Natural climate swings contribute more to increased monsoon rainfall than global warming

Mar 20, 2013
This is a three-layered cloud structure in a developing Madden-Julian Oscillation during the Indian Ocean DYNAMO field experiments (November 2011). The photo won first place in the DYNAMO photo contest. Credit: Owen Shieh, University of Hawaii

Natural swings in the climate have significantly intensified Northern Hemisphere monsoon rainfall, showing that these swings must be taken into account for climate predictions in the coming decades. The findings are published in the March 18 online publication of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Monsoon rainfall in the Northern Hemisphere impacts about 60% of the World population in Southeast Asia, West Africa and North America. Given the possible impacts of global warming, solid predictions of monsoon rainfall for the next decades are important for infrastructure planning and sustainable economic development. Such predictions, however, are very complex because they require not only pinning down how manmade greenhouse gas emissions will impact the monsoons and monsoon rainfall, but also a knowledge of natural long-term climate swings, about which little is known so far.

To tackle this problem an international team of scientists around Meteorology Professor Bin Wang at the International Pacific Research Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa, examined to see what happened in the Northern Hemisphere during the , a time during which the global-mean surface-air temperature rose by about 0.4°C. Current theory predicts that the Northern Hemisphere summer monsoon circulation should weaken under anthropogenic global warming.

Wang and his colleagues, however, found that over the past 30 years, the summer monsoon circulation, as well as the Hadley and Walker circulations, have all substantially intensified. This intensification has resulted in significantly greater global summer monsoon rainfall in the Northern Hemisphere than predicted from greenhouse-gas-induced warming alone: namely a 9.5% increase, compared to the anthropogenic predicted contribution of 2.6% per degree of global warming.

Most of the recent intensification is attributable to a cooling of the eastern Pacific that began in 1998. This cooling is the result of natural long-term swings in ocean surface temperatures, particularly swings in the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation or mega-El Niño-Southern Oscillation, which has lately been in a mega-La Niña or cool phase. Another natural climate swing, called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, also contributes to the intensification of monsoon rainfall.

"These natural swings in the climate system must be understood in order to make realistic predictions of and of other climate features in the coming decades," says Wang. "We must be able to determine the relative contributions of and of long-term natural swings to future climate change."

Explore further: Bridgmanite: World's most abundant mineral finally named

More information: Bin Wang, Jian Liu, Hyung-Jin Kim, Peter J. Webster, So-Young Yim, and Baoqiang Xiang: Northern Hemisphere summer monsoon intensified by mega-El Niño/southern oscillation and Atlantic multidecadal oscillation. PNAS 2013; published ahead of print March 18, 2013, doi:10.1073/pnas.1219405110

Related Stories

Climate change and the South Asian summer monsoon

Jun 24, 2012

The vagaries of South Asian summer monsoon rainfall impact the lives of more than one billion people. A review in Nature Climate Change (June 24 online issue) of over 100 recent research articles concludes that w ...

Aerosols -- their part in our rainfall

Feb 12, 2009

Aerosols may have a greater impact on patterns of Australian rainfall and future climate change than previously thought, according to leading atmospheric scientist, CSIRO's Dr. Leon Rotstayn.

Arizona monsoons unpredictable

Jun 18, 2007

The Arizona monsoon season produces up to a third of the region's annual rainfall but it is tough for forecasters to predict.

Recommended for you

Bridgmanite: World's most abundant mineral finally named

19 hours ago

A team of geologists in the U.S. has finally found an analyzable sample of the most abundant mineral in the world allowing them to give it a name: bridgmanite. In their paper published in the journal Science, the te ...

Volcano in south Japan erupts, disrupting flights

Nov 28, 2014

A volcano in southern Japan is blasting out chunks of magma in the first such eruption in 22 years, causing flight cancellations and prompting warnings to stay away from its crater.

User comments : 100

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Birger
3.1 / 5 (17) Mar 20, 2013
Complex science is complex.
Watch denialbots use this as argument for global warming being a hoax in 3...2...1..
Kiwini
2.3 / 5 (25) Mar 20, 2013
Complex science is complex.
Watch denialbots use this as argument for global warming being a hoax in 3...2...1..


As opposed to the "Greenies" who, as we all know, are NEVER wrong...
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (25) Mar 20, 2013
Up until recently, every paper even remotely associated with climate had to blame "global warming" and humans for any change or not change.

It appears the AGW cult has lost its hold after the 15 years pause and the occasional honest paper slips through and the authors admit natural cycles exist and cause climate changes and have been doing so for thousands of years.
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (18) Mar 20, 2013
Notparker = moron.
ECOnservative
2.3 / 5 (18) Mar 20, 2013
When we cease to view conclusions with skepticism, we cease to do science. More data please.
MR166
1.8 / 5 (24) Mar 20, 2013
Maqqnus you are just plain gullible! I really believe that your great great grand father was first on line to purchase snake oil from the covered wagon. Further back in history, your forefathers must have provided the virgins needed for sacrifice in order to keep the weather under control.
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (13) Mar 20, 2013
Aww isn't that cute! MR166 thinking he's looking all smart and stuff. Makes me want to give him a little scritch behind the ear. Such a GOOD boy!
Caliban
3.8 / 5 (13) Mar 20, 2013
Most of the recent intensification is attributable to a cooling of the eastern Pacific that began in 1998. This cooling is the result of natural long-term swings in ocean surface temperatures, particularly swings in the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation or mega-El Niño-Southern Oscillation, which has lately been in a mega-La Niña or cool phase. Another natural climate swing, called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, also contributes to the intensification of monsoon rainfall.


Which says absolutely nothing about the extent to which AGW temperature increase affects these natural ocean/atmospheric oscillations --obviously, there is feedback involved, and for these researchers to conclude that it is possible to decouple the effects of on upon the other is questionable, at the very best.

Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 20, 2013
@ Caliban - I'm having trouble following where you're going with this.

The worse part is I've read the paper, and it's even more confusing. You seem to have a better handle on it than I do, can you expand on your thoughts a bit?
Caliban
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2013
@ Caliban - I'm having trouble following where you're going with this.

The worse part is I've read the paper, and it's even more confusing. You seem to have a better handle on it than I do, can you expand on your thoughts a bit?


@Maggnus,

It just seems to me that, since any source of added heat would contribute to the relative scale, intensity, and persistence of the PDO and AO, that it would be very difficult for these researchers to conclude that natural varaibility alone is the driver for the observed effects over the last three decades, and that any claim that this is the case was based upon some very mysterious reasoning.

