Climate Change

richard mann · January 26, 2015

$ … [is] (?) [the idea that with (?) their having made, and continuing to make] prediction after prediction ... about [its] alleged effects (usually in alarming tones), [that it, more looked at by itself, is in fact] unproven. (?)

.. It's a "theory". Many theories, not wholly proven, are being worked with as if they were in fact the case currently.

"Quantum", in fact having made it possible for you to read this.

Some others, some somewhat less useful, are mentioned within this video .. accessible following just below.

http://theweatherfor...arming/?p=59325

Chris · January 26, 2015

We may never see snow again.

The December 2014 globally-averaged temperature across land and ocean surfaces was 0.77°C (1.39°F) above the 20^th century average of 12.2°C (54.0°F), the highest on record for December since records began in 1880, surpassing the previous record set in 2006 by 0.02°C (0.04°F).

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/12

.02C degrees is within the margin of error. Regardless, the high temps were led by the tropics and SSTs. Typically land and atmosphere follow oceans, which could lead to an even warmer 2015.

tbone8 · January 26, 2015

More alarmist nonsense... :lol:

Global warming could make blizzards worse

We’re on the verge of another historic blizzard, with as much as two or three feet of snow expected in parts of the Northeast. Already, the press is throwing around terms like “Snowmageddon” to describe what’s coming. Next comes politics: Whenever the East Coast sees an extreme snow event, the weather is perfect for snow trolling – e.g., trying to use one cold event to refute a warming climate trend.

In this case that’s particularly inappropriate, though, because if anything, extreme snowfall may actually be enhanced by global warming. I know it sounds counterintuitive, but remember that even in a warming world, our hemisphere will still spend part of the year tilted away from the sun, with shorter days and colder temperatures — and winter storms.

The question scientifically, then, is what happens to those storms in a warmer world. So let’s examine what science can say about that question.

Technically, the storm about to slam the Northeast is called — that’s right — a nor’easter. What’s special about these storms is that they draw their energy from a temperature clash between freezing Arctic air on the one hand, and warmer Gulf Stream waters on the other.

Which, in turn, means a warming ocean could potentially intensify winter nor’easters.

“The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found that nor’easters like this one may grow stronger [with] human-caused climate change, as they are driven by the contrast between cold Arctic air masses and ever-warming ocean surface temperatures,” says Penn State climatologist Michael Mann.

“We also know that ocean surface temperatures off the U.S. east coast right now are unusually warm, and there is no doubt that a component of that anomalous warmth is due to human-caused climate change,” Mann adds. “Those warm ocean temperatures also mean that there is more moisture in the air for this storm to feed on and to produce huge snowfalls inland.”

That does not, of course, mean the current storm is caused by climate change. Rather, says Mann, it means that climate change may make certain aspects of the event worse, such as its snowfall.

Kevin Trenberth, a climate researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, is willing to get very specific about just how much climate trends may influence this storm. “At present sea surface temperatures are more [than] 2 F above normal over huge expanses (1000 miles) off the east coast and water vapor in the atmosphere is about 10 percent higher as a result,” he says. “About half of this can be attributed to climate change.”

According to Trenberth, the atmospheric configuration that’s now preparing to dump massive snow on New England is quite reminiscent of 2010′s “Snowmageddon” — only, it’s occurring farther north. On that occasion, too, Trenberth notes, a winter storm came through at a time when the Atlantic Ocean was particularly warm — 3 degrees F warmer than normal in that case.

“That led to exceptional amounts of moisture being fed into the circulation of the storm and resulted in exceptional snow amounts in the Washington, D.C., area,” says Trenberth.

This point about atmospheric moisture is crucial. A physical equation called the Clausius-Clapeyron equation states that with warmer atmospheric temperatures, the air can hold more water vapor, setting up the chance for increased precipitation. “The atmosphere can hold four percent more moisture for every 1 F increase in temperature,” says Trenberth.

Sure enough, we’ve seen increasing trends toward extreme heavy precipitation in all regions of the United States (except Hawaii), and most of all the Northeast:

In general, a warmer world is therefore expected to be a wetter world, and a downpour, when it occurs, can indeed be more intense. But in order for precipitation to fall as snow, temperatures must also be adequately cold. However, that’s not a very high hurdle: “It’s not hard at all to get temperatures cold enough for snow in a world experiencing global warming,” notes the Weather Underground’s Jeff Masters.

So, where a global warming world could see really enhanced snowstorms is when it remains cold enough for snow, even as there’s more precipitable water in the atmosphere.

There’s also some suggestive evidence of an actual trend in extreme winter storms. Overall, notes the U.S. National Climate Assessment, the northern hemisphere has seen a trend toward more frequent and intense winter storms since 1950. So has the United States. According to a 2013 consensus report published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, “The number of severe regional snowstorms that occurred since 1960 was more than twice the number that occurred during the preceding 60 years” in the United States.

None of this, by the way, addresses another major way that global warming could potentially intensify winter weather events – by interfering with the flow of the jet stream. (For more on that, read here.)

Granted, there are also ways that global warming may weaken some aspects of winter. With warmer average temperatures, snow may melt away more quickly. There’s also an idea that we might get “less snow, more blizzards” in a warmer world — in other words, less snow on average but more extreme snow events when they do occur.

Trenberth takes a similar view. As long as it’s cold enough — in the height of winter — he expects that more water vapor in the atmosphere will enhance snowfall. “So as long as it does not warm above freezing, the result is a greater dump of snow,” he comments. But at the opening and closing of the winter season, as things are on the warmer side, you might get less snow and more rain.

So in sum: While I wouldn’t call this a very settled scientific area, there are certainly reasons to think that in a warming world, we might get more snowfall, on average, in certain extreme winter storms.

That doesn’t mean global warming caused the event now unfolding. It just means that global warming is now affecting the background conditions of all of our lives — emphatically including winter weather.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/01/26/global-warming-could-make-blizzards-worse/

richard mann · January 26, 2015

hey .. t"bone"8. (?)

.. Do you think that you could perhaps keep your .. "rhetoric" (?) (Being kind.) .. more confined, to the more "hoaxy", and more hyperbolicaly focused thread connected to this theme. (?)

Happy wall-papering, if (perhaps, not.) otherwise.

richard mann · January 27, 2015

http://theweatherfor...thwest/?p=65947

.. Goes on for several posts. Pages even.

tbone8 · January 29, 2015

Some more entertaining fodder... :lol:

State sues San Bernardino County over global warming (Jerry Brown Alert)
Victorville Daily Press ^

Posted on 4/16/2007, 6:34:36 PM by Omega Man II

State sues S.B. County over global warming

Ryan Orr

April 13, 2007 - 11:04PM

SAN BERNARDINO — Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. filed a lawsuit Friday against the county of San Bernardino’s recently-updated general plan because it did not properly address global warming.

The lawsuit came just two days after a similar lawsuit was filed by the Center for Biological Diversity, the San Bernardino Audubon Society and the Sierra Club.

