Global warming traps scientists in ice

[billvon 3,131]

> Remember if it can not be falsified it is not a valid theory/prediction.

Of course it can be falsified even if it's not a valid theory! That's how science works. You can claim "gravity is caused by angels" and prove that wrong, even if it's not a valid theory.

The theory of AGW states that, over time, average temperatures will increase due to the increase in greenhouse gases. That's provable (and so far has been proved.) It doesn't say "you won't be cold, ever" or "there won't be snowstorms."

[kallend 2,174]

brenthutch

***>"I predict with great certainty, that Alabama will beat Auburn, but given the dynamic
>nature of college athletics, I may be wrong"

You're sorta proving my point here.

While,
"I predict with great certainty,....................but I might be wrong"
might be a true statement, I would hardly call it a prediction. With either outcome one could claim they correctly predicted the event. Remember if it can not be falsified it is not a valid theory/prediction.

If the jet stream had stabilized as the Arctic warmed it would have falsified the prediction that the jet stream would become more erratic.

As it happened the prediction turned out to be correct. One result of that is that the temperature at my house is 58 degrees F warmer today than it was on Monday and we have a lot of flooded roads..

...

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

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

> Remember if it can not be falsified it is not a valid theory/prediction.

Of course it can be falsified even if it's not a valid theory! That's how science works. You can claim "gravity is caused by angels" and prove that wrong, even if it's not a valid theory.

The theory of AGW states that, over time, average temperatures will increase due to the increase in greenhouse gases. That's provable (and so far has been proved.) It doesn't say "you won't be cold, ever" or "there won't be snowstorms."

Of course that's provable. It's been proven. I can put a lid on a simmering pot of water and it will start boiling. I can prove that.

Problem is that it's not that simple. Not even close. Which is why temperature for the last 17 years (a climatologically significant period of time) has been flat despite the massive amount of CO2 being put into the atmosphere.

It's just not that simple. Observational data proves that it is not that simple.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,174]

lawrocket

*** Which is why temperature for the last 17 years (a climatologically significant period of time) has been flat despite the massive amount of CO2 being put into the atmosphere.

.

Which temperature? Measured where?

...

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

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

******>"I predict with great certainty, that Alabama will beat Auburn, but given the dynamic
>nature of college athletics, I may be wrong"

You're sorta proving my point here.

While,
"I predict with great certainty,....................but I might be wrong"
might be a true statement, I would hardly call it a prediction. With either outcome one could claim they correctly predicted the event. Remember if it can not be falsified it is not a valid theory/prediction.

If the jet stream had stabilized as the Arctic warmed it would have falsified the prediction that the jet stream would become more erratic.

As it happened the prediction turned out to be correct. One result of that is that the temperature at my house is 58 degrees F warmer today than it was on Monday and we have a lot of flooded roads..

This is interesting. It's long been predicted that the jet stream would be irregular on the basis of open water and due to warmer temperatures in the Arctic. The article that you cited actually talks about persistent weather patterns like blocking highs.

So to see whether there is a cause/effect, we need to see what the Arctic is doing right now. To wit, is there a large amount of open water in the Arctic to absorb more solar energy, thus creating a warmer Arctic and changing the gradient?

The answer is no. First, there ain't much sunlight up there. Sea ice extent has been within the normal range, though the last few weeks has been moving lower on the anomaly scale.

Now, what is most interesting to me, John: why is it that a few days of jet stream abnormality overcome a few days of abnormality in the two years since the paper was written?

I predict that due to climate conditions, we will have an increasingly unstable seismic conditions in the next twenty years, particularly in the LA basin. LA hasn't had an earthquake of greater than 5.5 in twenty years, and I predict that this period of calm will end with an earthquake of 5.5 or higher in the next twenty years.

Under your reasoning, absence of a larger earthquake in that time will falsify it. But, and earthquake of that size within 20 years will prove my theory correct.

I'll bet you a dollar.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

****** Which is why temperature for the last 17 years (a climatologically significant period of time) has been flat despite the massive amount of CO2 being put into the atmosphere.

.

Which temperature? Measured where?

Hadcrut, RSS, UAH, and even GISS. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1997/to:2013

Here's HADCRUT unadjusted http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/to:2013

HADRCRUT Adjusted: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/to:2013

RSS: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/to:2013

UAH: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/to:2013

Note: climate data is the biggest fucking denier out there.

While I'm at it, let's link a site for CO2 concentration.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/graph.html

Jan. 1997 - trend at 362.85 ppm. Dec. 2013 - 397.66 ppm.

Of course, on a larger scale, it's like adding 6 or 7 people to a capacity crowd at Ann Arbor.

Observational data: what those asshole anti-science crowd looks at.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[brenthutch 444]

From some Europeans:
In the meantime there’s another observation that has been officially recognized. Even the IPCC confirmed in its fifth assessmernt report from last September: There has been no statistically significant warming in the last one and half decades. [...]

Thus global warming has stopped – and has done so even while CO2 emissions have increased unhindered.”

2013 was a blow to the credibility of climate models and CO2 sensitivity. Kulke:

It was just last year – and regrettably this was kept away from the public’s attention – that many scientific peer reviewed papers appeared in scientific journals showing that CO2′s effect on the climate, its ‘climate sensitivity’, had previously been estimated to be much too high.”

2013 saw the death of the science that claimed CO2 is causing more storms. Kulke writes:

Here there are no indications that the number or intensity of hurricanes and typhoons have increased over the last decades. Quite to the contrary. The tendency is, for both strength and frequency, significantly less, as shown by this compilation umistakably shows. Also the last 2013 report from the IPCC: The authors downgraded the statements on the probability with respect to the previous report of 2007.”

No one expected there would be an agreement on a binding reduction of CO2 emissions. And of course there wasn’t. What a surprise…just like every year before. [...]

Once again what became clear in Warsaw: In the end it’s not really about CO2 emissions – it’s mostly about money and a redistribution from North To South.”

Also Kulke writes it is very clear that in countries like Canada, Japan, Russia, Great Britain and Germany have been sending out loud signals that their enthusiasm about climate protection is waning.

The list of naysayer countries has gotten considerably longer.”

Kulke adds that even climate refugees seeking asylum from sea level rise were turned away:

All that remains to be mentioned for 2013 is the court case in New Zealand where a citizen of the Pacific island nation of Kiribati attempted to be recognized as a a climate refuges because his island nation is supposedly going under. The judge threw out the case – mainly due to formal reasons. That’s a pity because she could have provided the Polynesian with a real factual reason: namely that the islands of his nation are not going under. Quite to the contrary in the last 50 years the islands are growing, as you can read about it here.”

2013 was in fact so bad that even after almost everyone had closed the books on the year and unanimously called it a knockout for the skeptics, 2013 delivered two other massive bonus blows that left the warmists reeling at the very end of the year: the Chris Turney Antarctic expedition debacle and the record North American cold wave. These last-second blows are carrying well into the year 2014.

Never has a new year started off so well for the skeptics. The debate tipping point is steadily getting closer.

- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/01/09/german-analysis-2013-was-a-debacle-for-the-promoters-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/#sthash.mP3ybqV3.dpuf

[brenthutch 444]

I got your prediction hanging right here:

WASHINGTON, June 10— The rise in carbon dioxide and other gases in the earth's atmosphere will have an earlier and more pronounced impact on global temperature and climate than previously expected, according to evidence presented to a Senate subcommittee today.

Scientists and senators at a hearing by the Environmental Pollution Subcommittee agreed that the dangers of manmade changes in the atmosphere had moved from hypothesis to imminent reality and must be addressed quickly.

They said the rise in temperatures was expected to cause profound climatic changes and raise sea levels substantially.

Witnesses at the hearing also testified that the ozone layer of the upper atmosphere, which protects the earth from the sun's ultraviolet light, is being rapidly depleted by manmade gases, and the increased ultraviolet radiation would result in a rise in skin cancer cases and other ecological damage.

Dr. James E. Hansen of the Goddard Space Flight Center's Institute for Space Studies said research by his institute showed that because of the ''greenhouse effect'' that results when gases prevent heat from escaping the earth's atmosphere, global temperatures would rise early in the next century to ''well above any level experienced in the past 100,000 years.'' Steeper Rise in Next Century

Average global temperatures would rise by one-half a degree to one degree Fahrenheit from 1990 to 2000 if current trends are unchanged, according to Dr. Hansen's findings. Dr. Hansen said the global temperature would rise by another 2 to 4 degrees in the following decade.

While the effect of small increases in global temperature is now unclear, Andrew Maguire, vice president of the World Resources Institute, a Washington research and policy group, said that the doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide that is foreseen would cause a rise of 3 to 8 degrees in temperature by the 2030's. He said this would devastate agriculture in the United States and elsewhere, and would cause a rise in sea level of some 4.5 feet as polar ice melted.

Earlier projections of warming trends had held that they would not occur before the middle of the next century. One of the reasons that scientists now expect faster and higher temperature rises is the emerging consensus that gases other than the carbon dioxide emitted by the burning of such fossil fuels as coal are playing a major role in the greenhouse effect.

The greenhouse effect is the name given to the phenomenon created when carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons and other gases accumulate in the atmosphere and prevent radiant heat from the sun that has reached the earth's surface from escaping back into space.

Dr. Hansen and other scientists testifying today said there was now broad consensus among scientists that the greenhouse effect was speeding up the increase in global temperatures. Less Urgency in 1983

In 1983 a report by the National Academy of Sciences said the greenhouse effect was a ''cause for concern,'' but concluded that there was time to prepare for its impact.

The academy report projected a doubling of greenhouse gases by the third quarter of the next century. Dr. Hansen's research, however, found that if there is no change in the current rate of growth, the greenhouse gases would double by the late 2020's.

A report by the Environmental Protection Agency three years ago said the warming trend could start by the 1990's and could reach as much as 4 degrees Fahrenheit by 2040, but this was attacked by President Reagan's science adviser at the time, George A. Keyworth, as ''unnecessarily alarmist.''

Today, the scientists and the senators on the subcommittee asserted that there must be national and international action now to mitigate and deal with the imminent effects of the atmospheric changes taking place as a result of human activity. Chafee Asks Early Action

Senator John H. Chafee, the Rhode Island Republican who is chairman of the subcommittee, quoted a recent assessment by the Department of Energy, which said, ''Human effects on atmospheric composition and the size and operations of the terrestrial ecosystems may yet overwhelm the life-support system crafted in nature over billions of years.''

Senator Chafee said it would be too risky to wait until all the answers about atmospheric changes were known before taking action.

He called for the Reagan Administration to take up the issue at the next international economic summit meeting and also at the President's next meeting with the Soviet leader, Mikhail S. Gorbachev.

While the scientists testified today that it would be some time before there was enough data to pinpoint regional climatic changes, it was considered likely that some of today's most productive agricultural areas would become too arid for farming.

They also testified that a ''hole,'' in which the ozone has been reduced by some 40 percent, has formed in the ozone layer over Antarctica.

While many aerosol uses of chlorofluorocarbons have been banned in this country, their use in other applications is increasing, and they continue to be used in aerosols in other countries.

[turtlespeed 226]

Seems like we need to populate space - or do some serious population control.

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

[lawrocket 3]

RobertMBlevins

First, when the pack ice freshens the sea water in the Atlantic Ocean, the North Atlantic Current will cease, causing the weather in Western Europe to resemble weather in the North Pacific Rim countries on the same latitude.

Show me some evidence of desalination. And note that pack ice is formed from seawater. Get some year old pack ice and you can't drink it due to salt (most salt leaches out in the next couple of years) but since pack ice doesn't get much older than five years this seems to be a non-issue. Another prediction that is really unlikely to occur, and not any time for the next several thousand years if it does.

Quote

Coastal regions will flood to an extent due to the rise in sea levels.

Sea level has been rising for the past 12k years. And no faster now than 100 years ago. The rise is not accelerating despite anthropogenic changes. That's observational data, not prediction.

Quote

As the atmospheric heat increases, storms like Sandy and Katrina will become the norm, rather than the exception, and will come much more frequently.

That's why we've had a record lull in hurricanes hitting US shores in the last several years. Check out the stats - we've had three hurricanes hit us in the last six years. No Cat 4's in a while, and Andrew was the last Cat 5.

Ironically, this is more in line with AGW theory. This is because atmospheric heating increases wind shear, and wind shear is the mortal enemy of a tropical cyclone.

Quote

The changes in climate will force mass migration of humans, causing border clashes and wars. Some of these wars could escalate into larger global conflicts.

So WWIII will be because of climate change and all the other wars beforehand were for something different. Gotcha. Note: we haven't had a world war in 70 years. And two of them in less than 30 years back when climate was supposedly mild and unadulterated by AGW. If AGW means fewer world wars, then I say bring it the fuck on.

Quote

REAL reason, the base reason, is OVERPOPULATION. There are now too many people on Planet Earth, and their combined actions are having a negative effect.

Whenever I see a call for genocide as the cure for the earth's ills I shudder because of how many are actually serious. Who do you think should be eliminated? The Jews, the blacks or the lighter colored browns?

Quote

It took from the Stone Age to the year 1800 for the Earth's population to reach one billion human beings.

This was before we rendered the earth unfit for human population. Let's see how bad the world got for people when we started destroying it...

Quote

We are now adding that many people to the planet about every fourteen years or so. This type of growth cannot continue, and cannot possibly be supported.

Paul Ehrlich said that about 40 years ago. He was wrong then. But look at how awesome the world's climate has gotten by destroying it. Rather than killing off people because it's so arid and flooded, people are finding the climate to be pretty useful for reproduction. It's like arguing that incubating yeast dough in a warm moist environment is clearly bad because yeast do better in the fridge.

Quote

A good book to read on this subject is 'Our Final Century' by Dr. Martin Rees of Cambridge University.

Why not just read the Population Bomb by Ehrlich? Maybe you also listened to Harold Camping. One thing that can be said about all predictions of human extinction - not one has actually happened. When a whole industry is batting .000 and has been for thousands of years, I tend to disregard newer and repackaged versions of the same shit.

Quote

Basically, unless we stop breeding like rabbits on Viagra, we are certainly doomed

Hmmm. Here I thought breeding was key to survival of a species.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[brenthutch 444]

The most effective way to stabilize the population is through development. The western world has a stable/declining population.

BTW, melting pack ice does not rise sea levels.

[kallend 2,174]

I think you misread the graphs to which you link.

And what about deep ocean temperatures?

...

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

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

I think you misread the graphs to which you link.

And what about deep ocean temperatures?

No, I believe that I read the graphs and interpreted them appropriately. So do you, otherwise you wouldn't be pointing out deep temperatures to explain why the temperatures are flat.

It's unfortunate that actual observational data is viewed with such hostility.

With regard to deep ocean temperatures, yeah - interesting theory that does make some sense because the ocean is a mighty good heat sink for the earth. The problem is that there is no data to actually measure it. Indeed, the theory that all this excess heat is being stored in the deep ocean isn't falsifiable with any direct observation. Might as well say that Jesus Christ himself sucked up the heat because there's as much evidence of that as deep ocean warming. We don't have any temperature data below 700 meters. The data we have down to 700 meters is sparse.

So, in true scientific fashion, there's something put out there that cannot be proven or falsifiable. Sure, there are models (about 15 of them) but even those are so wildly divergent that sense can't be made of them (and these are models that use Levitus as comparison).

I ask you this, John: can you point me to any actual observational data that shows deep ocean heating? Recall what accepted scientific method needs: (1) Falsifiability; and (2) observations to confirm hypotheses.

Show me the observations and I'll look. But no politician wants to show any actual data. Like a religion, ideas must be non-falsifiable in order to gain traction.

Edited to add: I see that a lot of links didn't transfer. Easy enough to look to the data in the table. I chose 1997 (a cold year) so as not to be accused of cherry picking 1998


Edited again: here's this one. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp-dts/from:1990/to:2013

This one makes me wonder how long the flat period would be now had Mt. Pinatubo not erupted in 1991 and cooled the earth for three years.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,174]

If I predicted with great certainty that a Dalmatian puppy would grow to be white with black spots, and it did indeed grow to be white with black spots, you would claim that the prediction was incorrect because the location of each spot wasn't defined.

www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-january-6-2014-oscar-isaac

...

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

[lawrocket 3]

I predict that due to global warming, dalmatians will get even spottier. Some will have a lot of smaller black spots, some will have fewer large spots. Some will have lighter or darker spots.

I just saw a dalmatian. My God, the spottiness of that animal was truly terrifying. Then I saw another one. It wasn't as spotty, and I don't know which is scarier. Either way, it showed that global warming is real and dalmatian spots will only get worse.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,174]

lawrocket

I predict that due to global warming, dalmatians will get even spottier. Some will have a lot of smaller black spots, some will have fewer large spots. Some will have lighter or darker spots.

I just saw a dalmatian. My God, the spottiness of that animal was truly terrifying. Then I saw another one. It wasn't as spotty, and I don't know which is scarier. Either way, it showed that global warming is real and dalmatian spots will only get worse.

pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/03/01/0956797611400913

And here's one for rushmc:

pss.sagepub.com/content/24/11/2290.full

...

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

[brenthutch 444]

kallend

If I predicted with great certainty that a Dalmatian puppy would grow to be white with black spots, and it did indeed grow to be white with black spots, you would claim that the prediction was incorrect because the location of each spot wasn't defined.

www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-january-6-2014-oscar-isaac

What if all of the experts you respect, predicted, with great certainty, that we were on the precipice of global cooling?

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/

[billvon 3,131]

>What if all of the experts you respect, predicted, with great certainty, that we were
>on the precipice of global cooling?

Then I'd worry.

If one story in Newsweek claimed that? Then I wouldn't.

[brenthutch 444]

What about multiple stories in the New York Times Chicago Times, et al, citeting the Nationa Academy of Science, NASA,CRU,CIA,? (Scroll down)

Pretty much all of the "experts" you are putting your faith in today, made the same claimes 40 years ago, except it was global cooling.

[davjohns 1]

Personally, I think we only have one planet and should take care of it. Just me.

I don't know if 'global warming' is what it is purported to be or not. I just think it's been presented very badly.

I saw a guy on CNN last week. The banner said he was a climatologist. His hair was sticking out like the popular pic of Einstein. He didn't look like someone you would trust on such matters.

I would have recommended: 1. Get a haircut and look like a respected scientist. It helps. It just does. 2. Call yourself a meteorologist. We know what that is. Climatologist is something that just hit the scene and sounds too much like Scientologist...and we know how those guys come off. 3. Start out by saying, "Global Warming is a horrible name. It's not helpful. Call it something like 'climate change'." You get loads of credibility just admitting that little bit of nothing.

.02

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[jakee 1,608]

Quote

His hair was sticking out like the popular pic of Einstein...

Get a haircut and look like a respected scientist.

Ummm...

Quote

It helps. It just does.

With what? If he's a climatolgist then his primary job is doing science, not appearing on CNN.

Quote

2. Call yourself a meteorologist.

He should lie?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kelpdiver 2]

brenthutch

What if all of the experts you respect, predicted, with great certainty, that we were on the precipice of global cooling?

They'd have a hard time explaining all the receding glaciers...

Given a choice of a warming trend or a cooling trend...we can deal with cold more readily. (or burn more coal)

[billvon 3,131]

>What about multiple stories in the New York Times Chicago Times, et al, citeting the
>Nationa Academy of Science, NASA,CRU,CIA,?

None of them said "we were on the precipice of global cooling." You're exaggerating again.

Let's take your "National Academy of Science" claim. The actual text:


"If both the CO2 and particulate inputs to the atmosphere grow at equal rates in the future, the widely differing atmospheric residence times of the two pollutants means that the particulate effect will grow in importance relative to that of CO2. . . .

We do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course so it does not seem possible to predict climate . . . The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know. . . .

If we are to react rationally to the inevitable climatic changes of the future, and if we are ever to predict their future course, whether they are natural or man-induced, a far greater understanding of these changes is required than we now possess. It is, moreover, important that this knowledge be acquired as soon as possible . . .the time has now come to initiate a broad and coordinated attack on the problem of climate and climatic change."

No "we are on the precipice of global cooling."

[rushmc 23]

Quote

We do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course so it does not seem possible to predict climate . . . The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know. . . .

THE most important part of your post

Because it is still true

Finally, something we can agree on

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

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]
With what? If he's a climatolgist then his primary job is doing science, not appearing on CNN.