Agw Rate Of Change Predictions

[Gray-Wolf]

Why is there all the talk of temps levelling off with an accelerated resumption to warming by 2015? I'd kinda think this was taking in some PDO influence (which ,in reality has been poor to non-existent) with a large Nino' signalling the resumption of the warming. As it is we are in 09' and are looking at PDO neutral and a large El-Nino on the build.

The loss of AGW warming over the 'global cooled' period coincided with the last PDO-ve period, this time we may be moving towards another 'Global cooled period' courtesy of China and Asia's dirty emissions but we (the developed world) may well help us avoid that by helping them with cleaner technologies thus mitigating impacts on temps.

As with FI we should maybe be focusing on 'trends' and not the detail when looking at models (natural cycles will always augment or nullify a certain amount of AGW warming it not being strong enough yet to over ride those signals) as with the weather progs details change but trends that prove consistent across days of runs (using the same timed model if the GFS) generally come to pass.Why should the general 'trend' of the climate model predictions be so awry BFTP?

[Methuselah]

IMO Pete, no. If warming continues during the next century it will be at the lowest scale in line with natural cycles [however, they are pointing to cooling now].

However, 10 years of cooling and counting...million dollar models didn't see this coming? and all non linear arguments put forward still do not answer the basic question on many people's lips.

With CO2 still ever rising why are we cooling?

Ten years is long enough IMO for people to really question where the hell are we going from here and really question the AGW theory?

Currently its not up.

CO2 is NOT driving the climate...never has and never will...and I am very comfortable with that.

GW, what damage has recent mild warming done? Are things bad because of recent low level warming? One better hope that serious global cooling doesn't kick in or then we'll discuss how bad. B)

BFTP

Well of course, that must have been the case when it only found its way into/out of the atmosphere as a result of natural processes; the ebb and flow of photosynthesis in response to solar cycles, volanism et al come to mind.

But, there's no avoiding the fact that CO2's a GHG. The question I find most interesting is: how does our bit augment the natural cycles?

[Gray-Wolf]

The question I find most interesting is: how does our bit augment the natural cycles?

Maybe each of the systems has it's own 'elastic limit'? If the applied 'load' exceeds a certain point then the system can no longer return to the 'shape' it was before the loading?

Maybe once one tipping point is breached the impact of this accelerates similar breaches in connected systems (which are similarly under the additional loading of AGW).

Pretty soon enough momentum has amassed to both run and accelerate the process on positive feedbacks alone (As we are finding out in the Arctic with ice thickness and Arctic amplification/permafrost melt).

We then have to go figure 'man's part' in all of that to see how much he 'augmented' nature's responding. Man's impacts may appear small (to some) but it is this extra 'energy', lost and buried but now released, that starts the process (cannon fire from a spark?).

I've messed with (in the intentions of 'fixing') many things in my life.No matter how small the 'repair' most run 'different' after I've messed.I'm no expert in many of the things I messed with.

We all, to a man (woman), accept we know little about how the planets climate works and ,as such, our models of it are flawed. Does that stop us messing with it? changing it?

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Why is there all the talk of temps levelling off with an accelerated resumption to warming by 2015? I'd kinda think this was taking in some PDO influence (which ,in reality has been poor to non-existent) with a large Nino' signalling the resumption of the warming. As it is we are in 09' and are looking at PDO neutral and a large El-Nino on the build.

Why should the general 'trend' of the climate model predictions be so awry BFTP?

Re the 1st bit it is because it is assume that CO2 is driving the climate. No natural cycles have dictated the levelling of / slight cooling. There is no suggestion of a large Nino though is there? Globally 09 is not heading the warm way currently, 51/2 months to go but it isn't a warming one.

Because as has always happened a ceiling is reached and then a downwatrd trend and CO2 never has been able to stop cooldowns..why? Because it doesn't control climate. It is my belief with the natural cycle evidence available and known that the ceiling has been reached. Trillions of more tons of CO2 over the last 10 years have not added any warming....that is why.

You see each time global cooling occurred in the past CO2 still rose for a while after. it didn't cool because CO2 suddenly stopped increasing, the cooling started first, just like warming starts first before CO2 increases. All evidence shows that and is nothing to do with whetgher CO2 is a GHG its all about it NOT controlling climate

BFTP

Edited July 16, 2009 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Re the 1st bit it is because it is assume that CO2 is driving the climate. No natural cycles have dictated the levelling of / slight cooling. There is no suggestion of a large Nino though is there? Globally 09 is not heading the warm way currently, 51/2 months to go but it isn't a warming one.

Because as has always happened a ceiling is reached and then a downwatrd trend and CO2 never has been able to stop cooldowns..why? Because it doesn't control climate. It is my belief with the natural cycle evidence available and known that the ceiling has been reached. Trillions of more tons of CO2 over the last 10 years have not added any warming....that is why.

You see each time global cooling occurred in the past CO2 still rose for a while after. it didn't cool because CO2 suddenly stopped increasing, the cooling started first, just like warming starts first before CO2 increases. All evidence shows that and is nothing to do with whetgher CO2 is a GHG its all about it NOT controlling climate

BFTP

This is where a lot of banging heads on brick walls occurs Fred. There can be all the CO2 etc you like, but unless the feedback hypothesis of AGW is correct, then it might amount to zip. The supposed relationship between CO2 and temperature, and more especially wrt to assumed positive warming feedbacks, is being presented as a given, when it isn't.

You can have as many threads as you like on this section of the forum, can speculate about our gardens in decades to come, what will become of our sea levels, ice caps etc etc but it always comes back to the same thing. AGW is not fact - it is hypothesis (with holes).

Where is that 'wallbash smilie??

[Methuselah]

Where is that 'wallbash smilie?? :lol:

Here: :lol:

[laserguy]

AGW is not fact - it is hypothesis (with holes).

It's actually a huge black hole,with a wispy filligree of (man-made!) fibres surrounding it.

[Methuselah]

It's actually a huge black hole,with a wispy filligree of (man-made!) fibres surrounding it.

And the coolist agenda, what's that? I'll be interested when data show how global temps have varied this year??