Thread: Globe to be cooler, not warmer.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33
  1. #1 Globe to be cooler, not warmer. 
    Resident Grump
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,767
    Cycles in solar motion and activity of 60 and 20 years were used to develop an empirical model of Earth temperature variations. The model was fit to the Hadley global temperature data up to 1950 (time period before anthropogenic emissions became the dominant forcing mechanism), and then extrapolated from 1951 to 2010. The residuals showed an approximate linear upward trend of about 0.66C/century from 1942 to 2010. Herein we assume that this residual upward warming has been mostly induced by anthropogenic emissions, urbanization and land use change

    Our results suggest that because current models underestimate the strength of natural multidecadal cycles in the temperature records, the anthropogenic contribution to climate change since 1850 should be less than half of that previously claimed by the IPCC. About 60% of the warming observed from 1970 to 2000 was very likely caused by the above natural 60-year climatic cycle during its warming phase.

    A 21st Century forecast suggests that climate may remain approximately steady until 2030-2040, and may at most warm 0.5-1.0C by 2100 at the estimated 0.66C/century anthropogenic warming rate, which is about 3.5 times smaller than the average 2.3C/century anthropogenic warming rate projected by the IPCC up to the first decades of the 21st century. However, additional multisecular natural cycles may cool the climate further.
    For idiot wilbur, here are the two scientists

    Craig Loehl

    Adjunct Professor Scafetta

    Before wilbur opens his mouth, I want to see his climate science credentials

    Oh thats right...he doesnt have any..........
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    41,069
    TNO is filling in for Wilbur, he is in the middle of a beauty treatment and will be right with you when he is finished.
    How is obama working out for you?
    http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/5d569df9-186a-477b-a665-3ea8a8b9b655_zpse9003e54.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member Apache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Tree rats are watching you
    Posts
    6,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonnabend View Post
    For idiot wilbur, here are the two scientists

    Craig Loehl

    Adjunct Professor Scafetta

    Before wilbur opens his mouth, I want to see his climate science credentials

    Oh thats right...he doesnt have any..........
    Wilbur had a bad case of keyboard diarrhea. He can't play in the pool anymore...
    Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.
    Ronald Reagan

    We could say they are spending like drunken sailors. That would be unfair to drunken sailors, they're spending their OWN money.
    Ronald Reagan

    R.I.P. Crockspot
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member The Night Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonnabend View Post
    Cycles in solar motion and activity of 60 and 20 years were used to develop an empirical model of Earth temperature variations. The model was fit to the Hadley global temperature data up to 1950 (time period before anthropogenic emissions became the dominant forcing mechanism), and then extrapolated from 1951 to 2010. The residuals showed an approximate linear upward trend of about 0.66C/century from 1942 to 2010. Herein we assume that this residual upward warming has been mostly induced by anthropogenic emissions, urbanization and land use change…

    Our results suggest that because current models underestimate the strength of natural multidecadal cycles in the temperature records, the anthropogenic contribution to climate change since 1850 should be less than half of that previously claimed by the IPCC. About 60% of the warming observed from 1970 to 2000 was very likely caused by the above natural 60-year climatic cycle during its warming phase.

    A 21st Century forecast suggests that climate may remain approximately steady until 2030-2040, and may at most warm 0.5-1.0C by 2100 at the estimated 0.66C/century anthropogenic warming rate, which is about 3.5 times smaller than the average 2.3C/century anthropogenic warming rate projected by the IPCC up to the first decades of the 21st century. However, additional multisecular natural cycles may cool the climate further. [/URL]
    Why didn't you provide a link to the full article you quoted from? Don't you want anyone to see the full text?

    Anyway, the material you quoted doesn't indicate that Earth will cool but rather that it will continue to warm, albeit at a rate lower than that predicted by IPCC. A lower rate of warming... but still warming.

    Before wilbur opens his mouth, I want to see his climate science credentials.
    Wilbur has been banned. I'm sure you knew this when you posted. In fact, I'm sure you rushed to make this post taking shots at him once you saw he was banned because you knew he couldn't answer back.

    Oh thats right...he doesnt have any..........
    I believe Wilbur has told you that his background is in computer science and statistics. That doesn't make him an expert on climate but he hasn't claimed he is either.