Brown filed the lawsuit under the California Environmental Quality Act on the basis that San Bernardino County failed to evaluate and disclose the impending impacts of the plan on climate change and air quality.

“This is a tremendously important action by the attorney general,” said Adam Keats, attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity.

First District Supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt questioned the value of the state suing the county.

“If this is true, I would suggest that the state of California should be helping local governments build infrastructure and protect citizens from crime instead of suing us over what is at best a federal environmental issue,” Mitzelfelt said Friday. “In my opinion the attorney general’s comments were adequately addressed in the General Plan update.”

During the plan’s development, the attorney general along with the conservation groups had submitted comments that urged the county to analyze greenhouse gases and climate change in its blueprint for the future.

According to a press release sent out by the Center for Biological Diversity, the county chose to ignore the comments.

Mike Zischke, an attorney that specializes in the Environmental Quality Act and is working with county counsel, said the county’s position is solid and they will defend the General Plan.

TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: governormoonbeam; jerrybrown; michaelsavage; moonbeam; savage; socialistsavage; talkradio; weinersboy

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-61 next last

1 posted on 4/16/2007, 6:34:40 PM by Omega Man II

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Omega Man II; SierraWasp

WTF? What about the other 57 counties? Is he going to sue them all too?

Scott26 · January 30, 2015

http://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

I guess all of these organizations are in on the so-called "hoax" according to tbone...

Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action:

Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile

Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal

Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana

Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela

Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala

Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico

Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia

Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru

Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal

Académie des Sciences, France

Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada

Academy of Athens

Academy of Science of Mozambique

Academy of Science of South Africa

Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)

Academy of Sciences Malaysia

Academy of Sciences of Moldova

Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic

Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt

Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand

Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy

Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science

African Academy of Sciences

Albanian Academy of Sciences

Amazon Environmental Research Institute

American Academy of Pediatrics

American Anthropological Association

American Association for the Advancement of Science

American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)

American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians

American Astronomical Society

American Chemical Society

American College of Preventive Medicine

American Fisheries Society

American Geophysical Union

American Institute of Biological Sciences

American Institute of Physics

American Meteorological Society

American Physical Society

American Public Health Association

American Quaternary Association

American Society for Microbiology

American Society of Agronomy

American Society of Civil Engineers

American Society of Plant Biologists

American Statistical Association

Association of Ecosystem Research Centers

Australian Academy of Science

Australian Bureau of Meteorology

Australian Coral Reef Society

Australian Institute of Marine Science

Australian Institute of Physics

Australian Marine Sciences Association

Australian Medical Association

Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Bangladesh Academy of Sciences

Botanical Society of America

Brazilian Academy of Sciences

British Antarctic Survey

Bulgarian Academy of Sciences

California Academy of Sciences

Cameroon Academy of Sciences

Canadian Association of Physicists

Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

Canadian Geophysical Union

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Canadian Society of Soil Science

Canadian Society of Zoologists

Caribbean Academy of Sciences views

Center for International Forestry Research

Chinese Academy of Sciences

Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)

Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences

Crop Science Society of America

Cuban Academy of Sciences

Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters

Ecological Society of America

Ecological Society of Australia

Environmental Protection Agency

European Academy of Sciences and Arts

European Federation of Geologists

European Geosciences Union

European Physical Society

European Science Foundation

Federation of American Scientists

French Academy of Sciences

Geological Society of America

Geological Society of Australia

Geological Society of London

Georgian Academy of Sciences

German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina

Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences

Indian National Science Academy

Indonesian Academy of Sciences

Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management

Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology

Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand

Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK

InterAcademy Council

International Alliance of Research Universities

International Arctic Science Committee

International Association for Great Lakes Research

International Council for Science

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences

International Research Institute for Climate and Society

International Union for Quaternary Research

International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics

International Union of Pure and Applied Physics

Islamic World Academy of Sciences

Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities

Kenya National Academy of Sciences

Korean Academy of Science and Technology

Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts

l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal

Latin American Academy of Sciences

Latvian Academy of Sciences

Lithuanian Academy of Sciences

Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences

Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology

Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts

National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina

National Academy of Sciences of Armenia

National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic

National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka

National Academy of Sciences, United States of America

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

National Association of Geoscience Teachers

National Association of State Foresters

National Center for Atmospheric Research

National Council of Engineers Australia

National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Research Council

National Science Foundation

Natural England

Natural Environment Research Council, UK

Natural Science Collections Alliance

Network of African Science Academies

New York Academy of Sciences

Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences

Nigerian Academy of Sciences

Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters

Oklahoma Climatological Survey

Organization of Biological Field Stations

Pakistan Academy of Sciences

Palestine Academy for Science and Technology

Pew Center on Global Climate Change

Polish Academy of Sciences

Romanian Academy

Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium

Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain

Royal Astronomical Society, UK

Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters

Royal Irish Academy

Royal Meteorological Society (UK)

Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences

Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research

Royal Scientific Society of Jordan

Royal Society of Canada

Royal Society of Chemistry, UK

Royal Society of the United Kingdom

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Russian Academy of Sciences

Science and Technology, Australia

Science Council of Japan

Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research

Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics

Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts

Slovak Academy of Sciences

Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts

Society for Ecological Restoration International

Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

Society of American Foresters

Society of Biology (UK)

Society of Systematic Biologists

Soil Science Society of America

Sudan Academy of Sciences

Sudanese National Academy of Science

Tanzania Academy of Sciences

The Wildlife Society (international)

Turkish Academy of Sciences

Uganda National Academy of Sciences

Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities

United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

World Association of Zoos and Aquariums

World Federation of Public Health Associations

World Forestry Congress

World Health Organization

World Meteorological Organization

Zambia Academy of Sciences

Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

tbone8 · January 30, 2015

How Climate Change Leads to Volcanoes (Really)

Jeffrey Kluger @jeffreykluger

Jan. 29, 2015

Get used to this: The Eyjafjallajökull eruption in 2010 Arctic-Images; Getty Images A new study reveals one more consequence of our messing with the environment

Correction appended Jan. 30, 2015

Give climate change credit for one thing: it’s endlessly versatile. There was a time we called it global warming, which meant what it said: the globe would get warmer. It was only later that we appreciated that a planet running a fever is just like a person running a fever, which is to say it has a whole lot of other symptoms: in this case, droughts, floods, wildfires, habitat disruption, sea level rise, species loss, crop death and more.

Now, you can add yet another problem to the climate change hit list: volcanoes. That’s the word from a new study conducted in Iceland and accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters. The finding is bad news not just for one comparatively remote part of the world, but for everywhere.

Iceland has always been a natural lab for studying climate change. It may be spared some of the punishment hot, dry places like the American southwest get, but when it comes to glacier melt, few places are hit harder. About 10% of the island nation’s surface area is covered by about 300 different glaciers—and they’re losing an estimated 11 billion tons of ice per year. Not only is that damaging Icelandic habitats and contributing to the global rise in sea levels, it is also—oddly—causing the entire island to rise. And that’s where the trouble begins.

