Climate change does not cause extreme winters, new study shows

March 27, 2015
Credit: Larisa Koshkina/public domain

Cold snaps like the ones that hit the eastern United States in the past winters are not a consequence of climate change. Scientists at ETH Zurich and the California Institute of Technology have shown that global warming actually tends to reduce temperature variability.

Repeated cold snaps led to temperatures far below freezing across the eastern United States in the past two winters. Parts of the Niagara Falls froze, and ice floes formed on Lake Michigan. Such low temperatures had become rare in recent years. Pictures of icy, snow-covered cities made their way around the world, raising the question of whether could be responsible for these extreme events.

It has been argued that the amplified warming of the Arctic relative to lower latitudes in recent decades has weakened the polar jet stream, a strong wind current several kilometres high in the atmosphere driven by temperature differences between the warm tropics and cold polar regions. One hypothesis is that a weaker jet stream may become more wavy, leading to greater fluctuations in temperature in mid-latitudes. Through a wavier jet stream, it has been suggested, amplified Arctic warming may have contributed to the cold snaps that hit the eastern United States.

Temperature range will decrease

Scientists at ETH Zurich and at the California Institute of Technology, led by Tapio Schneider, professor of climate dynamics at ETH Zurich, have come to a different conclusion. They used climate simulations and theoretical arguments to show that in most places, the range of will decrease as the climate warms. So not only will cold snaps become rarer simply because the climate is warming. Additionally, their frequency will be reduced because fluctuations about the warming mean temperature also become smaller, the scientists wrote in the latest issue of the Journal of Climate.

The study's point of departure was that higher latitudes are indeed warming faster than lower ones, which means that the between the equator and the poles is decreasing. Imagine for a moment that this temperature difference no longer exists. This would mean that air masses would have the same temperature, regardless of whether they flow from the south or north. In theory there would no longer be any temperature variability. Such an extreme scenario will not occur, but it illustrates the scientists' theoretical approach.

Extremes will become rarer

Using a highly simplified climate model, they examined various climate scenarios to verify their theory. It showed that the temperature variability in mid-latitudes indeed decreases as the temperature difference between the poles and the equator diminishes. Climate model simulations by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) showed similar results: as the climate warms, temperature differences in mid-latitudes decrease, and so does temperature variability, especially in winter.

Temperature extremes will therefore become rarer as this variability is reduced. But this does not mean there will be no temperature extremes in the future. "Despite lower temperature variance, there will be more extreme warm periods in the future because the Earth is warming," says Schneider. The researchers limited their work to trends. Other extreme events, such as storms with heavy rain or snowfall, can still become more common as the climate warms, as other studies have shown.

North-south shift makes the difference

And the jet stream? Schneider shrugs off the idea: "The waviness of the jet stream that makes our day-to-day weather does not change much." Changes in the north-south difference in temperatures play a greater role in modifying .

Schneider wants to explore the implications these results have in further studies. In particular, he wants to pursue the question of whether heatwaves in Europe may become more common because the frequency of blocking highs may increase. And he wants to find why these high pressure systems become stationary and how they change with the .

Explore further: Climate scientist proposes extremely cold 2014 winter link to global warming

More information: www.clidyn.ethz.ch/pubs.html

Related Stories

Climate models disagree on why temperature 'wiggles' occur

January 26, 2015

A new Duke University-led study finds that most climate models likely underestimate the degree of decade-to-decade variability occurring in mean surface temperatures as Earth's atmosphere warms. The models also provide inconsistent ...

Recommended for you

152 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

vicviper789
4.8 / 5 (13) Mar 27, 2015
I wish I had some popcorn when reading the comments later..!
jeffensley
1.8 / 5 (21) Mar 27, 2015
Finally, some science that "alarmists" will find the willingness to question.
Water_Prophet
1.9 / 5 (17) Mar 27, 2015
Warmer but milder is what CO2 should be doing. That's what I've always said.
But this is not what we're experiencing is it? (Yes I read the article.)

Additional heat added to the system, without insulating effects from CO2, describes our Global Change situation exactly though, doesn't it?

We are adding 1/10000th of the Sun's output (on the ground), which doesn't sound like much, except solar variations are about 1/1000th, and have great impact on the climate. This is only 0.03watts/m2.

Warming from CO2 (via insulation) is even 1/100th of fossil fuel output, max, and more likely about 0.0001Watts/m2.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (22) Mar 27, 2015
Finally, some science that "alarmists" will find the willingness to question.
Why would an "alarmist" question this study?

I think perhaps it does not mean what you thought it meant.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (21) Mar 27, 2015
Warmer but milder is what CO2 should be doing. That's what I've always said.
But this is not what we're experiencing is it? (Yes I read the article.)
No. And no.

Additional heat added to the system, without insulating effects from CO2, describes our Global Change situation exactly though, doesn't it?
No.
We are adding 1/10000th of the Sun's output (on the ground), which doesn't sound like much, except solar variations are about 1/1000th, and have great impact on the climate. This is only 0.03watts/m2.
Apples and turtles.,
Warming from CO2 (via insulation) is even 1/100th of fossil fuel output, max, and more likely about 0.0001Watts/m2.
Makes up numbers, thinks they mean something.
Water_Prophet
2.1 / 5 (15) Mar 27, 2015
So the amount of Sunlight that reaches Earth is about 255Watts/m2.
The amount this changes from the Sun's natural cycle is ~1/1366 of this, or 0.2Watts/m2.
The amount of non-green energy released by humans is 4.5*10^20 joules --> watts = ~1.4*10^13 Watts. Area of the Earth in meters is 5.1*10^14 and so

0.03 watts/m2
released in waste heat, at the surface, where is does more damage.

Roughly 1/10th of Solar fluctuation.

It seems obvious what this means. Humanity is producing ~1/10th the amount of heat as the Sun produces total energy. It is irrational to say this does not have an effect. Indeed, if it were less, there wouldn't be an effect, if there were more, well, I think we'd like life on Earth exponentially less the closer it was to 0.1.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (19) Mar 27, 2015
It seems obvious what this means. Humanity is producing ~1/10th the amount of heat as the Sun produces total energy. It is irrational to say this does not have an effect. Indeed, if it were less, there wouldn't be an effect, if there were more, well, I think we'd like life on Earth exponentially less the closer it was to 0.1.
Utterly bizarre. Do you know who Morton Skorodin is? Your arguments are almost exactly the same, although much less articulate.

Greg, read this paper: http://www.cgd.uc...tss/ahf/ .

You are about 3 orders of magnitude too high in your calculations. You need more than high-school level physics to work out the total W/m2 generated by mechanical heating as it affects the ENTIRE surface of the Earth.
pgsbox24
2.4 / 5 (14) Mar 27, 2015
excuse me... that's what climate change is...hot , cold, warm and cool... now global warming doesn't cause colder winters.. I can get behind that
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (20) Mar 27, 2015
excuse me... that's what climate change is...hot , cold, warm and cool... now global warming doesn't cause colder winters.. I can get behind that
It was never said that global warming would cause colder winters,that was a misnomer. Globally, NH winters are warmer than has ever been recorded - including during the so called Medieval Warm Period. Regardless, there are some areas that will experience colder than normal temperatures on occasion - the result of chaotic fluctuations arising from higher energy in the global climate system.
william_t_uhl
2.3 / 5 (19) Mar 27, 2015
Let me rephrase the title of this article for those of you who missed it: "A New Study shows that certain changes in the climate are not the result of climate change"

Anyone tired of this over-politicized buzz-meme yet?
dstresen
2.7 / 5 (14) Mar 27, 2015
What I find interesting is the last mini ice age started warming around the 1650 period and moved up in rapid steps , there was no industry , no great CO2 produces etc but there was a lack of SUN spots , I wonder if the Sun Spots are all important and the next bit is what governs the coming and going of the Sun Spots ?
Wake
2.4 / 5 (17) Mar 27, 2015
Hmm - seems like every new study makes climate change look a lot less likely. Isn't that a surprise?
bob_smith
1.5 / 5 (16) Mar 27, 2015
When I fart, how come my rear doesn't get cold?
bob_smith
1.6 / 5 (14) Mar 27, 2015
Everyone knows that one solar glabutelious can wipe out a million carbon falacules.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (21) Mar 27, 2015
When I fart, how come my rear doesn't get cold?

Because it is too close to your brain.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (18) Mar 27, 2015
And the jet stream? Schneider shrugs off the idea: "The waviness of the jet stream that makes our day-to-day weather does not change much." Changes in the north-south difference in temperatures play a greater role in modifying temperature variability.

Err - The two are equated. A weaker PJS naturally occurs along with the a lesser N-S DeltaT ??
And therefor the PJS MUST wander more.
Using a highly simplified climate model, they examined various climate scenarios to verify their theory. It showed that the temperature variability in mid-latitudes indeed decreases as the temperature difference between the poles and the equator diminishes.

That's part of the problem here - using a "highly simplified climate model" - Feedbacks resulting from the more open E Arctic Seas come Autumn come to mind.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (18) Mar 27, 2015
Hmm - seems like every new study makes climate change look a lot less likely. Isn't that a surprise?

Yes, actually as "every new study makes climate change look a lot less likely" is so far from the truth as to be utterly bizarre - but then if you read denier Blogs then the rabitt-hole rules.
antigoracle
2.4 / 5 (18) Mar 27, 2015
Really!!! Astonishing!! They finally found something not blamed on climate change and it's pure bullshit.
P.S. I'm still waiting for that evil CO2 to end winters, as prophesied by the cult's False "Profit" Al.
batterup
2.4 / 5 (14) Mar 27, 2015
The only REAL climate change occurs when you lose your job in the middle of winter and you can't afford to pay your heating bill. Then you're praying for global warming and hoping Al Gore DOESN'T come to town and jinx every thing!
harpon
3.6 / 5 (11) Mar 27, 2015
The arctic ice images indicate that the Pacific side is heating and melting much faster than the atlantic. More tropical waters, and much smaller entrance to the arctic circle. I personally believe this may account for the shifting winds that have bought the cold south, and mostly on the Atlantic side. The winds from the western hemisphere are not reaching the "point of no return" and going around the pole to the more land massed Siberia region, but are circling back across the cold and damp wet regions of the Hudson Bay and Great Lakes, and then moving south between the warmer oceans. Still, the river at Bismark was relatively low this year. The upper plains are dry in the West. The level of drought in the Midwest this summer may be telling. If the rains from the Pacific Baja region aren't as prolific eastward it will be dry, and expanding draught, like inland areas, worldwide.
GoldenBoys
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 27, 2015
Love watching the usual delusional Warmer Trolls that sit in their diaper in their Mom's basement anxiously waiting to comment on every post making complete Imbeciles of themselves.
Water_Prophet
1.3 / 5 (10) Mar 27, 2015
harpon, actually I think so to, or at least something like it.
I find you can actually predict climate change by doing exactly what you've done above.
Model prevailing winds, understand the geography, rainshadows, etc..

No matter what you believe is causing the change, you can plot it backwards, then derive what has caused it and predict what will happen.

I'd be interested if you applied this to your study above.
SciTechdude
3.8 / 5 (18) Mar 27, 2015
Wow, every one of you who thinks man-made climate change is a thing to believe or not, let me tell you one thing- Nobody cares what you believe. Belief is for religions. Did you know 1 in 4 American's denies climate change, despite evidence? Did you also know that 1 in 4 Americans are half as intelligent as the average? And you know how smart the Average person is. You know who you are, and you know that sitting in front of the TV with a beer doesn't make you an expert. Your opinion is worth exactly nothing, and no matter how hard you try to make everything a conspiracy about something else, (I don't know what exactly aside from not crapping on the planet we all live on excessively) what it really is is a consensus among the most learned and intelligent minds on the entire planet, not even just in America. So go on, have another Coors or whatever and deepen that butt crease in your layzboy, because that's the largest impact you're going to have on society.
busseja
3.2 / 5 (15) Mar 27, 2015
Bill nye says climate change cause wide variability in the weather. These folks from Cal Tech just are ignorant and don't know what they are saying. Nye is a real scientist. He is on TV and everything....seriously!!!!
Water_Prophet
1.5 / 5 (11) Mar 27, 2015
Hey Scitech

So the amount of Sunlight that reaches Earth is about 255Watts/m2.
The amount this changes from the Sun's natural cycle is ~1/1366 of this, or 0.2Watts/m2.
The amount of non-green energy released by humans is 4.5*10^20 joules --> watts = ~1.4*10^13 Watts. Area of the Earth in meters is 5.1*10^14 and so

0.03 watts/m2
released in waste heat, at the surface, where is does more damage.

Roughly 1/10th of Solar fluctuation.

It seems obvious what this means. Humanity is producing ~1/10th the amount of heat as the Sun produces total energy. It is irrational to say this does not have an effect. Indeed, if it were less, there wouldn't be an effect, if there were more, well, I think we'd like life on Earth exponentially less the closer it was to 0.1.


I post little provables like this to try to show folks that they can have actual facts to believe in, that they don't have to "believe" and can have enough information to do.

It is fighting the tide...
dan42day
1.9 / 5 (17) Mar 28, 2015
Well, if it wasn't caused by global warming, then it must have been second-hand smoke.
lewisbower
1.8 / 5 (15) Mar 28, 2015
But, but, but, I thought they said climate change was causing blizzards, droughts, and male sexual dysfunction.
HeloMenelo
3.3 / 5 (20) Mar 28, 2015
It seems obvious what this means. Humanity is producing ~1/10th the amount of heat as the Sun produces total energy. It is irrational to say this does not have an effect. Indeed, if it were less, there wouldn't be an effect, if there were more, well, I think we'd like life on Earth exponentially less the closer it was to 0.1.
Utterly bizarre. Do you know who Morton Skorodin is? Your arguments are almost exactly the same, although much less articulate.

Greg, read this paper: http://www.cgd.uc...tss/ahf/ .

You are about 3 orders of magnitude too high in your calculations. You need more than high-school level physics to work out the total W/m2 generated by mechanical heating as it affects the ENTIRE surface of the Earth.


Ooo goodie the waterclown showing his colours, dumb again ! that clown nose of yours is starting to get transparent from all the shining.
o btw "provables" only works when you actually have an education.
Well said Maggnus
HeloMenelo
3.2 / 5 (20) Mar 28, 2015
But, but, but, I thought they said climate change was causing blizzards, droughts, and male sexual dysfunction.


That's why you need to visit the doctor. (but for other dysfunctions too)
HeloMenelo
3 / 5 (20) Mar 28, 2015
Wow, every one of you who thinks man-made climate change is a thing to believe or not, let me tell you one thing- Nobody cares what you believe. Belief is for religions. Did you know 1 in 4 American's denies climate change, despite evidence? Did you also know that 1 in 4 Americans are half as intelligent as the average?


nevermind the average citizen, have you seen the number of 1 out of 5 ratings from clowns posting comments on this site, and then most hilarious the fact that they are indeed the dumb clowns they are by posting even dumber replies by the comment... nothing else entertains better and the world is witnessing it with every article released... :D
gaming_ogre
1.9 / 5 (17) Mar 28, 2015
Global Warming is a lie. It amazes me that there are still people who believe this political non-sense.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (16) Mar 28, 2015
Love watching the usual delusional Warmer Trolls that sit in their diaper in their Mom's basement anxiously waiting to comment on every post making complete Imbeciles of themselves.

Love watching the usual delusional Denier Trolls that sit in their diaper in their Mom's basement anxiously waiting to comment on every post making complete Imbeciles of themselves.

The difference between the two interpretations is that science is on our side, overwhelmingly so. And were it not comnmon sense should tell you it is correct, unless you think the UN is scamming the World in a lefitist conspiracy to take your tax dollars (it's always Dollars and not pounds or Euros). Ah diddums.
Upshot - you do not get to overturn reality to fit your ideology. Go get a (thinking) brain.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (14) Mar 28, 2015
Global Warming is a lie. It amazes me that there are still people who believe this political non-sense.

You too. (thinking brain that is).
HeloMenelo
2.9 / 5 (19) Mar 28, 2015
Global Warming is a lie. It amazes me that there are still people who believe this political non-sense.


naughty naughty monkey, did you skip special classes for the mentally challenged again today... Real Science shows that the climate is warming, of course they are still trying to explain to you what the word science means in that class, (cough..cough.. a job luckily i'm not going to take on) nevertheless, there are those who will help if you continue to try, that's why you need to attend. ;)

(just remember the door opens by the knob that turns, we don't want to hear you cry bumping your head into it again)
HeloMenelo
2.9 / 5 (19) Mar 28, 2015
Love watching the usual delusional Warmer Trolls that sit in their diaper in their Mom's basement anxiously waiting to comment on every post making complete Imbeciles of themselves.

Love watching the usual delusional Denier Trolls that sit in their diaper in their Mom's basement anxiously waiting to comment on every post making complete Imbeciles of themselves.

The difference between the two interpretations is that science is on our side, overwhelmingly so. And were it not comnmon sense should tell you it is correct, unless you think the UN is scamming the World in a lefitist conspiracy to take your tax dollars (it's always Dollars and not pounds or Euros). Ah diddums.
Upshot - you do not get to overturn reality to fit your ideology. Go get a (thinking) brain.


And to think they all go to mental school without changed diapers...poor mentor...
Gotema
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 28, 2015
All of us will be dead 100 years from now......no matter: Anicca
bill_walters
2.1 / 5 (18) Mar 28, 2015
I'm in my 2nd week of Globewarmers school. Its darn tough acting as stupid as they want us to be. Next week they teach how to lie, cover up our lies and lie some more. We have to do this with a look as if we are edumacted and smart. The week after that they teach us how to fold our tin-foil hats and when were done we get our graduation pictures taken wearing them.

They said be careful after they dumb-down us, we may start walking into glass doors, but that's not the worst part....they say we will back up and walk right back into it........repeatedly.
HeloMenelo
3.3 / 5 (19) Mar 28, 2015
All of us will be dead 100 years from now......no matter: Anicca


And there you have the all for one, one for none attitude, giving less than a rats ass about anyone and anything else but himself.
HeloMenelo
3.2 / 5 (20) Mar 28, 2015
I'm in my 2nd week of Globewarmers school. Its darn tough acting as stupid as they want us to be. Next week they teach how to lie, cover up our lies and lie some more. We have to do this with a look as if we are edumacted and smart. The week after that they teach us how to fold our tin-foil hats and when were done we get our graduation pictures taken wearing them.

They said be careful after they dumb-down us, we may start walking into glass doors, but that's not the worst part....they say we will back up and walk right back into it........repeatedly.


On this site the goon and his sock puppets posting these low iq comments can't even get the act smart part right, he probably dropped out of that school, the stupid things people do for money, selling themselves to live a lie, and then become that lie, The big fat oil troll can't buy me with the universe's oil richess nor with anything else to spew forth the idiocy these clowns sold themselves for.
HeloMenelo
3.2 / 5 (20) Mar 28, 2015
but it makes for a hilarious show everytime they comment...(cough..cough..simultaneously punching their reputation in the stomach... every single time) :D
greenonions
4.7 / 5 (13) Mar 28, 2015
bill
I'm in my 2nd week of Globewarmers school. Its darn tough acting as stupid as they want us to be.


You seem to be a natural. Very consistent over time - you must be on the honor roll.
ryggesogn2
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 28, 2015
the amount of Sunlight that reaches Earth is about 255Watts/m2.


This is not correct.

Besides the photons from a 6000K black body, there is much more energy from the sun the affects the earth.
redpine
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 28, 2015
The paper is a fake. If you check the sources cited, you will not find the article
displayed there. The AAAS link leads to a fake site not part of the AAAS.
There unfortunately is a lot of this.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2015
rygge, right and wrong. We have an atmosphere between us and the Sun, diminishing numbers some.

It is significantly higher in the equator, with disproportionate effects due to more humidity, and less in the arctic, obviously.

So what numbers would you prefer and what are the conditions?
It won't change the fact that we can quantify the amount of energy we release, or that if GHG were more powerful by the 10x AGWers need to have a more significant impact, that if they were, that powerful effect wouldn't be being argued about, it'd be being panicked over.

Just imagine if instead of 1/1000th of a fluctuation, the Sun just changes steady-state by 1/100th? This is what many AGWers are claiming, they need to, because it needs to beat energy we release as waste heat.

But that easily quantified energy is sufficient to cause change, right along the lines we see.
wade_jeffords
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 28, 2015
Is the science settled??
Eddy Courant
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 28, 2015
Oh dear! Nothing alarming about that. Now what. Will the alarmists' knickers untwist?
Water_Prophet
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 28, 2015
Wade, yeah, the science has been settled for years and years. There is nothing new to the phenomena or the magnitudes of them.
We understand all the variables, we understand the parameters, such as ocean movements, yes the science is settled.

