[Jonny_C]

Somebody was saying they want a new global warning thread? .....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... along.html

[PluggyRug]

I predict there will be egg on lots of faces.

[sandorski]

According to the graph, the article is incorrect.

[Jonny_C]

I just ran across this...

1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

... for those who say that all the peer-reviewed science is on the side of the AGW crowd.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/1 ... rting.html

If you're looking for some "meat", this is it!

[Zipperfish]

The Daily Mail is full of crap. I always suspected the climate sensitivity was off, but that just means it won;t warm as fast as some models predicted. As anthropogenic emissions drive the level of carbon dioxide up, the planet will heat up. It's a thermodynamic imperative.

It would be quite interesting if carbon dioxide increases did not warm the planet. The question would then be what is the fate of the heat re-emitted back towards the surface of the earth by CO2 molecules. From a science perspective, it would be like turning on the oven and nothing happening--why not? It should be pointed out that many of those 1100 articles aren't all that skeptical. They, for example, consider the climate sensitivity co-efficient. If the coefficient is greater than one (as many of teh skeptic papers say) then warming will still happen, albeit not as quickly.

[Jonny_C]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

It should be pointed out that many of those 1100 articles aren't all that skeptical.

The variance in skepticism is pointed out in the link itself. That's one of the things that might point toward it being a fair assessment.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

As anthropogenic emissions drive the level of carbon dioxide up, the planet will heat up. It's a thermodynamic imperative.

No it's not. Not necessarily. Not in the natural world. In the give and take of the natural world - negative feedbacks to positive forcing - balance is often created. If the amount of heat is lost to space that Lindzen suggests there is no imperative of heating. If heat can create a negative feedback in clouds as Spencer suggests is possible, there is no imperative of heating. If cosmic rays create a cooling effect of clouds there is no heating imperative. Then there's the idea of CO2 induced heating being logarithmic.

$1:

The award winning Bengtsson, highly decorated by scientific bodies across the globe, also pointed out that the heating effect of carbon dioxide (CO2) is logarithmic, which means the higher the concentration is, the smaller the effect of a further increase. That is why historical proxy data going back millennia show much greater concentrations of CO2 — 10, 20 or 30 times today’s levels – with no associated catastrophic global temperatures. That lack of association between temperature trends and CO2 has continued over the last century, as the up and down pattern of global temperatures over the past 100 years does not follow the upward climb of CO2 as the industrial revolution has expanded globally. It follows instead the pattern of natural causes, such as sunspot cycles, and ocean temperature cycles.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrar ... uly-cruel/

And it's been 15 years now with no statistical warming. How long specifically should we wait? So far the models are wrong. When do you expect them to be right?

[sandorski]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

As anthropogenic emissions drive the level of carbon dioxide up, the planet will heat up. It's a thermodynamic imperative.

No it's not. Not necessarily. Not in the natural world. In the give and take of the natural world - negative feedbacks to positive forcing - balance is often created. If the amount of heat is lost to space that Lindzen suggests there is no imperative of heating. If heat can create a negative feedback in clouds as Spencer suggests is possible, there is no imperative of heating. If cosmic rays create a cooling effect of clouds there is no heating imperative. Then there's the idea of CO2 induced heating being logarithmic.

$1:

The award winning Bengtsson, highly decorated by scientific bodies across the globe, also pointed out that the heating effect of carbon dioxide (CO2) is logarithmic, which means the higher the concentration is, the smaller the effect of a further increase. That is why historical proxy data going back millennia show much greater concentrations of CO2 — 10, 20 or 30 times today’s levels – with no associated catastrophic global temperatures. That lack of association between temperature trends and CO2 has continued over the last century, as the up and down pattern of global temperatures over the past 100 years does not follow the upward climb of CO2 as the industrial revolution has expanded globally. It follows instead the pattern of natural causes, such as sunspot cycles, and ocean temperature cycles.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrar ... uly-cruel/

And it's been 15 years now with no statistical warming. How long specifically should we wait? So far the models are wrong. When do you expect them to be right?

No one claims the Models are Right. They are estimates with various degrees of accuracies.

[N_Fiddledog]

Various degrees of inaccuracy so far.

[BartSimpson]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Various degrees of inaccuracy so far.

Beat me to it!

[ShepherdsDog]

March 25......snowing and -10 C

[bootlegga]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

March 25......snowing and -10 C

Weather isn't climate. Otherwise a cold snap here or a heat wave there would be considered proof of global warming or global cooling.

$1:

JACKPOT! We're Warmer Than Vegas - Jan 15, 2013

Whenever it gets warm like this, it's fun to look at who we're warmer than.
This morning, temperatures hovered around +5 in Edmonton. That was MUCH warmer than the -5 that Vegas thermometers were reading.
They'll get to about 8 Celsius this afternoon, we'll stay around 6 all day.
In fact, we were warmer than almost everyone in the U.S. from Washington State east to Michigan and from California east to Louisiana.
Los Angeles, Phoenix, Oklahoma City, Houston...you name 'em, they were all colder than Edmonton this morning.

http://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/edmonton-are ... -1.1114960

If your point was accurate, this article could be proof for both sides...

But even the graph in this Daily Mail article shows that the average global temperature has risen by about half degree since the 1960s.

This article doesn't disprove global warming at all. All it really shows is that the estimates of how much warming would happen were incorrect. But that's the thing with estimates...they're estimates, not guarantees!

[ShepherdsDog]

My point is accurate....it 's just an observation of current weather conditions.

[N_Fiddledog]

Yeah weather isn't climate...except when it's warm weather, then apparently it is.

Remember last summer? It was hot. This apparently proved human emissions of carbon dioxide were leading the world to an inevitable catastrophe of boiling oceans. Now it's cold. Now weather is not climate.

Remember that British scientist from 2000 who told Britain snow was a thing of the past?

$1:

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 24017.html

Have a look at Britain today.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2OWc4GhwF

[bootlegga]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

My point is accurate....it 's just an observation of current weather conditions.

Well, when you post it like that in a thread about global warming, it's either a dismissal of global warming or trolling.

I guess we both know now what your post was...