Jump to content
The Weather Forums

Recommended Posts

.. 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".

---
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 377
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Today was the first time I'd opened this thread in months. I also try to remain as apolitical as possible when it comes to climate science, so you'll never hear political scrutiny from me unless I'm p

The human race is relatively insignificant. The planet could exterminate us very, very easily.   You could fit all of those 7 billion people, standing side by side, into the state of Maine (probably w

I had heard he was considering this for several years. I corresponded with him a few times on Texas. He's one west coaster I'm thrilled to welcome to the Lone Star State!

Posted Images

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

-
First off, with the "evaluation" ("experiment".), relative to the various theories on the table certainly still ongoing where regarding the potential where looking at Global Warming, I'd say your quotation tacked in here above is certainly correct. If with the "ongoing" element that I've pointed to here working to put your statement above it to the test.
 
Otherwise, regarding "Phil's" fairly ridiculous notion, that "All theories are flawed", and with his having registered that he's "Liked" what you've quoted cited here above, the quote certainly works well enough for me, here too. If again here.


.. 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".


Regarding "Assumptions". Basic to most all "Theories".
 

From "Isaac Asimov's" "Understanding Physics", ....
 
" .. something accepted without proof, and [with its being] incorrect to speak of as either true or false, since there is no way of proving it to be either. (If there were, it would no longer be an assumption.)" 
 
.. To which he's added, following, ...
 
".. It is better to consider assumptions as either useful or useless, depending on whether or not deductions made from them correspond to reality. If two [different] deductions both lead to deductions that correspond to reality, then the one that explains more is the more useful"


Beyond these thoughts, of course there's, still. (?), what actually transpires to consider, where looking at whatever thinking, assumption, or set of assumptions strung together making up a theory.

From .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

"... A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation, and from the [various ?] assumptions of  (making up. ?) the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory."

.. More definitively, .. Even the more basic framework of a theory, may be "ill-constructed", even "ill-concieved". But until shown to be, the theory isn't.
 
-

---
Link to post
Share on other sites

Otherwise, regarding "Phil's" fairly ridiculous notion, that "All theories are flawed", and with his having expressed that he's "liked" it above, the quote certainly works well enough for me, here too. If again here.

Not to be rude, but can you just shut the f**k up already? If you want to continue spouting your misinformed viewpoints everywhere, be my guest, but don't drag my name into it.

 

You clearly have no idea what a theory is, nor how to analyze one via the scientific method. At least that's what I think, based on the crap I've read from you today.

 

Yes, all theories are flawed because they're reductive and incomplete..there's a clear distinction between fact/observation, and the more theoretical realms..

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of your main and more typical routes of course here above, where considering the discussion anything, and where faced with what you don't like seeing posted regarding your thinking. (Who can characterize it, otherwise.) .. Your having worked to obfuscate the main points that I've in fact cited regarding the general theme here, with your having worked more only to have tried to characterize my input as uninformed and more naive. @

 

Happy "theorizing" professor. ..... http://www.beansthatjump.com/

 

http://theweatherforums.com/index.php/topic/526-global-warming/?p=71543  @

 

$ .. "All theories are flawed".  ".. Certainly sound, thinking."

 

@

---
Link to post
Share on other sites

Study: Human-caused global warming behind Calif. drought

 

Human-caused climate change helped fuel the current California drought, says a Stanford University study released Monday.

Climate change has increased the chance that the two main weather conditions that led to the drought — higher than average temperatures and little rain or snow — will occur at the same time, the study shows.

Almost 98% of California is now enduring a drought, which is entering its fourth year and shows no signs of relenting, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor.

The study, led by Stanford scientist Noah Diffenbaugh, found that the worst droughts in California's history occurred when conditions were both dry and warm, and that global warming is increasing the probability those two weather patterns will coincide.

Diffenbaugh said having very dry years that are also very warm would not have happened without human influence.

Burning of fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal increases the amount of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases in the atmosphere and cause the planet to warm to levels that cannot be explained by natural causes.

The study also projected that the trend will continue of dry and warm years happening together.

Diffenbaugh and his team looked at historical weather records and computer model simulations to reach their conclusions.

Other scientists not involved in the Stanford study questioned some of its methodology and findings.

Scientist Martin Hoerling with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the current lack of rain or snow in California is clearly not part of a long-term trend, or part of human-induced climate change, as many studies have already shown.

He also said a drought measurement tool used by the Stanford team — the Palmer Drought Severity Index — is "flawed and unreliable" to assess the impact of climate change.

"The warming trend can only account for a small fraction of the actual warmth in California the past two winters," Columbia University scientist Richard Seager said.

He said most of the warm temperatures were caused by the same ridge of high pressure in the atmosphere that also minimized any rain or snow.

Hoerling and Seager were co-authors of a NOAA report in December that said natural weather patterns, not man-made global warming, were the primary cause of the drought.

The Stanford study appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

 

More doom and gloom fodder from the so called, 97%. California has gone through many droughts way before humans even roamed the planet. And wouldn't you know it, flawed studies produced this nonsense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

More doom and gloom fodder .... from .. the so called, 97%. California has gone through many droughts way before humans even roamed the planet. And wouldn't you know it, flawed studies produced this nonsense. ["... Ya don't have to look very far to find more. HOAX, any way ya spel it. End of story. Who are they, tryin' to kid?]

 

Did the different elements of the article that you've reprinted above, "smell funny" when you were reading it.

 

(In the light of all of the data that you've talked about being aware of more sound. ?) 

 

Stay tuned for more good stuff like this. Pretty much. Right. ?

 

... 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.

 

.. Nice wall-paper.

---
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always wondered how the alarmists explain volcanic eruptions??? Imagine the ghastly amounts of CO2 this bad boy is belching into the atmosphere. While this eruption goes on, the fanatical lunatics at the EPA make new regulations like chain saw emissions. Its such a crock, someone please pinch me...

 

 

http://binaryapi.ap.org/aac00c22aa1947b89601af22d88fe25b/460x.jpg

 

PUCON, Chile (AP) — One of South America's most active volcanoes erupted early Tuesday in southern Chile, spewing heavy smoke into the air as lava surged down its slopes, prompting authorities to evacuate thousands of people.

The Villarrica volcano erupted around 3 a.m. local time, according to the National Emergency Office, which issued a red alert and ordered evacuations. Local media showed images of the volcano bursting at the top, glowing in the dark amid heavy smoke and rivers of lava. Authorities worried that mudslides caused by melting snow could endanger nearby communities, but no injuries were reported.

The 9,000 foot (2,847-meter) volcano in Chile's central valley, 400 miles (670 kilometers) south of Santiago, sits above the small city of Pucon, which has a population of about 22,000 people.

"It was the most amazing thing I've ever seen," 29-year-old Australian tourist Travis Armstrong said in a telephone interview from Pucon. "I've never seen a volcano erupt and it was spewing lava and ash hundreds of meters into the air. Lightning was striking down at the volcano from the ash cloud that formed from the eruption."

Chilean authorities had issued an orange alert on Monday because of increased activity at the volcano. About 3,500 people have been evacuated so far, including tourists, said Interior and Security Minister Rodrigo Penailillo.

Penailillo warned that the eruption was causing numerous rivers in the area to rise as snow along the sides of the volcano began melting. Villarrica is covered by a glacier cap covering some 40 square kilometers (15 square miles) and snow from about 1,500 meters (about 5,000 feet) on up.

Authorities were keeping an eye on four nearby communities that could be endangered by mudslides as the snow melts. Officials were also monitoring nearly 200 people who were cut off from main roads when two bridges were destroyed by rising waters from nearby rivers.

Rodrigo Alvarez, director of the National Service of Geology and Mining, issued a warning for people in the area, especially at tourists, to be careful. "This is not a fireworks show," Alvarez said, calling on people to obey official prohibitions to stay away from the volcano.

"It's an unstable volcano, all of its borders are altered," Alvarez added.

President Michelle Bache let arrived in Pucon amid cheers and boos later Tuesday to check on safety preparations, and declared an agricultural emergency to help local farmers.

"You never know when an eruption will take place but what we do know is that the activity is lower, that's visible," Bachelet said after flying over the affected areas and meeting local authorities.

Witnesses said Pucon looked like a deserted town at dawn. But as the volcanic activity decreased, some local residents had decided to return to their homes, more cars were seen in the streets, and some people had even decided to sunbathe at a nearby lake. By midday, the community's bus terminals, banks, restaurants and other businesses were operating normally.

The eruption "was something beautiful and amazing. We're still a bit shocked but the volcano has calmed down so I'm going to continue with my vacation," Alejandra Paz Bustos, 29, said as she sunbathed at nearby lake Villarrica.

Jose Manuel Reyes, the 37-year-old manager of La Bicicleta hostal in downtown Pucon, said visitors from France, Canada, Australia, South Africa and Brazil watched the early morning eruption from the building's terrace.

"We're still a bit nervous because we don't know what's happening," said Reyes. "There was nervousness, but we haven't seen any panic."

Tourists flock to the area around Villarrica for outdoor activities like kayaking, horseback riding, fishing and hiking around the volcano, which last had a major eruption in 1984. Dozens of tourists were among those evacuated. Officials said late Tuesday that about 15,000 people living in rural areas near the volcano were suffering water shortages after the eruption, and kept the red alert for nearby areas.

The Villarrica has a crater of about 200 meters (yards) in diameter and a lake of lava about 150 meters (yards) deep. It has periodic eruptions every 10 or 15 years.

Chile has more than 2,000 volcanoes in the Andes cordillera and about 90 of them remain active. Villarrica is considered among the country's most dangerous.

___

Vergara reported from Santiago, Chile. AP writer Luis Andres Henao in Santiago and Ariel Marinkovic in Pucon contributed to this report.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Scientists: Orbital Variations Main Cause of Climate Change

Wednesday, 11 Mar 2015 04:02 PM

By John Blosser

Global warming theorists have taken yet another hit with a new study out of Denmark which demonstrates that variations in Earth's orbit are the primary causes of climate change, and have been for at least the last 1.4 billion years.

Scientists from the University of Southern Denmark and the China National Petroleum Corporation investigated marine sediment from the Xiamaling Formation in China and determined that the sediment shows evidence that "the same orbital forcing that caused the climate to change 1.4 billion years ago is the underlying force behind global warming today," the Daily Caller reports
.

The research, published in PNAS
, states: "There is a wealth of evidence pointing to dramatic short-term climate change on Earth over the last few million years. Much of this climate change is driven by variations of Earth's orbit around the Sun with characteristic frequencies known as Milankovitch cycles."

Milankovitch cycles are fluctuations which occur in Earth's orbit every 20,000, 40,000 and 100,000 years, which bring about an ice age every 100,000 years or so. Currently, Earth is in the middle of a warming period, and has been for the last 11,000 years, Dr.  Donald Canfield, professor at the Nordic Center for Earth Evolution at the university and one of the principle researchers, said, the Daily Caller reported.

"This research will also help us understand how Milankovitch cyclicity ultimately controls climate change on Earth," Canfield said in a statement.

"The way our planet revolves around the sun is the ultimate control knob over the climate," the Daily Caller commented.

The study approximates findings from a study of sea surface temperatures and diatoms, marine algae, from Aarhus University in Denmark. Researcher Marit-Solveig Seidenkrantz commented: "We know that the sun is very important for our climate, but the impact is not clear. Climate change appears to be either strengthened or weakened by solar activity. The extent of the sun's influence over time is thus not constant, but we can now conclude that the climate system is more receptive to the impact of the sun during cold periods, at least in the North Atlantic region," Eureka Alert reported.

Other climate researchers dispute the effect of the sun and Earth orbits on climate change.

Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told the Daily Caller: "While the ranking of individual years can be affected by chaotic weather patterns, the long-term trends are attributable to drivers of climate change that right now are dominated by human emissions of greenhouse gases" from fossil fuels.

Science 2.0 states: "Natural forces have always caused climate on Earth to fluctuate — sometimes quite a bit. We can't control everything. The Earth is still going to orbit the sun and such orbital forcing of climate change happens over thousands of years and brings ice ages and warming periods."

Link to post
Share on other sites

... Baam !!
 
"It's official". (Sorta. .. I read it on the Internet. And the article "may" be a little biased. But, it could be sompthin' that might be, you know, the case. Not the "hit" part. The other thing.)
 
"... Global warming theorists have taken yet another hit ..........
 

