Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed

  • Thread starter Thread starter CaptFun
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CaptFun

Guest
Recent changes are down to ‘natural variability’

**Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed
**
Read more: dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3052926/Our-climate-models-WRONG-Global-warming-slowed-recent-changes-natural-variability-says-study.html#ixzz3YF4jbbFO
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



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.

Models are models too. There’s a big volcano now in South America … do the models take into account things like that. Krakatoa’s explosion in the 1800s began a mini-ice age.

People freezing in record low temperatures tends to make people skeptical of models too.

A lot of “global warming” (changed now to “climate change” - such a broad term that it HAS to be true) had to do with indoctrinating “the masses” with a political agenda IMO - the solutions to which were generally in favor of governments mandating more and more public compliance with whatever new theories popped up to “solve the problem”.

Some of the odder aspects of which are the philosophies of Planet Good/Overpopulation Bad; Saving energy good/using energy (whatever it is) bad; and so on.

It is nice to hear this admission from some scientists. Part of science is questioning yourself instead of committing so fully to a dogma (especially ones derived from computer models … which might be no better than soothsaying or creative interpretations of obscure quatrains from Nostradamus 😉 ).

Per the weather, God has things handled.

Per our being responsible for disposing of our trash, looking for the best ways to use energy, etc. etc. – always a good thing. One needn’t have to sign on to believing that global warming is the only possible future to like clean air, water, and recycling where possible.

Neither do we have to imply the worst motives to anyone who DOES subscribe yet to the “global warming” theories (which, yes, COULD play out - as one of many possible futures). The dialog can do us good … and testing everything is better science IMO.

Your thoughts?
 
CaptFun said:
Per our being responsible for disposing of our trash, looking for the best ways to use energy, etc. etc. – always a good thing. One needn’t have to sign on to believing that global warming is the only possible future to like clean air, water, and recycling where possible.

Neither do we have to imply the worst motives to anyone who DOES subscribe yet to the “global warming” theories (which, yes, COULD play out - as one of many possible futures). The dialog can do us good … and testing everything is better science IMO.

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...
I think this is one of the wisest things I have ever seen on CAF. 🙂 To me, living responsibly is not just about social issues, right, it affects every aspect of your life - financial, economic, environmental choices as well. I believe that a basic grasp of Christian principles is enough to get us to that point; we don’t need climate propaganda to push us there or muddy the waters with unnecessary ideology and bad science. In other words, in spite of this very questionable, even reprehensible push from science influenced by left wing ideology, the Christian has a responsibility to adhere to his/her principles (outlined above) with respect to taking care of the environment. It is contrary to our dignity to do otherwise, let alone our collective health and the future of the planet.
 
My thoughts are very simple; fitting for a simple-minded man whose eyes glaze over at the competing graphs we have all seen so much of.
  1. I don’t like the idea of utility bills “skyrocketing” when it isn’t at all certain there is any good reason to impose it artificially.
  2. When I was a kid, decades ago, you could not grow a successful crop of Bermuda grass very far north of Springfield, Missouri. (Not warm enough) Now, even after they have developed some relatively cold-resistant varieties, you still can’t successfully grow Bermuda very far north of Springfield, Missouri. Despite all the “global warming” the growing area hasn’t moved an inch as near as I can tell.
For a simple man like me, that says we’re going to be put through lots of cold and dark by those with political power, and for no good reason at all.
 
I’m sorry, I couldn’t finish reading this post.

I was distracted by the insanely loud noise caused by Al Gore’s head exploding.
 
I worry a lot more about global cooling than I do about warming. Regarding warming, wake me up when they’re growing wheat and making beer in Greenland, something that hasn’t happened since the 14th century.

Ridgerunner’s point about grow zones is a very valid one. In a warming scenario such as posited by the IPCC, we can expect grow zones for many temperate climate crops to move toward the poles to the point that one can expect bumper crops in the higher latitudes of Russia, Europe, Canada and South America. The warming that took place before the 16th century was a high period for successful agriculture in northern Europe. It is not a coincidence that the Renaissance takes place during this period.

On the other hand, if a global cooling “minimum” hits, similar at least to the Dalton Minimum of the early 19th century or worse yet, more like the Maunder Minimum of the early 17th century … well we are going to praying seriously for warming. Obviously no one alive lived through those periods so there is no experience of them, hence the recency bias.

But it has to be pointed out that the grow zones will move toward the equator as it is going to be very difficult to get sufficient crop yields in consistently cooler weather, not to mention it will take greater consumption of energy just to keep warm. Both factors will lead to great economic difficulties and possible conflict around the world. Think food and energy shortages … Solar won’t be such a great help in an environment like this.
 
Ridgerunner said:
My thoughts are very simple; fitting for a simple-minded man whose eyes glaze over at the competing graphs we have all seen so much of.
  1. I don’t like the idea of utility bills “skyrocketing” when it isn’t at all certain there is any good reason to impose it artificially.
  2. When I was a kid, decades ago, you could not grow a successful crop of Bermuda grass very far north of Springfield, Missouri. (Not warm enough) Now, even after they have developed some relatively cold-resistant varieties, you still can’t successfully grow Bermuda very far north of Springfield, Missouri. Despite all the “global warming” the growing area hasn’t moved an inch as near as I can tell.
For a simple man like me, that says we’re going to be put through lots of cold and dark by those with political power, and for no good reason at all.
Click to expand...
👍 Your observation is probably a better indicator than all the computer simulations, which, BTW, depend on their (name removed by moderator)uts. Don’t like the output? Change the (name removed by moderator)uts. The only (name removed by moderator)ut to your Bermuda grass growth is what is actually happening.
 
Just saw this piece re drought in California. (This is probably old news to those who are immersed in this.) An interesting read.
The same people who saw to their own political and financial interests while shortchanging California’s water infrastructure argue that they should be empowered to act on a global scale in response to global warming. Having failed to deal with the relatively mild problems of California — which has almost everything in the world going for it — they believe themselves ready to take on the hairier challenges of Bangladesh and Sudan. The global-warming debate is, at its heart, about risk management. Maybe we should let Governor Brown et al. prove that they can make things work in California before we risk taking their methods worldwide.
Click to expand...
Read more at: nationalreview.com/article/417396/global-warming-guacamole-kevin-d-williamson
 
The various cycles of our planets climate are centuries long in many cases. Mostly these are related to the distance the Earth is from the sun.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession#Astronomy

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

“The Earth’s axis completes one full cycle of precession approximately every 26,000 years. At the same time, the elliptical orbit rotates more slowly. The combined effect of the two precessions leads to a 21,000-year period between the astronomical seasons and the orbit. In addition, the angle between Earth’s rotational axis and the normal to the plane of its orbit (obliquity) oscillates between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees on a 41,000-year cycle. It is currently 23.44 degrees and decreasing.”

These cycles have subtle impacts on the Earths Temperature as the planet is closer or further from the sun at its seasonal peaks at different times over a 21k annual cycle.

The sun also has cycles of its own.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Long-term_change

"Long-term secular change in sunspot number is thought, by some scientists, to be correlated with long-term change in solar irradiance,[103] which, in turn, might influence Earth’s long-term climate.[104] For example, in the 17th century, the solar cycle appeared to have stopped entirely for several decades; few sunspots were observed during a period known as the Maunder minimum. This coincided in time with the era of the Little Ice Age, when Europe experienced unusually cold temperatures.[105] Earlier extended minima have been discovered through analysis of tree rings and appear to have coincided with lower-than-average global temperatures.[106]

A recent theory claims that there are magnetic instabilities in the core of the Sun that cause fluctuations with periods of either 41,000 or 100,000 years. These could provide a better explanation of the ice ages than the Milankovitch cycles."

Then there are the cycles of the sun’s movement through the galaxy itself that might impact climate on our planet.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Motion_and_location

“The Sun’s orbit around the Milky Way is expected to be roughly elliptical with the addition of perturbations due to the galactic spiral arms and non-uniform mass distributions. In addition the Sun oscillates up and down relative to the galactic plane approximately 2.7 times per orbit. It has been argued that the Sun’s passage through the higher density spiral arms often coincides with mass extinctions on Earth, perhaps due to increased impact events.[131] It takes the Solar System about 225–250 million years to complete one orbit through the Milky Way (a galactic year),[132] so it is thought to have completed 20–25 orbits during the lifetime of the Sun. The orbital speed of the Solar System about the center of the Milky Way is approximately 251 km/s (156 mi/s).[133] At this speed, it takes around 1,190 years for the Solar System to travel a distance of 1 light-year, or 7 days to travel 1 AU.”

For all these cyclic changes that last literally millions of years in some cases, the data from a mere century and a half on Earth is a shallow and incomplete data set by several orders of magnitude.
 
RGCheek said:
The various cycles of our planets climate are centuries long in many cases. Mostly these are related to the distance the Earth is from the sun.
…

For all these cyclic changes that last literally millions of years in some cases, the data from a mere century and a half on Earth is a shallow and incomplete data set by several orders of magnitude.
Click to expand...
Good info, but you forgot this. 🙂
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Other than call Elizabeth Sawin an idiot, and claim that Science and Scientific American are infected by left wing propaganda, Alan Caruba did nothing to refute the science in her article.
Click to expand...
There is a need to ‘refute’ the contention that human beings are using up too much sun?

Do I understand you correctly?

If humans did not use it, where would it go instead?

I am seriously interested in knowing.

:hmmm:
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Other than call Elizabeth Sawin an idiot, and claim that Science and Scientific American are infected by left wing propaganda, Alan Caruba did nothing to refute the science in her article.
Click to expand...
The burden of proof of a theory is on the advocate.
 
RGCheek said:
…
… the data from a mere century and a half on Earth is a shallow and incomplete data set by several orders of magnitude.
Click to expand...
Yes. Consider the amount of data from remote weather stations wasn’t that accurate before the advent of weather satellites. In some locations there were no stations, and the temperatures had to be interpolated or extrapolated from nearby locations, sometimes hundreds of miles away. And this is what we are going to bet trillions of dollars on? Gimme a break.
 
RGCheek said:
There is a need to ‘refute’ the contention that human beings are using up too much sun?

Do I understand you correctly?

If humans did not use it, where would it go instead?

I am seriously interested in knowing.

:hmmm:
Click to expand...
The criticism of Elizabeth Sawian’s article was based on a gross misstatement of her claim, probably intentional. And what you have stated here is that same misunderstanding. So in answer to your question, no, you do not understand her article correctly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top