say there is global warming BUT there is way too many facts that have become fiction, its typical government.

Like the UK intelligence that heard a person that they could never confirm that Saddam had something ready in 45 minutes...
that became a document that said weapons of mass destruction ready in 45 minutes ..ok gosh we need to invade.
The uk end one guy committed suicide over it ( maybe) on the US end they slammed a senators wife who was a secret service agent at least someone went to prison for that one, They had a sham investigation in the UK that foudn that words appeared on a document as it was transfered between offices....?
Trust government...no!

 

I stand corrected... From most of these quotes, taken out of their context, I can't read too much conspiracy thinking, just cynical brainstorms... Some of these may have the feeling their're trying to warn pub guests of a fire in the building beside...

And, after a some years discussing resque equipment, and situations. I hope that you don't get across some of my emails, about (discussed) situations where people can't be saved, and in those discussions I assume that I doesn't always take the correct ethical attitude to that setting...

 

Hitler wasnt a conspiracy first just laughed at then just became accepted and then mainstream thinking and had taken over before the punters woke up.
I'm not saying Gore should commit suicide but Gettysberg does sound like Nuremburg...

 

When scientific researchers are corrupted by greed and/or a socialist agenda, it produces contaminated data and massive controversy, at least as long as we still have the freedom of speech and our opinions expressed don't become "disappeared" to quote the Obummer clone.

 

Well, as soon as Mao and Stalin got dragged into the conversation, I figured Hitler would be right behind them again.

Why is it that every topic on the internet eventually winds up at Hitler's doorstep?

...and where's a :hitwithrock: smiley when you really need one?

 

Talk about head in the sand. There is nothing out of context here Knut. If these folks are willing to make public statements as idiotic as that can you imagine how they really feel.

Some European social democrats felt as you do when Hitler was starting his rise to power and those who sounded the warning bell were ridiculed. Btw, be adults, I'm not comparing AGW nutcases to Hitler, and you know it.

 

Mao and Stalin wouldn't have tolerated someone like you Troy.

There Happy Now?

 

Yep. That's right.
cap and trade =crap and tirade.

The glitterati would be more properly called the illiterati.

 

A lot of this crap started under Hitler when he began doing what the American liberals were talking about. Actually they beat Hitler to the punch in some things such as forced sterilizations and so forth. Conservatives didn't run the syphillus experiments on black men.

 

The Hell you don't. You live in fear 24/7, worrying that the mean, evil, liberal, fascist, pinko, Nazi, commie, socialist leftists are taking over your little world.

So I'm a leftist elitist now? That's nice....and just think, Mom said I'd never amount to anything.

 

Yep, now the whole crowd is going to be babbling about Hitler. You guys are hopeless.

By the way, Eddy: that's a fundamentally dishonest list of quotes, and you know it. Most of those people have no particular connection to AGW, and you shouldn't be trying make it seem they do.

 

OK Jimbo, you have made a lot about the differences between the predicted and observed temperature fingerprints in the tropics. Since you brought this up I have been doing a little reading on this topic, and I am still learning more about it. However, here are a few preliminary comments:

First, the figures you posted do not come from the document under discussion (http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap5.pdf.) What you have done is to pull the old switcheroo. Instead of using the figures from the paper under discussion you have pulled a different set of figures from a different website, i.e. the joannenova.com.au website. Thus, you are again caught in one of your deceptions wherein you are misrepresenting the contents of other people's work. Jimbo, if you can't be honest then we can't have an honest discussion.


The figures you posted are not even different versions of the same thing. your figures show the predicted effect of various kinds of forcing factors (well mixed aerosol gases, sulfate aerosols, etc.). That is not what the figures show in the document under discussion. The figures in the document under discussion show the predictions of different types of models (CCSM3.0 20CEN experiment, PCM 20CEN experiment, etc.).


Next point: some of the global warming deniers are using the results you posted as some kind of robust benchmark about whether the modeling studies are valid. One website has even gone so far as to imply that these results are so important that the validity of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis depends on the accuracy of the modeling studies in predicting this "fingerprint." (Let me know if you would like me to dig up the reference.) However, the document under discussion says that this effect very sensitive to the inputs. Here is the direct quote from the paper:

"Another noticeable difference is that the HadAT2
data show a relative lack of warming in the
tropical troposphere,66 where all four models
simulate maximum warming. This particular
aspect of the observed temperature-change
pattern is very sensitive to data adjustments
(Sherwood et al., 2005; Randel and Wu, 2006).
Tropospheric warming in the observations is
most obvious in the NH extra-tropics, where
our confidence in the reliability of radiosonde
records is greatest."

From this one can conclude that the tropical fingerprint is not a robust indicator of the overall validity of the modeling studies, but rather is an effect that is very sensitive to relatively small changes in the inputs.

Here is what Roy Spencer says about hotspots and fingerprints. You remember Dr. Spencer don't you? He is one of the global warming skeptics, and if I am not mistaken he is one of your favorites. He says that the tropical hotspot is not a very good indicator of the validity of anthropogenic global warming. Here is a direct quote on this topic from his web page.

"Thus, while possibly significant from the standpoint of indicating problems with feedbacks in climate models, the lack of a hotspot no more disproves manmade global warming than the existence of the hotspot would have proved manmade global warming. At most, it would be evidence that the warming influence of increasing GHGs in the models has been exaggerated, probably due to exaggerated positive feedback from water vapor."

Of course we all know that Dr. Spencer does not generally accept that anthropogenic global warming is a very significant effect, but here he debunks one of the favorite criticisms made by you and some of the others on the ani-warming side of the argument.

 

How about when emissions were 1/100 of present? Are asserting that these emissions had a "very real and measurable" effect? Atmospheric CO2 levels were rising when our emissions were 1/100 of present. Are you asserting that anthropogenic emissions caused this rise?

Jimbo

 

Deception?!! So you're calling me out as a LIAR because you were too lazy to seek out the original source? And then you imply that the presented data has somehow been modified to deceive!

Alan, with all due respect, You are full of ****!

Those graphs are from here which is just a different chapter of the same report. Look at page 25

I tried to post from the originals, but simple technical problems got in the way. The graph files are a little bit to large for the Boat Design Forum server limits (2.6 Mb vs 2.0Mb limit) for the file type. Microsoft paint can't either convert them to a different format or reduce them in size without crashing. I need Adobe Illustrator, but I don't have that on this computer. The graphs at JoNova are IDENTICAL to the ones on the paper.

You are just full of **** and very quick to try to impugn my character.

F___ You!

Jimbo

 

Jimbo, I'm not going to argue with you on the specifics, because I can't take your word for when, where or how much atmospheric CO2 levels were rising -- or anything else concerning AGW, for that matter. As Alan has rather thoroughly demonstrated, you've been misinterpreting your sources and references so regularly that I assume it's willful and deliberate.

But it's my understanding that despite your claims, rising atmospheric CO2 levels and anthropogenic emissions can be correlated, rather directly. Quibbling about when or at what level those emissions become significant is an exercise in semantics and wordsmithing.