I have always wondered how the alarmists explain volcanic eruptions??? ... bad boy is belching .....
 
http://binaryapi.ap.org/aac00c22aa1947b89601af22d88fe25b/460x.jpg
 
Read More .....


The type of approach to the "question" of "Global Warming" ("Cooling"), or "Climate Change", pointed to here above, .. is obviously, more in line with political rhetoric than any kind of more scientific deliberation where considering it.

Take for example above, the question, embedded within the pondering alluded to here above about "volcanic eruptions". ……

"How do the alarmists explain volcanic eruptions. ?"

…. This fairly obviously "loaded" question, with first its reference to most likely anyone feeling that "Global Warming" might be to some degree more Anthropomorphic, .. and then with this idea "established", the question inferred, put fairly ridiculously, meant to have asked something more like, .. How do these "alarmists" go about explaining all of the CO2 put into the atmosphere, by volcanos. ? .... where considering the more general CO2 / greenhouses gases element to the [more] Anthropomorphic investigation (?) (Then. ?), …. And with the question to the actual question posed, being (obviously.) .. more "geologically". 

Viewed more scientifically, i.e. analytically at all, this crap would be considered just that, a [pre] loaded question. Inductive (inclusive of a bunch of presupposition.), and no where near to a more deductive, or more in earnest and deliberative, approach to the question.

$ … And fairly obviously, this thread has been "hi-Jacked", inhabited, by this more "inductive" type of "rhetoric". (Discovered. .. by someone, wholly willing and able [apparently] to employ it, toward what ever end that they might have in mind.) .... I would suggest that you take note of this idea where and when seeing it pop up with something "new" added to it. 

---
Link to post
Share on other sites

Great paper. An overall cooling of the abyssal oceans from 1992-2011?

 

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00550.1?af=R

 

Estimated values of recent oceanic heat uptake are of order of a few tenths of a W/m2, and are a very small residual of air-sea exchanges with annual average regional magnitudes of hundreds of W/m2. Using a dynamically consistent state estimate, the redistribution of heat within the ocean is calculated over a 20-year period. The 20-year mean vertical heat flux shows strong variations in both the lateral and vertical directions, consistent with the ocean being a dynamically active and spatially complex heat exchanger. Between mixing and advection, the two processes determining the vertical heat transport in the deep ocean, advection plays a more important role in setting the spatial patterns of vertical heat exchange and its temporal variations. The global integral of vertical heat flux shows an upward heat transport in the deep ocean, suggesting a cooling trend in the deep ocean. These results support an inference that the near-surface thermal properties of the ocean are a consequence, at least in part, of internal redistributions of heat, some of which must reflect water that has undergone long trajectories since last exposure to the atmosphere. The small residual heat exchange with the atmosphere today is unlikely to represent the interaction with an ocean that was in thermal equilibrium at the start of global warming. An analogy is drawn with carbon-14 “reservoir ages” which range over hundreds to a thousand years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Al Gore at SXSW: We Need to ‘Punish Climate-Change Deniers’ and ‘Put a Price on Carbon’

The South by Southwest (SXSW) Festival is happening now in Austin, Texas. Running from March 9 to 22, it’s a massive film, interactive and music festival that is nearly 20 years old. The festival brings together designers, developers, investors, entrepreneurs and politicians for panels and discussions about technology and innovation.

http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/algore.jpg“We need to put a price on carbon to accelerate these market trends,” said Gore. “And in order to do that, we need to put a price on denial in politics.” stocklight / Shutterstock.com

For the third time in the last few years, Al Gore, founder and chairman of the Climate Reality Project, spoke at the festival on Friday. Naturally, his interactive discussion focused on addressing the climate crisis. The former vice president focused on the need to “punish climate-change deniers, saying politicians should pay a price for rejecting ‘accepted science,'” said the Chicago Tribune.

Gore said forward-thinking investors are moving away from companies that invest in fossil fuels and towards companies investing in renewable energy. “We need to put a price on carbon to accelerate these market trends,” Gore told the Chicago Tribune, referring to a proposed federal cap-and-trade system that would penalize companies that exceeded their carbon-emission limits. “And in order to do that, we need to put a price on denial in politics.”

He called on the tech-minded SXSW crowd, which is dominated by Millenials, to harness technology to launch a grassroots movement to tackle climate change and call out climate deniers. “We have this denial industry cranked up constantly,” Gore said. “In addition to 99 percent of the scientists and all the professional scientific organizations, now Mother Nature is weighing in.”

Years from now, Gore said the next generation will look back at us and ask: “How did you change?,” according to Macworld. “Part of the answer may well be that a group of people came to South by Southwest in Austin, Texas in 2015 and helped to make a revolution,” Gore said.

Gore wanted these young, tech-savvy attendees to start a grassroots movement using social media like they did when “net neutrality was threatened or when the Stop Online Piracy Act threatened to blacklist websites that offered so-called illegal content,” said Macworld. That means signing petitions to fight climate change, utilizing social media to call out climate deniers in Congress and streaming the Live Earth Road to Paris concert on June 18, an event designed to draw attention to the climate talks in Paris this December.

The former Veep even gave a nod to Pope Francis during his talk, showing a slide of the pontiff and saying “How about this Pope?” Pope Francis celebrated his two-year anniversary as Pope on Friday, riding a wave of popularity “that has reinvigorated the Catholic Church in ways not seen since the days of St. John Paul II,” said the Chicago Tribune. Gore said he was looking forward to the Pope’s highly anticipated encyclical on the environment which is due to be released in June or July. “I’m not a Catholic,” Gore said, “but I could be persuaded to become one.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

A question (measure. ?) of "balance".
 

$ … And fairly obviously, this thread has been "hi-Jacked", inhabited, by this more "inductive" (political) type of "rhetoric". (Discovered. .. by someone, wholly willing and able [apparently] to employ it or point to it, toward what ever end that they might have in mind.) .... I would suggest that you take note of this idea where and when finding something "new" having been added to this thread.


If you've noted it previously, ignore this view of point and "by all means" ... Get back to the good stuff.
 
.. Along with anything else, posted here if perhaps, by anyone who might perhaps think this thread is still worth the idea of tacking anything into it more in line with a less purely rhetorical, and at least a bit more deliberative discussion. "Good luck", where considering all counts here above.  —>  $$

---
Link to post
Share on other sites
Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic
March 20, 2015
Patrick MooreDr. Patrick Moore is the co-founder, chair, and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies, a... (read full bio)
 

[Editor’s Note: Patrick Moore, Ph.D., has been a leader in international environmentalism for more than 40 years. He cofounded Greenpeace and currently serves as chair of Allow Golden Rice. Moore received the 2014 Speaks Truth to Power Award at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change, July 8, in Las Vegas. Watch his presentation about this piece at the video player to the left.]

I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.”

My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures.

In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization.

The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.

Recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced for the umpteenth time we are doomed unless we reduce carbon-dioxide emissions to zero. Effectively this means either reducing the population to zero, or going back 10,000 years before humans began clearing forests for agriculture. This proposed cure is far worse than adapting to a warmer world, if it actually comes about.

IPCC Conflict of Interest

By its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years. We don’t understand the natural causes of climate change any more than we know if humans are part of the cause at present. If the IPCC did not find humans were the cause of warming, or if it found warming would be more positive than negative, there would be no need for the IPCC under its present mandate. To survive, it must find on the side of the apocalypse.

The IPCC should either have its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled.

Political Powerhouse

Climate change has become a powerful political force for many reasons. First, it is universal; we are told everything on Earth is threatened. Second, it invokes the two most powerful human motivators: fear and guilt. We fear driving our car will kill our grandchildren, and we feel guilty for doing it.

Third, there is a powerful convergence of interests among key elites that support the climate “narrative.” Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; science institutions raise billions in grants, create whole new departments, and stoke a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; business wants to look green, and get huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as wind farms and solar arrays. Fourth, the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy.

So we are told carbon dioxide is a “toxic” “pollutant” that must be curtailed, when in fact it is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, gas and the most important food for life on earth. Without carbon dioxide above 150 parts per million, all plants would die.

Human Emissions Saved Planet

Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth back to 400 parts per million today.

At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising.

We have no proof increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the earth’s slight warming over the past 300 years. There has been no significant warming for 18 years while we have emitted 25 per cent of all the carbon dioxide ever emitted. Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasize to our children?

Celebrate Carbon Dioxide

The IPCC’s followers have given us a vision of a world dying because of carbon-dioxide emissions. I say the Earth would be a lot deader with no carbon dioxide, and more of it will be a very positive factor in feeding the world. Let’s celebrate carbon dioxide.

Patrick Moore (pmoore@allowgoldenricenow.org) was a cofounder and leader of Greenpeace for 15 years. He is now chair and spokesman for Allow Golden Rice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2015 is off to a very warm start. Take a look at the global temperature anomaly this year compared to last year. It's still very early to say, but with an El Nino pattern beginning to show up we're definitely on pace to beat last year. March may end up being the warmest March on record or very close to it. You can see that it has started to "cool off" a bit recently though.

tempanomaly2014.png

tempanomaly2015.png

Marchtempanomaly.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
    That 2°C Global Warming Target? Should be More Like 1.5°C Says Scientists
Alex ChaversMarch 29, 2015

Limiting global warming by 2°C compared to pre-industrial times is a goal heard around the world. From CNN to climate policy negotiations. It was even endorsed by the Copenhagen Report issued by the 15th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2009.

But, several countries and scientists say this target just isn’t enough. Many countries are calling for the target to be revised during the ‘2013-2015 Review.’

 

Petra Tschakert of Penn State University in University Park writes in a recent article that the target should be at 1.5°C.

“Without a doubt, it is in the utmost interest of a large number of countries to pursue the 1.5°C target, as ambitious or idealistic it may appear to date, and to see it anchored as a binding goal in the next agreement, as a possible outcome of the 2013–2015 Review,” writes Tschakert.

Caribbean countries and other island states are especially critical of the 2°C target. They believe such a rise threatens the very existence of their countries. Even a 1.5°C target is seen as problematic. You can’t blame them. Any rise in oceans due to global warming will affect them first.

A 2°C target has been preached for years. Any change will be met with resistance from multiple areas. First, the economic toll. Any drastic changes to current environmental policy will cost. The wealthy countries don’t want to pay, and the poor countries can’t afford to.

Next, is the science behind it. Study after study has used the 2°C target. New studies will need to be commissioned to look at the 1.5°C target. Obviously, lower temperature rises is better – but politicians will want to see the science back it.

Is a 1.5°C target even realistic? I doubt it. It’s like pulling teeth to get countries to agree on steps towards a 2°C. A 1.5°C target in today’s world of geopolitical flashpoints popping up everywhere? Yeah, not going to happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Its been discussed at length in the Pacific NW threads for the last 10 months.  These types of patterns have happened in the past and will happen again, so I agree with the author that it has little to do with AGW.  My personal opinion is that the warm water is caused by atmospheric conditions, as opposed to the other way around.  I have a hard time seeing how SSTs that are 5 degrees warmer than normal can influence the 500 mb patterns.  Sure there could be positive feedback, but nothing major. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
This should be a nail in the coffin to prove global alarmist nonsense...
SCIENCE: Save The Earth By Peeing In The Shower

SCIENCE: Save The Earth By Peeing In The Shower

You want to save the environment, right? Prevent global warming, save the world’s 13 Icelandic snow owls, that kind of thing.

Then you must pee in the shower. That’s the earnest message from a couple of students at England’s University of East Anglia, reports BBC News.

The two students, Debs Torr and Chris Dobson, theorize that their idea could “save enough water to fill an Olympic-sized swimming pool 26 times.”

It’s also a pragmatic timesaver, The Daily Caller notes.

“We’ve done the maths, and this project stands to have a phenomenal impact,” Dobson told the BBC.

“Imagine how big an impact it could have if we could get everyone in East Anglia, or even the UK, to change their morning habits.”

Dobson, 20, also noted that, strangely enough, not everyone has loved the big, brilliant idea.

“The campaign has been really divisive. People either seem to love it or hate it,” he explained.

But he’s undaunted.

“We’re trying to challenge conventional behavior — to start a debate on a resource that we largely take for granted,” the student said.

Dobson added that he and Torr have undertaken ample research to ensure that it’s not some disgusting health risk to pee in the communal showers that are often found on college campuses.

“As long as the water is flowing there is no hygiene risk as urine is sterile but we would encourage that every person using the same shower consents to the challenge and if not that they don’t take part,” he assured the BBC.

Dobson and Torr are the University of East Anglia’s representatives in an environmental initiative called the Npower Future Leaders Challenge.

A school spokeswoman said the administration fully supports the students.

The University of East Anglia in Norwich, England is, of course, most famous because it was the epicenter for the 2009 Climategate scandal. “Climategate” is a journalistic shorthand for the massive leak of emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The emails revealed discrepancies in the recording of climate change data, as well as contained poorly maintained computer code, and even allusions to the deletion of any information that could be acquired through Freedom of Information Act requests. (RELATED: Inhofe Calls For Investigation Of Researcher Michael Mann)

Follow Eric on Twitter and on Facebook, and send education-related story tips to erico@dailycaller.com.
Join the conversation on The Daily Caller

 
Link to post
Share on other sites

All the news that is the news, "Global Warming" wise, ...

 

.. Don't miss the latest, as presented by "tbone8", our resident "Hoaxter Hound", and "Alarmist Watchdog", .....

 

... "Just above".  .... An informed public, etc., ect.. ...

 

.... save the environment, ... Prevent global warming, save the world’s 13 Icelandic snow owls ...

It's all the same thing of course, isn't it. (!!) .. "Funds grubbing scientists and their cohorts, lacking anything more substantive or significant to look into." Totally "trans-parent".

 

(As viewed, by some.)

---
Link to post
Share on other sites

Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are down to ‘natural variability’, says study

  • Duke University study looked at 1,000 years of temperature records
  • It compared it to the most severe emissions scenarios by the IPCC
  • Found that natural variability can slow or speed the rate of warming
  • These 'climate wiggles' were not properly accounted for in IPCC report

By Ellie Zolfagharifard For Dailymail.com

Published: 15:56 EST, 23 April 2015 | Updated: 18:31 EST, 23 April 2015

 

Global warming hasn't happened as fast as expected, according to a new study based on 1,000 years of temperature records.

The research claims that natural variability in surface temperatures over the course of a decade can account for increases and dips in warming rates.

But it adds that these so-called 'climate wiggles' could also, in the future, cause our planet to warm up much faster than anticipated.

Scroll down for video 

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/04/23/21/27EA516F00000578-3052926-image-a-11_1429822240331.jpg

The study compared its results to the most severe emissions scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Projected temperature change from 2081-2100 by the IPCC are pictured here. The latest study, however, says this climate model may be wrong

The study compared its results to the most severe emissions scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

'Based on our analysis, a middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now,' said Patrick Brown, a doctoral student in climatology at Duke University. 'But this could change.'

The Duke-led study says that variability is caused by interactions between the ocean and atmosphere, and other natural factors.

 

They claim these 'wiggles' can slow or speed the rate of warming from decade to decade, and exaggerate or offset the effects of increases in greenhouse gas concentrations.

If not properly explained and accounted for, they may skew the reliability of climate models and lead to over-interpretation of short-term temperature trends.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/04/23/21/27EA515F00000578-3052926-image-a-12_1429822252559.jpg

Summary of projected changes in crop yields in a previous IPCC report. Because 'climate wiggles' were not accounted for, the Duke University researchers say the report may have been an over-interpretation of short-term temperature trends

The research, uses observed data, rather than the more commonly used climate models, to estimate decade-to-decade variability.

'At any given time, we could start warming at a faster rate if greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere increase without any offsetting changes in aerosol concentrations or natural variability,' said Wenhong Li, assistant professor of climate at Duke, who conducted the study with Brown.

DISEASES WILL SPREAD FASTER BECAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE 

Infectious diseases, such as Ebola and West Nile virus, will rapidly spread to new areas as a result of global warming.

This is according to zoologist, Professor Daniel Brooks, who warns humans can expect to face new illnesses as climate change brings crops, livestock, and humans into contact with pathogens.

Professor Brooks says it will be 'the death of a thousand cuts' with society unable to keep up with the speed of disease as it spreads around the world.

'It's not that there's going to be one "Andromeda Strain" that will wipe everybody out on the planet,' Professor Brooks said, referring to the 1971 science fiction film about a deadly pathogen.

'There are going to be a lot of localised outbreaks that put a lot of pressure on our medical and veterinary health systems.'

In his research, Professor Brooks has focused primarily on parasites in the tropics, while his colleague, Professor Eric Hoberg, has worked in Arctic regions.

Each has observed the arrival of species that hadn't previously lived in that area and the departure of others, said Professor Brooks, who is affiliated with the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

The team examined whether climate models, such as those used by the IPCC, accurately account for natural chaotic variability that can occur in the rate of global warming.

To test these, created a new statistical model based on reconstructed empirical records of surface temperatures over the last 1,000 years.

'By comparing our model against theirs, we found that climate models largely get the 'big picture' right but seem to underestimate the magnitude of natural decade-to-decade climate wiggles,' Brown said.

'Our model shows these wiggles can be big enough that they could have accounted for a reasonable portion of the accelerated warming we experienced from 1975 to 2000, as well as the reduced rate in warming that occurred from 2002 to 2013.'

'Statistically, it's pretty unlikely that an 11-year hiatus in warming, like the one we saw at the start of this century, would occur if the underlying human-caused warming was progressing at a rate as fast as the most severe IPCC projections,' Brown said.

'Hiatus periods of 11 years or longer are more likely to occur under a middle-of-the-road scenario.'

Under the IPCC's middle-of-the-road scenario, there was a 70 per cent likelihood that at least one hiatus lasting 11 years or longer would occur between 1993 and 2050, Brown said.

'That matches up well with what we're seeing.'

There's no guarantee, however, that this rate of warming will remain steady in coming years, Li stressed.

'Our analysis clearly shows that we shouldn't expect the observed rates of warming to be constant. They can and do change.'

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/04/23/21/27EA516A00000578-3052926-image-a-23_1429822330182.jpg
 
+1

The IPCC has previously warmed that global warming is impacting 'all continents and across the oceans'. This map details some of the predicted affects of climate change in different continents. However the latest study claims that the worst-case scenario is unlikely to take place

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a complete crock...

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — If you find yourself sweating out a day that is monstrously hot, chances are you can blame humanity. A new report links three out of four such days to man’s effects on climate.

And as climate change worsens around mid-century, that percentage of extremely hot days being caused by man-made greenhouse gases will push past 95 percent, according to the new study published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change.

