or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Gibonius

Everybody really means "anomalous warming" when say warming, but sure. There's natural warming (or cooling) going on all the time, on top of the human contributions. The y-axis in that IPCC graph you posted is temperature anomaly, for instance. The warming that can be attributed to the Sun, volcanoes, and other natural cycle factors is removed to show the effects that cannot be explained (under the current understanding) without adding in the human factors. It's double...
Looks like you're right about the IPPC models at least. You can find other results, eg, recent NOAA temperature corrections, that move the observed warming up significantly. That's without other corrections like ocean warming and whatnot. Certainly there's some ambiguity there.Nobody would say that the consensus extends to a specific warming amount, just that there has been appreciable warming and that it's caused by human emissions.That's pretty far from ...
I saw there were 35 new posts in this thread, and this is not what I was expecting.
Those guys are great, especially when they're giving budgeting advice to people in other forums. They pretty much think that it's immoral to spend money on enjoyment. I envision a bunch of tech nerds living at home or in shared housing, eating ramen and the Chobani yogurts at work.
It's a theory with a lot of components, but that's true for most significant theories.Back to the question of experts, how does a layperson choose which bits and pieces to accept? For someone with primary knowledge, sure, you could interrogate individual components and try to improve the uncertainties or reject the correlation altogether. But I struggle to see how someone without pretty intensive background could make such distinctions without falling back on their...
As far as I understand, they're showing different scenarios ranging from the very extreme to the more plausible. The observations likely rule out the worst case scenarios, but I believe if you confine the analysis to their "most likely" scenario, the warming is not on the low end. I'm not terribly familiar with the IPCC vernacular, so it's sort of hard to follow.The IPCC is pretty widely considered to be extremely conservative in their conclusions. I can't speak to that...
Going back to that first post, the statement you made about the impact of CO2 follows typical language patterns used to minimize the importance of CO2 in regards to warming. That's what I took issue to. I agreed on the outset that the feedback mechanisms play an important role, but that it's dishonest to downplay the importance of CO2 simply because the concentrations are small or even that the relative amount of forcing is small.Certainty I admit to having a hard time...
The uncertainty of the feedbacks is built into the range of temperatures predicted by the models. If you look at the actual predictions vs actual temperatures, the observations fall on the high end of the models and not the low end. If anything, the sum of the feedbacks are coming in on the high end of the uncertainty range and not the low end.I don't believe there's any basis for a conclusion that they would be near zero, barring of course some new previously unknown...
Sometimes you just want a Last Word or Widows Kiss and nothing else will suffice.First World drinking problems.
What's that mean?
New Posts  All Forums: