On Guard for Thee Posted July 7, 2014 Report Posted July 7, 2014 Well the ice is gone. No assumptions about that. And what that has to do with, very simply, is once it's gone it doesn't come back. Think about this, how much of the heat of the sun is reflected by a sheet of ice compared to how much is absorbed by ocean water once the ice is gone. Quote
TimG Posted July 7, 2014 Report Posted July 7, 2014 Think about this, how much of the heat of the sun is reflected by a sheet of ice compared to how much is absorbed by ocean water once the ice is gone.So what? Don't you think the models took that into account? Even with that effect the warming is less than predicted by the models. This means that the models are not useful predictors of the future evolution of climate and we should not be basing policy decisions on them. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 7, 2014 Report Posted July 7, 2014 Dancing around with this concept of models may sound intelligent to you, but you still haven't told me what happens after that ice breaks away and the oceans are now absorbing heat rather than reflecting it. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 7, 2014 Report Posted July 7, 2014 Well...look at the bright side...Canada's colossal climate change KYOTO FAIL is now looking like a stroke of brilliance. The Americans knew better from the 'git go, never falling for the IPCC circle jerk. Know they just danced the funky chicken and "circled jerked" to whatever Exxon told them to. Quote
TimG Posted July 7, 2014 Report Posted July 7, 2014 (edited) Dancing around with this concept of models may sound intelligent to you, but you still haven't told me what happens after that ice breaks away and the oceans are now absorbing heat rather than reflecting it.You don't seem to understand is the ONLY way to answer your question is to create a computer model. Your personal opinion on what "sounds right" is quite irrelevant. I am also saying that this effect is well known and is already be part of the climate models - the same models that have failed to predict the current temperature trends. Perhaps it because they have overestimated the effect that losing ice has on the ocean. Perhaps it is something else. But the only thing that matters is once a model has failed to make a prediction it can't be used for predictions anymore because it is obviously not reliable. Edited July 7, 2014 by TimG Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 7, 2014 Report Posted July 7, 2014 It is well known and is part of the climate models and beyond that it's just a matter of figuring out the rate. Quote
TimG Posted July 7, 2014 Report Posted July 7, 2014 It is well known and is part of the climate models and beyond that it's just a matter of figuring out the rate.Yep. And the current crop of climate models are not able to predict the rate which means they are useless as tools to make policy decisions. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 7, 2014 Report Posted July 7, 2014 Yep. And the current crop of climate models are not able to predict the rate which means they are useless as tools to make policy decisions. So we just what, stick our heads in the sand and pretend all the data doesn't exist and that the ice will just come back one day? Quote
waldo Posted July 7, 2014 Report Posted July 7, 2014 Yep. And the current crop of climate models are not able to predict the rate which means they are useless as tools to make policy decisions. you know, you absolutely know that variability plays a significant role over shorter term (10 to 15 year) intervals... of course, when did facts ever get in the way of your disengenuous spewing. Climate models have shown good prediction capabilities over longer periods of time... variability 'averages out' over the long term... and I've recently shown that in relation to some of Simple's nonsense claims concerning models. A clear example of your fake-skeptic ploy can be shown in regards 2 relatively recent observed short-term trends: - in line with the so-called (cherry-picked) pause starting point, 97/98-to-2012, most climate model simulations are higher than the observed trend for the period. - on the other hand, over the equally short term 92-to-2006 period, most climate model simulations are lower than the observed trend for the period. Just where were all the model bashers when models were underestimating global warming during this period? Quote
TimG Posted July 7, 2014 Report Posted July 7, 2014 (edited) So we just what, stick our heads in the sand and pretend all the data doesn't exist and that the ice will just come back one day?Get back to me when you decide to amputate your leg because it might have cancer. No one makes sacrifices for hypothetical problems and no matter what you want to believe climate change is a hypothetical problem. Edited July 7, 2014 by TimG Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 7, 2014 Report Posted July 7, 2014 Get back to me when you decide to amputate your leg because it might have cancer. No one makes sacrifices for hypothetical problems and no matter what you want to believe climate change is a hypothetical problem. Except in this case, to use your somewhat alarming non alarmist metaphor, the cancer has alredy been diagnosed. Quote
Bob Macadoo Posted July 7, 2014 Report Posted July 7, 2014 Except in this case, to use your somewhat alarming non alarmist metaphor, the cancer has alredy been diagnosed. Very appropos analogy.....TimG's waiting for it to be metastasized before doing something...... Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 8, 2014 Report Posted July 8, 2014 Very appropos analogy.....TimG's waiting for it to be metastasized before doing something...... Unfortunately I think there are "those" that will still deny even as the grave is being covered over. Quote
cybercoma Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 hey guys, guys... is a reduced rate of warming... cooling? You mean if I turn my thermostat up by 1C everyday instead of 3C, my house isn't getting cooler? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 You mean if I turn my thermostat up by 1C everyday instead of 3C, my house isn't getting cooler? Depends on a lot of factors....your house may be getting cooler regardless of the "thermostat". That's the problem with faulty IPCC models that are demonstrably inaccurate or flat out wrong. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
eyeball Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 Excuse me but I'm curious, are the quotation marks you've placed around the word thermostat for your benefit or everyone else's? Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 Excuse me but I'm curious, are the quotation marks you've placed around the word thermostat for your benefit or everyone else's? It's for the benefit of the entire universe, of course. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
eyeball Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 Define benefit. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 Define "curious". Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
eyeball Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 I said curious not "curious". Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 Great...the entire universe will benefit from that too. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
eyeball Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 How did the difference between your "thermostat" and cybercoma's thermostat become a problem with regards to the IPCC's models? Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 How did the difference between your "thermostat" and cybercoma's thermostat become a problem with regards to the IPCC's models? OK...I will break it down for you. In this fun little scenario, the "thermostat" is/are higher CO2 emissions or atmospheric partial pressure (PPM). Just because the "thermostat" is set higher does not automatically mean rising temperatures because we don't have enough information about the house, heating system, delta T (temperatures), other passive gains/losses, etc. You will understand this better when the next glacial Ice Age comes around. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
eyeball Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 I doubt anyone but you will ever understand your little scenario vis a vis cybercoma's analogy - thermostat quite obviously means something else to you, for the moment. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 I doubt anyone but you will ever understand your little scenario vis a vis cybercoma's analogy - thermostat quite obviously means something else to you, for the moment. That's the beauty of it....the analogy works perfectly from a broader perspective, at least for those without closed minds. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.