Climate Change

[Chris]

The hiatus continues ....  Much of the heat this year has been in elevated SST's(Sea Surface).  Usually this is indicative of heat leaving the ocean.

 

http://s11.postimg.org/d5hwubpz7/last_2014.png

[Chris]

The hiatus continues ....  Much of the heat this year has been in elevated SST's(Sea Surface).  Usually this is indicative of heat leaving the ocean.

 

http://s11.postimg.org/d5hwubpz7/last_2014.png

 

Here's a different version of global temps:

 

http://s27.postimg.org/aqssnt55v/last_2014.png

[Chris]

The troposphere is even flatter:

 

http://s27.postimg.org/asbx8plr7/last_2014.png

[Phil]

I've noticed that GISS tends to run warm(ish). A lot of that might be due to it's SSTA incorporation method.

[richard mann]

.. Question. 

 

Where does "cold" go in fact, when it leaves its main source regions and areas north. ?

 

(Somewhat, rhetorical.)

[Chris]

I've noticed that GISS tends to run warm(ish). A lot of that might be due to it's SSTA incorporation method.

 

I believe the sea surface temps are measured by a network of several thousand buoys.  Its not a perfect way to measure 70% of the earth's surface but you got to start somewhere.  As little as 20 years ago, there were only a few hundred buoys.

[Chris]

.. Question. 

 

Where does "cold" go in fact, when it leaves its main source regions and areas north. ?

 

(Somewhat, rhetorical.)

 

Good question.  In the past with Nino's, there's been a delayed spike in troposphere temps.

[richard mann]

-
In line with my question above Chris, I'm also wondering just what's being measured, where and how conclusively, where looking at the fuller idea of a measurement of "global" temperature. 
 
— And with this, what might be being "left out" of, or either whether more or additionally, in transit perhaps, more in between two different areas or elements being measured where considering the idea. .Can the whole of the globe in fact be (metaphorically speaking.) put in a box and isolated for the purpose, core to ionosphere. ?
 
It would appear, from what I've seen regarding this larger measurement's being assessed (qualifying here, "leastwise".) that it's derived from a general (if appreciated as more specific.) compilation, or combination, of different main elements, i.e. larger regions of the planet, atmospheric levels, e.g. "Arctic" and "Antarctic", "Tropospheric" and "Stratospheric" temperatures, .. what else would there be (?): .main "Surface" temperatures considered more over-all, and those of the oceans, surface to greater depths. 
 
.. But what I'm wondering is, again, .. where does different cold in fact go where appreciated as having diminished. .And with this, looked at otherwise, just where from and how, are other areas, appreciated as warming more, added to.
 
From what I've gathered more basically—not really having done a fuller study of the subject—I'm seeing that where looking at the poles (more generally than more recently) the "Arctic" is losing cold stores, while the "Antarctic" is gaining cold. .And so with this idea, a simple conjecture might be that there's a basic and direct connection here. .So, if so, where is the global temperature affected. ? .. And with this question, what's going on more in between, i.e. both from greater ocean depths to the Stratosphere, and more generally, at main Surface level. ? 
 
Am I seeing the whole picture. ? .. Again, can the whole of the earth's temperature in fact be measured: .at once, and so with one temperature being able to be compared with another with time. ?

[Phil]

I believe the sea surface temps are measured by a network of several thousand buoys. Its not a perfect way to measure 70% of the earth's surface but you got to start somewhere. As little as 20 years ago, there were only a few hundred buoys.

HADCRUT4 uses OISST/HADSST3 which is satellite derived. GISS uses the latter, ERSST3 which is crap.

[richard mann]

.. set beside and with considering ...

[Chris]

NOAA says 2014 through September was tied for the warmest on record (using GISS). 

"The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–September period (year-to-date) was 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20^th century average of 14.1°C (57.5°F), tying with 1998 as the warmest such period on record."

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/9

[richard mann]

-

Appreciate the post Chris.

Some of the references cited at the bottom of the main article that you've tacked in a link to here above, have helped me to better ponder some of the ideas that I'd brought up posted further above with working to consider just what's being measured, where. .. when, how. ...

[Chris]

Reposted from October thread for future reference.

 

Since 1939, temps here have warmed by 0.67F, and have actually cooled since 1995. NCEP reanalysis reveals almost no trend in specific humidity. There was a much larger warming from 1909 to 1933, but data on that is sparse, locally.

On a global scale, since 1979, we've seen the Hadley Cells weaken, expand, and migrate poleward while tropical cloud albedo has decreased by 3.2W/m^2 and wind speeds decreased by 0.37M/s south of 45N..this alone should lead to an 0.4C aggregated global warming..the radiative dampening in the relevant GHG spectrums (accounting for doppler broadening) is almost unobservable since 1993, which is why most alarmist scientists refuse to speak of it.

The PVs have also strengthened and the BDC cells have weakened as O3/NO2 have been depleted and solar wind forcing increased. This has occurred repeatedly over the last 10,000yrs, as is evidenced by the recurrence of the observed anomalies In proxy data (fluctuations in SW US drought reflects Hadkey Cell longitude, ENSO reflects AAM tendency, NATL/NPAC salinity reflects Ferrel Cell Strength, etc).

 

 

Thing is, we don't view "time" in the same manner the climate system does. Throughout the Holocene interglacial, we've observed large swings in global temperature (revealed thoroughly in the GISP2 ice cores and mid-latitude boreholes). These are marked by large shifts in global circulation, especially when it comes to poleward heat transport in the upper atmosphere, as our modern day instruments have revealed..and much of this can be physically explained via solar wind/geomagnetic forcing on the Brewer-Dobson/Branstrator Cells. When you destroy O^3, NO^2, & H^2O in the upper atmosphere above 50N, the polar stratosphere cools relative to the tropical stratosohere...this increases the thermal gradient, boosts the circumpolar night jet, strengthens the PV, and weakens the Brewer-Dobson Circulation...leading to a weakening/flattening/expanding of the Hadley Cells. This results in reduced tropical convection & weaker tropical surface wind speeds, hence reduced aggregated heat transport into the upper troposphere/stratosphere. We saw an extreme example of this over the summer, where reduced wind speeds/sinking air led to a huge warming of SSTs & surface temps, while the troposphere above did not see the same level of warming. The upper troposphere actually cooled due to a 4.1W/m^2 reduction in the aggregated heat flux.

This fits in perfectly with the observed cooling above 300mb since 1979..CO^2 induced radiative forcing must be thermalized in the upper troposphere where vibrational rates are less than the antecedent firing rates, so a cooling at that level precludes the idea of CO^2 forcing the surface warming..not to mention the global increase in OLR and inadequate spectral dampening.

It's all easy to observe when you get down to it..

[Timmy]

http://news.yahoo.com/robot-sub-finds-surprisingly-thick-antarctic-sea-ice-161703215.html

[Dadio]

http://www.globalchange.gov/news/greenhouse-gas-levels-reach-record-high

LOL. And yet even with record levels of CO2 and quite as steep increase in the amount of CO2 the the global temperature is not increasing by anywhere the same rate/(percentage of increase) as CO2. In fact by the ups and downs of the global temperature over the last decade and more has averaged out to no increase in the global temperature. Something is wrong with their theory. Yes I said theory, (dangerous, runaway, global warming caused by man) isn't proven. 

[Dadio]

-

In line with my question above Chris, I'm also wondering just what's being measured, where and how conclusively, where looking at the fuller idea of a measurement of "global" temperature. 

 

— And with this, what might be being "left out" of, or either whether more or additionally, in transit perhaps, more in between two different areas or elements being measured where considering the idea. .Can the whole of the globe in fact be (metaphorically speaking.) put in a box and isolated for the purpose, core to ionosphere. ?

 

It would appear, from what I've seen regarding this larger measurement's being assessed (qualifying here, "leastwise".) that it's derived from a general (if appreciated as more specific.) compilation, or combination, of different main elements, i.e. larger regions of the planet, atmospheric levels, e.g. "Arctic" and "Antarctic", "Tropospheric" and "Stratospheric" temperatures, .. what else would there be (?): .main "Surface" temperatures considered more over-all, and those of the oceans, surface to greater depths. 

 

.. But what I'm wondering is, again, .. where does different cold in fact go where appreciated as having diminished. .And with this, looked at otherwise, just where from and how, are other areas, appreciated as warming more, added to.

 

From what I've gathered more basically—not really having done a fuller study of the subject—I'm seeing that where looking at the poles (more generally than more recently) the "Arctic" is losing cold stores, while the "Antarctic" is gaining cold. .And so with this idea, a simple conjecture might be that there's a basic and direct connection here. .So, if so, where is the global temperature affected. ? .. And with this question, what's going on more in between, i.e. both from greater ocean depths to the Stratosphere, and more generally, at main Surface level. ? 

 

Am I seeing the whole picture. ? .. Again, can the whole of the earth's temperature in fact be measured: .at once, and so with one temperature being able to be compared with another with time. ?

I like your questions.

[Dadio]

http://news.yahoo.com/robot-sub-finds-surprisingly-thick-antarctic-sea-ice-161703215.html

It is an interesting article except for the garbage about the Antarctic ice melting and retreating. There isn't any indication that the land ice of the Antarctic is retreating as a whole. Which is what one part of the article said. 

 

Even the ice mass that is calculated as being lost is a very small amount. One would expect with more ice around the Antarctic, which is already a very dry climate, general statement, there would be even less precipitation. Which would lead to the balance of ice to slowly decrease. 

 

Still there is so much to be learned. Thanks for sharing the article.

[richard mann]

I like your questions.

The whole idea more for me "Dadio", is that of our working (better) to establish, all .. of the necessary and pertinent parameters where working to appreciated global temperature (more kinetic.).

 

— In fact, not only where to measure things. But also, why temperature where shifting more immediately, might be more specifically. And then with this, the more fleeting nature of whatever shift or change where looking at whatever heat, or cold, (potentially.) wherever, more specific.

[richard mann]

http://news.yahoo.com/robot-sub-finds-surprisingly-thick-antarctic-sea-ice-161703215.html

 

Not  to be too presumptuous, or otherwise appear clairvoyant, .. But you have to consider the context of what's been said both here above along with elsewhere here within this broader forum, already, ….

 

"Phil" will tell you that any cooling, occurring, is in line with something more epic "about" to take place, and that "CO2" and other "so called" "Green-house Gases", have a negligible effect where considering the idea of warming. 

 

And I'll say, will here, that .. what's been assessed otherwise more prudently, and if more where looking at the idea of warming, even "man-made" or "human-cause", is plausible [enough] and should therefore be considered prudently. 

 

With this, my .. feeling and appreciation if more general, is that .. "you'll", see "periods" of cooing more at the poles and through higher latitudes, more cyclically, i.e. more in line with a more "multi-decadal" timeframe, and with an 8-10 year period of cooling, .. followed by another, of warming of equal duration. In each case, both gradual and progressive:  accrued cool, and then with otherwise, that cold being distributed .. more widely. 

 

— We're in a cooling period more right now at this point. Very close to maximum. And before, beginning one more warming. 

 

Conjecture, obviously of course. But based on some amount of more sensible observation.

 

(With respect to "Phil's" appreciation and outlook suggested above, not "more sensible" than his, just more basic and sensible.)

[Phil]

Glaciers are retreating over the west-antarctic ice sheet, but they're growing over the main continental body. Explainable (mostly) via changes in the general circulation(s) that govern the climate down there..

[Phil]

Hiatus going strong:

 

 

 

[Chris]

Even if this year sets the new record, as it might by some of the measures, it is not as warm as the models predicted.  In fact observed temps are in danger of falling outside the 2 sigma range.

[Chris]

The poleward migration stopped in 2006..key is quiet solar activity on a multi-decadal scale.

 

Active sun ---> O^3+N^2O depletion aloft; dampened SAO, warming top flank of Hadley Cells = weaker Hadley Cells & reduced Hadley/Walker intensity ratio ---> reduced tropical/subtropical convection/weaker circulation(s) = reduced convective heat transport into upper troposphere/stratosphere = colder stratosphere/stronger thermal wind forcing on westerlies = stronger PV/-EPF/unstable Ferrel domain = expansion of critical kinematic field lines = poleward expansion of Hadley Cells..

 

I thought the Hadley Cells set a new record in 2104, expanding past 50 degrees N?

[Phil]

I thought the Hadley Cells set a new record in 2104, expanding past 50 degrees N?

They were very broad/weak for 4-5 month window, exceptionally so from June-September, but there has been no poleward migration observed since 2005-2007, depending on your parameter(s) of choice..

[Chris]

They were very broad/weak for 4-5 month window, exceptionally so from June-September, but there has been no poleward migration observed since 2005-2007, depending on your parameter(s) of choice..

 

What are the parameters of choice?  I haven't found a succinct site for Hadley Cell measurements.

[Phil]

What are the parameters of choice? I haven't found a succinct site for Hadley Cell measurements.

I prefer to use the basic streamfunction re-analysis on the ESRL site...the .2101 sigma option also works if you're interesting in plotting Walker Cell strength as well, but need to save time:

 

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/composites/printpage.pl

[richard mann]

-

.. "What's", being "taught". 

 

— At the university level. In this case at "Yale" University. Main "Geology Dept.", and if only as of 2012.

 

[Glacier]

UAH is going to likely going to switch to version 6 this summer or autumn due to new adjustments parameterizing the observed radiometer decay.

 

Until they do so, I think RSS is a the better dataset, as it parallels NOAA and HADCRUT pretty well after 2001, unlike UAH which is the warmest outlier.

 

 

 

If I compare RSS, UAH, and GISS (NASA), RSS with its 18 year and 3 month hiatus is the outlier. UAH only shows a 6 year flat line. Same goes for GISS. 

[Phil]

UAH has yet to update to version-6. Once this occurs, I'm suspect it'll fall back in line with RSS/HADCRUT4/NCDC

[Glacier]

UAH has yet to update to version-6. Once this occurs, I'm suspect it'll fall back in line with RSS/HADCRUT4/NCDC

This makes absolutely no sense since UAH already follows NCDC and HADCRUT4 better than RSS. RSS is the outlier. RSS shows 18 years and 3 months with no warming, while UAH, NCDC, and HADCRUT4 show that the warming continues. 

[Scott26]

Hi guys, I'm a frequent poster on the Lakes/Plains sub-section of the forum and a debate was started about Global Warming. We made a separate thread for it since it was off-topic to our January Observations thread. I accept the facts that humans are a major cause of the warming of the Earth and we must act quickly to lower greenhouse gas emissions. Pretty much the rest of the posters either believe humans are not causing global warming or it's not a big deal. Many of them believe in conspiracies like the government is paying off scientists to lie to the public and that the IPCC leaking proved it's all a giant hoax. I'm a senior in high school and I consider myself fairly knowledgeable on the subject, but a lot of what you guys are saying is going over my head. Does anybody have some good websites, articles or videos on anthropogenic climate change? I get most of my information off NASA, NOAA, the EPA and the website skepticalscience, but I'm wondering what else can be of good resource to me. Thanks in Advance.

[Phil]

This makes absolutely no sense since UAH already follows NCDC and HADCRUT4 better than RSS. RSS is the outlier. RSS shows 18 years and 3 months with no warming, while UAH, NCDC, and HADCRUT4 show that the warming continues.

That's a load of crap, actually. Trend analysis reveals the fact UAH is (by far) the warm outlier since 2001. UAH's sensor degradation did not start affecting data until the turn of the century. Furthermore, HADCRUT4, NCDC, and RSS all reveal a slight cooling trend since 2001.

 

Dr. Spencer has confirmed that Version-6 will run cooler than Version 5.6 (current) after 1998.

[Phil]

No one is denying the radiative effect of CO^2..it's the thermalization process that is in question.

[Scott26]

As a former physicist and climate scientist, my advice is to take a skeptical approach to AGW theory. These "models" used to interpret the effects of the theorized radiative forcing are deeply flawed, down to the root (particle behaviors). They have shown no skill in forecasting, and rely on heavy timings/parameterizations to adequately hindcast.

 

The problems lie directly within the physics of the models themselves. The satellite-derived spectral analysis we use has no resemblance to the model predictions at all.

Models always have error, but isn't far fetched to say that they have shown "no skill in forecasting?" The IPCC projections were well with in the realm of reality and they may have even underestimated sea levels rising for example.

[Phil]

Models always have error, but isn't far fetched to say that they have shown "no skill in forecasting?" The IPCC projections were well with in the realm of reality and they may have even underestimated sea levels rising for example.

Here's the problem..a majority of the observed sea level rise actually occurred before 1950, despite the theorized anthropogenic forcing not being strong enough to significantly influence the global thermal budget until after 1950.

 

So, what caused the sea level rise before 1950? It wasn't us..but it equates a forcing of about 2.2W/m^2:

 

http://catchmypicture.com/7ceVdK.jpg

 

 

Remember what I said about hindcasting? The modeling cannot account for any significant warming/sea level rise before 1950 because the forcings they recognize are not in tune with reality.

[richard mann]

Models always have error, but isn't [it] far fetched to say that they have shown "no skill in forecasting?" The IPCC projections were well with in the realm of reality and they may have even underestimated sea levels rising for example.

 

Of "course" you've hit upon an important point here Scott. And perhaps somewhat in line with what you'd pointed to where looking at various views regarding the theme looked at more in general above, I've found, myself certainly leastwise, that some former physicists and climate scientists, can certainly tend to both, exaggerate elements of their thinking (in line with their own more skeptical "approach" ...), this along with also make sweeping and more general statements often constructed to sound like actual facts, but not in fact the case more ultimately. 

 

You say your in high school still. Were I you, I'd begin by searching for things, e.g. lectures, even classes made available online, more academic, toward working to achieve a good base of knowledge, before working to either whether appreciate better, or dispel—even perhaps reject—as less plausible, what you might hear or are exposed to otherwise.

 

.. If you'll check post no. 79 above, here within thread, you'll find something in line with what I've suggested to you here. 

[Glacier]

That's a load of crap, actually. Trend analysis reveals the fact UAH is (by far) the warm outlier since 2001. UAH's sensor degradation did not start affecting data until the turn of the century. Furthermore, HADCRUT4, NCDC, and RSS all reveal a slight cooling trend since 2001.

 

Dr. Spencer has confirmed that Version-6 will run cooler than Version 5.6 (current) after 1998.

I'm also quite skeptical of most of the claims made AGW proponents, but I think you might have your satellites backwards. Here is what Roy Spencer has to say about the divergence between the two. .http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/on-the-divergence-between-the-uah-and-rss-global-temperature-records/

[Phil]

I'm also quite skeptical of most of the claims made AGW proponents, but I think you might have your satellites backwards. Here is what Roy Spencer has to say about the divergence between the two. .http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/on-the-divergence-between-the-uah-and-rss-global-temperature-records/

No one said RSS isn't running a bit too cold, but Dr. Spencer has been pretty clear that the upcoming Version-6 will run colder than (current) version 5.6..closer to RSS:

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2014-0-33-deg-c/

 

 

As we finish up our new Version 6 of the UAH dataset, it looks like our anomalies in the 2nd half of the satellite record will be slightly cooler, somewhat more like the RSS dataset….but we are talking small adjustments here…hundredths of a deg. C.

[richard mann]

-
"Sell" (?) .. when we get to the next major ENSO period. 
 
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2014_v5.png

[Chris]

Hi guys, I'm a frequent poster on the Lakes/Plains sub-section of the forum and a debate was started about Global Warming. We made a separate thread for it since it was off-topic to our January Observations thread. I accept the facts that humans are a major cause of the warming of the Earth and we must act quickly to lower greenhouse gas emissions. Pretty much the rest of the posters either believe humans are not causing global warming or it's not a big deal. Many of them believe in conspiracies like the government is paying off scientists to lie to the public and that the IPCC leaking proved it's all a giant hoax. I'm a senior in high school and I consider myself fairly knowledgeable on the subject, but a lot of what you guys are saying is going over my head. Does anybody have some good websites, articles or videos on anthropogenic climate change? I get most of my information off NASA, NOAA, the EPA and the website skepticalscience, but I'm wondering what else can be of good resource to me. Thanks in Advance.

 

Hi Scott.  Its not much of a stretch to think 7 billion people cutting down forests, paving vast stretches of land, and spewing gases into the atmosphere would have some impact on the planet.  How much impact is the real question.  IMHO, the real politicization started when people suggested that the U.S. should curtail emissions while other countries were allowed to increase emissions. 

[Chris]

Models always have error, but isn't far fetched to say that they have shown "no skill in forecasting?" The IPCC projections were well with in the realm of reality and they may have even underestimated sea levels rising for example.