In other words, I think that the conclusion is pretty much bunk -or at least on the scale they are claiming, especially without further explanation of their reasoning.


antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (17) Mar 21, 2013
Complex science is complex.
Watch denialbots use this as argument for global warming being a hoax in 3...2...1..


Watch the Turd not bothering to read and comprehend
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 21, 2013
@ Caliban - I agree, although I`m not exactly sure that that is the conclusion they reached. The article is poorly written, although given the contents of the paper he was trying to decipher I`m not surprised.

I`m reading it that they determined that the recent changes in the NA monsoon rain intensity are different than both the natural cycle of the past and the predictions of models which suggest changes from green house gases. They then seem to be suggesting that the natural cycles are not well understood and need to be studied more vigorously so they can be correctly accounted for in the models to determine the changes we can expect in the NA monsoon intensity.

Or at least I think that is their conclusion lol.
triplehelix
1.7 / 5 (18) Mar 21, 2013
Caliban

"
It just seems to me that, since any source of added heat would contribute to the relative scale, intensity, and persistence of the PDO and AO, that it would be very difficult for these researchers to conclude that natural varaibility alone is the driver for the observed effects over the last three decades, and that any claim that this is the case was based upon some very mysterious reasoning.

In other words, I think that the conclusion is pretty much bunk -or at least on the scale they are claiming, especially without further explanation of their reasoning."

That's my exact argument against AGW.

There are so many variables at play all making different weightings of differences playing off each other it is extremely difficult and arguably impossible, to accurately show exact workings of nature vs man, only workings which are broad, vague and not easily predictable.
triplehelix
1.8 / 5 (20) Mar 21, 2013
I give this article the same amount of contempt I give those supporting the AGW view.

So many variables are present in climate science and you can't remove each one experimentally like you can with other lab and field based science. If you have 5000 food sources on a petrit dish and something grows on it, how many of those food sources contributed? all 5000? Only 1? Do these contributing sources have different weightings? How do you find out? You run parallel tandem studies and ANOVA each and every source contra-indicated with each other. You simply cannot do that with one Planet that has no separation from its variables. The best you can do is take observations for years and years and try to filter out the noise, but at the end of the day, it will still be vague, open to interpretation, and always subject to improvement. This doesn't mean we should quit trying, but it does certainly mean people should NOT shout in peoples faces "The science is settled". It's barely begun!
ScooterG
1.8 / 5 (21) Mar 21, 2013
I give this article the same amount of contempt I give those supporting the AGW view.

So many variables are present in climate science and you can't remove each one experimentally like you can with other lab and field based science. If you have 5000 food sources on a petrit dish and something grows on it, how many of those food sources contributed? all 5000? Only 1? Do these contributing sources have different weightings? How do you find out? This doesn't mean we should quit trying, but it does certainly mean people should NOT shout in peoples faces "The science is settled". It's barely begun!


Agreed.

The AGW faithful have an emotional attachment disorder of some sort. They are incapable of rational thought. Any attempt at rational conversation is like playing pick-up sticks with your butt cheeks.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (12) Mar 21, 2013
I give this article the same amount of contempt I give those supporting the AGW view.


That's your problem in a nut shell. You have already decided what you will and will not believe, and you then take any article that touches on the subject and force it to fit your pre-concieved idea of what it should read.

The fact that the minutia of the detail cannot be predicted does not detract from the big picture. To say that the science of global warming is not settled is to close your eyes and plug your ears to the avalanche of data that exists. The science of whether ot not there is global warming IS settled, triplehelix, it is the minutia of the resulting condition that is in question.

But, you won't understand this, because you have come here with your preconcieved idea, and your intention is not to learn or consider the science, but to expouse why your view alone should be accepted above all others. That's called dogma, and its method is misdirection & misrepresentation.
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (11) Mar 21, 2013
The AGW faithful have an emotional attachment disorder of some sort. They are incapable of rational thought. Any attempt at rational conversation is like playing pick-up sticks with your butt cheeks.


I KNOW! Dey all banding TOGEATHER all IGNORING dat smart SCOOTERG who has da KNOWLEDGE and stuff! All being all IRRATIONAL and not CONVERSING or nothin! Being all DISORDERED an not THINKING an not LISTENING to the TRUTH from SCOOTERG! You GO gurl!!
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (19) Mar 21, 2013
Notparker = moron.


Maggnus = Natural Cycle Denier
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (12) Mar 21, 2013
Awww look at notparker, being all clever and everything! Isn`t that cute? Doesn't it make you just want to give him a little scritch under his chin and hand him a lollipop to suck on?
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 21, 2013
The AGW faithful have an emotional attachment disorder of some sort. They are incapable of rational thought. Any attempt at rational conversation .. witty bit..

You speak as the inmate in the asylum who thinks he is the only sane one. When there are more than 2% ( lets say 50%) of climate scientists who agree with your stance then you'll have the right say that. Why would rational thought follow in the opposite direction to a consensus ( of experts )? Science denial and myth quoting come along with every GW related story and for myself I only come here to deny ignorance as my knowledge allows. I have a background in meteorology and comments by some are gobsmacking, eg ( he's on here ) that a basic "is absurd" - I mean, well, yes, black is white, OK of course it is, sorry I missed that after 38 years. Crap science exists but the agenda is always to rubbish, reflexively. Is that the action of "rational" person? That's what stops talk. "emotional attachment" shouted the inmate.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (20) Mar 21, 2013
All of the major players in the AWG hoax are funded by government or UN grants. These governments use this "research" to expand their powers and take away individual liberties. No AGW claim is too bold or to baseless to be disseminated. Every paper seem to end with some sort of hockey stick!
runrig
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 21, 2013
All of the major players in the AWG hoax are funded by government or UN grants. These governments use this "research" to expand their powers and take away individual liberties. No AGW claim is too bold or to baseless to be disseminated. Every paper seem to end with some sort of hockey stick!

Have you ever considered that's probably because the data always give one? In other words, average global temps ( outside of weather/cyclic processes ) have taken off north since since the industrial revolution and your desired "debunked" hockey stick is just a figment of your imagination. Silly question that's written in denialist folk-lore now because all the blogs say so.
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (11) Mar 21, 2013
All of the major players in the AWG hoax are funded by government or UN grants. These governments use this "research" to expand their powers and take away individual liberties. No AGW claim is too bold or to baseless to be disseminated. Every paper seem to end with some sort of hockey stick!


I KNOW! Dey all be HOAXING all stealing LIBERTIES and stuff! All dem evil GUBERNENT all STEALING dem POWERS and stuff! An dat UN all using dem POWERS and STEALING dem LIBERTIES an ENSLAVING an all dat! An faking dat RESEARCH an using all dat for STEALING an stuff! An taking dem LIBERTIES! An STEALING! An STUFF!

For heaven`s sake listen to yourself!
triplehelix
1.8 / 5 (16) Mar 21, 2013
Maggnus

"That's your problem in a nut shell. You have already decided what you will and will not believe, and you then take any article that touches on the subject and force it to fit your pre-concieved idea of what it should read."

If I already decided what I will believe (which is AGW is rubbish) then I would take this article and force it to fit my idea, that it is rubbish. I in fact DID THE OPPOSITE.

I started my reply with this sentence

"I give this article the same contempt I do supporting AGW"

I could have so EASILY used this article to fit MY way of thinking. I didn't. Because it contains the SAME weak statistical answers all climate science does. Would you trust a drug if the clinical trials also had the patient taking 6000 others? You need to remove variables to ACCURATELY measure their weighting, I am amused at the idea of an experiment removing entire global variables from our...well...globe. You wont ever understand that, but real scientists remove variablesall thetim
triplehelix
1.5 / 5 (16) Mar 21, 2013
Maggnus

"The fact that the minutia of the detail cannot be predicted does not detract from the big picture. To say that the science of global warming is not settled is to close your eyes and plug your ears to the avalanche of data that exists. The science of whether ot not there is global warming IS settled, triplehelix, it is the minutia of the resulting condition that is in question."

Minute? Only the other day we was arguing over a physorg article showing how models algae soaking up CO2, was miscalculated by 100%! The efficiency was double from previous estimates.

If you consider a variable doubling minute, then I am sorry, but you obviously have absolutely NO idea what the fuck you're talking about. As a professional scientist, I would be SACKED if I stated something and was found to have miscalculated it by even 10%! Let alone 100%! Then again the sector I work in deals with peoples lives, toxicology etc, and we have to do things PROPERLY, and weigh ALL variables
triplehelix
1.7 / 5 (17) Mar 21, 2013
Maggnus

"But, you won't understand this, because you have come here with your preconcieved idea, and your intention is not to learn or consider the science, but to expouse why your view alone should be accepted above all others. That's called dogma, and its method is misdirection & misrepresentation."

Pot Kettle black?

You are saying the science is settled and should be accepted above all others, which I said was dogma.

I never said

"Agree with me"

In fact, and I quote, I said

" This doesn't mean we should quit trying, but it does certainly mean people should NOT shout in peoples faces "The science is settled". It's barely begun!"

My suggestion is we continue our research and improve our methods because despite what you think, our knowledge of climate barely scratches the surface of the real thing.

Your suggestion is we have to accept something that is "settled"

No science is settled you moron! If it was we would still be living in caves because no one challenged the dogma!
triplehelix
1.5 / 5 (16) Mar 21, 2013
"That's your problem in a nut shell. You have already decided what you will and will not believe, and you then take any article that touches on the subject and force it to fit your pre-concieved idea of what it should read."

As are you....

A physicist can demonstrate gravity,
A biologist can demonstrate evolution,
A chemist can demonstrate a chemical interaction.

A climate scientist cannot demonstrate global warming. They cannot predict. I have now dozens of predictive papers spanning from 1980's to 2003 making predictions that DIDN'T happen. I have said this many times now, I have a very highly thought of paper saying where I am typing should be underwater by 2015 odd, I am still here. I have a paper from 1998 I think, saying a similar edict, it hasn't happened.

Quite frankly, your science lacks the ability to demonstrate, it cannot be repeated or replicated effectively, as other scientists continue getting different results, and it cannot be manipulated for variable weightings.
triplehelix
1.5 / 5 (16) Mar 21, 2013
Awww look at notparker, being all clever and everything! Isn`t that cute? Doesn't it make you just want to give him a little scritch under his chin and hand him a lollipop to suck on?

The AGW faithful have an emotional attachment disorder of some sort. They are incapable of rational thought. Any attempt at rational conversation is like playing pick-up sticks with your butt cheeks.


I KNOW! Dey all banding TOGEATHER all IGNORING dat smart SCOOTERG who has da KNOWLEDGE and stuff! All being all IRRATIONAL and not CONVERSING or nothin! Being all DISORDERED an not THINKING an not LISTENING to the TRUTH from SCOOTERG! You GO gurl!!


It is also attitude like this, which is gross ad hominem attacks, that has no basis or proof of AGW. I have yet to see you spout any data or evidence. You just continue to repeat the mantra, and then ad hominem attack those using your tactics. Or in my case, not using those tactics and being conservative and on the fence.

runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 21, 2013
Because it contains the SAME weak statistical answers all climate science does. Would you trust a drug if the clinical trials also had the patient taking 6000 others? You need to remove variables to ACCURATELY measure their weighting, I am amused at the idea of an experiment removing entire global variables from our...well...globe. You wont ever understand that, but real scientists remove variablesall thetim


The cyclic variables are removed in the sense that models know of them and are in the integration. Trouble is many do not follow regular time scales. The current negative PDO/ENSO phase for example, which is a least partly responsible for the current hiatus. Simply, CO2 is the only increasing element in the climate system that fits the GW signal. Sorry about that - as someone once said, an inconvenient truth, that a consensus of experts agree on. But of course it's all a hoax - I forgot.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 21, 2013
@ triplehelix:

Because it contains the SAME weak statistical answers "ALL" climate science does.
(capitalized emphasis mine)
Preconceived notion of absolute conformity.
Minute? Only the other day we was arguing over a physorg article showing how models algae soaking up CO2, was miscalculated by 100%! The efficiency was double from previous estimates.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you do not understand the underlying premise, and that you are not purposefully misrepresenting the science nor purposefully ignoring the difference between a variable (minutia) and the whole.
Go back and look again at the article you reference. Think to yourself, what degree of change could this new variable have to the overall picture of global warming. Do this WITHOUT your preconceived bias for a minute, and think of global warming as a given for that one article.
There is so much more wrong in your statement that I do not have room to discuss here. Look up scientific metho
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 21, 2013
@ triplehelix - consider this:

What evidence to you provide to someone who will not be swayed by evidence?
What proof can you point to, to show someone who will not accept proof?
What logical argument can you make to someone who will not accept logic?
What discussion can you have with someone who has already decided that everything you say is tainted?

I mock conspiracists in all their forms, because that is all the effort they are worth. You have written stuff I want to respond too, but I have run out of time. Something I have been waiting for for 3 weeks is starting to happen and I have to go. Consider the above sentences and give me a chance to respond to what you have said.
MR166
1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 21, 2013
"The cyclic variables are removed in the sense that models know of them and are in the integration. Trouble is many do not follow regular time scales. The current negative PDO/ENSO phase for example, which is a least partly responsible for the current hiatus. Simply, CO2 is the only increasing element in the climate system that fits the GW signal. Sorry about that - as someone once said, an inconvenient truth, that a consensus of experts agree on. But of course it's all a hoax - I forgot."

If the models were correct we would all be dead of heat prostration by now. The models are created to prove a predetermined point and the climate/temperature data has been corrupted to validate the model. Today's climate "science" has been sold to the highest bidder and obtains the results that the bidder requires.

triplehelix
1.5 / 5 (16) Mar 21, 2013
" and think of global warming as a given for that one article. "

So I have to assume GW as correct to read the article correctly?

Isn't this the same logic religious people apply?

You assume God to be real when quoting the bible as evidence...

The models are grossly innaccurate even today, climate is mathematically chaotic. We do not have the computing power yet to realistically compute very accurate data. We can compute, relativistically accurate data, aka, our models today are vastly more accurate than the 90's. But the issue is in 2040 we'll look back at 2013 models and laugh. Then 2070 or 2040...etc.

Comparing it with other sciences, medical namely, the statistical strengths are magnitudally different...
triplehelix
1.5 / 5 (17) Mar 21, 2013
"What evidence to you provide to someone who will not be swayed by evidence? What proof can you point to, to show someone who will not accept proof? What logical argument can you make to someone who will not accept logic? What discussion can you have with someone who has already decided that everything you say is tainted?"

I am very open to GW

I would accept AGW in a finger snap if it could accurately predict things. I remember a newspaper quoting a research paper back in 2001 how british children won't know what snow is. 2008-2010 we had some of the worst snowfall ever, it was ironic that at the time key leaders were discussing climate change in mexico at the time? USA and UK were ground to a halt. Then after all this the scientists all then said "Oh actually we expect snow too"

The issue with AGW is it expects every possible outcome...Thats not science, that's a circular argument. I know the scientific method well, climate science rarely follows it.
triplehelix
1.5 / 5 (17) Mar 21, 2013
I used to be an AGW advocate, very strongly too! I was just like you. Then I did some reading and realised, that while humans do have an impact, and that we must ensure we do not pollute too much, recycle and use our resources effectively, the AGW situation is exxagerated, vastly. The IPCC has countless times had to continuously degrade the potential warming, from a whopping 6°C 20 years ago to now 1.5°C by 2100 assuming our growth patterns.

I am not saying humans do not contribute. What I am saying is the contribution isn't large enough to

1.State it is settled science that we are the main harbringers of apocalyptic doom and
2.Cause global wide sudden changes, without help from mother nature as well.

Without running many earths without man made CO2 vs many earths with man made CO2 your statistics will be based on pseudoreplication design, and large signal/noise ratio limitations, that's just fact, it's ashame, but it just is...
triplehelix
1.5 / 5 (17) Mar 21, 2013
" Simply, CO2 is the only increasing element in the climate system that fits the GW signal. "

LOL. No it isn't

The sun's activity has increased, and we're just coming out of an ice age.

Also, the carboniferous period, named because of its excessive atmospheric CO2 (roughly 4000ppm average, 8-9 times todays level), had an average global temperature of, dun dun dun, 14°C, the same as todays! This is in fact the opposite of CO2 being a variable the stands out. It in fact shows that some variables, whatever they are, can nullify 8-9x CO2 multiplication, if CO2 is the actual cause, meaning other variables are indeed at play. The sun, certain drifts? Certain current streams directing heat away etc? Many variables I have no time to mention all of them. The point is, CO2 is not directly linked to temperature, otherwise the carboniferous periods average temp would be much higher than todays! But it wasn't...
runrig
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 21, 2013
" Simply, CO2 is the only increasing element in the climate system that fits the GW signal. " LOL. No it isn't The sun's activity has increased, and we're just coming out of an ice age.


Wrong, LOL - the sun is at particularly low activity at the moment in what should be a high activity period. There is even speculation that it is about to enter a grand minimum similar to the Maunder. It has been declining for some years ... http://www.thelon...ated.jpg
As I said, nothing fits the evidence in terms of INCREASING variables than CO2. We are not just coming out of an ice age we are near the bottom of a cooling trend in the Milankovitch cycles and should not be seeing rising temps in the NH. BTW: your other comment is mythical. CO2 now is not comparable with the Carboniferous - 350 odd myr ago. The continents then were barely separated from Godwanalan ..http://www.histor...rous.htm
runrig
4 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2013
If the models were correct we would all be dead of heat prostration by now. The models are created to prove a predetermined point and the climate/temperature data has been corrupted to validate the model. Today's climate "science" has been sold to the highest bidder and obtains the results that the bidder requires.

No, the projected warming entirely fits within error bars to what we are experiencing....http://thinkprogr...ccurate/
And of course the models were not created to anything of the sort, they merely contain physics and data and therefor do not have bias beyond that which exists in incompleteness. Besides a sensible person uses a forecast as guidance and goes with the probabilities, not absolute truth. A forecast is just as impossible of being 100% wrong as 100% correct. Look up a normal distribution curve.
MR166
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 21, 2013
"No, the projected warming entirely fits within error bars to what we are experiencing....http://thinkprogr...ccurate/"

We are being forced into trillions of dollars of carbon taxes by computer programs that have error bands larger than the Grand Canyon. This is why the politicians need and support the scientists that give credence to their master plan.
deepsand
2.2 / 5 (17) Mar 21, 2013
Complex science is complex.
Watch denialbots use this as argument for global warming being a hoax in 3...2...1..


Watch the Turd not bothering to read and comprehend

Another steaming heap from AnalOrifice.
deepsand
2.6 / 5 (18) Mar 21, 2013
" Simply, CO2 is the only increasing element in the climate system that fits the GW signal. "

LOL. No it isn't

The sun's activity has increased, ...

No, it is not.

... and we're just coming out of an ice age.

But, NP claims that we're just about to enter a new one.

You denialists just can't make up your minds as to which BS to consistently stick to.

Caliban
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 21, 2013
@ Triple, 166, et al -

You will notice that these researchers don't point to any "natural cycles" other than the seasurface temperature oscillations.

Yet they say that these vague "natural cycles" are overwhelmingly responsible for the Global temperature anomaly!

How is that? What are the forces that drive these these natural cycles"? On what time scale? what are the max/min contributions to the temp anomaly?

How can they measure this contribution if they aren't even able to define them?

And by the way -you really choise well in naming the medical model as an analog to the kind of vague science these guys are up to, but for entirely the wrong reason. I can tell you that from my own clinical trials experience that there is a considerable amount of monkeying around with data to try to make results conform to expectations in that particular arena, so using it as an example doesn't add any confidence to your assertions about the exactitude of the science.
Caliban
4 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2013
These guys failed to specify a single phenomena or physical process that hasn't already been accounted for in the current, and continuously refined modeling, and --as runrig points out-- the only clear signal that derives from the noise of climate is the anthropogenic contribution of greenhouse gases and particulates to the observed temperature anomaly.
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (19) Mar 22, 2013
A climate scientist cannot demonstrate global warming.

But, a physicist can demonstrate radiative forcing.

They cannot predict.

The inability to accurately quantify all terms of a complex function does not stand to invalidate the known underlying principles.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 22, 2013
The issue with AGW is it expects every possible outcome...Thats not science, that's a circular argument. I know the scientific method well, climate science rarely follows it.

I know what you are saying, and it is a problem for the layman, thinking the weather outside of their window should reflect GW and 4 inches of snow in their garden denies it in their minds.
However the variables are being revealed on a live stage. Cold outbreaks in the NH is one aspect of GW that was not signaled - in part I think because of modelling of Arctic ice depletion - this having a feedback on greater Autumn/early winter Eurasian snowfields - feeding back into a stronger Siberian winter high. But also the low solar output, especially of UV, has affected the stratosphere and caused more SSW (sudden statos warmings) than is usual - again leading to cold plunges. None of these things means the world is not warming due CO2 just that it is distributed with less confinement by a strong polar vortex
MR166
1.5 / 5 (17) Mar 22, 2013
The magnitude and direction of the unknowns far outweigh what is known in these models. They do not even know whether moisture and cloud cover in the atmosphere is a positive or negative forcing. CO2 levels are assumed to have the linear affect on climate where some researchers think it might be a logarithmic function. The climate simulations have not been in operation long enough to have any predictive value and yet many want to take draconian measures to "save the planet" based on these flawed simulations. All of the supposed cures to the AGW problem involve huge costs to the economic system at a time when the western economies are about to collapse due to huge budget deficits and unmanageable debt. Your ability to feed yourself and earn a living is directly threatened by this hoax.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 22, 2013
Wow triple, how does one respond to such dogmatically held beliefs, combined with an obvious lack of knoowledge surrounding the scientific method that scientists use, combined with an attitude that newspaper articles are the final arbitor in whether or not the scientific predictions are accurate?

You show yourself to be a campaignist wrapped tightly in the cloak of your particular strain of the truth. You wear your ignorance like a shield. There is no discussion with you, because you already know the answers.

I didn't tell you to believe, I asked you to deal with a specific question. I did not treat you differently, I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Sadly my first impression of you was the correct one. Not surprising considering your desire to apply engineering standards to science. But still sad.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 22, 2013
LOL. No it isn't

The sun's activity has increased, and we're just coming out of an ice age.


And from which blog did you mine this gem? Or was it a newspaper article?

The sun's activity is down triple, a cause of much concern for solar physicists. And we should be coming out of the last interglacial at this point.

Clearly, you should do just a smidgen of research before you spout such nonsense on a science site.

Did you notice how quickly runrig dispelled the myth you are trying to foster?
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 22, 2013
Hey triple - did you want to review with MR166 how conspiracy theories actually work? Do you agree with him?

You should be flattered, did you see how quickly he picked up on your themes and parrotted them? Must be proud triple!
MR166
1.5 / 5 (16) Mar 22, 2013
" And we should be coming out of the last interglacial at this point. "

There has been no warming since 1997 and Europe has had 5 colder than normal winters in a row. Could cooling be the real threat and not warming????

The earth spends a lot more time in the glacial periods than the warm periods.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 22, 2013
There has been no warming since 1997 and Europe has had 5 colder than normal winters in a row. Could cooling be the real threat and not warming????


The 10 hottest years have occured during your much vaunted "no warming" period ...http://na.unep.ne...le_id=53
Plus recent low Autumn Arctic ice ( a record last year - and no, the Antarctic sea-ice high comes nowhere near mitigating it ) that caused the east Arctic seas to reach record warmth - is a feed-back that is the subject of research into anomalous cold periods and a neg AO especially affecting Europe the following winters. BTW: The clue to the concept of Global warming is in the word GLOBAL. You refer to a regional effect in an effort to deny it.
MR166
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 22, 2013
"The 10 hottest years have occured during your much vaunted "no warming" period ."

So let me get this straight,------1998 was the start of recorded history.
MR166
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 22, 2013
BTW let me thank you, you have proved the political bias of the UN far better than I could have.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 22, 2013
BTW let me thank you, you have proved the political bias of the UN far better than I could have.

No just quoting the facts.
djr
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 23, 2013
MR166 - "Could cooling be the real threat and not warming????"

Of course it could - which is why the science community is investing so much energy in trying to advance our understanding of a highly complex system. What does the data show us to date?

http://www.woodfo.../to:2013

Pick any one of the data records available on woodfortrees and you will see very close agreement with the fact that over the past century, the earth has warmed by about 1 degree C.

But what about the last 20 years?

Have the ice sheets stopped melting?
Have the glaciers stopped receding?
Have the ocean temps stopped increasing?
Have the ocean levels stopped rising?

Don't let facts get in the way of a good debate though.
MR166
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 23, 2013
"Have the ice sheets stopped melting? Have the glaciers stopped receding? Have the ocean temps stopped increasing? Have the ocean levels stopped rising?"

In fact, the answer to all of the above questions is yes!!!

And even if the answer was no there is absolutely no way to prove that any of it was caused by man. The natural climate change signal makes any man made signal look like background noise.

Plus that there is more evidence that supports the benefits of a few degrees of warming vs a few degrees of cooling.

antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 23, 2013
Apparently this is the goto site, by the Turds, to support their agenda. So, Turds please explain...
http://www.woodfo...01/trend
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 23, 2013
"So, Turds please explain..."

why did you choose HADCRUT3, 2001, and Southern Hemisphere? Could it be because it returned the plot that supported your argument - so you were just practicing confirmation bias?

Let me show you how to play with the data.

http://www.woodfo...96/trend

See how that works? And I have used a global data set, with the newer and more complete HADCRUT 4, and for a longer time frame.

To be honest about the information - it is best to take a multi decade perspective. Here -

http://www.woodfo...00/trend
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 23, 2013
"In fact, the answer to all of the above questions is yes!!!"

Really - do you have any references to back that up? Let's just pick one factor - as you stated that ALL of the factors have stalled - and so if we can show that ALL of the above have not stalled - you are wrong.

Here is a quick reference for global glacier change. http://www.skepti...wing.htm

Can you supply evidence that when looked at globally - shows that glaciers are not receding?
MR166
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 23, 2013
Here is a small table I made using world CO2 levels and Hadcrut4 temperature change info.

DATE delta temp CO2 level

1900-40 .40/40 yrs 270 295
1940-80 -.05/40 yrs 295 340
1980-2010 .66/40 yrs 338 390

As anyone can see the base temperature change rate of .4 degree/40 years of 1900-40 actually went negative from 1940-80 with increased CO2 concentration.

1980-2010 went up to .66 degree/40 years but considering the downward trend from 1940-80 it is very hard to blame this increase on anything but a natural variability in the slope of temperature change. The CO2 levels of the 40s created pretty much the same slope of temperature change as today. All of this points to a natural temperature change with very little change due to increased CO2 levels.
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 23, 2013
MR166 - we are very aware that temperature data plateaud from 1940 - 1980. This has been discussed many times on threads on this board. You are obfuscating. I asked you to present evidence that supports your claim that " the answer to all of the above questions is yes!!!" What we know at this point is that temperature data has been on a plateau for about 20 years. Other indicators are continuing to show warming. We don't know where the temperatures will go. Temperatures have plateaud in the past. Stop squirming around. Do you have data to support your claim - that "the answer to all of the above questions is yes!!!"
MR166
1 / 5 (14) Mar 23, 2013
Well for one, if you bother to add the gains in the Antarctic Ice cap to the losses of the Arctic ice cap there is a net gain in polar ice.
deepsand
2.6 / 5 (17) Mar 23, 2013
Apparently this is the goto site, by the Turds, to support their agenda. So, Turds please explain...
http://www.woodfo...01/trend

Easy; it's called cherry-picking.

Hadcrut also shows the following.

http://www.woodfo...80/trend

http://www.woodfo...60/trend
Tom_Andersen
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 23, 2013
The models that researchers use to try and predict the consequences of greater CO2 are supposed to have enough detail to predict things like the lower rainfall in region x, or more temperature increases in region y.

For some reason these computer models failed to predict a 9.5% increase in rain over a huge area, predicting instead a decrease.

So what are we to believe of the predictions that are _supported_ by reality. In other words the climate models predict more warming at the poles, which is observed. But is this successful prediction an accident or a real prediction?

Surely the failure of these models (using over 10,000 times the computing resources of the Hansen 1980s and 90s predictions) to predict rainfall in a huge region, along with the observed global temperatures running just out of the 95% confidence area of them points to these models being weaker than were thought a decade ago.
djr
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 23, 2013
MR166 "Well for one, if you bother to add the gains in the Antarctic Ice cap to the losses of the Arctic ice cap there is a net gain in polar ice."
This is a very specific claim that you make - and one that is patently false. Let me give you a reference for making this statement - which is something you consistently fail to do

http://www.rtcc.o...as-gain/

Do you see how frustrating it is for those of us concerned about the science - to watch the spammers all over this board - but when you are presented with the science - it does not hold up - but you don't let facts get in the way of perpetuating falsehoods.

Another reference just for good measure: http://olafscorne...tarctic/
Tom_Andersen
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 23, 2013

The 10 hottest years have occured during your much vaunted "no warming" period ...

If the earth was warming for 30 years, then peaked in 2000, we would expect the 10 hottest years to be very roughly centred on that date. That's simple math. The top of a curve is, well the top. So even if the temperature is not rising, we would expect variations around the maximum, which would lead to 'hottest years on record'.
djr
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 23, 2013
Tom: If the earth was warming for 30 years, then peaked in 2000, we would expect the 10 hottest years to be very roughly centred on that date.

The earth has been warming for approximately 100 years.

http://www.woodfo...00/trend

At this point we have no way of knowing for certain what the future climate will be. The models show that the warming will continue. You have no data that would imply temperatures have peaked. We have to wait and see. My money is on the warming trend continuing - but I will be very relieved to be wrong.
MR166
1.4 / 5 (18) Mar 24, 2013
Cherry picking my butt Sandy!!

From 1900 to 1940 the temp delta was .4 degrees/ 40 years. This is a period when everyone agrees that AGW was not a problem.

If you calculate the temp delta for the period of 1940-2012 the temp delta was .33 degrees/ 40 years. This is at a period of time when "All" the experts agree that man made CO2 releases are about to kill us all. None of these vaulted computer programs are capable of predicting anything but linear temperature increases due to a linear increase in CO2 levels. This is little more than 3rd grade math costing hundreds of millions of dollars.
djr
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 24, 2013
MR166 "Well for one, if you bother to add the gains in the Antarctic Ice cap to the losses of the Arctic ice cap there is a net gain in polar ice."

While debating climate change - MR166 makes very specific claims - that are very easily shown to be false. This fact is pointed out to MR166 - who then continues to spam the internet with unsupported claims. Sadly - MR166 becomes just another handle to put on the list of handles that are a waste of time - one of the posters on this board has a neat description of playing chess with a pigeon - but life is too short to engage in such folly.
MR166
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 24, 2013
http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

The 2 graphs show what is happening to the polar sea ice pretty clearly.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 24, 2013
http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

The 2 graphs show what is happening to the polar sea ice pretty clearly.


Another exercise in call black white I see. But obviously you don't, or else it's a pure wind-up. Try reading this ( below ) and a) ingesting and for the future remembering the climatic differences between the two poles, and b) the numbers of Ice depletion involved. Turn off your all consuming blindness to the obvious or stop spamming this science site.

Antarctic: 251,000 sq ml more than ave min extent since 1979
Arctic: 1,320,000 sq ml less than ave min extent '79-'00

From ....http://www.nasa.g...ice.html

Or >5x more ice lost in the north than was gained in the south - and that for very sound and entirely intuitive reasons meteorologically.
djr
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 24, 2013
The 2 graphs show what is happening to the polar sea ice pretty clearly.

Finally you try to provide some data - except - as has been discussed over and over on this board - there is a big difference between sea ice extent - and total ice volume. You also have to understand the difference between sea ice - and total polar ice. You are obfuscating to rationalize your point. You are wrong. The reference I gave was an in depth discussion of the issue - by a leading institute that studies snow and ice data.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2013
As anyone can see the base temperature change rate of .4 degree/40 years of 1900-40 actually went negative from 1940-80 with increased CO2 concentration.
1980-2010 went up to .66 degree/40 years but considering the downward trend from 1940-80 it is very hard to blame this increase on anything but a natural variability in the slope of temperature change. The CO2 levels of the 40s created pretty much the same slope of temperature change as today. All of this points to a natural temperature change with very little change due to increased CO2 levels.

Interesting that other things than CO2 are called upon to deny it's overall warming effect but they're removed when comparing CO2 concentration with global delta temps.
Science does NOT say other factors are not in play in the climate system - just that CO2 is the only increasing variable paralleling.
Try looking up global dimming re reasons for temp delta in the decades 60's thro 80's ...http://en.wikiped..._dimming
ScooterG
1.5 / 5 (17) Mar 24, 2013
Mother Nature simply refuses to back the computer-generated climate change models.

Doesn't she know her very existence is at stake?

NotParker
1.5 / 5 (17) Mar 24, 2013
Antarctica 2012 - Maximum was 1,000,000 sq km above average.
Antarctica 2013 - Minimum was 1,000,000 sq km above average.

Arctic 2013 - Maximum was 1.4% below average.
djr
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 24, 2013
Oh look - Cherrypicker parker has come to play pigeon chess. One year of data with no reference - to refute a hundred years of data. And- comparing a numeric value (1,000,000 sq km) - with a percentage (1.4%)- so we have no way of seeing how the values compare. Check mate - and cherrypicker heads off to the next thread - to drop some out of context data off....
MR166
1 / 5 (16) Mar 24, 2013
Interesting that other things than CO2 are called upon to deny it's overall warming effect but they're removed when comparing CO2 concentration with global delta temps. Science does NOT say other factors are not in play in the climate system - just that CO2 is the only increasing variable paralleling. Try looking up global dimming re reasons for temp delta in the decades 60's thro 80's ...http://en.wikiped..._dimming"

I'm sorry, we are talking about AGW, IE carbon emissions here. If nature is responsible for the warming then it is totally egotistical to assume that a carbon tax can make any meaningful difference since human contribution to CO2 represents just 3% of the total increase.

In truth, global temperatures have oscillated from very cold to warm enough to support our lifestyle many times in the past.

Be careful what you wish for ------ you just might get it.
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 24, 2013
MR166 "since human contribution to CO2 represents just 3% of the total increase."

Would you have a reference to support that claim? Do you never learn that making bold statements on the internet are met with very reasonable requests for supporting references - this is a science site you know.
NotParker
1.2 / 5 (17) Mar 25, 2013
Oh look - Cherrypicker parker has come to play pigeon chess. One year of data with no reference - to refute a hundred years of data. And- comparing a numeric value (1,000,000 sq km) - with a percentage (1.4%)- so we have no way of seeing how the values compare. Check mate - and cherrypicker heads off to the next thread - to drop some out of context data off....


I posted all the references before many times.

You never read them.

http://sunshineho...10-mean/

http://sunshineho...ll-time/

http://sunshineho...ll-time/
SteveS
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2013
@notparker

The global sea ice area maximum last year was about 1.5 million sq km below average and the minimum this year was about average. What is your prediction for this years maximum?

http://arctic.atm...rend.jpg
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2013
I posted all the references before many times.


He posts links to a denialist blog containing uncredited, unexplained pretty colored graphs, and calls it a "reference"!

Hahahahahaha!!!
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 25, 2013
"You never read them."

Yes I did - I played your pigeon chess. Your references are a joke. Let's quick take the first one. In a discussion that is asking the question 'if we take the Arctic ice loss, and compare it with Antarctic ice increase, do we get a net loss or gain?' you give us a reference that on March 19th (no year) the Arctic ice anomaly was 1.4% below normal. How does this totally out of context piece of data tell us anything? It does not. But of course - pigeon chess Parker will fly off squawking 'check mate'...
MR166
1 / 5 (14) Mar 25, 2013
This site puts the human co2 contribution at less than 4%.

http://www.skepti...ions.htm
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 25, 2013
Antarctica 2012 - Max was 1 m sq km above average. Antarctica 2013 - Min was 1 m sq km above average. Arctic 2013 - Max was 1.4% below average.

Also
if you bother to add the gains in the Antarctic Ice cap to the losses of the Arctic ice cap there is a net gain in polar ice.

Again. There was a difference of 1.13 m sq miles ( 2.92 m sq km ) between the excess loss ( below mean min ) of Arctic sea-ice and the excess gain ( above mean max ) of Antarctic sea-ice this last year. Plus Arctic ice is getting on for twice the thickness of Antarctic sea-ice - so need to multiply by 2 for excess volume melted in the Arctic above that formed in the Antarctic. From ... http://nsidc.org/...nce.html "While thickness varies significantly within both regions, Antarctic ice is typically 1 to 2m (3 to 6 ft) thick, while most of the Arctic is covered by sea ice 2 to 3m (6 to 9 ft) thick".
http://www.nasa.g...ice.html
djr
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2013
MR166 Here is your quote "it is totally egotistical to assume that a carbon tax can make any meaningful difference since human contribution to CO2 represents just 3% of the total increase.

The web site you referenced was an excellent discussion of the whole C02 balance - you really should take the time to read it. I can't go into all the details - limited space on these threads - here is probably the most relevant quote I could pull out - that shows what total nonsense your quote is - "This keeps atmospheric CO2 levels in rough balance. Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance." This understanding totally undermines your quote - showing you to be completely wrong on the issue. You will of course waste no time in joining Pigeon Chess Parker in spamming the next article with irrelevant nonsense - but trying to coninue your anti science memes. I wish we could shame you be showing how wrong you are all the time - no such luck....
djr
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2013
MR166 Here is your quote "it is totally egotistical to assume that a carbon tax can make any meaningful difference since human contribution to CO2 represents just 3% of the total increase.

The web site you referenced was an excellent discussion of the whole C02 balance - you really should take the time to read it. I can't go into all the details - limited space on these threads - here is probably the most relevant quote I could pull out - that shows what total nonsense your quote is - "This keeps atmospheric CO2 levels in rough balance. Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance." This understanding totally undermines your quote - showing you to be completely wrong on the issue. You will of course waste no time in joining Pigeon Chess Parker in spamming the next article with irrelevant nonsense - but trying to continue your anti science memes. I wish we could shame you by showing how wrong you are all the time - no such luck....
deepsand
2.6 / 5 (17) Mar 25, 2013
Cherry picking my butt Sandy!!