But then why is there a controversy?
Look at what has occurred to determine this; very little has changed. Very little did change until Katrina, and the realization that the most expensive real estate would be the first affected by our behaviors.

Consider, Florida is practically AT sea level. As is the good beach land.
Consider the 6cm of ocean rise and the impact of storms and undersea earthquakes: 6 cm more of water is being moved and the that's a lot more energy into a tsunami.

So settled science? Why are we talking about things that don't have an impact, like a 0.014%* change in a gas (CO2) that has negligible effects on climate, when the we can demonstrate we've effectively increased the amount of heat on Earth 10%
Water_Prophet
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 28, 2015
*= CO2 concentrations have changed by 135ppm, which means only 135/1000000. The amount of energy released from fossil fuels and nuclear is 0.03watts/m2, while the changes in the Sun (a good baseline, considering this is what "life as we know it has adapted to), is 0.2watts/m2.

0.03/0.2~ 1/10th.

Two bits of settle science, one is a quantifiable 15% change, the other is a fraction times 0.0135% change.

It seems settled to me.
jason_daniel_farhang
4.8 / 5 (8) Mar 28, 2015
This is a debate topic yes we are seeing some form of warming. The Northern Hemisphere is in a locked amplified pattern. Big ridge over western U.S allowed major drought to persist last four years. Meanwhile the eastern U.S had almost semi fixed arctic pattern on New York and Boston allowed for record breaking extremes this winter. El nino now developing could turn things interesting the upcoming months if it holds together. The Arctic Oscillation has seen intense extremes in last five years. I can't really hold this article to be a reliable source. I feel research is not covering whole picture of our climate. This university need more research done before they can say there no extremes . The truth of the matter our climate is going do what it wants anyways.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (14) Mar 28, 2015
All of us will be dead 100 years from now......no matter: Anicca


And there you have the all for one, one for none attitude, giving less than a rats ass about anyone and anything else but himself.

Exactly.
At the root of Deniers' mentality is selfishness.
An abhorrant trait.
Mike_Massen
3.1 / 5 (17) Mar 28, 2015
Water_Prophet asked
But then why is there a controversy?
Because egotistical, deluded, supremely dumb & uneducated especially YOU get in the way making immature feeble & WRONG claims !

What do u call those refuting your claims who don't agree with you ?

Haven't U called them goons ?

Y shouldn't we call those who refuse to prove their dumb feeble claims like u - goons ?

Y are your blurts NOT commensurate with those claiming "4 technical degrees" as u do ?
Which institute & what years started please ?

Y aren't your uni degrees including claim of "Physical Chemistry" on your facebook page ?
https://www.faceb...er/about

Y is your CO2's effect claim of 0.00009W/m^2 some 16,666x Lower than wiki's 1.5W/m^2 ?
https://en.wikipe...ings.svg

Y can't U prove your claim "business uses your results" ?

Y can't U qualify or prove ANY of your claims ?

Y don't U seem to have any integrity Water_Prophet ?

Who r u ?
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 28, 2015
The paper is a fake. If you check the sources cited, you will not find the article
displayed there. The AAAS link leads to a fake site not part of the AAAS.
There unfortunately is a lot of this.


Interesting.

Both the links provided draw blanks for me.
I've contacted the Mods for clarification.

As I noted in my post - the meteorology is contraditory.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (15) Mar 28, 2015
Is the science settled??

The fact that it's GHGs causing retention of the Earth's heat beyond what it needs to emit in order to balance with it's insolation - Yes.
That GHG science is irrefutable - yes.
In the details of how the climate system stores and shifts heat about - No.

That is what the papers you see on here are often about.
sdrfz
2 / 5 (8) Mar 28, 2015
The paper is a fake. If you check the sources cited, you will not find the article
displayed there. The AAAS link leads to a fake site not part of the AAAS.
There unfortunately is a lot of this.


It's not a "fake" paper, it can be found here:
http://journals.a...-00632.1

I don't understand why the alarmists here always attack papers that contradict their belief in AGW. They call the papers wrong, fake, or bad science, and they cite very flimsy evidence, as we see here. This paper clearly shows that the science is *not* settled, and that major public policy changes need to wait until the science is settled.
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (17) Mar 28, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
I post little provables like this to try to show folks that they can have actual facts to believe in, that they don't have to "believe" and can have enough information to do.
You have STILL failed to prove all of your claims:-

Y is your calculation NOT commensurate with those claiming "4 technical degrees" as u do ?
Which institute & what years started please ?

Y aren't your uni degrees including claim of "Physical Chemistry" on your facebook page ?
https://www.faceb...er/about

Y is your CO2's effect claim of 0.00009W/m^2 some 16,666x Lower than wiki's 1.5W/m^2 ?
https://en.wikipe...ings.svg

Y can't U prove your claim "business uses your results" ?

Y can't U qualify or prove ANY of your claims ?

so sad
runrig
4.2 / 5 (13) Mar 28, 2015
This paper contradicts meteorology and all science I've seen up to yet - For instance...

From: http://iopscience...4005.pdf

"Here we provide evidence demonstrating that in
areas and seasons in which poleward gradients have
weakened in response to AA, the upper-level flow has
become more meridional, or wavier. Moreover, the
frequency of days with high-amplitude jet-stream
configurations has increased during recent years.
These high-amplitude patterns are known to produce
persistent weather patterns that can lead to extreme
weather events."

Now that doesn't say that at any one location the temperature extremes experienced have become wider ... but the above logically would make that follow.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 28, 2015
Interesting.

Both the links provided draw blanks for me.
I've contacted the Mods for clarification.

As I noted in my post - the meteorology is contraditory.


I have done some digging on the lead author, and found the following:

http://www.clidyn...2015.pdf

Or perhaps: http://www.clidyn...2014.pdf

or: http://www.clidyn...2015.pdf

I think the third one is the source of this report.
netprophet
2 / 5 (12) Mar 28, 2015
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Chairman Rajendra Pachauri resigned a few weeks ago from his job after a female researcher lodged a sexual harassment complaint against him. In his letter of resignation, he explained why he did what he did at the U.N., "For me, the protection of planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma."

So much for you that sneer at religion being opposed to science - seems to me like religion has a lot to do with it.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 28, 2015
I don't understand why the alarmists here always attack papers that contradict their belief in AGW. They call the papers wrong, fake, or bad science, and they cite very flimsy evidence, as we see here. This paper clearly shows that the science is *not* settled, and that major public policy changes need to wait until the science is settled.

Very rarely happens.
This one is just counter-intuitive as to why there is no "extreme" winters when the physics necessarily results in a wavier PJS when the meridional DeltaT lessens due Arctic amplification (it is).
And, might it also mean "extreme" in the form of warm - vis recent Alaskan and Siberian winters.

PS: If you're puzzled - what about us - Deniers reflexively attack papers concerned with AGW. The whys and wherefores don't matter. It goes against their ideology and peer-group think.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 28, 2015
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Chairman Rajendra Pachauri resigned a few weeks ago from his job after a female researcher lodged a sexual harassment complaint against him. In his letter of resignation, he explained why he did what he did at the U.N., "For me, the protection of planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma."

So much for you that sneer at religion being opposed to science - seems to me like religion has a lot to do with it.


I would suggest that in "religion" he meant that it was an ideal he directed his efforts towards and not that he accepted AGW on faith.
Religion in the accepted sense must accept the word of a prophet. There are no facts that are checkable. Experiments that are repeatable and no physics that are empirical.
At least I don't believe your imaginary friend, or mine (if I had one) is explained by Newton or QT.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 28, 2015
Runrig, the more I read the cites I provided above, the more convinced I am that this article is a very dumbed-down article detailing the findings of the 3rd cite. Thermo, if you're reading this, maybe you can take a look at the paper to give your opinion.

My take is that they are using a complicated stylized non-seasonal model using zero topographical dimensions to simulate an idealized atmospheric response to Roosby wave generation and dissipation. The effects of both variable insolation and the hydrologic cycle are ignored in an attempt to create the superficially ideal atmosphere by which to measure the dissipation rate and the latitude(s) they dissipate at, although the parameterization utilized in determining the dissipation rate account for moisture, atmospheric temperature change, height variable lapse rates and latent heat release in moist convection.

Their method is more attributable to extra-solar atmospheres involving tidally locked water worlds. ..cont..
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 28, 2015
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Chairman Rajendra Pachauri resigned a few weeks ago from his job after a female researcher lodged a sexual harassment complaint against him. In his letter of resignation, he explained why he did what he did at the U.N., "For me, the protection of planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma."

So much for you that sneer at religion being opposed to science - seems to me like religion has a lot to do with it.
You seriously need to learn how to comprehend what you read. It is the usual denialist (mis)take on his resignation letter. He wasn't speaking to just global warming, he was speaking to all of the things that are creating problems to this planet, including global warming.

Your bias is evident to all. Netprophet indeed lol!!
adam_russell_9615
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 28, 2015
So the amount of Sunlight that reaches Earth is about 255Watts/m2.
The amount this changes from the Sun's natural cycle is ~1/1366 of this, or 0.2Watts/m2.
The amount of non-green energy released by humans is 4.5*10^20 joules --> watts = ~1.4*10^13 Watts. Area of the Earth in meters is 5.1*10^14 and so

0.03 watts/m2
released in waste heat, at the surface, where is does more damage.

Roughly 1/10th of Solar fluctuation.

It seems obvious what this means. Humanity is producing ~1/10th the amount of heat as the Sun produces total energy.


No, by the facts you presented humanity is producing 0.03/255 = 1/8500 of the amount of heat the sun gives us. You are mixing variability with total contribution.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 28, 2015
..cont.. For the Earth, their findings suggest that the Rossby wave dissipation rate is determinate on the size of the initial Rossby wave generation damped by the Froude number and baroclinic instability. In the case of Earth, these will act to stabilize temperature extremes, thus leading, in the long term, to less extreme winters. It also suggests that a higher temperature gradient between equatorial and polar regions will have more affect on weather extremes than the east-west movement of the PJS.

Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (8) Mar 28, 2015
Ah, Adam, you are absolutely right, my context could be better. It would be nice if you read the entire thing to get the context. It takes most of the Sun's energy to get us to temperature.

So yes, 1/8500 of the total power of the Sun, 1/10th of the changes in the power of the Sun. Noting that when the Sun changes this little bit, it has profound effects on the Earth, and if we are producing heat of that magnitude, on the ground, this is really significant.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (16) Mar 28, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
So yes, 1/8500 of the total power of the Sun, 1/10th of the changes in the power of the Sun. Noting that when the Sun changes this little bit, it has profound effects on the Earth, and if we are producing heat of that magnitude, on the ground, this is really significant.
Why are you ignoring CO2's effect of 1.5W/m^2 ?

Y are your blurts NOT commensurate with those claiming "4 technical degrees" as u do ?
Which institute & what years started please ?

Y aren't your uni degrees including claim of "Physical Chemistry" on your facebook page ?
https://www.faceb...er/about

Y is your CO2's effect claim of 0.00009W/m^2 some 16,666x Lower than wiki's 1.5W/m^2 ?
https://en.wikipe...ings.svg

Y can't U prove your claim "business uses your results" ?

Y can't U qualify or prove ANY of your claims ?

Y don't U seem to have any integrity Water_Prophet ?
Duude
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 28, 2015
Thanks for the giggles, kids. Climate changing is such a polarizing topic you guys can't help but insult one another. LOL! Cheers!
thetnrebel
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 28, 2015
the climate always changes. Is the climate changing, maybe. are we all going to die. NO. We will get by. But the article said the temp is warming at the north pole. I checked the temp a few days ago, it was around -50. I am sure there is going to be massive ice melting at that temp
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 28, 2015
Runrig, the more I read the cites I provided above, the more convinced I am that this article is a very dumbed-down article detailing the findings of the 3rd cite. Thermo, if you're reading this, maybe you can take a look at the paper to give your opinion.

My take is that they are using a complicated stylized non-seasonal model using zero topographical dimensions to simulate an idealized atmospheric response to Roosby wave generation and dissipation.

Maggnus: Without topography, you'd not get an anchor point over the top of the Rockies to fix the start of a wave-train (most usual set-up), and therfor lose peristence in the PJS holding troughs/ridges in one location. In winter this is paramount for snowfield build-up and extreme temps under clear skies as radiation to space dominates and temps progressively fall. Will study paper more closely.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 28, 2015
From: http://onlinelibr...L051000/

"In summary, the observational analysis presented in this study provides evidence supporting two hypothesized mechanisms by which Arctic amplification..... relative to that in mid-latitudes – may cause more persistent weather patterns in mid-latitudes that can lead to extreme weather. One effect is a reduced poleward gradient in 1000-500 hPa thicknesses, which weakens the zonal upper-level flow. According to Rossby wave theory, a weaker flow slows the eastward wave progression and tends to follow a higher amplitude trajectory, resulting in slower moving circulation systems. More prolonged weather conditions enhance the probability for extreme weather due to drought, flooding, cold spells, and heat waves. The second effect is a northward elongation of ridge peaks in 500 hPa waves, which amplifies the flow trajectory and further exacerbates the increased probability of slow-moving weather patterns.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 28, 2015
Maggnus;
This is the full paper....

http://www.clidyn...2015.pdf
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 28, 2015
"we added in
the Northern Hemisphere a Gaussian mountain that is
4 km high, is centered at 458N, and has a standard width
of 158 in longitude, to excite orographic stationary waves
with zonal wavenumbers 6–8. This is a water-mountain;
that is, the surface properties of the mountain are equal
to those of the surrounding water surface. The Southern
Hemisphere remains without topography.."

A bit clearer ... there is one mtn range simulating the Rockies - but it seems no land/sea topography (water mountain). So there is no contrast FI in air-masses exiting Siberia into the Pacific and E N America into the Atlantic ... both of which are a major driver of wave trains ad baroclinicity (storm generation). There is no Himalayan range - again (the) major driver of breaking waves into the Stratosphere, causing sudden stratospheric warming and -AO events (cold plunges).

That's just what i've spotted at a cursory glance.
PsyProf
3.2 / 5 (11) Mar 28, 2015
Obviously some interaction of multiple factors has made the jet stream dip toward the Eastern U.S. for about three winters in a row. This guy does not even try to explain it. He points out (duh!) that long-term average temps rise, if there is global warming. He is not trying to explain the three-year trend and is wrong to imply that he is debunking any explanations whatsoever.
truthmonger
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 28, 2015
Several things I found laughable with the climate alarmists. The head of the UN International Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachaurihad, has a background as a railroad engineer. No college in Weather anything. I guess when he gets confused he could always go back to what he knows. The wheels on the train go round and round.
Then there was the story that all the massive snow we have had is because the climate is getting warmer. So I then asked the question so therefore if we have global cooling there will be less snow.
Archaeologists from core samples have determined higher CO2 levels at lower temperatures. And from 1600-1650 the Earth went thru a warming phase followed by a cooling phase.
3% of all CO2 is humans. 97% by Volcanos.
So I listened to Lord Monckton's "Global Warming: Just The Truth". Seems he has found copies where the global alarmists changed the graph lines as they did not show global warming
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 28, 2015
@truththeignorant

Dr. Pachauri a "train engineer"?
http://en.wikiped...Pachauri

"Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today's human endeavors."
http://www.scient...-humans/

Archaeologists don't do ice cores, another example of @truth is stupid.

If your going to comment on a science site it helps to know at least a little about the subject. You are making the other denial trolls sound intelligent by comparison.

http://en.wikiped...on_cycle
Mike_Massen
3.3 / 5 (19) Mar 29, 2015
@truthmonger
U make all sorts of sporadic arbitrary claims that cannot be confirmed, u are just like Water_Prophet & ubavontuba, their posts:-
http://sciencex.c..._Prophet
http://sciencex.c...avontuba

The web site often used by uneducated global warming deniers has a CO2 data set, it doesnt show anything remarkable re volcanoes, there's small 1991 pinatubo bump but, thats it, see:-
http://woodfortre...esrl-co2

You can actually work out estimate for yourself as to how much CO2 humans are putting in the atmosphere, based on coal/oil figures accepted by key polluters, represents around 230,000 Litres of petrol per second each second. Use Octane & from high school chem can determine mass per year, then use uni maths re partial pressures etc to assess ppm...

The good thing about education in physics is u become virtually immune to propaganda & then cannot become a mere unthinking robot mouthing off idle crap u are told :-)
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 29, 2015
monger:
Just to take one example you gave in that ignorant post my friend....

3% of all CO2 is humans. 97% by Volcanos.


Now you could have done what I have and google this info....

Mt Pinatubo (1991) - Largest stratospheric disturbance since Krakatoa eruption in 1883, dropping global temperatures and increasing ozone depletion.

You'd reckon that would show up on the worlds CO2 monitoring stations I suppose?
Think again.

http://commons.wi...xide.png

But no you continue to belive bollocks like that because someone told you no doubt and you believed it because you wanted to. Pathetic. And who was it? A prize human being indeed.
HeloMenelo
2.4 / 5 (14) Mar 29, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
I post little provables like this to try to show folks that they can have actual facts to believe in, that they don't have to "believe" and can have enough information to do.
You have STILL failed to prove all of your claims:-

Y is your calculation NOT commensurate with those claiming "4 technical degrees" as u do ?
Which institute & what years started please ?

Y aren't your uni degrees including claim of "Physical Chemistry" on your facebook page ?
https://www.faceboo
...

it's because him, his sockpuppets still poke themselves in the eye with their spoons when raising their cereal to their mouths. Once he figured out how to do that right, perhaps then he could start attending kindergarden. But hey just like i promised, the show makes for one hilarious comedy, this clown is now in the phase of adding the cherry on top like all the previous articles, those 1 out of 5s sure shines through on his profile, and its so much to watch... :D
Dethe
3 / 5 (6) Mar 29, 2015
global warming actually tends to reduce temperature variability
It does contradict many other studies, which are claiming the opposite. I'm not supporter of anthropogenic global warming, but for me it's logical, that the more extreme temperature gradients across atmosphere layer will also lead into more turbulent weather. Of course, the extreme winters may be also an indicia of quite opposite trend in climate, i.e. the onset of new ice age or global cooling. Or they may be also quite normal considering the fractal nature of climate.
HeloMenelo
2.7 / 5 (14) Mar 29, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
So yes, 1/8500 of the total power of the Sun, 1/10th of the changes in the power of the Sun. Noting that when the Sun changes this little bit, it has profound effects on the Earth, and if we are producing heat of that magnitude, on the ground, this is really significant.
Why are you ignoring CO2's effect of 1.5W/m^2 ?

Y are your blurts NOT commensurate with those claiming "4 technical degrees" as u do ?
Which institute & what years started please ?

Y aren't your uni degrees including claim of "Physical Chemistry" on your facebook page ?
https://www.faceb...er/about

Y can't U prove your claim "business uses your results" ?

Y can't U qualify or prove ANY of your claims ?

Y don't U seem to have any integrity Water_Prophet ?


we now got 6 cherries on top :D, the party cake becomes sweeter by the post, c'mon monkeys rub it in some more... don't make me wait..... :(

Well said Mike
HeloMenelo
2.7 / 5 (14) Mar 29, 2015
@truththeignorant
@truthmonger
U make all sorts of sporadic arbitrary claims that cannot be confirmed, u are just like Water_Prophet & ubavontuba, their posts:-
http://sciencex.c..._Prophet

If your going to comment on a science site it helps to know at least a little about the subject. You are making the other denial trolls sound intelligent by comparison.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp


atta monkey... more more.... i love it when they eagerly beaverly rub themslves some extra bonus insults to the nuts..., i got plenty bannanas for you.. just keep at it.. :D :D

Well said Vietvet
Gotema
2.9 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2015
If, someday, a highly advanced civilization should visit us from another part of the Universe or we should happen to find one, we better hope they do not share the same amount of contempt, towards different thought, that humans have toward others that we have !
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (9) Mar 29, 2015
global warming actually tends to reduce temperature variability
It does contradict http://www.thegua...-storms. Or they may be also quite normal considering the fractal nature of climate.

It depends on what is causing it:
If it is CO2, a vast layer of insulation that is supposedly warming the Earth passively, then it should make things (weather, climate) more stable: That is what insulation does.
It is heat released by fossil fuels (I know, heat causing warmth, impossible), it will increase the gradients, and thus increase extremity of weather.
As above; burning fossil fuels etc., product 1/10th of what the Sun's variability does, a huge number.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (16) Mar 29, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
It depends on what is causing it
Only true thing U said so far but, hey you as a claimed "Physical Chemist" can PROVE it - Y don't U ?

Water_Prophet claimed
If it is CO2, a vast layer of insulation that is supposedly warming the Earth passively, then it should make things (weather, climate) more stable: That is what insulation does
No, it IS CO2. Your claim its NOT hasnt been proven, u specifically IGNORE CO2's effect in radiative forcing - Y is that ?

Water_Prophet claimed
As above; burning fossil fuels etc., product 1/10th of what the Sun's variability does, a huge number.
Not as much as CO2 - which U ignore & actually faked !

Y is your CO2's effect claim of 0.00009W/m^2 some 16,666x Lower than wiki's 1.5W/m^2 ?
https://en.wikipe...ings.svg

Y is your writing NOT commensurate with those claiming "4 technical degrees" as u do ?
Which institute & what years started please ?

Y can't U ?
greenonions
4 / 5 (12) Mar 29, 2015
Gotema
we better hope they do not share the same amount of contempt, towards different thought, that humans have toward others that we have !


Two thoughts there Gotema. 1. The advanced civilizations would be gobsmacked at so much of our barbarity. War, Isis, Prisons, Genocide, Pollution, Religion, nuclear weapons, etc. etc. etc. Perhaps spats on the comments section of Physorg indicate the root of the problem (I think ignorance would be a good word) - but it manifests itself it much worse ways.

2. A lot of these spats are people that respect knowledge and science - trying to shut down the idiots who are trying to hold us back in the medieval dark ages. It is often not about respecting another person's perspective, it is about trying to stand up against stupidity. The problem is that stupidity - can argue you down the rabbit hole - so can be really frustrating. Then we get a world led by idiots (Senator Inhofe here in the U.S. just for example).
adam_russell_9615
4.7 / 5 (12) Mar 29, 2015
Ah, Adam, you are absolutely right, my context could be better. It would be nice if you read the entire thing to get the context. It takes most of the Sun's energy to get us to temperature.

So yes, 1/8500 of the total power of the Sun, 1/10th of the changes in the power of the Sun. Noting that when the Sun changes this little bit, it has profound effects on the Earth, and if we are producing heat of that magnitude, on the ground, this is really significant.


No its not. The fluctuations of the sun have negligible effect on our environment. And the sun fluctuates 10x more than what we add (going by your numbers).

This is not intended to be an argument for or against global warming. But your logic is awful.
freeiam
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 29, 2015
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Chairman Rajendra Pachauri resigned a few weeks ago from his job after a female researcher lodged a sexual harassment complaint against him. In his letter of resignation, he explained why he did what he did at the U.N., "For me, the protection of planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma."

So much for you that sneer at religion being opposed to science - seems to me like religion has a lot to do with it.


Ha ha, incredible news. The ex chairmain looks like a new incarnation (pun intended) of Rasputin and is a criminal at the same time it seems, he's also a believer ....
Wow. I wouldn't be surprised if the IPCC is dismantled as a criminal organization in the near future.
freeiam
2 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2015
Mike Massen
Y R R U Y


You seem to have a spelling deficiency.
R U Agitated?
Water_Prophet
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2015
Adam, the one thing that everyone in the whole area of global change; for or against, agrees on is that the Sun is the major driver of climate. Whenever anyone is talking about global change, it is implied to mean effects without the effects of the Sun.

If the effects are near those of the Sun, that's significant. Consider, by way of contrast, what would happen to the Earth if we received just 5watts/m2 on average more:

Here's a great little article that should help.

https://www.e-edu...node/672

After reading, now consider the effects of just a little change North of where that average is, and consider that weather patterns take that heat and drive it North, somewhat "unnaturally."

Otherwise, please be more specific where my logic is flawed. For example, if the Sun were to remain at other than it's mode output, climate would change world-wide, obviously, -less obviously... if it remained near its mode.
freeiam
1.9 / 5 (13) Mar 29, 2015
Is the science settled??

The fact that it's GHGs causing retention of the Earth's heat beyond what it needs to emit in order to balance with it's insolation - Yes.

When you think of it this cannot be the case without a countering mechanism so - No.
That GHG science is irrefutable - yes.

The Arrogance of science seems to be irrefutable, so I agree - Yes
In the details of how the climate system stores and shifts heat about - No.

Details, the devil is in the details, it could be a very complex devil without a lot of detail or even be a chaotic one, so a big - No.
ulao
3.3 / 5 (6) Mar 29, 2015
Warning Tapio Schneider. You will be spanked for this.
Caliban
3.2 / 5 (13) Mar 29, 2015
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Chairman Rajendra Pachauri resigned a few weeks ago [...]

Ha ha, incredible news. The ex chairmain looks like a new incarnation (pun intended) of Rasputin and is a criminal at the same time it seems, he's also a believer ....
Wow. I wouldn't be surprised if the IPCC is dismantled as a criminal organization in the near future.


Haha, incredible stupidiosity from toejam.

And it is indeed stupidiosity, as opposed to mere ignorance or naivete.

Hey toejam --based upon your "reasoning", virtually every government(at every level), religion, civic organization, industry, or any other organization should be expected to disband, or should have already.

And yet they haven't. Which clearly illustrates just how stupidiotic your comment is.

HeloMenelo
2.4 / 5 (14) Mar 29, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
It depends on what is causing it
Only true thing U said so far but, hey you as a claimed "Physical Chemist" can PROVE it - Y don't U ?

Water_Prophet claimed
If it is CO2, a vast layer of insulation that is supposedly warming the Earth passively, then it should make things (weather, climate) more stable: That is what insulation does
No, it IS CO2. Your claim its NOT hasnt been proven, u specifically IGNORE CO2's effect in radiative forcing - Y is that ?

Water_Prophet claimed
As above; burning fossil fuels etc., product 1/10th of what the Sun's variability does, a huge number.
Not as much as CO2 - which U ignore & actually faked !
....


Score ! :D Well said Mike, ooo water monkey this time pokes himself in the other eye with his spoon/comment, try a bannana, only have to peel it like a monkey... ;)
HeloMenelo
2.4 / 5 (14) Mar 29, 2015
Ah, Adam, you are absolutely right, my context could be better. It would be nice if you read the entire thing to get the context. It takes most of the Sun's energy to get us to temperature.

So yes, 1/8500 of the total power of the Sun, 1/10th of the changes in the power of the Sun. Noting that when the Sun changes this little bit, it has profound effects on the Earth, and if we are producing heat of that magnitude, on the ground, this is really significant.


No its not. The fluctuations of the sun have negligible effect on our environment. And the sun fluctuates 10x more than what we add (going by your numbers).

This is not intended to be an argument for or against global warming. But your logic is awful.


Well said Adam, it's water monkey say monkey do, you can take the monkey out of the bush, but not the bush out of the monkey.. ;)
HeloMenelo
2.6 / 5 (15) Mar 29, 2015
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Chairman Rajendra Pachauri resigned a few weeks ago [...]

Ha ha, incredible news. The ex chairmain looks like a new incarnation (pun intended) of Rasputin and is a criminal at the s....


Haha, incredible stupidiosity from toejam.
And it is indeed stupidiosity, as opposed to mere ignorance or naivete.
Hey toejam --based upon your "reasoning", virtually every government(at every level), religion, civic organization, industry, or any other organization should be expected to disband, or should have already.And yet they haven't. Which clearly illustrates just how stupidiotic your comment is.


It's red nose day, and guess who get's a new shiny red nose.. well said Caliban, these clowns look so dumb in front of the whole wide world i simply can't get enough of this joke... lol
Auntiegrav
3.1 / 5 (17) Mar 29, 2015
"They used climate simulations and theoretical arguments to show that in most places, the range of temperature fluctuations will decrease as the climate warms. So not only will cold snaps become rarer simply because the climate is warming."

The key word here is "most". Nothing about this disproves the original hypothesis of climate change causing extremes intermittently in the near term for specific places, which the measurements show are happening now. It does suggest that these extremes are temporary, though, and so both models can be correct: we see extreme cold snaps because of the localized (Eastern U.S.) and temporary changes in temperature differentials, but as warming continues, these extremes just become blended with the overall warming trend.
Those of us in the middle of these anomalies find it hard to fully believe that the rest of the world has seen record warm temperatures overall, because it still feels colder than normal where we are. Situational bias.
Mike_Massen
3.1 / 5 (17) Mar 30, 2015
freeiam asked
Mike Massen
Y R R U Y
You seem to have a spelling deficiency.
R U Agitated?
So you havent noticed there is a 1000 character limit & contractions are useful & u are going to the trouble to show us u couldn't notice that ?

Being a Science site, can you actually add something thoughtful to the discussion, such as can you go some way to addressing this question:-

"How can adding a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, such as CO2 with well known & irrefutable thermal properties, somehow NOT increase thermal resistivity ?"

Graph of greenhouse gas thermal effects: https://en.wikipe...ings.svg

Link offered by ubavontuba, showing direct proof of global warming (he didn't know what he found which goes directly against his case), see dialog box on left:-
http://images.rem...ies.html

Water_prophet claimed CO2's effect is only 0.00009 W/m^2 yet wiki's which he claims agrees is 1.5W/m^2
Mike_Massen
3.1 / 5 (17) Mar 30, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
If the effects are near those of the Sun, that's significant. Consider, by way of contrast, what would happen to the Earth if we received just 5watts/m2 on average more
Indeed, so why haven't you noticed that adding the 1.5W/m^2 more as per:-
https://en.wikipe...ings.svg

Water_Prophet offered a link but missed:-
https://www.e-edu...node/678

Water_Prophet asked
Otherwise, please be more specific where my logic is flawed
We have done that but, you CANNOT understand simple issues addressing your deficiencies of which there are SO many Eg. 1

You claim CO2's effect is 0.00009W/m^2 yet WILL not show how u arrived at that and cannot
address why wiki's (which you claim is in "great agreement") is 16,666x higher at 1.5W/m^2

Water_Prophet claimed
... climate would change world-wide, obviously, -less obviously... if it remained near its mode
Ignoramus, what does this even mean ?
Mike_Massen
3.1 / 5 (17) Mar 30, 2015
freeiam
The fact that it's GHGs causing retention of the Earth's heat beyond what it needs to emit in order to balance with it's insolation - Yes
When you think of it this cannot be the case without a countering mechanism (CM) so - No.
What pray tell do u mean by a CM, who says there HAS to be one & if so at least comparable in terms of power flow ?

Are u saying freeiam, you have NO experience of adding a blanket to your bed & noticing the temp below it goes up whilst the temp above it goes down, whats the CM in that situation ?

You need to understand "thermal resistivity" so you don't shoot yourself in the foot again.

freeiam claimed
Details, the devil is in the details, it could be a very complex devil without a lot of detail or even be a chaotic one, so a big - No.
This is where you have a deficiency, you desperately need an education in heat & especially integration. Chaotic events can be summed & done routinely Eg Statistical Mechanics !
Urgelt
2.7 / 5 (14) Mar 30, 2015
Their model shows decreased global temperature variability. Their model does *not* show that the jet stream will be unaffected by a decreased temperature differential between the poles and the equator.

As always, climate change produces different results depending on where you are. If you're in the upper half of the continental United States, increased jet stream meandering is very likely to impose divergences in weather extremes versus historical trends.

Local extremes are not ruled out by global trends.
sdouglass
3.8 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2015
FAIL: Using a "very simplified climate model" "the jet stream? Schneider shrugs off the idea: "The waviness of the jet stream that makes our day-to-day weather does not change much."

Even though continuing OBSERVATION of the ACTUAL jet stream says otherwise. The Scientific Method requires that you test your model against reality. If your model does not reflect the ground truth, then it is the MODEL that is wrong.

How did this get published? Is this a high school science class project page?
sdrfz
1 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2015
How did this get published? Is this a high school science class project page?


"Climate model simulations by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) showed similar results: as the climate warms, temperature differences in mid-latitudes decrease, and so does temperature variability, especially in winter."

Their results agree with those of the IPCC. You climate alarmists have egg on your face.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 30, 2015
Maggnus: Without topography, you'd not get an anchor point over the top of the Rockies to fix the start of a wave-train (most usual set-up), and therfor lose peristence in the PJS holding troughs/ridges in one location. In winter this is paramount for snowfield build-up and extreme temps under clear skies as radiation to space dominates and temps progressively fall. Will study paper more closely.


Yea, I think this is a pretty limited use model. While it might give some insight into Rossby wave induced changes to the N<=>S heat flow, I don't think it gives a very accurate or useful metric for the meandering of the PJS.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2015
Maggnus;
This is the full paper....


Nice! So, in other words, it actually supports the notion that extreme events (not just cold, but also dought, rain, etc) will be slower moving and more likely to get into a holding pattern but that in the long term, more extreme cold conditions will be evened out due to the decreasing temperature gradient between the mid-latitudes and Arctic latitudes.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 30, 2015
The key word here is "most". Nothing about this disproves the original hypothesis of climate change causing extremes intermittently in the near term for specific places, which the measurements show are happening now. It does suggest that these extremes are temporary, though, and so both models can be correct: we see extreme cold snaps because of the localized (Eastern U.S.) and temporary changes in temperature differentials, but as warming continues, these extremes just become blended with the overall warming trend.
Those of us in the middle of these anomalies find it hard to fully believe that the rest of the world has seen record warm temperatures overall, because it still feels colder than normal where we are. Situational bias.

Well said, and correct.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2015
Even though continuing OBSERVATION of the ACTUAL jet stream says otherwise. The Scientific Method requires that you test your model against reality. If your model does not reflect the ground truth, then it is the MODEL that is wrong.

How did this get published? Is this a high school science class project page?
@sdouglass
sorry for the downvote
mouse problems...

I am with you on this one
i have exactly the same questions
PLUS, the fact that Francis has for years been arguing and predicting the very thing that was observed
Francis was on the money...
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2015
Even though continuing OBSERVATION of the ACTUAL jet stream says otherwise. The Scientific Method requires that you test your model against reality. If your model does not reflect the ground truth, then it is the MODEL that is wrong.

How did this get published? Is this a high school science class project page?
@sdouglass
sorry for the downvote
mouse problems...

I am with you on this one
i have exactly the same questions
PLUS, the fact that Francis has for years been arguing and predicting the very thing that was observed
Francis was on the money...

Actually Stumpy I don't think the two are exclusive of each other. Francis' paper discussed the causes of extreme mid-latitude weather events and Schneider discusses how such events will not be as prevalent in the future.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 30, 2015

Their results agree with those of the IPCC. You climate alarmists have egg on your face.

Let me get this right.

You are saying that a paper that has found that mid-latitudinal temps will both warm and undergo less variation under AGW puts "egg on your face" ?

You'll have to explain that one.

Oh, no you don't. .....It's all about scoring points isn't it. The science doesn't matter.

This paper tries to replicate the classic Rossby wave "stationarly" patern, with a highly simplified model of Earth that has no land, sea-ice or snow - only water, and a water mountain range. Therefore no baroclinicity longitudinally, only latitudinally. the real atmosphere does not need a wavenumber of 6-8 to produce severe local artcic cold outbreaks in mid-latitudes, just wavenumber 1 or 2 will do it. This winter and last that is what happened for the NE US.
Amusing also that deniers jump all over "models" reflexively .... and now?
Hypocrites what?
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2015
capt;

Did you get my mail re this paper?
Caliban
3.3 / 5 (16) Mar 31, 2015
So it looks as if most of the confusion arises from a rather poorly-written article, and the science is essentially correct. It's unfortunate that the article had the effect of compressing the timescale, though.. it seems pretty certain that, as the temp gradient lessens between mid and upper lats, that some variability will be reduced, but I wouldn't bet on any real reduction in the frequency of these extreme events --not for many decades, at least-- simply because of the density differential between the two, and of course, topographic differences, as runrig pointed out.
Caliban
3.3 / 5 (14) Mar 31, 2015
Mike,

I was reading through the posts when I came to this:

freeiam

The fact that it's GHGs causing retention of the Earth's heat beyond what it needs to emit in order to balance with it's insolation - Yes
When you think of it this cannot be the case without a countering mechanism (CM) so - No. What pray tell do u mean by a CM, who says there HAS to be one & if so at least comparable in terms of power flow ?

Are u saying freeiam, you have NO experience of adding a blanket to your bed & noticing the temp below it goes up whilst the temp above it goes down, whats the CM in that situation ?

You need to understand "thermal resistivity" so you don't shoot yourself in the foot again.


...luckily for me, I wasn't having anything to drink, so I didn't choke, sputter, asphyxiate, lapse into a coma and expire.

That would have made the day for a few commentors here...but no such luck.

Anyway, thanks for making mine!

Nice work.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2015
capt;

Did you get my mail re this paper?
@Runrig
No sir, nothing in my e-mail

I will look for it again tomorrow

I HAVE been reading through all your posts on this topic here though
as well as Maggnus, Cali et al
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2015
capt;

Did you get my mail re this paper?
@Runrig
No sir, nothing in my e-mail

I will look for it again tomorrow

I HAVE been reading through all your posts on this topic here though
as well as Maggnus, Cali et al

It left me at 10pm on the 30th (5pm your time)

Have re-sent
sdrfz
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2015

Climate change does not cause extreme winters -- yes, let's agree on that and put this topic to rest for once and all.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2015
Hey, so you can prove true things.
You can disprove false things.
You can't prove or disprove imaginary things.

So above I have put forth positive relationships between water vapor being demonstratably more powerful and more numerous and increased more than CO2, yet no effect has occurred. I can and will do it again for any non-idiot, upon request.
I have shown how much energy released by energy consumption, and how powerful this is compared to the Sun's climate effects.

Two positive, easily calculable or observable effects-can anyone give me a good one FOR CO2, that doesn't involve much more than 10x the concentration we see in the atm.? If we had as much CO2 as water vapor, we might start to notice some effect...

After all, enough water can kill you. Even enough water vapor will kill you.
Caliban
3 / 5 (14) Apr 01, 2015
Hey, so you can prove true things.
You can disprove false things.
You can't prove or disprove imaginary things.

So above I have put forth positive relationships between water vapor being demonstratably more powerful and more numerous and increased more than CO2, yet no effect has occurred. I can and will do it again for any non-idiot, upon request.

Two positive, easily calculable or observable effects-can anyone give me a good one FOR CO2, that doesn't involve much more than 10x the concentration we see in the atm.? If we had as much CO2 as water vapor, we might start to notice some effect...

After all, enough water can kill you. Even enough water vapor will kill you.


Even granting all the above Whiff'n'Poof, these are not issues you need concern yourself with
-even the lethality of water and water vapor.

Be concerned with your own stupidiosity.

Because stupidiosity kills.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Apr 01, 2015

Climate change does not cause extreme winters -- yes, let's agree on that and put this topic to rest for once and all.

Only those that do not know of the complexities of the climate system, re sea-ice/snow field and open warm anomaly waters re feedback to planetary-waves would say that.
Which is why we have climate scintists who know of those .... and who say it does.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2015
wrong thread
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 02, 2015
capt;

Did you get my mail re this paper?
@Runrig
No sir, nothing in my e-mail

I will look for it again tomorrow

I HAVE been reading through all your posts on this topic here though
as well as Maggnus, Cali et al

It left me at 10pm on the 30th (5pm your time)

Have re-sent
@Runrig
i got the re-sent information and e-mail
THANK YOU VERY MUCH

you had quite a lot of info there... appreciate it

Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 02, 2015
So above I have put forth positive relationships between water vapor being demonstratably more powerful and more numerous and increased more than CO2
@Pfffft/ALKIE/positum stultum prophetam
you FORGOT a lot of info
SUCH AS: the studies that i linked to you PROVING by observation, prediction as well as empirical evidence in many different ways that prove and VALIDATE the findings with regard to the feedback/cycle that CO2 and WV have with each other

Because of this simple omission which, we can now PROVE is by stupidity as well as an omission for obfuscation reasons, then we can show that your knowledge of the physics is both WRONG, as well as INTENTIONALLY WRONG

You are ignoring the studies so that you can promote (confirmation bias) your OWN philosophy (unproven conjecture that is based upon a faith and NOT upon the evidence)

Thus you are simply trying to distract and redirect the argument into your personal delusion and NOT into the science
Water_Prophet
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 02, 2015
Hey, so you can prove true things.
You can disprove false things.
You can't prove or disprove imaginary things.

So above I have put forth positive relationships between water vapor being demonstratably more powerful and more numerous and increased more than CO2, yet no effect has occurred. I can and will do it again for any non-idiot, upon request.
I have shown how much energy released by energy consumption, and how powerful this is compared to the Sun's climate effects.

