Why global warming is taking a break

Aug 19, 2014
Why global warming is taking a break
The number of sunspots (white area here) varies in multi-year cycles. As a result, solar irradiance, which influences the Earth's climate, also fluctuates. The photo shows a UV image of the sun. (Image: Trace Project / NASA) The number of sunspots (white area here) varies in multi-year cycles. As a result, solar irradiance, which influences the Earth's climate, also fluctuates. The photo shows a UV image of the sun. Credit: Trace Project / NASA

The average temperature on Earth has barely risen over the past 16 years. ETH researchers have now found out why. And they believe that global warming is likely to continue again soon.

Global warming is currently taking a break: whereas global temperatures rose drastically into the late 1990s, the global has risen only slightly since 1998 – surprising, considering scientific predicted considerable warming due to rising greenhouse gas emissions. Climate sceptics used this apparent contradiction to question climate change per se – or at least the harm potential caused by greenhouse gases – as well as the validity of the climate models. Meanwhile, the majority of climate researchers continued to emphasise that the short-term 'warming hiatus' could largely be explained on the basis of current scientific understanding and did not contradict longer term warming.

Researchers have been looking into the possible causes of the warming hiatus over the past few years. For the first time, Reto Knutti, Professor of Climate Physics at ETH Zurich, has systematically examined all current hypotheses together with a colleague. In a study published in the latest issue of the journal Nature Geoscience, the researchers conclude that two important factors are equally responsible for the hiatus.

El Niño warmed the Earth

One of the important reasons is natural climate fluctuations, of which the weather phenomena El Niño and La Niña in the Pacific are the most important and well known. "1998 was a strong El Niño year, which is why it was so warm that year," says Knutti. In contrast, the counter-phenomenon La Niña has made the past few years cooler than they would otherwise have been.

Although climate models generally take such fluctuations into account, it is impossible to predict the year in which these phenomena will emerge, says the climate physicist. To clarify, he uses the stock market as an analogy: "When pension funds invest the pension capital in shares, they expect to generate a profit in the long term." At the same time, they are aware that their investments are exposed to price fluctuations and that performance can also be negative in the short term. However, what finance specialists and climate scientists and their models are not able to predict is when exactly a short-term economic downturn or a La Niña year will occur.

Longer solar cycles

According to the study, the second important reason for the warming hiatus is that solar irradiance has been weaker than predicted in the past few years. This is because the identified fluctuations in the intensity of solar irradiance are unusual at present: whereas the so-called sunspot cycles each lasted eleven years in the past, for unknown reasons the last period of weak solar irradiance lasted 13 years. Furthermore, several volcanic eruptions, such as Eyjafjallajökull in Iceland in 2010, have increased the concentration of floating particles (aerosol) in the atmosphere, which has further weakened the arriving at the Earth's surface.

The scientists drew their conclusions from corrective calculations of climate models. In all climate simulations, they looked for periods in which the El Niño/La Niña patterns corresponded to the measured data from the years 1997 to 2012. With a combination of over 20 periods found, they were able to arrive at a realistic estimate of the influence of El Niño and La Niña. They also retroactively applied in the model calculations the actual measured values for solar activity and aerosol concentration in the Earth's atmosphere. Model calculations corrected in this way match the measured temperature data much more closely.

Incomplete measured data

The discrepancy between the climate models and measured data over the past 16 years cannot solely be attributed to the fact that these models predict too much warming, says Knutti. The interpretation of the official measured data should also be critically scrutinised. According to Knutti, measured data is likely to be too low, since the global average temperature is only estimated using values obtained from weather stations on the ground, and these do not exist everywhere on Earth. From satellite data, for example, scientists know that the Arctic region in particular has become warmer over the past years, but because there are no weather stations in that area, there are measurements that show strong upward fluctuations. As a result, the specified average temperature is too low.

Last year, British and Canadian researchers proposed an alternative temperature curve with higher values, in which they incorporated estimated temperatures from satellite data for regions with no weather stations. If the model data is corrected downwards, as suggested by the ETH researchers, and the measurement data is corrected upwards, as suggested by the British and Canadian researchers, then the model and actual observations are very similar.

Warming to recommence

Despite the warming hiatus, Knutti is convinced there is no reason to doubt either the existing calculations for the climate activity of greenhouse gases or the latest climate models. "Short-term climate fluctuations can easily be explained. They do not alter the fact that the will become considerably warmer in the long term as a result of ," says Knutti. He believes that will recommence as soon as solar activity, aerosol concentrations in the atmosphere and weather phenomena such as El Niño naturally start returning to the values of previous decades.

Explore further: Study vindicates climate models accused of 'missing the pause'

More information: Huber M, Knutti R: Natural variability, radiative forcing and climate response in the recent hiatus reconciled. Nature Geoscience, online publication 17 August 2014, DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2228

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

UN weather agency warns of 'El Nino' this year

Apr 15, 2014

The UN weather agency Tuesday warned there was a good chance of an "El Nino" climate phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean this year, bringing droughts and heavy rainfall to the rest of the world.

Warming since 1950s partly caused by El Nino

Nov 14, 2013

(Phys.org) —A natural shift to stronger warm El Niño events in the Pacific Ocean might be responsible for a substantial portion of the global warming recorded during the past 50 years, according to new ...

Global warming could change strength of El Nino

Sep 11, 2013

Global warming could impact the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), altering the cycles of El Niño and La Niña events that bring extreme drought and flooding to Australia and many other Pacific-rim countries.

Recommended for you

Asian monsoon much older than previously thought

16 hours ago

The Asian monsoon already existed 40 million years ago during a period of high atmospheric carbon dioxide and warmer temperatures, reports an international research team led by a University of Arizona geoscientist.

Rules of thumb for climate change turned upside down

16 hours ago

With a new analysis of land regions, ETH climate researcher are challenging the general climate change paradigm that dry regions are getting drier and wet regions are getting wetter. In some regions they ...

Tropical Storm Odile taken on by two NASA satellites

Sep 12, 2014

As Tropical Storm Odile continues to affect Mexico's west coast and stir up dangerous surf, NASA's TRMM and Aqua satellites provided forecasters information on clouds and rainfall in the coast-hugging storm. ...

User comments : 176

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (43) Aug 19, 2014
The discrepancy between the climate models and measured data over the past 16 years cannot solely be attributed to the fact that these models predict too much warming

Nope. It's because these computer models are all based on the same al.gor.e.dumb.
Grallen
3.8 / 5 (34) Aug 19, 2014
@antigoracle: Learn to science.

You spew the same anti-model crap every time. Even though people have been kind enough to explain to you many times how to understand them. It seem though, that you never learn.
Sean_W
2.7 / 5 (19) Aug 19, 2014
"The average temperature on Earth has barely risen over the past 16 years."

Anti-science deniers!
LariAnn
3.9 / 5 (26) Aug 19, 2014
@Grallen, IMHO it is not because he never learns - I imagine he knows darn well what a crock his posts are, but his handlers have given him orders and so he must follow his programming, regardless of the facts or science. I don't doubt that the tobacco companies knew darn well that their product was dangerous to health, but those in charge gave the order to obfuscate, confuse and muddy the issue for as long as they could get away with it.
antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (30) Aug 19, 2014
So do you understand the models grallen?
http://wattsupwit...e-wrong/
sdrfz
2 / 5 (32) Aug 19, 2014

So scientists can rig the numbers, and come out with the "correct" answer that helps continue their sources of funding.
Odin2
2.7 / 5 (32) Aug 19, 2014
So if the temperatures are rising it is caused by increased atmospheric CO2 (and not natural causes), but if the temperatures do not rise or fall, it is due to other natural causes and not CO2? Isn't that having it both ways?

There has never been any empirical evidence that human generated CO2 is the primary cause of global warming. Computers programed on the assumption that CO2 is the cause and climate studies that assume CO2 is the cause are not empirical evidence.

Historically, CO2 variations lag temperature changes by as much as 800 years which indicates that temperature changes cause variations in CO2 concentrations, not the other way around. Give one example of a reliable study finding empirical evidence indicating that CO2 concentrations increased before temperatures increased.
PsycheOne
2.7 / 5 (24) Aug 19, 2014
Taking the investment analogy further, what if 16 years ago your investment counselor told you a particular stock was a sure thing to skyrocket. 16 years later everyone else is making money but you. The counselor has all kinds of reasons why his prediction didn't pan out yet. "But just hold on," he says, "it will.".

Would you find another investment counselor? My guess is you would have dumped him long ago.
saposjoint
3.6 / 5 (31) Aug 19, 2014
The same anti-science fools come swarming like flies to every climate related article here.

Willful ignorance is great if you need it to feel good about yourself, but leave it at the church on Sunday, please. Parading it about does nothing more than certify your status as fools.
cjn
3.7 / 5 (12) Aug 19, 2014
I'm not sure who ETH-Zurich has on staff, but this thing was written like a high school science fair project. If you're going to present an argument in this field, you need to quantify it. Merely qualifying that "somethings were kinda higher and somethings were kinda lower and so other things were kinda different" is not a suitable way present this information. All this does is feed skepticism of the science.
Toiea
1.5 / 5 (23) Aug 19, 2014
If my understanding of global warming is correct, then the global warming should reverse back to the state at the beginning of the last century (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23...).
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (30) Aug 19, 2014
So do you understand the models grallen?
http://wattsupwit...e-wrong/

For THE GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL to be used in legitimate science, THE MODEL must be used to make predictions and with no changes to THE MODEL, its performance must be evaluated.
So far, THE GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL has failed for the past 15 years.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (23) Aug 19, 2014
..... Merely qualifying that "somethings were kinda higher and somethings were kinda lower and so other things were kinda different" is not a suitable way present this information. All this does is feed skepticism of the science.

cjn - from paper summary
"We find that ENSO variability analogous to that between 1997 or 1998 and 2012 leads to a cooling trend of about −0.06 °C. In addition, updated solar and stratospheric aerosol forcings from observations explain a cooling trend of similar magnitude (−0.07 °C). Accounting for these adjusted trends we show that a climate model of reduced complexity with a transient climate response of about 1.8 °C is consistent with the temperature record of the past 15 years, as is the ensemble mean of the models in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5). We conclude that there is little evidence for a systematic overestimation of the temperature response to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the CMIP5 ensemble."
antigoracle
2 / 5 (32) Aug 19, 2014
So, not one mention of all the heat going into the oceans. Well, that's one lie we can scratch off the AGW Cult's list.
The AGW Cult is like a parasite, whose head and ass can't keep track of the lies each spew. If they weren't so funny, I would shed a tear.
runrig
4 / 5 (27) Aug 19, 2014
So do you understand the models grallen?
http://wattsupwit...e-wrong/

For THE GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL to be used in legitimate science, THE MODEL must be used to make predictions and with no changes to THE MODEL, its performance must be evaluated.
So far, THE GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL has failed for the past 15 years.

They are evaluated - all model predictions in any field are evaluated - that's how they figure out what needs tweaking.
And as this paper shows they are pretty good, because these variables they have introduced to said models could NOT have been know at their inception.
All models can be wrong but all models are useful.
They are not on the phone to an "Imaginary friend", my friend.
Another flawed 1-D thought. Apparanently Climate modellers should know everything perfectly from the get-go and too boot know when volcanoes erupt and the lenghth of the ENSO cycle.
How're the Fairies today ryygy?
runrig
3.9 / 5 (27) Aug 19, 2014
So, not one mention of all the heat going into the oceans. Well, that's one lie we can scratch off the AGW Cult's list.
The AGW Cult is like a parasite, whose head and ass can't keep track of the lies each spew. If they weren't so funny, I would shed a tear.

They don't have to - because anyone who follows the science knows that the La Nina phase of the ENSO cycle stores heat in the western Pacific's depths.
Cue another goldfish discussion on ENSO.
FFS
antigoracle
2 / 5 (32) Aug 19, 2014
And yet all the previous La Nina's did not cause cooling that lasted 16 years.
No wait, there was no volcanic activity then. Well think again.
http://www.wunder...noes.asp
rockwolf1000
3.8 / 5 (16) Aug 19, 2014
So do you understand the models grallen?
http://wattsupwit...e-wrong/


So you don't understand anything antiscience?
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (27) Aug 19, 2014
antigoracle mumbled his usual assumptions & misplaced thinking
And yet all the previous La Nina's did not cause cooling that lasted 16 years.
No wait, there was no volcanic activity then. Well think again.
http://www.wunder...noes.asp
Well, was there continued rapid rise of large amounts of CO2 ?
Were the oceans currents the same - ?
Was insolation the same ?
Was the average sea level the same ?

Can you prove determinism then you can criticise but, it should be obvious to any intelligent person probablism is the more correct world view - not just in models but, in administration & in perception.

Science is however asymptotic & advancing all the time.

The various undisciplined blurters which we have come to know so well just get in the way, slow the whole process down and marginalise the very technology we as a species have become comfortable with & has only come from Science.

ie. Safe food, transport, health, medicine, communications, computing etc etc
benwelgoed
4 / 5 (24) Aug 19, 2014
There is more than a minor problem with the very first statement in the article: "The average temperature on Earth has barely risen over the past 16 years." That is only so if one totally ignores the land masses and the ocean water. Granted the stats on those are less abundant, but the total heat absorbed in just those 16 years by all land and seawater combined is humongous. One cannot keep ignoring that.
Science Officer
2.3 / 5 (27) Aug 19, 2014
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.....The Great And Powerful Wizard of Global Warming has spoken.
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (28) Aug 19, 2014
antigoracle made another really dumb statement with
So, not one mention of all the heat going into the oceans.
You havent noticed these articles are rather minimal - it is NOT a lecture in heat flows in the ecosystem, is the evidence of massive ice melting not enough you have to see it in a further article when anything touches on climate change ?

antigoracle mutterd
Well, that's one lie we can scratch off the AGW Cult's list.
Well trying to scratch it off your list obviously failed.

antigoracle again is so twisted
The AGW Cult is like a parasite, whose head and ass can't keep track of the lies each spew. If they weren't so funny, I would shed a tear.
Why the heck are you here - by inference you must be paid to put out so much unscientific diatribe, politics & idle antiscience mudslinging.

Who pays you - as no sane person will want to remain so completely uneducated for any length of time - especially so when offered evidence, mathematics, physics etc

Why ?
d_robison
2.6 / 5 (18) Aug 19, 2014
There is more than a minor problem with the very first statement in the article: "The average temperature on Earth has barely risen over the past 16 years." That is only so if one totally ignores the land masses and the ocean water. Granted the stats on those are less abundant, but the total heat absorbed in just those 16 years by all land and seawater combined is humongous. One cannot keep ignoring that.


I may be misunderstanding you, but you seem to be implying that heat absorbed by oceans and land mass is not then emitted. If this is what you are saying, I would refer you to the first law of thermodynamics.

Heat absorbed by oceans and land mass would contribute to an increase in average surface temperature and average atmospheric temperature.
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (24) Aug 19, 2014
Toiea spewed some 20+ links
If my understanding of global warming is correct, then the global warming should reverse back to the state at the beginning of the last century...
Well, is it correct, the first has to do with decay rates, the second about wet weekends, that was it for me, why do you expect readers to follow such immense inefficiency in communications ?

You are just trying to dissuade readers aren't you - why make it most difficult to be understood ?

What particular "understanding of global warming" do you have Toiea, that you cannot possibly put in one para of 3 to 4 sentences ?

Although subtle & not generally reported there is a perception global warming will accelerate badly & NOT reverse. What are the top three reasons please Toiea why it SHOULD reverse & their relationship to each other & outcomes - Eg such as causality.

Just post asap with my name at top and I will take a look at your paragraph...

I'm waiting for a few sentences on your best hypothesis :-)
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (22) Aug 19, 2014
d_robison made a good point
Heat absorbed by oceans and land mass would contribute to an increase in average surface temperature and average atmospheric temperature.
Indeed however, one must bear in mind (not a complete list):-

a. Large amount of ice mass, still far below average atmospheric temperatures
b. Oceans not homogenous
c. Heat capacities suffer dynamic between saline & fresh water mixing
d. The time period of such "increase in average surface temperature", is likely not
yet able to be quantified in relation to the current dynamic

The so-called 'law of thermodynamics" which I prefer to relabel as a principle is fine.

The problem arises in terms of the time factors & the dynamics.

FWIW:
One sad person said the oceans would eventually reach equilibrium like in a bathtub...
But, it hasnt after millennia, is subject to change and over what TIME.

The period over which such changes & heat flows occur & understanding of interactions over those periods is rather unclear !
antigoracle
2.1 / 5 (29) Aug 19, 2014
Well, was there continued rapid rise of large amounts of CO2 ?
Whatcha askin bout Willis? Did the burning of fossil fuels stop after 1998?

Were the oceans currents the same - ?
Nope, they just magically started taking more heat into the oceans.

Was insolation the same ?
You do know it's profane to mock the AGW Cult's sermons. You know the one about - It's not the sun.

Was the average sea level the same ?
Nope, it went up 20 feet like your False "Profit" Al said.
thetnrebel
2.1 / 5 (26) Aug 19, 2014
here a idea I been saying for 30 years... it is a normal cycle
Mike_Massen
3.8 / 5 (26) Aug 19, 2014
antigoracle made another boo boo
Well, was there continued rapid rise of large amounts of CO2 ?
Whatcha askin bout Willis? Did the burning of fossil fuels stop after 1998?
Were the oceans currents the same - ?
Nope, they just magically started taking more heat into the oceans.
Was insolation the same ?
You do know it's profane to mock the AGW Cult's sermons. You know the one about - It's not the sun.
Was the average sea level the same ?
Nope, it went up 20 feet like your False "Profit" Al said.
Obviously antigoracle, I was referring to the link YOU posted which I was replying to, here is a copy in case you forgot:-
http://www.wunder...noes.asp

Did you read it antigoracle, it discusses 535 AD hence the context of my questions should have been obvious & also because its obvious coal burning didnt stop after 1998,

What a lame attempt to obfuscate, please stay focused on topic, read the links you post & the postings by those earnest re physics !
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (25) Aug 19, 2014
The problem arises in terms of the time factors & the dynamics.

aka: hand waving.
jackjump
2.4 / 5 (26) Aug 19, 2014
The truth from the pause that the warmists don't want to confront is that no matter what effect CO2 has on global warming, the natural cycles on the planet, on the sun and perhaps in cosmic rays and other extraneous space weather are sufficient to cancel out that effect. Since the planet has actually been cooling for the last fifteen year and previously for the period between the 60s and 80s (i.e. during the impending ice age scare in the 70s) it can overwhelm it. Given that we are leaving the current interglacial for another glaciation one would think serious scientists would be more worried about cooling (much more dangerous) than warming.
rockwolf1000
3.7 / 5 (22) Aug 19, 2014
@jackjump

The truth from the pause that the warmists don't want to confront is that no matter what effect CO2 has on global warming, the natural cycles on the planet, on the sun and perhaps in cosmic rays and other extraneous space weather are sufficient to cancel out that effect. Since the planet has actually been cooling for the last fifteen year and previously for the period between the 60s and 80s (i.e. during the impending ice age scare in the 70s) it can overwhelm it. Given that we are leaving the current interglacial for another glaciation one would think serious scientists would be more worried about cooling (much more dangerous) than warming.


Be quiet. The adults are talking.
freeiam
2.2 / 5 (24) Aug 19, 2014
Ha ha, in other words, they cannot predict a thing.
The models are obviously wrong and even after correcting doesn't fit the data.
So the data must be corrected also.
If only the sun would behave itself and return to its cycle and all other phenomena would return to the state we know ...
Scientists are not good at complex systems, look at medicine for example.
antigoracle
2.1 / 5 (24) Aug 19, 2014
What's quite obvious Mike, is that you in the AGW peanut gallery share a lone neuron and so would respond to a comment, directed to another one of the Chicken Littles, without bothering about context. The main article claims volcanism as one reason for the cooling, my link shows a nice graph of volcanism during and prior to this cooling. Mine was a lame attempt at obfuscating, but yours is perfection since that is what we can expect from the AGW Cult.
Mike_Massen
3.6 / 5 (21) Aug 19, 2014
ryggesogn2 with the best he can do when
Mike_Massen offers this philosophical remark following a list of aspects to consider
The problem arises in terms of the time factors & the dynamics.
aka: hand waving.
ryggesogn2, I have never claimed to be a climate scientist, they have to deal with this complexity & it takes significant training. Several universities teach climate science & you are showing your ignorance & disregard for efforts taken and continuing to deal with the issue.

ryggesogn2 you are showing you have not & cannot deal with the physics.

You have claimed to have a physics degree.

You have claimed to design an experiment to prove CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

Yet when asked on several occasions you ignore and don't bother to respond, yet all around you there is evidence of the physics but, you continue idiotic diatribe designed to obfuscate & irritate, why ryggesogn2 ?

ryggesogn2, grow up, put up or shut up, how much are you being paid to lie ?
Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (22) Aug 19, 2014
antigoracle finally admits he is not here to learn or contribute with this admission
Mine was a lame attempt at obfuscating, but yours is perfection since that is what we can expect from the AGW Cult.
Really antigoracle - you have said that before !

What cults antigoracle, are based on the physics, such as CO2 a proven greenhouse gas or
specific heat & properties of water ?

@freeiam
Please check on how models function, they are probabilistic & asymptotic.
What specific data "was corrected" ?
Are you completely unaware of that which Science has achieved ?
Do you freeiam, honestly prefer a world without medicine, it is also obviously not deterministic, it is fully probabilistic & with even great diversity than climate issues as there are several layers of chemistry & physics interspersed between expectations, treatment & economics...

freeiam, is that your nick, u expect free jam - geesh that tells us a lot about you, please change and get an education, which uni did you go to ?
supamark23
3.7 / 5 (22) Aug 19, 2014
....Mine was a lame attempt at obfuscating, but yours is perfection since that is what we can expect from the AGW Cult.


Oh look the liar finally admits that... he's a liar! good job Brownie.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (19) Aug 19, 2014
And yet all the previous La Nina's did not cause cooling that lasted 16 years.
No wait, there was no volcanic activity then. Well think again.
http://www.wunder...noes.asp

It did - look at the graph lower down on this page and see the "pause" in global temps during the preponderance of La Nina's from 1960-1976.

http://data.giss....mp/2011/

There's no getting away from physics Anti - a cool pacific "pauses the AGW warming trend and stores heat in deeper waters in the W pacific.
wea975
1.7 / 5 (20) Aug 19, 2014
I fully believe that El Nino and La Nina mixed with the activity of the sun are the sole Drivers of this Earth.I don't believe that man is driving anything except pollution.I don't believe man can change the earths natural cycles.
Mike_Massen
3.8 / 5 (20) Aug 19, 2014
wea975 who just joined 24hrs ago is throwing beliefs around
I fully believe that El Nino and La Nina mixed with the activity of the sun are the sole Drivers of this Earth.I don't believe that man is driving anything except pollution.I don't believe man can change the earths natural cycles.
Who are you & why are you jumping in now ?
Surely a mature poster would have read all the previous posts and not post anything ambiguous or arbitrary. We are obviously not talking seasonal cycles & eg Perihelion etc, what cycle are you referring to then ?

What actual information & evidence are you offering, you come across as a sock-puppet, your recent arrival suggests that in concert with recent discussion.

Offer something tangible please & please don''t waste time with posts that go nowhere...!

Physics, data, reasoned interpretation ok ?
Scroofinator
2.1 / 5 (19) Aug 19, 2014
I've already explained the links between the Sun/ENSO/climate...
http://phys.org/n...ier.html
I don't know how these guys get the balls to say something so cocky as:
Short-term climate fluctuations can easily be explained. They do not alter the fact that the climate will become considerably warmer in the long term as a result of greenhouse gas emissions

Of course they can be explained after the model has been observed to be wrong, that's the purpose of a model, to simulate based on a data set.

A theory, on the other hand, is supposed to offer predictions we can test to validate it's correctness. So AGW as a theory is garbage, as proven by these countless "why no global warming" articles. That does not mean AGW is not successful as a model, our short term forecasting is pretty reliable. Regardless, we have yet to discover the real climate change THEORY.

GHGs alone are not even close, they only add more potential energy into the climate system.
dogbert
2.1 / 5 (22) Aug 19, 2014
The average temperature on Earth has barely risen over the past 16 years.


But facts and observations do not deter the AGW crowd.

ETH researchers have now found out why.


A model can always be modified to match what you want it to match, but a model which fails to predict is a useless model.