Eleven billion tons of ice weights, well, 11 billion tons; as that weight flows away, the underlying land decompresses a bit. In the new paper, investigators from the University of Arizona and the University of Iceland analyzed data from 62 GPS sensors that have been arrayed around Iceland—some since as long ago as 1995, others only since 2006 or 2009. But all of the sensors told the same story: Iceland is rising—or rebounding as geologists call it—by 1.4 in. (35 mm) per year.

That’s much faster than the investigators expected, and other studies of the Icelandic crust show that the speed began to pick up around 1980, or just the time that glacier melt accelerated, too. “Our research makes the connection between recent accelerated uplift and the accelerated melting of the Icelandic ice caps,” said Kathleen Compton of the University of Arizona, a geoscientist and one of the paper’s co-authors, in a statement.

In some respects that shouldn’t be a bad thing: yes, an inch and a half a year is fast on a geologic scale, but in the modern, climate-disrupted world, a rising coastline might be just what an island needs to keep up with rising sea levels. The problem is, Iceland isn’t just any island, it’s a highly geologically active one, with a lot of suppressed volcanic anger below the surface. The last thing you want to do in a situation like that is take the lid off the pot.

“As the glaciers melt, the pressure on the underlying rocks decreases,” Compton said in an e-mail to TIME. “Rocks at very high temperatures may stay in their solid phase if the pressure is high enough. As you reduce the pressure, you effectively lower the melting temperature.” The result is a softer, more molten subsurface, which increases the amount of eruptive material lying around and makes it easier for more deeply buried magma chambers to escape their confinement and blow the whole mess through the surface.

“High heat content at lower pressure creates an environment prone to melting these rising mantle rocks, which provides magma to the volcanic systems,” says Arizona geoscientist Richard Bennett, another co-author.

Perhaps anticipating the climate change deniers’ uncanny ability to put two and two together and come up with five, the researchers took pains to point out that no, it’s not the very fact that Icelandic ice sits above hot magma deposits that’s causing the glacial melting. The magma’s always been there; it’s the rising global temperature that’s new. At best, only 5% of the accelerated melting is geological in origin.

Icelandic history shows how bad things can get when the ice thins out. During the last deglaciation period 12,000 years ago—one that took much longer to unfold than the current warming phase turbocharged by humans—geologic records suggest that volcanic activity across the island increased as much as 30-fold. Contemporary humans got a nasty taste of what that’s like back in 2010 when the volcanic caldera under the Eyjafjallajökull ice cap in southern Iceland blew its top, erupting for three weeks from late March to mid-April and spreading ash across vast swaths of Europe. The continent was socked in for a week, shutting down most commercial flights.

If you enjoyed that, there’s more of the same coming. At the current pace, the researchers predict, the uplift rate in parts of Iceland will rise to 1.57 in. (40 mm) per year by the middle of the next decade, liberating more calderas and leading to one Eyjafjallajökull-scale blow every seven years. The Earth, we are learning yet again, demands respect. Mess with it and there’s no end to the problems you create.

An earlier version of this story misstated the annual rate of land rebound in the coming decade. It is 1.57 in.

tbone8 · January 30, 2015

http://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
I guess all of these organizations are in on the so-called "hoax" according to tbone...

Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action:
Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Institute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
National Science Foundation
Natural England
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Science and Technology, Australia
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters
Society of Biology (UK)
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Wildlife Society (international)
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Forestry Congress
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

If all these organizations recommended shaving your head and jumping off a bridge, would you do it?

Glacier · January 30, 2015

For those of you who don't believe in Climate Change: Checkmate!

Scott26 · January 30, 2015

If all these organizations recommended shaving your head and jumping off a bridge, would you do it?

I wouldn't because all of these organizations aren't recommending me to shave my head and jump of a bridge lol.

Glacier · January 30, 2015

If all these organizations recommended shaving your head and jumping off a bridge, would you do it?

It's old appeal to authority fallacy, but more importantly, it changes the subject midstream. We see this when discussing the Islam with the apologists. Any criticism of Muhammad or Allah is taken as hatred of Muslims. Likewise, discussing the science of climate change in a critical way is taken by the apologists of CAGW to mean you hate science, and thereby discussing the actual science is completely avoided.

tbone8 · January 30, 2015

I wouldn't because all of these organizations aren't recommending me to shave my head and jump of a bridge lol.

I suspect because you are so young, that you lack the ability of looking at things through perspective eyes. We do not, by any stretch of the imagination, have science even 1% figured out in the big picture. With every passing day, the GW theory nonsense gets thinner and thinner. Its only a matter of time before this gets added to the list I posted. Look at the recent New York forecast blunder. Its 2015 and you say a forecast could be so wrong? Yes, why, because our climate/weather is very difficult to predict, even one day out...

One of the very best things about science is that the discipline is self-correcting. A scientist makes a set of observations about nature, and then devises a theory to fit those observations.

Other scientists then test the theory, and if it withstands scrutiny it becomes widely accepted. At any point in the future, if contravening evidence emerges, the original theory is discarded. At its essence, and though in practice it’s more messy, this is how science works.

Needless to say there have been a lot of theories discarded along the way. The following represents my best efforts to select the 10 most spectacularly wrong scientific theories.

To qualify for the list, a large number of scientists at any given time must have subscribed to the particular theory before it was eventually discarded. Thus a long list of pseudoscientific ideas, crackpot though they might be, didn’t make the list.

1. Geocentric universe: The concept that the Earth was at the center of the universe dates back to at least 600 B.C. with Greek philosophers who proposed cosmologies of the Sun, Moon and other heavenly bodies orbiting the Earth. The most famous contortion of the system was Ptolemy’s epicycles to explain the retrograde motion of Mars. This is a prime example of fitting scientific evidence into preconceived notions. The theory was disproven with the publication of Nicholas Copernicus’ De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1543.

2. Miasmatic theory of disease: This theory holds that diseases such as cholera, chlamydia or the Black Death were caused by a miasma (ancient Greek: “pollution”), a noxious form of “bad air”. This concept was not disposed of until the late 1800s, with the rise of the germ theory of disease. Miasma was considered to be a poisonous vapor or mist filled with particles from decomposed matter that caused illnesses. It was identifiable by its foul smell.

3. Luminiferous aether: Assumed to exist for much of the 19th century, the theory held that a “medium” of aether pervaded the universe through which light could propagate. The celebrated Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887 was the first to provide hard evidence that aether did not exist, and the theory lost all popularity among scientists by the

1920s. A photo of the aether appears below.

4. Stress theory of ulcers: As peptic ulcers became more common in the 20th century, doctors increasingly linked them to the stress of modern life. Medical advice during the latter half of the 20th century was, essentially, for patients to take antacids and modify their lifestyle. In the 1980s Australian clinical researcher Barry Marshal discovered that the bacterium H. pylori caused peptic ulcer disease, leading him to win a Nobel Prize in 2005.

5. Immovable continents: Prior to the middle of the 20th century scientists believed the Earth’s continents were stable and did not move. This began to change in 1912 with Alfred Wegener’s formulation of the continental drift theory, and later and more properly the elucidation of plate tectonics during the 1950s and 1960s.

6. Phlogiston: Arising in the mid-17th century, physicians conjured up the existence of a fire-like element called “phlogiston”, which was contained within combustible bodies and released during combustion. Charcoal, for example, left little residue upon burning because it is nearly pure phlogiston. Experiments in the mid-1700s led chemists to conclude the theory was false, giving birth to the field of modern chemistry.

7. The “four humours” theory of human physiology: From Hippocrates onward, the humoral theory was adopted by Greek, Roman and Islamic physicians, and became the most commonly held view of the human body among European physicians until the advent of modern medical research in the 19th century. The four humours of Hippocratic medicine were black bile, yellow bile, phlegm and blood.

8. Static universe: Prior to the observations made by astronomer Edwin Hubble during 1920s, scientists believed the universe was static, neither expanding nor contracting. Hubble found that distant objects in the universe were moving more quickly away than nearby ones. Very recently, in 1999, scientists unexpectedly found that not only was the universe expanding, but its expansion was accelerating.

9. A young Earth: In the mid-1800s many scientists, including Lord Kelvin, believed the Earth to be just 20 million to 40 million years old. It was around that time that geologists such as Charles Lyell began to believe that the Earth was much older, and this conformed to the views of biologists such as Charles Darwin, who needed a much older Earth for evolution to unfold. It wasn’t until the middle of the 20th century that scientists came to the accepted conclusion today that the Earth is about 4.55 billion years old.

10. The Earth is flat. Actually, this one doesn’t belong on the list but I put it here to prove a point. While there’s a popular belief that “flat earth” was somehow a widely held “scientific” idea, Greeks such as Aristotle knew the Earth was round, as did Thomas Aquinas. In short, most scholarship suggests learned men and women from the dawn of antiquity knew the Earth was round. So science gets a pass on this one.

richard mann · January 30, 2015

.. Can we do the "moon landing hoax" next. ?

Phil · February 1, 2015

http://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
I guess all of these organizations are in on the so-called "hoax" according to tbone...

Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action:
Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Institute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
National Science Foundation
Natural England
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Science and Technology, Australia
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters
Society of Biology (UK)
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Wildlife Society (international)
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Forestry Congress
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

No one denies the fact that there's an anthropogenic component to climate change. The question is whether or not the effect is statistically significant, and whether mitigative actions are necessary to "save the planet", so to speak. To this point, it is neither.

Phil · February 1, 2015

Tbone8, nice list. However, #3 and #8 are still very much debatable.

richard mann · February 1, 2015

.... We do not, by any stretch of the imagination, have science even 1% figured out in the big picture.

"Trust me". ...

richard mann · February 1, 2015

(.. from a more truncated "discussion" having been "carried out" with the main PNW, more general thread, more "Global Warming" focused.)

So about that global warming discussion...   Never in the history of the Internet has an argument taken place that was successful in convincing an opposing party to change their view. I really wish some of you would simply 'agree to disagree' and move on when it starts to devolve to name calling or super snarky comments.   As for the discussion itself, ....

Not too much going on here today otherwise. So rather than to have just checked the "Like" button here, I'd like to perhaps point the different elements that I've "liked" of what you've said above Fred more "about the GW discussion". — As briefly as I can so as not to clutter up the thread here. And more rhetorically, if with there being potential perhaps certainly for you and I to talk about some of what I have here below via PM more, more privately.

First, in my view certainly, you've done a great job since having taken over the site and forum. I would say that, it's fairly apparent, to most if not all here, forum members or even guests .. tuning in, that your main thought is and has been, to manage and facilitate a broader forum, online, dedicated to the best discussion of both the weather and climate possible.

This with otherwise, in brief more elementally here, and relating to both this idea, and, your views stated above regarding the idea of there perhaps beginning a different thread—in this case it would in fact be a third—focused [more essentially] on"AGW or otherwise". .. My own thoughts related / additional to / resounding yours above on this subject are that .. with what you've suggested .. more negative, being the case, not only here, but just about anywhere you look where the subject is "discussed", that a discussion of the level that you suggested, more positive, carried out here—at this site—would ultimately be fairly unique.

And even, that with this, that were it carried out more successfully—if certainly ongoing where considering the idea and theme—[that] it might even just work as a general template for other discussion/s more topic / subject specific.

My view regarding your thoughts more focused on the parameters of such a discussion, is that a more specific set of parameters "could" certainly, be lain out and established where looking at the idea. (Established, pre-discussion.) Essentially, one more point by point, and with deference shown .. in acknowledgement, of whatever point—articulated more plainly and clearly—"made" and registered, then and before moving to the "next".

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————http://www.proxigee.com/ifred_likes-this.jpg

There's my challenge to you, "Boys". (Basically, I say .. it can't be done. Because "you" don't have it. To bring.)

.. Oh. And to "t-Bone" more specifically. .. You just pointed to "dude" above, as being "so young". (?) .But certainly from where I sit, he's shown quite a bit more decorum ("deference", "form". ?), where and with having worked to "discuss" this "theme", than you have. (Have fun, certainly. "Leastwise". In "any" case.)

.. "Tepidly yours".

Eujunga · February 8, 2015

If all these organizations recommended shaving your head and jumping off a bridge, would you do it?

If these recommendations came about as a result of rigorous scientific research, and I had no compelling reason to suspect that the organizations agreeing to issue them had any ulterior agenda, and the potential consequences of ignoring the recommendations were clearly dire?

Then yes, I would follow them without hesitation.

richard mann · February 9, 2015

.. Noted.

tbone8 · February 9, 2015

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever New data shows that the “vanishing” of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming

When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.

Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.

This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.

Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.

Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy.

One of the first examples of these “adjustments” was exposed in 2007 by the statistician Steve McIntyre, when he discovered a paper published in 1987 by James Hansen, the scientist (later turned fanatical climate activist) who for many years ran Giss. Hansen’s original graph showed temperatures in the Arctic as having been much higher around 1940 than at any time since. But as Homewood reveals in his blog post, “Temperature adjustments transform Arctic history”, Giss has turned this upside down. Arctic temperatures from that time have been lowered so much that that they are now dwarfed by those of the past 20 years.

Homewood’s interest in the Arctic is partly because the “vanishing” of its polar ice (and the polar bears) has become such a poster-child for those trying to persuade us that we are threatened by runaway warming. But he chose that particular stretch of the Arctic because it is where ice is affected by warmer water brought in by cyclical shifts in a major Atlantic current – this last peaked at just the time 75 years ago when Arctic ice retreated even further than it has done recently. The ice-melt is not caused by rising global temperatures at all.

Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

tbone8 · February 9, 2015

Yes, my friends, its all a hoax...

http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/screenhunter_97-nov-07-11-54.jpg?w=640

http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/screenhunter_92-nov-07-06-28.jpg?w=640

Glacier · February 10, 2015

^ I'm by no means saying this doesn't look suspect, but instruments have changed over time. Could it be that older weather stations read higher than modern ones due to the fact they didn't have aspirators? Perhaps they have tried to adjust for this change. That said, the last year sure seems like an abrupt and unexplained diversion.

Scott26 · February 10, 2015

Yes, my friends, its all a hoax...

http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/screenhunter_97-nov-07-11-54.jpg?w=640

http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/screenhunter_92-nov-07-06-28.jpg?w=640

^ I'm by no means saying this doesn't look suspect, but instruments have changed over time. Could it be that older weather stations read higher than modern ones due to the fact they didn't have aspirators? Perhaps they have tried to adjust for this change. That said, the last year sure seems like an abrupt and unexplained diversion.

It isn't suspect at all. It was a calibration issue which NOAA fixed. It's nicely explained in the video. The person who wrote the Telegraph article clearly didn't know what he was talking about. NOAA only adjusts 3 percent of their data they got worldwide since 1950. So you're telling me that amount would make any significant difference in making the Earth look warmer than it actually is?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRFz8merXEA#t=20

richard mann · February 11, 2015

The "hoax" is a "hoax".

Say hello to Moma "DoNothing", til .. this negative can be proved.

.. No $$ "wasted". .. "Keep my seat".com

tbone8 · February 12, 2015

More doom and gloom from the alarmists. Funny how its a stretch to get a 10 day forecast correct let alone the next 100 years. Also, imagine this, the southwest IS a flipping desert! How come we are not to blame for the drought in the 12^th and 13^th centuries??? Its such nonsense I have to pinch myself every once in a while... U.S. Droughts Will Be the Worst in 1,000 Years

The Southwest and central Great Plains will dry out even more than previously thought

February 12, 2015 |By Mark Fischetti

http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/cache/file/CB8E4F24-A425-4DCB-ACCA94973856957B_article.png?1311F

The dryness of soil, basically measured as a balance between precipitation and evaporation, is predicted to drop steadily in the U.S. central Great Plains and Southwest, during the second half of this century.

Credit: Unprecedented 21^st Century Drought Risk in the American Southwest and Central Plains. Benjamin Cook et. al in Science Advances, Feb. 12, 2014.

SAN FRANCISCO—Several independent studies in recent years have predicted that the American Southwest and central Great Plains will experience extensive droughts in the second half of this century, and that advancing climate change will exacerbate those droughts. But a new analysis released today says the drying will be even more extreme than previously predicted—the worst in nearly 1,000 years. Some time between 2050 and 2100, extended drought conditions in both regions will become more severe than the megadroughts of the 12^th and 13^th centuries. Tree rings and other evidence indicate that those medieval dry periods exceeded anything seen since, across the land we know today as the continental U.S.

The analysis “shows how exceptional future droughts will be,” says Benjamin Cook, a research scientist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City and lead author of the study. The work was published online today in the inaugural edition of Science Advances and was released simultaneously at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting here.

Cook and his colleagues reached their conclusion by comparing 17 different computer projections of 21^st century climate with drought records of the past millennium, notably data in the North American Drought Atlas. (The atlas is based on extensive tree-ring studies conducted by Cook’s father, Edward, a researcher at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.) The models consistently demonstrated drought worse than at any time during that epoch, and worse than the current drought out West, which has prevailed for 11 of the previous 14 years, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor. In 2014 the drought cost California more than $2 billion in agricultural loses alone, according to the University of California, Davis.

The models also revealed that the drying in the Southwest would result from a combination of less rain and greater soil evaporation due to higher temperatures. They were not as conclusive about less rain in the central Great Plains but all showed more evaporation there. “Even where rain may not change much, greater evaporation will dry out the soils,” Cook says.

Drought, of course, means more stress on crops and possibly greater water shortages in urban areas. “We have strategies today to deal with drought—develop more drought-resistant crops, use more groundwater,” Cook says. “But if future droughts will be much more severe, the question is whether we can extend those strategies or if we need new ones.” Municipal planners and legislators may have a tough challenge, and groundwater is a finite resource. “Our water laws and sharing agreements are very convoluted,” Cook notes. Untangling them in order to make conservation measures practical and equitable "could become a wicked problem.”

The next step for Cook’s group will be to try to determine when the transition to severe drought will begin: in the next 20 years, the next 50 years? We’re still uncertain about that,” he says.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-droughts-will-be-the-worst-in-1-000-years1/

richard mann · February 13, 2015

More "members" interested in searching out and reporting so called "Alarmist" .. silly stuff.

Chris · February 13, 2015

More doom and gloom from the alarmists. Funny how its a stretch to get a 10 day forecast correct let alone the next 100 years. Also, imagine this, the southwest IS a flipping desert! How come we are not to blame for the drought in the 12^th and 13^th centuries??? Its such nonsense I have to pinch myself every once in a while... U.S. Droughts Will Be the Worst in 1,000 Years
The Southwest and central Great Plains will dry out even more than previously thought
February 12, 2015 |By Mark Fischetti

http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/cache/file/CB8E4F24-A425-4DCB-ACCA94973856957B_article.png?1311F

The dryness of soil, basically measured as a balance between precipitation and evaporation, is predicted to drop steadily in the U.S. central Great Plains and Southwest, during the second half of this century.

Credit: Unprecedented 21^st Century Drought Risk in the American Southwest and Central Plains. Benjamin Cook et. al in Science Advances, Feb. 12, 2014.

SAN FRANCISCO—Several independent studies in recent years have predicted that the American Southwest and central Great Plains will experience extensive droughts in the second half of this century, and that advancing climate change will exacerbate those droughts. But a new analysis released today says the drying will be even more extreme than previously predicted—the worst in nearly 1,000 years. Some time between 2050 and 2100, extended drought conditions in both regions will become more severe than the megadroughts of the 12^th and 13^th centuries. Tree rings and other evidence indicate that those medieval dry periods exceeded anything seen since, across the land we know today as the continental U.S.
The analysis “shows how exceptional future droughts will be,” says Benjamin Cook, a research scientist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City and lead author of the study. The work was published online today in the inaugural edition of Science Advances and was released simultaneously at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting here.
Cook and his colleagues reached their conclusion by comparing 17 different computer projections of 21^st century climate with drought records of the past millennium, notably data in the North American Drought Atlas. (The atlas is based on extensive tree-ring studies conducted by Cook’s father, Edward, a researcher at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.) The models consistently demonstrated drought worse than at any time during that epoch, and worse than the current drought out West, which has prevailed for 11 of the previous 14 years, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor. In 2014 the drought cost California more than $2 billion in agricultural loses alone, according to the University of California, Davis.
The models also revealed that the drying in the Southwest would result from a combination of less rain and greater soil evaporation due to higher temperatures. They were not as conclusive about less rain in the central Great Plains but all showed more evaporation there. “Even where rain may not change much, greater evaporation will dry out the soils,” Cook says.
Drought, of course, means more stress on crops and possibly greater water shortages in urban areas. “We have strategies today to deal with drought—develop more drought-resistant crops, use more groundwater,” Cook says. “But if future droughts will be much more severe, the question is whether we can extend those strategies or if we need new ones.” Municipal planners and legislators may have a tough challenge, and groundwater is a finite resource. “Our water laws and sharing agreements are very convoluted,” Cook notes. Untangling them in order to make conservation measures practical and equitable "could become a wicked problem.”
The next step for Cook’s group will be to try to determine when the transition to severe drought will begin: in the next 20 years, the next 50 years? We’re still uncertain about that,” he says.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-droughts-will-be-the-worst-in-1-000-years1/

I didn't go to the article, but I'm curious what the mechanism for their predicted drought are. For example, do they think the Hadley cells will permanently broaden? Most of the UN's models have flopped already, so these dire predictions start sounding like the boy who cried wolf.

tbone8 · February 15, 2015

Saw this post about the east coast storm, this guys nails it about globull warming!