 

 In the 90's climates scientists were calling for world wide disaster by now with accelerated warming if we didn't change our ways.  We didn't change our ways. Remember the "hockey stick" feedback?  As the doomsday predictions have failed to materialize, more and more people question their credibility.  Here's how IPCC's predictions have fared - note they've nearly fallen out of the 2 sigma.

 

http://s14.postimg.org/x3g01cj8x/cmip.png

[Scott26]

Uh no.  In the 90's climates scientists were calling for world wide disaster by now with accelerated warming if we didn't change our ways.  We didn't change our ways. Remember the "hockey stick" feedback?  As the doomsday predictions have failed to materialize, more and more people question their credibility.  Here's how IPCC's predictions have fared - note they've nearly fallen out of the 2 sigma.

 

http://s14.postimg.org/x3g01cj8x/cmip.png

If you do extrapolate it though, like the graph shows, it looks to be approaching the IPCC's minimum projected range in the future. I'm not too knowledgeable on this aspect, but do you think the so-called "hiatus" could be the reason it has nearly fallen 2 sigma?

[Scott26]

Uh no.  In the 90's climates scientists were calling for world wide disaster by now with accelerated warming if we didn't change our ways.  We didn't change our ways. Remember the "hockey stick" feedback?  As the doomsday predictions have failed to materialize, more and more people question their credibility.  Here's how IPCC's predictions have fared - note they've nearly fallen out of the 2 sigma.

 

http://s14.postimg.org/x3g01cj8x/cmip.png

Also, I was talking about the IPCC's projections of sea-levels rising rather than global temperatures from the post you were quoting me on btw.

[richard mann]

Hi Scott.  Its not much of a stretch to think 7 billion people cutting down forests, paving vast stretches of land, and spewing gases into the atmosphere would have some impact on the planet.  How much impact is the real question.  IMHO, the real politicization started when people suggested that the U.S. should curtail emissions while other countries were allowed to increase emissions. 

 

.. With dollar signs having entered the "equation". 

 

— The point here being, that if less in question, or less of a question, the U.S. (as a "nation", more as a whole. Not those more politically focused.) ... might just as easily have taken a tack more prudent, i.e. more lead the way where considering both an investigation the potential, perhaps more adverse, while observing / appreciated its being as such, general impetus to do a better job more "environmentally".

[Skagit Weather]

Had to get this off my chest after hearing the multitude of opinions on this site about climate change. Please ignore it if you feel it is off-topic or unreasonable. And no, this is not an invitation to be proselytized into the "Anthropogenic global warming is a myth" camp. Also assume any place I mention "climate change" or global warming that I have not changed to AGW refers to climate change caused by humans.

 

The real fact of the matter is humans need some other reason to protect the environment than just the idea of self caused destruction. Humans are incredibly self-centered. While there may be questions about AGW, there should be no question that humans are consuming the earth at an unsustainable rate. I try to be as unbiased as possible my daily observations, but I believe that we have a duty to protect the earth. Just because we are the most intelligent life forms on the Earth should not give us a reason to disregard all other life forms. The human tendency is to attempt to gain as much wealth as possible by any means and this almost always involves taking advantage, whether purposeful or accidental, of other living things . AGW and the doomsday predictions at least provide some reason for people to improve the sustainability of human society.

 

We will probably not run out of oil in the next few decades or even a few centuries and we probably will not kill off every non-livestock animal species by 2100, but if we don't move towards "greener" actions now, hundreds, maybe thousands of years down the road, the earth will eventually be rendered uninhabitable. Our economy will not survive a sudden forced transition from non-renewable sources to renewable sources of energy, but by living from economic quarter to economic quarter, humanity certainly faces this threat. For thousands of years humans have been the top predator consuming all the available food in a region and moving on, but unless we find some cozy exoplanets and develop a way to travel to them (unlikely, but possible in next few millennia), we will find that there is no other home to move to.

 

AGW provides motivation to take action now as humans are not known for their forward looking abilities, but some are known for the ability to look a few years into the future to care for their children. If people feel their offspring are threatened then they will be more willing to invest in alternative energies. Only with this investment can the cost be lowered enough so that we can achieve new breakthroughs in technological understanding. Obviously, I think that the truth is incredibly important to science and only the truth can lead to scientific progress which is where my dilemma appears.

