|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 10, 2011 10:16:36 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 10, 2011 10:38:59 GMT 1
And here is a similar comparision using Hansen's 3 GISS scenarios A, B and C  |
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Jun 10, 2011 10:40:01 GMT 1
What's wrong with that? The slope of the green UAH line seems to be about the same as one of the red IPCC lines. It would be easier to compare them if they all intersected at 1990 - I wonder why the blue and green lines are drawn much lower - an attempt to make the predictions look worse than they actually are?
PS. Another problem is that the red lines are straight, implying that temperature was predicted to rise linearly, but surely nobody said that it would? One would expect it to rise at an increasing rate, just as it was before 1990. So the interpolation to 2010 gives an excessively high value.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 10, 2011 12:17:55 GMT 1
Take your criticisms to the IPCC and GISS, Eamonn.
And read the comments - they cover all the possible criticisms and excuses.
|
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Jun 10, 2011 12:30:39 GMT 1
I have no criticism of the IPCC, their prediction seems to be on course - come back in 2030 then we can see how accurate their predictions are. Since they don't seem to have made any predictions for 2010 I don't see how you can criticise them. There is no reply to my criticism in the comments that I can see - but since you have seen them why don't you save me and everyone else the bother of searching and point them out?
|
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 10, 2011 15:49:51 GMT 1
If you follow the link, I think there is a reason behind the offset. the one posted by M is figure 2, the first figure is interesting as well:  Well, actually makes more SENSE, in that all graphs now go through the same point at 1990. The page explains WHY the normalisation was needed, which makes figure two look rather confusing. Trust M to present the confusing graph................ |
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 10, 2011 16:00:21 GMT 1
I'll wait for the cry of -- it hasn't warmed since 2000, hence AGW is crap................
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 10, 2011 22:54:53 GMT 1
Why are you all so anxious that we remain on track for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming? You're batty.
You should be cheerful at least that the extent and density of the forest carbon sinks is increasing enabling them to absorb more CO2 and that CO2 fertilization of agricultural production and phytoplankton growth is helping to feed the ever-rising population.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 10, 2011 23:11:10 GMT 1
And what about this whacky idea?
In 1984 and 1986, massive eruptions of carbon dioxide from two lakes in Cameroon killed at least 1800 Cameroonian villagers. Countless head of cattle were also asphyxiated. Since then, measurements have shown that the amount of CO2 still dissolved in these lakes is very high (20,000 tons and 500,000 tons at Monoun and Nyos, respectively). The danger of a future gas burst (the so-called “limnic eruption”) could be eradicated by drawing off dissolved CO2. A gas-lift experiment at Lake Monoun in April 1992 allowed CO2 to be released at a flow-rate of 15 to 150 l.s-1 (STP), depending on the diameter of the pipe used.
The large high grade CO2 resource from these two west African lakes provides an exceptional opportunity to conduct large scale and long-term experiments on the effect of increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations on biotic systems in the tropical region. A description of the planned experiments is presented.
Controlled degassing of lakes with high CO2 content in Cameroon: an opportunity for ecosystem CO2-enrichment experiments
By M. Mousseau, Z.H. Enoch and J.C. Sabroux
|
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 11, 2011 0:11:36 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Jun 11, 2011 10:21:59 GMT 1
Ah - I see your problem. You seem to think that people choose which side of the debate they are on based on what they want to be true. That is certainly the case for yourself, but not necessarily for others.
I, for instance, accept that AGW is almost certainly happening because that is where the evidence points. I would prefer that it wasn't but I'm rational enough to recognize that the laws of nature don't accommodate themselves to my wishes.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 11, 2011 12:02:02 GMT 1
Laws of nature?
So what about the increasing density of forests, nicrr? Nothing to say about that? Most people informed about climate would recognise that as a negative feedback resulting from enhanced CO2 fertilization. It is an empirically observable case of the carbon cycle in action.
How would you account for it? Or do you already know enough about "the Laws of Nature" to ignore this rather interesting phenomenon?
|
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Jun 11, 2011 14:18:34 GMT 1
Why are you all so anxious that we remain on track for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming? At least it would shut-up the doubters - or would it? Why are you so anxious to see an ever-rising population? Mind you, I have not noticed much reduction in food prices in the shops, or any reduction in the number of starving people! |
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Jun 11, 2011 15:30:17 GMT 1
This has nothing to do with my post, which was pointing out the absurdity of your suggestion that understanding AGW to be true is a choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 11, 2011 16:29:16 GMT 1
Eamonn, you know very well I am not in favour of population growth but have advocated policies for population stabilization MANY times. I was merely speaking from a humanitarian point of view.
If you ever read about food production you would know that it has been increasing EVEN faster than population growth. Price rises come from the increasing ability on the part of China, India, etc to compete with Western consumers.
But this is just a refusal to engage with the matter of the known CO2 fertilzation effect on plant productivity.
As for nickrr, it would be really nice for her to discuss the climate matters in dispute for a change instead of telling us the science is settled because of "laws of nature". The only "choice" being exercised here ( and I think it is because of ignorance) is her refusal to participate in the many interesting matters raised on this board. Why is she here? She never contributes anything that carries discussion forward.
So, I am asking you again, nickrr, in the interests of promoting a *discussion*, what do you think about the reported increasing density of forests?
|
|