The fact remains that the climate has been stable for 16 years despite increases in atmospheric CO2. But AGWites will continue. How can they do otherwise after years of obfuscation and political activism?
harrys_sebastian_3
1.8 / 5 (19) Aug 19, 2014
If science knew everything there is to know about "climate change" they would not be here now searching for explanations on why global cooling is taking place. The fact that the sun is playing a role in warming vs cooling was a recent V8 head-slap moment. You science types that think you know it all, definitely do not. There are known unknowns and unknown unknowns (who said that?). It is unlikely you will have the full climate dynamic mapped out to completion in my life time. Speaking of V8's....I'll take mine supercharged.
strangedays
4.1 / 5 (20) Aug 19, 2014
wea975
.I don't believe that man is driving anything except pollution


Well - glad that is settled. Do you have other interesting beliefs - like maybe 'I do not believe that antibiotics are effective in treating infectious diseases'. Or perhaps 'I do not believe dinosaurs ever lived on the earth'. It is fun doing science based on flip a coin and decide what I think is true. You should meet antigoracle, and Ryggy - you would all get along great.
Water_Prophet
1.6 / 5 (17) Aug 19, 2014
Hey here is a thought. How about a climate change model that doesn't rely on CO2? Perhaps there is another variable. Perhaps, if we just model the Earth as is and then look for the pesky hidden variable and parametrized the change, we'd know something.

Naah, we might learn something.
If I check out wiki, 2013 should be pretty near a solar max, which makes 2015 also close to a solar max, so... this must mean the additional CO2 and additional solar energy is warming the planet an awful lot... anybody?

http://en.wikiped...data.png

I know the answer. So does Steve 200mph Cruiz. It ain't complicated and it doesn't involve CO2.

@Mike, I am still offering to send my pubs, but let me ask again, how good to I have to be to pass muster?
TegiriNenashi
2 / 5 (24) Aug 19, 2014
So global warming taking a break is finally admitted.

Next step: revoke all the grant money for those still living under the rock who still insist that "plants march north", "OMG, the food supply is uncertain", and so on.
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (20) Aug 19, 2014
Harry
There are known unknowns and unknown unknowns (who said that?).


Interesting that you should reference something said by Donald Rumsfeld in your anti science comment. Here is something else Rumsfeld said - about the invasion of Iraq -

"Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that"

http://www.cbsnew...ort-war/
Scroofinator
2 / 5 (21) Aug 19, 2014
Interesting that you should reference something said by Donald Rumsfeld in your anti science comment.

While the man is despicable at the highest levels, his "rumyisms" are still quite valid. We ALL now know that there is more than just GHGs influencing climate, so we know there are unknowns in climate theory, hence known unknowns.

Or do we have some unknown knowns? Maybe we just haven't yet connected the dots.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (25) Aug 19, 2014
they have to deal with this complexity & it takes significant training. Several universities teach climate science


""I've asked very frequently at universities: 'Of the brightest people you know, how many people were studying climate [...or meteorology or oceanography...]?' And the answer is usually 'No one.'"

And – warming to his theme:

"You look at the credentials of some of these people [on the IPCC] and you realise that the world doesn't have that many experts, that many 'leading climate scientists'".

Was Lindzen suggesting, asked Tim Yeo at this point, that scientists in the field of climate were academically inferior.

"Oh yeah," said Lindzen. "I don't think there's any question that the brightest minds went into physics, math, chemistry…""
http://blogs.tele...ysicist/
mjla19
2.1 / 5 (22) Aug 19, 2014
The models blew it plain and simple. Al Gore is currently weeping. Why isn't the Earth as warm as predicted? The crisis of the planet is on hold....but just wait we promise it will come back, they cry.

Well you see they forgot to look at the weather. They forgot to take into account the Pacific Ocean cycles. They forgot about the Sun and some of the lowest sunspot activity since the Maunder Minimum.

But wait the Arctic is warmer they cried last winter that's why in the mid latitudes the weather was colder, global warming caused it! Well that is the way the atmosphere work, heights rise above the pole and warms and drives the cold southward. It has always worked that way, nothing new. Guess what it always will work that way.

How to stop global warming. How about this. Have the Pacific Ocean cool (which overall it is in a cooling cycle), have the sun continue to go into a deep minimum lowering irradiance and then add volcanic activity which for decades has been below normal.
mjla19
2 / 5 (22) Aug 19, 2014
One more thing Russian scientist who have been studying the sun for decades predicted over ten years ago that solar activity would do just as it has been doing. The solar minimum was longer then usual. They predicted the solar max that followed, which we are in now, would be the lowest we have seen in the last 100 years and that the next solar max we may not see any sunspots.

They followed up by saying that beginning around 2014-2015 the Earth would begin to cool which would lead into an ice age, the Earth would cool over the following 40-50 years.

Around the world many scoffed and laughed at such a prediction but eerily solar activity has been just the way they predicted long ago which I kind of find fascinating.
Bart R
4 / 5 (8) Aug 19, 2014
"Break" may be an overstatement; it's more of a kink, or possibly sprain.

www.woodfortrees....fset:0.5

We see what's really been happening, when we look at the trends of the months, and see how they have twisted and retwisted under the forcing of fossil fuel burning, producing a series of joints in the curve, ankles, knees, elbows and wrists shaped by CO2 pushing the temperature around, causing the formerly orderly ratio of months to one another to bunch up and invert.

This is like a parade of soldiers, picture a dozen columns named January through December, under fire.
WatcherinLa
1.6 / 5 (16) Aug 19, 2014
Reid once said: 'You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.'

Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology—now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences—in the 1970s he became the first director of what's now the UW's Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies. He's a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor—created, the U.N. says, to recognize "outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment." He has authored five books and more than 230 other publications and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as

the most frequently cited climatologist in the world.
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (21) Aug 19, 2014
Just look at the trends for the US, especially the current cooling trend. We'll be lucky if it's just a little ice-age that's coming.
http://www.c3head...one.html
saposjoint
3.9 / 5 (11) Aug 19, 2014
You'll keep it nice for us with your hot air, won't you?
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 19, 2014
Just look at the trends for the US, especially the current cooling trend. We'll be lucky if it's just a little ice-age that's coming.
http://www.c3head...one.html


LINK RED FLAGGED BY WOT!!!!!!!
Ducklet
2.6 / 5 (21) Aug 19, 2014
"Climate sceptics used this apparent contradiction to question climate change per se "

No we don't. We use it to question the quality of the models used to make predictions, to demonstrate the underlying theory as currently stated doesn't hold water. A theory which can't make predictions is a hypothesis. Surveying a random selection of scientists and asking them if they believe in climate change is equivalent to asking if they believe the hypothesis is valid and will one day be proven. This may well be the case and they may be correct, but believing something will be proven is not the same as proving it. Scientists throughout history have believed in a lot bogus assumptions. The very same scientist surveyed would of course agree with this. It's not scientists who report on majority consensus but activists.
Rustybolts
4.4 / 5 (14) Aug 19, 2014
Good thing I brought my shovel..shit is getting deep.
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (21) Aug 20, 2014
You'll keep it nice for us with your hot air, won't you?

Absolutely, and what else can I do for you.
Help you grow a brain perhaps?
enviro414
1.3 / 5 (16) Aug 20, 2014
Two natural primary drivers of average global temperature have been identified. They alone very accurately explain the reported up and down measurements since before 1900 with R2>0.9 (correlation coefficient = 0.95) and provide credible estimates back to the low temperatures of the Little Ice Age (1610).

The method, equation, data sources, history (hind-cast to 1610) and predictions (the trend through 2037 is down) are provided at http://agwunveile...spot.com and references.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (14) Aug 20, 2014
Two natural primary drivers of average global temperature have been identified. They alone very accurately explain the reported up and down measurements since before 1900 with R2>0.9 (correlation coefficient = 0.95) and provide credible estimates back to the low temperatures of the Little Ice Age (1610).

The method, equation, data sources, history (hind-cast to 1610) and predictions (the trend through 2037 is down) are provided at http://agwunveile...spot.com and references.

Back again with the same "back-of-a-cigarette packet" bollocks are we Enviro?

For the interested - search for threads where I responded.
saposjoint
3.9 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2014
Antigoracle. Your anencephaly indicates that you couldn't help me with that. And since I have a nice one already, no thank you. Just STFU.
fidh
1.9 / 5 (15) Aug 20, 2014
Forgive me for my moronic stupidity, but I'm having problems understanding this scenario.
If a model predicts result B but result A appears then isn't that model simply, just not functional and if all models demonstrate similar behaviour without actually writing the result yourself then would it not be a clear demonstration that not enough is known to make the models to begin with?
joe_spongebob
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 20, 2014
This is not science,,something thats based on fake flawed data they call models has been wrong all along, only the Govt. paid fake scientists continue to promote it and make excuses why its wrong
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (16) Aug 20, 2014
So predictable saposjoint, thanks for confirming that you're a waste of a brain.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (16) Aug 20, 2014
Shh... fidh, stop making sense. When it comes to climate "science" you must not think for yourself, you just drink the Kool-Aid and believe.
Mike_Massen
4.7 / 5 (13) Aug 20, 2014
fidh
Forgive me for my moronic stupidity, but I'm having problems understanding this scenario.
If a model predicts result B but result A appears then isn't that model simply, just not functional..
By what amount, ever heard of error bars.

Ever flown on a plane, know that flight models are also probabilistic & asymptotic, just like all modelling processes - the key is at what probability & how far from a projected asymptote.

Thermal properties of CO2 have been well known for over a hundred years, there is obviously more heat in the climate system Eg. Glacial retreat, reduced ocean salinity etc... The fundamental aspects of the models re GHG & insolation is well understood but, the preponderance of secondary effect such as predicting ocean/air transfer is difficult.

Unfortunately, in order to appreciate & manage interpretation of any complex models where data is still being acquired, demands a high level education, a keen mindset & a procedure to manage the interactions...
Eddy Courant
1.3 / 5 (14) Aug 20, 2014
Scientists Discover "Balance Of Nature".

Oh those scientists!
Mike_Massen
4.4 / 5 (14) Aug 20, 2014
antigoracle's anti-education satire
Shh... fidh, stop making sense. When it comes to climate "science" you must not think for yourself, you just drink the Kool-Aid and believe.
Great that people think for themselves, in preparation for being effective they need skills; good education, access to labs to analyse & replicate experimental methods & investigative methods etc

Geesh antigoracle, isnt this already happening in vast bulk of universities re Heat/Gases etc ?

My eldest son studied Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) & even the simplest chemical engineering system very quickly become vastly complex but, all are based on physics fundamentals, in case of climate science:-

1. Irrefutable thermal properties of green house gases
2. Empirical measurements
3. Probability factors

In Chemical Engineering its easy to close the system to take time to manage/observe vast bulk of variables directly & efficiently.

Obviously this takes far longer & with more imponderables re climate !
Mike_Massen
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 20, 2014
joe_spongebob claimed
This is not science,,something thats based on fake flawed data they call models has been wrong all along
So you claim NASA & other data gathering organising are all pretty much equally lying and easily paid off ?

If its not Science, then what is your best definition of Science ?

Are you paranoid, on meds ?

joe_spongebob went on with
.., only the Govt. paid fake scientists continue to promote it and make excuses why its wrong
How do you define a 'fake' scientist ?
What were they paid, when, shouldn't you call the FBI ?

Ever been in a physics lab at a uni joe_spongebob devising, observing & investigating an experiment in any physical property. Simpletons just cant do it and have no interest, they get on here and claim fraud when things like thermal properties of CO2 are well proven for almost 100 years & never proven wrong...!

You arent a sock puppet are you, just joined yesterday, something familiar about your diatribe ?
strangedays
4.7 / 5 (14) Aug 20, 2014
fidh
Forgive me for my moronic stupidity, but I'm having problems understanding this scenario.
If a model predicts result B but result A appears then isn't that model simply, just not functional


No - that model is not non functional. We go around and around this topic. If the weather forecast says it is going to rain tmrw - and it does not rain - do you throw meteorology out the window? I don't. I recognize that models have limitations. They are not perfect. Have you ever seen the models of hurricane tracks? Different models give different tracks. As we get better at modelling - the differences become less - but there is still a level of uncertainty.
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (14) Aug 20, 2014
antigoracle
Shh... fidh, stop making sense. When it comes to climate "science" you must not think for yourself, you just drink the Kool-Aid and believe.


antigoracle keeps spamming the site with the same rubbish - but of course is not up to answering one basic question. If you go to the doctor with an infection - do you accept the medical diagnosis - and take the prescribed antibiotics, or do you draw your own labs, and culture the bacteria, and prescribe your own treatment? antigoracle - answer the question - the last time you got sick - did you go the doc? Did you diagnose and treat yourself, or did you listen to the expert? Answer the question antigoracle.
sdrfz
1.3 / 5 (15) Aug 20, 2014
If the weather forecast says it is going to rain tmrw - and it does not rain - do you throw meteorology out the window? I don't.


Weather forecasting has had some moderate success. We cannot say the same for the climate models, since the vast majority of them have completely failed to predict the climate for the past 16 years.
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (13) Aug 20, 2014
sdrfz do you actually read before posting ? when saying this
Weather forecasting has had some moderate success. We cannot say the same for the climate models, since the vast majority of them have completely failed to predict the climate for the past 16 years.
You sound like a sock puppet, did you not read anything re models its been covered rather well for months, did you miss a good education ?

All models are probabilistic & asymptotic, with inescapable uncertainties. Issue is movement towards the asymptotes which can only be long term, the short term is addressing error bars re measurements along with potentials for chaotic interactions. A main imponderable is the complexity of ocean/air interface/interaction heat transfers - well that, along with an array of many issues...

Please read strangedays excellent posts here and just before yours by strangedays, thanks :-)

From runrig on another thread
http://www.scienc...diation/
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (14) Aug 20, 2014
Weather forecasting has had some moderate success. We cannot say the same for the climate models, since the vast majority of them have completely failed to predict the climate for the past 16 years.


Failing to predict the exact temperature of the earth for the past 16 years - is no different than failing to predict the exact path of a hurricane. Over the long term the climate models have proven very informative. They are not supposed to tell you what the temperature will be in London, on Sept 15th, 2015. They are models - and there is still much we have to learn about our complex climate. I see you as the person with the house on the beach. And the forecasters are telling you to evacuate. 'I am not going to evacuate' you say 'the hurricane models are often wrong - I will take my chances'. Kind of like Pascal's wager.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (16) Aug 20, 2014
They are not supposed to tell you what the temperature will be in London, on Sept 15th, 2015.

Right. THE MODEL is supposed to be used to predict the average temp increase in London in 2115.
strangedays
4.7 / 5 (13) Aug 20, 2014
Right. THE MODEL is supposed to be used to predict the average temp increase in London in 2115.


Nearly right there Ryggy - but as usual - you just couldn't get over the finish line. The models are not specific to one particular location, or one particular year - as you point out - they are averages. AND - guess what Ryygy? They have done a pretty good job - given the enormity of the task. Just like our ability to model hurricanes, and weather patterns.

http://www.thegua...-warming
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (16) Aug 20, 2014
They have done a pretty good job - given the enormity of the task

'Failure' is a 'good job'?
For a 100 year MODEL, one will have to wait 100 years to evaluate its performance.
strangedays
4.7 / 5 (13) Aug 20, 2014
'Failure' is a 'good job'?


I guess you did not look at the article I linked did you Ryggy?
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (15) Aug 20, 2014
'Failure' is a 'good job'?


I guess you did not look at the article I linked did you Ryggy?


Why? Is it pal, I mean, 'peer' reviewed?

How about this?
"The average temperature on Earth has barely risen over the past 16 years. "
First line of this article.
fidh
1.6 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2014
I wasnt suggesting to throw everything out.
I just had hard time understanding why so much trust is put into models if they do not give correct results.
Sure there is weather models for hurricanes etc but people arent always evacuated due to the amount of false positives even if they receive some trust.
Personally what I find a bit terrifying is the constantly increasing amount of articles I read where people suggest artificially cooling the earth.
Just a possibility of a terrible situation shouldnt warrant playing with nature and possibly destroying everything because there is always some finicky detail that backfires later.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (13) Aug 20, 2014
If the weather forecast says it is going to rain tmrw - and it does not rain - do you throw meteorology out the window? I don't.


Weather forecasting has had some moderate success. We cannot say the same for the climate models, since the vast majority of them have completely failed to predict the climate for the past 16 years.

I am unaware that GCM's are beyond their error bars.
Please provide evidence that they are.
You are aware that models (of all things) ARE correct if within their error bars? No? Then why not?
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Aug 20, 2014
They are not supposed to tell you what the temperature will be in London, on Sept 15th, 2015.

Right. THE MODEL is supposed to be used to predict the average temp increase in London in 2115.

Doing science again ryggy ... monumental fail my friend.
GCM's give a range of temperature with probabilities for an average global temperature for as far as they are run, error bars widening with time.
You really are a monumental spamming idiot.
FFS
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Aug 20, 2014
'Failure' is a 'good job'?


I guess you did not look at the article I linked did you Ryggy?


Why? Is it pal, I mean, 'peer' reviewed?

How about this?
"The average temperature on Earth has barely risen over the past 16 years. "
First line of this article.

Ever heard of an averaged mean ryggy?
No, keep forgetting you don't do science - just ignorant denialist spital.
Err ... go up faster .... err, then go up slower = go up as predicted.

The "Earth" also comprises ~94% ocean in heat storage.
What have ocean temps done ryggy?
Cue goldfish roundabout no. 39a, such that the informed are dizzied again whilst the fish forgets for the nth time
FFS - You're only preaching to the converted ... there's no one out there going to be persuaded by your imbecility. Not unless they are imbeciles themselves.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 20, 2014
'Failure' is a 'good job'?


I guess you did not look at the article I linked did you Ryggy?


Even if he did he/she couldn't/wouldn't understand it ... not unless it's written in Fairy language.
strangedays
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 20, 2014
ryggy
Why? Is it pal, I mean, 'peer' reviewed?

How about this?
"The average temperature on Earth has barely risen over the past 16 years. "
First line of this article.


Yep - we all read the first line of this article - what is your point? The first line of this article does not contradict anything. Ever look at a chart of earths ATMOSPHERIC temps for the past 100 years? See the plateau between 1940 and 1980? The scientists see it too.

It is really interesting watching you make a complete idiot of yourself - over and over again.
Some kind of martyr complex or something - you just love bloodying your own nose - quiet fascinating. Like referring to "turd world countries" like you did recently. Advertising your ignorance and racism is becoming an art for you - just fascinating.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (12) Aug 20, 2014
I wasnt suggesting to throw everything out.
I just had hard time understanding why so much trust is put into models if they do not give correct results.
Sure there is weather models for hurricanes etc but people arent always evacuated due to the amount of false positives even if they receive some trust.
Personally what I find a bit terrifying is the constantly increasing amount of articles I read where people suggest artificially cooling the earth.
Just a possibility of a terrible situation shouldnt warrant playing with nature and possibly destroying everything because there is always some finicky detail that backfires later.


And just what do you think is going on? We are in the middle of a giant uncontrolled experiment to change the composition of the atmosphere of the earth. We are, just as you said, "playing with nature and possibly destroying everything because there is always some finicky detail that backfires later."

Which role do you want in the screen play?
TegiriNenashi
1.1 / 5 (12) Aug 20, 2014
...We are in the middle of a giant uncontrolled experiment to change the composition of the atmosphere of the earth...


This sounds alarming, but may I ask you if you a poet or scientist? Then, give us some numbers. Not in Gigatones of emitted CO2 or GigaJoules of ocean's thermal consumption but in projected and observed temperature increase. Also, please explain why the atmospheric CO2 level of 2000 ppm was OK in earth past, but suddenly is a problem.
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 20, 2014
ryggesogn2 is proving yet again he refuses to learn
'Failure' is a 'good job'?
For a 100 year MODEL, one will have to wait 100 years to evaluate its performance.
No. Why not check it now ?
strangedays provided you with this link:-
http://www.thegua...-warming

You will find a graph which is the output of a model and a discussion thereof.
It shows a rather close correlation with return to trend,

You claim to have a physics degree,what is it about the link you don't consider valid ?

You claimed to have constructed an experiment that proves CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, yet whenever asked to produce the report on the experimental method you decline.

This goes to prove rather definitively you don't know Science.

Frankly ryggesogn2, you have wasted a lot of time, I think you should be banned unless you can prove;

1. You have the physics degree from a recognised university
AND
2. Conducted claimed experiment

Petition ?

Mike_Massen
4.5 / 5 (10) Aug 20, 2014
fidh should get this
I just had hard time understanding why so much trust is put into models if they do not give correct results.
Nothing in life is 100% certain. Physics/math proves it re uncertainties, error bars etc Model offered shows correlation, see strangedays link :-)

fidh
Sure there is weather models for hurricanes etc but people arent always evacuated due to the amount of false positives even if they receive some trust.
Of course, probabilities are updated as storm moves & fed to services.

fidh hit it on the head
Just a possibility of a terrible situation shouldn't warrant playing with nature and possibly destroying everything because there is always some finicky detail that backfires later.
Damn right mate !

So why are humans continuing to burn 230,000 Liters of Petrol each SECOND ?

Such massive output impacts the whole world with likely bad results, Eg

More heat (=energy) in the system
Higher sea levels
Chaotic shifts in weather patterns
Stronger storms
Mike_Massen
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 20, 2014
TegiriNenashi needs a little help when asking
Then, give us some numbers.. but in projected and observed temperature increase.
See link provided:-
http://www.thegua...-warming

TegiriNenashi hasnt seen before an answer to
Also, please explain why the atmospheric CO2 level of 2000 ppm was OK in earth past, but suddenly is a problem.
Its not a problem "suddenly", it has been hypothesized for over 100 years but not in public domain much until internet. Several issues, disparate & combinatorial:-

1. Were billions of people within 10m of coastal regions where storm surges can wipeout cities ?
2. Did life have time to adapt to 2000ppm ?
3. Were sea levels the same ?
4. Was there large & increasing demand on food sources ?
5. Was food grown & transported in tight economic circumstances ?

If most people were not living on the edge re food production & transport or away from the sea we wouldn't care (much) would we ?
TegiriNenashi
1.4 / 5 (13) Aug 20, 2014
1. Were billions of people within 10m of coastal regions where storm surges can wipeout cities ?
2. Did life have time to adapt to 2000ppm ?
3. Were sea levels the same ?
4. Was there large & increasing demand on food sources ?
5. Was food grown & transported in tight economic circumstances ?


1. Did you see IPCC projections of sea level rize? Are they alarming?
2. Yeah, right: its the "rate of change" that makes difference. Do you know what the derivative is? It can be perfectly quantified as well. If you see the rate of 0.01K/decade does it look alarming to you? Especially, when you read in every other biologic article how incredibly adaptive life is?
3. When you talk of sea levels is that flooded Florida map that makes you freak out? Newsflash: it's a fairy tale.
TegiriNenashi
1 / 5 (13) Aug 20, 2014
4. Food is such a basic necessity that mankind mastered a long long time ago. Agriculture has been perfected to increase production orders of magnitude. With such rapidly growing phenomenon any predictions ("oh, no, global warming would disrupt food sources!") are baseless.
5. You mean, alarmists are going to enforce energy cost increase to the extent that growing/transporting food would become prohibitively expensive?
Mike_Massen
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 20, 2014
@TegiriNenashi so simple.
Why do u think I am easily affected by media. Had access to peer reviewed journals for a long time through universities, get to see reports & reviews first hand before media - no need TegiriNenashi to bark dumb media blurbs eg Re florida long term. Adding to points

1. Referred to storm surges, Eg. luckily Tuvalu is not major food producer etc
2. Before AGW people settled in coastal areas, difficult to get them
to move whilst rate of CO2 increase continues impacting upon Eg, Food changes
& storm surges in the vicinities etc & Rate of mutations adapting doesnt necessarily rise to
compensate CO2 rate
3. Levels at 2000pm were very likely different than today, different coastal topologies
4. Already disruption re shifting weather patterns eg rain/drought. To expect less wealthy
groups in 3rd world countries to adapt quickly & master all changes is wildly naive
5. Distribution cost sensitive, already some can't afford transport with hygiene safety
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 21, 2014
Were billions of people within 10m of coastal regions where storm surges can wipeout cities ?

Apparently not everyone is concerned about the perils of living on the coast.
http://www.worldp...2525.php
KDK
1 / 5 (10) Aug 21, 2014
How about our current climatic optimum coming to an end via Solar Cycle 24 and in all likelihood the Milankovitch ice-age cycle setting on course for another ice age! This stuff is not difficult when one removes Agenda 21 from the mix!
Modernmystic
1.1 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2014
Apparanently Climate modellers should know everything perfectly from the get-go and too boot...


Playing the devil's advocate here somewhat. YES they better damned well know things to a level and degree higher than they've been demonstrating if they're going to even suggest the kinds of policy changes and political havoc they are currently doing.

To be perfectly clear. I think it's beyond ludicrous to suggest that pumping copious amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere won't cause warming. This is a FACT. In exactly the same category that the sky is blue and the Earth is round. HOW MUCH warming and what we should or shouldn't do about it is entirely up for debate however...and if they want to be taken seriously they better start demonstrating a HELL of a lot more due diligence before sounding the klaxon of the world ending....
enviro414
1 / 5 (11) Aug 21, 2014
Paraphrasing Richard Feynman: Regardless of how many experts believe it or how many organizations concur, if it doesn't agree with observation, it's wrong.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), some politicians and many others mislead the gullible public by stubbornly continuing to proclaim that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is a primary cause of global warming.

Measurements demonstrate that they are wrong.

CO2 increase from 1800 to 2001 was 89.5 ppmv (parts per million by volume). The atmospheric carbon dioxide level has now (through July, 2014) increased since 2001 by 27.41 ppmv (an amount equal to 30.6% of the increase that took place from 1800 to 2001) (1800, 281.6 ppmv; 2001, 371.13 ppmv; July, 2014, 398.54 ppmv).

The average global temperature trend since 2001 is flat (average of 5 reporting agencies http://endofgw.blogspot.com/). Graphs through 2013 have been added.

That is the observation. No amount of spin can rationalize that the temperature increase to 2001 was caused by a CO2 increase of 89.5 ppmv but that 27.41 ppmv additional CO2 increase had no effect on the average global temperature trend after 2001.
strangedays
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 21, 2014
Measurements demonstrate that they are wrong.


No they don't

"It's unfortunate that in the meantime, people who don't understand how the climate or modeling work have used the surface warming slowdown to incorrectly argue that climate models aren't reliable and that global warming is nothing to worry about."

From - http://www.thegua...-warming
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2014
enviro414 (again) only got part of it
That is the observation. No amount of spin can rationalize that the temperature increase to 2001 was caused by a CO2 increase of 89.5 ppmv but that 27.41 ppmv additional CO2 increase had no effect on the average global temperature trend after 2001.
Your bias makes you forget and/or marginalise the Fact there has been tremendous ice melting.

You arent aware latent heat of fusion soaks MASSIVE heat when ice melts, from ~2J/g/degC as ice to melt ~335J/g/degC.

Have you thought even a little that the 335 figure which is currently going to melt water from the sun were instead directed to water ?

Water temperature would go from zero to MORE than 75 degC...!

GET IT ?

We are so very lucky we have tremendous amounts of water but, even that specific heat at ~4J/g/degC is still FAR less than fusion of 335.

Massive buffer effect not taken into account & ignored by most deniers !

Heat flow here is far more important than mere air temperature !
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2014
Modernmystic said
HOW MUCH warming and what we should or shouldn't do about it is entirely up for debate however...and if they want to be taken seriously they better start demonstrating a HELL of a lot more due diligence before sounding the klaxon of the world ending....
pls read my last post & consider with seriousness:-

1. Smarter scientists than us extrapolate with physics of ice at 0 C
2. Explored conjunction of this with increased heat from CO2
trapping with evidence of increased melt to calculate buffer issues.
3. Maths alone is alarming depending upon how much buffer survives.

I don't want to find my children in later life or my grandchildren dealing with minimal buffer
effects & finding those buffers collapsing

No matter which way you look at it, unless the sun's output drops significantly, all that heat that doesnt melt ice ends up heating water !

Maths/physics doesn't lie, 335J/g/C melt NO increase in temp, applied to water raises by 75 C !

FFS Disastrous !!!!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2014
I just had hard time understanding why so much trust is put into models if they do not give correct results
@fidh
ok... let me ask a personal question: do you have a 401k or a retirement?
it is essentially the same thing... especially if you are using the market to save money for retirement.

the models are a statistical analysis of raw data of a complex system that is not 100% fully understood (but we DO KNOW a LOT)
the models give accurate representations within the error bars used to make the predictions

where YOU are having issue is the public representation of some of the information by writers or other non-science personnel that ignore the facts and the error bars of the model.

what you SHOULD be paying attention to is the SCIENCE
not to the TROLLS or the others who write blogs or articles (SUBJECTIVE interpretations)

read the studies. it will elucidate a LOT
listen to Runrig, Thermo, Maggnus and those who are PROVING their posts with Empirical data

ignore the rest
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2014
I think that there are plenty of reasons we're not experiencing warming at the moment. None of which are that CO2 doesn't actually trap IR radiation and heat up the planet. There can be a hundred different reasons, all of which mentioned above or even none of which could be responsible for the recent cooling.

HOWEVER, this is how human beings work. When you tell them to dig in deep and prepare to take a bit hit in the shorts because this huge horrible thing is going to happen, and then it doesn't, and then you say it's going to happen again, and it doesn't, and then you scream that this time it's really REALLY going to happen, and it doesn't....well you don't have to be a psychologist to figure that one out.

Is it logical? No. Is it reasonable to think we can keep putting something in the atmosphere that traps heat and not eventually get hotter? Nope. Does ANY of that matter from a political or psychological standpoint? Hell no.
(cont)
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (7) Aug 21, 2014
Want a cold hard fact? These people start producing correct projections and predictions or their credibility will be completely SHOT to HELL....that's a fact.

I'm not saying this because I don't agree that we have a big problem on our hands, I'm saying it because I DO THINK we have a BIG problem on our hands and it's being treated like a weekend weather report rather than an F5 tornado warning by the people who are supposed to be responsible about this stuff.

I'm not one damn bit sorry if my criticism of the childish way the PR of this has been handled offends you. There are some people who need to be offended and need to step up their game in handling the politics on this or we will all pay the price. You can be 100% correct that the tribe is going to be eaten by wolves, but if you screw up how you tell the tribe you're going to be right AND dead in the end.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (10) Aug 21, 2014
MM: Said:
Want a cold hard fact? These people start producing correct projections and predictions or their credibility will be completely SHOT to HELL....that's a fact.


I wish that applied to general writers or bloggers. If you actually read the technical papers they assign "error bars" to the graphs and tables to give us an idea of the uncertainty in the calculations. Just like the forecasters do with their "cones" for the probable path of a hurricane. The problem is that those uncertainties in the technical publications get lost in the popular reporting. This winds up with some of those who don't like the concept of climate change claiming the models are all wrong. It also winds up with some of those who are vocal about climate change looking at the largest possible changes. The heart of the issue is uncertainty. Not uncertainty about the fundamental science, but rather the "cone" of evolution of this grand experiment.
Landrew
1 / 5 (4) Aug 21, 2014
Use of the term "climate skeptic" instead of "climate denier" gives this article remarkable credibility.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2014
My model works beautifully and perfectly. Any of you with the guts to can understand it, and apply it predictively.

You can apply it to regions, you are unfamiliar with and times you are unfamiliar with and predict climat and macro weather change.

Any takers?

No, and for so many lame reasons.
Water_Prophet
1.1 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2014
ok... let me ask a personal question: do you have a 401k or a retirement?
... ... especially if you are using the market to save money for retirement.


For once you make an excellent point thermo.
Here is how the 401k works. The common man invests in a regular way, putting away some amount of money per month, predictably. This is beneficial to the stock market, because it allows companies to invest and stock value to grow.
Now, people with sufficient amounts of money can sell short on these stocks, causing them to plummet, and then buy the stock at the lower price. (The principal is sell before you buy:http://beginnersi...g_6.htm)
This causes stocks to diminish, and is harmful to investment and S&T.

In this way they can effectively steal the schmucks hard earned money, legally. And the schmuck just keeps putting his money into the 401k, thinking they're riding the storm, or some-such.

The "Warming" bit is similar, a lie.
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (8) Aug 22, 2014
Water_Prophet makes the deluded of all claims with
My model works beautifully and perfectly. Any of you with the guts to can understand it, and apply it predictively.
You are obviously delusional, your emotions have put the thumb down on intellect.

Evidence is clear because you stated your model is intuitive, with that you have these issues:-

1. Where is model published ?
2. What metric was used to construct the model ?
3. You mentioned a related experiment, how did you measure CO2 ?
4. As model is 'intuitive' it cannot be objective, how do you address this ?
5. How can you construct an experiment free of mood or health of the observer ?
6. What type of error bars & what statistical analysis did you employ ?
7. You claim your model is 'perfect', this is not known in Science how is it possible ?
8. How does your model take into account latent 'heat of fusion' ?

Please give definitive replies, not further deluded subjectivity, otherwise please
stop wasting everyone's time !
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2014
So, waterDud/Alche once again you think that I am a sockpuppet for TruckCaptainStumpy? Once again you are as wrong as a person can be. However, it just serves to show others how stupid you are. This is not ignorance, this is stupidity. I am not TruckCaptainStumpy and your assertions I am just let people see how stupid and ignorant you are.
mooster75
5 / 5 (8) Aug 22, 2014
We're all sock puppets for the Captain, and all downvotes are from bots. Didn't you get the memo?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2014
We're all sock puppets for the Captain, and all downvotes are from bots. Didn't you get the memo?


Mooster: You have hit the nail one the head. Thank you for the memo.
enviro414
1 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2014
The method and equation used at http://agwunveile...pot.com/ allows prediction of temperatures using data up to any date.

The predicted temperature anomaly trend in 2013 calculated using data to 1990 and actual sunspot numbers through 2013 is within 0.012 K of the trend calculated using data through 2013.

The equation also hind-casts quite well through all measured data and provides credible estimate back to 1610.
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2014
The method and equation used at http://agwunveile...pot.com/ allows prediction of temperatures using data up to any date.

The predicted temperature anomaly trend in 2013 calculated using data to 1990 and actual sunspot numbers through 2013 is within 0.012 K of the trend calculated using data through 2013.

The equation also hind-casts quite well through all measured data and provides credible estimate back to 1610.

I repeat:

Back again with the same "back-of-a-cigarette packet" bollocks are we Enviro?

For the interested - search for threads where I responded.
PacRim Jim
1 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2014
The ever-changing definition of global warming.
Bah!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2014
Want a cold hard fact? These people start producing correct projections and predictions or their credibility will be completely SHOT to HELL....that's a fact
@MM
that is the problem with trying to explain something to someone who is scientifically illiterate and chooses to revel in it rather than learn more...
no one can explain to YOU about statistical analysis and error bars because you CHOOSE to ignore reality, math, as well as education and facts. instead you wallow in ingorance and ignore the truth in front of you
the models are NOT wrong... actually, considering the error bars, i've noticed a trend of increasing accuracy over time, not failure.

maybe when you grow up and get an education you will understand more?
My model works beautifully and perfectly. Any of you with the guts to can understand it, and apply it predictively
@alkie/encephalitis
share it and post it to a reputable journal for peer review... until then it is rantings
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 22, 2014
My model works beautifully and perfectly. Any of you with the guts to can understand it, and apply it predictively.

You can apply it to regions, you are unfamiliar with and times you are unfamiliar with and predict climat and macro weather change.

Any takers?

No, and for so many lame reasons.

Water dude
Mike Massen had a pretty good question in his list - where is your model published or presented?
Are you unwilling to divulge that info cuz, like RC, you are worried about plagiarists?
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2014
enviro414 assumes determinism is state of play when its NOT !
The method & equation used at http://agwunveile...pot.com/ allows prediction of temperatures using data up to any date.
You ARE completely IGNORANT of Science's basis - beg pardon ?

1. When you say 'allow', you really mean 'does' so why use the word 'allow' ?
2. When you say 'any date' how does this account for chaos - eg butterfly effect ?
3. How does the model/formulae claimed integrate heat flow resistivity ?
4. Can't you see there is Zero probabilistic aspect ?
5. Where are error bars of ANY level ?
6. Can you & AGW deniers & uneducated persons in respect of Heisenberg & all that implies possibly suggest a model that has determinism at its core ?

That formulae claims full determinism ie. Of form 2+2 MUST equal 4 regardless of all else !

It is a red flag of the highest order as Science shows it must be false.

This is NOT how models work, please indicate just why you imagine the link might be valid ?
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 22, 2014
To climate skeptics -
Notice the first paragraph starts off with the sentence - "... barely risen in the last 16 years."
Still an "upward" trend, albeit not by much.
If it had said "dropped" you might have a leg to stand on... (just one, tho...)
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2014
Evidence is clear because you stated your model is intuitive, with that you have these issues:-

1. Where is model published ?
2. What metric was used to construct the model ?
3. You mentioned a related experiment, how did you measure CO2 ?
4. As model is 'intuitive' it cannot be objective, how do you address this ?
5. How can you construct an experiment free of mood or health of the observer ?
6. What type of error bars & what statistical analysis did you employ ?
7. You claim your model is 'perfect', this is not known in Science how is it possible ?
8. How does your model take into account latent 'heat of fusion' ?


1. It's not published. I am a not an environmental scientist. I am a chemist who found the answer.
2. Heat released/absorbed, distance, weather cells, prevailing weather patterns, geography.
3. Nonsequitor, but I have a CO2 meter.
4. False premise. All models are intuitive if you understand them.
5. Your question is Gooblygook.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2014
6. Asymptotic, it doesn't arrive at a numbers, it arrives at states.
7. That's just stupid. Many things are perfect. Maxwell's equations for starts, anything that does what you need it to without issue is perfect.
8. It is inherent in the model.

But, because it is not published, you're going to say: Ha ha, it's not even published! You have no credibility. By that reasoning, however, everybody here is wasting everybody's time.

Come on gutless, let me walk you through it.

You'll say it is wrong and mock it regardless, but maybe some glimmer will stick in your skull, and a mind once expanded, never returns to its original dimensions.

thermostupy has accepted it is heat not temperature...
runrig just acknowledged ocean heat was stabilizing climate...
maybe you'll learn something.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2014
Hey, the number 1. prediction is simply this: Polar melting is a far more prominent effect than temperature change.

Which is pretty well indisputable now, but 20, 10, years ago, even in 2012 there were STILL those who denied it. My simple model predicted this FORMERLY CONTENTIOUS issue in 1986, when you jokers were saying the world would be 4C higher by now. AND BTW, I was laughing at you folks who were saying it be 4C higher by now, and you environmentalist who said polar melt wasn't a factor.

Now we have CO2 higher than ever. The Sun is at a local MAX, yet we have flat-lining, at best.

Mock that.

And then pick a region and we can predict the climate change...
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2014
@thermostuped:
How many time do I have to post the article where you answered with the wrong account?
http://phys.org/n...ans.html . The back-pedaling after that is notable.

Anybody interested just needs to find the conversation prior to "Whoops" on June 11

I find it interesting as well, that thermo claims to be a plasma engineer, yet didn't know what MHD stood for, indeed many MHD background phenomenology escaped him, and y'all lend him credence?

You can mock my premises all you like, but you'll not catch me misrepresenting myself to lend credence to my crack-pot beliefs. Though, some of you have asked, and I have replied, be fair.
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2014
@Water_Prophet
Re:Q&A 'intuitive' model.
1. What chemistry specialisation & when did u graduate ?
2. How did you account for chaotic issues of ALL ocean currents affecting heat storage vs distribution ?
3. In your experiment you stated 'feel' & 4000ppm, did meter read that & if not why not ?
4. Did you include any calculus ?
5. You conducted an experiment based on the model, then feel would be based on mood, how do you handle it & won't feel be affected by health ?
6. Your model claims heat flow state, these are quantifiable & therefore have input measurement error bars & therefore have error bars of predictions, why don't you ?
7. Maxwell's eqn, when tested in real world involves numbers ie with error bars. Are you claiming your model has be tested without error bars in ANY validations, how ?
8. Re H2O, heat of fusion offers huge discontinuity in heat flow. With properties of other things too, are you claiming your model includes ALL properties of ALL materials without ANY errors ?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2014
@thermostuped:
How many time do I have to post the article where you answered with the wrong account?
http://phys.org/n...ans.html . The back-pedaling after that is notable.

Anybody interested just needs to find the conversation prior to "Whoops" on June 11

I find it interesting as well, that thermo claims to be a plasma engineer, yet didn't know what MHD stood for, indeed many MHD background phenomenology escaped him, and y'all lend him credence?

You can mock my premises all you like, but you'll not catch me misrepresenting myself to lend credence to my crack-pot beliefs. Though, some of you have asked, and I have replied, be fair.


WaterStupid/Alche: Both Captain and I have offered to put up $10000 on your stupidity that we are the same person. I am also willing to toss in another $10000 if you want to claim I do not work on an MHD project.

Put up or shut up. You are an amazing troll.
Water_Prophet
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2014
Ah @Mike I see a few problems.
You mix up the model and the experiment. The experiment is to match the indoor and outdoor temperature, then compare humidity vs. CO2. I have a CO2 meter. Your AC reduces humidity to about 40%, your can check the weather online for humidity.
I don't mean feeling as in Barry Manilow, I mean that you can with accuracy that will probably surprise you, sense heat flow. 40% Humidity and 4000ppm CO2 feels comfortable at say 78F, while 400ppm CO2 and 55% humidity feels warm(er).
1. P.Chem, Nano and MYOB.
2. Don't need to, it is not a weather model, it is a macro/climate model.
3. The meter read it, usually not so high though.
4. Optional, depending on how in depth results you want.
5. Mood? Negative. I don't think I feel warmer when I am sad.
6. No, an analogy can be a model. The easiest concept model of my model is ice in a bowl. This first iteration model demonstrates why it is so hard to raise the Earths temperature.
Cont'd
Water_Prophet
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2014
7. You can model and prove all of Maxwell's equations with two assumptions. Coulomb's LAW and Special Relativity. No error bars required. All of E&M with two assumptions!
8. Yes, but it is not necessary to be so complex. You simply count the calories to bring water to 0, how much to melt it, how much above. As to errors, the goal is to predict climate and macro-weather, not how hot it will be on a given Tuesday, or if it's raining. We're talking seasons, not days.

@thermostumped, you don't seem to get it-you can promise and wager all you want, but you have shown you have no integrity to ME, you'd give someone $1000 bucks and your account to win 10000 to "prove" it's not you, as far as I am concerned. You answered for one of your personas with the wrong account name, and I don't see any other interpretation of YOUR own comments.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2014
@thermostumped, you don't seem to get it-you can promise and wager all you want, but you have shown you have no integrity to ME, you'd give someone $1000 bucks and your account to win 10000 to "prove" it's not you, as far as I am concerned. You answered for one of your personas with the wrong account name, and I don't see any other interpretation of YOUR own comments.


WaterIdiot/Alche: Anyone who follows these threads will understand how different Captain Stumpy and I are. As far as I can tell you just think people have multiple accounts because you do.

Does your model have any math in it? As far as I can tell your "intuitive" model is just the assertion that if you have a brass bowl filled with water and some ice and you put a candle under it, it does not change temperature until the ice melts. Is that it?
Captain Stumpy
4.8 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2014
I am a chemist who found the answer
@alkie/encephalitus boy
nope, you are a troll who talks a lot and has YET to provide proof of your MODEL, your chemist position or anything else. and you suck at math (see conversations with Thermo, and your failure to finish the model you started for more proof of that)
All models are intuitive if you understand them
blatant LIE. QM is completely counter intuitive
where you answered with the wrong account?
MORON - I am NOT THERMO. I've answered questions for Whyde here: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
does that mean I am WHyde too? I've answered for Otto, Q-Star and Tim Thompson too... how stupid can you get? your link only proves that I answered a question FOR Thermo, not that I AM Thermo, you idiot.
AND IT CAN BE PROVED... just accept the challenge. name a state. we can meet
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2014
you'd give someone $1000 bucks and your account to win 10000 to "prove" it's not you, as far as I am concerned. You answered for one of your personas with the wrong account name, and I don't see any other interpretation of YOUR own comments
@waterhead/alkie
and I gave you the means to eliminate that as a threat for you... with independent third party review as well as third party judgement and proof of ID

the reason you will not take it is because you fear being publicly exposed as the FRAUD that you are. I fear NOTHING. I've even sent copies of my certs to people PROVING my background...

you ASSUME that Thermo is ME because you are a troll sockpuppet that has multiple accounts and because it is something that YOU would do (mostly because your lack of credibility and your nature)
I've answered for MANY people here on PO... INCLUDING YOU, moron.. .that does not mean that I am YOU, nor anyone else.

thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2014
TCS: I am about to stop even responding to Alche/Watermite. He accuses us of being the same person while he admits he has two accounts.

He accuses me of plagiarizing and he won't show me where.

He thinks that a 1-D model (a brass bowl full of water with a few ice cubes in it and a candle) has made accurate predictions for the past 30 years.

And he claims that he has been able to predict climate while the pros have failed.

When I tried to work on a model with him, he quit and just said his model was good enough and he had already proven that CO2 couldn't affect climate (which is insane).

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

This is one sick puppy. Alche, please take your meds.
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2014
Water_Prophet finally admitted the core nature of his problem and immense misunderstanding of heat flow in physics with
6. No, an analogy can be a model. The easiest concept model of my model is ice in a bowl. This first iteration model demonstrates why it is so hard to raise the Earths temperature.
When I asked
6. Your model claims heat flow state, these are quantifiable & therefore have input measurement error bars & therefore have error bars of predictions, why don't you ?
The nub of Water_Prophet's deluded implementation is NOT a model it's ONLY analogy !

He has made reference to a bowl of ice. It is ONLY hard to raise its temperature overall BECAUSE the water is in CLOSE direct thermal contact with ice, there is NO tidal influence etc. This does NOT happen on earth at all, there are immense distances across sea AND land !

(sigh)

How does Water_Prophet handle incredibly MASSIVE difference in thermal contact issues which the earth exhibits in a mere analogy ?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2014
Of all the factors, I am supposed to address every one, in one session? :D The analogy is the most elementary step, one that establishes a fundament. You don't want to see that your objections are coming from very low levels of the model, and the questions you asked. It's like objecting to Stirling's Approximation. Because of your questions, we haven't even started. So if anyone is to be criticized it is you.

Why are you so afraid of being able to make your own judgments? It is not like GW is based on faith: Things happen in the world, find out why!

For your follow on questions, why don't you find out?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2014
@thermostumped
blatant LIE. QM [Quantum Mechanics] is completely counter intuitive

Thank you for the opportunity to shine.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal is much discussed and difficult to understand. Counter intuitive, no argument, for once, I am sure.

So here is a model-analogy if you will, that makes it intuitive:

You can't look for ping-pong balls with bowling balls.

Analogy: You don't know the position or velocity of a ping-pong ball in a darkened room. The only probes you have to find it are bowling balls, and their initial and final momentum.

I am sure you will complain about the imperfections, or perhaps you just won't get it at all, with your background, this would not surprise me.

Once you get the bowling ball, you can look for the bowling balls with beach balls, etc..

& qv above; all of Maxwell's equations made intuitive by the assumption of two things attracted to each other and the limit of the speed of light. It's wondrous!
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2014
Why are you so afraid of being able to make your own judgments?
@alkie/waterbaby
sorry. fallacy based upon faulty judgement and inability to make your own judgements.
THIS is pretty much how a TROLL works. see HERE for some details: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

basically you are ignoring empirical data and the overwhelming evidence in favor of your own personal analogy and flawed faulty experiment which cannot be scaled for repeatable accurate results in the complex system that we have called weather and climate.

trying to extrapolate from a flawed model

You post about a model that explains it all, and when queried with valid scientific detailed questions, your reply is
why don't you find out?
From now on I THINK you should be treated like any other TROLL of the caliber of RC and antiG... downvoted and reported! ESPECIALLY when you are off topic and easily refuted with studies and FACTS
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2014
Do that thermostumped;
1, it's the new 5!

Troll, huh? and what is one person with four or more accounts who harasses people using each to bully people of differing opinion. You, are pathetic.

You're just mad I took something you didn't understand and made it intuitive; that's the point of my crazy model, something simple can be used to explain something complicated. And it can't be refuted with studies and facts, because I only use physical properties and weather patterns in all assertions.

You just sound defeated. Which is not my point either.

We are destroying the planet using fossil fuels. As long as people are arguing about whether or not non-dependent variables of an effect are having an effect, no one will stop it.

You have too much time spent worshiping CO2 to find out it's a false god.
Mike_Massen
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2014
@Water_Prophet
Please focus on your analogy.

a. Is it essentially bowl of mixed ice & water & a set of interpretations not based on maths but based upon linguistics & semantics & clear precise definitions of terms with documentation of assumptions related to those definitions ?

b. If it is essentially a bowl of ice & water & a set of interpretations then how can it deal with ocean currents vis a vis heat storage in oceans not directly observed & issues such as tidal forces directly impacting upon mixing of saline & fresh water & in conjunction with chaotic ocean currents ?

c. Did your bowl of ice & water have regions with disparate salinity ?

d. Any salt at all in your analogy bowl of ice & water ?

e. Which effects of your bowl of ice water analogy effects were not seen in the world & the contrary, which effects in the world did not appear in your bowls ?

f. Water_Prophet need something definitive & can be replicated which makes numerical predictions = model, not mere analogy !
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2014
Water_Prophet may get there with
We are destroying the planet using fossil fuels. As long as people are arguing about whether or not non-dependent variables of an effect are having an effect, no one will stop it.

You have too much time spent worshiping CO2 to find out it's a false god.
Beg your pardon ?
Please keep your slanted euphymisms out of this, please focus on Science & appropriate use of that (precise) language.

You state/agree fossil fuels are bad (ie "we are destroying the planet using fossil fuels") but;

1. Its not CO2 re heat retention we need to worry about - what then ?
2. Its not CO2 re affecting food production we need to worry about - what then ?
3. Its not CO2 emission we need to worry about its the heat fossil fuels give off - is that it ?

4. Please Water_Prophet, its correct fossil fuels are bad but what precisely is it YOU object to re CO2 since huge amounts come from fossil fuels ?

5. If its not CO2 at all then why are fossil fuels bad as you claim ?
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2014
Troll, huh? and what is one person with four or more accounts who harasses people using each to bully people of differing opinion. You, are pathetic.
@waterbaby/alkie
you are only describing yourself. i have ONE account
you've admitted to multiple accounts
ergo- you are using transference
You're just mad I took something you didn't understand and made it intuitive
if you actually HAD done this, I would be ecstatic... but you haven't, and you've not been able to share ANY supporting empirical data...

you can't even explain the details to MIKE MASSEN, who is systematically tearing your model to shreds.
IOW - you are what is called, in today's lingo, an "epic failure"
You have too much time spent worshiping CO2
I follow the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, and THAT makes up my mind, not CONJECTURE like your supposed intuitive model with NO EVIDENCE OF SUCCESS

Please focus on your analogy.
@MIKE
KEEP DRILLING HIM Mike! keep letting him prove he is WRONG

THANKS
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2014
harasses people using each to bully people of differing opinion
@alkie/waterhead
since when is requiring empirical evidence supporting your conjecture bullying?
Take a look at MIKE MASSEN... his posts can be plugged into Google and you will likely come up with the same thing Mike is saying... so at least HIS comments can be verified with empirical studies.
And look at the links I've left in the past... SAME THING
but you are arguing about a model NO ONE has seen but YOU
and you make a CLAIM that it is 100% accurate

NO PEER REVIEW
NO EMPIRICAL PROOF
NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AT ALL BUT YOUR CLAIMS
AND
you can't even Answer Mike clearly and show that you know what you are talking about...

THEREFORE why shouldn't I treat you like any other annoying troll that is off topic and posting nonsense without relevance to the subject and no proof linking anything??
HeloMenelo
4.4 / 5 (9) Aug 23, 2014
Absolutely stellar..... i have tears in my eyes from laughing at the never ending dumbness of the anti climate puppet gallery,
gory riggy and all his sock puppets never lets us down, they way they seem to compete for the dumbest clown in town trophy is priceless..
o...man i'm getting another cold one.... Well done to all the scientists who as usual used real science to make these clowns shine ever so brighter for the world to see,("cough"and bringing down the reputation of them and their bosses even further.. "cough ;) )

This comment section a never ending insult generation machine from these morons to them and their superiors, can't wait for the next debate.... Until next time folks.. :D :D
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2014
HelloMenlo said:
Absolutely stellar..... i have tears in my eyes from laughing at the never ending dumbness of the anti climate puppet gallery,

gory riggy and all his sock puppets never lets us down, they way they seem to compete for the dumbest clown in town trophy is priceless..


You left off Alche/WaterDud who is carrying the humor of this thread all by himself (well with a little help from MM, CS, and the rest of us). If only there was a way to get him into the Darwin Awards.

He doesn't even see anything wrong with his claim of 100% prediction fidelity for his climate model which is a brass bowl of water with a candle under it.

He also accuses multiple people of having multiple accounts because he does.

When pressed for details about his model he comes back with nothing.

Oh, yes, and he has claimed I plagiarized something somewhere and won't tell anyone what it was or where?

This really is a thread worth saving for posterity.
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2014
HelloMenlo said:
Absolutely stellar..... i have tears in my eyes from laughing at the never ending dumbness of the anti climate puppet gallery,
This really is a thread worth saving for posterity.....


I save them all, moments like these are to good not to relive.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2014
@ah thermostumpy-I am so sorry to disappoint, but I have abandoned Facebook and can't login as The Alchemist anymore. At least I admit it, and never used two accounts to deceive. Now you; explain to me in this thread the difference between you and the other account-you say the same BS. Also, keep putting words in my mouth as well, it makes you look so much more honest than I believed you were before.

@MikeM, the same thing I've been saying for years. It is sad you've been lambasting me these years and don't even know what my premise is.
Think about how patient I am to stay on trying to bring the truth, a least as I see it, in this environ. Like a virtual prophet indeed, being virtually stoned, and if you had your way, crucified.

So, no Mikey, it is not just a bowl of water. That is the zero-level. The simplest level of the model that generates useful predictions. You increase the fidelity of it until you can predict what is now called macro-weather for geographic regions.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2014
Now, before you mock the predictions of this zero-level, step back in time with me to the 1980's when environmentalist were claiming a 4C rise in temperature by 2012. Ice caps were not even a part of the equation, neither was water as a GHG, AND CO2 hadn't even been rising beyond being disputable.

So lets see what my sophomoric model predicts.
1. Melting icecaps (ice cubes).
2. Temperature stability (no not flat-lining, just not a 4C increase).
3. Localized effects (where the flame meets the bowl).
4. "Climate" (OK it's a bowl, use you imagination) change from ice recession and increase of localized effects.
5. Rise of the Earth's oceans.
Less direct, but predictable
6. Increase in number, but not necessarily intensity of Hurricanes. (More energy in the system.)
7. More dynamic weather.
8. More, but this is just the first iteration of the approach!

Now fast forward 30 years, and understand why I am so cocky.

Now contrast this with CO2, or insulating the planet. Not the same.
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2014
Water_Prophet claimed
@MikeM, the same thing I've been saying for years. It is sad you've been lambasting me these years and don't even know what my premise is.
Beg pardon ?

Note:
1. Come across you some 4 months or so, not years !
2. I ask clear considered questions you havent yet answered

Water_Prophet further claimed
The simplest level of the model that generates useful predictions.
Questions:
a. Which particular predictions come from your analogy &
b. how can it do it without maths ?

Water_Prophet further claimed
You increase the fidelity of it until you can predict what is now called macro-weather for geographic region
c. How do you increase the 'fidelity' ?
d. You say 'until' that implies an incremental approach subject to a test metric, what is it ?

Water_Prophet's analogy appears to be a set of interpretations arrived at AFTER climate changes, is there any proof your analogy pre-dates the events characterised in your vague answers to my set of 8 questions !
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2014
........ Now fast forward 30 years, and understand why I am so cocky.

Now contrast this with CO2, or insulating the planet. Not the same.


Water....

If this list refers to an "experiment" with a brass bowl containing water and ice cubes, heated by a flame below .... may I point out a few problems re an analogy with the Earths climate system.

Temp stability.
Now considering things such as ocean currents and heat storage (hidden at depth) alone, then climate cycles on Earth are inherent. Not so your "experiment".
Localised effects ... err the Earth does not have the sun baring down on one spot on Earth as if a Torch. It heats one side for ~12 hours out of 24.
Melting ice in a bowl will not rise the level of water in it???
Hurricanes ... that's novel above your bowl. But correct given no change in atmospheric moisture or wind shear.
Also is your bowl rotating? is it heated at the rim and kept cold at the centre?

Cocky?... sorry - but this is all so sad.
srikkanth_kn
1 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2014
stock market as an analogy: "When pension funds invest the pension capital in shares, they expect to generate a profit in the long term." At the same time, they are aware that their investments are exposed to price fluctuations and that performance can also be negative in the short term. However, what finance specialists and climate scientists and their models are not able to predict is when exactly a short-term economic downturn or a La Niña year will occur


Strangely though, last 3 financial crises (dot com bust, sub prime crisis and European sovereign debt crisis) all occurred near la nina events !(http://en.wikiped...C3%B1a).
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 24, 2014
Run: It appears that Alche/WaterDud has crashed into the wall and splattered what he had for brains against the barrier. He has finally gone off the edge.

He thinks that his brass bowl with water and ice "exactly models the world."

He thinks that Captain Stumpy and I are the same person (and maybe you too).

He says I have copied someone else's work but he won't say what or whose.

He says that his model has been 100% correct but he won't say about what.

I think he has finally fallen off the edge of the earth.

He is one sick puppy.
phprof
2 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2014
Instead of coming up with excuses for the pause they really should revisit the PDO and the AMO and work more details into the models. It has become abundantly clear the jump to the AGW conclusion was too early and the need for more hard data and better models ins needed. However, they won't do it since it would require admitting they have other motives. This is how free and open scientific inquiry dies. It dies by the hand of those who should be protecting it.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2014
Gosh guys, I've been on this site, using this thing to predict things like this very article, and I am deluded, you have no idea what other things I've used it to predict.

@runrig, to answer your question, sure if you want, any more fidelity you add will improve the situation. Again, your complaint, like MM's is one of fidelity. We haven't got there yet. The primary effect of the ice and bowl is the ice. A bowl can't have "currents." It is too symmetric, just for one reason.

The next level would be to imagine instead of a bowl, you have a planet with icecaps, and nothing else, to understand how weather patterns would flow, this doesn't really tell us more than the bowl, this is just for understanding.

Then you begin using the Earth, its topography and how that relates to climate and weather patterns, you need to understand the weather patterns. How large the icecaps are and where glaciers now become important. You need to understand how climates work.
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2014
Run: It appears that Alche/WaterDud has crashed into the wall and splattered what he had for brains against the barrier. He has finally gone off the edge.

He thinks that his brass bowl with water and ice "exactly models the world."

He thinks that Captain Stumpy and I are the same person (and maybe you too).

He says I have copied someone else's work but he won't say what or whose.

He says that his model has been 100% correct but he won't say about what.

I think he has finally fallen off the edge of the earth.

He is one sick puppy.


Yes haha, and we'll have plenty of occasions to poke even more fun at these clowns as they sink themselves into oblivion... mmm...it just feels so right.... ;)
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2014
Water_Prophet with another ambit claim
Gosh guys, I've been on this site, using this thing to predict things like this very article, and I am deluded, you have no idea what other things I've used it to predict.
You have claimed re analogy/model:-

1. Completed in 1986
2. It is perfect
3. No error bars
4. Intuitive
5. No mathematics

Raises these simple questions:

A. How pray tell, did it predict so called pause starting in 1998 & Eg. Not 1991 or 2005 ?

& most pertinent is:-

B. How can an intuitive 'model' without maths predict a specific date without any error bars ?

Which raises associated issue of a further predictive test:-

C. Does model predict end to the current global warming 'pause' ?
D. Which date does it predict to occur, any error bar ?
E. Regardless, how much will temperatures rise (or fall) in any of the following 10 years ?

Re: Your bowl analogy:

F. What rpm do you spin the bowl, earth's rotation is ~1000 miles per hour ?
G.How much salt in water ?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2014
Gosh guys, I've been on this site, using this thing to predict things like this very article, and I am deluded, you have no idea what other things I've used it to predict
@waterbaby
this is actually TRUE... mostly because so far you've only been able to TELL us, and then after the fact (which technically is NOT predicting so much as claiming fallaciously)
a PREDICTION happens BEFORE the fact, and this is how models are tested... and your model CANNOT effectively replicate the earth because there are TOO MANY FACTORS left out, from the distribution of heat (and the fact that there is only ONE source) to the non-rotation, atmosphere and so much more

you cannot mimic the KM deep global currents in a bowl on your table EVEN if you used super high def. camera's capturing the micro-currents

sorry alkie... you are falling apart at the seams

IF you could actually answer some of Mike Massen's questions, you would probably not look so much like a crackpot, you know
fluffy624
1.7 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2014
15 years in climate terms is just noise. Ideally you need to be looking at centuries and millennia to get a useful signal.
runrig
5 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2014
Instead of coming up with excuses for the pause they really should revisit the PDO and the AMO and work more details into the models. It has become abundantly clear the jump to the AGW conclusion was too early and the need for more hard data and better models ins needed. However, they won't do it since it would require admitting they have other motives. This is how free and open scientific inquiry dies. It dies by the hand of those who should be protecting it.