TroyGale • 7 minutes ago

I'm perfectly happy that New England is getting dumped on. Hey, lots of Global Warming Supporters live there, and they do need a wake up call. Not one IPCC model has been accurate in what it predicted.

The models say more storms like hurricanes, we've had less.
Some models indicate the ice at the poles should be gone, and the polar bears dying in droves. It isn't happening, ice at both poles is increasing!

For 18 years now there has been no recorded warming, except when NOAA and NASA collude to change the measurements to support their budgets!
I saw recently that these Organizations are predicting a 50 year drought in the desert south west. Like that never happened before, right? For those of you who don't know, read about the Anasazi, they had a thriving civilization till they could no longer grow maze. Re: Chaco Canyon, Mesa Verde, etc.

Like P.T. Barnum said, there is a sucker born every minute. From this old boys perspective, they live in big cities and never experience real weather because they are heat islands, and are not normal in climate to begin with.

richard mann · February 15, 2015

Alright "T-Bone".

.. With your successfully having made a shambles of this thread with your general wall papering of if with all of the per your view plainly more odd-ball and "un-scientifically" appreciable takes on / distortions of and/ or where considering either the potential, or otherwise what is or may be "actually happening" set against what's been suggested may, that you can find, …

— None of it, and certainly not your approach to the debate, having shown much form at all. Trashing (?) whatever you can find, "less credible", instead of offering anything at all of your own thinking, or close to more substantive, more deferential. (i.e. "scientific" / "table" worthy. ?)

.. With showing a bit more form where considering the debate, and toward working to show just what you're really doing here (outlined above.), let me present you with something here—which in fact deals with what you've just posted above—i.e. in fact "addresses" it. This thinking giving both you, together with the IPCC, something to think more about, that both you, and they, might not have, to this point where considering the potential.

… What you and they, are seeing more "currently", is more multidecadal.

— Deal with it, or don't. (As in, talk to me in 10 years. ? .. It's more narrow cycle. ?)

Say hello, and give my regards, to all of other "nailers" for me when you see them, next.

And, if again. …. "Happy, Wall-papering".

Scott26 · February 15, 2015

Alright "T-Bone".

.. With your successfully having made a shambles of this thread with your general wall papering of if with all of the per your view plainly more odd-ball and "un-scientifically" appreciable takes on / distortions of and/ or where considering either the potential, or otherwise what is or may be "actually happening" set against what's been suggested may, that you can find, …

— None of it, and certainly not your approach to the debate, having shown much form at all. Trashing (?) whatever you can find, "less credible", instead of offering anything at all of your own thinking, or close to more substantive, more deferential. (i.e. "scientific" / "table" worthy. ?)

.. With showing a bit more form where considering the debate, and toward working to show just what you're really doing here (outlined above.), let me present you with something here—which in fact deals with what you've just posted above—i.e. in fact "addresses" it. This thinking giving both you, together with the IPCC, something to think more about, that both you, and they, might not have, to this point where considering the potential.

… What you and they, are seeing more "currently", is more multidecadal.

— Deal with it, or don't. (As in, talk to me in 10 years. ? .. It's more narrow cycle. ?)

Say hello, and give my regards, to all of other "nailers" for me when you see them, next.

And, if again. …. "Happy, Wall-papering".

I agree completely. I'm surprised that somebody who majored in science refuses to talk about the actual science. Even skeptics admit that doubling CO2 causes 1.2 degrees Celsius of warming without feedbacks. That is a scientific fact and can be mathematically calculated. The AGW theory is very complex and calling it a "hoax" is an insult to scientists everywhere. Sure things like ECS, feedbacks and the effects are still debatable, but the science is settled that humans are the main reason the Earth has been warming since the 1950's.

richard mann · February 16, 2015

The AGW theory is very complex and calling it a "hoax" is an insult to scientists everywhere. Sure things like ECS, feedbacks and the effects are still debatable, but the science is settled that humans are the main reason the Earth has been warming since the 1950's.

.. Even more obviously, it's just meant to "muddy" the facts. (Whatever they are or might be.)

As are also of course most of what he's "submitted" above. .... "Globull" Warming, vs a nice mixture, of "horse and chicken" sh*t. .. Pasted up, as with to a personal scrapbook, "proclaiming" ..... the evils of "Rock and Roll".

"Laughable". Where even considered in the same light as one more scientific.

tbone8 · February 20, 2015

I agree completely. I'm surprised that somebody who majored in science refuses to talk about the actual science. Even skeptics admit that doubling CO2 causes 1.2 degrees Celsius of warming without feedbacks. That is a scientific fact and can be mathematically calculated. The AGW theory is very complex and calling it a "hoax" is an insult to scientists everywhere. Sure things like ECS, feedbacks and the effects are still debatable, but the science is settled that humans are the main reason the Earth has been warming since the 1950's.

It is a hoax, lie, bamboozle, bluff, chicane, con, deceive, delude, dupe, fleece, flimflam, fool, frame, gammon, gull, hoodwink, murphy, rook, sting, swindle, fake out, play games with, pull one's leg, run a game on, set up, take for a ride, take in. If you think the science is settled, you are not as smart as I thought you were. There are numerous papers, research, etc that disproves all the nonsense you think is science.

... Record low maximum temperature was set at Rockford IL Airport for

February 19th...

A record coldest high temperature of 4 degrees above zero was set at

Rockford today. This breaks the previous old record coldest high

temperature of 7 degrees above zero set in 1959.

richard mann · February 20, 2015

It is a hoax, lie, bamboozle, bluff, chicane, con, deceive, delude, dupe, fleece, flimflam, fool, frame, gammon, gull, hoodwink, murphy, rook, sting, swindle, fake out, play games with, pull one's leg, run a game on, set up, take for a ride, take in. If you think the science is settled, you are not as smart as I thought you were. There are numerous papers, research, etc that disproves all the nonsense you think is science.

... Record low maximum temperature was set at Rockford IL Airport for
February 19th...

