What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

L

LynahFan

Well-known member
One more tiny step in the march toward sustainable, low emission energy: link.

Not that I expect this to happen, but at least they're still fighting the fight.
 
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

Beer is carbonated.

OMFG! I'm killing the planet twice as fast!!! :D
 
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

LynahFan said:
One more tiny step in the march toward sustainable, low emission energy: link.

Not that I expect this to happen, but at least they're still fighting the fight.
Click to expand...

finally... a worthwhile use of taxpayer funds (did I just say that?)
btw, as indicated, the accepted term is now "climate change".
 
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

MinnFan said:
Leading climate change scientist reverses course

"There has been no temperature increase for 15 years."
Click to expand...

Nicely editorialized, but the scientist himself would disagree with the quote you attribute to him (and as far as I can tell he never actually said that). In fact, if I wanted to editorialize in the same way, I'd just use his actual words: "I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed." However, I think the data and his actual responses are far more interesting, so here are some relevant passages.

First, from the article you linked:

He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.
He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.
Click to expand...

Emphasis mine. Note the caveats, because they're important and based on a lot of work, which you can see in his full responses.

From the actual interview with the BBC:

A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.
Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).
I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
Here are the trends and significances for each period:
Period Length Trend
(Degrees C per decade) Significance
1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes


B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.


C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.


D - Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.

This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period.


E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
Click to expand...
 
Red Cloud said:
Are you with him now?

See what I did there?
Click to expand...

I see what you tried there, but I wasn't ever, "with him" in the first place so it's a disengenuous question. ;) Conversely it's rather convenient for MinnFan to cite the guy as an expert now when you know he would never have before. Of course it's interesting after reading Poco's post that this scientist doesn't seem to have provided the, "smoking gun" MinnFan thought he had. :)
 
Last edited:
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

Slap Shot said:
So you were with this guy then when he claimed the opposite?
Click to expand...


Nope. I'm simply pointing out how faulty the data everyone has taken as gospel is. I'm glad to see him change his opinion on this and I think that it proves that further (open) study needs to be done before this can be considered settled science and have our economy taken apart.
 
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

Yawn.

Pointed out the obvious in thread one and the greenhouse heads continue with the theatrics.

Too bad all the "science" citations ended up as BS (as was pointed out many moons ago, of course).
 
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

jerphisch said:
Did you read the actual paper? Basically it finds that people who buy green are human. The whole premise was based on existing work that shows that people who feel they do "good" are then more likely to do "bad". Maybe we need a "People who give to charity are a-holes" post too.
Click to expand...

Of course not. Fox News told him how to think and he did. He's a good robot.

Good thing global warming's not real, otherwise it may have been 60 and sunny here on the Maine coast in March...
 
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

its sunny and 60's in the Keys. I'm betting the glacier wins.
 
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

Why is it the climate change deniers are quick to point out weather forecasts when it's snowing in December, but there's not a peep out of them when it's 75 in Maine on the first Sunday in April?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top