4 degrees warming "likely" without CO2 cuts-study

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: eskimospy

No, I'm not kidding. Do you have some data from a respectable source that says 2009 has been colder than average?

No way 2009 is 5th warmest on record. Article doesn't link to study. I call shens.

Of course you do. It's information that is inconvenient to your world view. It's not a study, it's straight temperature measurement from NOAA, and the report was easy to find on their website.

I disagree,; I think you guys are confusing terminology here. Global temperature measurements are not as straightforward as you seem to think. Let me try to explain this.

You wake up, check the weather, and the weatherman says, 'Today is 13 degrees hotter than normal' - what does that mean? Does that mean it's uncharacteristically hot today? What about the high? What is the norm?

He could be referring to the average low for September 29 over the past 50 years - or maybe 100 years. He could be referring to the average high. He could be referring to the temperature at 3pm on days in September when it's not raining. Is he talking about where you live, or the other side of of the city near the lake?

On a broader scale, the complications increase. Are the measurements accurately wieghted to account for geographic location rather than instrument density? Are the recorded temperatures from the ocean surface or the land surface? Or maybe from the atmosphere? Have the measurements been adjusted for altitude, urban expansion, etc.

Any analysis wherein these factors are considered is a study - not something so straightforward that could be assessed using an Excel scatterplot.

No, there really isn't any confusion. Pretty much all of that is accounted for by NOAA. It's a preliminary finding that is refined over time into their actual recorded values for the time period, but it's still the best data available right now.

Only a graduate student in political "science" can have such faith in uncertainty.

Once again big guy, standards of evidence. One person said that 2009 was colder than average, based on his own personal experience. To refute him I linked evidence I freely admitted was imperfect, but is still the best available at this time. I am not wed to the idea that 2009 is the 5th hottest year in recorded history, if the data is revised upwards or downwards, that's fine with me. I highly encourage you to use this sort of thinking when you post.

Anyways, shouldn't you be linking a right wing editorial that actually disproves what you're trying to say right now? This thread could use a few walls of text.

Maybe I'll go run crying to the mods.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The rest of your post is dismissal of inconvenient evidence without cause, along with the strawman of the Holocene Maximum.

I'm not dismissing inconvenient evidence, because there's no inconvenient evidence to dismiss. That was my point. If you have a link to global sea surface temperatures from 1880 I would love to see it. Seriously. I'm sure pro-AGW types would love it too since they'd have something other than guesses or extrapolation to base their models on.

Uhmm, yes there is.

The data isn't perfect from 1880 onwards, but that's the generally accepted point at which it became high quality enough to use. What did you think they were doing, and why did you think they chose that date?

Thanks for the link.

The uncertainty in annual measurements of the global average temperature (95% range) is estimated to be ~0.05°C since 1950 and as much as ~0.15°C in the earliest portions of the instrumental record.

So the admitted increase during the last 130 years is .7 C, and we have a potential uncertainty of .2 C. Then we're supposed to be confident in their prediction that in only the next 40 years we'll see an increase of 4 full degrees?

Early records also have a substantial uncertainty driven by systematic concerns over the accuracy of sea surface temperature measurements

No kidding. Is some guy measuring out of a bucket supposed to be as accurate as infrared satellites?

A 2006 paper analyzed a subset of U.S. surface stations, 366 stations, and found that 95% displayed a warming trend after land use/land cover (LULC) changes. The authors stated "this does not necessarily imply that the LULC changes are the causative factor."[29] Another study [30] has documented examples of well and poorly sited monitoring stations in the United States, including ones near buildings, roadways, and air conditioning exhausts.

I've always wondered how accurate the supposed corrections for urban heat island effect really are. So much of this stuff is just guesswork.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we shouldn't switch from fossil fuels. There are many reasons we should, including air and water pollution. But lets not base it on these apocalyptic computer models warning of an imminent disaster that never quite seems to materialize.

There's quite a bit of work that's put into the modeling, but of course there's a significant margin of error. The people working with these numbers know this, and they correlated the older numbers with other more reliable readings from land at the time. It's not perfect, but they chose that date for a specific reason, that being that it was the time when the data was effective enough to use.

Anyways, the point was that there most certainly IS data from that time period, so question answered I guess.

 

[piasabird]

If we are warming up so much how come New York City isnt under water yet? Errosion is more likely to kill more people. The climate has been fluctuating for the last million years or so. What caused the last Ice Age?

 

[bfdd]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: ericlp
Makes me wonder why people here are still convinced GW is still a hoax and man has nothing to do with it.

Everyone knows it's warming, however .7 C is well below past natural variation.

Just because someone releases a study saying it will warm 15 degrees in 40 years doesn't mean it will happen. They always make sure the time scales for their calculations are long enough so they have time to come up with an excuse when it ends up increasing only another .7 C (or not at all).

Not to mention it has been an incredibly COLD year. People say "well that's weather, not climate" but around the GLOBE this year has been far colder than average and the last few years averaged out have been outside of projections and much cooler than first thought. So when does this "weather" become "climate" I'm wondering.

No it hasn't been an incredibly cold year. 2009 is currently the fifth warmest year in recorded history. El Nino appears to be contributing to this, but this is also taking place during a period of minimum solar activity which has been pushing temperatures back down.

You're kidding right? There have been recorded record lows all around the globe.

No, I'm not kidding. Do you have some data from a respectable source that says 2009 has been colder than average?

bfdd is confused. Apparently he thinks record lows are the same thing as low average global temperatures. And he doesn't understand that EVERY year has record lows (and highs) SOMEWHERE on the globe, regardless of the global average temperature.

I didn't say it has been a record cold year, I'm saying it's been a cold year. We have had record lows all over the globe this year in different parts and everything I've read has said that this year isn't any hotter than the last and infact is cooler than it was a decade ago, which means in terms of GW/Climate Change, it's been a cold year because we've been preached that the world is getting hotter and hotter and we're all going to die and that isn't the case.

I'm all for figuring out alternative sources of energy besides the dirty stuff we use now and I'm all for cutting out pollution, but living in Los Angeles area I can tell you right now the air LOOKS and SMELLS much cleaner today than it was when I was 10. This whole doom and gloom shit over CO2 is stupid. It's not the green house gas that retains the most heat and it's not the most abundant green house gas. I'm willing to bet humans put just as much water vapor into the air as CO2, that's far "worse".

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: bfdd

I didn't say it has been a record cold year, I'm saying it's been a cold year. We have had record lows all over the globe this year in different parts and everything I've read has said that this year isn't any hotter than the last and infact is cooler than it was a decade ago, which means in terms of GW/Climate Change, it's been a cold year because we've been preached that the world is getting hotter and hotter and we're all going to die and that isn't the case.

I'm all for figuring out alternative sources of energy besides the dirty stuff we use now and I'm all for cutting out pollution, but living in Los Angeles area I can tell you right now the air LOOKS and SMELLS much cleaner today than it was when I was 10. This whole doom and gloom shit over CO2 is stupid. It's not the green house gas that retains the most heat and it's not the most abundant green house gas. I'm willing to bet humans put just as much water vapor into the air as CO2, that's far "worse".

Right, so now you've read that you were wrong about it being a colder than average year, right? How on earth is the 5th hottest year in recorded history 'a cold year'?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: bfdd

I didn't say it has been a record cold year, I'm saying it's been a cold year. We have had record lows all over the globe this year in different parts and everything I've read has said that this year isn't any hotter than the last and infact is cooler than it was a decade ago, which means in terms of GW/Climate Change, it's been a cold year because we've been preached that the world is getting hotter and hotter and we're all going to die and that isn't the case.

I'm all for figuring out alternative sources of energy besides the dirty stuff we use now and I'm all for cutting out pollution, but living in Los Angeles area I can tell you right now the air LOOKS and SMELLS much cleaner today than it was when I was 10. This whole doom and gloom shit over CO2 is stupid. It's not the green house gas that retains the most heat and it's not the most abundant green house gas. I'm willing to bet humans put just as much water vapor into the air as CO2, that's far "worse".

You really need to read up on the Science around the issue. Water Vapour isn't as important as CO2 for 1 very good reason.