1- not all models are anthropocentric... (you should review some of them) 2- even the ones that include anthropocentric data aren't "exclusively anthropocentric" so i'm not sure where you are going there... again, instead of getting the data from, say... curry or roy spencer (who has linked opinion pieces on his site but intentionally wrote them up to resemble a peer reviewed study... and it is NOT peer reviewed = false claim) ...why not simply get the info from the scientists publishing the data? in a single year you can find (depending on your search criteria) thousands of papers related to climate change (directly or indirectly) taking something like the above and extrapolating your own opinion about it based upon someone elses opinion is not sound logic, let alone scientific personally, i am waiting for something empirical to be published about the above. articles are ok if you are trying to establish that X said Y, but as far as science is concerned, it is the proverbial "used toilet paper" of evidence and science ... kinda like eyewitness testimony
totally agree with you... hee hee.. used toilet paper indeed... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The only sources I used in these recent postings is wiki and for excellent photos of the sinkhole attributed to perma frost thawing a news paper article. ( telegraph uk ) I have no idea where your reference to Curry and Roy Spencer comes from.
From that telegraph article slide show: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pic...sinkhole-crater-in-Siberia.html?frame=2982960 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You gotta wonder at the forces required to generate such a surface. Don't look "natural" to me at all.... Maybe it's a grand hoax... Weird for sure IMO
Last picture, I'm going to post of that sink hole ( from the same slide show)... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! can't say I have ever seen a sink hole like that before...
You have to first establish a baseline and I believe we have adequate knowledge to use one or several sets of baselines. If we don't, we should. We have been making observations of the earth's climatic history for a long time and we have some very good baselines in several of the scientific disciplines. When unusual events begin to happen, it is time to *realize* we may be causal to our own demise. Our species have become that powerful and Nature is displeased. It's mathematical functions have been interrupted and a mathematical imbalance (an uncertainty) is created until mathematical order is restored. And that can take a long time.
I assume climate scientists are not dummies. and that they are some of the smartest people on the planet ok? What I find distressing about our current approach is that the obvious appears to be missing from the dialogue and I have to wonder if this is because they simply missed it or there is some sort of desire to minimize for the sake of public order. I have referred to peak heat on a couple of occasions and the notion should be in their faces so to speak. Perhaps it is known and perhaps I am incorrect in raising it as an immediate issue...perhaps.. Please excuse the lack of formal language. The notion can be explained as follows: If we assume that the average global temperature is climbing steadily due to to what ever causation you may wish to use that climate data is correct and indeed the mean temp is rising. It is worth noting that for an average to be generated we need to have a data population that includes deviations from the mean. That means that there must be highs and lows to generate an average figure. For every degree the mean increases the "hot" deviation must increase also ( more so than the "cold" deviation - to generate the rise in mean) What this means is that a situation of what I call "peak heat" is being generated every summer in the way of hotter and hotter heat waves across various parts of the globe. Last year we saw a major heat wave hit India, Pakistan and the Middle East. ( death toll greater than 7ooo I believe) If the mean temp is going up then the next heat wave event will be much hotter ( assuming the peak heat is not spread more evenly across the globe) There is a heat thresh hold where human survival is not possible. And it appears to me, with out solid data research, that this "regional" situation is only a few years away. I ask the following question: Why has this not been a topic of concern when to any one who works with statistics knows that peak heat will hit well before the global average annual temperature gets much higher. Now either I am terribly wrong or the climate scientists are keeping mum ( or they simply missed it ) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! src: http://www.livescience.com/34128-limits-human-survival.html Indicating that at 60 deg C with high humidity** most people will suffer death by hyperthermia with in just 10 minutes. However this is only for a ten minute period. If a lower extreme temp was endured for say 4 hours with high humidity then death by hyperthermia can still be the result. Billy T mentioned this in his end times scenario but I think failed to make the connection to the immediacy of the issue regarding peak heat. Now I am not a climate scientist but I can see where this is leading fairly easy. I wonder why I appear to be the only one. ** I may be misreading the chart...
The one problem I see is that the illustration is static and regardless of highs and lows the entire global temperature is rising.. So a shift in ten percent will statistically virtually eliminate death from hypothermia, but the statistical rate of hyperthermia will go up. Moreover, it appears that the process is speeding up and then we may be faced with a run-away exponential effect.
I am not sure that you are reading the chart as intended. It is a survival chart and is not a climate change chart. I might add even if the global mean temperature stays static both the top and bottom deviations can become more dynamic. ( if feed back loops as they are called are sufficient)
It's a domino effect, because of the size of the global ecospherethere are only relatively long term effects *centuries*, but the re-stabilization may take "milleniua"..
on another note: The greenland ice cap at 65°13'44"N 40°14'54"W gained 264 ft of ice from 1942 to 1992 see: "glacier girl" a p38f
sorry for the delays in response- vacation just as a warning, so to speak. spencer is a meteorologist gone fraud (likely for pay, but that is IMHO) and curry often gets the science/math wrong and is an advocate for the Anti-AGW crowd here is a good site that more often than not used a lot of references to studies so that you can validate their claims http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm some people don't like it. i personally use it as a starting point for an argument against AGW (due to the set-up) and if i find what i am looking for, i use the studies to argue the point as they've done most of the hard work of consolidating the information into one point. i don't often link to this site because most of the anti-agw crowd will immediately ignore the link. i just use the information in it. weird for sure, but IMHO not a hoax. there are similar formations elsewhere, but i can't find where i linked them and can't search from here (sorry) still reading the rest
Interesting article along the lines of the peak heat problem I mentioned earlier: Will global warming heat us beyond our physical limits snip: "The greatest exposure will occur in populous, tropical regions such as India, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. But even in the northeastern United States, as many as 30 million people might be exposed at least once a year to heat that could be lethal to children, the elderly, and the sick, according to the new study." http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/12/151215-global-warming-heat-wave-stress-death-climate/
based on projections from CMIP5 and CMIP3 which show a consistent bias toward higher temperatures not supported by observations
Not necessarily. It's easily possible, what with AGW leading to more snow in the drier regions of ice sheets and glaciers, but it isn't the only possibility.
Who the fuck cares what happened at one specific location on a shifting ice sheet? How can you not be ashamed at yourself for even bringing that up?
outliers babe when your chart shows a smooth progression except for a few outliers, and you think you have nailed an understanding, if you ignore the outliers then you ain't got an understanding of the whole picture and, most likely never will. ................ as/re: ... "shifting ice sheet" ... No the planes were found where they were abandoned over 50 years ago no shift
That's why the climate research folks don't ignore the outliers. Or did you think that these planes, or the snowfall rates and accumulations over the ice cap in Greenland in general, are new information for the pros ?
It seems most likely that a significant percentage of your "pros" do ignore (or are unaware of) the outliers, and are rather narrowly educated. ergo, the level of understanding is rather dependent upon which pro you have in mind. Some have a relatively good understanding of the evolution of paleoclimates, some do not. Some have a good understanding of computer science and little else. It seems most likely that some do not know of the 50 year change at 65°13'44"N 40°14'54"W. There ain't no cookie cutter understanding of/for the knowledge and abilities of the myriad individual "pros". ("the devil is in the details") Remain skeptical my boy, it will serve you well.