Two positive, easily calculable or observable effects-can anyone give me a good one FOR CO2, that doesn't involve much more than 10x the concentration we see in the atm.? If we had as much CO2 as water vapor, we might start to notice some effect...

After all, enough water can kill you. Even enough water vapor will kill you.

Sorry team, malicious info. warfare attack, reposted.
Caliban
3 / 5 (12) Apr 02, 2015
Hey, so you can prove true things.
You can disprove false things.
You can't prove or disprove imaginary things.

So above I have put forth positive relationships between water vapor being demonstratably more powerful and more numerous and increased more than CO2, yet no effect has occurred. I can and will do it again for any non-idiot, upon request.
I have shown how much energy released by energy consumption, and how powerful this is compared to the Sun's climate effects.

Two positive, easily calculable or observable effects-can anyone give me a good one FOR CO2, that doesn't involve much more than 10x the concentration we see in the atm.? If we had as much CO2 as water vapor, we might start to notice some effect...

After all, enough water can kill you. Even enough water vapor will kill you.

Sorry team, malicious info. warfare attack, reposted.


We already saw your post the first time, moron.

It hasn't been rendered true by your paranoia.
HeloMenelo
2.7 / 5 (12) Apr 03, 2015
Hey, so you can prove true things.
You can disprove false things.
You can't prove or disprove imaginary things.

So above I have put forth positive relationships between water vapor being demonstratably more powerful and more numerous and increased more than CO2, yet no effect has occurred. I can and will do it again for any non-idiot, upon request.

Two positive, easily calculable or observable effects-can anyone give me a good one FOR CO2, that doesn't involve much more than 10x the concentration we see in the atm.? If we had as much CO2 as water vapor, we might start to notice some effect...

After all, enough water can kill you. Even enough water vapor will kill you.


Even granting all the above Whiff'n'Poof, these are not issues you need concern yourself with
-even the lethality of water and water vapor.

Be concerned with your own stupidiosity....



They still trying to tell him that in mental school, no luck thus far... lol
HeloMenelo
2.8 / 5 (13) Apr 03, 2015
Hey, so you can prove true things.
You can disprove false things.
You can't prove or disprove imaginary things.

So above I have put forth positive relationships between water vapor being demonstratably more powerful and more numerous and increased more than CO2, yet no effect has occurred. I can and will do it again for any non-idiot, upon request.
I have shown how much energy released by energy consumption, and how powerful this is compared to the Sun's climate effects....

After all, enough water can kill you. Even enough water vapor will kill you.

Sorry team, malicious info. warfare attack, reposted.


Who you talking to, your team of sockpuppets you know those you blow hot air into pretending they are someone else, those with mainly 1 out of 5 ratings ? lol... there has been no "war" only one crazy hilarious comedy with a main clown character... starring.. yep.... you guessed it.. You...
HeloMenelo
2.8 / 5 (13) Apr 03, 2015
Hey, so you can prove true things.
You can disprove false things.
You can't prove or disprove imaginary things.

So above I have put forth positive relationships between water vapor being demonstratably more powerful and more numerous and increased more than CO2, yet no effect has occurred. I can and will do it again for any non-idiot, upon request.
I have shown how much energy released by energy consumption, and how powerful this is compared to the Sun's climate effects.

After all, enough water can kill you. Even enough water vapor will kill you.

Sorry team, malicious info. warfare attack, reposted.


We already saw your post the first time, moron.

It hasn't been rendered true by your paranoia.


Naa he just likes to rub himself one in the nuts while he gets insulted because of his clown comments, and enjoys it when we put the shine on his comments, no harm in that, i like it too... :D
HeloMenelo
2.9 / 5 (15) Apr 03, 2015

Climate change does not cause extreme winters -- yes, let's agree on that and put this topic to rest for once and all.

Only those that do not know of the complexities of the climate system, re sea-ice/snow field and open warm anomaly waters re feedback to planetary-waves would say that.
Which is why we have climate scientists who know of those .... and who say it does.


Brilliantly said Runrig.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (16) Apr 03, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Sorry team, malicious info. warfare attack, reposted
Eh ?
Crap & nonsense !

R u now claiming; someone hacked into your pc, re-sent your phys.org messages from many hours ago all at once, bypassed phys.org flood control & STILL u have TIME to edit ALL of them so could ADD text:-

"Sorry team, malicious info. warfare attack, reposted."

That is ALSO beyond any credibility u had left, for the simple reason there are moderately complex sequences which would have to be defeated AND your ability to edit posts - LOL !

Instead it looks FAR more like a twisted attempt to garner sympathy !

Why not INSTEAD qualify all your claims Eg top are

- CO2 of only 0.00009 W/m^2
- Wiki is in "great agreement" with 0.00009 when theirs is 1.5 - ie 16,666 greater than yours FFS how?
- Those "4 technical degrees"
- Your water bowl model of ice works despite all its experimental failings
- Business uses your calculations

so sad
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (16) Apr 03, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Hey, so you can prove true things.
You can disprove false things.
You can't prove or disprove imaginary things
And YOU cannot prove all your claims, yet post this drivel which again goes to prove you cannot have achieved university accreditation !

Water_Prophet claimed
.. I can and will do it again for any non-idiot, upon request
Ok, show us the working of your CO2's radiative forcing of 0.00009W/m^2 and WHY its 16,666 times less than wiki's 1.5W/m^2 ?

Water_Prophet claimed
.. energy released by energy consumption, and how powerful this is compared to the Sun's climate effects
You failed to show CO2's !

And WHY yours is so low by 16,666 times !

Where did you get your claimed "4 technical degrees" from, name of Institute & when please ?

Y can't you prove ANY of your claims ?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2015
And yet another malicious information warfare attack, drowning this out. Why is that?

Hey, so you can prove true things.
You can disprove false things.
You can't prove or disprove imaginary things.

So above I have put forth positive relationships between water vapor being demonstratably more powerful and more numerous and increased more than CO2, yet no effect has occurred. I can and will do it again for any non-idiot, upon request.
I have shown how much energy released by energy consumption, and how powerful this is compared to the Sun's climate effects.

Two positive, easily calculable or observable effects-can anyone give me a good one FOR CO2, that doesn't involve much more than 10x the concentration we see in the atm.? If we had as much CO2 as water vapor, we might start to notice some effect...

After all, enough water can kill you. Even enough water vapor will kill you.
Caliban
3.2 / 5 (13) Apr 03, 2015
And yet another malicious information warfare attack, drowning this out. Why is that?

Hey, so you can prove true things.
You can disprove false things.
You can't prove or disprove imaginary things.

So above I have put forth positive relationships between water vapor being demonstratably more powerful and more numerous and increased more than CO2, yet no effect has occurred.
I have shown how much energy released by energy consumption, and how powerful this is compared to the Sun's climate effects.

Two positive, easily calculable or observable effects-can anyone give me a good one FOR CO2, that doesn't involve much more than 10x the concentration we see in the atm.? If we had as much CO2 as water vapor, we might start to notice some effect...

After all, enough water can kill you. Even enough water vapor will kill you.


We already saw your post the first time, moron.

It hasn't been rendered true by your paranoia
Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (14) Apr 04, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
And yet another malicious information warfare attack, drowning this out. Why is that?
Just why are YOU posting this AND editing it - it just makes you look more stupid ?

Any smart person would have changed their password & taken other steps to avoid being hacked, the fact you post your own drivel AND then edit it to ask a question talks about your state of mind !

Y aren't your uni degrees including claim of "Physical Chemistry" on your facebook page ?
https://www.faceb...er/about

Y is your CO2's effect claim of 0.00009W/m^2 some 16,666x Lower than wiki's 1.5W/m^2 ?
https://en.wikipe...ings.svg

Y can't U prove your claim "business uses your results" ?

Y can't U qualify or prove ANY of your claims ?

Y don't U seem to have any integrity Water_Profit ?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Apr 05, 2015
Yet more non-contributing information warfare attacks. Trying to bury facts they can't dispute so they bury.
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (15) Apr 05, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Yet more non-contributing information warfare attacks. Trying to bury facts they can't dispute so they bury
You are AGAIN coming across as immensely immautre, how did u allow your posts to be repeated AND then edit them - LOL !

Isn't it obvious YOU did it, how many times did you change your IP, or your phys.org password ?

Grow up, qualify/prove your claims, have basic decent scientific integrity, Please:-

Y is your writing NOT commensurate with those claiming "4 technical degrees" as u do ?
Which institute & what years started please ?

Y aren't your uni degrees including claim of "Physical Chemistry" on your facebook page ?
https://www.faceb...er/about

Y is your CO2's effect claim of 0.00009W/m^2 some 16,666x Lower than wiki's 1.5W/m^2 ?
https://en.wikipe...ings.svg

Y can't U prove your claim "business uses your results" ?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Apr 05, 2015
Mikey: Business uses my results-worldwide and is cutting edge and unprecedented:
https://www.googl...+riskaoa , in fact I set the standards for business.

Technical degree:
My perspective is that you have to have been exposed to advanced chemistry or you would not have been able to even set these problems up.
-USERNAME: thermodynamics

Thermy is your buddy, you ask him, stop degrading the forum.

Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 05, 2015
Yet more non-contributing information warfare attacks
@alkie/Pfffft
so quit posting warfare attacks & burying the science!

What you have presented is called CONJECTURE, not definitive proof, evidence or even anything related to the SCIENTIFIC METHOD...

but as you claim to be a highly trained scientists (still unproven conjecture, mind you) you already know that
Your LINK is also to a POLITICAL SITE, not to a peer reviewed journal, nor to a study which shows methodology, predictions, conclusions or anything OTHER Than the speculative personal conjecture of a political and paid for hack wanting to distract away from the reality of the argument

this is TYPICAL of your posts, though
DISTRACTION FROM THE SCIENCE using any and all methodology which is at your disposal
it also substantiates the claims that you are simply paid to obfuscate for the Oil/Big $$ industry

One last thing:
WHERE are the studies that you claim refute or debunk the studies i linked to you?
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (15) Apr 05, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Mikey: Business uses my results-worldwide and is cutting edge and unprecedented:
https://www.googl...+riskaoa , in fact I set the standards..
CRAP, LIAR, if u had "4 technical degrees" they would (at least) be on your facebook page:-
https://www.faceb...er/about

Where r your testimonials - ANY ?

Water_Prophet claimed
Technical degree:
-USERNAME: thermodynamics
Thermy is your buddy, you ask him, stop degrading the forum
No. Any even moderately intelligent person would NOT rely on a nickname to give any sort of arbitrary reference !

