- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Warming Predictions vs. Real World
Posted on 2/20/14 at 3:48 pm to RogerTheShrubber
Posted on 2/20/14 at 3:48 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
According to the adherents I know, the heat is contained in the mid levels of the ocean and not the atmosphere. This is how they explain the models being off. Could be, may not be.
Per wiki:
quote:
Water has a very high specific heat capacity – the second highest among all the heteroatomic species (after ammonia), as well as a high heat of vaporization (40.65 kJ/mol or 2257 kJ/kg at the normal boiling point), both of which are a result of the extensive hydrogen bonding between its molecules. These two unusual properties allow water to moderate Earth's climate by buffering large fluctuations in temperature. According to Josh Willis, of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the oceans absorb one thousand times more heat than the atmosphere (air) and are holding 80 to 90% of the heat of global warming.
0
Posted on 2/20/14 at 3:49 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
I think our modeling may have improved some since 1979.
No, it hasn't. NASA models in 1996 predicted total catastrophe by 2010. It didn't happen. It never happens. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 4:00 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
So let me get this straight, the red line indicates model predictions from 1979?
IOW, they are comparing what models were predicting in 1979 with observed data since?
I think our modeling may have improved some since 1979.
No doubt models have improved, and in another 35 years the same thing will be said when the models continue to be way off.
Bottom line is the alarmists were way off base and refuse to acknowledge that fact.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 4:13 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:Nope.
So let me get this straight, the red line indicates model predictions from 1979?
The red line indicates model predictions from The Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS Vol. 94, No. 8) supplement titled "State of the Climate - 2012"
"State of the Climate - 2012"(It is very large file, takes several minutes to load)
Posted on 2/20/14 at 4:14 pm to BobBoucher
quote:
and would be expected to continue if not increase as emmissions do.
Temps have always gone up or down. Emissions or no.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 4:38 pm to GumboPot
Chart is meaningless without standard error/standard deviation incorporated for those averages. The term global warming was a horribly misguided attempt to dramatize what is predicted to be happening. Climate change or Increased climate variability is more how to see it.
Look at the means and S.E. for each time point evaluated. Furthermore, these model runs were performed in 1979? They likely assumed no changes in emissions from chemical/power plants, vehicles and other things, which have all improved by regulations enforced over the past several decades.
In the end, climate change is likely happening, and the actions being taken over the last 20-30 years have reduced the potential impact it may have had. Also, it is important to look at this more deeply than just mean annual temperature.
Look at the means and S.E. for each time point evaluated. Furthermore, these model runs were performed in 1979? They likely assumed no changes in emissions from chemical/power plants, vehicles and other things, which have all improved by regulations enforced over the past several decades.
In the end, climate change is likely happening, and the actions being taken over the last 20-30 years have reduced the potential impact it may have had. Also, it is important to look at this more deeply than just mean annual temperature.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 4:44 pm to Geauxgurt
quote:Nope.
Furthermore, these model runs were performed in 1979?
quote:What actions?
the actions being taken over the last 20-30 years have reduced the potential impact it may have had.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 4:48 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
I think our modeling may have improved some since 1979.
And that is exactly why they predicted us to have such a cold, and snowy winter...................... oh wait.
Never mind.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 4:51 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Nope.
So they are predicting temperature changes after they happened?
In the end, all of these predictive models are just that models. Look at hurricane models when they pop up and how far off they can be at times.
Many people are correct that many of the assertions on global warming have been greatly overblown. Claiming a purely increased mean temperature alone is a very minimalistic view of how the environment works.
Looking at a variety of things like variation in temperature (Standard devations within a year of 5 year period), oceanic temperatures, polar cap ice levels, as well as other aspects of the environment give a better understanding of how climate change is occurring. Anyone saying we are going to be scorched to death by blazing heat in the next 10 years was always ridiculous.
quote:
What actions?
Reducing emissions, regulations on plants, automobiles, and the like have for certain affected the climate change in a positive way. By that I mean it has reduced the negative impacts over the past 30 years. That doesn't mean the over dramatic selling of global warming has been justified in any way, but minimizing things that have an affect on it is a good thing.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 5:02 pm to Geauxgurt
quote:
Reducing emissions, regulations on plants, automobiles, and the like have for certain affected the climate change in a positive way.
