Arctic Warming Causing Cold Weather

[flightschool]

Nope.

Worse? The Global Warming scientists prediction of increasing CO2 levels was actually UNDERestimated.

CO2 levels have risen even worse than their dire predictions, partly fueled via unexpected economic increases in the developing world, and YET the world's warming didnt even remotely play out as their science suggested. Forget a "pause", the warming should have been even worse than what they predicted!

If you TRIED to be more wrong, it would probably be statistically unlikely.



Then you have posts like this which demonstrate the individual doesnt even have a basic grasp of the issue or its' history.

I knew about the discrepancy of modeled C02 increase and actual being larger... I was just saying the models may be weak in short term changes(20-50 years) vs long term. That doesn't mean I'm saying they are going to be validated...

 

[Puck it]

I just want to know.....dinosaurs walked with humans....true or false?

Yes they did with Raquel Welch in 1000000 BC.

 

[Puck it]

I just want to know.....dinosaurs walked with humans....true or false?

Yes they did with Raquel Welch in 1000000 BC.

 

[fbrissette]

What I'm describing is various governments using the science to defraud the public and corporations out of tax dollars.

Ok. So it's not the scientists trying to defraud the government to get the flow of research money coming. It's a global government conspiracy to defraud tax payers and companies. Or are the scientists and governments both in it together ? The scientists supply the fake science, the government keep the research money flowing, and they use the fake research to defraud taxpayers. Is that the way it works ?

Well, Canada ain't part of the global conspiracy. Canada was the first country to opt out of the Kyoto accord. GHG emissions have gone up markedly. They've eliminated the Climate change action fund which was the main source of Climate change research. They've encouraged the rapid development of tar sands and are actively lobbying the US for the Keystone pipeline project. Not as familiar with the US, but I you are now a net oil exporter for the first time in history. Sustainable development ain't looking too good.

 

[jack97]

I knew about the discrepancy of modeled C02 increase and actual being larger... I was just saying the models may be weak in short term changes(20-50 years) vs long term. That doesn't mean I'm saying they are going to be validated...

The underlying theory in the climate models is that greenhouse gases are the cause of the warming; mainly water vapor, co2 and methane. Since water vapor can not be controlled then the later are made the villains. The problem is co2 has increased while surface and troposphere temps have remained flat or slightly cooled, this trend has been going on for the past 17 years. The issue is that all physical process must follow cause and effect. If present climates model assumes this type of causality then the model is fundamentally wrong.

There is a group of tenure/semi retired professor who proposed this fundamental issue if cause and effect with AGW and the climate models, some have testify before congress, UK Parliament and Canadian government. Unfortunately, it has not made the news b/c its not the news media wants to present.

 

[jack97]

You're adorable

9/11 was an inside job! False flag!

I just want to know.....dinosaurs walked with humans....true or false?

haha..... taken straight out of Al Gore's text book. I expected better.

 

[jack97]

Ok. So it's not the scientists trying to defraud the government to get the flow of research money coming. It's a global government conspiracy to defraud tax payers and companies. Or are the scientists and governments both in it together ? The scientists supply the fake science, the government keep the research money flowing, and they use the fake research to defraud taxpayers. Is that the way it works ?

When you have a guy like John Holdren as a science adviser to Obama, then the government is involved.

Well, Canada ain't part of the global conspiracy. Canada was the first country to opt out of the Kyoto accord. GHG emissions have gone up markedly. They've eliminated the Climate change action fund which was the main source of Climate change research. They've encouraged the rapid development of tar sands and are actively lobbying the US for the Keystone pipeline project. Not as familiar with the US, but I you are now a net oil exporter for the first time in history. Sustainable development ain't looking too good.

As the pause continues more countries will opt out as Canada did.

 

[Cannonball]

haha..... taken straight out of Al Gore's text book. I expected better.

Taken straight out of the conversation from 2000. But I didn't expect anything more current or relevant.

 

[jack97]

Taken straight out of the conversation from 2000. But I didn't expect anything more current or relevant.

Makes sense..... after 13 yrs and going to 14 yrs while the temps have been flatlining.

 

[Rowsdower]

Here's the other thing I haven't seen addressed: you guys are putting a lot of stock in a "global warming pause" without taking into account any of the explanations for that.

I'm not a climate scientist, but I've some several explanations for this:

-Warming hasn't increased over the last 10-15 years relative to the previous period, but temperatures each of these years was well above average. So its still warmer than average, it just isn't getting more warmer than average each year, at least for now.

-The atmosphere only absorbs so much of the heat. While atmospheric warming hasn't continued to increase, oceanic warming has, which suggests the increased is primarily being absorbed by the ocean. There is a lot of evidence for oceanic warming, besides measurements of water temp. We are also seeing serious ecological damage due to changes in temp, dissolved CO2, and changes in sea level. It's important to point out that another measure of global warming, sea level rise, has increased. Sea ice and the mass of the ice caps has continued to decrease as well.

Like I said, if you want to say there's no warming, then show me data that supports this. Then account for how a cooling or stable system still has loss of the polar ice caps, sea level rise, and increasing oceanic temp. Right now the best theory to account for all these factors are warming models. If you can present a cooling model that fits better, and that makes an accurate prediction about future climactic conditions, then you've overturned global warming. Until then, I will continue to support global warming because it best explains what we currently observe in nature, and that is what science is about.

 

[jack97]

Here's the other thing I haven't seen addressed: you guys are putting a lot of stock in a "global warming pause" without taking into account any of the explanations for that.

I'm not a climate scientist, but I've some several explanations for this:

-Warming hasn't increased over the last 10-15 years relative to the previous period, but temperatures each of these years was well above average. So its still warmer than average, it just isn't getting more warmer than average each year, at least for now.

The major point is, what is the average temp given Earth has experience periods of warm and cold periods. Two hundred years of readings is nothing in terms of how long the earth has existed. Some have speculated that the roman empire and the medieval periods had local and global averages warmer than now if not close to it. I believe their is some debate on actual temps since their may be issues of accuracy and whether urbanized areas will distort temp reading so that is why I say speculation.

Like I said, if you want to say there's no warming, then show me data that supports this. Then account for how a cooling or stable system still has loss of the polar ice caps, sea level rise, and increasing oceanic temp. Right now the best theory to account for all these factors are warming models. If you can present a cooling model that fits better, and that makes an accurate prediction about future climactic conditions, then you've overturned global warming. Until then, I will continue to support global warming because it best explains what we currently observe in nature, and that is what science is about.

I never said there is no warming, what I said was the temps have flatline, the current climate models and the AGW hypothesis can not explain this. My point is, if the flatline is due to natural causes, then AGW does not play a dominate role in this.

As far as a cooling trend, we may see one given the sun will be at its lowest activity, time will tell. Not sure what to expect and certainly the models did not predict. It couldn't b/c the underlying driver for the model was dependent on co2.

 

[Rowsdower]

The major point is, what is the average temp given Earth has experience periods of warm and cold periods. Two hundred years of readings is nothing in terms of how long the earth has existed. Some have speculated that the roman empire and the medieval periods had local and global averages warmer than now if not close to it. I believe their is some debate on actual temps since their may be issues of accuracy and whether urbanized areas will distort temp reading so that is why I say speculation.





I never said there is no warming, what I said was the temps have flatline, the current climate models and the AGW hypothesis can not explain this. My point is, if the flatline is due to natural causes, then AGW does not play a dominate role in this.

As far as a cooling trend, we may see one given the sun will be at its lowest activity, time will tell. Not sure what to expect and certainly the models did not predict. It couldn't b/c the underlying driver for the model was dependent on co2.

Not a climate scientist, I'm a biologist, but I'll try my best to address some of this.

-Climate has never been constant. The main concern now is the rate of change, and that this has been accelerated beyond anything seen naturally. This is a big concern to us biologists, since it could mean a huge loss of biological diversity due to habitat loss. Most species will be hard pressed to adapt to such a rapid change in their environment, and will most likely go extinct.

-The models aren't constant either. They are refined as better data is available, and more factors are accounted for. Remember, we are still seeing temperatures above our recent average, and this rate of change has been so far unprecedented.

-You can account for a slow down in warming if you consider oceanic warming, which nobody was factoring in until more recently.

-Taken together, a warming model still best explains all the observations we have about climate from temperature data, oceanic data, glacier and ice data, and ecological data. This is the point I keep harping on: the models that we have are the best explanation for all these observations. You may be critical of them, but until you can find a better explanation for all these observations you don't have a theory of your own, just criticism. This isn't how science is advanced. Criticism is good, but unless you can point towards a constructive alternative, then we aren't getting anywhere.

 

[jack97]

Not a climate scientist, I'm a biologist, but I'll try my best to address some of this.

-Climate has never been constant. The main concern now is the rate of change, and that this has been accelerated beyond anything seen naturally. This is a big concern to us biologists, since it could mean a huge loss of biological diversity due to habitat loss. Most species will be hard pressed to adapt to such a rapid change in their environment, and will most likely go extinct.

-The models aren't constant either. They are refined as better data is available, and more factors are accounted for. Remember, we are still seeing temperatures above our recent average, and this rate of change has been so far unprecedented.

-You can account for a slow down in warming if you consider oceanic warming, which nobody was factoring in until more recently.

-Taken together, a warming model still best explains all the observations we have about climate from temperature data, oceanic data, glacier and ice data, and ecological data. This is the point I keep harping on: the models that we have are the best explanation for all these observations. You may be critical of them, but until you can find a better explanation for all these observations you don't have a theory of your own, just criticism. This isn't how science is advanced. Criticism is good, but unless you can point towards a constructive alternative, then we aren't getting anywhere.

As a biologist, name a biological process that does not obey cause and effect. I'm trying to figure out a physical process the doesn't. And I know of non causal systems but they are not natural processes.

So if all physical process have to obey cause and effect, how did the warmth get transfer to the ocean around 1997-98? Or what was the trigger that pull out all that man made co2 and make the ocean more acidic? The climate model does not explain this nor does a greenhouse gas hypothesis explain this. In reality, it should be name the ocean acidity hypothesis.

btw, from what I have read, taking the ocean into account can be a major undertaking.

 

[Rowsdower]

As a biologist, name a biological process that does not obey cause and effect. I'm trying to figure out a physical process the doesn't. And I know of non causal systems but they are not natural processes.

So if all physical process have to obey cause and effect, how did the warmth get transfer to the ocean around 1997-98? Or what was the trigger that pull out all that man made co2 and make the ocean more acidic? The climate model does not explain this nor does a greenhouse gas hypothesis explain this. In reality, it should be name the ocean acidity hypothesis.

btw, from what I have read, taking the ocean into account can be a major undertaking.

The ocean can absorb much more heat than the atmosphere. Excess heat may be more readily absorbed by the ocean than in the atmosphere at a certain point. This is just as I've seen it explained.

CO2 dissolves into water to raise pH. Increase atmospheric CO2 and you increase the pH of the ocean. Even very small changes in pH can have damaging effects on biologic systems.

Warming models do offer an explanation because they match our observations. So if we see ocean acidification and rising water temps, along with an unprecedented rise in atmospheric CO2, and CO2 is a known greenhouse gas, then we form our theory around this. It might not be perfect, but it best explains our observations. If you have a better explanation for atmospheric, temperature, oceanic, ice, and ecological data, then I encourage you to present it.

 

[fbrissette]

I never said there is no warming, what I said was the temps have flatline, the current climate models and the AGW hypothesis can not explain this.

You are right in that climate models cannot model the plateau. You are however wrong on the second part.

You guys seem to think that climate modelers have ultimate faith in their models. They don't. They know better than anyone that their models have problems -resolution, physical, parameter, numerical wise. Individual models reproduce some variables OK, some badly, but all are biased to some extent, which is why the ensemble mean is taken as a better indicator. You focus on temperature, but the models are much better at temperature than precipitation for example ! The inability of even the ensemble mean at modelling the plateau clearly indicates that there is a component of natural variability or a complex feedback effect that is not represented within models.

Does it mean that AGW does not exist ? No, because there are plenty of other indicators that the earth is still warming. And you would know that if you only bothered to read real science. And believe it or not, there is plenty of research on natural cycles, aerosols, sulphates and solar activity that goes into this. And all of this research points in the same direction, which is why 97% of climate scientists still believe in AGW, despite the plateau.

 

[jack97]

IMO, the ocean effect is still a hypothesis. Research is still being done on it but base lining the temps and ph levels will be a major undertaking. The papers I found so far indicates the measured seasonal variation in ph levels at spot points is much more than what is anticipated due to acification from the man made co2.

As far as I read no one has shown how or why the oceans took over the warmth or absorb the excess co2 (if such a quantity can be measured in the first place).

 

[jack97]

You guys seem to think that climate modelers have ultimate faith in their models. They don't. They know better than anyone that their models have problems -resolution, physical, parameter, numerical wise. Individual models reproduce some variables OK, some badly, but all are biased to some extent, which is why the ensemble mean is taken as a better indicator. You focus on temperature, but the models are much better at temperature than precipitation for example ! The inability of even the ensemble mean at modelling the plateau clearly indicates that there is a component of natural variability or a complex feedback effect that is not represented within models.

yeah... so every assessment report the expect temp levels or climate sensitivities have decreased. Note a great assessment unless you want to tank the economy.

And all of this research points in the same direction, which is why 97% of climate scientists still believe in AGW, despite the plateau.

again with the IPCC 97% number.... you have to read another political paper.

 

[fbrissette]

As far as I read no one has shown how or why the oceans took over the warmth or absorb the excess co2 (if such a quantity can be measured in the first place).

Why don't you start with this. Sorry, I dont think there is a youtube version yet.

Abraham, J. P., et al. "A review of global ocean temperature observations: Implications for ocean heat content estimates and climate change." Reviews of Geophysics 51.3 (2013): 450-483.

 

[fbrissette]

again with the IPCC 97% number.... you have to read another political paper.

Here's peer-reviewed research. Not an IPCC document.

Cook, John, et al. "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature." Environmental Research Letters 8.2 (2013): 024024.

 

[jack97]

Why don't you start with this. Sorry, I dont think there is a youtube version yet.

Abraham, J. P., et al. "A review of global ocean temperature observations: Implications for ocean heat content estimates and climate change." Reviews of Geophysics 51.3 (2013): 450-483.

I have... its why I stated the measurements for baselining is a major undertaking.


edit: btw, ocean as a heat absorption has been speculated long ago by these tenure professor and that's why in part they never believed in the greenhouse theory. But the nowadays you have to present it as "global warmth hiding in the ocean" to get any media attention let alone any of the trade rags who have been taken over by alarmist.