636 replies to this topic

[behaviour???]

www.telegraph.co.uk said:

The world could be in for a spell of cooler temperatures, rather than hotter conditions, as a result of cyclical changes in ocean currents for the next 20 or 30 years, it is predicted.

Research by Professor Mojib Latif, one of the world's leading climate modellers, questions the widely held view that global temperatures will rise rapidly over the coming years.

Read more...

Thanks
B???

[Goblin-5]

Surely the high foreheads at IPCC would have factored in such known events as El Nino and the NAO into their climate models? Seems to me that someone somewhere has a LOT of "splainin' to do

[eqgumby]

More proof that no one knows for sure.
Pollution is real (man made), climate change (again man made) is a theory only.
In 20 years, people will remember global warming as fondly as I remember the "coming ice age" from 20 years or more ago.

[Wickian]

eqgumby, on 11 January 2010 - 06:45 PM, said:

More proof that no one knows for sure.
Pollution is real (man made), climate change (again man made) is a theory only.
In 20 years, people will remember global warming as fondly as I remember the "coming ice age" from 20 years or more ago.

Technically AGW is still only a hypothesis as it has yet to undergo rigorous testing that supports it.  All computer climate models that were supposed to prove it have been wrong thus far.

[Michelle]

They are going to keep pushing this back and making excuses until all of it is just a faded memory...but they'll never admit they were wrong..just slightly mistaken.

[Goblin-5]

Well I think that global warming is a true event, my issue is with the IPCC assertion that it is driven mainly by man produced CO2. Mind you their mandate was to show that man was responsible for global warming.
What has become very apparant is that the entire process has devolved from a scientific debate of demonstrable fact into the realm of pseudo-scientific almost-religion. How does throwing vast quantities of cash at "undeveloped" nations assist them in any way? If they had said they wanted to use the money to reduce the birth rates or assist in population relocation I can see some value in that. Heck up here in the Great White North we have a LOT of space in the far North and would welcome immigrants. Of course the temp might be a tad chilly for sub Saharan peoples or South Pacificers but I am sure that the warming will fix that problem in a few generatioins *S*

[Br Cornelius]

Wickian, on 11 January 2010 - 07:57 PM, said:

Technically AGW is still only a hypothesis as it has yet to undergo rigorous testing that supports it.  All computer climate models that were supposed to prove it have been wrong thus far.

Modelling a fluid dynamics system such as the earth is almost impossible. Hey, modelling a fluid dynamics system as simple as a boiling kettle is almost impossible. What does this prove - modelling complex systems is very very difficult. What does this say about AGW - almost nothing. Does the data set show warming - most definately, where will it end - no-one can predict - because guess what modelling it is almost impossible.

So is the difficulty they are having in attempting to do the impossible (modelling a whole world system) disprove the science of AGW - NO !!

Br Cornelius

[eqgumby]

Br Cornelius, on 11 January 2010 - 08:52 PM, said:

Modelling a fluid dynamics system such as the earth is almost impossible. Hey, modelling a fluid dynamics system as simple as a boiling kettle is almost impossible. What does this prove - modelling complex systems is very very difficult. What does this say about AGW - almost nothing. Does the data set show warming - most definately, where will it end - no-one can predict - because guess what modelling it is almost impossible.

So is the difficulty they are having in attempting to do the impossible (modelling a whole world system) disprove the science of AGW - NO !!
Br Cornelius

Does it make it RIGHT? NO!
Will they keep making these models until one FITS the theory? Maybe...
As Wickian said...

Quote

All computer climate models that were supposed to prove it have been wrong thus far.

[supervike]

If human's were the cause of Global Warming, has our 'going green' now caused this?  We sure are a powerful species.

Edited by supervike, 12 January 2010 - 02:44 PM.

[WoIverine]

It snowed in Daytona Beach, Fl. Global warming...my ass. It hasn't snowed there...EVER.

Edited by SpiderCyde, 12 January 2010 - 03:00 PM.