 

Scientific progress is driven by money which is only supported if individuals have a self interest: either they have the chance to get rich, get good publicity, "feel good," or save their children from some impending doom. On the other hand science is driven by the truth which is why I believe that maybe not all scientists, but a large majority of them are searching for the truth to climate change. So far the consensus is that AGW exists and will be a large player in the centuries to come and to me their arguments seem to make sense. There are those scientists that claim they are 100.00000000000% certain that AGW does not exist while there are those that are 100.00000000% sure that AGW does exist. This seems to break the general scientific idea that one can never be 100% certain of anything as there may always be a counter example somewhere in the universe. I believe that we should be cautious with our certainties and accepting of different opinions. We should challenge ideas, but as a way to further science as not to disprove the other theory.

 

Today the question should not be:

 

"How can we disprove anthropogenic global warming to save the economy and keep traditional values?"

 

but rather

 

"Can we disprove anthropogenic global warming?"

"What is the best way to prepare our economy for the next decade, the next century, and the next millennia?"

"What is the benefit of certain traditional values to society and will they have to change in the coming years?"

"What is the correct balance between the economy and the environment so that both can sustainably continue into the future?"

[richard mann]

.. Don't let things bother you too much, my advice. 
 
— It's an "high" Physics thing for the time being. (Caramelization of H02, measured in the fourth dimension only., minus the availability of a more suitable arena; and so plainly, even obviously indemonstrable., ect..) More plain physics will most likely show themselves soon enough. Putting the "debate" to an end. .. My "theory'". 
 
— Meantime, I'm thinking a "true", both north and south pole. Aluminum for decent conductivity, constructed of "disks", a mile or so in diameter, set one atop another, clean up through .. the stratosphere. ... 
 
.. "Space, still being cold of course." .... "Problem solved".  ..... 

 

"They" ... 'll, still need funding. (Also of course.)

[richard mann]

.. more "Cooling" focused.

 

http://theweatherforums.com/index.php/topic/755-january-2015-observations-for-the-pacific-northwest/?p=64793

[tbone8]

 

Today the question should not be:

 

"How can we disprove anthropogenic global warming to save the economy and keep traditional values?"

 

but rather

 

"Can we disprove anthropogenic global warming?"

"What is the best way to prepare our economy for the next decade, the next century, and the next millennia?"

"What is the benefit of certain traditional values to society and will they have to change in the coming years?"

"What is the correct balance between the economy and the environment so that both can sustainably continue into the future?"

 

With all due respect, who says so? Its not a matter of disproving AGW, there is no proof there is AGW. Why do the GW folks get the benefit of it being gospel and make others disprove it? It just frosts me to no end graphs of temperature data for the past few years showing some fluctuation of slight warming here and there. Our climate is not static, it changes, up, down, up, down as it has for billions of years. Someone has yet to explain to me why major volcanic eruptions don't propel us into GW oblivion? All this nonsense costs us, the consumers billions and if Al Gore has his way, trillions.

[richard mann]

.. Time for a shot of "Rum", with a beer chaser. ... ("proof" wise.), dude. 

[Meichel]

With all due respect, who says so? Its not a matter of disproving AGW, there is no proof there is AGW. Why do the GW folks get the benefit of it being gospel and make others disprove it? It just frosts me to no end graphs of temperature data for the past few years showing some fluctuation of slight warming here and there. Our climate is not static, it changes, up, down, up, down as it has for billions of years. Someone has yet to explain to me why major volcanic eruptions don't propel us into GW oblivion? All this nonsense costs us, the consumers billions and if Al Gore has his way, trillions.

Exactly. I think the biggest fault of those trying to prove AGW theory are those who make prediction after prediction (usually in alarming tones) about the alleged effects of their unproven theory. The fact that most of the predictions formed from the theory have failed to come true in the testing stage (observation in this case), and that the statistical analysis of these observations (failed predictions) seem to be ignored by the theory's proponents, and it doesn't seem very believable (scientific) at all. Throw in the politically affected socioeconomic mess (including the Age of Instant Gratification) that drives the emotional responses, and it just leaves a foul taste.

 

I love science, but 95% of the universal AGW discussion is anything but.