Estimates for future global warming n...

Estimates for future global warming narrowed down

There are 12 comments on the New Scientist story from Nov 15, 2012, titled Estimates for future global warming narrowed down. In it, New Scientist reports that:

HOW much will Earth warm this century? The best answer to this killer question remains broad, but a study has narrowed the range of likely temperatures - and comes down on the warmer side.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at New Scientist.

LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#1 Nov 15, 2012
Progress on defining the problem. Now for some progress on fixing the problem.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#2 Nov 15, 2012
No worries, if it's clouds they are concerned about well reduced solar activity will reduce the size of the solar system's heliosphere. A smaller heliosphere will allow more cosmic rays which will produce more clouds.

More clouds, lower temperatures.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#3 Nov 15, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
No worries, if it's clouds they are concerned about well reduced solar activity will reduce the size of the solar system's heliosphere. A smaller heliosphere will allow more cosmic rays which will produce more clouds.
More clouds, lower temperatures.
As ususal, you don't read the reference and then spin your own bafflegab and BS.

The report reduces the uncertainly of cloud formation and concludes that clouds will NOT moderate the response as much as prior estimates allowed.

I sometimes wonder why you haven't been institutionalized. Tight budget?
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#4 Nov 15, 2012
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
As ususal, you don't read the reference and then spin your own bafflegab and BS.
The report reduces the uncertainly of cloud formation and concludes that clouds will NOT moderate the response as much as prior estimates allowed.
I sometimes wonder why you haven't been institutionalized. Tight budget?
I read the article. It doesn't say anything about the heliosphere. If you are trying to predict what clouds will do, you need more than just what is going on today.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#6 Nov 15, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
I read the article.
Dubious.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't say anything about the heliosphere.
Nobody said anything about the heliosphere. If this is your evidence that you read the article, it just proves that you didn't read the article.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are trying to predict what clouds will do, you need more than just what is going on today.
Again, you prove that you didn't read the article. Enough irrelevant non-sequiturs. Read the thing and THEN commnent.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#7 Nov 15, 2012
Someone ought to tell them that the true metric of any model is how accurately it can predict the future. I wonder if I was to place that model a century in the past. How accurate it would predict todays climate.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#8 Nov 16, 2012
From the article:

"Much of the uncertainty stems from clouds, whose effects climate models struggle to simulate. Fasullo and Trenberth bypassed this problem by using satellite records of relative humidity, which influences cloud formation, instead. "

My post:

"No worries, if it's clouds they are concerned about well reduced solar activity will reduce the size of the solar system's heliosphere. A smaller heliosphere will allow more cosmic rays which will produce more clouds.

More clouds, lower temperatures. "

What article did you read?
PHD

Metamora, MI

#9 Nov 23, 2012
tina anne wrote:
Someone ought to tell them that the true metric of any model is how accurately it can predict the future. I wonder if I was to place that model a century in the past. How accurate it would predict todays climate.
We accurately can predict that youÂ’re Less than a Box of Rocks status will remain with you until the end of time.
litesong

Everett, WA

#10 Nov 23, 2012
fun farts wrote:
My post:
...... if it's clouds they are concerned about well reduced solar activity.......
Professional astronomers have few agreements with toxic topix AGW deniers...... specially when toxic topix AGW deniers try to put words in professional astronomers conclusions.
PHD

Metamora, MI

#11 Nov 23, 2012
Professional astronomers have few agreements with themselves. Each put words into their own professional conclusions depending on the flavor of the day.
litesong

Everett, WA

#12 Nov 23, 2012
phd wrote:
Professional astronomers have few agreements with themselves.
That's why 'flat-earthers' think they can get away with their 'flat-earth' concept.
PHD

Dowagiac, MI

#13 Nov 23, 2012
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
That's why 'flat-earthers' think they can get away with their 'flat-earth' concept.
They may fall off the edge. They may have a flat earth concept on the top of their heads. Have you removed their hats to see otherwise?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weather Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Former Troop G dispatcher sends snow from Calif... 12 hr America Gentleman... 1
News Looking back at the 1983 flood that sent a rive... 17 hr Lydia 2
News Fox Lake hit hard by thunderstorm Fri Mr Earl 1
News Eastside Tulare County supervisor race reveals ... Sep 22 Who 1
News Former Tropical Storm Julia dumps over a foot o... Sep 21 Lisa 1
News 2016's hellish summer weather: A told-you-so cl... Sep 21 Go Blue Forever 1
News This tornado destroyed the Sundowner East Trail... (Nov '08) Sep 20 Jimmy 3
More from around the web