A record coldest high temperature of 4 degrees above zero was set at
Rockford today. This breaks the previous old record coldest high
temperature of 7 degrees above zero set in 1959.

"It" ..... had been a thread dedicated to the discussion of the theme. Now .... "it's", Bullsh*t.

(A place for an adolescent—by all more outward appearances—to play with the idea. Have fun. Although I'm sure you don't need my blessing.)

conspiracytheories.com

Chris · February 20, 2015

So... it's OK to discuss and attack ideas, but not each other. iFred is out of the country for a while. He might rather suspend accounts than spend $$ on international data charges to delete posts.

Back on topic, here's the most recent numbers:

http://s28.postimg.org/ugcvu2f9p/gis_2015.png

http://s17.postimg.org/9e9hpyhr3/hadcrut_2015.png

http://s13.postimg.org/6bsw0j0nb/troposphere_2015.png

richard mann · February 21, 2015

Yes or No Chris. ? .. With the "hoax" factor connected to the main theme here having become a main focus more prominent and central, whatever input of more substance either whether previous or future, to this thread has been generally devalued.

.. And beyond this, with "T-bone" fairly obviously in main part being interested in digging up whatever he can find even remotely dismissive of a more Anthropomorphic element being attached to the idea of Global Warming, toward then being able to add his on slant along with stamp of approval more creative to it, the arena for a more form focused discussion has clearly been obtruded upon and even in large part obstructed fairly effectively.

Only one level more removed, if we're not there more fully at this point, .... "Pretty [red] lines", but what do they really, say. It's all a "plot" anyway.

Phil · February 23, 2015

It is a hoax, lie, bamboozle, bluff, chicane, con, deceive, delude, dupe, fleece, flimflam, fool, frame, gammon, gull, hoodwink, murphy, rook, sting, swindle, fake out, play games with, pull one's leg, run a game on, set up, take for a ride, take in. If you think the science is settled, you are not as smart as I thought you were. There are numerous papers, research, etc that disproves all the nonsense you think is science.

... Record low maximum temperature was set at Rockford IL Airport for
February 19th...

A record coldest high temperature of 4 degrees above zero was set at
Rockford today. This breaks the previous old record coldest high
temperature of 7 degrees above zero set in 1959.

I wouldn't call AGW a hoax. It's a theory..one of many theories that attempts to explain the observed climate change. Like all theories, it is flawed.

The difference with AGW theory is that it's become a political issue, and thus has failed to evolve with the rest of the physical sciences..politics do not change willingly. The AGW theory of today relies on old, outdated radiative transfer physics that really have no application at this point in time.

richard mann · February 23, 2015

I wouldn't call AGW a hoax. It's a theory..one of many theories that attempts to explain the observed climate change. Like all theories, it is flawed.

The difference with AGW theory is that it's become a political issue, and thus has failed to evolve with .. the rest of .. the physical sciences..politics do not change willingly.

.. All theories are flawed. ?(!!) .. AGW theory, ... one of the rest of the physical sciences. ?(?)

The AGW theory of today relies on old, outdated radiative transfer physics that really have no application at this point in time. ...

.. If not particularly clearly, apparently.

Phil · February 23, 2015

.. All theories are flawed. ?(!!)

Yes, all theories have flaws and/or are missing details. Do you know what a theory is?

richard mann · February 23, 2015

.. Do you. ? @

Do you know what "flawed", actually implies. ? .. Otherwise, as you've use it here. (?)

.. Because it doesn't appear that you do. In either case. You appear to have ascribed some special meanings, to both of these ideas where considering what you've said / suggested above.

("special meanings".) .. Added to your original, more basic statement above, to the main "flawed" element of it, you've since attached the idea of "missing details"; with your having worked to equate these two ideas. ("A good effort." ... But, not really the same idea. Is it. ?) This with your also having (handily.) substituted "are flawed" with "have flaws". Here (This.), although still, with as I've suggested, your apparently having attached a special meaning, of your own more, to the main more route term "flaw", where used in conjunction with "theory". Be this idea looked at more in particularly, as it may.

"All theories", neither .."are flawed", or "have flaws".

— And if you think they are or do, then you've successfully, deluded yourself.

.. Logically, no theory is "flawed", until "shown to be". (Yes. / No. ?) .. "Implausible", "Lacking in some (even any.) measure of good sense", perhaps. (More basic "judgement" calls.)-But not "flawed".

.... All theories, deal with unknowns (certainly).-But this doesn't translate to their being "flawed".

— Not until, .. those "unknowns", are "known", and with their being, work to "disprove" whatever theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory @
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory / http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/american english/theory
http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php

Phil · February 23, 2015

Wrong..all theories are flawed, because they're interpolative..a perceived reality outside the boundaries of quantitative verification. Every law in the materialistic realm is reductive..and we can only down so far in that regard. We don't understand Quantum Mechanics, for example, because we're materialistic, reductive beings, and reality likely does not work in that manner.

Chris · February 23, 2015

Yes or No Chris. ? .. With the "hoax" factor connected to the main theme here having become a main focus more prominent and central, whatever input of more substance either whether previous or future, to this thread has been generally devalued.

.. And beyond this, with "T-bone" fairly obviously in main part being interested in digging up whatever he can find even remotely dismissive of a more Anthropomorphic element being attached to the idea of Global Warming, toward then being able to add his on slant along with stamp of approval more creative to it, the arena for a more form focused discussion has clearly been obtruded upon and even in large part obstructed fairly effectively.

Only one level more removed, if we're not there more fully at this point, .... "Pretty [red] lines", but what do they really, say. It's all a "plot" anyway.

Yes, there are a number of global warming threads with some overlap. Perhaps a thread dedicated to the "science" and one related to the "politics" would help.

tbone8 · February 23, 2015

Yes, there are a number of global warming threads with some overlap. Perhaps a thread dedicated to the "science" and one related to the "politics" would help.

With all due respect, this whole GW nonsense is nothing more than politics. There is no definitive science to support it, only conjecture. I could easily produce a scientific data to discredit any pro GW propaganda/science. All one needs to do is look at satellite data on global temperatures vs cooked noaa data and it becomes clear as day. We are in an interglacial period in our history, there have been many of these over the past 4.5 billion years. Temperatures are expected to slowly rise the next 10,000 or so years as it has in the freaking past. Those are the facts and they are rock solid...

richard mann · February 23, 2015

With all due respect, this whole GW nonsense is nothing more than politics. There is no definitive science to support it, only conjecture. I could easily produce a scientific data to discredit any pro GW propaganda/science.

.. If this is your attitude, then stay out of whatever discussion of the theme where people are attempting to discuss it more deferentially.

— More delibratively. And not with ideas and thinking, only alluded to, but not shown presented, on point and relative to whatever other points submitted. Not a bunch of "crap" rhetoric along to different items working to show whatever bafoonery as they see things connected to the other side of the argument, that they might have been able to find posted, wherever by whomever.

