Simulations show Eurasia more than twice as likely to have harsh winters due to sea ice melting

October 27, 2014 by Bob Yirka, Phys.org report

Mosaic of images of the Arctic by MODIS. Credit: NASA
(Phys.org) —A team of researchers in Japan has found that Eurasia is twice as likely to experience severe winters over the next several decades because of melting Arctic sea ice. In their paper published in the journal Nature Geoscience, the researchers describe how they put together their computer model and why they believe that the harsher winters will only be temporary.

Prior studies have suggested that as the planet heats up due to , the amount of sea ice in the Arctic decreases (due to warming water). In this new effort the researchers built to model conditions over the past several decades, based on two separate scenarios—when ice levels were high, and when they were low. They then ran approximately 200 different simulations designed to forecast general weather trends over the next few decades for Europe and Asia using what was learned in the original modeling—they varied environmental factors and then watched what the simulations produced. Their simulations showed, they report, that the decline of in the Arctic Barents and Kara seas led to what they describe as blocking incidents—atmospheric circulation patterns—that led to colder air being pushed from the Arctic towards Eurasia which would quite naturally lead to harsher winters in that part of the world—twice as often as occurs now. They note that their findings agree with real-world weather data that has shown that Eurasia has been experiencing harsher winters in recent years.

The team notes that despite the apparent respite in global warming, changes continue unabated in the Arctic, as ice continues to melt. Prior research has suggested that the reason global warming has "paused" is because the ocean has been absorbing the excess heat. Increased heat in the atmosphere, in conjunction with smaller amounts of ice, they claim, will weaken high level winds that are part of the solar vortex which can cause changes to the jet stream which in turn can cause significant changes in winter temperatures across the northern hemisphere.

Arctic Sea Ice Illustration
This figure illustrates the extent to which Arctic sea ice is melting faster than projected by computer models. The dotted line represents the average rate of melting indicated by computer models, with the blue area indicating the spread among the different models (shown as plus/minus one standard deviation). The red line shows the actual rate of Arctic ice loss based on observations. The observations have been particularly accurate since 1979 because of new satellite technology. Credit: Steve Deyo, UCAR

The researchers don't believe the harsher winters will continue forever, however, as their models suggest that as global warming reaches a certain point, the higher temperatures will eventually override the impact of colder air moving into Eurasia.

Explore further: Study finds possible link between Arctic change and extreme mid-latitude weather

More information: Robust Arctic sea-ice influence on the frequent Eurasian cold winters in past decades, Nature Geoscience (2014) DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2277

Abstract
Over the past decade, severe winters occurred frequently in mid-latitude Eurasia, despite increasing global- and annual-mean surface air temperatures. Observations suggest that these cold Eurasian winters could have been instigated by Arctic sea-ice decline, through excitation of circulation anomalies similar to the Arctic Oscillation. In climate simulations, however, a robust atmospheric response to sea-ice decline has not been found, perhaps owing to energetic internal fluctuations in the atmospheric circulation6. Here we use a 100-member ensemble of simulations with an atmospheric general circulation model driven by observation-based sea-ice concentration anomalies to show that as a result of sea-ice reduction in the Barents–Kara Sea, the probability of severe winters has more than doubled in central Eurasia. In our simulations, the atmospheric response to sea-ice decline is approximately independent of the Arctic Oscillation. Both reanalysis data and our simulations suggest that sea-ice decline leads to more frequent Eurasian blocking situations, which in turn favour cold-air advection to Eurasia and hence severe winters. Based on a further analysis of simulations from 22 climate models we conclude that the sea-ice-driven cold winters are unlikely to dominate in a warming future climate, although uncertainty remains, due in part to an insufficient ensemble size.

Related Stories

Arctic sea ice helps remove CO2 from the atmosphere

September 22, 2014

Climate change is a fact, and most of the warming is caused by human activity. The Arctic is now so warm that the extent of sea ice has decreased by about 30 pct. in summer and in winter, sea ice is getting thinner. New research ...

