AGW scientific consensus

Discussion of anything not related to audio or music production
Jack McOck
Posts: 869
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:06 pm

AGW scientific consensus

Post by Jack McOck » Sun May 19, 2013 10:43 am

After 15 years of flat temperatures, scientific experts place equilibrium climate sensitivity within a range of 0.5—7°C. We must act now before it's too late!

http://www.economist.com/news/science-a ... -emissions

Bagatell
Posts: 620
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 3:33 pm
Location: Sierra Nevada, Spain

Re: AGW scientific consensus

Post by Bagatell » Sun May 19, 2013 12:08 pm

Jack McOck wrote: We must act now before it's too late!
Make my own chemtrails? :roll:

Jack McOck
Posts: 869
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:06 pm

Re: AGW scientific consensus

Post by Jack McOck » Thu May 23, 2013 10:04 am

I'll allow it.

Jack McOck
Posts: 869
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:06 pm

Re: AGW scientific consensus

Post by Jack McOck » Thu May 23, 2013 10:48 am

I just found it an interesting read. Especially the margin of 0.5 to 7%. If scientists can achieve such precision, then maybe there's something to this global warming thing after all.

Jack McOck
Posts: 869
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:06 pm

Re: AGW scientific consensus

Post by Jack McOck » Thu May 23, 2013 11:16 am

Exactly. And rather than saying something impossibly precise, like that 6 million Jews died in WW2, they're saying something more akin to estimating that between 0.8 and 11.2 million Jews died in WW2—the former figure of course being a lower than the total number of lives claimed by circumcision. From this we could conclude that Hitler's favorite pastime may have been less detrimental to the Jewish people than their own religious traditions.

Perspective—making everyone look intelligent (or stupid) since a very long (or very short) time ago.

Emissary
Posts: 2431
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 11:27 am

Re: AGW scientific consensus

Post by Emissary » Thu May 23, 2013 12:11 pm

An interesting thing I read a few months back about how all the coal smog in china was actually helping stop temperature increase as much as they could be. So when all that coal is burnt and the smog lifts prepare for ouch time.

Jack McOck
Posts: 869
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:06 pm

Re: AGW scientific consensus

Post by Jack McOck » Fri May 24, 2013 1:53 pm

Funk N. Furter wrote:The ocean temperature has not stopped going up..
Nope.

Image

Jack McOck
Posts: 869
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:06 pm

Re: AGW scientific consensus

Post by Jack McOck » Fri May 24, 2013 3:03 pm

Flat since ~'98.

Jack McOck
Posts: 869
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:06 pm

Re: AGW scientific consensus

Post by Jack McOck » Sat May 25, 2013 2:59 pm

Look at the dates on that graph you posted. Then look at mine. Then at yours. Then at mine.

Flat since ~'98.

Also, yours was for level, not temperature. The "fuck you" is in the details.

SuburbanThug
Posts: 1478
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:22 am
Contact:

Re: AGW scientific consensus

Post by SuburbanThug » Sat May 25, 2013 6:33 pm

I wonder why all that ice is melting up north...

Jack McOck
Posts: 869
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:06 pm

Re: AGW scientific consensus

Post by Jack McOck » Sat May 25, 2013 6:34 pm

That's a good question.

Jack McOck
Posts: 869
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:06 pm

Re: AGW scientific consensus

Post by Jack McOck » Sat May 25, 2013 7:23 pm

Funk N. Furter wrote:
Jack McOck wrote:Look at the dates on that graph you posted. Then look at mine. Then at yours. Then at mine.

Flat since ~'98.

Also, yours was for level, not temperature. The "fuck you" is in the details.
The sea level rises with temperature because the water expands as it warms.
Off topic.

andydes
Posts: 2917
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 12:53 pm
Location: Bremen

Re: AGW scientific consensus

Post by andydes » Mon May 27, 2013 5:38 pm

Hmm, I see. According to some, when the temperature goes up its "natural variation", when it stays the same, it's proof the alarmists are wrong.

When climate models predict a bigger rise in temperature, no one really knows what's happening, or it's all lefty conspiracy, but if one model shows less increase in temperature, that must be the right one. Of course. No doubt, that's one we should use, if it shows we can keep going as we are a little longer.

stringtapper
Posts: 6270
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 6:21 pm

Re: AGW scientific consensus

Post by stringtapper » Mon May 27, 2013 8:44 pm

Funk N. Furter wrote:my children's future
Ah fuck, please tell me you're speaking figuratively.

:x
Unsound Designer

Jack McOck
Posts: 869
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:06 pm

Re: AGW scientific consensus

Post by Jack McOck » Tue May 28, 2013 6:13 am

Funk N. Furter wrote:How do you work that one out?
I explain why your graph is completely irrelevant to this post (it doesn't include the last 15 years), and you reply with some random factoid. Hence "off-topic". Or were you trying to suggest that NASA's measurements are wrong?

Either way, "Any Rand" (sic) has nothing to do with this discussion, the starting point of which was the fact that the experts understand absolutely fuck all, as (1), their predictions are so vague that they might as well be nonexistent (a range of 0.5 to 7°C is NOT helpful), and (2), despite their possibly intentional vagueness, their models are still failing.

As you say, "let's stick with the science".

Post Reply