Humans have not had as great an effect on heavy downpours, though. The Swiss scientists who did the study calculated that 18 percent of extreme rain events are caused by global warming. But if the world warms another two degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) — expected to happen around mid-century — about 39 percent of the downpours would be attributed to humanity’s influence, according to the study. That influence comes from greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide from the burning of coal, oil and gas.

“This new study helps get the actual probability or odds of human influence,” said University of Arizona climate scientist Jonathan Overpeck, who wasn’t part of the research. “This is key: If you don’t like hot temperature extremes that we’re getting, you now know how you can reduce the odds of such events by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

Lead author Erich Fischer, a climate scientist at ETH Zurich, a Swiss university, and colleague Reto Knutti examined just the hottest of hot days, the hottest one-tenth of one percent. Using 25 different computer models. Fischer and Knutti simulated a world without human-caused greenhouse gas emissions and found those hot days happened once every three years.

Then they calculated how many times they happen with the current level of heat-trapping gases and the number increases to four days. So three of the four are human caused, the team said.

And when the scientists dialed up the greenhouse gases — using current pollution trends — to simulate a world about mid-century, they got 26 of those super-hot days, “almost a whole month,” Fischer said.

The figures that Fischer and Knutti calculated are global estimates. The margins of error, plus or minus about 13 percent with current hot days, grow larger when smaller regions are considered. However, they found Africa and South America now have the highest percentages of unusual hot days that could be blamed on human influence, 89 percent and 88 percent respectively. Europe, at 63 percent, and North America, with 67 percent, come in at the lowest. By mid-century, if emissions continue at current pace, all continents will be able blame at least 93 percent of super hot days on humans.

Half a dozen outside scientists praised the study as valid, elegant and important.

When people ask if a single weird weather event is due to human activity or just natural variation, that’s the wrong question because both factors are always involved, said Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer, who wasn’t part of the study but praised it heavily. This study, he said, asks the right question: “How much of the change is due to human activity and how much is natural variation?”

And once that percentage of damages, costs and deaths can be attributed to human influence, it’s easier for governments to put a price on carbon dioxide emissions in an effort to control global warming, said Duke University climate scientist Drew Shindell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Updated Satellite Data Shows Even Less Global Warming Than Before

 
University of Alabama climatologists have released the newest version of their satellite temperature datasets. Interestingly enough, the updated satellite data came with a surprise: it lowered the Earth’s warming trend.

Version 6 of the satellite data shows faster warming in the early part of the satellite record, which stretches from Dec. 1978 to March. 2015, but shows reduced, or even eliminated, warming in the latter part of the record, wrote climatologists Roy Spencer, John Christy and William Braswell. UAH Version 6 satellite data now shows a decreased warming trend of 0.114 degrees Celsius per decade, compared to Version 5.6’s 0.140 degree trend.

This includes a decrease in the warming trend for the U.S. since the late 1970s. Spencer, Christy and Brasell noted that the U.S. “trend decreased from +0.23 to +0.17 C/decade” and the “Arctic region changed from +0.43 to +0.23 C/decade.”

“Near-zero trends exist in the region around Antarctica,” according to the UAH scientists.

http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/V6-vs-v5.6-LT-1979-Mar2015.gif

Source: Roy W. Spencer, John R. Christy, and William D. Braswell at the University of Alabama, Huntsville

“Note that in the early part of the record, Version 6 has somewhat faster warming than in Version 5.6, but then the latter part of the record has reduced (or even eliminated) warming, producing results closer to the behavior of the [Remote Sensing Systems] satellite dataset,” the scientists wrote.

“This is partly due to our new diurnal drift adjustment, especially for the NOAA-15 satellite,” the scientists added. “Even though our approach to that adjustment (described later) is empirical, it is interesting to see that it gives similar results to the RSS approach, which is based upon climate model calculations of the diurnal cycle in temperature.

Version 6 also shows that land areas have warmed faster than ocean areas. Land areas have warmed at a rate of 0.19 degrees Celsius per decade while ocean areas have only warmed at 0.08 degrees per decade — both of these, however, are below warming trends shown by surface thermometer data.

The updated UAH satellite temperature data comes as scientists are looking into allegations of data tampering by government climate agencies, like NASA and NOAA. Scientists skeptical of man-made global warming argue that data adjustments made by climate agencies may not be scientifically justified.

“Many people have found the extent of adjustments to the data surprising,” Terence Kealey, former vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham, said in a statement released by The Global Warming Policy Foundation.

Skeptics argue that NOAA, for example, makes adjustments that artificially cool past temperature data while warming more recent records. This creates a significantly bigger warming trend than is borne out in the raw temperature data, argue skeptics.

“While we believe that the 20th century warming is real, we are concerned by claims that the actual trend is different from – or less certain than – has been suggested,” said Kealey, who has been appointed chairman of the foundation’s investigative task force. “We hope to perform a valuable public service by getting everything out into the open.”

NOAA justifies these adjustments by saying they are necessary to correct for “biases” in the raw data. Corrections made by NOAA help make the data more accurate, they argue. NOAA’s temperature readings are based on surface thermometers from weather stations, buoys and such.

Spencer himself has questioned climate data adjustments made by NOAA, but acknowledges adjustments to raw data (whether from weather stations or satellites) are necessary for accuracy. That is, if the problem can be proven to exist.

“Being the co-developer of a climate dataset (UAH satellite temperatures) I understand the need to make adjustments for known errors in the data … when you can quantitatively demonstrate an error exists,” Spencer wrote in March.

“But a variety of errors in data measurement and collection would typically have both positive and negative signs,” Spencer and his colleagues wrote. “In contrast, the thermometer data apparently need to be adjusted in such a way that almost always leads to greater and greater warming trends.”

Satellite data also needs adjustments, hence the recent update. For example, satellites need to be recalibrated, their orbits change, and they experience channel failures. This also means software and methodology updates as well.

“After 25 years of producing the UAH datasets, the reasons for reprocessing are many,” the scientists wrote. “That is no longer possible, and an explicit correction for diurnal drift is now necessary. The correction for diurnal drift is difficult to do well, and we have been committed to it being empirically–based, partly to provide an alternative to the RSS satellite dataset which uses a climate model for the diurnal drift adjustment.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

Updated Satellite Data Shows Even Less Global Warming Than Before

 
University of Alabama climatologists have released the newest version of their satellite temperature datasets. Interestingly enough, the updated satellite data came with a surprise: it ...... lowered the Earth’s warming trend.

 

Amazing, the power of "surprises". 

---
Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of which, UAH v6.0 was released last week. Major upgrades all around. It's also now in agreement with RSS, in many respects:

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_April_2015_v61.png

 

As one would expect the "alarmist" camp has found fault with v6.0, including orbital drift.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee, we are in a natural warming period between ige ages. Who would have thought...?

 

NOAA Says The Arctic Will Be ‘Ice-Free’ In 25 Years

 
Climate scientists with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are warning the Arctic may be ice free by the summer by 2040 due to global warming.

Scientists sounded the alarm on a Wednesday press call that comes after the north pole hit record low winter sea ice coverage in February. NOAA’s warning of an ice-free Arctic are consistent with warnings given by other researchers over the past few years.

Scientists warned that Arctic ice will melt faster as temperatures grow hotter, which they warn is harming the region’s ecology — zooplankton are losing fat content which could harm fish in the area that feed on these organisms.

Sounds alarming, but is an ice-free Arctic really something to worry about?

“I doubt the Arctic will be free of all ice in any summer, although the total area may well be greatly reduced in the future if it continues to warm there,” Chip Knappenberger, a climate scientist at the libertarian Cato Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“Such a situation should not be overly worrisome, as there is ample evidence that it has occurred in the past and clearly, polar bears, and everything else up there managed to survive,” Knappenberger said.

Research shows that the Arctic has had much less ice in the past than today, but also that the region has gone through periods of being ice free in the summer. And even with ice free summers, polar bears and other species have been able to survive and thrive.

A series of studies over the past few years have found that Arctic sea ice levels were significantly reduced between 6,000 and 8,500 years ago. There’s even points at which the Arctic may have been ice free during summertime.

A 2008 study by the Geological Survey of Norway found that “the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean was greatly reduced some 6000-7000 years ago” and that the “Arctic Ocean may have been periodically ice free.”

”The climate in the northern regions has never been milder since the last Ice Age than it was about 6000-7000 years ago. We still don’t know whether the Arctic Ocean was completely ice free, but there was more open water in the area north of Greenland than there is today,” says geologist Astrid Lyså with the NGU said of the study.

Another study done in 2010 by European scientists found that the “combined sea ice data suggests that the seasonal Arctic sea ice cover was strongly reduced during much of the early Holocene.” The Holocene is a geological epoch that started some 11,700 years ago.

The study added that “there appear to have been periods of ice free summers in the central Arctic Ocean.”

In 2011, another European study found that multi-year sea ice off northern Greenland “reached a minimum ~8500 and 6000 years ago, when the limit of year-round sea ice at the coast of Greenland was located ~1000 kilometers to the north of its present position.”

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

NOAA Says The Arctic Will Be ‘Ice-Free’ In 25 Years

 
...

Scientists sounded the alarm on a Wednesday press call that comes after the north pole hit record low winter sea ice coverage in February. NOAA’s warning of an ice-free Arctic are consistent with warnings given by other researchers over the past few years.

...

 

Sea ice extent was at a low but volume is highest since 2006.

 

http://s30.postimg.org/cpt3hawi9/Bpiomas_plot_daily_heff_2sst.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

As one would expect the "alarmist" camp has found fault with v6.0, including orbital drift.

Thing is, V6.0 not only corrected for orbital drift, but completely overhauled their spatial interpolation algorithms. This upgrade is state of the art.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is, V6.0 not only corrected for orbital drift, but completely overhauled their spatial interpolation algorithms. This upgrade is state of the art.

 

Honestly, if I had a $ for every time an AGWer claimed RSS was supposedly an "outlier", I would put Bill Gates to shame. Now of course UAH is in agreement & it's been hilarious to watch some of the squirming... They'll still try to find some lame excuse why the satellite data sucks though...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this where I insert the idea of prudence again. ?

 

(While we wait, for an hundred years more or so to see how this sh*t actually plays out.)

 

.. Yeh, sure. Why not. ?

 

Here's "expose" yourself to a viewpoint, more accepting of the potential as suggested by some.

 

http://www.jimhightower.com/sites/jimhightower.civicactions.net/files/16-23_w_show.mp3

http://www.jimhightower.com/node/8613#.VUsqPyjZRnp

 

(... an hundred years more or so. ?)

---
Link to post
Share on other sites

NOAA says March 2015 was the warmest March on record.  Also, the first quarter was the warmest  on record.

 

"

  • During March, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.53°F (0.85°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest for March in the 1880–2015 record, surpassing the previous record of 2010 by 0.09°F (0.05°C).
  • During March, the globally-averaged land surface temperature was 2.97°F (1.65°C) above the 20th century average. This tied with 1990 as the second highest for March in the 1880–2015 record.
  • During March, the globally-averaged sea surface temperature was 0.99°F (0.55°C) above the 20th century average. This was the third highest for March in the 1880–2015 record."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201503

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is, V6.0 not only corrected for orbital drift, but completely overhauled their spatial interpolation algorithms. This upgrade is state of the art.

So it now agrees with RSS right? And what is the reason why people don't like it, because it doesn't show what they want? Its obvious we are slowly warming, but I guess a relative stall over the last decade doesn't work with the agenda. So what data sets are showing the big warming?

 

Ultimately for me I know we are warming on the long term and it is a problem in my view, but as long as we continue to see temperatures remain under what climate models project I remain skeptical of the alarmist views, even if I don't have any specific reasons to cite.

 

Do you agree with Dr. Gray's work btw? It sounds interesting but I have no idea what to think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So it now agrees with RSS right? And what is the reason why people don't like it, because it doesn't show what they want? Its obvious we are slowly warming, but I guess a relative stall over the last decade doesn't work with the agenda. So what data sets are showing the big warming?

 

Ultimately for me I know we are warming on the long term and it is a problem in my view, but as long as we continue to see temperatures remain under what climate models project I remain skeptical of the alarmist views, even if I don't have any specific reasons to cite.

 

Do you agree with Dr. Gray's work btw? It sounds interesting but I have no idea what to think.

 

Yes, there are camps on all sides that attack any data that doesn't support their views.

 

The troposphere was supposed to warm first, as that's where the CO2 blanket is.  It's warmed but not as fast as the surface and not at the rate that models predicted.

 

http://s9.postimg.org/57wx5nb4f/CMIP5_73_models_vs_obs_20_N_20_S_MT_5_yr_means1.png

http://s11.postimg.org/t4s9d7j83/CMIP5_90_models_global_Tsfc_vs_obs.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there are camps on all sides that attack any data that doesn't support their views.

 

The troposphere was supposed to warm first, as that's where the CO2 blanket is.  It's warmed but not as fast as the surface and not at the rate that models predicted.

 

http://s9.postimg.org/57wx5nb4f/CMIP5_73_models_vs_obs_20_N_20_S_MT_5_yr_means1.png

 

http://s9.postimg.org/57wx5nb4f/CMIP5_73_models_vs_obs_20_N_20_S_MT_5_yr_means1.png

So about that, what are the theories on why this is the case? And specifically why does it matter beyond meaning that climate models still have a ways to go?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So about that, what are the theories on why this is the case? And specifically why does it matter beyond meaning that climate models still have a ways to go?

When you're using outdated, newtonian-age radiative transfer physics to depict radiative forcing in a gravitationally dominated fluid, you're not going to make many successful predictions. The models are flawed, and have been from the start.

 

Most likely, the majority of the warming since the LIA is of natural origin. The added CO^2 has had a slight warming effect, but the thermalization process that governs this warming occurs in the mid/upper troposphere, which is where the warming via CO^2 forcing will be centered. In the satellite era, this warming is barely detectable. There has been no dampening observed in the relevant AW spectras since 1997. There has been an uptick in most AW frequencies, analogous to the decline in reflected SW..most occurring from 60N to 40S.

 

While it's impossible to measure the exact magnitude of the decline in tropical/mid latitude cloud cover that is responsible due to uncertainties in the data, it can be affirmed within these potential errors that cloud cover has decreased, primarily in the tropics. There are plenty of scientifically sound physical mechanisms to explain these changes, too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you're using outdated, newtonian-age radiative transfer physics to depict radiative forcing in a gravitationally dominated fluid, you're not going to make many successful predictions. The models are flawed, and have been from the start.

 

Most likely, the majority of the warming since the LIA is of natural origin. The added CO^2 has had a slight warming effect, but the thermalization process that governs this warming occurs in the mid/upper troposphere, which is where the warming via CO^2 forcing will be centered. In the satellite era, this warming is barely detectable. There has been no dampening observed in the relevant AW spectras since 1997. There has been an uptick in most AW frequencies, analogous to the decline in reflected SW..most occurring from 60N to 40S.

 

While it's impossible to measure the exact magnitude of the decline in tropical/mid latitude cloud cover that is responsible due to uncertainties in the data, it can be affirmed within these potential errors that cloud cover has decreased, primarily in the tropics. There are plenty of scientifically sound physical mechanisms to explain these changes, too.

What are the theories for why cloud cover has decreased? Will that change soon?

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you're using outdated, newtonian-age radiative transfer physics to depict radiative forcing in a gravitationally dominated fluid, you're not going to make many successful predictions. The models are flawed, and have been from the start.

 

Most likely, the majority of the warming since the LIA is of natural origin. The added CO^2 has had a slight warming effect, but the thermalization process that governs this warming occurs in the mid/upper troposphere, which is where the warming via CO^2 forcing will be centered. In the satellite era, this warming is barely detectable. There has been no dampening observed in the relevant AW spectras since 1997. There has been an uptick in most AW frequencies, analogous to the decline in reflected SW..most occurring from 60N to 40S.

 

While it's impossible to measure the exact magnitude of the decline in tropical/mid latitude cloud cover that is responsible due to uncertainties in the data, it can be affirmed within these potential errors that cloud cover has decreased, primarily in the tropics. There are plenty of scientifically sound physical mechanisms to explain these changes, too.

Sorry but. ... I read it on the internet. No sources were cited.

 

Specify, include (cite.) supportive thinking, or continue to be subjected to my requests for more qualification where finding at this type of input. 

 

According to whom. (?) .. If more your own thinking, specify this idea. (Plainly. And in front.)

 

(Otherwise, .. What's "the LIA". ? .. Not actually an acronym at all in fact, but more casual slang for the "Italian Ice Age", would be my guess more immediate. But that doesn't really fit. ... Perhaps a county, on a planet yet to have been discovered. ? .. HI. ... Liberal use of acronyms, is discourteous.)

---
Link to post
Share on other sites

When you're using outdated, newtonian-age radiative transfer physics to depict radiative forcing in a gravitationally dominated fluid, you're not going to make many successful predictions. The models are flawed, and have been from the start.

 

Most likely, the majority of the warming since the LIA is of natural origin. The added CO^2 has had a slight warming effect, but the thermalization process that governs this warming occurs in the mid/upper troposphere, which is where the warming via CO^2 forcing will be centered. In the satellite era, this warming is barely detectable. There has been no dampening observed in the relevant AW spectras since 1997. There has been an uptick in most AW frequencies, analogous to the decline in reflected SW..most occurring from 60N to 40S.

 

While it's impossible to measure the exact magnitude of the decline in tropical/mid latitude cloud cover that is responsible due to uncertainties in the data, it can be affirmed within these potential errors that cloud cover has decreased, primarily in the tropics. There are plenty of scientifically sound physical mechanisms to explain these changes, too.

 

What are AW and SW?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but. ... I read it on the internet. No sources were cited.

 

Specify, include (cite.) supportive thinking, or continue to be subjected to my requests for more qualification where finding at this type of input. 

 

According to whom. (?) .. If more your own thinking, specify this idea. (Plainly. And in front.)

 

(Otherwise, .. What's "the LIA". ? .. Not actually an acronym at all in fact, but more casual slang for the "Italian Ice Age", would be my guess more immediate. But that doesn't really fit. ... Perhaps a county, on a planet yet to have been discovered. ? .. HI. ... Liberal use of acronyms, is discourteous.)

 

The IPCC went on record early on as to the Little Ice Age (LIA) being a regional event, not global.  http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/070.htm 

"Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this timeframe, and the conventional terms of �Little Ice Age� and �Medieval Warm Period� appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries."

 

Other studies suggest otherwise.  For example http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141119204521.htmfound evidence of a synchronous cool down in South America.

 

"The data show that the most extreme cold phases of the Little Ice Age -- in the mid-15th and then again in the early 18th centuries -- were synchronous in Europe and South America"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...