31 Oct 15
4 edits
A rare bit of good (albeit cautious ) news:
it seems that, due to current natural cycles, although there is increase melting of the Antarctica ice due to global warming, this is currently being more than offset by an increase in snowfall there thus the net effect of Antarctic is (currently ) not to contribute to global sea level rise;
http://phys.org/news/2015-10-mass-gains-antarctic-ice-sheet.html
"The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away," Zwally said. ..."
but it then cautions:
"..."But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for."
+ if we keep unsustainablely pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, the resulting global warming will eventually completely swamp this current desirable effect and then Antarctica will start to become a net contributor to sea level rise.
Still, those cautious notes said, I still think this is a good bit of news overall.
31 Oct 15
Originally posted by humyThe increase in temperature alone is enough to raise sea levels through simple expansion of sea water, don't know how much but it is an effect.
A rare bit of good (albeit cautious ) news:
it seems that, due to current natural cycles, although there is increase melting of the Antarctica ice due to global warming, this is currently being more than offset by an increase in snowfall there thus the net effect of Antarctic is (currently ) not to contribute to global sea level rise;
http://phys.org/news/ ...[text shortened]... level rise.
Still, those cautious notes said, I still think this is a good bit of news overall.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Nov 15
Just came across this article, showing how accurate the forecasts were, and how good
the understanding was, of global warming 50 years ago.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/nov/05/scientists-warned-the-president-about-global-warming-50-years-ago-today
06 Nov 15
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeSo here we have a climate model prediction from over 40 years ago, made from understanding of mere basic physics, turned out to accurately predict the climate today!
Just came across this article, showing how accurate the forecasts were, and how good
the understanding was, of global warming 50 years ago.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/nov/05/scientists-warned-the-president-about-global-warming-50-years-ago-today
And bear in mind the climate models are these days improving all the time!
This alone, ignoring all other evidence, certainly appears to rubbishes the claim made by some morons that climate models cannot make valid predictions.
06 Nov 15
Originally posted by humyEven a broken clock is right twice a day.
So here we have a climate model prediction from over 40 years ago, made from understanding of mere basic physics, turned out to accurately predict the climate today!
And bear in mind the climate models are these days improving all the time!
This alone, ignoring all other evidence, certainly appears to rubbishes the claim made by some morons that climate models cannot make valid predictions.
Here is an excerpt from the link:
"You can read the details about this paper and Broecker’s modeling here and in my book Climatology versus Pseudoscience. His model only included the effects of carbon dioxide and his best estimates of natural climate cycles. It didn’t include the warming effects of other greenhouse gases, or the cooling effects of human aerosol pollution, but fortunately for Broecker those two effects have roughly canceled each other out over the past 40 years."
The fact is that climate model predictions fail most of the time. If you would like to claim a percentage of success vs. failure rate using a reputable source of information please do so. Maybe then you will stop claiming climate models are reliable despite your illogical bias.
You still have the Pliocene issue to deal with despite your ridiculous claim that heat capacity is delaying some sort of inevitable warming to come. Most of the global warming today is due to natural causes. Most climate scientists believe this is the case despite your overly zealous efforts to convince us otherwise. The Vostok ice core samples prove that past warming was not caused by rising CO2 levels and was actually a result of rising temps. The cause and effect myth pushed by Gore and others has been debunked.
Climate models have been an epic failure!
Originally posted by Metal Brain
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Here is an excerpt from the link:
"You can read the details about this paper and Broecker’s modeling here and in my book Climatology versus Pseudoscience. His model only included the effects of carbon dioxide and his best estimates of natural climate cycles. It didn’t include the warming effects of other gr ...[text shortened]... t myth pushed by Gore and others has been debunked.
Climate models have been an epic failure!
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
-but a broken clock doesn't give a reasonably good rough estimate of the time all day! The prediction was broadly correct and that fact indicates that model was broadly reliable enough.
Here is an excerpt from the link:
Your claimed that it is impossible to make a reliable model (because of “too many variables” crap ) is not in anyway supported by most models 'failing' even though the link failed to explain in what sense most models 'failed' since the predictions from models are probabilistic and not meant to be infinitely accurate. For example, a models may say there is a 90% chance of the temperature rising by between 0.3C and 0.4C but a 9% chance of the temperature rising between 0.2C and 0.3C and a 1% chance outside both those ranges. Suppose the temperature then raised by 0.29C. Has the model 'failed'? If so, since it never said it will not rise by 0.29C and left it as a definite possibility, in what sense? It makes no sense to simplistically say it 'failed'. As can clearly be seen by the graph, the model in the link made a prediction of a temperature rise accurate enough for year 2015, and bearing in mind that models are improving all the time, is all evidence against your claim that it is impossible to make a reliable model and that evidence still stands unchallenged by you.
Here is a few excerpts from the link you missed out:
"...The report noted that although carbon dioxide is an invisible “trace gas” – meaning it comprises a small percentage of the Earth’s atmosphere as a whole – it can nevertheless have significant impacts on the climate at these seemingly low levels.
..
..Contrarians today often repeat the myths that because carbon dioxide is invisible and only a trace gas, it can’t possibly cause significant climate change. This report demonstrates that scientists understood the greenhouse effect better 50 years ago than these contrarians do today.
The report documented the several different lines of evidence that prove the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is entirely human-caused,
..."
09 Nov 15
Originally posted by humyLOL!Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
-but a broken clock doesn't give a reasonably good rough estimate of the time all day! The prediction was broadly correct and that fact indicates that model was broadly reliable enough.Here is an excerpt from the link:
Your claimed that it is impossible to make a reliable ...[text shortened]... f evidence that prove the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is entirely human-caused,
..."
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/022114-690857-farmers-almanac-more-accurate-than-climate-models.htm
10 Nov 15
Originally posted by whodeyAs far as I know, neither cap and trade nor using greener energy result in higher taxes. Both may result in lower profits for the oil industry that you support. The more interesting question is why you support the oil industry. Do you have shares in it? Do they pay you to promote it? Or did they successfully infiltrate your political party?
Pay higher taxes before it's too late.
Save us cap and trade! 😲
Originally posted by Metal BrainFrom your link:
LOL!
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/022114-690857-farmers-almanac-more-accurate-than-climate-models.htm
“..The Maine-based Farmers' Almanac's still-secret methodology includes variables such as planetary positions, sunspots, lunar cycles and tidal action.
...”
that means any correct prediction they make is based on ignorance and stupidity and is correct by coincidence, not by valid inference.
While any correct prediction made by science (such as sea level rise and global sea temperature rise; both correctly predicted to increase and are observed to be increasing ) is based on reason (applied on evidence ) and, with all else being equal, this indicates it was based on valid inference.
No doubt, they probability make more wrong predictions than that of science. So cherry picking just one correct prediction they made (and the said example in the link of that may be, for all I know, a complete lie, as the author clearly has a propaganda agenda ) which science didn't get right is not an indicator that they predict better than science on most occasions. You have failed miserably to demonstrate that science cannot make a correct climate prediction based on valid inference. Try again.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Nov 15
Originally posted by whodeyChanging tax rates, and cap and trade, are utterly ineffective and inadequate for
Pay higher taxes before it's too late.
Save us cap and trade! 😲
dealing with climate change.
The idea that they can have any effect is a nonsense fiction promoted largely by those
who don't want anything done about climate change.
People like you in fact.