Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by FoxGator, Sep 19, 2013.

  1. FoxGator
    Offline

    FoxGator Sly as a Fox Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    977
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings Received:
    +117
    Agree or disagree, you should read this!

    Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science

  2. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,603
    Likes Received:
    2,456
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,286
    There is no correlation between high temperature of the past and CO2 levels.
  3. leogator
    Offline

    leogator Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,281
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Melbourne, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +60
    All I want is further study to pin down all the natural cycles, all the forcings, all the feedback loops, etc, etc. Up until then I'm skeptical of the claims on both sides. I don't want talking points, I want accurate models with clear assumptions, error rates, starting points, etc.
  4. Minister_of_Information
    Offline

    Minister_of_Information I'm your huckleberry Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,741
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    In my prime
    Ratings Received:
    +970
    Al Gore's head just exploded.
  5. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,603
    Likes Received:
    2,456
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,286
    This, and knowing what the universe looked like before the big bang would be great. No one on Earth really knows either one with a high degree of accuracy. It's theory.
  6. FoxGator
    Offline

    FoxGator Sly as a Fox Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    977
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings Received:
    +117
    These are not talking points. These are the results of scientific analysis from empirical data (not models). Read the report!
  7. oragator1
    Offline

    oragator1 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    12,422
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,255
    • Like Like x 1
  8. leogator
    Offline

    leogator Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,281
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Melbourne, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +60
    First they criticize the global climate models (which I do myself), then turn around and use them to derive their own conclusions.
  9. FoxGator
    Offline

    FoxGator Sly as a Fox Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    977
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings Received:
    +117
    Please give example.
  10. FoxGator
    Offline

    FoxGator Sly as a Fox Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    977
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings Received:
    +117
    How about we debate the science in the paper instead of attacking the character of the organization. All scientists have bias.
  11. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    Right now, it seems that most of the work on climate change is focused on CO2 forcing. Yes, some of the AGW models consider other kinds of forcing such as solar radiation and cosmic ray activity, but it sometimes seems that natural phenomenon get included as almost afterthoughts.
  12. jimgata
    Online

    jimgata Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,417
    Likes Received:
    116
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +649
    It seems silly for a scientist to blame natural occurrences to be the cause of discrepancies in the model forecasts. As if natural occurrences never occur. Duh!
  13. tegator80
    Online

    tegator80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    5,028
    Likes Received:
    896
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    Ratings Received:
    +1,868
    Won't Go Away

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/weath...governmental-panel-on-climate-change/2878853/

    U.N. panel delivers landmark climate change report
    Kim Hjelmgaard and Doyle Rice, USA TODAY 5:10 a.m. EDT September 27, 2013

    United Nations climate change study says man to blame for Earth's warming.


    Global warming is "unequivocal" and it is "extremely likely" that humans are the primary contributors to this warming, according to a report released Friday morning in Stockholm by the U.N.-created Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world's top climate research group.

    "Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes," the report says.

    The report says that it is now more certain than ever that "human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming" since the 1950s...


    Well, you know what they say, if you don't have a leg to stand on, scream louder and pound the podium.

Share This Page