Don’t blame climate change for extreme weather

[Chris]

Lomborg is not a climate denier, as you'll see, but neither is he an alarmist. I like him because he take an economic view of climate change. Here though he sticks to a review of scientific facts, and debunking alarmists like Obama for the meme that extreme weather is caused by climate change.

Don’t blame climate change for extreme weather (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bjorn-lomborg-dont-blame-climate-change-for-extreme-weather/2013/09/13/4b770d48-117e-11e3-bdf6-e4fc677d94a1_story.html)


One of the most persistent claims in the climate debate is that global warming leads to more extreme weather. Green groups and even such respectable outlets as Scientific American declare that “extreme weather is a product of climate change.”

And the meme seems irresistible as a political shortcut to action. President Obama has explicitly linked a warming climate to “more extreme droughts, floods, wildfires and hurricanes.” The White House warned this summer of “increasingly frequent and severe extreme weather events that come with climate change.”

Yet this is not supported by science. “General statements about extremes are almost nowhere to be found in the literature but seem to abound in the popular media,” climate scientist Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies said last month. “It’s this popular perception that global warming means all extremes have to increase all the time, even though if anyone thinks about that for 10 seconds they realize that’s nonsense.”

Global warming is real. It is partly man-made. It will make some things worse and some things better. Overall, the long-run impact will be negative. But some of the most prominent examples of extreme weather are misleading, and some weather events are becoming less extreme.

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) delivered a 600-page report on...

<...He looks at the report and I'll leave that to your reading pleasure....>

It is understandable that a lot of well-meaning people, wanting stronger action on global warming, have tried to use the meme of extreme weather to draw attention. But alarmism and panic are rarely the best way to achieve good policies. The argument that global warming generally creates more extreme weather needs to be retired.

[Contrails]

Lomborg is not a climate denier, as you'll see, but neither is he an alarmist. I like him because he take an economic view of climate change. Here though he sticks to a review of scientific facts, and debunking alarmists like Obama for the meme that extreme weather is caused by climate change.

Don’t blame climate change for extreme weather (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bjorn-lomborg-dont-blame-climate-change-for-extreme-weather/2013/09/13/4b770d48-117e-11e3-bdf6-e4fc677d94a1_story.html)

Extreme weather in any form requires energy. More energy in the atmosphere means stronger cold fronts, stronger warm fronts, stronger weather patterns of all types. Do you think Mr. Lomborg, an economist, understands just what property global mean surface temperature actually represents?

[ptif219]

Extreme weather in any form requires energy. More energy in the atmosphere means stronger cold fronts, stronger warm fronts, stronger weather patterns of all types. Do you think Mr. Lomborg, an economist, understands just what property global mean surface temperature actually represents?

It means we are not warming and probably cooling. Notice very few hurricanes this year

[Ravi]

Extreme weather in any form requires energy. More energy in the atmosphere means stronger cold fronts, stronger warm fronts, stronger weather patterns of all types. Do you think Mr. Lomborg, an economist, understands just what property global mean surface temperature actually represents?
I doubt he does and it is odd to see an economist giving an opinion on global warming. Nice that he realizes that it is a problem, though.

Just from my own casual observations, in Floriduh we have had extreme weather for several years. This year it is buckets and buckets and buckets of rain in a manner I have never seen before without a couple of hurricanes hitting.

[Contrails]

It means we are not warming and probably cooling. Notice very few hurricanes this year
Notice the super typhoon threatening China this weekend?

[ptif219]

Notice the super typhoon threatening China this weekend?

Good place for it

[GrassrootsConservative]

Notice the super typhoon threatening China this weekend?

Are you blaming climate change for extreme weather?

[Contrails]

Good place for it

Do you think global warming is geographically limited?

[Contrails]

Are you blaming climate change for extreme weather?

When you add energy to Earth's atmosphere, would you expect the weather to become more docile?

[Chris]

Extreme weather in any form requires energy. More energy in the atmosphere means stronger cold fronts, stronger warm fronts, stronger weather patterns of all types. Do you think Mr. Lomborg, an economist, understands just what property global mean surface temperature actually represents?



Better than your explanation it's all about energy. Did you have any specific disagreements with what he said?

[ptif219]

Do you think global warming is geographically limited?

Then it is not global warming. This is just an average hurricane for Florida at 120 MPH winds. You ignore the fact this season is record breaking for low hurricane activity.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323308504579088212592404226.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird


At 7 p.m. local time Saturday, the Hong Kong Observatory said Usagi, one of the strongest storms in the region this year, was about 610 kilometers (379 miles) east-southeast of Hong Kong. Earlier it put maximum sustained winds near the center of the storm at 195 kilometers (121 miles) an hour.

[Dangermouse]

Lomborg is not a climate denier, as you'll see, but neither is he an alarmist. I like him because he take an economic view of climate change. Here though he sticks to a review of scientific facts, and debunking alarmists like Obama for the meme that extreme weather is caused by climate change.

Don’t blame climate change for extreme weather (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bjorn-lomborg-dont-blame-climate-change-for-extreme-weather/2013/09/13/4b770d48-117e-11e3-bdf6-e4fc677d94a1_story.html)

Do you extend your liking for economists view of climate change to the more famous Sir Nicholas Stern?

[Chris]

Do you extend your liking for economists view of climate change to the more famous Sir Nicholas Stern?



Tell me about him and his economic views on climate change.

[roadmaster]

1. Ask yourself first does it begin with truth?
2. Is it logical?
3. Does it consider all of the evidence?
4. Does the conclusion make sense apart from the argument?
5. Does it stand up to close examination? If you can't answer yes to all of those then ok, but most cannot say this.

[Dangermouse]

Tell me about him and his economic views on climate change.

You haven't heard of his world famous report?

[ptif219]

You haven't heard of his world famous report?

So you have no proof

[Chris]

You haven't heard of his world famous report?

I'm asking, ain't I.

[Contrails]

Then it is not global warming. This is just an average hurricane for Florida at 120 MPH winds. You ignore the fact this season is record breaking for low hurricane activity.
120 MPH winds makes it a Category 3 hurricane and just two days earlier winds were 160 MPH, a Category 5 storm. That's a significant storm, isn't it? And aren't you ignoring the fact that hurricanes only represent the North Atlantic and there are other forms of extreme weather?

[ptif219]

120 MPH winds makes it a Category 3 hurricane and just two days earlier winds were 160 MPH, a Category 5 storm. That's a significant storm, isn't it? And aren't you ignoring the fact that hurricanes only represent the North Atlantic and there are other forms of extreme weather?

I have been through cat 3 storms since I live in Florida. I have never evacuated. I drove through Floyd with a big truck which was a cat 2

[Contrails]

I have been through cat 3 storms since I live in Florida. I have never evacuated. I drove through Floyd with a big truck which was a cat 2

Which is why accumulated cyclone energy is a much better measure of a storm's strength. Hurricane Sandy last year was only a Cat 1 but look what it did.

[ptif219]

Which is why accumulated cyclone energy is a much better measure of a storm's strength. Hurricane Sandy last year was only a Cat 1 but look what it did.

Most of the problem was government failure because they bad planning setup. Here in Florida Jeb Bush set up a good system. I have never seen us run out of water the way New York did. Fema under Obama did not call in as many trucks as Bush did. I talked to many truckers who hall water for FEMA they expected a call and it never came

[Chris]

Aren't we sort of straying from the topic hear. I'd love to talk about cyclones and their energy etc, but that's weather, not climate. That is the topic, don't confuse weather with climate.

[Chloe]

Aren't we sort of straying from the topic hear. I'd love to talk about cyclones and their energy etc, but that's weather, not climate. That is the topic, don't confuse weather with climate.

You're right that we shouldn't confuse weather with climate but climate can affect weather and if we can affect climate then we contribute to more dangerous weather. It doesn't have to equal more frequent bad weather, but more powerful and damaging weather due to the changing climate. For example just because hurricane season for the southeast US isn't that bad this year doesn't mean that the Earth's climate isn't changing or that we aren't impacting anything at all. All it takes is one devastating storm to change perception. Warmer climate can mean a more powerful storm, a more devastating drought, a more extreme shift in patterns, and so on. If the climate changes then the weather changes, and if that happens, which I think it is even if it is subtle, then so do our lives. But that's just my opinion.

[Chris]

You're right that we shouldn't confuse weather with climate but climate can affect weather and if we can affect climate then we contribute to more dangerous weather. It doesn't have to equal more frequent bad weather, but more powerful and damaging weather due to the changing climate. For example just because hurricane season for the southeast US isn't that bad this year doesn't mean that the Earth's climate isn't changing or that we aren't impacting anything at all. All it takes is one devastating storm to change perception. Warmer climate can mean a more powerful storm, a more devastating drought, a more extreme shift in patterns, and so on. If the climate changes then the weather changes, and if that happens, which I think it is even if it is subtle, then so do our lives. But that's just my opinion.



Problem is climate change science does not support what you're saying, that weather extremes imply climate change or vice versa. Climate change is a long term trend. It is a statistical abstraction and is thus not causative.

[Chloe]

Problem is climate change science does not support what you're saying, that weather extremes imply climate change or vice versa. Climate change is a long term trend. It is a statistical abstraction and is thus not causative.

What exactly is "long term"? Who decides that? We have been negatively impacting this planet, long term, in my opinion. Also keep in mind that not THAT many people are saying that we are currently be destroyed by man-made climate change. Most people are warning of what will happen if we continue on our current course. We are changing this planet, and it can only go for so long before the impacts of our hands start to be felt. That is the primary point to me.

[Chris]

What exactly is "long term"? Who decides that? We have been negatively impacting this planet, long term, in my opinion. Also keep in mind that not THAT many people are saying that we are currently be destroyed by man-made climate change. Most people are warning of what will happen if we continue on our current course. We are changing this planet, and it can only go for so long before the impacts of our hands start to be felt. That is the primary point to me.

Long term. Well, I remember when BEST data out of Berkeley first showed 10 years of virtually flat temps, while CO2 level were rising dramatically. Climatologist Judith Curry was raked over the coals by alarmists for exposing it, but her colleagues, like Richard Muller, and other climatologists, said, OK, but that's just 10 years, we need at least 15 to claim it's a trend. Well, it's been 16 now.

Why 15? Temps that you see plotted are running averages of a window of time 15 years wide.

Trends are what predictions are based on. Not single observations or single hurricanes, as I'm sure you know, but observations of long periods of time. That's what climate is.


None of this, btw, denies man is not affecting his environment in negative ways. I agree, that is happening. You know that, we've talked this topic many times.

[Contrails]

Problem is climate change science does not support what you're saying, that weather extremes imply climate change or vice versa. Climate change is a long term trend. It is a statistical abstraction and is thus not causative.

Basic physics supports what we're saying. Temperature is nothing more than a measure of the kinetic energy of an object, and mean global surface temperature is a measure of the energy in Earth's Troposphere where weather occurs. Increase the available energy in the Troposphere and shouldn't we expect to see more extreme weather?

[Chris]

Basic physics supports what we're saying. Temperature is nothing more than a measure of the kinetic energy of an object, and mean global surface temperature is a measure of the energy in Earth's Troposphere where weather occurs. Increase the available energy in the Troposphere and shouldn't we expect to see more extreme weather?



Perhaps, but the facts do not. Temps have been virtually flat for over 16 years now.

[Contrails]

Perhaps, but the facts do not. Temps have been virtually flat for over 16 years now.

Surface temperatures have been flat because the Pacific decadal oscillation has been in a cool phase for the last decade or so, just as it was from 1940 thru 1980 when global temperatures also "paused". What do you think will happen when this returns to the warm phase? While the Troposphere may be taking a break from global warming, the oceans are not.

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/18/pacific_decadal_oscillation_2013.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpghttp://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Total_Heat_Content_2011_med.jpg

[ptif219]

Surface temperatures have been flat because the Pacific decadal oscillation has been in a cool phase for the last decade or so, just as it was from 1940 thru 1980 when global temperatures also "paused". What do you think will happen when this returns to the warm phase? While the Troposphere may be taking a break from global warming, the oceans are not.

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/18/pacific_decadal_oscillation_2013.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpghttp://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Total_Heat_Content_2011_med.jpg

When will that happen?

[Chris]

That isn't at all what the climate models predicted. And therein lies the problem. The models, upon which global warming then global cooling then climate change have been based are wrong. They predict as CO2 rises so too will temps.

Also, you're attributing global temperature change when PDO is known to affect only the Pacific region:


The IPO/PDO spatial pattern and impacts are similar to those associated with ENSO events. During the positive phase the wintertime Aleutian low is deepened and shifted southward, warm/humid air is advected along the North American west coast and temperatures are higher than usual from the Pacific Northwest to Alaska but below normal in Mexico and the Southeastern United States.

@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_decadal_oscillation

[zelmo1234]

Notice the super typhoon threatening China this weekend?

yep these bad storms are all recent and it must be global worming right?

Wrong!!

http://geology.com/hurricanes/largest-hurricane/

Please go down to the storms with the highest wind speeds and tell me what the hell was causing them in the late 1800 and early 1900 and in the 60's

[zelmo1234]

Do you think global warming is geographically limited?

It is time for a little education the funny way

Con you are new here but I try and insert this into all global warming threads. You see those in the Climate change field, must get public funding and that leads to lies. and when your number one guy is making stuff up? well there needs to be some reality checks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc

[Chris]

yep these bad storms are all recent and it must be global worming right?

Wrong!!

http://geology.com/hurricanes/largest-hurricane/

Please go down to the storms with the highest wind speeds and tell me what the hell was causing them in the late 1800 and early 1900 and in the 60's



Interesting, from your link:



Five Deadliest Hurricanes in U.S. History




Hurricane
Year
Category
Deaths


Great Galveston Hurricane
1900
4
8000-12000


Okeechobee Hurricane
1928
4
2500-3000


Hurricane Katrina
2005
3
1500+


Louisiana Hurricane
1893
4
1100-1400


S. Carolina / Georgia
1893
3
1000-2000




Data from NOAA.



Reordering by date what we see is a rise in severity of hurricanes leading into 1900 and drop from 1928. From that we should assumes by contrail's argument that global warming was also at it's peak back then or immediately preceding. Of course, that's just speculative as we would need more data.

[Ravi]

The Okeechobee Hurricane was one of the deadliest because it overflowed a lake and killed a lot of people living downstream. The Louisiana Hurricane flooded homes that were built below sea level. The Georgia one again killed via flood. Galveston, again storm surge. Katrina, again storm surge. None of that has to do with global warming or particular storm strength.

All of it has to do with not knowing the storm was coming and not building properly or fortifying the areas impacted.

[Chris]

The Okeechobee Hurricane was one of the deadliest because it overflowed a lake and killed a lot of people living downstream. The Louisiana Hurricane flooded homes that were built below sea level. The Georgia one again killed via flood. Galveston, again storm surge. Katrina, again storm surge. None of that has to do with global warming or particular storm strength.

All of it has to do with not knowing the storm was coming and not building properly or fortifying the areas impacted.



The point here however is strength of hurricane not extenuating circumstances that led to lesser or greater destruction, injury and death.

[ptif219]

yep these bad storms are all recent and it must be global worming right?

Wrong!!

http://geology.com/hurricanes/largest-hurricane/

Please go down to the storms with the highest wind speeds and tell me what the hell was causing them in the late 1800 and early 1900 and in the 60's

We are cooling and the non existence of a hurricane seaon proves it

[Ravi]

The point here however is strength of hurricane not extenuating circumstances that led to lesser or greater destruction, injury and death.
What you posted said nothing about hurricane strength.

[ptif219]

The Okeechobee Hurricane was one of the deadliest because it overflowed a lake and killed a lot of people living downstream. The Louisiana Hurricane flooded homes that were built below sea level. The Georgia one again killed via flood. Galveston, again storm surge. Katrina, again storm surge. None of that has to do with global warming or particular storm strength.

All of it has to do with not knowing the storm was coming and not building properly or fortifying the areas impacted.

They new Katrina was coming and the democrat that controlled Louisiana ignored the Warnings of GOP president Bush.

[Chris]

Interesting, from your link:



Five Deadliest Hurricanes in U.S. History




Hurricane
Year
Category
Deaths


Great Galveston Hurricane
1900
4
8000-12000


Okeechobee Hurricane
1928
4
2500-3000


Hurricane Katrina
2005
3
1500+


Louisiana Hurricane
1893
4
1100-1400


S. Carolina / Georgia
1893
3
1000-2000




Data from NOAA.



Reordering by date what we see is a rise in severity of hurricanes leading into 1900 and drop from 1928. From that we should assumes by contrail's argument that global warming was also at it's peak back then or immediately preceding. Of course, that's just speculative as we would need more data.



Bump for marie...take the time to read.

[Ravi]

Bump for marie...take the time to read.
I read it the first time. You are basing your claim of severity on damage and not storm size. It is immaterial to global warming.

[Chris]

I read it the first time. You are basing your claim of severity on damage and not storm size. It is immaterial to global warming.

Read it again then, I specifically said if you rearrange by severity--the categories are given in the data I posted--ooops, forgot I shouldn't allow you to bait me with your BS.

[Ravi]

And yet you totally ignore the top five windspeeds.

[Chris]

Hurricane Categorieshttp://www.gohsep.la.gov/hurricanerelated/Images/hurrflag.gif
http://www.gohsep.la.gov/images/spacer[1].gif
http://www.gohsep.la.gov/images/spacer[1].gif
http://www.gohsep.la.gov/images/spacer[1].gif





http://www.gohsep.la.gov/shared/templatestanrd_files/spacer[1].gif




http://www.gohsep.la.gov/shared/templatestanrd_files/spacer[1].gif


http://www.gohsep.la.gov/shared/templatestanrd_files/spacer[1].gif
http://www.gohsep.la.gov/shared/templatestanrd_files/spacer[1].gif


http://www.gohsep.la.gov/images/spacer[1].gif


http://www.gohsep.la.gov/images/spacer[1].gif




Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale

CAT

Winds & Effects

Surge


1
74-95 mph
(64-82 kt)
4-5 ft



No real damage to building structures. Damage primarily to unanchored mobile homes, shrubbery, and trees. Also, some coastal flooding and minor pier damage.



2
96-110 mph
(83-95 kt)
6-8 ft



Some roofing material, door, and window damage. Considerable damage to vegetation, mobile homes, etc. Flooding damages piers and small craft in unprotected moorings may break their moorings.



3
111-130 mph
(96-113 kt)
9-12 ft



Some structural damage to small residences and utility buildings, with a minor amount of curtainwall failures. Mobile homes are destroyed. Flooding near the coast destroys smaller structures with larger structures damaged by floating debris. Terrain may be flooded well inland.



4
131-155 mph
(114-135 kt)
13-18 ft



More extensive curtainwall failures with some complete roof structure failure on small residences. Major erosion of beach areas. Terrain may be flooded well inland.



5
155 mph+
(135+ kt)
18 ft +



Complete roof failure on many residences and industrial buildings. Some complete building failures with small utility buildings blown over or away. Flooding causes major damage to lower floors of all structures near the shoreline. Massive evacuation of residential areas may be required.







http://www.gohsep.la.gov/images/spacer[1].gif




@ http://www.gohsep.la.gov/hurricanerelated/HURRICANECATEGORIES.htm

[Ravi]

Still completely ignoring that 4 of the highest wind speed hurricanes hit the US after 1928. Which total negates the point you were trying to make.

[Chris]

Interesting, from your link:



Five Deadliest Hurricanes in U.S. History




Hurricane
Year
Category
Deaths


Great Galveston Hurricane
1900
4
8000-12000


Okeechobee Hurricane
1928
4
2500-3000


Hurricane Katrina
2005
3
1500+


Louisiana Hurricane
1893
4
1100-1400


S. Carolina / Georgia
1893
3
1000-2000




Data from NOAA.



Reordering by date what we see is a rise in severity of hurricanes leading into 1900 and drop from 1928. From that we should assumes by contrail's argument that global warming was also at it's peak back then or immediately preceding. Of course, that's just speculative as we would need more data.



Bump for marie again. I specifically addressed the range of category 4 hurricanes leading into 1900 and dropping off from 1928.

Do you have something to contribute to the discussion or are you going to just continue baiting with BS?

You said I didn't consider severity, but severity is what categories measure. You said I didn't consider wind when it's the severity of winds that are measured. And now you say I ignored 1928 when I obviously didn't.

[Ravi]

:rolleyes: You said a drop from 1928. Which isn't true.

[ptif219]

I read it the first time. You are basing your claim of severity on damage and not storm size. It is immaterial to global warming.

So called experts said global warming would cause more hurricanes and bigger hurricanes yet this year we have the lowest amount

[Contrails]

That isn't at all what the climate models predicted. And therein lies the problem. The models, upon which global warming then global cooling then climate change have been based are wrong. They predict as CO2 rises so too will temps.
If the climate models assumed that CO2 was the only variable, then their predictions would be far off. Fortunately for us, they're a little more sophisticated than that. And a lot more accurate.

http://uanews.org/story/ua-climate-scientists-put-predictions-test


Also, you're attributing global temperature change when PDO is known to affect only the Pacific region:

Seeing as the Pacific Ocean covers about 1/3 of Earth's total surface, wouldn't any process that produces significant cooling there have an appreciable affect on global temperature?

[Contrails]

Reordering by date what we see is a rise in severity of hurricanes leading into 1900 and drop from 1928. From that we should assumes by contrail's argument that global warming was also at it's peak back then or immediately preceding. Of course, that's just speculative as we would need more data.
Your assuming that total deaths is an accurate measure of a hurricane's strength and not a reflection of our ability to prepare for them.

[zelmo1234]

What you posted said nothing about hurricane strength.

Ravi! (that was a little weird after know you as Marie) if you look Chris copied part of my link

If you go further down in the link you will see the records for storm strength, and while Katrina and Andrew are in there the others are from the late 1800's and early 1900's

[Chris]

If the climate models assumed that CO2 was the only variable, then their predictions would be far off. Fortunately for us, they're a little more sophisticated than that. And a lot more accurate.

http://uanews.org/story/ua-climate-scientists-put-predictions-test


Seeing as the Pacific Ocean covers about 1/3 of Earth's total surface, wouldn't any process that produces significant cooling there have an appreciable affect on global temperature?




Contrails, I know climate is extremely more complicated than that. More complicated that, apparently, you can explain, more complicated than your earlier PDO oversimplification.


Answer to your question, no, it would not account for global climate change.

[Chris]

Your assuming that total deaths is an accurate measure of a hurricane's strength and not a reflection of our ability to prepare for them.



Lord, another one who cannot read. Contrails, I did not point to total deaths, I specifically stated "Reordering by date what we see is a rise in severity of hurricanes leading into 1900 and drop from 1928." Severiry has to to with categories provided in the data, categories that measure wind speeds. Come on, argue with what I said not what you imagine.

[Chris]

Ravi! (that was a little weird after know you as Marie) if you look Chris copied part of my link

If you go further down in the link you will see the records for storm strength, and while Katrina and Andrew are in there the others are from the late 1800's and early 1900's


And those were category 3 hurricanes, unlike the earlier category 4.

Again, the data, this time I reordered by date so that the pattern of severity (category, wind) is apparent:




Five Deadliest Hurricanes in U.S. History




Hurricane
Year
Category
Deaths



S. Carolina / Georgia
1893
3
1000-2000






Louisiana Hurricane
1893
4
1100-1400



Great Galveston Hurricane
1900
4
8000-12000



Okeechobee Hurricane
1928
4
2500-3000



Hurricane Katrina
2005
3
1500+




Data from NOAA.

[Ravi]

Lord, another one who cannot read. Contrails, I did not point to total deaths, I specifically stated "Reordering by date what we see is a rise in severity of hurricanes leading into 1900 and drop from 1928." Severiry has to to with categories provided in the data, categories that measure wind speeds. Come on, argue with what I said not what you imagine.
Again, there was no drop from 1928. The four highest speed hurricanes hit the US after 1928.

[Chris]

Again, there was no drop from 1928. The four highest speed hurricanes hit the US after 1928.

Show us some data. I'm simply arguing from the data given above.

[Contrails]

Lord, another one who cannot read. Contrails, I did not point to total deaths, I specifically stated "Reordering by date what we see is a rise in severity of hurricanes leading into 1900 and drop from 1928." Severiry has to to with categories provided in the data, categories that measure wind speeds. Come on, argue with what I said not what you imagine.

When you preface your post with "Five Deadliest Hurricanes in U.S. History", you're placing the emphasis on deaths over severity. And by excluding storms which didn't have significant death tolls, aren't you skewing the data more than a little?

[Contrails]

Show us some data. I'm simply arguing from the data given above.
Since hurricane intensity data is virtually non-existent before 1950, I think you have a hard time arguing either way.

[Ravi]

Show us some data. I'm simply arguing from the data given above.

It's at the same link you keep OCDedly posting.

[Ravi]

Show us some data. I'm simply arguing from the data given above.

Oh, and btw. Arguing from unknowns. Priceless.

[Chris]

When you preface your post with "Five Deadliest Hurricanes in U.S. History", you're placing the emphasis on deaths over severity. And by excluding storms which didn't have significant death tolls, aren't you skewing the data more than a little?



I made it clear you needed to re-order the data. I've repeated that several times. I even re-ordered it for you. Yet you go back to your misunderstanding and repeat and repeat and repeat. Stop arguing with the words you put in my mouth and argue with the words I posted.

[Chris]

Oh, and btw. Arguing from unknowns. Priceless.

What's priceless is that you would call arguing from data arguing from unknowns. Priceless? Downright silly.

[Chris]

It's at the same link you keep OCDedly posting.

I posted that data. That's the data you call unknowns.

[Chris]

And those were category 3 hurricanes, unlike the earlier category 4.

Again, the data, this time I reordered by date so that the pattern of severity (category, wind) is apparent:




Five Deadliest Hurricanes in U.S. History




Hurricane
Year
Category
Deaths



S. Carolina / Georgia
1893
3
1000-2000






Louisiana Hurricane
1893
4
1100-1400



Great Galveston Hurricane
1900
4
8000-12000



Okeechobee Hurricane
1928
4
2500-3000



Hurricane Katrina
2005
3
1500+




Data from NOAA.





Bump for those who refuse to see the data argued from.

[Ravi]

lmao at Chris not being able to scroll and find the top wind speed hurricanes happened after 1928.

Hey, but if you re-order the data, unicorns actually do exist.

[Chris]

lmao at Chris not being able to scroll and find the top wind speed hurricanes happened after 1928.

Hey, but if you re-order the data, unicorns actually do exist.



Absolutely nothing to contribute but taunts from the peanut gallery. Impressive.

[Contrails]

So called experts said global warming would cause more hurricanes and bigger hurricanes yet this year we have the lowest amount

Hurricanes in the Western Atlantic may be below expectations but the Western Pacific and Indian Ocean are not slacking off. Tropical Cyclone Phailin (http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/northern-indian/2013/tropical-cyclone-Two) is the 12th tropical cyclone and 5th major (Category 4 or 5) storm of the season.

[ptif219]

Hurricanes in the Western Atlantic may be below expectations but the Western Pacific and Indian Ocean are not slacking off. Tropical Cyclone Phailin (http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/northern-indian/2013/tropical-cyclone-Two) is the 12th tropical cyclone and 5th major (Category 4 or 5) storm of the season.

So you are talking weather not climate? Here we are at record low activity. Nice spin but Global warming was a scam

[Contrails]

So you are talking weather not climate? Here we are at record low activity. Nice spin but Global warming was a scam

I'm surprised you know there's a difference, since you keep pointing to local weather patterns as evidence against global climate trends.

[ptif219]

I'm surprised you know there's a difference, since you keep pointing to local weather patterns as evidence against global climate trends.

You mean you do. No warming for 15 years shows there is no Global warming. It shows the models were a scam and it shows making it a political issue does nothing to change it it just puts more financial burden on the poor and middleclass.

[Contrails]

You mean you do. No warming for 15 years shows there is no Global warming. It shows the models were a scam and it shows making it a political issue does nothing to change it it just puts more financial burden on the poor and middleclass.
If warming stopped in 1998, then why was 2001-2010 the warmest decade ever?

[Chris]

If warming stopped in 1998, then why was 2001-2010 the warmest decade ever?

Clearly, temps have been virtually flat for over 15 years.

Clearly, average temps rose some 2001-2010.

Clearly, both are valid observations.

A denier might choose one and an alarmist another, but that's not science. Science would explain both.

[Contrails]

Clearly, temps have been virtually flat for over 15 years.

Clearly, average temps rose some 2001-2010.

Clearly, both are valid observations.

A denier might choose one and an alarmist another, but that's not science. Science would explain both.

As a realist, I choose the latter.


Scientists are homing in on the reasons for the current hiatus in global warming, but all must recognize that the long-term risk of warming from carbon dioxide remains high.
http://www.nature.com/news/hidden-heat-1.13608

[Chris]

As a realist, I choose the latter.


http://www.nature.com/news/hidden-heat-1.13608



No, as an alarmist, you cherry pick data. The other data is just as realistic.

[Contrails]

No, as an alarmist, you cherry pick data. The other data is just as realistic.

What "other data" is that? There are only three major global temperature records (GISTEMP, HadCRUT, and GHCN-Monthly) and they all show a long-term warming trend over the last century that hasn't stopped.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/Global_warming._Short-term_variations_versus_a_long-term_trend_%28NCADAC%29.png/350px-Global_warming._Short-term_variations_versus_a_long-term_trend_%28NCADAC%29.png

[Chris]

What "other data" is that? There are only three major global temperature records (GISTEMP, HadCRUT, and GHCN-Monthly) and they all show a long-term warming trend over the last century that hasn't stopped.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/Global_warming._Short-term_variations_versus_a_long-term_trend_%28NCADAC%29.png/350px-Global_warming._Short-term_variations_versus_a_long-term_trend_%28NCADAC%29.png



Go back to post #72. Do not collect $200.

[Contrails]

Go back to post #72. Do not collect $200.

Answered in Post #73. Short-term variability does not negate long-term climate trends.

[Chris]

Answered in Post #73. Short-term variability does not negate long-term climate trends.

You spoke of 10 years, a decade, I spoke of over 15.

Go back to post #72. Do not collect $200.

[ptif219]

If warming stopped in 1998, then why was 2001-2010 the warmest decade ever?

By what one thousandth of a degree? IPCC admits it why can't you. The data manipulation has been caught so give it up

[ptif219]

As a realist, I choose the latter.


http://www.nature.com/news/hidden-heat-1.13608

They lied and need to give it up. Man can not do much to change climate change it is circumstances beyond their control

[Chris]

http://i.snag.gy/6xEOb.jpg

[ptif219]

Answered in Post #73. Short-term variability does not negate long-term climate trends.

More spin. temp is not changing and all the models were false

[Contrails]

You spoke of 10 years, a decade, I spoke of over 15.

Go back to post #72. Do not collect $200.
40 years of virtually flat global mean surface temperature between 1940 and 1980 didn't stop global warming. What makes you think the last 15 years does?

[ptif219]

40 years of virtually flat global mean surface temperature between 1940 and 1980 didn't stop global warming. What makes you think the last 15 years does?

There is no warming just climate change man can not control

[Peter1469]

There is no warming just climate change man can not control

Too bad, because we are overdue for another ice age.

[ptif219]

Too bad, because we are overdue for another ice age.

It may happen since the scientist are baffled by the lack of solar activity.

[Contrails]

Too bad, because we are overdue for another ice age.
We weren't due for another ice age for another 18,000 years. Shifts between interglacials and ice ages are caused by Earth's orbital precession, obliquity and eccentricity, all highly regular and predictable variables. With all of the extra CO2 we've added to the atmosphere, it may be 100,000 years before we see another ice age.

http://geosci-webdev.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2005.trigger.pdf


It may happen since the scientist are baffled by the lack of solar activity.
Scientists are not baffled by it, in fact they even expected it. You should really do a little research before projecting your ignorance onto what science does and doesn't know.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=33826

[lynn]

We weren't due for another ice age for another 18,000 years. Shifts between interglacials and ice ages are caused by Earth's orbital precession, obliquity and eccentricity, all highly regular and predictable variables. With all of the extra CO2 we've added to the atmosphere, it may be 100,000 years before we see another ice age.

http://geosci-webdev.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2005.trigger.pdf


Scientists are not baffled by it, in fact they even expected it. You should really do a little research before projecting your ignorance onto what science does and doesn't know.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=33826


Is that a bad thing if we delay an ice age because of CO2 increases?

[Peter1469]

We weren't due for another ice age for another 18,000 years. Shifts between interglacials and ice ages are caused by Earth's orbital precession, obliquity and eccentricity, all highly regular and predictable variables. With all of the extra CO2 we've added to the atmosphere, it may be 100,000 years before we see another ice age.

http://geosci-webdev.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2005.trigger.pdf


[/URL]

Here is an [URL="http://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm"]article (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=33826)that explains the cycles, although its conclusions are the same as yours.


According to ice cores from Antarctica, the past 400,000 years have been dominated by glacials, also known as ice ages, that last about 100,000. These glacials have been punctuated by interglacials, short warm periods which typically last 11,500 years. Figure 1 below shows how temperatures in Antarctica changed over this period. Because our current interglacial (the Holocene) has already lasted approximately 12,000 years, it has led some to claim that a new ice age is imminent.

The article does go on to claim that a new ice age is likely not imminent.

[Contrails]

Is that a bad thing if we delay an ice age because of CO2 increases?
Do you think a +4°C change over one century is better than an -12°C change over 18,000 years? Which one do you think most species on this plant could adapt to easier?

[ptif219]

We weren't due for another ice age for another 18,000 years. Shifts between interglacials and ice ages are caused by Earth's orbital precession, obliquity and eccentricity, all highly regular and predictable variables. With all of the extra CO2 we've added to the atmosphere, it may be 100,000 years before we see another ice age.

http://geosci-webdev.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2005.trigger.pdf


Scientists are not baffled by it, in fact they even expected it. You should really do a little research before projecting your ignorance onto what science does and doesn't know.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=33826

I say you are wrong

http://www.space.com/8587-sun-strange-behavior-baffles-astronomers.html


The sun's temper ebbs and flows on what scientists had thought was a pretty predictable cycle, but lately our closest star has been acting up.
Typically, a few stormy years would knock out a satellite or two and maybe trip a power grid on Earth. Then a few years of quiet, and then back to the bad behavior. But an extremely long stretch of low activity in recent years has scientists baffled and scrambling for better forecastinghttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png (http://www.space.com/8587-sun-strange-behavior-baffles-astronomers.html#) models.
An expected minimum of solar activity, between 2008 and 2009, was unusually deep. And while the sun would normally ramp up activity by now, heading into its next cycle, the sun may be on the verge of a weak solar cycle instead, astronomers said at the 216th meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Miami last month.

[Contrails]

I say you are wrong
You can say anything you want, but I prefer to listen to those who know what they're talking about.
http://www.space.com/19280-solar-activity-earth-climate.html

"While the sun is by far the dominant energy source powering our climate system, do not assume that it is causing much of recent climate changes. It's pretty stable," Kopp said. "Think of it as an 800-pound gorilla in climate — it has the weight to cause enormous changes, but luckily for us, it's pretty placidly lazy. While solar changes have historically caused climate changes, the sun is mostly likely responsible for less than 15 percent of the global temperature increases we've seen over the last century, during which human-caused changes such as increased greenhouse gases caused the majority of warming."
It's not enough just to say that global warming is natural, you have to provide an explanation. If human CO2 emissions are not responsible for the 1°C warming over the last century, all you have to do is produce a climate model that matches recent global temperature trends without including atmospheric CO2.

[ptif219]

You can say anything you want, but I prefer to listen to those who know what they're talking about.
http://www.space.com/19280-solar-activity-earth-climate.html

It's not enough just to say that global warming is natural, you have to provide an explanation. If human CO2 emissions are not responsible for the 1°C warming over the last century, all you have to do is produce a climate model that matches recent global temperature trends without including atmospheric CO2.

CO2 has continued to increase while temp increase has stalled. That shows me it is not co2 but more likely the sun

Even if it was proven that the sun cause GW the GW propagandists would stop it dead to protect their agenda

http://wakeup-world.com/2011/09/02/c-e-r-n-scientific-study-concludes-global-warming-is-caused-by-the-sun/

[Contrails]

CO2 has continued to increase while temp increase has stalled. That shows me it is not co2 but more likely the sun

That just tells me you are not looking in the right place.
[/URL]http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Nuccitelli_Fig1.jpg
Land, atmosphere, and ice heating (red), 0-700 meter ocean heat content (OHC) increase (light blue), 700-2,000 meter OHC increase (dark blue). From [URL="http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Comment_on_DK12.pdf"]Nuccitelli et al. (2012) (http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Nuccitelli_Fig1.jpg).

[ptif219]

That just tells me you are not looking in the right place.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Nuccitelli_Fig1.jpg
Land, atmosphere, and ice heating (red), 0-700 meter ocean heat content (OHC) increase (light blue), 700-2,000 meter OHC increase (dark blue). From Nuccitelli et al. (2012) (http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Comment_on_DK12.pdf).

You mean an not looking at the Global warming propagandists.. You need to look at the fact for over 15 years CO2 kept rising and temperatures stayed flat. That means CO2 is not the cause

[lynn]

I would be more concerned with the ocean water temperature heating up so is it?

[Contrails]

I would be more concerned with the ocean water temperature heating up so is it?

When pressure and volume remain constant, that's what usually happens in a liquid unless there is a phase transition occuring like ice melting. That's why scientists say that the oceans are warming up.

[ptif219]

When pressure and volume remain constant, that's what usually happens in a liquid unless there is a phase transition occuring like ice melting. That's why scientists say that the oceans are warming up.

You must have bad information

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/28/cooling-pacific-dampened-global-warming

[Contrails]

You must have bad information

You need to read beyond the headlines. From the Guardian article you linked to:


Research indicates that oceans have absorbed much of the heat (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jul/22/climate-change-slowdown-warming-oceans) and about a third of the additional carbon dioxide pumped into the air from pre-industrial times. This has an effect – the thermal expansion of the oceans is likely to be the biggest factor behind sea level rise, and the absorption of carbon dioxide is making the oceans more acidic (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/25/rising-acid-levels-seas-endanger-marine-poertner).
Scientists also think that the circulation of heat from the top layers of the ocean, which have been most affected to date, to the deeper oceans below may be another factor behind the "hiatus" in global warming.
The "cooling Pacific" in the headline only refers to about 10% of the ocean's surface. If you bothered to read Nuccitelli et al. (2012), you would know that over all, Earth's oceans are heating up.

[ptif219]

You need to read beyond the headlines. From the Guardian article you linked to:


The "cooling Pacific" in the headline only refers to about 10% of the ocean's surface. If you bothered to read Nuccitelli et al. (2012), you would know that over all, Earth's oceans are heating up.

You need to not live in the past but what is happening now. It also says this


The system is now in a cooling phase, scientists have noted, which could last for years. The last such phase was from the 1940s to the 1970s.

[Contrails]

You need to not live in the past but what is happening now. It also says this

I'm more concerned about the future than the past. Did you read the whole article?


The scientists warned, however, that when the current cooling phase turns, the upward march of temperatures is likely to resume, perhaps at faster rates than before as greenhouse gas emission rates are higher.
Notice they say "when" not "if". Global warming hasn't stopped by any stretch of the imagination.

[ptif219]

I'm more concerned about the future than the past. Did you read the whole article?


Notice they say "when" not "if". Global warming hasn't stopped by any stretch of the imagination.

Then get off the CO2 BS and realize we are not warming and it could be worse if we cool to much

[Peter1469]

Then get off the CO2 BS and realize we are not warming and it could be worse if we cool to much

Cooling would be worse for humans than a bit of warming.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Cooling would be worse for humans than a bit of warming.

I'd say this depends:
If a person lives near the equator, warming would be much worse than cooling.
If a person lives in Alaska, cooling would be much more devastating that warming.

It's all subjective.

/Edit: Not that it matters, since global warming / climate change / whatever title the libs want to put on it is a farce to get money into the hands of greedy activists like Al Gore and Michael Moore.

[Contrails]

Cooling would be worse for humans than a bit of warming.

A 2.0 °C change in global temperature over one century in either direction would not be good for humans, since most of the speices we depend on for survival would not able to adapt fast enough to changing climate.

[Peter1469]

A 2.0 °C change in global temperature over one century in either direction would not be good for humans, since most of the speices we depend on for survival would not able to adapt fast enough to changing climate.

A 2.0 C change up wouldn't do as much harm as a 2.0 C change down. Anyway, it is likely to be only a 1.0 C change.

[Contrails]

A 2.0 C change up wouldn't do as much harm as a 2.0 C change down.
How's that?


Anyway, it is likely to be only a 1.0 C change.
Do you read the scientific literature? From the IPCC 5th Assessment Report:


Relative to the average from year 1850 to 1900, global surface temperature change by the end of the 21st century is projected to likely exceed 1.5°C for RCP4.5, RCP6.0 and RCP8.5 (high confidence). Warming is likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5 (high confidence), more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5 (high confidence), but unlikely to exceed 2°C for RCP2.6 (medium confidence). Warming is unlikely to exceed 4°C for RCP2.6, RCP4.5 and RCP6.0 (high confidence) and is about as likely as not to exceed 4°C for RCP8.5 (medium confidence).

[ptif219]

How's that?


Do you read the scientific literature? From the IPCC 5th Assessment Report:

You mean the one where the IPCC ignored the fact of no increase in warming

[Peter1469]

How's that?


Do you read the scientific literature? From the IPCC 5th Assessment Report:

Right, and in the past they accepted even higher increases. Computer models are not science. They are more like statistics.

[Contrails]

You mean the one where the IPCC ignored the fact of no increase in warming
No, that would be the one that mentions it on the third page.

In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)
Looks like they're not the one ignoring facts.

[Contrails]

Right, and in the past they accepted even higher increases. Computer models are not science. They are more like statistics.

Is that your attempt to explain how a 2.0 C change up wouldn't do as much harm as a 2.0 C change down?

[ptif219]

No, that would be the one that mentions it on the third page.

Looks like they're not the one ignoring facts.

They ignored it. There has been no significant warming for over 15 years

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/ipcc-railroad-engineer-pachauri-acknowledges-no-warming-for-17-years/

[Contrails]

They ignored it. There has been no significant warming for over 15 years

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/ipcc-railroad-engineer-pachauri-acknowledges-no-warming-for-17-years/

An article quoting the IPCC chairman acknowledging no significant warming for 17 years is your evidence that the IPCC is ignoring it?

[ptif219]

An article quoting the IPCC chairman acknowledging no significant warming for 17 years is your evidence that the IPCC is ignoring it?

He is the head of the IPCC

[Contrails]

He is the head of the IPCC

That doesn't help your argument.

[ptif219]

That doesn't help your argument.

So then the IPCC and all those Climate scientists and their paper that just came out is all lies?

[Contrails]

So then the IPCC and all those Climate scientists and their paper that just came out is all lies?

The IPCC and all those climate scientists acknowledge no significant warming for 17 years and explain in AR5 that it's due to natural variability. Where is the lie there?

Do you know what happens when you add a cyclical variable (natural variability) with a linear variable (increasing CO2)? Let me illustrate it for you.
4358

[ptif219]

The IPCC and all those climate scientists acknowledge no significant warming for 17 years and explain in AR5 that it's due to natural variability. Where is the lie there?

Do you know what happens when you add a cyclical variable (natural variability) with a linear variable (increasing CO2)? Let me illustrate it for you.
4358

More justification for their failed claims. CO2 keeps increasing yet no increase in temp shows their theory is false. The sun is the cause for warming not CO2

[Contrails]

More justification for their failed claims. CO2 keeps increasing yet no increase in temp shows their theory is false. The sun is the cause for warming not CO2
Then why didn't global cooling start in 1950 when the modern solar maximum peaked with Cycle 19? The sun is obviously the source of Earth's heat, but without CO2 and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, it would be a chilly −18 °C everywhere. Do you understand how cyclical climate forcings can periodically offset the linear contribution of increase CO2?

[ptif219]

Then why didn't global cooling start in 1950 when the modern solar maximum peaked with Cycle 19? The sun is obviously the source of Earth's heat, but without CO2 and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, it would be a chilly −18 °C everywhere. Do you understand how cyclical climate forcings can periodically offset the linear contribution of increase CO2?

I see you forget the claim in the 70's we were headed for a mini ice age

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/

[Contrails]

I see you forget the claim in the 70's we were headed for a mini ice age

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/

Aparently you don't know the difference between news articles and scientific literature. Despite Anthony Watt's impresive list of news articles about global cooling, even back in the 70's a majority of climate science predicted warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/GlobalCooling.JPG

[ptif219]

Aparently you don't know the difference between news articles and scientific literature. Despite Anthony Watt's impresive list of news articles about global cooling, even back in the 70's a majority of climate science predicted warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/GlobalCooling.JPG

If we head into global cooling you may want global warming back

[Contrails]

If we head into global cooling you may want global warming back

Haven't I already explained that it's not the direction that's the problem, it's the speed. If global cooling theorists are correct, we're looking at -0.02°C per century. Even the low estimates for global warming predict another +1.0°C by the end of this century. Which would you consider a bigger problem?

[Axiomatic]

Extreme weather in any form requires energy. More energy in the atmosphere means stronger cold fronts, stronger warm fronts, stronger weather patterns of all types. Do you think Mr. Lomborg, an economist, understands just what property global mean surface temperature actually represents?

I don't keep up with this. Is this, "property global mean surface temperature", one of the things that isn't debatable? I get confused when someone says that something that is not self evident isn't debatable.

[Contrails]

I don't keep up with this. Is this, "property global mean surface temperature", one of the things that isn't debatable? I get confused when someone says that something that is not self evident isn't debatable.

Since it's called the "Ideal Gas Law", saying it isn't debatable is an understatement. In a gas at constant pressure and volume, temperature is directly proportional to the kinetic energy of the gas. As Earth's atmosphere warms up, more energy is available to create weather patterns of all types.

[Peter1469]

Haven't I already explained that it's not the direction that's the problem, it's the speed. If global cooling theorists are correct, we're looking at -0.02°C per century. Even the low estimates for global warming predict another +1.0°C by the end of this century. Which would you consider a bigger problem?

Cooling would be harder to adapt to.

[Axiomatic]

Since it's called the "Ideal Gas Law", saying it isn't debatable is an understatement. In a gas at constant pressure and volume, temperature is directly proportional to the kinetic energy of the gas. As Earth's atmosphere warms up, more energy is available to create weather patterns of all types.

What is called the Ideal Gas Law? My question was about what you referred to as "property global mean surface temperature". "Ideal Gas Law"doesn't sound like something that is identical to that.

But don't worry about that. I keep hearing that "global warming", or "climate change" are things that are not debatable. Oh, and there's an additional claim, that people are responsible for it.

Are you one of the people who believe that these things are not debatable? If so, will you go ahead and type out the argument or arguments that close the issue, please?

[Peter1469]

Science tests theories to prove them false. Global warming theorists have turn that on its head.

[ptif219]

Haven't I already explained that it's not the direction that's the problem, it's the speed. If global cooling theorists are correct, we're looking at -0.02°C per century. Even the low estimates for global warming predict another +1.0°C by the end of this century. Which would you consider a bigger problem?

The problem is all the models have been wrong so it does not matter. You can't keep using the failed models for proof

[Contrails]

What is called the Ideal Gas Law? My question was about what you referred to as "property global mean surface temperature". "Ideal Gas Law"doesn't sound like something that is identical to that.
Temperature is a property of matter meaning it cannot exist independant of it, do you agree? Likewise, when we refer to "global mean surface temperature" we are referring to a property of Earth's atmosphere. Does that make sense now?


But don't worry about that. I keep hearing that "global warming", or "climate change" are things that are not debatable. Oh, and there's an additional claim, that people are responsible for it.

Are you one of the people who believe that these things are not debatable? If so, will you go ahead and type out the argument or arguments that close the issue, please?
Here are the key points in a nutshell. Let me know where you feel there is room for debate.

Gases in Earth's atmosphere like water vapor and CO2 trap heat from the sun, increasing Earth's mean surface temperature from a chilly −18 °C to a comfortable +15 °C.
CO2 concentrations in Earth's atmosphere have increased over the last 150 years from about 280 ppm to over 400 ppm primarily due to human fossil fuel use.
Earth's global mean surface temperature has increased by about 1 °C in the last century as a result of the extra CO2 humans have added to the atmosphere.

[Contrails]

Cooling would be harder to adapt to.

You really think that a -0.02°C change would be harder to adapt to than +1.0°C?

[Contrails]

The problem is all the models have been wrong so it does not matter. You can't keep using the failed models for proof

First of all, the models are not what proves global warming. Second, can you produce a climate model that more accurately depicts current temperature trends than the IPCC without accounting for human CO2 emissions? Many have tried and none have succeded.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Predictions1976-2011.png

[Peter1469]

You really think that a -0.02°C change would be harder to adapt to than +1.0°C?

Why move the goal posts?

And 1.0C per 100 years is the very low end of the global warming models and should not be a problem in the long run.

[Chris]

First of all, the models are not what proves global warming. Second, can you produce a climate model that more accurately depicts current temperature trends than the IPCC without accounting for human CO2 emissions? Many have tried and none have succeded....


Do you have handy an example of a model that predicts the last 15 or more years of drastically rising CO2 levels but virtually flat temps?

[Contrails]

Why move the goal posts?
How am I moving the goal posts? Is there a global cooling model that predicts more than -0.02°C per century?


And 1.0C per 100 years is the very low end of the global warming models and should not be a problem in the long run.
Warming of +1.0°C per century is magnitudes greater than any change that has happened in the last 11,000 years. Upon what do you base the claim that this "should not be a problem"?

[Contrails]

Do you have handy an example of a model that predicts the last 15 or more years of drastically rising CO2 levels but virtually flat temps?
How about 23 models. While climate models aren't intended to depict individual years but rather trends over multiple years, they've done remarkably well.

http://web.archive.org/web/20100322194954/http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/mostmods.jpgGISS data compared to the models listed in IPCC AR4 chapter 8

[Chris]

How about 23 models. While climate models aren't intended to depict individual years but rather trends over multiple years, they've done remarkably well.

...

Not what I asked for now was it as the model's graph does not accurately capture 15+ years virtually flat temps..

Next try, include links so I can investigate the models.

[Contrails]

Not what I asked for now was it as the model's graph does not accurately capture 15+ years virtually flat temps..
You might want to get your eyes checked. The correlation between the average of these models (the black line) and actual temperatures (the red line) seems pretty good to me.


Next try, include links so I can investigate the models.
Knock yourself out.

http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_co2.cgi

[Peter1469]

How am I moving the goal posts? Is there a global cooling model that predicts more than -0.02°C per century?


Warming of +1.0°C per century is magnitudes greater than any change that has happened in the last 11,000 years. Upon what do you base the claim that this "should not be a problem"?

We started (above) with a +2C or -2C. Not a -.2C.

A warming on 1C per 100 years is not unprecedented. We had the Medieval Warning Period, then the Little Ice Age which lasted until 1850.

[Chris]

You might want to get your eyes checked. The correlation between the average of these models (the black line) and actual temperatures (the red line) seems pretty good to me.


Knock yourself out.

http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_co2.cgi



The trend over those 15+ years is flat. The model averages (statistics derived from statistics) misses that.

Again, what individual models predicted flat temps for over 15 years? Either you know of such a model or you do not.

[ptif219]

You really think that a -0.02°C change would be harder to adapt to than +1.0°C?


More opinions using proven false models

[ptif219]

First of all, the models are not what proves global warming. Second, can you produce a climate model that more accurately depicts current temperature trends than the IPCC without accounting for human CO2 emissions? Many have tried and none have succeded.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Predictions1976-2011.png

How does it matter when all their models have been wrong. 15 years of increased co2 and no significant increase in temp proves their theory false

[Axiomatic]

Here are the key points in a nutshell. Let me know where you feel there is room for debate.

Gases in Earth's atmosphere like water vapor and CO2 trap heat from the sun, increasing Earth's mean surface temperature from a chilly −18 °C to a comfortable +15 °C.
CO2 concentrations in Earth's atmosphere have increased over the last 150 years from about 280 ppm to over 400 ppm primarily due to human fossil fuel use.
Earth's global mean surface temperature has increased by about 1 °C in the last century as a result of the extra CO2 humans have added to the atmosphere.



When people talk about climate change, they're saying a lot more than what these three points show. They make predictions about the future impact the climate will have on global conditions, the impact the condition of the atmosphere will have on the climate, and the impact human activity will have on the condition of the atmosphere. Each of these are very strong and very specific claims. Evidence, and proper reasoning from that evidence, need to be presented to substantiate each of them. The three points you listed don't even substantiate themselves. For example, the first point seems to claim that atmospheric gases are sufficient to trap heat from the sun so as to maintain some temperature, that other factors, such as the density and composition of surrounding structures, the varying intensity of radiation from the sun, don't contribute significantly to the temperature on Earth, and that the other gasses displaced by CO2 are less effective at retaining heat, and that the positive impact CO2 has on the growth of vegetation cannot result in a counterbalance to CO2 emissions. The CO2 concentration over the past 150 years may be demonstrable, but it's cause is not obvious, and, while I've heard these claims many times, I've never seen a report that conclusively demonstrates either one. As for the mean surface temperature, again, we need unambiguous data that conclusively demonstrate both the trend and the cause. But, don't forget, the claim is that the issue is not debatable, so, in addition to all of that, we need the same kind of irrefutable conclusion, drawn logically from conclusive data, showing that the recommended prescriptions for future action are necessary and an effective remedy to the irrefutable prognoses drawn from conclusive, unambiguous data on all relevant factors.

[Contrails]

We started (above) with a +2C or -2C. Not a -.2C.
What I said before was that a +2°C change would be just as bad as a -2°C change. That doesn't conflict with saying a -0.02°C change would be easier to adapt to than +1.0°C.


A warming on 1C per 100 years is not unprecedented. We had the Medieval Warning Period, then the Little Ice Age which lasted until 1850.
The Medieval Warm Period was a local phenomenon focused around the North Atlantic. Temperatures in the Southern hemisphere were dropping during this period. Globally, temperature only changed by about 0.2°C to 0.4°C over a span of 300 years. That a far cry from the 1°C global change we've seen over the last century.

[Peter1469]

What I said before was that a +2°C change would be just as bad as a -2°C change. That doesn't conflict with saying a -0.02°C change would be easier to adapt to than +1.0°C.


The Medieval Warm Period was a local phenomenon focused around the North Atlantic. Temperatures in the Southern hemisphere were dropping during this period. Globally, temperature only changed by about 0.2°C to 0.4°C over a span of 300 years. That a far cry from the 1°C global change we've seen over the last century.

You forgot to mention the Little Ice Age. What happened when that ended? (Hint, warming).

[Contrails]

The trend over those 15+ years is flat. The model averages (statistics derived from statistics) misses that.

Again, what individual models predicted flat temps for over 15 years? Either you know of such a model or you do not.

If you understood climate models, you wouldn't be asking that question. For one thing, climate models don't predict, they make projections based on scenarios. Even with the fastest supercomputers, many variables must be simplified just to solve the equations involved. Also, climate is calculated by averaging changes over 30 year periods to eliminate the noise of annual variations, so a 15 year trend would not be apparent. Besides, no matter how wrong the climate models may be, they don't disprove the underlying theories.

[Contrails]

You forgot to mention the Little Ice Age. What happened when that ended? (Hint, warming).

Again, a local phenomenon limited primarily to the Northern hemisphere with global temperatures changing by only about 0.2°C over a span of 300 years. Nothing even close to changes over the last century. (Hint, that's the black, nearly vertical line on the far right in the figure below)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png/320px-2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

[GrassrootsConservative]

Again, a local phenomenon limited primarily to the Northern hemisphere with global temperatures changing by only about 0.2°C over a span of 300 years. Nothing even close to changes over the last century. (Hint, that's the black, nearly vertical line on the far right in the figure below)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png/320px-2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Have you ever read a graph before? That black line is not the last century.

The last century would be everything from the exact middle of the 1800 and 2000 markers.

[Peter1469]

If you understood climate models, you wouldn't be asking that question. For one thing, climate models don't predict, they make projections based on scenarios. Even with the fastest supercomputers, many variables must be simplified just to solve the equations involved. Also, climate is calculated by averaging changes over 30 year periods to eliminate the noise of annual variations, so a 15 year trend would not be apparent. Besides, no matter how wrong the climate models may be, they don't disprove the underlying theories.

Right, they turn the scientific method on its head.....

[Contrails]

When people talk about climate change, they're saying a lot more than what these three points show. They make predictions about the future impact the climate will have on global conditions, the impact the condition of the atmosphere will have on the climate, and the impact human activity will have on the condition of the atmosphere. Each of these are very strong and very specific claims. Evidence, and proper reasoning from that evidence, need to be presented to substantiate each of them.
I agree, climate change is used these days when discussing a lot of topics besides global warming. Since I find it pointless to debate the potential impact and possible solutions with someone who doesn't even accept the basic premise, you'll pardon me if I don't jump to these issues quite yet.


The three points you listed don't even substantiate themselves. For example, the first point seems to claim that atmospheric gases are sufficient to trap heat from the sun so as to maintain some temperature, that other factors, such as the density and composition of surrounding structures, the varying intensity of radiation from the sun, don't contribute significantly to the temperature on Earth, and that the other gasses displaced by CO2 are less effective at retaining heat, and that the positive impact CO2 has on the growth of vegetation cannot result in a counterbalance to CO2 emissions.
Climate science doesn't claim that CO2 is the only significant factor that affects Earth's surface temperature, but the ability of CO2 to retain heat was discovered almost two centuries ago and can easily be demonstrated by anyone (http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/atmos/ll_gas.htm). What climate science claims is that increasing CO2 is the primary cause of the 1°C warming trend over the last century. Other variables such as the sun or water vapor could have a greater effect but they're moving in the wrong direction or not at all. Solar irradiance has been decreasing since 1950 and water vapor is pretty much a constant.


The CO2 concentration over the past 150 years may be demonstrable, but it's cause is not obvious, and, while I've heard these claims many times, I've never seen a report that conclusively demonstrates either one.
Since CO2 from burning fossil fuels contains different isotopes of carbon, demonstrating that humans are the cause of increasing CO2 is easily demonstrable.


As for the mean surface temperature, again, we need unambiguous data that conclusively demonstrate both the trend and the cause.
That Earth's global mean surface temperature has been increasing is supported by satellite measurements, instrument readings, tree rings, ice cores, ocean and lake sediments, and coral proxies. I don't know how much more conclusive you can get.


But, don't forget, the claim is that the issue is not debatable, so, in addition to all of that, we need the same kind of irrefutable conclusion, drawn logically from conclusive data, showing that the recommended prescriptions for future action are necessary and an effective remedy to the irrefutable prognoses drawn from conclusive, unambiguous data on all relevant factors.
Even if we cannot conclusively prove that consequences of continued CO2 emissions would be perilous to life as we know it, given the preponderance of data supporting it, should our default position be to reduce our impact until we can be sure?

[Contrails]

Have you ever read a graph before? That black line is not the last century.

The last century would be everything from the exact middle of the 1800 and 2000 markers.

Yes, as a matter of fact I can read a graph. The black line actually represents the instrumental temperature record dating back to about 1850, but since the first 50 years or so are virtually flat, the nearly vertical portion pretty much represents the last century. Why don't you give it a try.

[Contrails]

Right, they turn the scientific method on its head.....

You can turn it on its head too, just produce a climate theory that accurately depicts the last century of warming without relying on increasing CO2.

[Peter1469]

You can turn it on its head too, just produce a climate theory that accurately depicts the last century of warming without relying on increasing CO2.


The scientific method is based on falsifiability. You don't get that with climate models. Even the those making the models admit that they don't know all of the factors that affect the climate. That is evident in the fact that all the models have proven to be incorrect.

[Axiomatic]

I agree, climate change is used these days when discussing a lot of topics besides global warming. Since I find it pointless to debate the potential impact and possible solutions with someone who doesn't even accept the basic premise, you'll pardon me if I don't jump to these issues quite yet.


Climate science doesn't claim that CO2 is the only significant factor that affects Earth's surface temperature, but the ability of CO2 to retain heat was discovered almost two centuries ago and can easily be demonstrated by anyone (http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/atmos/ll_gas.htm). What climate science claims is that increasing CO2 is the primary cause of the 1°C warming trend over the last century. Other variables such as the sun or water vapor could have a greater effect but they're moving in the wrong direction or not at all. Solar irradiance has been decreasing since 1950 and water vapor is pretty much a constant.


Since CO2 from burning fossil fuels contains different isotopes of carbon, demonstrating that humans are the cause of increasing CO2 is easily demonstrable.


That Earth's global mean surface temperature has been increasing is supported by satellite measurements, instrument readings, tree rings, ice cores, ocean and lake sediments, and coral proxies. I don't know how much more conclusive you can get.


Even if we cannot conclusively prove that consequences of continued CO2 emissions would be perilous to life as we know it, given the preponderance of data supporting it, should our default position be to reduce our impact until we can be sure?

If everything you've said so far is true, we have a correlation, but causality still isn't obvious. We would still need to show that the difference in temperature is the result of the increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that we can extrapolate that out to make accurate predictions about the conditions and their effects. Your question at the end is not at all easy to answer. Our default position should always be informed by caution and and concern for our posterity. But what actions should result from our position? If our actions come at a cost, and we can't be certain that the results of our actions will be positive, negative or neutral, then we shouldn't act. If we can be certain about the results of our actions, we should weigh the cost of those actions against their potential benefit. The problem with most recommendations regarding this issue is that they are implemented by legislation, which means at the point of a gun. If the species we're talking about preserving is capable of rational thought, and still can't do any better than to compel cooperation by force, no policy they implement is likely to have its desired effect, and there isn't much hope for them anyway. These are the extreme ends. A reasonable compromise may be available somewhere in the middle. Anyway, I still don't see any truth in the claim that the issue is not debatable.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Yes, as a matter of fact I can read a graph. The black line actually represents the instrumental temperature record dating back to about 1850, but since the first 50 years or so are virtually flat, the nearly vertical portion pretty much represents the last century. Why don't you give it a try.

It can't. Look at the markers at the bottom of the graph. Half way between 1800 and 2000 is the last century. That's just basic math.

[Mister D]

It's sad to reflect on the damage global warming fear mongering has done. It's driven people apart on issues that would otherwise have been easy to get a general consensus on. now there exists a marked lack of trust (not a healthy skepticism) on the part of much of the public with regard to the integrity of scientists and researchers. Moreover, conservation etc. suffers because people who advocate sensible ideas (Chloe comes to mind as far as this forum is concerned) are perceived as loons. It's unfortunate.

[Contrails]

The scientific method is based on falsifiability. You don't get that with climate models. Even the those making the models admit that they don't know all of the factors that affect the climate. That is evident in the fact that all the models have proven to be incorrect.

Falsifiability is for scientific theories, not climate models. Climate models are simply tools which allow us to evaluate how climate systems interact. If you want to falsify the theory of anthropomorphic global warming, all you have to do is show that global temperature is not increasing, increasing atmospheric CO2 is not the reason for increasing global temperature, or that humans are not the cause of increasing atmospheric CO2.

[Contrails]

It can't. Look at the markers at the bottom of the graph. Half way between 1800 and 2000 is the last century. That's just basic math.

Here, I drew a line for you half way between 1800 and 2000 so you can clearly see how much it has warmed in the last century. Any more questions?

4382

[GrassrootsConservative]

Here, I drew a line for you half way between 1800 and 2000 so you can clearly see how much it has warmed in the last century. Any more questions?

4382

Which is a lot more than just the near-vertical section of the black line like you were saying.

[Peter1469]

Falsifiability is for scientific theories, not climate models. Climate models are simply tools which allow us to evaluate how climate systems interact. If you want to falsify the theory of anthropomorphic global warming, all you have to do is show that global temperature is not increasing, increasing atmospheric CO2 is not the reason for increasing global temperature, or that humans are not the cause of increasing atmospheric CO2.


And climate models don't seem to be accurate. That is why they keep revising them. They aren't science. If man made CO2 were the primary cause of warming, we would not have had a flat 15 years.....

And earlier when you claimed that a +1C increase in temp per 100 years is still dangerous, I forgot to add that within the century we likely will have moved on from fossil fuels. Certainly by the end of the next century. The solution to "global warming" is not to kill our economy with harsh regulations; it is to grow the economy and let real science advance our energy technologies.

[Peter1469]

Here, I drew a line for you half way between 1800 and 2000 so you can clearly see how much it has warmed in the last century. Any more questions?

4382


Link?

[Contrails]

Which is a lot more than just the near-vertical section of the black line like you were saying.

You might want to look up the definition of "a lot more" in the dictionary, because the near-vertical black line takes up almost all of the area to the right of the line I added.

[Contrails]

Link?

Remember, Google is your friend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

[Captain Obvious]

Remember, Google is your friend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

And citing sources is your responsibility.

[Peter1469]

Remember, Google is your friend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png


So you didn't make the black line.


(black 1856-2004): Instrumental data was jointly compiled by the w:Climatic Research Unit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit) and the UK Meteorological Office (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Met_Office) Hadley Centre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_Centre). Global Annual Average data set TaveGL2v [2] (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/) was used.

It seems to be a statistical outlier. I imagine that it will be revised downward, if it hasn't already been done.

[Contrails]

And climate models don't seem to be accurate. That is why they keep revising them. They aren't science. If man made CO2 were the primary cause of warming, we would not have had a flat 15 years.....
Models are never 100% accurate, that's why they're called models and why scientists keep revising them to reflect new information. Climate models, like any other model, are only accurate for what they were intended to model. They're intended to project trends larger than 30 years, so it's understandable that they missed a 15 year trend. In complex, noisy systems like climate it is much easier to forcast long-term trends than it is short-term trends. I don't need to know what the weather will be next week to know that summer will be warmer than winter. And while the daily temperature in any city can vary by 100°F over the course of a year, the average from one year to the next never varies by more than a couple degrees.


And earlier when you claimed that a +1C increase in temp per 100 years is still dangerous, I forgot to add that within the century we likely will have moved on from fossil fuels. Certainly by the end of the next century.
What I said what that a +1°C increase in temp would be worse than a -0.2°C decrease. And since CO2 stays in the atmosphere up to 200 years, can we really wait another 400 years for the problem to just fix itself?


The solution to "global warming" is not to kill our economy with harsh regulations; it is to grow the economy and let real science advance our energy technologies.
Did cap-and-trade regulations on SO2 emissions kill our economy? There are ways we can limit CO2 emissions without reducing our standard of living. But until people accept that CO2 emissions are a problem, we'll never have a productive dialog about them.

[Peter1469]

Models are never 100% accurate, that's why they're called models and why scientists keep revising them to reflect new information. Climate models, like any other model, are only accurate for what they were intended to model. They're intended to project trends larger than 30 years, so it's understandable that they missed a 15 year trend. In complex, noisy systems like climate it is much easier to forcast long-term trends than it is short-term trends. I don't need to know what the weather will be next week to know that summer will be warmer than winter. And while the daily temperature in any city can vary by 100°F over the course of a year, the average from one year to the next never varies by more than a couple degrees.


What I said what that a +1°C increase in temp would be worse than a -0.2°C decrease. And since CO2 stays in the atmosphere up to 200 years, can we really wait another 400 years for the problem to just fix itself?


Did cap-and-trade regulations on SO2 emissions kill our economy? There are ways we can limit CO2 emissions without reducing our standard of living. But until people accept that CO2 emissions are a problem, we'll never have a productive dialog about them.


Right that is why I said that they aren't science. They are statistics. And we all know how easy it is to manipulate statistics.

I could accept that man made CO2 has a minimal affect on warming- but the large affects predicted by the proponents of global warming are political in nature, not scientific. And as some have said above, maybe it is helping to prevent a new mini ice age or ice age.

[Contrails]

Right that is why I said that they aren't science. They are statistics. And we all know how easy it is to manipulate statistics.
Climate models are as much a part of climate science as beakers and bunsen burners are a part of chemistry. Since climate scientists cannot perform experiments in the real world, computer models are the only way to test their theories. This is not manipulating statistics, it is how science works. And so far they've proven remarkably accurate at long-term forcasts.

http://uanews.org/story/ua-climate-scientists-put-predictions-test


I could accept that man made CO2 has a minimal affect on warming- but the large affects predicted by the proponents of global warming are political in nature, not scientific.
Could you accept that it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century? Because that is what the science says, not the politics.


And as some have said above, maybe it is helping to prevent a new mini ice age or ice age.
And as I have pointed out, the threat of a new ice age is thousands of years off, while global warming is here now.

[Codename Section]

And as I have pointed out, the threat of a new ice age is thousands of years off, while global warming is here now.

Not according to solar scientists. They all seem to believe the lack of solar activity is what is causing our temperature changes and that man cannot compete with the sun as far as its effect on climate.

From a few years ago:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/06/the-sunspot-mys.html



Geophysicist Phil Chapman, the first Australian to become an astronaut
with NASA, said pictures from the US Solar and Heliospheric Observatory
also show that there are currently no spots on the sun. He also noted
that the world cooled quickly between January last year and January
this year, by about 0.7C.



"This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record, and
it puts us back to where we were in 1930," Dr Chapman noted in The
Australian recently.



If the world does face another mini Ice Age, it could come without
warning. Evidence for abrupt climate change is readily found in ice
cores taken from Greenland and Antarctica. One of the best known
examples of such an event is the Younger Dryas cooling, which occurred
about 12,000 years ago, named after the arctic wildflower found in
northern European sediments. This event began and ended rather
abruptly, and for its entire 1000 year duration the North Atlantic
region was about 5°C colder. Could something like this happen again?
There’s no way to tell, and because the changes can happen all within
one decade—we might not even see it coming.




Just this year


http://www.thegwpf.org/david-whitehouse-inactive-sun-global-cooling/


The weakness of Cycle 24 indicates that we might be entering a
period of low solar activity that may counteract man-made greenhouse
temperature increases. Cold not warmth might be our future. We do not
know. We must keep watching the sun.


Something is
happening to our sun. It has to do with sunspots or rather the activity
cycle their coming and going signifies. Sunspots – dark magnetic
blotches on the sun’s surface – come and go in an 11-year cycle of
activity first noticed in 1843. It is a process related to the motion of
superhot, electrically charged gas inside the sun; a kind of internal
conveyor belt where vast sub-surface rivers of gas take 40 years to
circulate from the equator to the poles and back.

Somehow, in a way not very well understood, this circulation produces
the sunspot cycle in which every 11 years there is a sunspot maximum
followed by a minimum. In the last century, the sun’s activity may have
been the highest for more than 8,000 years with lots of strong solar
cycles. But then things turned. The recent cycle – so called ‘Cycle 24′ –
is puny. If history is anything to go by, then the sun’s change of mood
could affect us all by cooling the earth and throwing our climate
change calculations into disarray.

Not all sunspot cycles are the same. They can be long or short, weak
or strong and sometimes they can go away altogether. Following the
discovery of the cycle, astronomers looked back through previous
observations and were able to clearly see it until they reached the 17th
century when it seemed to disappear. It turned out to be a real
absence, not one caused by a lack of observations. Astronomers called it
the Maunder Minimum.

It was an astonishing discovery, our sun can change. There was
something different about the sun back then. Between 1645 and 1715,
sunspots were rare. About 50 were observed. There should have been
50,000. Ever since the sunspot cycle was discovered, researchers have
looked for its rhythm superimposed on the earth’s climate. In some
cases, it is there but usually at low levels. But there was something
strange about the time when the sunspots disappeared that left
scientists to ponder if the sun’s unusual behaviour could have something
to do with the fact that the 17th century was also a time when the
earth’s northern hemisphere chilled with devastating consequences.

[Codename Section]

http://www.thegwpf.org/david-whitehouse-inactive-sun-global-cooling/

The big question is what will happen in the future. Cycle 24 is weak
with few sunspots. Could it be that our sun is behaving like it did in
the 17th century? Could we be on the verge of a new Little Ice Age? The
last decade has been warmer than previous ones. It is the result of a
rapid increase in global temperature between 1978 and 1998. Since then,
average temperatures have held at a high although steady level. Many
computer climate projections suggest that the global temperatures will
start to rise again in a few years’ time. But crucially those
projections do not take into account the recent change in the sun’s
behaviour.

The weakness of Cycle 24 indicates that we might be entering a period
of low solar activity that may counteract man-made greenhouse
temperature increases. Some members of the Russian Academy of Sciences
say we may be at the start of a period like that seen between 1790 and
1820, a minor decline in solar activity called the Dalton Minimum. It is
something we must take seriously because what happened to the sun in
the 17th century is bound to happen again sometime. It might even be the
case that the earth’s response to low solar activity will overturn many
of our assumptions about man’s influence on climate change. Cold not
warmth might be our future. We do not know. We must keep watching the
sun.

[Contrails]

Not according to solar scientists. They all seem to believe the lack of solar activity is what is causing our temperature changes and that man cannot compete with the sun as far as its effect on climate.
Your definition of "all solar scientists" must not include those at NASA (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20120130b/), the Stanford Solar Center (http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html), or the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (https://www.google.com/url?q=http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2004ScienceMeeting/SORCE%2520WORKSHOP%25202004/SESSION_3/3_1_White.pdf&sa=U&ei=oqFqUubGAoa62AXI2IGwDg&ved=0CAsQFjAC&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNE89TKCD21JB6M874X3mAciE5AClg).

No one is discounting the sun's role in global warming. After all, that's where all of the heat trapped by atmospheric CO2 comes from. The problem is, solar activity started declining in 1950 while temperatures continued to rise. If a drop in solar activity is going to lead to global cooling, shouldn't we have seen some by now?

[jillian]

Your definition of "all solar scientists" must not include those at NASA (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20120130b/), the Stanford Solar Center (http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html), or the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (https://www.google.com/url?q=http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2004ScienceMeeting/SORCE%20WORKSHOP%202004/SESSION_3/3_1_White.pdf&sa=U&ei=oqFqUubGAoa62AXI2IGwDg&ved=0CAsQFjAC&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNE89TKCD21JB6M874X3mAciE5AClg).

No one is discounting the sun's role in global warming. After all, that's where all of the heat trapped by atmospheric CO2 comes from. The problem is, solar activity started declining in 1950 while temperatures continued to rise. If a drop in solar activity is going to lead to global cooling, shouldn't we have seen some by now?

science deniers.... ah well...

[Codename Section]

Your definition of "all solar scientists" must not include those at NASA (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20120130b/), the Stanford Solar Center (http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html), or the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (https://www.google.com/url?q=http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2004ScienceMeeting/SORCE WORKSHOP 2004/SESSION_3/3_1_White.pdf&sa=U&ei=oqFqUubGAoa62AXI2IGwDg&ved=0CAsQFjAC&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNE89TKCD21JB6M874X3mAciE5AClg).

No one is discounting the sun's role in global warming. After all, that's where all of the heat trapped by atmospheric CO2 comes from. The problem is, solar activity started declining in 1950 while temperatures continued to rise. If a drop in solar activity is going to lead to global cooling, shouldn't we have seen some by now?

((taps shoulder and points))



http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Codename Section http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=403276#post403276)
Not according to solar scientists. They all seem to believe the lack of solar activity is what is causing our temperature changes and that man cannot compete with the sun as far as its effect on climate.



Where is the "all"?

It's usually considered rude to put words in people's mouths just to make a catchy rebuttal.

Second, the article isn't talking about the beginnings of the decline but the rapid decline of the activity last decade, something your quote doesn't speak to. Catch up, please.

Anyway these guys are NASA probably didn't talk to the other guys at NASA


NASA reports this week that we may be on the verge of another Maunder Minimum (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/) (a period with an unusually low number of sunspots, leading to colder temperatures):

Much has been made of the probable connection between the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year deficit of sunspots in the late 17th-early
18th century, and the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, during which
Europe and North America were subjected to bitterly cold winters. The
mechanism for that regional cooling could have been a drop in the sun’s
EUV output; this is, however, speculative.


http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2013/01/08/sunspotnumbers_strip.jpg/image_full (http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2013/01/08/sunspotnumbers_strip.jpg)

The sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now.
Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover,
there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the
magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of
the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25
arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any
sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving
helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their
conclusion.



Or this one

http://www.space.com/19280-solar-activity-earth-climate.html

"If the sun really is entering an unfamiliar phase of the solar cycle,
then we must redouble our efforts to understand the sun-climate link,"
said researcher Lika Guhathakurta at NASA's Living with a Star Program,
which helped fund the NRC study.

[Codename Section]

science deniers.... ah well...

Uh jillian - mom

Your adopted son just provided some NASA quotes. ((buffs nails on shirt))

[Alyosha]

Your definition of "all solar scientists" must not include those at NASA (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20120130b/), the Stanford Solar Center (http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html), or the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (https://www.google.com/url?q=http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2004ScienceMeeting/SORCE WORKSHOP 2004/SESSION_3/3_1_White.pdf&sa=U&ei=oqFqUubGAoa62AXI2IGwDg&ved=0CAsQFjAC&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNE89TKCD21JB6M874X3mAciE5AClg).

No one is discounting the sun's role in global warming. After all, that's where all of the heat trapped by atmospheric CO2 comes from. The problem is, solar activity started declining in 1950 while temperatures continued to rise. If a drop in solar activity is going to lead to global cooling, shouldn't we have seen some by now?

Don't be evasive and dance off with straw men. The greatest decline in solar activity (last decade) has visible correlations with climate cooling. Noting that correlation is not causation, it is still evidence that suggests that the stall in warming trends could be solar related. Previous observations of the Maunder Minimum indicates such--oh, you'll accept stuff from NASA, right?

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml


Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715 (38 kb JPEG image) (http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_yearly.jpg). Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age" when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past. The connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of on-going research.

I realize that you guys really wanted the planet to get hot and stuff and this solar thing can be a buzzkill to the climate change industry but the fact is that you need to get over it because NASA's predictions from just 2008 about arctic ice being kaput not only did not happen, but we have more ice now indicating that something super cereal is happening.

[Mister D]

It's strange that progressives are champions of "science" on one issue but a lynch mob on others.

[Contrails]

Your definition of "all solar scientists" must not include those at NASA (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20120130b/), the Stanford Solar Center (http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html), or the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (https://www.google.com/url?q=http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2004ScienceMeeting/SORCE WORKSHOP 2004/SESSION_3/3_1_White.pdf&sa=U&ei=oqFqUubGAoa62AXI2IGwDg&ved=0CAsQFjAC&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNE89TKCD21JB6M874X3mAciE5AClg).

((taps shoulder and points))

Where is the "all"?

It's usually considered rude to put words in people's mouths just to make a catchy rebuttal.

Right here...

Not according to solar scientists. They all seem to believe the lack of solar activity is what is causing our temperature changes and that man cannot compete with the sun as far as its effect on climate.
Remember, grammar saves lives (http://e-nklings-revschuldheisz.blogspot.com/2012/03/grammar-saves-lives.html).



Second, the article isn't talking about the beginnings of the decline but the rapid decline of the activity last decade, something your quote doesn't speak to. Catch up, please.

The Little Ice Age that resulted from the Maunder Minimum was a regional phenomenon and global mean temperature only dropped about 0.5°C. How does this offset the +2°C to +6°C warming projected from CO2 emissions?

[Alyosha]

Right here...

Remember, grammar saves lives (http://e-nklings-revschuldheisz.blogspot.com/2012/03/grammar-saves-lives.html).



Did it occur to you that he was referring to his own links?

Anyway, speaking of predictions why do we have still have ice? According to Maslowski it should be gone, right?

Or, I'll defer to your giant knowledge base to explain why things are a little chilly this year. I'm willing to listen. Go ahead. Do explain.

[Contrails]

Don't be evasive and dance off with straw men. The greatest decline in solar activity (last decade) has visible correlations with climate cooling. Noting that correlation is not causation, it is still evidence that suggests that the stall in warming trends could be solar related. Previous observations of the Maunder Minimum indicates such--oh, you'll accept stuff from NASA, right?
No one is denying that a decline in solar activity is partially responsible for the current pause in warming, but PDO is also a significant factor, pulling heat from the surface into the deeper ocean water. The question is, even with both of these factors working against CO2, why has global surface temperature remained constant and not declined? Even if solar activity stays low, PDO will eventually reverse and the ocean will stop pulling heat from the surface. What do you think will happen to global surface temperature when that happens?

[Alyosha]

No one is denying that a decline in solar activity is partially responsible for the current pause in warming,

What are the other reasons?

Here's why I am concerned about the cooling trend and solar activity...I am Russian and all of our major scientists who are not hacks think we're in for a doozy.

I would love to think that man-made warming will counteract what they are predicting which is another mini ice age.

Russians are not emotional like everyone else. The environment and climate is not seen through a lens of politics. They just think we should prepare for cold winters to come.

[Contrails]

Did it occur to you that he was referring to his own links?
It could have also been his southern accent, but when you put "all" immediately after a pronoun it's understood that it applies to the subject of the pronoun, not something else. Remember, grammar saves lives (http://e-nklings-revschuldheisz.blogspot.com/2012/03/grammar-saves-lives.html).


Anyway, speaking of predictions why do we have still have ice? According to Maslowski it should be gone, right?
So he was off by a couple of years. You aren't going to tell me it stopped melting are you?

http://www.truth-out.org/images/images_2013_09/2013_0919mel_3.jpg


Or, I'll defer to your giant knowledge base to explain why things are a little chilly this year. I'm willing to listen. Go ahead. Do explain.
Winter is coming in the Northern Hemisphere, isn't it? I assume you haven't checked the weather forecast for Australia today.

http://cache.boston.com/partners/aweather/maxtodtempaust.jpg

[Alyosha]

So he was off by a couple of years. You aren't going to tell me it stopped melting are you?

Yes. Apparently. Maybe it will pick back up melting or maybe we are in for a long cold spell.




Winter is coming in the Northern Hemisphere, isn't it? I assume you haven't checked the weather forecast for Australia today.



Right but when you guys talk "weather" and "climate" you're speaking of trends, none of which answer why warming stalled and why its not due to solar inactivity.

Which you were going to explain, so can you?

[Contrails]

What are the other reasons?
Did you read beyond the first half of the first sentence?

No one is denying that a decline in solar activity is partially responsible for the current pause in warming, but PDO is also a significant factor, pulling heat from the surface into the deeper ocean water. The question is, even with both of these factors working against CO2, why has global surface temperature remained constant and not declined? Even if solar activity stays low, PDO will eventually reverse and the ocean will stop pulling heat from the surface. What do you think will happen to global surface temperature when that happens?


Here's why I am concerned about the cooling trend and solar activity...I am Russian and all of our major scientists who are not hacks think we're in for a doozy.
Have they published any projections or models estimating how much and how quickly this cooling trend will be? Climate scientists are fully aware of effects of solar activity and it seems a little credulous to me to think that they just happened to overlook something the Russian's have been saying for 20 years now.


I would love to think that man-made warming will counteract what they are predicting which is another mini ice age.

Russians are not emotional like everyone else. The environment and climate is not seen through a lens of politics. They just think we should prepare for cold winters to come.
I too would love to think that maintaining the climate in which human civilization has flourished is as easy as business-as-usual, but reality doesn't seem to care much about what we would like. Despite the attempts by some to politicize the issue, the science is out there for those who look for it, and it overwhelmingly shows that human activity has caused 1°C of warming in the last century and will likely cause more warming in the future unless we do something.

[Chris]

Science doesn't prove things. It is incomplete, tentative and probabilistic. It is skeptical at heart. To argue otherwise is to argue scientism.

[Peter1469]

Right here...

Remember, grammar saves lives (http://e-nklings-revschuldheisz.blogspot.com/2012/03/grammar-saves-lives.html).




The Little Ice Age that resulted from the Maunder Minimum was a regional phenomenon and global mean temperature only dropped about 0.5°C. How does this offset the +2°C to +6°C warming projected from CO2 emissions?

Those predictions are over blown for political reasons.

[Contrails]

Science doesn't prove things. It is incomplete, tentative and probabilistic. It is skeptical at heart. To argue otherwise is to argue scientism.

That's very true. One of my favorite sayings is that "proof is for mathematics and alcohol." Science is about improving our understanding of the world around us, and no scientist ever became famous for validating conventional wisdom. If there really was data refuting global warming, no conspiracy could keep it quiet.

[Contrails]

Those predictions are over blown for political reasons.

Those projections (they're not predictions) are backed by solid science if you would take the time to study it. The IPCC by its very nature is conservative. You don't get 259 scientists from 39 countries to put their name behind a document by making overblown claims.

[Peter1469]

Those projections (they're not predictions) are backed by solid science if you would take the time to study it. The IPCC by its very nature is conservative. You don't get 259 scientists from 39 countries to put their name behind a document by making overblown claims.

Science falsifies; computer models with missing data are not science. It is just politics.

[Contrails]

Science falsifies; computer models with missing data are not science. It is just politics.

Repeating long debunked conspiracy theories is just politics.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-26-2011/weathering-fights

Looking at the data completely and objectively is science.

http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings

[Ethereal]

I blame evil man and his noxious CO2 poison he pumps into our air.

[Chris]

That's very true. One of my favorite sayings is that "proof is for mathematics and alcohol." Science is about improving our understanding of the world around us, and no scientist ever became famous for validating conventional wisdom. If there really was data refuting global warming, no conspiracy could keep it quiet.

You do realize you come off as an alarmist, not a skeptic.

[Peter1469]

I blame evil man and his noxious CO2 poison he pumps into our air.

Don't tell that to the trees. They love CO2 .

[ptif219]

It is amazing that even when scientists prove warming has stopped the left still refuses to admit it

[Contrails]

You do realize you come off as an alarmist, not a skeptic.

I told you before, I'm a realist. And if you think supporting the scientific consensus comes off as alarmist, you may be a denier, not a skeptic.

[Contrails]

It is amazing that even when scientists prove warming has stopped the left still refuses to admit it

What's even more amazing is how you keep making this claim but can't produce any actual science to back it up.

[ptif219]

What's even more amazing is how you keep making this claim but can't produce any actual science to back it up.

It has been shown you just refuse to accept it. Even the head of the IPCC admitted it

[Contrails]

It has been shown you just refuse to accept it. Even the head of the IPCC admitted it

The chairman of the IPCC admitted that there's been no significant change in mean surface temperature for 17 years and no one disputes that. However, it doesn't mean that warming has stopped. I explained in Post #117 how short-term variability can temporarily mask long-term trends. Here's an example of actual science that backs that up.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract;jsessionid=D3EB33A8A2E2E6202CAF6CF0AEF593 5C.f01t04

[ptif219]

The chairman of the IPCC admitted that there's been no significant change in mean surface temperature for 17 years and no one disputes that. However, it doesn't mean that warming has stopped. I explained in Post #117 how short-term variability can temporarily mask long-term trends. Here's an example of actual science that backs that up.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract;jsessionid=D3EB33A8A2E2E6202CAF6CF0AEF593 5C.f01t04

It has been 17 years that makes the GW climate models wrong. It makes the doom and gloom we heard false. Keep trying to justify it but the IPCC is full of shit. The head is not even a climate scientist

[Contrails]

It has been 17 years that makes the GW climate models wrong. It makes the doom and gloom we heard false.
17 years of data doesn't disprove climate models based on 30 year averages. Especially when climate scientists have explained the apparent pause.


Keep trying to justify it but the IPCC is full of shit. The head is not even a climate scientist
Since the IPCC isn't a scientific body, I wouldn't expect it to be. Nice try at poisoning the well but it doesn't make a difference to the scientific data they present.

[ptif219]

17 years of data doesn't disprove climate models based on 30 year averages. Especially when climate scientists have explained the apparent pause.


Since the IPCC isn't a scientific body, I wouldn't expect it to be. Nice try at poisoning the well but it doesn't make a difference to the scientific data they present.

Yes it does. The 30 year models are wrong. Global warming is a scam and the increased CO2 and no temperature increase proves CO2 is not the cause of warming

[Contrails]

Yes it does. The 30 year models are wrong. Global warming is a scam and the increased CO2 and no temperature increase proves CO2 is not the cause of warming

A scam by who? Who is benefitting from global warming? Do you see any climate scientists on Forbes list of the world's billionaires (http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/)?

[Peter1469]

Computer models: garbage in, garbage out. It is anti-science.

[Contrails]

Computer models: garbage in, garbage out. It is anti-science.

Developing equations that represent physical processes and then plugging them into computer models so they can be compared to actual data is anti-science how? Can you explain how one would perform laboratory experiments on climate change?

[Peter1469]

Developing equations that represent physical processes and then plugging them into computer models so they can be compared to actual data is anti-science how? Can you explain how one would perform laboratory experiments on climate change?

As explained by climate scientists, they don't know all of the inputs into climate change. The models are flawed.

[Contrails]

As explained by climate scientists, they don't know all of the inputs into climate change. The models are flawed.
Models never completely represent the systems they model, otherwise they wouldn't be called models. That doesn't make them flawed, and their accuracy at forecasting 30 year global trends has been repeatedly validated.

http://uanews.org/story/ua-climate-scientists-put-predictions-test

[ptif219]

A scam by who? Who is benefitting from global warming? Do you see any climate scientists on Forbes list of the world's billionaires (http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/)?

So now you deny the scam. They are government contracts and they are pushing more taxes

[ptif219]

Models never completely represent the systems they model, otherwise they wouldn't be called models. That doesn't make them flawed, and their accuracy at forecasting 30 year global trends has been repeatedly validated.

http://uanews.org/story/ua-climate-scientists-put-predictions-test

They have been wrong. The doom and gloom has not happened

[Contrails]

So now you deny the scam. They are government contracts and they are pushing more taxes

How can I deny something you haven't even bothered to explain?

[Contrails]

They have been wrong. The doom and gloom has not happened

Where did any climate scientist predict doom and gloom by 2013?

[ptif219]

How can I deny something you haven't even bothered to explain?

You deny the scientific evidence that there has been no significant warming for over 15 years

[ptif219]

Where did any climate scientist predict doom and gloom by 2013?

So you deny they preached doom and gloom. They were wrong and are now caught in their unscientific lies.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/04/30/global-warming-alarm-continued-cooling-may-jeopardize-climate-science-and-green-energy-funding/



These observed developments have prompted the U.K.’s Met Office Climate Center (the national weather service) to quietly revise its projections. They now say: “The latest decadal prediction suggests that the next five years are likely to be a little bit lower than predicted from the previous prediction.” The predicted increase from 2013 through 2017 was 0.43 degree Celsius above the 1971-2000 mean, while the previous prediction said temperature would increase 0.54 degree from 2012 through 2016. Simply stated, it will be cooler than they expected!
The London Daily Mail published a chart that, as they say, “reveals how [the IPCC’s] ’95 % certain’ estimates of the Earth heating up were a spectacular miscalculation.” Comparing actual temperatures against the IPCC’s 95% certainty projections, the lines track closely until recent years, at which point the line representing the observed temperatures “is about to crash out of” the boundaries of the lowest projections. They were supposed to climb sharply after 1990.
Whereas the IPCC has predicted (http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions)that temperatures will rise by 3 degrees Celsius by 2050 if CO2 doubles from pre-industrialized levels of 1750, The Research Council of Norway plugged in real temperature data from 2000 to 2010 and determined (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/020113-642924-climate-change-projections-overstate-degree-global-warming.htm?p=full)that doubling would cause only a 1.9 degree Celsius rise. Another study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences links temperature changes from 1750 to natural changes (such as sea temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean) and suggests “…the anthropogenic global warming trends might have been overestimated by a factor of two in the second half of the 20th century”.
Peter Stott, a researcher who authored the most recent IPCC report chapter on global climate projections, has found that climate model projections of an alarming temperature rise are inconsistent with past observations. When he and his colleagues at the U.K.’s Met Office forced the amount of global warming predicted by the models to equal the amount of warming actually observed, the projected future rise to accompany human greenhouse gas emissions dropped substantially. In other words, the better climate models match the past, the less scary the likely future looks.
Stott isn’t alone. Within the past two years, at least seven peer-reviewed studies published in the scientific literature have concluded that the influence of doubling the amount of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is likely to be substantially lower than IPCC has determined and have ruled out the high-end projections.
James Annan, formerly a strong defender of Michael Mann’s infamously flawed alarmist “hockey stick” graph and an expert on “climate sensitivity” to CO2 and other influences, recently concluded in his blog (http://www.cato.org/blog/la-la-la-i-cant-hear-you) that IPCC is increasingly acting in a wholly unscientific manner. He referred to a list of scientists polled as largely constituting “the self-same people responsible for the bogus analyses [he] criticized over the years, and which even if they were valid then, are certainly outdated now”.
Annan also said: “Since IPCC can no longer defend their old analyses in any meaningful manner, it seems they have to resort to an unsupported ‘this is what we think, because we asked our pals’…having firmly wedded themselves to their politically convenient long tail of high values, their response to new evidence is little more than sticking their fingers in their ears and singing ‘la la la I can’t hear you’.”
Those IPCC reports serve as the primary basis for EPA’s regulatory actions under the Clean Air Act…as are the president’s statements that his administration’s policies are based upon “the overwhelming judgment of science.” Asserting in his State of the Union Address (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/03/07/human-caused_climate_change_less_than_expected_117341.ht ml) that global warming played a role in fueling deadly and destructive storms like Hurricane Sandy, President Obama said: “We must do more to combat climate change…It’s true that no single event makes a trend. But the fact is, the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods – all are now more frequent and intense.”
But there’s a big disconnect from facts here. In reality, there has been no increase in the strength or frequency of landfall hurricanes in the world’s five main hurricane basins during the past 50-70 years; there has been no increase in the strength or frequency in tropical Atlantic hurricane development during the past 370 years; the U.S. is currently enjoying the longest period ever recorded without intense Category 3-5 hurricane landfall; there has been no trend since 1950 evidencing any increased frequency of strong (F3-F-5) U.S. tornadoes; there has been no increase in U.S. flood magnitudes over the past 85 years; and long-term sea level rise is not accelerating.

[Contrails]

You deny the scientific evidence that there has been no significant warming for over 15 years
Do you deny that climate refers to weather patterns averaged over 30 years?

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

Nobody denies that there has been no significant warming for 17 years, but that is indicative of the short-term variability in weather, not a long-term climate trend.

[Contrails]

So you deny they preached doom and gloom. They were wrong and are now caught in their unscientific lies.

Congratulations, ptif219, you caught the UK's national weather service lowering their forecast for the next 5 years by 0.1 °C. Now you just need to show where they preached that temperatures 0.54 °C above the 1971-2000 mean were "doom and gloom". In other news, meteorologists are undecided on whether it will rain next week or not.

[ptif219]

Do you deny that climate refers to weather patterns averaged over 30 years?

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

Nobody denies that there has been no significant warming for 17 years, but that is indicative of the short-term variability in weather, not a long-term climate trend.

Why 30 years? How long was it warming since they were concerned about cooling in the 70,s

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Real-risk-of-a-Maunder-minimum-Little-Ice-Age-says-leading-scientist

[ptif219]

Congratulations, ptif219, you caught the UK's national weather service lowering their forecast for the next 5 years by 0.1 °C. Now you just need to show where they preached that temperatures 0.54 °C above the 1971-2000 mean were "doom and gloom". In other news, meteorologists are undecided on whether it will rain next week or not.

Show where they predicted a stop in warming

[Contrails]

Why 30 years?
That's how you remove the effects of short-term variability like 11-year solar cycles and decadal Southern Oscillation cycles from a noisy system to expose underlying long-term trends.


How long was it warming since they were concerned about cooling in the 70,s
You'll have to be more specific about who "they" were because climate scientists were not concerned about cooling in the 70's (Peterson 2008 (http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf)).


http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Real-risk-of-a-Maunder-minimum-Little-Ice-Age-says-leading-scientist
Do I have to point out again how much global mean temperature has increased since the solar grand maximum around 1985 and how little it decreased during the Maunder minimum in the 1600's?

[Contrails]

Show where they predicted a stop in warming

Show where they needed to? I don't need to predict the weather next week to know that summer will be warmer than winter. Climate models project where temperatures will over decades, not years.

[ptif219]

That's how you remove the effects of short-term variability like 11-year solar cycles and decadal Southern Oscillation cycles from a noisy system to expose underlying long-term trends.


You'll have to be more specific about who "they" were because climate scientists were not concerned about cooling in the 70's (Peterson 2008 (http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf)).


Do I have to point out again how much global mean temperature has increased since the solar grand maximum around 1985 and how little it decreased during the Maunder minimum in the 1600's?

You use that is an excuse to deny they lied. The fact is i showed a scientist has used solar evidence to sow warming may soon be cooling which may be far worse

[ptif219]

Show where they needed to? I don't need to predict the weather next week to know that summer will be warmer than winter. Climate models project where temperatures will over decades, not years.

They predicted warming with no stop in warming because CO2 would continue to increase. This shows the CO2 is not the cause which makes their whole theory false.

[Contrails]

You use that is an excuse to deny they lied. The fact is i showed a scientist has used solar evidence to sow warming may soon be cooling which may be far worse

All you've shown is that you still don't know the difference between scientific research and public media. While no one doubts that solar activity is declining and may stay low for a long time, Professor Lockwood makes no predictions on how much cooling this will cause or how quickly. And since you didn't seem to read all of your own source, I'll reprint the closing paragraphs for you here.


According to research (http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/Shindelletal01.pdf) conducted by Michael Mann in 2001, a vociferous advocate of man-made global warming, the Maunder minimum of the 1600s was estimated to have shaved 0.3C to 0.4C from global temperatures.
It is worth stressing that most scientists believe long term global warming hasn’t gone away. Any global cooling caused by this natural phenomenon would ultimately be temporary, and if projections are correct, the long term warming caused by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases would eventually swamp this solar-driven cooling.

Do you really think shaving 0.3C to 0.4C from global temperatures will be worse than the projected 2.0C to 4.0C warming?

[Contrails]

They predicted warming with no stop in warming because CO2 would continue to increase. This shows the CO2 is not the cause which makes their whole theory false.
Climate model projections are based on 30 year averages so the fact that they missed a 15 year trend is not surprising. Using your logic, the fact that temperatures increased between 1980 and today while solar activity has been decreasing must prove that the sun is not the cause either.

[ptif219]

All you've shown is that you still don't know the difference between scientific research and public media. While no one doubts that solar activity is declining and may stay low for a long time, Professor Lockwood makes no predictions on how much cooling this will cause or how quickly. And since you didn't seem to read all of your own source, I'll reprint the closing paragraphs for you here.


Do you really think shaving 0.3C to 0.4C from global temperatures will be worse than the projected 2.0C to 4.0C warming?