[Emma_Acid]

I think this kind of talk is pretty damaging actually. First off, ignore mainstream press - they are simply after a quick answer that sells papers. When its flaking it down with snow everyone says "oh, what happened to global warming", not realising that much of the planet is unseasonably warm at the moment. Not only that, but its the average temperature that is going up, meaning that a lot of places will see more rain and storms.

In fact, if the temperature goes up enough and the warm water streams to europe are cut off, the UK will be frozen solid. This is still global warming.

Secondly, and more importantly, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is a fact. We are pumping an enormous amount of it into the atmosphere. This is also a fact. We are depleting the world's forests. Another fact.

Now regardless of whether or not global warming is manmade, these 3 things should be enough for us to stop the way we're living and re-evaluate, because if it doesn't affect us it will certainly affect the next generations. The earth's biosphere is metastable, like a gyroscope. It stays upright even with gentle nudging, but nudge it too hard and it flips over.

Edited by Emma_Acid, 12 January 2010 - 03:08 PM.

[WoIverine]

Br Cornelius, on 11 January 2010 - 08:52 PM, said:

Modelling a fluid dynamics system such as the earth is almost impossible. Hey, modelling a fluid dynamics system as simple as a boiling kettle is almost impossible. What does this prove - modelling complex systems is very very difficult. What does this say about AGW - almost nothing. Does the data set show warming - most definately, where will it end - no-one can predict - because guess what modelling it is almost impossible.

So is the difficulty they are having in attempting to do the impossible (modelling a whole world system) disprove the science of AGW - NO !!

Br Cornelius

More than likely I would believe it's flawed code, or the flawed theory behind it that said code was written to demonstrate. We can't even predict the weather with 100% accuracy, let's try and get that right before moving onto larger, even more difficult to predict scenarios.

[Mattshark]

supervike, on 12 January 2010 - 02:44 PM, said:

If human's were the cause of Global Warming, has our 'going green' now caused this?  We sure are a powerful species.

We haven't gone green though, we are increasing our pollution output across the world.

Wickian the effects of man on the climate are not hypothetical, they are theory, the evidence shows us to be the factor that is driving climatological change. The theory that we are responsible is the scientifically accepted theory for explaining our current climatological variation.
Also, you can never prove anything in science, it is always best available evidence.

Eggumby, your are smart enough to not say only a theory. A theory is the pinnacle of science. The "coming ice age" was media, not science, there was one paper claiming this and it was rebuked very heavily as seriously flawed in the same year (1974) with work showing the world is warming due to CO2 emissions. Sorry Eggumby you are using a media myth to contest a scientific point there.

Michelle that is utter tripe, scientists if they are wrong will admit it. But please don't ignore the fact that the last decade was warmest we have recorded and continued to show the rising trend in temperature.

Goblin 5, that is not true, the IPCC were set up after considerable evidence was shown of humans forcing climate change. And Goblin, I am about the only person here to have posted a stream of scientific papers only to have them constantly ignored.

And it should be noted that a lot of what we are currently seeing is very much predicted by models.

[Mattshark]

SpiderCyde, on 12 January 2010 - 02:59 PM, said:

It snowed in Daytona Beach, Fl. Global warming...my ass. It hasn't snowed there...EVER.

Using local weather to argue global climate is not very clever.
Secondly, Florida has had snow before. I used to live in Sarasota and I was told about snow there previously and getting to 0°c at this time of the year is not abnormal.

[Mattshark]

SpiderCyde, on 12 January 2010 - 03:04 PM, said:

More than likely I would believe it's flawed code, or the flawed theory behind it that said code was written to demonstrate. We can't even predict the weather with 100% accuracy, let's try and get that right before moving onto larger, even more difficult to predict scenarios.

Predicting future climate is not the same as predicting the weather, for a start as it is trends we are predicting it is actually easier. The second point is that weather and climate are two different things and worked on by different people (meteorologists and climatologists).