"Deconstruction Of The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Hypothesis"

[kallend 2,146]

Meanwhile, in earth's atmosphere:

www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/09/climatechange-carbon-idUSL8N1314F720151109

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

kallend

Meanwhile, in earth's atmosphere:

www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/09/climatechange-carbon-idUSL8N1314F720151109

And yet the temp is not rising at the cataclysmic rate espoused by the alarmists!

What the hell is going on????????

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[turtlespeed 226]

rushmc

***
Meanwhile, in earth's atmosphere:

www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/09/climatechange-carbon-idUSL8N1314F720151109

And yet the temp is not rising at the cataclysmic rate espoused by the alarmists!

What the hell is going on????????

Don't tell them, they will just manipulate the numbers so it is.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rushmc 23]

turtlespeed

******
Meanwhile, in earth's atmosphere:

www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/09/climatechange-carbon-idUSL8N1314F720151109

And yet the temp is not rising at the cataclysmic rate espoused by the alarmists!

What the hell is going on????????

Don't tell them, they will just manipulate the numbers so it is.

Ya
they are good at that

This and blasting sites they have not even read

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[turtlespeed 226]

rushmc

*********
Meanwhile, in earth's atmosphere:

www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/09/climatechange-carbon-idUSL8N1314F720151109

And yet the temp is not rising at the cataclysmic rate espoused by the alarmists!

What the hell is going on????????

Don't tell them, they will just manipulate the numbers so it is.

Ya
they are good at that

This and blasting sites they have not even read

Still though, it makes it much more difficult for them to hide their bias and their hypocrisy when you link to sites other than WUWT. Just sayin'.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,111]

>But in your own words you described how that direct effect is an immediate issue,
>as in right now:

You can read it however you like. This is an immediate (as in, directly related to) effect of increasing temperatures. Even today temperatures are close to that threshold (95F wet bulb temps) which means it won't take much of a rise to push temperatures past that threshold. We've even seen that temperature exceeded for short times - and that will happen more often (and for longer) as average temperatures increase.

>Note how your words differ from the words of the actual study

Yes. They say basically the same thing using different words.

>My problem isn't necessarily with the studies - and I think the models are interesting.
>What bothers me the most is how people then take these studies and misrepresent
>the data.

And what, exactly, is misrepresented?

[Coreeece 2]

billvon

>But in your own words you described how that direct effect is an immediate issue,
>as in right now:

You can read it however you like. This is an immediate (as in, directly related to) effect of increasing temperatures. Even today temperatures are close to that threshold (95F wet bulb temps) which means it won't take much of a rise to push temperatures past that threshold. We've even seen that temperature exceeded for short times

You keep saying that, but where have you seen temps that exceeded the threshold? The nature journal letter that you linked to below says that they rarely exceed 31C (let alone 35C.)

Nature Journal

35C is the threshold value of Tw beyond which any exposure for more than six hours would probably be intolerable even for the fittest of humans, resulting in hyperthermia. In current climate, Tw rarely exceeds 31C (ref. 1).

...and that 31C temp is referenced from a study in 2010 that actually says Tw never exceeds 31C. (but I do believe I read somewhere that sea surfaces may have recently reached Tw 32C-33C in some areas since then)
Full 2010 Study from PNAS:
[url]http://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9552.abstract[/url]

billvon

- and that will happen more often (and for longer) as average temperatures increase.

The study says that temps will begin to exceed the 35C threshhold when warming increases by 7C. (Which seems to be a bit beyond the 2.4-6.4C increase projected for 2090 in even the most extreme scenarios that I've seen on the IPCC website)

PNAS Study

Any exceedence of 35C for extended periods should induce hyperthermia in humans and other mammals, as dissipation of metabolic heat becomes impossible. While this never happens now, it would begin to occur with global-mean warming of about 7C, calling the habitability of some regions into question.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[billvon 3,111]

> but where have you seen temps that exceeded the threshold?

======
The absolute highest dew point recorded in the region and therefore the world (of which I am aware) was 95° at Dhahran, Saudi Arabia at 3 p.m. on July 8, 2003. The dry bulb temperature stood at 108° at the time, so theoretically the heat index was 176°.
======
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/record-dew-point-temperatures

(95F is 35C.)

[Coreeece 2]

billvon

> but where have you seen temps that exceeded the threshold?

======
The absolute highest dew point recorded in the region and therefore the world (of which I am aware) was 95° at Dhahran, Saudi Arabia at 3 p.m. on July 8, 2003. The dry bulb temperature stood at 108° at the time, so theoretically the heat index was 176°.
======
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/record-dew-point-temperatures

(95F is 35C.)