All one needs to do is look at satellite data on global temperatures vs cooked noaa data and it becomes clear as day. We are in an interglacial period in our history, there have been many of these over the past 4.5 billion years. Temperatures are expected to slowly rise the next 10,000 or so years as it has in the freaking past. Those are the facts and they are rock solid...

The theme can't be dealt with in both ways, is what I'm sure Chris has meant to point to above.

And put more simply, in the light of what you've posted here above more in total, .. You can't have it, both ways. .. And hope not, just to be perceived as an "irritant", where considering the idea of actually "discussing" the theme.

richard mann · February 23, 2015

Wrong[. ...... A]ll theories are flawed, .. because they're interpolative..a perceived reality ........... outside .... the boundaries of ... quantitative verification. Every law ...... in the ........ materialistic realm ....... is reductive..and ....... we ..... can only [get ?] down so far ...... in that regard. We ...... don't understand Quantum Mechanics, for example, ............ because we're ..... materialistic, ..... reductive beings, ..........and reality ..... likely .... does not work ........ in that ..... manner.

Look. This "all" above, fairly obviously your own impression, more "Philosophical", of what a "Theory" is (Take the pun-potential here or leave it.), .. is (If prettily constructed.) "whack" as far as I'm concerned.

.. Basically, just a bunch of four-syllable words strung together, "all" leading back to the same mistaken and misinformed thinking of yours more "simply" stated above. This if with this more conceptual thinking that you've put together, perhaps making it more clear that you don't really understand what a theory is. And if with this set of ideas your having shown yet more clearly, that you, yourself, regard all theories, both at the same time potentially flawed, while also potentially more sound, as flawed. This (put more succinctly here again.) "because" of the "unknowns" involved.

... The fact is, that with this muddled thinking of yours, you've effectively said, both previously, and here above, that it's your impression, that with, for example, your not being able to see all "facets" of a "diamond", that there "are flaws", ...... on the side of that diamond not showing more immediately.

— Which, if paradoxically, ... would be a "theory", if more basic, on your part (Involving only a more singular assumption alone.) One, with and because of its more basic simplicity, fairly easily "provable", or "otherwise", .... either one way or the other, with merely turning the diamond in order to see "all" of its sides. .. And so, making your theory able to be judged, more immediately, ...... as being "flawed" or more ....... (What's your theory here. ?)

And so, .. If, ... "it's" ..... "all" ... "the same", to "you", ... I'll, just stick to my own views regarding what a "flawed theory" is. More in fact. (O.k.?)

http://theweatherforums.com/index.php/topic/526-global-warming/?p=71544

.. Have fun, you know, .. "tellin' it." ..... Whatever, it .. is. ....

Glacier · February 24, 2015

Weird,,,,

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/1997/13

The global average temperature of 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit for 1997 was the warmest year on record, surpassing the previous record set in 1995 by 0.15 degrees Fahrenheit

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13#gtemp

The average temperature for the year [2014] was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F) [ie 58.24F], beating the previous record warmth of 2010 and 2005 by 0.04°C (0.07°F).

tbone8 · February 24, 2015

Weird,,,,

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/1997/13

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13#gtemp

2014 was the third warmest year in the 36-year global satellite temperature record, but by such a small margin (0.01 C) as to be statistically similar to other recent years, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. “2014 was warm, but not special. The 0.01 C difference between 2014 and 2005, or the 0.02 difference with 2013 are not statistically different from zero. That might not be a very satisfying conclusion, but it is at least accurate.”

The 2014 average temperature anomaly also is in keeping with temperatures since late 2001, when the global average temperature rose to a level that is generally warmer than the 30-year baseline average. The most recent 13 complete calendar years, from 2002 through 2014, have averaged 0.18 C (about 0.33 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the 30-year baseline average, while the global temperature trend during that span was a warming trend at the rate of +0.05 C per decade — which is also statistically insignificant.

http://cloudfront-media.reason.com/mc/rbailey/2015_01/December2014Temps.jpg?h=289&w=500

Phil · February 25, 2015

Look. This "all" above, fairly obviously your own impression, more "Philosophical", of what a "Theory" is (Take the pun-potential here or leave it.), .. is (If prettily constructed.) "whack" as far as I'm concerned.

.. Basically, just a bunch of four-syllable words strung together, "all" leading back to the same mistaken and misinformed thinking of yours more "simply" stated above. This if with this more conceptual thinking that you've put together, perhaps making it more clear that you don't really understand what a theory is. And if with this set of ideas your having shown yet more clearly, that you, yourself, regard all theories, both at the same time potentially flawed, while also potentially more sound, as flawed. This (put more succinctly here again.) "because" of the "unknowns" involved.

Actually that would be you, my friend. With all due respect, I'd recommend taking a few basic operational science courses. Just because a theory is flawed doesn't make it wrong.

... The fact is, that with this muddled thinking of yours, you've effectively said, both previously, and here above, that it's your impression, that with, for example, your not being able to see all "facets" of a "diamond", that there "are flaws", ...... on the side of that diamond not showing more immediately.

No, not being able to "see" them is one thing. Not being able to calculate them or explain them is another. A theory can be correct despite missing pieces and mathematical/physical flaws. That doesn't make it wrong.

— Which, if paradoxically, ... would be a "theory", if more basic, on your part (Involving only a more singular assumption alone.) One, with and because of its more basic simplicity, fairly easily "provable", or "otherwise", .... either one way or the other, with merely turning the diamond in order to see "all" of its sides. .. And so, making your theory able to be judged, more immediately, ...... as being "flawed" or more ....... (What's your theory here. ?)

Of course my analysis is theoretical. So is yours. Hence our approaches are flawed, to an extent. Does that make sense? It's a perception thing, not one of refutation.

richard mann · February 25, 2015

.. As I've said. (?) (!!)

... I'll, just stick to my own views regarding what a "flawed theory" is. More in fact.

http://theweatherforums.com/index.php/topic/526-global-warming/?p=71544

Just because a theory is flawed doesn't make it wrong.

.. When a theory is wrong, it's flawed.

— The only other flaw in whatever theory, being where a person having come up with one, has perhaps made an error where having stated or written down what they'd actually had in mind differently.

... Like all theories, it is flawed.

"All theories", neither .."are flawed", nor "have flaws".

— And if you think they are or do, then you've successfully, deluded yourself.

Unknown elements have nothing to do with a theory's being wrong. And so neither, their being flawed.

.. If you like thinking so, you have my full blessing.

... not being able to "see" [different elements of a theory] is one thing. Not being able to calculate them or explain them is another.

.. Logically, no theory is "flawed", until "shown to be". .. "Implausible", "Lacking in some (even any.) measure of good sense", perhaps. (More basic "judgement" calls.)-But not "flawed".

Phil · February 25, 2015

When a theory is wrong, it's flawed. When a theory is flawed, it's not necessarily wrong.

Unknown elements within a theory will derail it's original premise and/or transitional assortment, so yes, they're "flaws" in the framework of the theory.

Climate Change

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Andie

snow_wizard

Phil

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites