Are you ready for 30 years of colder temps, much colder... ?
Climatologist: 30-Year Cold Spell Strikes Earth
Something in my brain has had me buying wool and fleece in the face of all the global cooling hype. Time to buy another parka...

I guess we'll see... time to set up a greenhouse...

Wool is an investment. Durable, fire retardant/proof. Keeps you warm when wet. I troll the military surplus stores and pick up every wool blanket I can get. My scouts use them a lot!

This was the hottest year in the span in which humans have had the ability to measure temperatures, so color me skeptical. When a few thousand more climate scientists review his data and agree I'll take it more seriously.

Until then though nothing wrong with wool when it's cold.

Mr Casey's qualifications are thin at best. He is "a space shuttle engineer", and also has a BS in Physics and an MA in Management. He apparently has never published a single paper in a mainstream, peer reviewed, climate journal. He is also head of the "International Earthquake and Volcano Prediction Center which is headquarted in Orlando Florida. (Florida being ideally located to study earthquake and volcanic activity. )

For another take on Mr Casey see this.

There has been well known cold periods before in medieval European history, which has caused mass starvation from crop failures, which led to populations throughout Europe susceptible to the Black Death in the 14th century .

The lack of burning carbon in the pre industrial age (lack of anthropogenic global warming to compensate for the cold period) led to the death of nearly 50% of the European population.

This is not science. Casey is some sort of fringe dude. The highest degree he ever earned was a masters in management.

No worries, 30 years of cold aren't coming.

Maybe we should encourage greenhouse gasses (and therefore anthropogenic global warming) to compensate for the postulated coming 30 year cold period. Maybe we need to burn more coal.

I personally do not know if the next few decades will be warmer or colder, I do know that there is disagreement. I've also read reports that indicated the numbers supporting GW were "fudged". That disparity tells me to cover the possibility of a cooling trend as well the much more discussed global warming.

Every climate scientists best known saying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QgNpYg0IOU

Well when I burn the driftwood in a beach fire washed up from the river Tay Estuary, I sometimes think to myself 'Blood and Gore, You've missed out on a few pennies commission on your fraudulent Carbon Cycle trading exchange' because if they continue to get away from it, then the next controlled fraud exchange will be the water you drink.

And you're taking advice on this matter from someone with a master's in management? Man, I have a surgery I need him to perform.

Dang. And I just bought a ton of shorts and sandals on the advice of the global warming crowd. Now I gotta go buy long johns and mukluks?!

Just acquire a versatile wardrobe. I am just back from a quick trip to South Dakota, wearing a parka I last wore on Denali twenty-five years ago. I left my Crocs and cargo shorts behind in So Cal.

Hot or cold, I am ready. Among other things that render me skeptical is the political tone of his arguments.

Hot or cold, someone will be right. Let's just say that the science of long term weather prediction is in its infancy.

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

True, but determining the actual facts seems to be an issue...
The Climate Crisis Hoax being just one article discussing the the topic of AGW fraud...


So apparently a number of folks in the global warming community feel that they are entitled to their own facts. Even if AGW is real, the fraud at the center of the studies taints the conclusions.

The problem is, when you do stupid stuff and lie and manipulate data, you are forever tainted by that. You will never be trusted again, even in cases where you may be right. You have trashed your reputation.

An example: Many years ago I would sometimes donate to Greenpeace. Save the baby seals and all that. Then I saw a news article where they scaled some Navy ship and repelled down hanging offensive banners off it. What the heck? How stupid and pointless is that? Subsequently, they have never gotten any more money from me and I don't give them an ear when they try to convince me why I should. They may do some good things, but they are infiltrated by idiots.

Same thing goes for these climate scientists and their dire headlines about global warming (or global cooling). I don't know what their motivations are, but I don't listen to what they say any more, they have trashed their credibility. I'm not saying that global warming/cooling is real or fake, just that I have zero trust in those who are spouting off their predictions. Therefore, it is a non-issue for me at this point in time.

So there's no overwhelming consensus about climate warming among scientists, huh? Nasa says otherwise
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


About the emails from University of East anglia, or the so called "climagate". Among several thousands emails you'll find nothing but a few lines that can be interpreted in a less satisfactory manner. This was in 2009, with a second batch of emails released in 2010, and it has been investigated up and down ever since. Several hearings and commites have found absolutely no evidence of fraud, conspiracy or other misconduct. Clearly not good enough for climate warming deniers.


Climate deniers, if leading scientists all over the world can't change your mind then I don't think I can write anything that will have the sligthest impact on the way you view the world.

There is so much politics, rhetoric and noise to go with the bad science and outright fraud that whatever good science there is to support AGW is largely being drowned out.

Just to reiterate the point MostlyHarmless makes, there is almost universal consensus among those scientists who actually do real research that human influenced global warming is real. The supposed "controversy" among scientists is bogus.

Nearly all of the "scientists" who are quoted as denying global warming either have little or no real qualifications to speak about climate, and/or are not publishing their alleged data in mainstream peer reviewed climate journals. Note that the Mr. Casey in the original post in this thread is neither a climate scientist by training nor has a publication record in the field of climatology.

See Phil Plait's article: Climate Scientists Overwhelmingly Agree Global Warming Is Real and Our Fault


There is debate among climate scientists, but it is about the details. They debate how fast we will warm, how hot it eventually will get, how high the sea will rise and how fast it will rise, etc. There is no longer any serious debate among real climate scientists about the central idea that the climate is warming as a result of CO2.

You do realise that "whatever good science" is in fact the accumulated knowledge of the world's scientists in a number of fields related to climate science?

It's not "good science" versus "bad science". It is THE science. AGW is happening. The uncertainties are how much, how fast and how bad will the effects be.

The amount of "politics, rhetoric and noise" depends largely on what media you choose to follow. From my view, there's no drowning of good science.

Is the Earth on a warming trend now? Yes.

Has it been on a warming trend before? Yes.

Were humans to blame for previous warming trends? Seeing as how they weren't even around for many of them, probably not.

Are humans to blame for the current warming trend? Don't know.

Will the Earth have a future cooling trend? Probably, since it's had them before.

Will humans be to blame for any future cooling trend? Don't know.

It's silly to argue whether the Earth is warming or cooling right now. It's pretty simple to stick a thermometer in the ground (so to speak) and measure things over time. The question is: Is the current warming abnormal, not part of the Earths normal cycle, and proven to be caused by humans? That's what I'm not 100% convinced about. Some scientists say yes, others say no, others say we don't know. It's one thing to take measurements and report them (that part of science I trust). It's more difficult to ascribe a cause/effect relationship with any certainty on something as large as a planet.

Warming is occurring at this exact moment in time. My "hunch" is that humans are playing some role, I don't know how big, in warming. And I think scientists are only a small step beyond a hunch at this time. So, what should the response be? Is a response warranted? If so, how big of a response?

It seems like every time someone asks the question, "Is this an abnormal temperature increase, not part of the Earths cycle, and are humans the cause of it?" then the response is "I can't believe you are denying that warming is happening!" That is a redirect away from the question that was asked.

So this is a general thread about climate science? How did it get from someone with an MBA masquerading as a scientist to this? If someone falls for a charlatan like that, it really looks to me like he is sort of gullible and not very discerning about where he gets his information from. That makes me highly skeptical about anything else he says.

As I said, I need surgery. If this MBA can revolutionize climate science, maybe he can do the surgery do. He has as much scientific training as medical training.

I don't know why he couldn't do surgery. Afterall, he also predicts earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. It says so on his website!

Here's another article on non-global warming. This one is written by an economist...
The Period Of No Global Warming Will Soon Be Longer Than the Period of Actual Global Warming

The largest influence on climate is the sun's solar radiation output. But try and get a climate scientist to concede this point is virtually impossible. Climate does change and can change rapidly. Europe has spent $200 Billion to mitigate global warming and has achieved nothing in terms of climate change. Many people have profited handsomely on something that cannot be proved selling a conjecture to people who do not know or could even explain why summers are warmer and winters are colder in the Northern Hemisphere. Global dimming and Global Atmospheric Geo engineering doesn't even get a mention in the media.

Bad Science

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NALpRMaSAQE

These threads get exasperating. You have a tough time finding ten credible climate scientists on the planet that don't agree that we have anthropogenic warming. It's not a lead pipe lock like gravity but there's virtually not doubt in the mind of real scientists. But every so often a fake scientist or just a jackhole like Donald Trump says Nahh ahhh! and round we all go again.

Wrong. Physics 101, without solar radiation we're just a lump of flozen rock.

Simple physics is brutal. It doesn't argue, it just works. Of course, changing the solar radiation will change temperatures at earth, and we can calculate pretty accurately how much. And yes, this effect has been studied intensively by climate researchers. The observed *variations* in solar radiation are not anywhere large enough to explain the warming. This is indesputable.


Increasing the levels of C02 in the atmosphere is another very simple and brutal piece of physics: The earth-atmosphere radiation budget will change when CO2-levels change. That again will affect the temperatures in the coupled system of earth-atmosphere-ocean, and it should not come as a surprise that you'd expect higher temperatures at the ground, atmosphere and oceans. So far, simple and brutal physics.

Then you want to nail down the details, and things start more complicated: Because atmosphere and ocean are swirling around on a rotating earth, the dynamics involved are pretty complicated. Still, all state of the art climate models will tell you: If you increase CO2-levels you will get AGW. And the observed increase in temperature is consistent with the predicted increase. Increase CO2 lead to AGW.





So far, no one has found a quick fix to counter neither the radiation budget directly, or indirectly, and I don't think we will find a "quick geo-engineering fix" to this problem. You can't argue with physics.

You can, however, argue with all the political hum-drum. Without a doubt, the political and economic landscape around AGW countermeasures, quotas and whatnot is messy, noisy and highly political. Someone will - and probably has - take advantage of this, for personal or political gain.

Well some may think humans CO2 emmissons are not having effect on climate change, but then there is still plenty of reasons to do something about it.

- Local polution
- It will run out
- You are supporting many not necessarily friendly nations

The USA is getting rid of imported fuels, but the use of tar sand field and shale gas is not that great either. Ruining the local nature and possible poluting ground water.

The second largest influence on climate change is the related to biology not physical laws based around the chemical Chlorophyll.

The ongoing geo engineering more commonly known as Chemtrails should be stopped as the process interferes with the ability for these areas to cool down by stopping the re-radiation of the accumulated heat during the daytime back into space during the night time.

The internet has made everyone an instant "expert." The saying goes, if you read it on the internet, it must be true.

This applies to all topics from weather predictions to the current Ebola reporting. There is a lot of very wrong info being trolled on websites and forums. And the uninformed are being hooked and reeled in by it all as they do not bother to check, research, question and validate sources.

It is not possible to know everything about everything, and to research and validate every possible topic that comes up. Even if the human brain had the capacity to do all this, I can't imagine why anyone would want to. You learn about the stuff that is compelling and interests you, not the other stuff.

Sorry scientists, none of you have presented a case compelling enough to make me want to research on my own whether the world is warming or cooling, and the significance of that (is it a normal cycle or are humans the cause of it?) I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon one way or the other at this point. I'm pretty neutral until I start hearing more concrete cause/effect/outcome/significance from you experts. What you're presenting now comes off as more political than scientific to me, and I despise politics.

I found the article at Volcanoes Confuse Global Warming Scientists to be interesting. It is essentially a response to an article which attempts to blame the "pause" in AGW to gasses released by volcanoes, those gasses causing a cooling effect. But wait, those are the same gasses that supposedly cause global warming --- confused?

Remind me again how much money algore has made preaching AGW... He's not a scientist either. Politics follow the money...

Another tricky problem to ask the HGW proponents is why the southern Hemisphere is cooler than the Northern Hemisphere?

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/seager/Kang_Seager_subm.pdf

In terms of the various models used for simulation, I am somewhat skeptical of their efficacy for predictions. The reason is that simulations are based on parameters that are defined by the humans in charge. In essence, they can load the model to be favorable to their outlook. I am generally lean away from the "humans are evil" point-of-view that seems to drive the topic due to what others have alluded to - politics, money, and the attendant social engineering. Part of my doubt rises from the experience of the 1970s when we all were warned of the impending doom of a coming ice age. Well, that didn't happen. So, I'll continue to look with doubting eyes on the whole situation.

One doesn't have to understand all the science to believe that something is real. When your doctor tells you that you have heart disease, you don't (generally) say, "I don't believe you, prove it. I want to examine all the science that lead up to that conclusion." One cannot become an expert in every field. So, you have two choices, either believe the experts or believe the non-experts. Or, don't believe either.

Sure, experts have been wrong before, and some non-experts have been right, I expect. But, it is a matter of probability. You generally go with the most probable.

And as another poster pointed out, there are plenty of reasons other than global warming to cut down on air pollution. If you ever are in the local mountains around L.A. in the summer you can look down on a total blanket of brown air over the city--you can't even see the city. I can't see how that can be a good thing. We all know what caused that brown air.

I don't have any exact figures but my guess is that the money made by all sources of alternative energy in the whole world for a year is probably about what the oil companies make in a week. You can trace nearly all attempts to distort the science back to oil companies and conservative politicians. It's hard to even discuss the issue with the no-politics rule of ETS. Take away politics and there is no discussion to be had, at all. Virtually no credible scientist endorses the view that anthropogenic warming is a "hoax." It all comes for talk radio and paid flacks.

I am all for precautionary principles. I am all for alternative re-newable energy source (not including Nuclear).

But even the measurements for Global Warming let alone Anthropogenic (human activity influence) cannot even really substantiate any warming for the globe using the required measurement tools. i.e. Satellite pixel arrays of IR micro bolometers haven't been around prior to the early 1990s (not isolated mercury thermometers located at sample locations subject to error greater than a standard deviation than the so called temperature rise since the 1850s) and when they were available they returned some shocking results for the proponents of AGW. There was virtually no global warming/cooling since the mid to late 1990s. The email scandal of the East Anglia AGW centre 'scientific experts in climatology' were about hiding this fact from the public. This has happened before with the US/Soviet nuclear industry and safety problems of the GE boiling water reactors. Even I knew of the problems of various reactor designs whilst studying them for my 'Higher' nuclear physics course at High School a year before Soviet RBMK reactor blew up. When I hear the term 'expert' then all you need to think is;

Who decided to put half a dozen GE boiling water reactors on a major Japanese fault line subject to Tsunamis? Yep one of those 'experts'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EviEN0ScOwg

or how Money, politics, sales dominate and how the 'engineering/scientific experts' learn to shut up if its their best interest to do so.

Education by a proper university never hurts. Guess what some free and open to follow online. A few examples:

Wait untill march and the university of Queensland gives a free course about `Making Sense of Climate Science Denial´.

https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-of-climate-denial-uqx-denial101x#.VHDqGvmG-So

Or learn how climate change is modeled, by the University of Chicago. Starts January.

https://www.edx.org/course/modeling-climate-change-uchicagox-ps280x#.VHDqt_mG-So

Forums, youtube, and most internet sources are all kind of crappy source for proper knowlegde.

All you'e got to ask yourself is how believable is it that for no reason 97% of the worlds climate scientists have decided to commit career suicide by pulling off the biggest hoax in history. And they have done it with an efficiency the CIA could only dream of. Hundreds of studies, by thousands of scientists, over decades, have all been faked to show the same results, but no one has ever found any evidence of them co-operating.

And the climated deniers (they aren't sceptics; sceptics ask for evidence, they don't automatically dismiss any evidence they see) have so much evidence it is fake, that they can't even agree what is happening. Some say the earth isn't warming, some say it's natural variation; though they can't produce a single example of climate changing this fast globally before. Some laughably claim it's sunspots. Hardly surprising as almost none of them are climate sceintists. They can't produce any evidence because they have none.

qjs

Actually the temperature variations we have had since the industrial revolution (lets say the last 250 years) have been quite benign compared to the past of rapid cooling and rapid heating of the climate. (lets assume no human influence)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard–Oeschger_event

Look at the Geologic Record via ice core samples.

Please note my use of the word 'globally'.
qjs

My favourite quote in that respect:

"Anyone who believes he could organize thousands of scientists into a conspiracy has never attended a single faculty meeting."

That's a rumor?can't believe .

Thank Goodness for global warming! The hill that I live on was under glacial ice two miles thick only 9,500 years ago....for the seventh time, they say. Now I have a manageable 1/2 foot of snow in the yard.

I hike in the ravine where the meltwater ran into the Glacial River Warren, a small remnant of which is now locally referred to as the Mississippi River.

Oh yeah, about those scientists...They were singing a different tune in the 70's as they, like now, grovelled for grant money. Research it and read the gnashings and wailings of the embarrassed revisionists.

My apologies to any research scientists on the board, but I'm calling it as I see it.

Be sure to click the link... I kinda like the scientist's idea of covering the poles with black soot

One thing remains the same though; the ever present implied warning at the end of the article.........Act now or you're doomed!

Maybe in ten thousand years there will be ice on it again, once all the humans are extinct.

Yeah Byrd, and there was also a time when they believed the earth was flat, and if you sailed too far you would fall off the edge. Do you still believe that?

You will no doubt be shocked to learn that most intelligent people (including scientists) find that as they get more data and gain more understanding, they sometimes need to change their opinions.

Just calling it as I see it.

Not shocked, just pleasantly surprised that we seem to agree on that point.

I'm glad you used the word 'opinions', because that's all they are. Bought and paid for and not, as some think, the unbiased infallible conclusions based solely on the irrefutable facts of settled science.

Global warming is a fact and this latest warming trend has been in progress, with negligible effect from human activity, for over 10,000 years.

Why the hype?...Follow the money my friend.

I don't wish to discuss global warming, but I would mention that many scientists closely resemble perfectly normal human beings, especially when operating outside their area of professional expertise, raising kids, mowing lawns, and rooting for their favorite NFL team. Some, no doubt, even root for the Vikings....

Indeed Byrd, follow the money. If you actually bother to do so, you will find that there is quite a lot of money available for scientists who wish to challenge the idea that humans are having an effect on climate. Various fossil fuel companies and others with a vested interest in opposing the concept are quite willing to fund this research. The problem is that whenever they do fund the research, and when the scientists actually do the studies, they keep coming to the opposite conclusion.

The case of Richard Muller is quite instructive. He is a well regarded physicist at Berkeley and the Lawrence Livermore Lab, and was a very prominent skeptic of current climate research. He was skeptical first that warming was real (rather than an artifact of poor data analysis), and secondly skeptical that even if warming was real that it was caused by humans putting CO2 into the atmosphere. The Koch brothers (also prominent skeptics) funded him lavishly. With their help he was able to start his own research program and hire a dozen other scientists to assist him.

When he actually did his research, he first discovered that indeed the climate is warming. At that point he was still skeptical that human activity was the source.
Note that at that point he was still skeptical that humans were a significant cause of warming. So he and his research team next tackled the question of what was the source of this warming. He finally concluded that greenhouse gases were indeed the cause.

From The 'Guardian'

"....Meanwhile Elizabeth Muller, Professor Muller's daughter and the co-founder of the BEST project, is interested in "starting a new section to look at policy," Professor Muller says, to examine "in an objective scientific manner what can be done....."

Let's see...solar power companies, wind generator companies, geothermal companies, wave generator companies, maybe even some fracking companies that need a little love.

So, Papa Mueller finally says 'Uncle' and gets out of the way, and BEST is funded FOREVER!

I think we can agree to disagree on the importance of the human impact on this latest episode of global warming.

Why not? Sometimes it's fun stepping out into the wind.
Anyway, scientists gotta eat too, and this is the system in which they have to compete for funding. My SIL is a scientist, and she is a sweetheart.

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/who_pays

PS, I'm not far from the Wisconsin line. I'm a closet Packer fan, and I even drink Spotted Cow beer.

Not sure it will take that long. Last winter the snow was up over the top of my rural mailbox..wasn't completely gone until June.

Follow the money? Are you saying that in jest? You must realize that Big Oil has a thousand times the money that "Big Alternative" does. If you "follow the money" it will invariably lead you to an oil company.

Do you really think climate scientists are "rollin' deep" in "hush money" from companies making solar panels? That's like saying McDonald's is being buried by agitprop from your local mom & pop. And do you really think that the 99.5% of scientists that have concluded that climate change is anthropogenic are all "on the take"? That seems an incredible assertion. Since Big Oil has a war chest of at least $1T, just who do you think can really afford the bribery?

This thread is getting downright baffling!

The discussion is about if humans had influence on climate, not about climate change itself. Although you could argue how much a of an discussion 97 - 3% is.

Regardless of cause:
- You still have to prepare for climate change. That’s not up for debate. So more water management/defences for the higher water levels, more preparation for extreme weather, etc.
- Fossil fuels is still going to run out eventually. So you still have to look for an alternative eventually. And it causes enough other pollution during production and burning. Even if it does not affect climate change, you can’t deny smog, higher respiratory problem with people living near mayor roads, etc. Not to mention the political problems with fossil fuels.

Beside I personally like to keep non-renewable resources in enough supply so we can use them if we figure something especially useful with it.

For example helium is non-renewable resource and with current use in not exactly important things like party balloons, it might not be available in 25-30 years’ time to cool MRI scanner, radiation meters, etc. Who knows what people can figure out with fossil fuels other than just burning them in the future.

[quote=Phaedrus] Follow the money? Are you saying that in jest? ...... just who do you think can really afford the bribery?[quote]

This type of fraud is not confined to climate 'research'. Since you mentioned the fast food industry, here's one that they would have loved if big tobacco and big agra hadn't already covered it. Big tobacco used 'science' for 40 years to ward off responsibility for nicotine addiction and lung cancer.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15783

We could do this all day. The simple answer to why there are constant conflicting 'studies' about everything, is that 'science' isn't pure as long as scientists have to scrounge for grant money, or please a funding entity such as a college or government agency.

Look to nature for the answer. Hiking on a 350' hill in Red Wing, MN overlooking the miles wide valley of the ancient glacial River Warren now occupied by the much smaller Mississippi far below. (an aerial view I borrowed from the web is below) I notice a deposit of fossilized seashells on the outcropping where I sit for a minute. I realize how different the world was not so long ago.

We are like fruit flies on an orange, living out our 3 day life span thinking the orange has always been like it is now, and that it will never change. I admit it's a little unsettling to realize that the Earth and it's climate has always changed and it always will no matter what we do or who we pay.

We will adapt, evolve, or die out as a species.

Let's see...

In the first 200 years the temp went up 0.5 degrees or 0.5/200 = 0.002 degrees/year. Then in the next 50 years (the last 50 years) it went up 1.5 degrees or 1.5/50 = 0.03 degrees/year. So in the last 50 years this would be 0.03/0.002 = 15 times the rate of increase as in the first 200 years.

It is obvious that man was emitting little greenhouse gases in that first 200 years and emitting a lot of greenhouse gases in the last 50 years. So, there IS a correlation between temperature increase and the amount of greenhouse gasses being emitted.

This would seem to indicate that greenhouse gases have vastly increased the rate of temperature increase. Of course, there is also a possibility that there is some other unknown factor that is causing the temperature increase. But in absence of any evidence of that factor, our best conclusion is that the cause is greenhouse gases.

It is easy to confuse weather with climate change. Weather is local and short term, climate change is long term global trends.

While you were having lots of cold and snow, here we were having a drought and warm days. Yesterday it was almost 80 degrees here while most of the US was having extreme cold.

We always need to be careful about confusing correlation with causation. (I see it happening all the time in news reports ). They are very different, and as you point out, there can be a factor that is causing both.

I always remember the statistically significant correlation my statistics professor used to illustrate this point: the average street temperature in New Delhi, India, and the infant death rate in Brooklyn, New York City. Statistically significant correlation of higher street temperatures with higher infant death rates. As he asked the class: does anyone think the street temperatures in New Delhi caused the increase in death rates in Brooklyn?

There is a big difference between your New Delhi temperature vs Brooklyn infant death correlation, and the CO2 vs warming climate correlation. In your case there is no discernible mechanism for one to cause the other.

In the CO2 vs climate case there is a clear mechanism available. The physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas has been well understood for more than a century. Furthermore, other possible causes of atmospheric warming (eccentricity of the earths orbit, variations of solar output, etc) have been carefully factored in to the climate models, and shown to be much less significant. As the models have become more sophisticated, the case for the significance of Increasing CO2 levels has become much stronger.

How do you measure the Surface temperature of the Global Earth? This has only been achievable using the temperature sensors (micro bolometers arrays) on Satellite space craft. The temperature in the northern hemisphere is highly dependent on ocean currents (thermal flows and heat distribution) for example.

The temperature record even going back more than the last 20+ years is totally incomplete. And the last 20+ years has shown no change in temperature.

For example if we take the thermometer readings record from a thermometer for the last 150 years say based in Los Angeles then you will see significant temperature increases but it won't be due to 'Global' warming but 'local' warming.

I think that this is probably true, but IMO, this does not quite equal proven; it remains a theory with evidence for it, but not definitive proof. My fundamental problem is that I think the climate projections (based on the present climate models and theories) do not include all the variables (because we don't understand or know all the variables, and how they interact).

Yet, I agree that we should minimize the use of fossil fuels and maximize the use of "renewable" or "green" fuels. It seems to me that over the past 10,000 years or so, for whatever reason, the climate has been warming. Human produced or not, in the short or long term, we need to reduce our impact on this trend and the environment, to the minimum and be prepared for a future climate different from what we are used to.

So, I guess I quibble with the science and theories, but agree that we need to slow down our consumption of carbon based resources.

Yes, the climate is warming. How much and how fast is debatable. But, IMO, that does not mean we should ignore or deny our impact on the problem and fail to take actions to minimize the impact we have on the climate and environment.

For me, just because we can debate a climate model (and its supporting data) does not mean we should feel free to dump all the CO2 and greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere that we want to. I would sort of like my grand-kids (and great-grand-kids, I hope) to grow up in a world sort of like (at least from a climate perspective) like we did.

What is the average Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature. Well the computer models taking data from the base period 1951-1980 it is 14.0 degrees Celsius.

Yes a computer model. Not a direct measurement of the Temperature. A great deal of heat island effects have occurred since then. Lots of poured concrete surrounding the same temperature sensors making the same measurements since then.

You may have a theory of global warming let alone industrial human causation, but don't assume you have the data (i.e. what was the temperature record for the last 150 years 238 km directly east of the south pole or 1456 km east of Perth Australia) measured using very limited sample sites in environments (mostly in the Northern Hemisphere) that have been changing (micro climates).

Remember that we are looking for changes in fractions of 1 degree Celsius. Measurement of temperature is extremely difficult as even micro bolometers have difficulty measuring with accuracies less than 0.1 degree Celsius.

No, we don't know all the variables and how they interact.

However, the models become more sophisticated all the time, and as they do they begin to converge on what are the most important variables and their interaction. And, the models are testable.

We can (and do) test them in several ways. The most obvious way is to simply use the model to project forward, then wait and see how well actual events agree with the model predictions. This works, and we do this, but there are some obvious disadvantages with this approach. For one thing, it takes awhile. Also, in the case of climate models, if we wait to see if the prediction was correct, it is then far to late to do anything about it.

So the other way climate models are tested is by "hindcasting". We select some point in the past when we have a reasonably good idea of what conditions were. Then we run the model forward to today. Then we look at how good (or not) the predicted conditions agree with what we can actually observe.

Our understanding of the variables and how they interact gets better, which allows us to better quantify them in the model. New approaches and techniques give us a much better picture of past climates, which helps us test and calibrate the models by hindcasting. We get more accurate and more complete data on current climate all the time, which provides better input into the models. And improvements in computer power enable us to run much more detailed models with finer resolution.

No, the models aren't perfect. But they get better and better all the time. And what they are telling us is not good.

If you are going to tweak your GW model variables to curve fit the 'real world' with a temperature increase over time for the last 100 years then the model will no doubt continue to show future GW. But I suspect there may have even had some good fits to the 'real world' but then suddenly nosedived (global cooling) in the future. This can happen when attempting to model closed non linear heterogeneous systems with vast mathematical matrix's. But I bet they get thrown out or dismissed.
I would suggest the following for some GW expert. Might make a nice PhD for someone. Go back to the historic 'real world' data sets (last 100 years) for each mercury thermometer then compensate the temperature data for the local thermometers by build an historic micro climate model to adjust the temperature record data for that thermometer. The 'Real World' temperature curve might suddenly flatten out with everything within +-0.5 degrees Celsius of 14.0C i.e. the measurement error

It's not "curve fitting", Am Fear. It is a brutal test to see if your model has the right physics, with the right choice of parameters.

And yes, through the accumulated efforts of thousands of scientists these models do a pretty damned good job of calculating the physicss of the atmosphere and how our climate has changed up to 2014, and how that climate will continue to change given different trajectories for CO2-levels.

Nothing is perfect, not even climate models. But they are good enough to be useful.

AFLM,

Thermometer data is not particularly useful as you point out. That is why very few models use that data. There is a tremendous amount of "proxy" information available and that is what scientists are using. If you really have an interest in the science I would recommend starting with "Climate since A.D. 1500" by Bradley and Jones (Routledge, ISBN 0-415-12030-6). It has excellent descriptions of many of these techniques and the data that has been obtained from them. Many of the same techniques and others as well have been used to retrieve information for several hundred thousand years in the past.

Respectfully,

Jerry

I hesitate to post this link because the interview at the other end is virtually all about the politics of GW. Per the interviewee, GW is politics ...
KWN interview w/ Lord Christopher Monckton
I have not been able to find the article mentioned in the Chinese Science Bulletin.

Russ, if you need snake oil, Lord Monckton is your guy.

It goes on and on, but I would carefully double check anything this guy says.

Much ado about nothing. It is arrogance to think that mankind has such a grand influence on the workings of this planet. There are myriad fact based reasons for why the temperature changes over time.

There was a time in our planet's history when there was a lot more carbon flowing through our ecosystem. It was a time when our world was covered in vegetation, when animals flourished, and the surface of the planet was rich with life. Where did all the carbon we use today come from? All the fossil fuels we use today were in the ecosystem, moving through the carbon phase as CO2, CH3, and various living hydrocarbons. Then they got sequestered away beneath the surface.

Things change all the time. I am not going to worry about climate change, because the climate changes one way or the other continuously, and thank God it does. I have bigger problems to deal with, as do the rest of the people on this planet. Sure, warmer (or colder) temperatures might be inconvenient for some people, of great benefit to others. I think it just depends on where you are at the time. People seem to find a way to do well in just about any climate one can experience, be it sand dunes, rainforest, glacial peak, or even under the sea. If one place gets worse, another is sure to improve. In any case, wherever you are, it is sure that things will not stay the same for long, speaking from a geologic/climatic perspective.

Well said!

No, it's not well said.

Physics works even if you refuse to believe it. The basic physical mechanisms are well understood. By releasing CO2 we are adjusting the radiation budget, and by the laws of thermodynamic this must be compensated for. We also have a pretty good idea of what a 2 degree warmer world will look like. And a 4.5 degree degree, and a 8 degree.

So yes, this should be something that worries you.

Least we all take life too seriously:

"The Royal Academy of Farting" by Benjamin Franklin

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/to-the-royal-academy-of-farting/

Wonderful! Tears are streaming down my bifocals (another of BF'scontributions)












0

Since we've drifted off-topic, might as well go see what the Norwegian Royal Guard Regiment is up to...

http://sorisomail.com/partilha/16993.html

Not a question of physics at all, more a question of proportion. Man-made CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses for that matter) is insignificant compared to the quantities generated by natural activity. Again, it is arrogance to think mankind has that much influence over the workings of this here globe. Historically, there has been much more CO2 in our atmosphere from time to time than there is now. Things got warmer, then they got colder. Every 30-40 years or so a bunch of enviro-scientists get together and proclaim the earth is getting colder, or the earth is getting hotter. I am still waiting form some group to tell us the sky is falling. I remember quite well from the 70s the grand proclamation that all the data said our planet was starting a cool down period, and we should all be concerned. They were so sure back then that the proof was unrefutable. Then a new group proclaims that the previous group was wrong, their interpretation was flawed, and it is actually going the other way.

Things change. Live with it, or yield. We have bigger fish to fry right now, climate change is just a distraction from real problems we need to deal with quick, fast, and in a hurry. Not much point in worrying about an average global temp increase of 8 degrees in the next 2, 3, 10 years, when you are sitting in the dark trying to keep from freezing to death.

Besides, until we get China, India and Russia on board with any remediation plan, not much we Americans can do to change the trend. Right now, there are 6 countries in Europe who are willing to burn whatever they can find to keep the lights on and the heaters warm, now that Russia has closed the gas line.

What was that old quote we used to see up here on the forums every so often? Oh yes, "When in danger, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout."

Kinda tough to get too worried about this when I am expending tremendous effort and resources now just trying to keep afloat one payday to the next. Its not like the politicians have been listening to me much lately anyways.

In any case, whatever the science says, whether it's getting warmer or colder, or whether we did it or something else is causing it, the real point is a matter of priorities. There are lots of more tangible calamities knocking at our door right now. Better be prepared to deal with them now, or it won't matter much what the sea level is in 10 years.

I see, bad moon a risin'. I see, trouble on the way.

As pessimists we are always on the lookout for doom so if you are wondering why you can't remember all the 70s scientists telling us we were heading for an ice age. It's because
it never happened.
From Wikipedia:
Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, i.e., a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. The current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but underwent global warming throughout the 20th century.[1]

However I'm willing to be proved wrong. Can anyone provide something other than magazine articles and the odd scientist claiming this? Something like the hundreds of studies by thousands of scientist that are saying global warming is happening please?
qjs

End result was the same. Broadcast as news, represented as fact. Still relatively unimportant from a survival perspective. Some places will end up worse off due to climate change, some will do better. I can easily imagine pulling 60 bushels an acre of hard red winter wheat out of Central Alaska, or growing corn in the Yukon. Climate change is inevitable, and unless and until someone can say for certain that we are going to experience something new that hasn't happened here before, I am not going to worry about what might be in 20 years, or not.

Of greater significance is a realistic answer to the question of what can be done about it. Burning up hydrocarbons seems to be the fundamental issue. You might be able to persuade a handful of nations that it is in their best interest to work at a huge economical disadvantage and deplete their gdp chasing the alternative energy rabbit, but no one is going to tell China and other heavily industrialized nations that are becoming increasingly dependent on the combustion of fossil fuels to give it up. So as we diminish our consumption, they will continue to increase theirs. Right now there are several European countries that are experiencing what existence will be like without cheap fossil fuel to burn, thanks to Russia's gas embargo. Media are conjecturing this as a prelude to war.

So knowing the problem doesn't mean it can be fixed, or even avoided. I'm not saying give up, but before we go hit the claxon knob, it would be nice if someone had some sort of practical notion of how to deal with what may, or may not, come to pass. For my part, all I can say is look for those places that will benefit from climate change in the manner suggested, and plan to relocate there if things go as projected.

You know what, Benjamin, I can totally relate to and at least partly agree with most of what you say. But this part here is wrong:



Actually, it's all about physics and energy budget. Meddling with one of the components of our beloved greenhouse effect does impact the energy budget, raising temperatures at the ground, ocean and lower atmosphere. The effects of antropogenic CO2 are NOT insignificant.

Who said antropogenic CO2 was "unnatural", by the way? It's natural as heck. It has just been conveniently stacked away by geology for millions and millions of years.



So do I.

Here's an interesting link that identifies proportionality of output between human generated and naturally generated CO2.

Skeptical Science debunked

Note that this is a site predicated on humans causing global warming. Based on the numbers provided, it would appear humans contribute less than 4% of the total output annually to the carbon emissions cycle. The author then goes on to make some claims that are not based on fact, but on assumptions and incomplete conclusions. Maybe these conclusions are correct, but there is no empirical link between the data provided and the author's assertion that the ~4% is the cause. His conjecture makes for a good arguing point, but is itself incomplete. While I won't disagree with his facts, I have doubts that what is happening is solely man's fault, and I would consider a 4% bias to be within the variability of naturally occurring emission cycles.

In any case, my point remains; this problem, if it is one, is not nearly so impending as a whole plethora of other, much more pressing concerns, all considerably more tangible. Whether the climate is getting warmer, or colder, or simply modulating, it is not worth the effort to continue to worry about it and try to impose reckless and ineffective regulatory policies that will only contribute to the hardships we as a nation are already struggling to contend with.

So a 4% mortage over 50 years is insignificant?


That's 4% added systematically. Every. Single. Year. Or 40% over 10 years. Or 400% over 100 years (relative to the first year, if we burn at a constant rate). That carbon doesn't go away, but is spread out in all components of the carbon cycle.

The increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is very well documented through measurements, and this increase clearly have antropogenic origin. We have fewer CO2-measurements of the oceans, but those show increased levels of carbon, as well. As for carbon levels in the biosphere the case is less clear, although there are indications of faster plant growth.



I can relate to that, and I respect your point of view. Although I don't agree with it -- I hold the climate change as one of the most pressing problems the humanity must tackle.

It seems to me that the CO2 problem is one of how much CO2 can be "recycled" each year (by natural processes) vs how much is dumped into the atmosphere, by natural and manmade processes. If the two are in balance, it is a stable situation. If there is more CO2 produced than can be recycled, warming will occur and a positive feedback loop established. It appears that more is being dumped into the atmosphere than can be recycled.

Here is a link to a short (about 6 min.) September 2014 You Tube video that discusses several of the global warming/climate change issues. Note that in the video description, sources for its statements are cited.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU

No question that a constant 4% bias above equilibrium over time would have an adverse impact. However, such a small percentage contribution by one source type is easily overtaken by typical variances in the output of other, much larger source types. For instance, a large forest fire, or a volcanic eruption, or some other such occurrence on an annual basis would provide similar bias. Since climate change resulting in global warming is not an immediate crisis, and there is no viable solution to reverse the current trend claimed by popular science given the political lack of cooperation of other industrialized nations, it would seem prudent to focus my attentions on more pressing matters for now. If the situation changes, it would warrant reconsideration. I'm not saying we shouldn't worry about such things; just to keep it in perspective with all the other possible threats leaning on us today.

It is wise to consider all possibilities; to evaluate, to classify, and to plan for. Keeping oneself appraised of the latest data and the current impressions of the experts is prudent practice, and we must all exercise diligence in staying well informed and ready for action. On that, I think we can all agree wholeheartedly, even if our personal conclusions vary.

The scientific deception may be even worse than even I have thought.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367...al-warming.html

Am Fear, these Telegraph-articles are hogwash. I suggest you invest some time finding more credible sources of information.

AFLM,
Just to amplify MostlyHarmless's point, it is always worthwhile to check on the qualifications (or lack thereof) of the authors of articles one cites.

A few moments use of Google shows that Christopher Booker apparently has no significant training in science, but rather was a history major. Among other dubious beliefs he claims that asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent" risk to human health.

Not exactly a guy that most people are inclined to take seriously about climate, or much else.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker

A give away is that this chap almost had a breakdown from the abuse he received about his climate denial. If they had been telling him he was too foolish to realise the world was flat, do you think he would really be hurt by it?
Like the people who claim to believe that O'Bama shouldn't be president because he's a Kenyan and only natural born americans can hold the post, yet none of them take the obvious solution to this self solving problem; call the cops!
He knows himself he's in the wrong.
qjs

There's an explanation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRFz8merXEA. Briefly, the data is from weather stations, which are only interested in short-term predictions. Hence they didn't bother to recalibrate when they upgraded their instruments. The raw data should not be used for long-range climate predictions. It needs to be adjusted; in effect, to calibrate it retrospectively. There's no deception or fraud going on here.

The video demonstrates nicely how the Human Global Warming proponents beliefs have become almost a religious belief. Retrospectively temperature increase bias re calibration on temperature data sets always under the assumption that 'Its got to be wrong, it can't be getting cooler, its got to be getting warmer, there's HGW'

Are any of the other urban Weather Stations adjusted downwards (cooler) for heat island effects that have built up around those weather stations over time? I suspect not!

AFLM,

If direct temperature data were the primary data used for global warming information, you might be correct. However, that is the least useful data set (for calibration issues as well as many other reasons) available. Lots of good "proxy" data is used to show real warming over the last 18,000 years or so. Global Warming is REAL. There are multiple causes. Man is most certainly one of them. Not the first time in history either that an organism has changed the earth's environment. The science is there and it does not depend on thermometers.

Respectfully,

Jerry