Jump to content

LooseGoose

Global Warming - The "settled" science unwinds.

Recommended Posts

Rather than keep posting these in the Hodgepodge thread, I'd like this to have a thread of it's own.

The next couple years should be fun as the hoax falls apart in front of our eyes.

1st up is a new record for ice in Antartica, land of supposed glaciers melting and penguins learning to sun bathe on sandy beaches.

The sea ice surrounding Antarctica, which, as I reported in my book, has been steadily increasing throughout the period of satellite measurement that began in 1979, has hit a new all-time record high for areal coverage.

The new record anomaly for Southern Hemisphere sea ice, the ice encircling the southernmost continent, is 2.074 million square kilometers and was posted for the first time by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s The Cryosphere Today early Sunday morning.

Antarctica sets new record for sea ice | Talking About the Weather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather than keep posting these in the Hodgepodge thread, I'd like this to have a thread of it's own.

The next couple years should be fun as the hoax falls apart in front of our eyes.

1st up is a new record for ice in Antartica, land of supposed glaciers melting and penguins learning to sun bathe on sandy beaches.

Antarctica sets new record for sea ice | Talking About the Weather

You should read your own postings:

Although early computer models predicted a diminishment of both Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere sea ice due to anthropogenic global warming, subsequent modeling has posited that the results of warming around Antarctica would, counter-intuitively, generate sea ice growth.
Walt Meier, formerly of the National Snow and Ice Data Center and currently of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has previously said that Antarctic sea ice, which has little ice that survives year to year, is less significant than Arctic sea ice to the climate system.

“While the Arctic has seen large decreases through the year in all sectors, the Antarctic has a very regional signal – with highs in some areas and lows in others,” Meier said in 2013. “And of course, the Arctic volume is decreasing substantially through the loss of old ice. The Antarctic, which has very little old ice, hasn’t much of a volume change, relatively speaking.”

Its the volume, not the area, that matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking that science is settled shows a complete ignorance of how science works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thinking that science is settled shows a complete ignorance of how science works.

You should write a letter to the warmists about that, they're the ones denigrating anyone that questions the "settled" science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You should write a letter to the warmists about that, they're the ones denigrating anyone that questions the "settled" science.

By "denigrating" I'm assuming you mean showing how the "data" has been cherry picked maybe? Which, sometimes (if not often), it is. I don't honestly think anyone could argue that doesn't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You should write a letter to the warmists about that, they're the ones denigrating anyone that questions the "settled" science.

Anyone that questions it, or anyone who posts ******** articles that don't actually prove anything and act like they have found a smoking gun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone that questions it, or anyone who posts ******** articles that don't actually prove anything and act like they have found a smoking gun?

There is no single smoking gun, there's an entire armory of information out there that blows holes in the warming hysteria.

The problem is that the true believers are like cultists and absolutely refuse to consider any information that is contrary to their beliefs.

Start with the 97% of scientists believe in a global warming crisis canard. False.

One of many articles out there poking holes in that oft repeated "factoid".

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims - Forbes

Doctoring temperature data. I'd guess most "scientists" caught doing this would be publicly humiliated.

NOAA/NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000 | Real Science

And of course the (in)famous "hockey stick".

The rise and fall of the Hockey Stick

And the IPCC's own charts show the manipulation:

Comparison-charts.jpg

I suppose all of that could be wrong but I find it much more plausible than the latest round of global warming alarmism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no single smoking gun, there's an entire armory of information out there that blows holes in the warming hysteria.

The problem is that the true believers are like cultists and absolutely refuse to consider any information that is contrary to their beliefs.

Start with the 97% of scientists believe in a global warming crisis canard. False.

One of many articles out there poking holes in that oft repeated "factoid".

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims - Forbes

Doctoring temperature data. I'd guess most "scientists" caught doing this would be publicly humiliated.

NOAA/NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000 | Real Science

And of course the (in)famous "hockey stick".

The rise and fall of the Hockey Stick

And the IPCC's own charts show the manipulation:

Comparison-charts.jpg

I suppose all of that could be wrong but I find it much more plausible than the latest round of global warming alarmism.

Of course you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no single smoking gun, there's an entire armory of information out there that blows holes in the warming hysteria.

When you say "information" you mean what exactly?

Is it stuff like:

Doctoring temperature data. I'd guess most "scientists" caught doing this would be publicly humiliated.

NOAA/NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000 | Real Science

That's a well established temporary data problem caused by the changeover of two datasets. It was corrected within weeks as far as I recall and has been fully acknowledged as such. Anyone trying to suggest that this forms some form of organised conspiracy on the part of climate scientists really needs to consider reading a little more around the science rather than clutching at straws.

And, in this case, the use of data is extremely dubious - hence the "information" produced is really dodgy. Not even close.

I suppose all of that could be wrong but I find it much more plausible than the latest round of global warming alarmism.

I'm sure there's little bits of truth in all of it. I'm sure, for example, that Willie Soon considers his paper was categorised wrongly. But that doesn't mean that Soon is right (and there are some fascinating terms of phrase used in that Forbes article).

But it's OK - we'll be dead by the time anyone finds out for sure how big the problem really is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But it's OK - we'll be dead by the time anyone finds out for sure how big the problem really is.

Of course that statement assumes there is a problem. Some warming is an overall benefit to humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course that statement assumes there is a problem. Some warming is an overall benefit to humans.

Tell that to the additional malaria victims.

Edited by Gehringer_2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course that statement assumes there is a problem. Some warming is an overall benefit to humans.

Some warming is an overall benefit to some humans in some locations, yes. On an overall, global level the sorts of levels of temperature rise that people are starting to talk about now I think would be pretty concerning if they were to materialise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course that statement assumes there is a problem. Some warming is an overall benefit to humans.

actually, it assumes no such thing. In fact, it only assumes that we'll die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some warming is an overall benefit to humans.

Even if one assumes this is true (something I am not sure of), it leaves open the question of whether the increase would be held or moderated in a favorable manner indefinitely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some warming is an overall benefit to some humans in some locations, yes. On an overall, global level the sorts of levels of temperature rise that people are starting to talk about now I think would be pretty concerning if they were to materialise.

They're not just starting to forecast doom and gloom type increases, they have been for 15-20 years or more. None of their models have been even close to accurate. Just as they talked about the surge in hurricanes, etc that haven't come to pass. My question is how many times do they need to be wrong to be discredited as prophets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if one assumes this is true (something I am not sure of), it leaves open the question of whether the increase would be held or moderated in a favorable manner indefinitely.

It's a very bad argument anyway. It's basically advice to jump off a cliff because a few crackpots have gazed over the edge and claim that they see angels that are going to carry you to the bottom.

We can't even predict what will happen when we depose a tin pot middle eastern dictator, but we are going to comfort ourselves that we can rest in TS's assurance that the world wide results of climate change will be benign? It's the A&OS version of Neo-con'ism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're not just starting to forecast doom and gloom type increases, they have been for 15-20 years or more. None of their models have been even close to accurate. Just as they talked about the surge in hurricanes, etc that haven't come to pass. My question is how many times do they need to be wrong to be discredited as prophets?

I don't think anyone is seriously considering climate scientists to be "prophets" are they? I'm certainly not. I'm looking for predictions based on scientific understanding and the evidence that's available. I understand that the nature of science means that those are predictions.

In terms of the predictions which have been made in the past, some have, as you may be aware, been underestimates. For example, I think it was the 2nd and 3rd IPCC report which underestimated short term sea level change by a fairly considerable margin.

With regard to "doom and gloom" - well, that's been cyclical. I can remember the Ark (perhaps - the name may be wrong) mob maybe 30 years ago predicting massive sea level rise. That never looked particularly feasible at that time to be honest. I'd felt that for some time predictions had tended to be deliberately underplayed for the most part - but then the measurements seem to have started to catch up rather too quickly in the last five to ten years and, particularly within the last five years, my general feeling is that people who are working on the science have been getting more and more concerned. That might be the wrong perception of course, but it's how it feels for me anyway.

Now, tropical storm surges? That's tricky - the natural variability, ENSO, NAO and so on play a major role in what happens with tropical storms. The 4th Assessment Report (from 2007ish iirc) did find increased frequencies, specifically of cat 4 and 5 storms in some locations. But if you look at what the 4AR actually said about predictions it seems to not actually be about "surges":

Results from embedded high-resolution models and global models, ranging in grid spacing from 100 km to 9 km, project a likely increase of peak wind intensities and notably, where analysed, increased near-storm precipitation in future tropical cyclones. Most recent published modelling studies investigating tropical storm frequency simulate a decrease in the overall number of storms, though there is less confidence in these projections and in the projected decrease of relatively weak storms in most basins, with an increase in the numbers of the most intense tropical cyclones.

Source: Tropical Cyclones (Hurricanes and Typhoons) - AR4 WGI Chapter 10: Global Climate Projections

I'm sure there's more on them - and I think the level of certainty for tropical storm predictions is one of the lower ones anyways - but that's hardly the black and white, we're all going to die sort of prediction. There's an interesting article at Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory - Global Warming and 21st Century Hurricanes actually - worth a look and updated 10 June 2014 so pretty decent (better than the 2007 report certainly).

It's a set of predictions, sure. It's a set of models, yeah. But I'd be slightly concerned if I were 35 years younger...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The suggestion that the inaccuracy of the predictions invalidate the concerns of climate change / CO2 in the air reminds me of a story of a high schooler who was both a heavy drinker and a reckless driver.

Everybody thought he would die in a car accident by the time he was 30.

Turns out everyone was wrong as he made it 41 before he died in a car accident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The suggestion that the inaccuracy of the predictions invalidate the concerns of climate change / CO2 in the air reminds me of a story of a high schooler who was both a heavy drinker and a reckless driver.

Everybody thought he would die in a car accident by the time he was 30.

Turns out everyone was wrong as he made it 41 before he died in a car accident.

This reminded me of the scene involving Gasim in Lawrence of Arabia.

Y'all can look that up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the science is unwinding? It kinda seems like the same ppl are saying the same things, and the science remains wound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So the science is unwinding? It kinda seems like the same ppl are saying the same things, and the science remains wound.

Data. Information. Knowledge. These are three points on a spectrum. I'm still agnostic about MMCC. It probably exists but I still recognize that the sun matters more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thinking that science is settled shows a complete ignorance of how science works.

TBF, I think the Pres that used the term in the UCI commencement speech. :embar:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...