So you print what Mann says. Mann famous for the failed hockey stick claim

[ptif219]

Climate model projections are based on 30 year averages so the fact that they missed a 15 year trend is not surprising. Using your logic, the fact that temperatures increased between 1980 and today while solar activity has been decreasing must prove that the sun is not the cause either.

The trend is not over and soon we may actually be cooling

[Contrails]

So you print what Mann says. Mann famous for the failed hockey stick claim

Are you talking about the famous hockey stick shape from Mann, Bradley & Hughes (1999) (http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/research/ONLINE-PREPRINTS/Millennium/mbh99.pdf) depicting exceptional 20th century warming? The same exceptional warming that appears in Huang, Pollack & Shen (2000) (http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter/Resources/Seminar/readings/Huang_boreholeTemp_Nature%2700.pdf), and Thompson et al. (2003) (http://bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/Thompsonetal-climatic-change-2003.pdf), and Cook, Esper & D'Arrgio (2004) (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004QSRv...23.2063C), and Moberg (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005Natur.433..613M)et al. (2005) (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005Natur.433..613M), and Oerlemans (2005) (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5722/675.full.pdf), and Wahl & Ammann (2006) (http://web.archive.org/web/20060503103311/http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/WahlAmmann_ClimChange2006.html), and Juckes et al. (2007) (http://www.clim-past.net/3/591/2007/cp-3-591-2007.pdf), and Lee, Zwiers & Tsao (2008) (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ClDy...31..263L), and Huang, Pollack and Shen (2008) (http://www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~shaopeng/2008GL034187.pdf), and Kaufman et al. (2009) (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5945/1236.full.pdf), and Marcott et al. (2013) (http://dx.doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.1228026)? If you think this is a failure then you don't know science.

[Contrails]

The trend is not over and soon we may actually be cooling

How much cooling could there be? How fast will it cool? It's not enough to simply question the currently accepted theory, you have to provide your own theory and show how it does a better job of predicting future trends.

[Peter1469]

Are you talking about the famous hockey stick shape from Mann, Bradley & Hughes (1999) (http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/research/ONLINE-PREPRINTS/Millennium/mbh99.pdf) depicting exceptional 20th century warming? The same exceptional warming that appears in Huang, Pollack & Shen (2000) (http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter/Resources/Seminar/readings/Huang_boreholeTemp_Nature'00.pdf), and Thompson et al. (2003) (http://bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/Thompsonetal-climatic-change-2003.pdf), and Cook, Esper & D'Arrgio (2004) (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004QSRv...23.2063C), and Moberg (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005Natur.433..613M)et al. (2005) (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005Natur.433..613M), and Oerlemans (2005) (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5722/675.full.pdf), and Wahl & Ammann (2006) (http://web.archive.org/web/20060503103311/http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/WahlAmmann_ClimChange2006.html), and Juckes et al. (2007) (http://www.clim-past.net/3/591/2007/cp-3-591-2007.pdf), and Lee, Zwiers & Tsao (2008) (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ClDy...31..263L), and Huang, Pollack and Shen (2008) (http://www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~shaopeng/2008GL034187.pdf), and Kaufman et al. (2009) (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5945/1236.full.pdf), and Marcott et al. (2013) (http://dx.doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.1228026)? If you think this is a failure then you don't know science.

It was a misrepresentation. A classic way to use statistics to say what you want them to say.

[Contrails]

It was a misrepresentation. A classic way to use statistics to say what you want them to say.

The criticism raised by McIntyre & McKitrick in their 2005 paper was that the Principal Component Analysis method introduced by Mann, Bradley & Hughes had a statistical error which would produce hockey stick shapes from random data. Except an examination by Wahl & Ammann in 2007 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/cv/cv_pubs/wahl/NH-and-Climate-Field-Reconstruction-Papers/Wahl_Ammann_ClimChange2007.pdf) showed that, despite the need to slightly modify the original reconstruction for the first half of the 15th century, the PCA method didn't affect the results and the primary conclusion of Mann's reconstruction, that 20th century warming is exceptional, still stands.

[ptif219]

Are you talking about the famous hockey stick shape from Mann, Bradley & Hughes (1999) (http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/research/ONLINE-PREPRINTS/Millennium/mbh99.pdf) depicting exceptional 20th century warming? The same exceptional warming that appears in Huang, Pollack & Shen (2000) (http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter/Resources/Seminar/readings/Huang_boreholeTemp_Nature'00.pdf), and Thompson et al. (2003) (http://bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/Thompsonetal-climatic-change-2003.pdf), and Cook, Esper & D'Arrgio (2004) (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004QSRv...23.2063C), and Moberg (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005Natur.433..613M)et al. (2005) (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005Natur.433..613M), and Oerlemans (2005) (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5722/675.full.pdf), and Wahl & Ammann (2006) (http://web.archive.org/web/20060503103311/http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/WahlAmmann_ClimChange2006.html), and Juckes et al. (2007) (http://www.clim-past.net/3/591/2007/cp-3-591-2007.pdf), and Lee, Zwiers & Tsao (2008) (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ClDy...31..263L), and Huang, Pollack and Shen (2008) (http://www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~shaopeng/2008GL034187.pdf), and Kaufman et al. (2009) (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5945/1236.full.pdf), and Marcott et al. (2013) (http://dx.doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.1228026)? If you think this is a failure then you don't know science.

It has been debunked

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/403256/global-warming-bombshell/

[ptif219]

How much cooling could there be? How fast will it cool? It's not enough to simply question the currently accepted theory, you have to provide your own theory and show how it does a better job of predicting future trends.

Yet it was all false for Global warming

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scientists-confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought--computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html

[ptif219]

Predictions on global warming are almost always wrong

http://www.westernjournalism.com/global-warming-predictions-proven-wrong-97-4-time/

[Peter1469]

The criticism raised by McIntyre & McKitrick in their 2005 paper was that the Principal Component Analysis method introduced by Mann, Bradley & Hughes had a statistical error which would produce hockey stick shapes from random data. Except an examination by Wahl & Ammann in 2007 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/cv/cv_pubs/wahl/NH-and-Climate-Field-Reconstruction-Papers/Wahl_Ammann_ClimChange2007.pdf) showed that, despite the need to slightly modify the original reconstruction for the first half of the 15th century, the PCA method didn't affect the results and the primary conclusion of Mann's reconstruction, that 20th century warming is exceptional, still stands.


It conveniently ignores earlier warming spikes....

[Contrails]

It has been debunked

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/403256/global-warming-bombshell/
Apparently you failed to notice that Richard Muller wrote that three years before Wahl & Ammann in 2007 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/cv/cv_pubs/wahl/NH-and-Climate-Field-Reconstruction-Papers/Wahl_Ammann_ClimChange2007.pdf). By the way, Richard Muller did his own analysis (http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings) of temperature data and guess what he came up with?

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/img/decadal-comparison-small.png

Looks a lot like the Mann hockey stick, doesn't it?

[Contrails]

It conveniently ignores earlier warming spikes....

Such as? Don't leave us hanging there Peter. Please tell us what you know that thousands of climate scientists don't.

[Peter1469]

Such as? Don't leave us hanging there Peter. Please tell us what you know that thousands of climate scientists don't.

Add this to your fraudulent hockey stick. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/10/global_warming_undermined_by_study_of_climate_chan ge/)


A new study measuring temperatures over the past two millennia has concluded that in fact the temperatures seen in the last decade are far from being the hottest in history.

A large team of scientists making a comprehensive study of data from tree rings say that in fact global temperatures have been on a falling trend for the past 2,000 years and they have often been noticeably higher than they are today - despite the absence of any significant amounts of human-released carbon dioxide in the atmosphere back then.

"We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low," says Professor-Doktor Jan Esper of the Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, one of the scientists leading the study. "Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy."

They certainly are, as it is a central plank of climate policy worldwide that the current temperatures are the highest ever seen for many millennia, and that this results from rising levels of atmospheric CO2 emitted by human activities such as industry, transport etc.

If it is the case that actually the climate has often been warmer without any significant CO2 emissions having taken place - suggesting that CO2 emissions simply aren't that important - the case for huge efforts to cut those emissions largely disappears.

[Common]

Cant sell me global warming until the half of scientists agree with the other half that say theres not.
All I can ask is how the hell did we go from my being told I was going to freeze to death, that temperatures dropping in the oceans were going to freeze and create monster icebergs that were going wipe out north america and most life forms to Im going to roast like a turkey in 50 short years.
Over my life time Scientists told me this then couple years later scientists told me that was wrong this is it and flop after flip after flop, until im at the point that I now understand my fathers response to any doom saying, Im still here Ill worry about it when Im not, shrug he lived to be 87 the last thing he said to me was to bring him a carton of cigarettes he smoked for 77 yrs right up until the morning of the day he died.
Im tired of listening to the "EXPERTS" and im damn sure not willing to spend billions on global warming when I dont believe anyone knows if its true or not. Just look at ethanol and whats its cost americans in the cost of food alone and it doesnt do squat to lower energy use. Sorry cant buy any more maybes too expensive.

[ptif219]

Apparently you failed to notice that Richard Muller wrote that three years before Wahl & Ammann in 2007 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/cv/cv_pubs/wahl/NH-and-Climate-Field-Reconstruction-Papers/Wahl_Ammann_ClimChange2007.pdf). By the way, Richard Muller did his own analysis (http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings) of temperature data and guess what he came up with?

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/img/decadal-comparison-small.png

Looks a lot like the Mann hockey stick, doesn't it?

I take you have not played hockey if you think that looks like a hockey stick

[Contrails]

Add this to your fraudulent hockey stick. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/10/global_warming_undermined_by_study_of_climate_chan ge/)

Are you suggesting that data from northern Scandinavia is representative of global climate?


Here, we present new evidence based on maximum latewood density data from northern Scandinavia, indicating that this cooling trend was stronger (−0.31 °C per 1,000 years, ±0.03 °C) than previously reported, and demonstrate that this signature is missing in published tree-ring proxy records.

[Contrails]

I take you have not played hockey if you think that looks like a hockey stick
4433

[Contrails]

Cant sell me global warming until the half of scientists agree with the other half that say theres not.
All I can ask is how the hell did we go from my being told I was going to freeze to death, that temperatures dropping in the oceans were going to freeze and create monster icebergs that were going wipe out north america and most life forms to Im going to roast like a turkey in 50 short years.
Over my life time Scientists told me this then couple years later scientists told me that was wrong this is it and flop after flip after flop, until im at the point that I now understand my fathers response to any doom saying, Im still here Ill worry about it when Im not, shrug he lived to be 87 the last thing he said to me was to bring him a carton of cigarettes he smoked for 77 yrs right up until the morning of the day he died.
Im tired of listening to the "EXPERTS" and im damn sure not willing to spend billions on global warming when I dont believe anyone knows if its true or not. Just look at ethanol and whats its cost americans in the cost of food alone and it doesnt do squat to lower energy use. Sorry cant buy any more maybes too expensive.

What 1970s science said about global cooling (http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-cooling.html)

[ptif219]

4433

Nice try but I am not buying it. The hockey stick is wrong. When you have to manipulate data it is no longer science it just another fraud

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/04/how-the-hockey-stick-crumbled-a-post-mortem.php

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/26/wheres-the-hockey-stick-the-marcott-9-show-no-warming-past-1950/

[Peter1469]

I take you have not played hockey if you think that looks like a hockey stick

Go back to 1AD and you will see two spikes in heat. The Vikings used to grow wheat in Greenland.

[Contrails]

Nice try but I am not buying it. The hockey stick is wrong. When you have to manipulate data it is no longer science it just another fraud
How can someone who has never bothered to look at the data know if it has been manipulated?


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/26/wheres-the-hockey-stick-the-marcott-9-show-no-warming-past-1950/

I can understand your ignorance, but Anthony Watts should know what it means when a paleotemperature reconstruction says that the 20th century portion "is not statistically robust". Fortunately, we have actual temperature records (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/) to fill in that part of the picture.

[Contrails]

Go back to 1AD and you will see two spikes in heat.
When you're building a temperature reconstruction starting in 1000 AD, how would you incorporate data from 1AD? Fortunately, Marcott et al. (2012) went back a little further than that.


The Vikings used to grow wheat in Greenland.
So you've moved on from northern Scandinavia to Greenland. Are you ever going to produce a GLOBAL reconstruction that shows these warm temperatures?

[ptif219]

Go back to 1AD and you will see two spikes in heat. The Vikings used to grow wheat in Greenland.

Yes I know that is why I do not see this small amount of warming as a bad thing. It will soon cool and all the GW propagandists will wish for the warming

[ptif219]

How can someone who has never bothered to look at the data know if it has been manipulated?



I can understand your ignorance, but Anthony Watts should know what it means when a paleotemperature reconstruction says that the 20th century portion "is not statistically robust". Fortunately, we have actual temperature records (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/) to fill in that part of the picture.

You did not read my links it clearly stated how the data was manipulated

[ptif219]

When you're building a temperature reconstruction starting in 1000 AD, how would you incorporate data from 1AD? Fortunately, Marcott et al. (2012) went back a little further than that.


So you've moved on from northern Scandinavia to Greenland. Are you ever going to produce a GLOBAL reconstruction that shows these warm temperatures?

So you don't like history either because it shows your deceptions

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/vikings_during_mwp.html

[Contrails]

Yes I know that is why I do not see this small amount of warming as a bad thing. It will soon cool and all the GW propagandists will wish for the warming

That sounds a lot like a scientific projection. Care to show us the theory and models that support it?

[Contrails]

You did not read my links it clearly stated how the data was manipulated

And as I pointed out, paleotemperature reconstructions are not intended to reproduce recent temperature trends, that's why they're called PALEOtemperature reconstructions. We have actual instrument measurements to tell us what has been happening over the last 150 years.

[Contrails]

So you don't like history either because it shows your deceptions
I love history almost as much as science. It's important to know where you come from if you want to know where you're going.


http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/vikings_during_mwp.html
You on the other hand, appear to have a problem with details. From your article:

He called this new land "Greenland" because he "believed more people would go thither if the country had a beautiful name," according to one of the Icelandic chronicles (Hermann, 1954) although Greenland, as a whole, could not be considered "green." Additionally, the land was not very good for farming.
How does this in any way support the claim that global temperatures haven't increased by about 1°C over the last century?

[Peter1469]

That sounds a lot like a scientific projection. Care to show us the theory and models that support it?

Care to show any science that supports man made global warming. Review the scientific method before you respond.