Is a mini ICE AGE on the way?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lynnvinc said:
It even fluctuates from year to year. So anyone can find two recent years in which the global average temp went down, then wrongly claim AGW is not happening. It’s not going to be strictly increasing and that doesn’t bother the scientists at all. However, they do like to understand why it goes down one year and up the next, etc, and they usually can explain it from the several variables that impact climate.

But I guess science is now a free-for-all brawl without any standards and no need of scientists with expertise working in the field. We live in a post-modern anti-science time.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that is really fair to say. I mean I know why you are saying it and all, but you have to understand that those of us who lived through the Ice Age scare of the 70s/80s remember the scientists being convinced about that too. The Secretary General to the UN even made a proclamation that we had reached the point of no return. So now with GW trotted out only a decade or so later it makes a lot of us a little bit skeptical.

But even that aside, the real problem for a lot of us is that we keep hearing scientists complaining that there is conflicting evidence, we keep hearing alternate theories about what is going on, and then at the same time we get a hearty dose of media hysterics (which has almost always proven to be false) along with big powerful forces converging on a way to make money off the problem. Then every now and then a scientist pops up who just retired, etc. and admits that the only reason most scientists go along with climate change is to keep their funding. And if all of that weren’t bad enough we have a complete lack of intelligent debate on the issue. And I mean intelligent. Every time I hear about a counter-model to GW I think OK, what do I know? Maybe it’s ridiculous? Let’s find out, but instead of discrediting these contradicting hypothoses with facts, the GW community just rolls their collective eyes and either ignores it or says the science is agreed or simply belittles the naysayer. Is it so much to ask for a well thought-out rebuttal to all of these skeptics? Is it so much to want a panel of experts on both sides who might be ready to engage in meaningful talks so that everyone can get on the same page? Instead we are treated like children and the stuff with substance is swept under the rug–the skeptic is derided as a lunatic and the other scientists (we imagine) are shown why they should be careful about stepping outside the group.

I mean it’s not like scientists have ever stood as a group against a small minority of outspoken critics before and been proven to be wrong, right? Oh wait, that happens all the time. Do you remember how long it took for a lone doctor to convince the rest of humanity that just washing your hands between performing an autopsy and assisting in the delivery room was a good idea? Here is the hint: he died in an asylum for his efforts:

“Despite various publications of results where hand washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis’s observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and Semmelweis could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings. Semmelweis’s practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory and Joseph Lister, acting on the French microbiologist’s research, practiced and operated, using hygienic methods, with great success. In 1865, Semmelweis was committed to an asylum, where he died at age 47 of pyaemia, after being beaten by the guards, only 14 days after he was committed.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

How about apparently every single advance made in physics? In astronomy? Always the group against the one guy who didn’t care if he was with the cool crowd. Always that one guy getting made fun of in the press and at meetings.

That’s the stuff that makes me suspicious. That’s the stuff that makes me not so sure anymore. If we had a media that reported facts and not hyperbole I would be more ready to believe a guy who claims science has proven a build-up of carbon dioxide (the very stuff that, as an aquaculturist, I pump into my habitat to triple plant growth) is going to cause a catastrophe and so we should all be very very ready to radically cut back on our lifestyles and start paying carbon taxes–right before he gets on his private jet and returns to his #3 home for the summer so he can concentrate on his new carbon-trading company.

I mean I actually want to know the truth about this stuff. I don’t want to be led by the nose and I don’t want to be in denial.

I mean there is gullible and there is credulous, but I just want reality. Is that so much to ask?
 
lynnvinc said:
You are expecting way too much from the models…

-However, models cannot include the “known unknowns” such as how much CH4 & CO2 will be released
-We are basically heading for runaway warming or hysteresis conditions

-The scientists also cannot say when we will reach that tipping point of no return, or whether we may have already reached it. They think we don’t have many years left.
Click to expand...
Policy makers use the model predictions to form the basis of their policy based on the perceived risk that those models communicate. The resultant policy has economic considerations, and due to some pretty warped perception of those who look at the model results, a level of risk that is life and civilization threatening. These are themes that run through all your posts.

If you wish to design mitigation strategy systems that work and don’t break the bank, then the model better closely match the physical system so that the solution will converge (less money and hit the design specification, meaning they work) rather than diverge (exponentially more money, no target due to lack of specification information, does not work.) A specification based on a model that closely matches the physical system of interest is a minimum requirement. That specification does not exist at this time because the model to satisfy the design requirements do not exist.

The case has not been proved with enough rigor to justify the expenditures necessary.
 
sps49 said:
Policy makers use the model predictions to form the basis of their policy based on the perceived risk that those models communicate. The resultant policy has economic considerations, and due to some pretty warped perception of those who look at the model results, a level of risk that is life and civilization threatening. These are themes that run through all your posts.

If you wish to design mitigation strategy systems that work and don’t break the bank, then the model better closely match the physical system so that the solution will converge (less money and hit the design specification, meaning they work) rather than diverge (exponentially more money, no target due to lack of specification information, does not work.) A specification based on a model that closely matches the physical system of interest is a minimum requirement. That specification does not exist at this time because the model to satisfy the design requirements do not exist.

The case has not been proved with enough rigor to justify the expenditures necessary.
Click to expand...
Just follow Laudato Si re mitigation measures, use your common sense and some effort to find those that don’t cost much, don’t cost (net), or actually save money.

You’ll be very pleasantly surprised…as my husband and I have been over the past 25 years of reducing our GHG emissions (including products, which also GHG entail emissions) to 60% or more below our 1990 level.

Try it. You’ll like it.
 
lynnvinc said:
Just follow Laudato Si re mitigation measures, use your common sense and some effort to find those that don’t cost much, don’t cost (net), or actually save money.

You’ll be very pleasantly surprised…as my husband and I have been over the past 25 years of reducing our GHG emissions (including products, which also GHG entail emissions) to 60% or more below our 1990 level.

Try it. You’ll like it.
Click to expand...
You did not address the science/technical issue of model uncertainty, which is what drives the cost and the probability of success. Simply talking around it and saying “don’t cost much, don’t cost (net), or actually save money.” is inaccurate and misleading. You may take the AGW model scenarios as an article of faith, but for myself and many others it is a clearly inadequate reason to base a decision for the transformation of economies.
 
Skating on Lake Michigan! Enticing! Bring the mini-ice age on! It’ll give me the excuse to purchase some hockey skates, hockey gloves, stick and puck! :):)🙂
 
vz71 said:
So remember.
If you don’t like a set of facts, ignore them.
One can always come up with different statistics.

Otherwise no one would believe no warming for 17 of 30 years is really warming.😉
Click to expand...
Actually there has been warming over the past 17 years, but it is not statistically significant.

However, if AGW had really stopped and the GH effect were bogus, then we would have expected the temps to return to pre-80s temps, and they are way above that.

It’s sort of like if you view a saw blade horizontally, then the “zigs” will go up and the “zags” will go down. However, if you tilt that saw blade upward, then the “zigs” will go up more steeply and the “zags” will go horizontal (neither up nor down).

We’re probably in for a “zig” of statistically significant upward trend over the next 17 years.

At least I and my house will serve the Lord and do the needful to mitigate this problem, even tho we don’t know the future exactly exactly exactly. For one thing our mitigation measures mitigate a host of other serious problems AND they save us $$. So no harm done and a lot of good.

I probably won’t be around for the mini-down swing (or horizontal pattern) in 2030. Have fun on the ice, y’all 🙂
 
brian_custer said:
no, i think you will see just normal weather patterns of hold, cold rain, dry

snow sleet etc etc

just like we’ve sen for the last thousand years

i think we (as catholics) should be more concerned about the slaughter of the unborn

rather than the weather
Click to expand...
To be honest I’m surprised humans are worried about weather changes like this.
 
lynnvinc said:
That’s a good question. I’ll have a go at it.

Weather is the short-term and local conditions of temp & precipitation, etc.

Climate is the statistical aggregate over time and a larger region (on up to global climate). I remember seeing cartoons about people moving to “sunny California,” and when they got to the border it was raining cats and dogs on the California side & was dry and sunny on the Arizona side 🙂

I have this atlas from the 1970s with a climate map of the various regions throughout the world. It is still fairly accurate, despite global warming. Here is the plant hardiness zones of 1990 and 2012 (not much difference):

http://b50ym1n8ryw31pmkr4671ui1c64..../files/2012/01/Plant-hardiness-comparison.png

The important point is that it takes a very long time for climate to change – so all this nonsense about the warming has paused for the past 17 years is a bunch of nonsense. The overall trend over the past 30 or so years has been a definite warming.

I think people just aren’t used to complex systems with more than 2 variables…
Click to expand...
One of the credibility problems with MMGW theory is that nobody ever experiences it. I have said some of this before, but I will say it again.
-When I was a kid, decades ago, you could not successfully grow a hay crop of Bermuda much north of Springfield, Mo, because it’s temperature sensitive. You still can’t. But you can south of Springfield, and always could. The zone hasn’t moved an inch.
-Roadrunners are sensitive to cold, and can’t survive really cold winters. They don’t exist north of Springfield, but they do south of it.
-Lake of the Ozarks, in central Missouri, freezes over, bank to bank in a lot of winters, and always did. Table Rock Lake, in extreme southern Missouri, never does.

If there was all this global warming going on, one would think it would manifest itself in some way people could perceive.
 
sps49 said:
These complex systems with more than two variables have no closed form solutions; they are not solvable. There are extremely narrow and constrained models of these systems that may be estimated by iterative methods, but they are not a practical example of the physical systems represented.
Click to expand...
That’s why the NAS conducted a review of multiple data sets.
Humans exist in these complex systems and do quite well due to their adaptive nature. For example, they tend to move away from the constant drone of pseudo science vomited forth by ill tempered climate activists.
Click to expand...
They do so to a certain point. After that, nature overwhelms.
 
Trident_H said:
I don’t think that is really fair to say. I mean I know why you are saying it and all, but you have to understand that those of us who lived through the Ice Age scare of the 70s/80s remember the scientists being convinced about that too. The Secretary General to the UN even made a proclamation that we had reached the point of no return. So now with GW trotted out only a decade or so later it makes a lot of us a little bit skeptical.

But even that aside, the real problem for a lot of us is that we keep hearing scientists complaining that there is conflicting evidence, we keep hearing alternate theories about what is going on, and then at the same time we get a hearty dose of media hysterics (which has almost always proven to be false) along with big powerful forces converging on a way to make money off the problem. Then every now and then a scientist pops up who just retired, etc. and admits that the only reason most scientists go along with climate change is to keep their funding. And if all of that weren’t bad enough we have a complete lack of intelligent debate on the issue. And I mean intelligent. Every time I hear about a counter-model to GW I think OK, what do I know? Maybe it’s ridiculous? Let’s find out, but instead of discrediting these contradicting hypothoses with facts, the GW community just rolls their collective eyes and either ignores it or says the science is agreed or simply belittles the naysayer. Is it so much to ask for a well thought-out rebuttal to all of these skeptics? Is it so much to want a panel of experts on both sides who might be ready to engage in meaningful talks so that everyone can get on the same page? Instead we are treated like children and the stuff with substance is swept under the rug–the skeptic is derided as a lunatic and the other scientists (we imagine) are shown why they should be careful about stepping outside the group.

I mean it’s not like scientists have ever stood as a group against a small minority of outspoken critics before and been proven to be wrong, right? Oh wait, that happens all the time. Do you remember how long it took for a lone doctor to convince the rest of humanity that just washing your hands between performing an autopsy and assisting in the delivery room was a good idea? Here is the hint: he died in an asylum for his efforts:

"Despite various publications of results where hand washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis’s observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and Semmelweis could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings. Semmelweis’s practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory and Joseph Lister, acting on the French microbiologist’s research, practiced and operated, using hygienic methods, with great success. In 1865, Semmelweis was committed to an asylum, where he died at age 47 of pyaemia, after being beaten by the guards, only 14 days after he was committed."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

How about apparently every single advance made in physics? In astronomy? Always the group against the one guy who didn’t care if he was with the cool crowd. Always that one guy getting made fun of in the press and at meetings.

That’s the stuff that makes me suspicious. That’s the stuff that makes me not so sure anymore. If we had a media that reported facts and not hyperbole I would be more ready to believe a guy who claims science has proven a build-up of carbon dioxide (the very stuff that, as an aquaculturist, I pump into my habitat to triple plant growth) is going to cause a catastrophe and so we should all be very very ready to radically cut back on our lifestyles and start paying carbon taxes–right before he gets on his private jet and returns to his #3 home for the summer so he can concentrate on his new carbon-trading company.

I mean I actually want to know the truth about this stuff. I don’t want to be led by the nose and I don’t want to be in denial.

I mean there is gullible and there is credulous, but I just want reality. Is that so much to ask?
Click to expand...
The best that can be done is to look at what leading science organizations say about the matter. One of them is the NAS.
 
sps49 said:
Policy makers use the model predictions to form the basis of their policy based on the perceived risk that those models communicate. The resultant policy has economic considerations, and due to some pretty warped perception of those who look at the model results, a level of risk that is life and civilization threatening. These are themes that run through all your posts.

If you wish to design mitigation strategy systems that work and don’t break the bank, then the model better closely match the physical system so that the solution will converge (less money and hit the design specification, meaning they work) rather than diverge (exponentially more money, no target due to lack of specification information, does not work.) A specification based on a model that closely matches the physical system of interest is a minimum requirement. That specification does not exist at this time because the model to satisfy the design requirements do not exist.

The case has not been proved with enough rigor to justify the expenditures necessary.
Click to expand...
The problem aren’t models needed to match what is happening but the occurrence of dozens of feedback loops now taking their toll on ecosystems.
 
sps49 said:
You did not address the science/technical issue of model uncertainty, which is what drives the cost and the probability of success. Simply talking around it and saying “don’t cost much, don’t cost (net), or actually save money.” is inaccurate and misleading. You may take the AGW model scenarios as an article of faith, but for myself and many others it is a clearly inadequate reason to base a decision for the transformation of economies.
Click to expand...
Two studies mentioned earlier show that models from 1990 onward have been fairly accurate. The problem is that they are underestimating the effects, as seen in ocean heat content, among others.

The NAS has concluded on the matter, and BEST, which skeptics funded, confirms the same. Even a study made to question the consensus ends up confirming it:

theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jun/05/contrarians-accidentally-confirm-global-warming-consensus
 
sps49 said:
I am all for standards. Why are the climate models not held to the same objective standards that mission critical software is? If they want to use the models as a basis of policy decisions that control the economies of entire nations, then it is reasonable for objective standards be used for design, construction and performance of these constructs.
Click to expand...
If rocket science was a precise as climate science, we’d be launching satellites assuming the force of gravity (at launch altitude) was somewhere between 15 ft/sec2 and 45 ft/sec2.

With this level of precision, we still wouldn’t have any satellites in stable orbit 🙂
 
ralfyman said:
Two studies mentioned earlier show that models from 1990 onward have been fairly accurate. The problem is that they are underestimating the effects, as seen in ocean heat content, among others.

The NAS has concluded on the matter, and BEST, which skeptics funded, confirms the same. Even a study made to question the consensus ends up confirming it:

theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jun/05/contrarians-accidentally-confirm-global-warming-consensus
Click to expand...
Another one of those being wrong Proves they were right scenarios for the AGW proponents.
 
Ridgerunner said:
One of the credibility problems with MMGW theory is that nobody ever experiences it. I have said some of this before, but I will say it again.
-When I was a kid, decades ago, you could not successfully grow a hay crop of Bermuda much north of Springfield, Mo, because it’s temperature sensitive. You still can’t. But you can south of Springfield, and always could. The zone hasn’t moved an inch.
-Roadrunners are sensitive to cold, and can’t survive really cold winters. They don’t exist north of Springfield, but they do south of it.
-Lake of the Ozarks, in central Missouri, freezes over, bank to bank in a lot of winters, and always did. Table Rock Lake, in extreme southern Missouri, never does.

If there was all this global warming going on, one would think it would manifest itself in some way people could perceive.
Click to expand...
That isn’t a credibility issue and there are notable changes in other parts of the world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top