Look - they CAN work more details of the PDO/ENSO and AMO into the GCM's as they're cyclic periodicity is unforecastable..... probably for many decades to come.
It does not make GCM's *wrong* however as there are error bars computed for the cyclic changes in ave global temp change due these ocean current cycles. They are merely a redistribution of heat within the system that has been stored and the basic imbalance of solar in v IR out is the nub. It's to-cock. Because of Anthro CO2.
runrig
5 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2014
Run: It appears that Alche/WaterDud has crashed into the wall and splattered what he had for brains against the barrier. He has finally gone off the edge.

He thinks that his brass bowl with water and ice "exactly models the world."

He thinks that Captain Stumpy and I are the same person (and maybe you too).

He says I have copied someone else's work but he won't say what or whose.

He says that his model has been 100% correct but he won't say about what.

I think he has finally fallen off the edge of the earth.

He is one sick puppy.

I know, I know.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2014
@runrig and thermostumpy et&al.,
Loving you dissin' my predictin', I haven't been doing it after the fact. This "Why Global Warming is taking a Break," is a example. I've been saying this and why for as long as I've been on the site.

Even this zero-level model will keep predicting for a long time from now. Naturally, effects diminish the farther the polar ice gets away from where people live, and etc.. Naturally you need to pick up other effects as ice loses prominence, currents for example. But that, is just a reality, nothing works forever if change is involved.

Mike, your questions at this point... you should be able to answer them yourself. They just show you are not reading. It is not intended to predict dates, or degrees C, or rain next Tuesday, and never was, it predicts on the order of seasons and climate change.

You opposition to this simple thing is astounding. It is out of your immediate ability to comprehend, and so you are unable to even explore it.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2014
@Mike, I used to use the name "Alchemist." But alas, I have unsubscribed from Facebook and needed to find shelter elsewhere.
@thermostumpy, I have answered Mike's q's. The problem is you seem to want me to predict the weather, and then want to do the usual thing of confusing the two. If my model is a Chevy, even in theory, it can't take you to the moon, even in theory.
enviro414
1 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2014
Mike - The method is physically sound, The source data are the best available, and the calculations, using only two natural parameters, agree with measurements since before 1900 with 95% correlation (R^2 greater than 0.9).

Everything that you listed, plus everything else, thought of or not, must find room in the unexplained 9.51%.
PS3
1 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2014
So it's all/mostly just caused by the Sun and random ways the earth might capture more heat on some years.
h20dr
1 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2014
Lol, everytime they are proved wrong or there is an inconsistency they come up with another reason why. Its just laughable.
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2014
fluffy624 blurted
15 years in climate terms is just noise. Ideally you need to be looking at centuries and millennia to get a useful signal.
Your comment might be true if we didnt have the foundations of physics eg 'specific heat' & especially if we didn't have instrumentation & advanced statistical analysis. I agree more time is helpful. What we do know is:-

1. All green house gases have irrefutable thermal properties
2. Oceans have 1000 times the heat capacity of atmosphere
3. Ice at 0 deg C melts to become water at 0 deg C it absorbs HUGE amounts of heat

All are quantifiable & lead to various models.

As in all Science, models are probabilistic & asymptotic thus reliability increases over time.

Given previous data re warming before any so called pause we know with great certainty there is more heat in the climate system. We also know some of that heat for the last 100 years or so goes into oceans & ice. A correction for the oceans absorbing more heat is necessary...
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2014
Water_Prophet back pedaling with
Mike, your questions at this point... you should be able to answer them yourself. They just show you are not reading. It is not intended to predict dates, or degrees C, or rain next Tuesday, and never was, it predicts on the order of seasons and climate change.
How could it possibly be possible for me to answer questions about YOUR analogy you haven't published - are you completely mad ?

Recall Water_Prophet claimed:

1. Model was created in 1986
2. Model is perfect
3. Has predicted the current pause

Yet you cannot answer a simple question, how did it predict the start of a pause in 1998 & NOT 1991 or 2005 etc,

Happening 'some time' is not good prediction

It is therefore not perfect & appears ONLY to based on your interpretations AFTER event !

How can your analogy/model be perfect as it cannot predict period or degrees, it therefore cannot be perfect.

You Water_Prophet, are deluded as to the definitions of:-

a. Perfect
b. Model
c. Analog
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2014
Q: Why is global warming taking a break
A: It just needed to chill out.
(OK, I'll show myself out)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2014
Gosh guys, I've been on this site, using this thing to predict things like this very article, and I am deluded, you have no idea what other things I've used it to predict

Still waitin' to hear your weather report for Chicago next weekend. And it better be better than weather.com (no fair looking up their 10 day weather report).
Can you predict when my daughter and husband are going to give me a grandson?
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2014
PS3 muttered
So it's all/mostly just caused by the Sun and random ways the earth might capture more heat on some years.
Many facets of heat are Not random:-

1. Heat moves from hot to cold
2. Has been known for 100+ years water 'captures' more heat than atmosphere

h20dr proves he has read very little with
Lol, everytime they are proved wrong or there is an inconsistency they come up with another reason why. Its just laughable.
It has been known for a long time heat is absorbed much more by oceans than atmosphere.

What is not known well yet is how changes in oceans currents can pull even more heat,
the issue has regional chaotic aspects. Measurements however in conjunction with integration will show how the heat balance changes. That does not change the fact there is more heat in the system from:-

a. Higher CO2 levels
b. IIRC, Average increase in atmospheric water vapour

Who is this 'they' you mindlessly point to, 'men in black' perhaps or some groups to upset you ?

runrig
5 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2014
Lol, everytime they are proved wrong or there is an inconsistency they come up with another reason why. Its just laughable.

Yes you are.
I thank you for your informed opinion.
Now down the rabbit hole you go.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2014
I haven't been doing it after the fact. This "Why Global Warming is taking a Break," is a example
@Hydrocephalus/waterbaby
and we should take your word on this? links/proof?
also: show a detailed description with the mathematical model so that further predictions can be made/verified (which also means studies for flaws)
Avoiding answering questoins is a RED FLAG : http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

just because you SAY you can make predictions, and that you HAVE made predictions, doesn't mean we can blindly ACCEPT your word (especially with your lack of trustworthiness, lies and your tantrum in the past)
it predicts on the order of seasons and climate change
NOT if it doesn't predict: deg.C temp change, at least general dates... also not if it doesn't EXPLAIN the current reasons for change

this model fails on many levels.
cont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2014
I have unsubscribed from Facebook and needed to find shelter elsewhere
@hydrocephalus/waterhead
and the only way you could log in here was thru FB? (are you going to call me Mike now too? LMFAO)
I have answered Mike's q's
No, you haven't... unless you are psychicly projecting them to some astral plane...
@MIKE ya getting any PSYCHIC astral sticky notes from alkie?

The problem is you seem to want me to predict the weather
NO, I want you to PREDICT the CLIMATE, moron, which is what YOU CLAIMED YOU COULD DO
you've not shown that you are able to yet!
MODELS used today have short term, intermediate and long term predictability with error bars... you've demonstrated a complete lack of ANY of that... as well as failure to prove your "predictions"

therefore your meltdown is completely off grid at this point. Your delusional insistence on predictability with 100% accuracy is false and demonstrably so given your lack of proof thus far, and your model is too vague to predict
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2014
lastly
If my model is a Chevy, even in theory
The problem is that you are making a claim that you have a Ferrari, but given your descriptions, you've only presented a wheel (and a flat one at that)

the ONLY prediction you can make with your bowl/candle/ice model is that the ICE will melt in that bowl, eventually, if the bowl is exposed to average room temp and that candle over time
THAT IS IT

even if you could track the micro-fluid dynamics of the bowl, your model fails to take into consideration the atmosphere, clouds, multiple sources of heat and GHG's. Therefore there can be NO accuracy beyond a melting ice cube
and NO CORRELATION to a complex climate like on our globe

THIS IS LOGIC 101

again, until you can provide empirical evidence from a reputable source that impacts climate science supporting your conclusions then you are only posting personal conjecture, and that is equivalent to blaming climate change on Whale excrement

http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2014
Captain Stumpy made my laughing belly land back on the table with
The problem is that you are making a claim that you have a Ferrari, but given your descriptions, you've only presented a wheel (and a flat one at that)
When addressing Water_Prophet's claims to perfection re his model/analogy/interpretation based on bowl of water/ice ,one wonders if he also has a hoodie on since the candle suggests a religious theme, does he play Gregorian music perhaps ?

Seriously Water_Prophet, you sound a lot like TheGhostofOtto1923 claiming you answer my questions but don't & instead blurt idiocy with
You can work it out for yourself
When it comes to YOUR model/analogy !

Captain_Stumpy, runrig & thermodynamics show greater patience.

I could cap this off for you Water_Prophet with an example, just post your GPS coordinates & I will power up my prototype soon but, don't worry I'll post a warning on the forum, just be sure to be attentive to even the slightest hint I've become a bit upset.
EnricM
4.2 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2014

So scientists can rig the numbers, and come out with the "correct" answer that helps continue their sources of funding.


yes, because we all know that "scientist" do all kinds of stuuf. And we all know that climate scientists such as ecologists, geologists, geophysicists and biologists have no other soruce of income and no other possibility of employment thanmaking up stuff...

Of course, none of these climate scientists would be able to work for Shell of BP, mining companies, civil engineering companies, and agricultures doesn't need any predictions (of course not, why would they?).. OF course, that's why these poor scientists have to recur to tax the heck out of you and forbid you to open carry your RPG-7 (to protect you from Sasquatches, of course).

Poor people :_(
EnricM
3.3 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2014
BTW: I haven't read any _reliable_ reference about a hiatus about. I was trying to find a reference just yesterday in the NOAA homepage but there is NONE.

Where does all this "hiatus" thingy come from? Is there a valid source for that? Can it be contrasted with the NOAA data?

Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2014
EnricM commented
BTW: I haven't read any _reliable_ reference about a hiatus about. I was trying to find a reference just yesterday in the NOAA homepage but there is NONE.

Where does all this "hiatus" thingy come from? Is there a valid source for that? Can it be contrasted with the NOAA data?
AGW denier camp tried to use this to prove earth is cooling:-
The AGW denier camp tried to use this to prove earth is cooling:-
http://www.woodfo...rg/notes
CO2 graphs here:-
http://www.woodfo...o2/every
slight bump around1991 Mt Pinatubo eruption

From what I can see & please scour the notes link above, site does attempt to be as unbiased as possible and just looks at the data, sources noted. Ocean temperatures are a even more complex issue than atmospheric temperatures but, hey thermodynamic principles of heat flow don't seem to have been sidestepped despite AGW denier's best attempt to maintain focus on air - hot as it may be ;-)
rwinners
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2014
Let humanity play out. While the Arctic and Antarctic continue to warm and loose their moderating effects on global temperature, we humans continue to burn oil and coal and natural gas in increasing amounts. The resulting carbon and associated gasses have to go somewhere, likely into our planets atmosphere.
Weather change seems inevitable and, personally, I'm old enough to not give a damn anymore. Nothing is going to change until it is forced upon us.... likely too late.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2014
So lets see what my sophomoric model predicts.
1. Melting icecaps (ice cubes).
2. Temperature stability (no not flat-lining, just not a 4C increase).
3. Localized effects (where the flame meets the bowl).
4. "Climate" (OK it's a bowl, use you imagination) change from ice recession and increase of localized effects.
Less direct, but predictable
5. Rise of the Earth's oceans.
6. Increase in number, but not necessarily intensity of Hurricanes. (More energy in the system.)
7. More dynamic weather.
8. More, but this is just the first iteration of the approach!

Now contrast this with CO2, or insulating the planet. Not the same.


The question is will ice melting in a brass bowl make these predictions. Absolutely. Is this what we have observed? Yes.

This is only the Chevy, you can't handle the Ferrari.

Those who have noses, let them smell.