No, it hasn't. Stop drinking the cool aid.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 5:03 pm to Geauxgurt
quote:You are under the impression modeling can only be applied prospectively?
So they are predicting temperature changes after they happened?
Really?
quote:Could you link some sources. I.e., Ones claiming atmospheric CO2 would significantly exceed 400ppm in 2014?
Reducing emissions, regulations on plants, automobiles, and the like have for certain affected the climate change in a positive way
Posted on 2/20/14 at 5:07 pm to GumboPot
So does the zero baseline represent the ideal temperature?
What temperature is that?
What temperature is that?
Posted on 2/20/14 at 5:13 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
You are under the impression modeling can only be applied prospectively?
Really?
Of course you can model data that has already occurred and use it to predict the trend, but what I do see is a model that you claim came from 1996 that clearly doesn't even fit the 1979-1996 data even closely. Secondly, I agree with most of you that what is pushed by many blowhards as an extreme disaster on the brink is ridiculous. They are trying to scare people into something that isn't happening to the degree they state.
Climate change has been occurring. There is no denying that. Whether the biggest contributor to this has been from mankind or other natural causes is unclear, but reducing emissions of CO2 and other gasses will help (albeit it perhaps minor) in mitigating that potential issue.
Do I think some of the restrictions are a waste of time and unconfirmed to be helping? Sure, there are plenty that are pissing in the wind with their reasoning, but realistically the Earth's climate is changing and taking steps to minimize our part in it is a reasonable gesture.
In the end, I agree with most of you. It's ridiculous how overblown this crap is, and actual legitimate scientific research is needed as opposed to some of the horse crap they try to call research that many global warming alarmists put out.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 5:23 pm to Geauxgurt
quote:
but what I do see is a model that you claim came from 1996
Posted on 2/20/14 at 5:32 pm to NC_Tigah
I thought it was you that mentioned the 1996 model from NASA, but maybe I misinterpreted what you meant by it.
Where is the list of models used in this argument? The authors mention 102 models, but don't even declare any summary information on these models other than the figure was grabbed from the bulletin in 2012.
That said, I think you are right in claiming the overreaching conclusions that directly link CO2 are not backed by sound science.
What the alarmists have done has killed the chance for legitimate science on the subject to be taken seriously, which is a shame, because a real discussion on climate change is best for everyone.
Where is the list of models used in this argument? The authors mention 102 models, but don't even declare any summary information on these models other than the figure was grabbed from the bulletin in 2012.
That said, I think you are right in claiming the overreaching conclusions that directly link CO2 are not backed by sound science.
What the alarmists have done has killed the chance for legitimate science on the subject to be taken seriously, which is a shame, because a real discussion on climate change is best for everyone.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 5:46 pm to Geauxgurt
Posted on 2/20/14 at 5:51 pm to Geauxgurt
quote:
Climate change has been occurring.
Yes. For the last 5 billion years. And very slowly.
quote:
Whether the biggest contributor to this has been from mankind or other natural causes is unclear,
No, it's not. It's natural causes.
quote:
but reducing emissions of CO2 and other gasses will help (albeit it perhaps minor) in mitigating that potential issue.
No, it won't. CO2 emissions have nothing to do with greenhouse gas. Water vapor is greenhouse gas. Water vapor will always exist. CO2 will always exist. It's great stuff. GW is a hoax.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 6:08 pm to GumboPot
YOU FIGURED IT OUT!! There's no global warming!!
Congratulations. You should go buy land in Miami in celebration.
Congratulations. You should go buy land in Miami in celebration.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 6:40 pm to Mid Iowa Tiger
quote:
You forgot one:
3. The contribution by man is so infinitesimally small that suggesting we can do anything meaningful about it is plain fantasy.
Should we live as clean as possible? Yes. Should we be good stewards? Yes. (Hell even Genesis says so). Should we spend billions, wreck economies, and destroy industries? No.
Nice additions. Thank you.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 7:01 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
YOU FIGURED IT OUT!! There's no global warming!!
Of course there is global warming.
Otherwise New York City would look like this:
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News