I state openly, publicly & for the record herewith, U R a LIAR & a CHEAT !

Taking 5 days to misunderstand a Q from someone on a anonymous forum is NOT proof - U dick !

Name of institute & year started EACH of your "4 technical degrees" ?

AND Y have u NEVER written like ANYONE who ever got a uni degree ?

Y don't u understand radiative forcing re CO2 ?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Apr 05, 2015
You can't see it on Facebook because you don't have permissions and never will and thermy is your buddy, not mine.

Why are you asking for personal information? Are you stalking me? or intend to?
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 05, 2015
You can't see it on Facebook...
@alkie/Pfft
yeah... you continue to believe that...

i say again

What you have presented is called CONJECTURE, not definitive proof, evidence or even anything related to the SCIENTIFIC METHOD...

but as you claim to be a highly trained scientists (still unproven conjecture, mind you) you already know that
Your LINK is also to a POLITICAL SITE, not to a peer reviewed journal, nor to a study which shows methodology, predictions, conclusions or anything OTHER Than the speculative personal conjecture of a political and paid for hack wanting to distract away from the reality of the argument

this is TYPICAL of your posts, though
DISTRACTION FROM THE SCIENCE using any and all methodology which is at your disposal
it also substantiates the claims that you are simply paid to obfuscate for the Oil/Big $$ industry

One last thing:
WHERE are the studies that you claim refute or debunk my studies?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Apr 05, 2015
Captain Stumpy, sorry my friend, I misplaced those studies that refute the claims that enforce your all-powerful opinion in the same place I put those I use to disprove unicorns.

And for identical reasons.

Positive proof, such as discovering how much heat mankind produces from fossil fuels, then comparing it to how much energy the Sun gives us, it quantifiable, positive proof, and anyone can do it.

What you present is argumentative, bordering on nonsense. Like your opinions.
Caliban
3.4 / 5 (17) Apr 06, 2015
Captain Stumpy, sorry my friend, I misplaced those studies that refute the claims that enforce your all-powerful opinion in the same place I put those I use to disprove unicorns.


Oh, you mean you put them in the same place as you left your "Predictive Analysis" credentials?

Now I see the problem --you equate your claim of having peddled apps to the credulous with actual peer-reviewed, falsifiable, replicable scientific accomplishment.

You really are a contemptible troll.

Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (15) Apr 06, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Captain Stumpy, sorry my friend, I misplaced those studies that refute the claims that enforce your all-powerful opinion in the same place I put those I use to disprove unicorns
Uni graduates don't write like this !

You are a bare faced LIAR, no "4 technical degrees", you write like a child who has NO experience !

Water_Prophet claimed
Positive proof, such as discovering how much heat mankind produces from fossil fuels, then comparing it to how much energy the Sun gives us, it quantifiable, positive proof, and anyone can do it
No.

You omit CO2's calcs for radiative forcing & make FAKE claim of 0.00009W/m^2 yet STILL claim its in "great agreement" with wiki's of 1.5 W/m^2

Water_Prophet muttered
What you present is argumentative, bordering on nonsense. Like your opinions.
Your claims of "great agreement" is outright LIE on the same very page u claim 0.00009 when wiki is 1.5 !

You r OUT by a factor of 16,666 times !

so sad
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Apr 06, 2015
No, my "Predictive" criteria are all over the web, you'd have to be really idiotic not to find them. They're amazing.
You can't find them can you?

What are your credentials Caliban? Mikey apparently didn't graduate his Lycee, which is impressive, are you just one of his sock-puppets? That would explain your fellow brilliance, an inability to do anything other than comment on others comments, nothing original but low-brow criticism.
Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (14) Apr 06, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
No, my "Predictive" criteria are all over the web, you'd have to be really idiotic not to find them. They're amazing.
You can't find them can you?
Don't you recall you FAILED in interaction with Captain Stumpy re someones book but, you conceded it had nothing to do with you !

Water_Prophet claimed
What are your credentials Caliban? Mikey apparently didn't graduate his Lycee, which is impressive, are you just one of his sock-puppets?
No. So you havent seen my own credentials yet re Curtin University, student no. 07602128, or as detailed here:-
http://niche.iine.../physorg

Originally posted for rygs but, he's the same as you asked me to prove but he & you couldn't !

The point is you resorted to claims of university qualifications when you were challenged on physics, I have NEVER resorted to your immature, childish tactics !

Prove your claims:-

1. "4 technical degrees" ?
2. CO2's low radiative forcing of 0.00009W/m^2
etc
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Apr 06, 2015
Apparently you would rather misinterpret something I didn't say, then do a few googles. You don't recall Predictive Analytics is still the definitive work in it's field and I expanded upon it and made novel improvements to it. If you don't like Russell's book, then how about COSO's Enterprise Risk Management, Johnson's Portfolio Management, how about the Luftwaffe? US DOD? British Institute of Standards?

Just who is good enough for you Mikey?
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (15) Apr 06, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Apparently you would rather misinterpret something I didn't say, then do a few googles
Uni graduates KNOW how to be direct and NOT rely on arbitrary google searches which can come up with anything it is NOT definitive - a university graduate would know that !

Water_Prophet claimed
You don't recall Predictive Analytics is still the definitive work in it's field and I expanded upon it and made novel improvements to it
No. You came up with some author's name NOT connected with you - you FAILED !

Water_Prophet claimed
If you don't like Russell's book, then how about COSO's Enterprise Risk Management, Johnson's Portfolio Management, how about the Luftwaffe? US DOD? British Institute of Standards?
Where is there ANY reference to you & in what capacity ?

Water_Prophet claimed
Just who is good enough for you Mikey?
As I have asked OFTEN,
Name of institute AND the years you started EACH of your "4 technical degrees" ?

Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2015
Captain Stumpy, sorry my friend, I misplaced those studies that refute the claims that enforce your all-powerful opinion in the same place I put those I use to disprove unicorns.
@alkie/Pffffft/positum stultum prophetam
in other words, you have NO ABILITY to prove or in ANY OTHER WAY validate your own personal claims except through the process of reiteration and biblical style faith based preaching

you are an acolyte of pseudoscience, NOT science
What you present is argumentative, bordering on nonsense
what i have presented is SCIENCE as well as validated studies
what YOU have posted is PSEUDOSCIENCE and personal conjecture based upon delusion as well as narcissistic self aggrandizement through fallacious preaching of a belief, just like any other bible thumping preacher

misdirection, obfuscation and constant reiteration as though repetition makes truth
you can't prove it, so you REPEAT it
eventually someone will believe it, right?

NOT ME
i'm not that stupid
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2015
No, my "Predictive" criteria are all over the web, you'd have to be really idiotic not to find them
@alkie/Pffffft/positum stultum prophetam
No, they're NOT
again, similarity in a name does NOT mean that the person in question is YOU

There are people who carry my given and family name who are high priced designers who are not me (although related and a cousin, still NOT me)
that doesn't mean i design anything, only that there is someone who has the same name that is a designer
you've not been able to specifically tie yourself to the education, only that you are aware enough of mathematics to show some promise of an education

too bad you are completely unfamiliar with the scientific method, and THAT is proven over and over in your posts here and elsewhere

just because you believe doesn't make it real or even true, only that you have a belief
and thus far, your "interpretations" of the data show you have a belief that is NOT substantiated by science or the evidence
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Apr 08, 2015
Mikey, you know you're not going to get any more personal information from me, you've already got too much, and certainly enough to find out where and when I got my degrees. And do you consider an MBA a technical degree? There is alot of math, but I wouldn't consider it technical, though I'd rather do Legendre Polynomials than calculate interest bearing bonds! Sheesh!

But stumpy, those studies you presented were so stupid, I was not sure why anyone above say a 9th grader would actually require support in their contradiction. How does one start on something like that? It is very clear we'd need to start at a level of such a basic level of physics that it is unfair of you to demand it of me.

Can't you take a remedial course or something? It is really not on me to show you hot balloons inflate and cold balloons deflate. Steam can inflate a balloon, but when it cools it has water in it.

If you understood those underlying principles, you'd know you were wrong.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 09, 2015
If you understood those underlying principles, you'd know you were wrong.
@alkie/Pffffft/positum stultum prophetam
and if YOU understood what you were talking about you would be the most famous person on the planet because big oil/$$industry and political parties anti-AGW would be promoting you

there is ONE simple and logical way to prove that you are not only ignorant of the topic, it's complexity and the science behind it,
but that your conclusions are WAY off base WRT the claims you are making:

You have YET to be able to provide ANY refute equivalent to the studies i posted which would cause them to be altered, changed, retracted or anything else

given that your claims are specifically against almost all the studies i have linked
and you've claimed the studies are wrong or debunked on basic principles
then they should have been retracted or altered

still nothing done to them

IOW- you failed to make ANY point
HeloMenelo
2.5 / 5 (11) Apr 09, 2015
Ooooo goodie good, water clownie gorillacle clownie pick a socpuppet... really rubbing it deep into the nuts this round.... i see the intelligent people gave him no less than a full 1 out of 7 rating (the usual rating for this clown of course) and i am simply loving it... man this is a good sitcom.... o... guys the education for this clown will come as soon as he passed mental school... but this monkey can't seem to shake the habbit of bumping into the class door each morning without turning the knob (so in short, something tells me he still has a long way to go...lol..) but hey keeps my belly muscles in good shape lol... here monkey monkey, have another bannana, and there's plenty more to coming your way... :D
HeloMenelo
2.5 / 5 (11) Apr 09, 2015
here monkey monkey.... ;)
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 29, 2015
Water_Prophet claims
... not going to get any more personal information from me, you've already got too much, and certainly enough to find out where and when I got my degrees
No you dick ! You know full well there are other Gregory M. Tyler's around, its up to you to be genuine, Y can't you ?

Water_Prophet claimed
And do you consider an MBA a technical degree? There is alot of math, but I wouldn't consider it technical, though I'd rather do Legendre Polynomials than calculate interest bearing bonds!
Also no proof to your claim of an MBA or ANYTHING - nada, zero, zilch !

Water_Prophet with his usual ego AGAIN
But stumpy, those studies you presented were so stupid, I was not sure why anyone above say a 9th grader would actually require support in their contradiction
Then Y can't YOU deal with it head on ?

Water_Prophet asks
How does one start on something like that?
Easy, anyone with even one of your "4 technical degrees" can - Y not YOU ?

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

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