From 1900 to 1940 the temp delta was .4 degrees/ 40 years. This is a period when everyone agrees that AGW was not a problem.

If you calculate the temp delta for the period of 1940-2012 the temp delta was .33 degrees/ 40 years. This is at a period of time when "All" the experts agree that man made CO2 releases are about to kill us all. None of these vaulted computer programs are capable of predicting anything but linear temperature increases due to a linear increase in CO2 levels. This is little more than 3rd grade math costing hundreds of millions of dollars.

Yes, cherry-picking. Look at the HADCRUT data sets and periods that AnalOrifice has been carefully selecting; he's selected only those which on the surface seem to support his desired conclusion.
MR166
1 / 5 (13) Mar 25, 2013
Warming might not be in our future.

http://notrickszo...n-study/
djr
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 26, 2013
"You will of course waste no time in joining Pigeon Chess Parker in spamming the next article with irrelevant nonsense"

You did not even wait until the next article - you are driven to advertise your lack of knowledge and of self pride...
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 26, 2013
Warming might not be in our future. http://notrickszo...n-study/

It continues to amaze me that certain people are unable to see the wood for the trees or even miss the trees altogether and see a desert. Even "russian scientists". So all the observations of the NH's reducing ice and of the worlds warming mean that the earth is cooling. Right. "Kulke asks if the record cold and snow over much of the northern hemisphere "is just a coincidence"" This is just bollocks. Much of the northern hemisphere has not had record cold/snow. Some has, most has not. The total heat present in the hemisphere remains the same - though the Arctic has been warmer as a result. Threatening more vulnerable sea-ice ( thinner to start ) to the coming summers melt. It is true the sun is looking like winding down to a "Maunder like" minima but is it not alarming that the world warms despite that.
MR166
1 / 5 (14) Mar 26, 2013
"It continues to amaze me that certain people are unable to see the wood for the trees or even miss the trees altogether and see a desert. Even "russian scientists". So all the observations of the NH's reducing ice and of the worlds warming mean that the earth is cooling. Right."

I know that five years in a row of colder winters in Europe is just weather. But you can tell that science and the media are just producing government propaganda when these facts are not really publicized but a summer heatwave in Australia is.
djr
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 26, 2013
runrig: "This is just bollocks" You about sum it up nicely runrig. MR166 and Notparker have been shown clearly on this thread to not know what they are talking about. To be spewing a bunch of bollocks. But they are already on other threads doing exactly the same thing. It is like tag team. Uba is quiet for a while - so it is MR166's turn to stir the pot. Nothing to be done except let reality take it's course.
MR166
1 / 5 (12) Mar 26, 2013
Yep, we are just a few cold winters and a few tenths of temperature decline away from the newest paper on AGCooling. Climate scientists will magically find an error in their simulations. It seems that water vapor and cloud cover will change from a positive forcing to a negative forcing and increasing CO2 will end in one giant snowball. This will not be hard to simulate, change a plus to a minus and spend the rest of the day getting coffee and applying for more grants. The politicians won't care since they will still be getting their carbon taxes.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 26, 2013
Yep, we are just a few cold winters and a few tenths of temperature decline away from the newest paper on AGCooling. Climate scientists will magically find an error in their simulations. It seems that water vapor and cloud cover will change from a positive forcing to a negative forcing and increasing CO2 will end in one giant snowball. This will not be hard to simulate, change a plus to a minus and spend the rest of the day getting coffee and applying for more grants. The politicians won't care since they will still be getting their carbon taxes.


I'll take the first bit as tongue in cheek. The second bit is what we have to do to mitigate the problem - get taxes to pay for green energy, and if the people dont elect them with that mandate it won't happen. As Churchill said "democracy is the worst form of government ... except for all the others we've tried". We do climate science for a reason - cant make anything with it, but you can act on it's findings.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 26, 2013
I know that five years in a row of colder winters in Europe is just weather. But you can tell that science and the media are just producing government propaganda when these facts are not really publicized but a summer heatwave in Australia is.


Both have received equal attention in the media in my estimation. The Oz heatwave was an extreme, record event. Climate scientists know that in winters of extreme neg AO ( high pressure dominating over Arctic ) then the cold air there will get pushed south. That this has happened, as you say, for the last several winters is an area under study. Low solar flux is probably an ingredient, but also low Arctic sea-ice during the crucial period that Eurasian snow cover develops ( more moisture available ). Leading to the early/stronger formation of the Siberian High and consequent NH encompassing Rossby wave formation. Don't you see? ( silly question ) The cold is regional and very likely a function of GW.
MR166
1 / 5 (12) Mar 26, 2013
Actually, none of it was tongue in cheek! The politicians are the puppets of the select few who are trying to get you to cede freedoms, wealth and future to them.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 26, 2013
Actually, none of it was tongue in cheek! The politicians are the puppets of the select few who are trying to get you to cede freedoms, wealth and future to them.


Thought I'd post this up. It's the current anomalies in the NH at 850mb ( roughly 5000ft ). Blue is colder than average. Red warmer. Just to give a picture of the meandering of cold/warm air that is typical of Neg AO. It can be taken that surface warm/cold mirror this picture.
http://www.meteoc...rchive=0

PS: you can call up the forecasts at the left. Just mouse over.
MR166
1 / 5 (12) Mar 26, 2013
"Thought I'd post this up. It's the current anomalies in the NH at 850mb ( roughly 5000ft ). Blue is colder than average. Red warmer. Just to give a picture of the meandering of cold/warm air that is typical of Neg AO. It can be taken that surface warm/cold mirror this picture. http://www.meteoc...rchive=0 PS: you can call up the forecasts at the left. Just mouse over"

Just saying, cold or warm you are just going to be screwed over by the same people.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 26, 2013
Actually, none of it was tongue in cheek! The politicians are the puppets of the select few who are trying to get you to cede freedoms, wealth and future to them.


It be dem POLTITONS! Dey all be all PUPPETS an all CEDING and stuff! All stealing FREEDOMS and doing CEDING an all dat! Ruinen dat FUTURE an PUPPETING an all CEDING an stuff! You GO gurl! You tell dem cause dey all not SEEING and all be CEDING and being FOOLED an stuff!

djr, do you notice that you have just come full circle?
MR166
1 / 5 (12) Mar 26, 2013
I guess the bottom line is does 16 (plus plus plus) years in the progressive western educational system make you more educated or just more indoctrinated?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.