Ya, that's the same one I mentioned here:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4768268;search_string=178F%202003;#4768268

I got a wetbulb temp of about 97F the other day using the calculator below:
https://www.easycalculation.com/weather/dewpoint-wetbulb-calculator.php

But then you have to wonder why these studies maintain that the wetbulb rarely exceeds 31C (88F) and has never exceeded 35C (95F)

The study from the nature journal that you posted, had a model using climate data and historical GHG concentrations from 1976-2005 - and though the 35C threshold was approached in many locations, it was not exceeded anywhere in the domain - so perhaps the instance from Dhahran in 2003 had nothing to do with GHG? C02 levels were certainly lower back then.

Nature Journal Study:
eltahir.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Paper.pdf

https://youtu.be/HI-KkwSKZcA?t=174
"Scientists stress that even under the 'business as usual' emmisions scenario, wetbulb temperatures are not projected to top 35C more than once every decade or every few decades by the end of the century.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[billvon 3,111]

>But then you have to wonder why these studies maintain that the wetbulb
>rarely exceeds 31C (88F) and has never exceeded 35C (95F)

Because they rarely exceed 31C and have never officially exceeded 35C (the 35C in the weatherunderground article was an unofficial record.)

[tkhayes 348]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxonmobil-denies-lying-about-global-warming/

they sound like big tobbacco was 50-60 years ago.

[billvon 3,111]

>they sound like big tobbacco was 50-60 years ago.

Not surprising. They used some of the same professional deniers.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>they sound like big tobbacco was 50-60 years ago.

Not surprising. They used some of the same professional deniers.

LOL

Back to tobacco

Gotta love it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

rushmc

***>they sound like big tobbacco was 50-60 years ago.

Not surprising. They used some of the same professional deniers.

LOL

Back to tobacco

Gotta love it

Does it ever bother you one iota that your "news" sounds more and more like Muhammad Saeed Al-Sahhaf every day Marc

[winsor 236]

billvon

>they sound like big tobbacco was 50-60 years ago.

Not surprising. They used some of the same professional deniers.

Calling people deniers is on a par with making reference to the same biased website for every citation. It dispels any notion of impartiality; if that is the goal, mission accomplished.

Either extreme is suspect, for precisely the same reasons.

A) "This is true - the science is settled!"

B) "The whole thing is bullshit!"

C) "What say we put this in perspective, shall we?"

I don't give a lot of credence to either A or B.


BSBD,

Winsor

[turtlespeed 226]

winsor

***>they sound like big tobbacco was 50-60 years ago.

Not surprising. They used some of the same professional deniers.

Calling people deniers is on a par with making reference to the same biased website for every citation. It dispels any notion of impartiality; if that is the goal, mission accomplished.

Either extreme is suspect, for precisely the same reasons.

A) "This is true - the science is settled!"

B) "The whole thing is bullshit!"

C) "What say we put this in perspective, shall we?"

I don't give a lot of credence to either A or B.


BSBD,

Winsor

Gheeze, now you will want to fly in and land on a carrier.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Coreeece 2]

billvon

>But then you have to wonder why these studies maintain that the wetbulb
>rarely exceeds 31C (88F) and has never exceeded 35C (95F)

Because they rarely exceed 31C and have never officially exceeded 35C (the 35C in the weatherunderground article was an unofficial record.)

Ok, so basically you took the most improbable, worst case scenario of some study conflated with "unofficial records" and passed it off as fact in an attempt to alarm people about the "immediate issue" with AGW - namely, the inhabitability in parts of southwest asia, aka the middle east, aka the desert. (which ever creates the most buzz)

billvon

165F is a heat INDEX that is a measure of the relative danger of that combination of dew point and actual temperature. And if you think it's just a made up scary number you are welcome to try it for yourself:

http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/html/heatindex.shtml

In case you haven't noticed, that calculator specifically says:
* Please note: The Heat Index calculation may produce meaningless results for temperatures and dew points outside of the range depicted on the Heat Index Chart linked below.

So while it may not be a "made up scary number," it certainly falls into the "meaningless scary number" range.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[billvon 3,111]

>Calling people deniers is on a par with making reference to the same biased
>website for every citation.

Hmm. Perhaps you are right, and we need a politically correct term so not to offend people who deny science as a profession. Perhaps "financially incentivized nay-talkers" or "non-science financed evangelists" or "woo marketing contractors."

>"This is true - the science is settled!"

Yep. Cigarette companies made a lot of money denying that one. After all, no one could CONCLUSIVELY link cigarettes to lung cancer. The science isn't settled!