    So, just what the fuck are you trying to say here?
    Last edited by The Night Owl; 07-26-2011 at 11:10 AM.
    Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member The Night Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,586
    An interesting tidbit about Mr. Scafetta:

    Sceptical climate researcher won't divulge key program

    A physicist whose work is often highlighted by climate-change sceptics is refusing to provide the software he used to other climate researchers attempting to replicate his results.

    Nicola Scafetta, a physicist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, has published a series of papers over the past few years that suggest the sun played a much bigger role in warming over the 20th century than is generally accepted. In particular, one 2006 paper he co-authored concluded that: "The sun might have contributed approximately 50 per cent of the observed global warming since 1900" (Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2006GL027142).

    This paper has been widely cited by those seeking to cast doubt on the scientific consensus on the cause of climate change, including US senator James Inhofe. Scafetta has also contributed to a book that claimed that "carbon dioxide probably is not the driving factor behind climate change".

    ...
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/...y-program.html

    Well, this doesn't look good.
    Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Resident Grump
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,767
    A physicist whose work is often highlighted by climate-change sceptics is refusing to provide the software he used to other climate researchers attempting to replicate his results.
    Just like DFr Jones and his ilk refuse to supply the data they used to make the "models" that "predict" "climate change:"

    Oh that's right, they destroyed it.....

    What am I doing? Hammering nails into the coffin of the AGW bandwagon, one nail at a time.:D

    I believe Wilbur has told you that his background is in computer science and statistics. That doesn't make him an expert on climate but he hasn't claimed he is either.
    \No, he DOES claim to be an expert, and better qualified than many climate scientists, whose scientific proof he dismisses as "crackpots"

    There is no proof of AGW. None.

    Tell ya what Owl, I'll give you the same challenge I gave little wilbur before he got his obnoxious ass banned

    Tale ONE event, any time in the last thirty years. Prove to me conclusively that that event was caused by "manmade climate change" and nothing else.

    Put up...or SHUT UP..
    Last edited by Sonnabend; 07-27-2011 at 06:02 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member The Night Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonnabend View Post
    \No, he DOES claim to be an expert, and better qualified than many climate scientists, whose scientific proof he dismisses as "crackpots"
    You're lying through your teeth. Show me posts in which Wilbur claimed to be an expert on climate science. Put up or shut up.

    There is no proof of AGW. None.

    Tell ya what Owl, I'll give you the same challenge I gave little wilbur before he got his obnoxious ass banned

    Tale ONE event, any time in the last thirty years. Prove to me conclusively that that event was caused by "manmade climate change" and nothing else.

    Put up...or SHUT UP..
    A single event doesn't prove or disprove AGW and so it's silly to ask for proof in this context.

    In science, knowledge is based on evidence, not proofs. Proofs are for mathematics.
    Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Resident Grump
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,767
    You're lying through your teeth. Show me posts in which Wilbur claimed to be an expert on climate science. Put up or shut up.
    You want me to repost every single post wilbur made in this forum? Where his snide manner and sneering contempt for others, not to mention his arrogance in assuming he was an expert and knew more than the rest of us combined, as a central theme?

    Not enough space.

    A single event doesn't prove or disprove AGW and so it's silly to ask for proof in this context.
    Translation, you can't prove ONE., Thought so.

    In science, knowledge is based on evidence, not proofs. Proofs are for mathematics.
    Wrong. Science is based on facts not "evidence". Example: Thalidomide. It is a known fact that women taking Thalidomide gave birth to phocomelic babies because the drug was teratogenic.

    AGW is not fact, it is not science, is is unproven, unproveable "theories" made up by desperate scientists looking for grants.

    There is no proof whatsoever that AGW has any basis in reality..unless you happen to be H G Wells and can go 100 years into the future to prove it.

    Look out for Morlocks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member The Night Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonnabend View Post
    You want me to repost every single post wilbur made in this forum?
    Not at all. Show me one post in which Wilbur claimed he is a climate expert.
    Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    41,069
    Quote Originally Posted by The Night Owl View Post
    Not at all. Show me one post in which Wilbur claimed he is a climate expert.
    Wilbur isn't here, why don't you post your credentials.
    How is obama working out for you?
    http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/5d569df9-186a-477b-a665-3ea8a8b9b655_zpse9003e54.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •