Is a mini ICE AGE on the way?

[lynnvinc]

We are not within the range of their predictions…

Actually we’re higher than Hansen’s 1981 projection that included uptake of some warming by the deeper oceans – which has been found to be happening, but was not included in the other projection models to which you refer.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2590&pictureid=17591

These climate scientists are so intelligent and knowledgeable, a lot more so than…

 

[estesbob]

Actually we’re higher than Hansen’s 1981 projection that included uptake of some warming by the deeper oceans – which has been found to be happening, but was not included in the other projection models to which you refer.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2590&pictureid=17591

These climate scientists are so intelligent and knowledgeable, a lot more so than…

One of the over 50 explanations “scientists” have advance as to why they were right even though they were wrong

dailycaller.com/2014/09/12/there-are-now-52-explanations-for-the-pause-in-global-warming/

 

[vz71]

Actually we’re higher than Hansen’s 1981 projection that included uptake of some warming by the deeper oceans – which has been found to be happening, but was not included in the other projection models to which you refer.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2590&pictureid=17591

These climate scientists are so intelligent and knowledgeable, a lot more so than…

I thought we were talking about something disastrous.
But your chart indicates less then a degree Celsius.

What, pray tell, is the margin of error for the measuring devices?
Is it perhaps more then a single degree Celsius?

 

[Theo520]

I did.

Then show me the comparison between temp projection and actual for the two obvious model scenarios:

1. We continued our rapid growth in CO2 levels (what has happened)
2. We severely restricted our growth in CO2 to contain temps (what IPCC wanted)

By your own admission, you can show we are tracking to the first scenario and not the second.
Time to MAN UP!

(HINT: you won’t find this in the talking points )

 

[Theo520]

I thought we were talking about something disastrous.
But your chart indicates less then a degree Celsius.

What, pray tell, is the margin of error for the measuring devices?
Is it perhaps more then a single degree Celsius?

Lynn is fond of showing charts that only do hindcasting, it’s so much easier to be right .

 

[TheCuriousCat]

We are not within the range of their predictions. In fact CO2 has increased significantly more than they predicted and the temperature has increased not all . They were wrong. Instead of just admitting they were wrong they come up with increasingly bizarre theories as to why the world is warming even though it is notFor instance after wholesale changing of past temperature readings downwaninrd ,supposedly to make them more “accurate” ,they then issue alarming press releases claiming 2014 was the warmest year on record- of course when you get to the FinePrint you see they’re claiming a 200s of 1 degree warming. That’s the best they can do after manipulating the data?

You know that data has to be manipulated, right? I mean, it has to. Raw numbers mean nothing.

I’m trying to ascertain if you think the math was done incorrectly, or if you don’t understand the math involved, or you don’t understand why the math is involved. I certainly don’t understand all the math, but I understand why corrections need to be made. If you are getting all your info from anti-AGW sites, you likely don’t understand why they make the corrections.

Which is great. It’s easy to learn.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

Then show me the comparison between temp projection and actual for the two obvious model scenarios:

1. We continued our rapid growth in CO2 levels (what has happened)
2. We severely restricted our growth in CO2 to contain temps (what IPCC wanted)

By your own admission, you can show we are tracking to the first scenario and not the second.
Time to MAN UP!

(HINT: you won’t find this in the talking points )

All the information you seek is on the web. It has been written by people far more expert than I. I suggest you research it. A good rule of thumb is to first seek to understand what is being argued before trying to poke holes in it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yeah, because textbooks are put together by experts–oh, wait they aren’t. They are assembled to a large degree by individuals working for minimum wage googling stuff online and then just checked by whoever isn’t too busy.
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/21/AR2010102104172.html
The fact checking is often haphazard, usually rushed, and the editing is typically outsourced to a 3rd world country. It’s a business. Do you really think anyone is going to buy a textbook that says GW is not in play given that it is today’s media sensation?

But I appreciate the suggestion and don’t mean to sound mean or anything. I’m just frustrated with the way things have gone in our society lately. I’m really sorry if I sound condescending or anything. I really don’t mean to.

It can be worse than that. When I was in graduate school, one of my tasks was to edit a scholarly journal published by the school. Part of the process was to get articles from all kinds of experts everywhere, edit their work, and put out the journal.

Imagine my surprise when, the next year, the faculty moderator and some other professors from other universities incorporated our work into a textbook for a class. So, it was basically students teaching students; a closed educational loop.

And, because those profs had captive schools to buy the textbook, they undoubtedly made some money with the exercise.

 

[sps49]

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.

The loops are not identified, and there is no clear sense that they are causing havoc. You can’t say “there are evil feedback loops” and then not explain what that means, you must identify them, and prove that they exist, and explain what the negative or positive feedback processes are, or you are not saying anything except that a manufactured worst case scenario is possible, and that also means nothing.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

I guess I am attracted to the underdog and hang out with the 3%. I don’t know if that is always bad. The track record on the underdog being right in science is pretty high.

I’m going to do this in multiple posts so I don’t lose it all if I make a mistake this time.

Actually, in modern times the underdog has a horrible track record. Usually, what gets overthrown is conventional wisdom, not scientific theories. There are a couple of notable exceptions, but mostly the scientific majority gets it right. The media on the other hand…

No, I don’t know about that. Do the governments have any reason to argue against GW either? The media is against them and if the science is agaisnt them, why would they argue against such a potentially huge power grab?

Like I said, in Canada, the ruling party would really, really love AGW to go away as an issue. They have closed research stations, cut funding to research, and give through severe contortions to make it seem like there are no problems. Being a climate scientist in Canada is a tough gig because every time you say that co2 emissions are threatening the environment, you are fueling opposition to the expansion of the oil sands and pipelines which are the centrepiece of the governments fiscal plans.

If the scientists were coming out in favour of the view they want, it would melt away the opposition to drilling more. How would that hurt their funding?

Yeah, but particulates from things like coal plants was cited as a major cause of global cooling in the 70s. That’s one reason why they put so many filters on the smoke stacks (that and the air was getting toxic). So it’s kinda funny that after doing that they now have to worry about warming instead.

Yeah, I don’t think any governments think they are going to win any battles over coal. Raises problems no matter what the climate does.

But here’s the thing, and please hear me out because you have so far 75% convinced me, k? Let’s say you are right about all that stuff (and I mean honestly maybe you are):

I have heard everyone in despair about a 0.2 degree change in temperature at the end of the decade (ok, maybe it is now 0.4) and I’m thinking, why is that so bad? I mean I know that eco systems would change pretty rapidly and all that, but I want you to think about this from the point of view of someone who was terrified by global cooling when I used to read about it–especially when they said we were due for an ice age anyway. It just seemed like when they finally said the world was warming I was really quite happy! At first I thought it was super news!

It certainly does beat a rapid ice age. I’ll grant that.

I mean, why is GW only bad? I mean aside from everyone losing ocean-front property.

It’s not all bad. Like you say, there are some positives, and you are right, maybe they should be discussed more. It’s just the bads are really bad, and this planet doesn’t have brakes.

(cont.)

 

[estesbob]

You know that data has to be manipulated, right? I mean, it has to. Raw numbers mean nothing.

I’m trying to ascertain if you think the math was done incorrectly, or if you don’t understand the math involved, or you don’t understand why the math is involved. I certainly don’t understand all the math, but I understand why corrections need to be made. If you are getting all your info from anti-AGW sites, you likely don’t understand why they make the corrections.

Which is great. It’s easy to learn.

As Has been shown repeatedly they always manipulate the numbers down for the past and up for the present. Satellite numbers, by the way, do not have to be manipulated and they show no warming for going on 20 years

 

[sps49]

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

Your comments make no sense as regards what I was quoted. Consensus is a political terms, and since the consensus messaging organizations admit that it has failed, my quoted statement easily stands.

 

[sps49]

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

Rocketry works because the systems may be modeled, then engineered, constructed and objectively tested, unlike the bog-like mess of climate science

 

[sps49]

That’s why the NAS conducted a review of multiple data sets.

That statement makes no sense in context to my statement.

They do so to a certain point. After that, nature overwhelms.

Sure it does, but not to the tune of the climate hysteria advocates.

 

[styrgwillidar]

dailycaller.com/2015/07/17/satellites-earth-is-nearly-in-its-21st-year-without-global-warming/

“Satellite data from the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) group also shows a prolonged “hiatus” in global warming. After November of this year, RSS data will be in its 22nd year without warming. Ironically, the so-called “hiatus” in warming started when then vice President Al Gore and environmental groups touted RSS satellite data as evidence a slight warming trend since 1979.”

…

"Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s [National Centers for Environmental Information] do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus,’” wrote NOAA scientists in their study.

The study was highly criticized for inflating the temperature record since the late 1990s to show vastly more global warming than was shown in older data. The warming “hiatus” was eliminated and the warming trend over the period was more than doubled.

“There’s been so much criticism of NOAA’s alteration of the sea surface temperature that we are really just going to have to use the University of East Anglia data,” Pat Michaels, a climate scientist with the libertarian Cato Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“I don’t think that’s going to stand the test of time,” Michaels said of NOAA’s recent adjustments.

But what Michaels and others say is more problematic is the growing divergence between NOAA’s new temperature data versus satellite data and records from the UK Met Office. NOAA’s data shows significantly more warming than Met Office or satellite records.

“It’s a major problem because outside of the north polar region, the upper troposphere is supposed to warm faster than the surface,” Michaels said.

“Pretty much every projection made by our climate models for sensible weather is simply not at all trustworthy,” Michaels said."

 

[TheCuriousCat]

As Has been shown repeatedly they always manipulate the numbers down for the past and up for the present. Satellite numbers, by the way, do not have to be manipulated and they show no warming for going on 20 years

No, they don’t.
Yes, they do.
No, they don’t.

This information is all freely available of you look for it.

 

[estesbob]

No, they don’t.
Yes, they do.
No, they don’t.

This information is all freely available of you look for it.

I Have. And what I stated is absolutely correct. As I pointed out before the best way to get data is from satellites as they don’t have to be manipulated as it is impossible for them to be affected by the environment. They show no warming since they started taking measurements in 1984

 

[Theo520]

All the information you seek is on the web. It has been written by people far more expert than I. I suggest you research it. A good rule of thumb is to first seek to understand what is being argued before trying to poke holes in it.

LOL, I asked you a very basic evidentiary question on the AGW models, and you deflect. Like I said, you can’t engage if it’s not in the official talking points.

I’ll provide you with the evidence, but unfortunately it only show the models are not validated by actual measurement.

Here are the three scenarios Hansen presented to congress and the world (1988)
A) “Business as usual” with CO2 growth >1.5% annually
B) Reduced CO2 growth
C) Capped CO2 growth (flatlined at what we hit in 2000)

RESULTS:
CO2: Since our actual CO2 growth has been above 2%/yr, we should be exceeding the Scenario A temperature projections.

Global Temp: Actual measurement has invalidated the model since temperatures are clearly tracking below his best case Scenario C. This should be completely and utterly impossible if the climate models had merit.

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01bb07ec1576970d-700wi

 

[Crossbones]

My priest spoke on global warming today in his homily. I guess he doesn’t take the time to read this forum so he can get the bizarre mix of Republican Jesus theology from here.

 

[sps49]

My priest spoke on global warming today in his homily. I guess he doesn’t take the time to read this forum so he can get the bizarre mix of Republican Jesus theology from here.

Or read the above non sequitur and reactionary comment; good thing he doesn’t know, eh?