Recommended for you

Paleontologists report world's biggest Tyrannosaurus rex

March 22, 2019

University of Alberta paleontologists have just reported the world's biggest Tyrannosaurus rex and the largest dinosaur skeleton ever found in Canada. The 13-metre-long T. rex, nicknamed "Scotty," lived in prehistoric Saskatchewan ...

NASA instruments image fireball over Bering Sea

March 22, 2019

On Dec. 18, 2018, a large "fireball—the term used for exceptionally bright meteors that are visible over a wide area—exploded about 16 miles (26 kilometers) above the Bering Sea. The explosion unleashed an estimated 173 ...

121 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

freethinking
1.9 / 5 (22) Oct 27, 2014
Don't worry, your simulations are as accurate as the temperature forcasts that AGW religionists have been using. The ones that showed that all the polar bears should have drowned by now, the ones that have said temperatures should have risen for the last 20 years.

But don't worry, you'll still get your funding for propaganda.... you linked your study onto AGW and we know that if you want funding for anything.... just link to AGW.

Steve 200mph Cruiz
4.1 / 5 (22) Oct 27, 2014
Freethinking, the idea people shouldn't get funding for climate research is asinine, every one wants to know what the weather is going to be like, it's a basic tenant of small talk.

Also why are you so mad the climate isn't completely destroyed yet?
Steve 200mph Cruiz
3.9 / 5 (18) Oct 27, 2014
Plus, Co2 retains more heat than they man constituent of our atmosphere, nitrogen. The atmosphere is only 62 miles thick, with most of it's mass concentrated at sea level because of gravity.

Fossils fuels are made of chemicals called hydrocarbons, various arrangements of carbons molecules surrounded by hydrogen. When say octane is ignited by the spark plugs in your car engine, all of the carbon atoms in that octane molecule split apart from each other and combine with the oxygen in the atmosphere forming 8 CO2 molecules from that one octane (octane has 8 carbons atoms in it).

Did I get something wrong some where? Can anyone refute any of these points?
MR166
2.1 / 5 (22) Oct 27, 2014
This is yet another example of weather predicting the outcome of climate simulations.

Don't get me wrong, I think that climate science is needed since it gives discredited astrologists and mystics a place to seek employment.
robertgr
1.8 / 5 (21) Oct 27, 2014
But with Antarctic sea ice at RECORD HIGHS and Arctic sea ice at five year highs there is little reason for concern.
gkam
3.3 / 5 (23) Oct 27, 2014
These Deniers are just kids having fun with stuff way over their heads, tying up real folk in these fora. All they have to do is look outside their mom's basement, and see reality.

Those of us with degrees in this field have seen them before.
gkam
3 / 5 (20) Oct 27, 2014
Hey, robertgr, get your "news" from Fox???

http://phys.org/n...ict.html
antigoracle
2.1 / 5 (18) Oct 27, 2014
Ha..ha..ha.. someone from the AGW Cult finally looked out their window.
gkam
2.6 / 5 (17) Oct 27, 2014
And here is what they saw:

http://phys.org/n...ict.html
MR166
2 / 5 (12) Oct 27, 2014
Gkam in response to your link I have this to say.

"Icebreakers like this nuclear-powered Russian ship help clear routes for commercial tankers crossing the Arctic. Credit: iStock"

Talk about comparing apples to oranges, using nuclear icebreakers to create shipping lanes does not prove that the Arctic is now navigable. If fact, I am willing to bet that this is more about politics and laying claim to the Arctic ocean than it is about economic shipping routes or melting ice.

gkam
2.4 / 5 (14) Oct 27, 2014
You lose. Just look it up, and not on Fox, or any other Denialist site.

Here's another; http://www.scienc...4957.htm

http://news.natio...=Content

http://www.skepti...ered.htm
JoeBlue
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2014
Oh look another article pointing the climate fluctuations right at the same target as last week, water currents.
JoeBlue
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2014
Plus, Co2 retains more heat than they man constituent of our atmosphere, nitrogen. The atmosphere is only 62 miles thick, with most of it's mass concentrated at sea level because of gravity.

Fossils fuels are made of chemicals called hydrocarbons, various arrangements of carbons molecules surrounded by hydrogen. When say octane is ignited by the spark plugs in your car engine, all of the carbon atoms in that octane molecule split apart from each other and combine with the oxygen in the atmosphere forming 8 CO2 molecules from that one octane (octane has 8 carbons atoms in it).

Did I get something wrong some where? Can anyone refute any of these points?


What do those points have to do with currents causing climate fluctuations, or even this article?
gkam
3 / 5 (16) Oct 27, 2014
JB, aren't you the guy who said water does not hold heat?

Aren't you the guy who called someone else an "undergrad"?

If you are looking for credibility, go where you are unknown.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
4.4 / 5 (10) Oct 27, 2014
What do those points have to do with currents causing climate fluctuations, or even this article?


I was talking to free thinking because he doesn't understand how we effect our climate.
The oceans are connected to the atmosphere in many ways. I know the oceans have been acidifying lately which I think is more alarming than the warming atmosphere.
JoeBlue
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2014
What do those points have to do with currents causing climate fluctuations, or even this article?


I was talking to free thinking because he doesn't understand how we effect our climate.
The oceans are connected to the atmosphere in many ways. I know the oceans have been acidifying lately which I think is more alarming than the warming atmosphere.


A lot of this is not the work of humans though, it's the work of natural cycles. I think the hysteria is a bit much, and that it is the responsibility of the people that are entertaining these thoughts to stay calm and rational about them.

When the hysteria gets the best of some people they behave rudely, and crass.
JoeBlue
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 27, 2014
JB, aren't you the guy who said water does not hold heat?

Aren't you the guy who called someone else an "undergrad"?

If you are looking for credibility, go where you are unknown.


How about you tell me your real name then first? You tell me you have a Master's, so your name should be searchable relatively easily.That way we can all say we know each other. My name is already out there, everyone can find out what my real name is very easily.

That way we can all be at risk of our reputations. When I post here I am posting with my reputation on the line. You anonymous jackasses can put up or shut up.
gkam
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 27, 2014
Is your real name Joe Blue?
gkam
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 27, 2014
"You tell me you have a Master's, so your name should be searchable relatively easily."
-------------------------------------

I wanted to find out, so I looked up the university I attended for my MS, and they use something called National Student Clearing House, and you have to be a "client". I guess the days of just calling the school are gone.
JoeBlue
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2014
"You tell me you have a Master's, so your name should be searchable relatively easily."
-------------------------------------

I wanted to find out, so I looked up the university I attended for my MS, and they use something called National Student Clearing House, and you have to be a "client". I guess the days of just calling the school are gone.


So now you make up stories to placate. If you have achieved a Master's; your Dissertation will be available.

I'm JoeBlue everywhere. If you need more than that to figure who I am, then you probably should not be on the internet.
gkam
2.5 / 5 (13) Oct 27, 2014
Oh, stop it. This one?

"Joe Blue denied admission to South Carolina"

He is the only one on the entire page.

BTW my thesis was assigned reading at the University in that program.
JoeBlue
2 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2014
Oh, stop it. This one?

"Joe Blue denied admission to South Carolina"

He is the only one on the entire page.

BTW my thesis was assigned reading at the University in that program.


That's what I thought. You are inept and a liar.
gkam
2.7 / 5 (12) Oct 27, 2014
Sorry you missed it, because it showed how to take off-the-shelf components and create a system that outputs ethanol, cattle feed supplements, hot water, nutrients for field application, and excess electricity, and is run on pollution. It was in 1982.

The point was the proper integration of alternative energy for synergy.

Be a nice boy, and I'll tell you how i did it.
Water_Prophet
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2014
Yeah, so this model completely failed to astonish me. Why do we need models for the obvious? Ice sinks heat. Cold water, 0 C, moves cooling surroundings. You don't need a bleedin' computer. Not even for the fronts it creates, just a map.

@JoeBlue, here's yhe thing about "natural cycles;" they are all caused by something. They don't just happen because, I am sure we both know Le Chateliers Principle. Things caused previous cycles: Volcanos, evolution of blue-green algae, variations in the Sun, something.

So what you need to ask or answer is, what is causing it under these conditions? CO2 is at a peak, the Sun is at a LOCAL peak, yet we have a pause. Or we have the warmest weather on record, depending who you believe.

I still find it amazing with the excessive heat waves that there have been so few deaths due to heat exhaustion, brown outs, etc..

Perhaps Fox news isn't the only poor source of information.(?)

Submitted for your consideration.
runrig
4 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2014
Bye bye freethinking
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 27, 2014
But with Antarctic sea ice at RECORD HIGHS and Arctic sea ice at five year highs there is little reason for concern.

And why would that be then???

Your simplistic, science free thinking links sea-ice (NB the VERY important word - SEA there) to temperature and nothing else.

runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 27, 2014
Bye bye Anti...
And remember I cant read any reply to this from you
Lost patience my friend.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 27, 2014
This is actually nothing new, and just restates what I have posted for a few years now.
If any ( reasonable ) skeptic would like me to expand on this article, be my guest and ask.

I, of course, cannot view comments by the deniers who used to (at least to me) frequent this site.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 27, 2014
This is yet another example of weather predicting the outcome of climate simulations.

Don't get me wrong, I think that climate science is needed since it gives discredited astrologists and mystics a place to seek employment.


MR:
As you have shown the occasional glimmer of comprehension - I will not ignore your comments.

Whether you welcome that or not I care not.
Just saying.
MR166
2.8 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2014
Rig I enjoy a good fact based discussion so yes I do welcome that.
dustywells
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2014
Yeah, so this model completely failed to astonish me. .
An article about GW without the A and without CO2 even.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2014
Yeah, so this model completely failed to astonish me. .
An article about GW without the A and without CO2 even.

bye bye
dustywells
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2014
Yeah, so this model completely failed to astonish me. .
An article about GW without the A and without CO2 even.

bye bye

If your mind is so convinced, why do you waste your time reading these postings?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2014
This is actually nothing new, and just restates what I have posted for a few years now.
If any ( reasonable ) skeptic would like me to expand on this article, be my guest and ask.

I, of course, cannot view comments by the deniers who used to (at least to me) frequent this site.

If I am still on the list, you know I am always open to new ideas, or at least to debate them;) I'd like to hear it, or have a memory-jogger.
Water_Prophet
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2014
@Steve200mph
1.Co2 retains more heat...
2.Fossils fuels ... 8 CO2 molecules from that one octane (octane has 8 carbons atoms in it).
...Can anyone refute any of these points?


Despite what many say, I know mankind is changing the climate, so don't lump me into the denier camp. Feel free to lump me in the lunatic camp...
1.Yes, water, is a much more powerful GHG than CO2. H2O is currently acknowledged, as being 70% more important. CO2 would have to be about 10x more concentrated for effects to be felt. Now, I also don't believe water is a contributor, more of a savior of course :) CO2 a "weak" GHG increased 135ppm, water ~40x stronger has increased about 435ppm, yet no proportionate effect.
2.It is a perfect storm isn't it? CO2 + H2O + released heat. I believe the last is the only relevant factor, as counter intuitive as it sounds. Heat is captured by the environment, and via thermodynamics, is absorbed into colder reservoirs, aka global ice. Out of space...
richard_f_cronin
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2014
Aaww, man !?! How is this so hard to understand ? Warm waters vaporize greater amount of water vapor which ascend into the troposphere, condense to rain, releasing the heat of vaporization into deep space. In polar regions, the water droplets form snow, releasing the heat of fusion into deep space. Melting Arctic ice and greater snow in Siberia ? Shocked !! Shocked, I say ! Water is a far greater greenhouse gas than CO2, but as water goes thru phase change, it is any even a more powerful cooling agent as it goes thru phase change.
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 27, 2014

If your mind is so convinced, why do you waste your time reading these postings?


To read about new research and, hopefully, get some intelligent discussion. Believe it or not, not everything is known about global warming/climate change or evolution or quantum mechanics or any other well established science. But the incessant "the planet hasn't warmed for the last 20 years" (it has), or "waste heat is the cause of global warming" (it isn't), or "it's AWT" as the reason for anything, or actual creationists, or any of the other inane comments is too annoying. The ignore button may actually make phys.org a useful website.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2014
A lot of this is not the work of humans though, it's the work of natural cycles
@JOEBLOW
http://www.skepti...ycle.htm
it is the responsibility of the people that are entertaining these thoughts to stay calm and rational about them
the overwhelming amount of science out there says that there is global warming
http://iopscience.../article
the scientists even ruled out natural cycles (seen in the above link) and started looking for what is forcing the warming
http://www.scienc...abstract

it is not hysteria to:
-promote good science
-prove where something exists
-show studies proving a point
-scientifically validate a known problem

it is conspiratorial as well as delusional to ignore the science for the sake of peer pressure, ignorance or politics though
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

quit hiding your head in the sand
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 28, 2014
freethinking claimed
Don't worry, your simulations are as accurate as the temperature forcasts that AGW religionists have been using... the ones that have said temperatures should have risen for the last 20 years.
They have risen for last 20yrs here is the data:-
http://woodfortre....9/trend

Why do you keep claiming religion, science is based on evidence, foundations for hundreds of years - no deity, no dogma !

Are you ill or paid to sell your integrity so easily ?

freethinking further claimed
But don't worry, you'll still get your funding for propaganda....
Such as yours from oil companies that decline to accept AGW AND make huge amounts of money such as:-
http://en.wikiped...d_losses

Enough to pay robots like you a few million at least to promote a political agenda.

Show evidence measurements have political bias ?
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 28, 2014
MR166 lied openly, blatantly & without consideration of how stupid he looks
This is yet another example of weather predicting the outcome of climate simulations.
No.
How is historical evidence of ice extent (eg Graph illustration) reducing for decades an example of weather - there is decline, why can't you see that ?

Are you physically & intellectually blind ?

MR166 muttered platitude to excuse his stupidity but failed
Don't get me wrong, I think that climate science is needed since it gives discredited astrologists and mystics a place to seek employment.
You confused with astronomy & why reference self styled prophets - are you also quite sick ?

Science is about evidence in relation to hypotheses connected by mathematics & is obviously an iterative process ultimately probabilistic & fortunately asymptotic !

Why can you not see such, the physical sciences are a practical expression of advanced philosophy of enquiry shared by intelligent researchers ?
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2014
Mike the truth is Progressives WANT AGW, if they can't get AGW they will fabricate it.
The truth is IF you want funding for any research link that research to AGW.
The truth is AGW is not settled, there is a lot of evidence against it.

The truth is Al Gore, the Democrats and the other AGW elite are either liars or hypocrites. They say one thing then live another and demand us plebs to live another.

So what is it, are the AGW elite hypocrites or liars. Since they are democrats and progressives the answer is obvious. They are both.

As for paid trolls. Google Paid Progressive Government Trolls.
MR166
1.3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2014
"You confused with astronomy...."

No mike astronomy is a real science!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mike_Massen
3.6 / 5 (14) Oct 28, 2014
freethinking with politics
Mike the truth is Progressives WANT AGW, if they can't get AGW they will fabricate it.
Have never come across the term 'progressives' in all my scientific training for decades. Please affirm a scientific definition ?
The truth is IF you want funding for any research link that research to AGW.
There is far more spent on military, tobacco & oil, I know, my son is a chemical engineer.
.. is a lot of evidence against it.
Evidence means objective !
Top 5 please ?
AND 1 of them MUST show CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas. We know its rising & we know it has proven thermal properties !

freethinking you obviously have NO basic training in physics, therefore you are easily led & find it easier to mouth off vague politics.

When people focus on the Science at its core they become immune to propaganda - try it ?

& also for MR166 your obtuse dumb post shows you don't know what climate science is based upon.

Heat, flow, combinatorial complexity !
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Oct 28, 2014
@Mike
They have risen for last 20yrs here is the data:-
http://woodfortre....9/trend
The data appears to be reasonably good. However the trend line is wrong. It fails to account for the spike in 1998 caused by a change in equipment. See
http://en.wikiped...ing_unit
and
http://en.wikiped...ing_Unit
dustywells
5 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2014
@Mike
They have risen for last 20yrs here is the data:-
http://woodfortre....9/trend
Sorry, I only saw the graph initially and responded to that. I went back and looked at the options on the right side of that page. I will have to spend more time there.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2014
@freethinking:
I always tell people: You want proof for AGW, you're soaking in it. Is the climate the same as it was even 10 years ago?
The answer is no, especially in those places where you would expect change, coasts, Horse latitudes, etc.
It is also yes, some places have not experienced much change. Most have experienced change, and let's face it, the Earth changes slowly. *Things* change the Earth quickly-volcanoes, meteors. What things are changing now?
There is really only one variable, though, if you can postulate others, I will be fascinated.

September, was a cold month prior to say, 1988ish. Not anymore.
The NE is warmer and wetter.
The case of the Pacific NW is interesting: More extreme temperate variations, more snow, less rain as time progresses.
Etc., but it is dramatic change, at least in terms of what the Earth would do without some kind of driver(s).
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 29, 2014
dustywells replied
@Mike
They have risen for last 20yrs here is the data:-
(as linked)
Sorry, I only saw the graph initially ... I will have to spend more time there.
NP.
As I mentioned to "freethinking" (here or other thread) land data is only one *small* part of the whole picture.

Mathematics of specific heat (SH) does not lie, it has been experimentally proven many times for >100yrs, nothing ever found to disprove it. Any 1st yr uni student can try, none has succeeded, it is the essence of the properties of materials & is "agreed" as a fundamental & therefore there is a consensus or rather an acceptance it is certain, this SH applies also to CO2 AND its also irrefutable thermal properties.

Oceans (ie mass & material) has ~4000x specific heat of atmosphere. So here is the problem deniers CANNOT understand:-

If Atmosphere doesnt change much whilst oceans go up say 0.06 deg C then this is a huge increase in heat due to the ~4000x ie. A long term worry !
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2014
OK Mike lets just assume that the pause is due to SH of the oceans. If that is true why did all but a few of the climate models predict global yearly air temperature increases that were more or less proportional to the increase in CO2 concentrations?

Are you trying to tell me that the models could have discounted the SH of the oceans?
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 29, 2014
MR166 suggested
OK Mike lets just assume that the pause is due to SH of the oceans.
No, its not anywhere near that simple. Bear in mind SH of water hasnt changed but there is less ice mass & more ice that is melting & we know from physics SH of melting ice is 150x that of ice & 75x that of water add to that more fresh water affecting currents.

So the equations must include 3 factors, SH of ice (2), melting ice (330), water (4) & how the relative masses change also changing currents over time WHILST CO2 is also rising.

MR166 went on
If that is true why did all but a few of the climate models predict global yearly air temperature increases that were more or less proportional to the increase in CO2 concentrations?
Since its much more complex than you implied above any apparent correlation may be superficial & an oversimplification by the committees that approve various models.

continued
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 29, 2014
continued

MR166 stated
Are you trying to tell me that the models could have discounted the SH of the oceans?
No, again not that simple. Bear in mind the oceans only have one effective layer of interaction with atmosphere so that means relative heat flows are well constrained in comparative terms. What is far more likely, given the models are close & closer than most claim, is that the ocean to atmosphere interaction is a little higher re heat flow over those time scales. ie You don't have to have that much *change* given the vast surface area available !

Clearly improved measurements will show just where the ocean current surface mixing (over the globe) with down-welling & especially so in respect of more fresh water being colder ie Just come off melting ice will allow moderate adjustment & it doesnt have to be much.

The fact that the upper oceans HAVE warmed supports the increased mixing hypothesis because it is consistent with less atmospheric temp rise.
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 29, 2014
dustywells offered
..The data appears to be reasonably good. However the trend line is wrong. It fails to account for the spike in 1998 caused by a change in equipment. See
http://en.wikiped...ing_unit
&
http://en.wikiped...ing_Unit
What is wrong with the trend line, too high or too low or some combination & what aspect of causality of the "change in equipment" relates to that, is the measurement more precise suggesting earlier is less so ?

There is more than one data set isnt there ?

What do you think of the notes section shown here:-
http://www.woodfo...rg/notes
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2014
Mike everything that you have mentioned was known 100s of years ago and SHOULD have been included in the climate models. If they are unable to quantify any of what you mentioned then the models ,by definition, are faulty.

Most of the models predicted temps well above today's levels and none of them predicted a pause. Don't play dumb, I know that you are familiar with the UN and their models.
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 29, 2014
MR166 simplistic yet AGAIN
Mike everything that you have mentioned was known 100s of years ago & SHOULD have been included in the climate models.
Its not a matter of a couple of people adding what they want, it might be fine for an enthusiast who is toying privately with a few equations - that is not how climate models, that are used by major organizations, are constructed.

There are procedures. Whatever needs to be included is & I am satisfied with that but, you don't understand your simplistic view betrays expectation of a 'static', the chaotic nature of how air/ocean currents can & do change is unpredictable WHILST integration proves heat is still rising.

ie The process by which the major models used for reporting are crafted & tweaked is ALSO not simple as U imply.

It bothers me MR166 that you always downplay any sort of combinatorial complexity, is that because when young U were unlucky to be exposed to interesting & complex thoughts. sorry :-(
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 29, 2014
cont

MR166 with more oversimplification
If they are unable to quantify any of what you mentioned then the models ,by definition, are faulty.
The methodology of changing such things as coefficients & algorithms that support them AND how they are coded are not subject to a dictatorship. There is committee & subject to something akin to democratic process & weighting various factors.

Do you understand MR166, it is far more complex than you imagine, how can anyone quantify a competitive series of algorithms that affect a series of coefficients AND include the complexity of tracking error bars at each step of the process before a singular prediction is pumped out ?

MR166 claimed
Most of the models predicted temps well above today's levels and none of them predicted a pause.
What do U mean by 'well above' Eg 20 deg or 0,5 ?
Not all model outputs are reported by media, they have the unfortunate habit of addressing the lowest common denominator uneducated public.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 29, 2014
the truth is Progressives WANT AGW
@freefromthought
it doesn't matter what anyone "wants"
it only matters what can be proven with empirical data
the science says that AGW is real, and your continued head-up-your-rear-end attitude ignoring the blatantly obvious simply marks you as delusional and anti-science

there is empirical evidence that big companies pay anti-AGW's to undermine and obfuscate actual real science in this study: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

this means that the only PAID trolls here are the ones posting against the science, not the ones supporting the science, the empirical evidence and the studies

and who cares about that idiot gore?
i don't know a single person/scientist that follows his example

the only people that seem to be fascinated with him are the anti-agw idiots so that they can generate straw/man arguments and red herrings obfuscating the science
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 29, 2014
cont

MR166 with oh so naive assumption
Don't play dumb, I know that you are familiar with the UN and their models.
No.
I don't make a point of keeping up to date on any models. I only see occasional reference to them being close enough to expectations (within error bars). Its only 1 of my hobbies.

Did you know accepted climate models are better than weather predictions ?

Why deniers claim they are wrong or fail its so redneck stoopid ?

ie. Do you complain to weather forecasting groups such as in Australia predicting a 30 C day with 20% chance of rain that the temp only got to 26 deg C & it didn't rain ?

I've told you before models are probabilistic & asymptotic, did u not learn what that means ?

Are you totally unread, uneducated, untrained, forgetful & not able to consider the world of high level educated enthusiasts working on complex maths is far more widespread & entertains far more inter-related permutations than you can ever appreciate !
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2014
"Do you understand MR166, it is far more complex than you imagine, how can anyone quantify a competitive series of algorithms that affect a series of coefficients AND include the complexity of tracking error bars at each step of the process before a singular prediction is pumped out ?"

Well Mike if they are unable to do that then the models are faulty. Thanks for finally admitting that.

Today they are blaming faulty models on ocean oscillations and heretofore unknown , as in not included in the models, ocean heat transfer. So let me ask you if unknown oscillations are causing the pause, how can they prove that the same oscillations did not cause the warming of the past 50 years?
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 29, 2014
MR166 totally missed the point & fell into same pattern being overly simplistic AGAIN
Well Mike if they are unable to do that then the models are faulty. Thanks for finally admitting that.
You did say "unable to do that" didnt you ? Do you realise its clear you didnt understand what I said ?

Read it again, take it slower, I know its hard without years of training applying technical language to complex problems, likely not your direct fault, sorry !

You should notice my question to you is in relation to the decision making process of arriving at small parts of models. Obviously essentials are well quantified as they are based on the fundamentals of the full gamut of heat, specific heat, GHG properties etc Get it ????

Obviously, all these are subject to coefficients & they cannot be in any deterministic paradigm, they must by necessity be probabilistic & its proven it has asymptotic progress, that is how Science works.

Please answer my questions posed.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (10) Oct 29, 2014
MR166 didnt read my posts to question this
Today they are blaming faulty models on ocean oscillations and heretofore unknown, as in not included in the models, ocean heat transfer. So let me ask you if unknown oscillations are causing the pause, how can they prove that the same oscillations did not cause the warming of the past 50 years?
I covered most but not the 'ifs', you didnt notice or had patience to digest my reply.

I informed re ocean/air interface, surface interactions, chaotic influences, please factor in comparative specific heats as I suggested ?

Why be so simple MR166, try relating several complex components of influences together & draw their relationships, a star diagram with weighting might be a good start or a causal graph relating how one aspect influences another etc.

Surely you got the grounding in how to handle things somewhere in school, are you out of practice ?

Please re-read my posts, just be patient & kind to yourself & it will sink in...
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (10) Oct 29, 2014
MR166 claims a lot but is thin on evidence AGAIN
Today they are blaming faulty models on ocean oscillations and heretofore unknown , as in not included in the models, ocean heat transfer.
Who is this "they" ?
What "ocean oscillations" - periodic, aperiodic, influenced by what, frequency, amplitude ?
Ocean heat transfers are major component of models, did you not see my comment re chaotic issues - did u get tired perhaps ?

MR166
So let me ask you if unknown oscillations are causing the pause, how can they prove that the same oscillations did not cause the warming of the past 50 years?
I know nothing of these claimed "unknown oscillations" !

Described where ?

Linked reports ?

Who makes these claims, blog from a denier site perhaps ?

Who is this "they" that claims anything about the "same" but "unknown" oscillations ?

Why are you so easily manipulated by badly crafted language ?

Here is advice, learn basic Science of heat - then you won't be misled !
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2014
Mike listening to you is like listening to Professor Erwin Corey.

Let me put the climate models failures in terms that you can understand.

If the models were not an abject failure there would not be 50 different reasons offered for there inability to predict the pause.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (10) Oct 29, 2014
MR166 with another imaginary 'if'
If the models were not an abject failure there would not be 50 different reasons offered for there inability to predict the pause.
How do you define a failure - out by only a fraction of a degree per year ?

Did u not read my post comparing climate models to weather predictions ?

Why forgetful, do you especially not read posts designed to educate you ?

What "50 different"?

You have been misled again but, damn lucky I spend some time educating you, sorry u missed out on high school re physics :-(

Suggest you spend your time more wisely, review the fundamentals in concert with how any models are constructed.

Here's a thought, study electronic fuel injection computers managing engines, they control depending on a software model. They are pretty good but STILL have a feedback element (O2 sensor) & guess what, their variance is worse than climate models in terms of error bars.

They are also probabilistic but not seen as failures !
dustywells
1 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2014
Hey, Mike, how about answering MR166's questions instead of attacking him with a bunch of bull? Simple enough for you to understand?
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2014
Trillions in carbon taxes proposed, and so the reason for the "science" becomes clear.

http://ecowatch.c...bon-tax/

I love the part where they have it already spent on SS and forgiving student loans.
dustywells
1 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2014
MR166 with more oversimplification
If they are unable to quantify any of what you mentioned then the models ,by definition, are faulty.
The methodology of changing such things as coefficients & algorithms that support them AND how they are coded are not subject to a dictatorship. There is committee & subject to something akin to democratic process & weighting various factors.
Is that AGW science? A show of hands as to what parameters to include and what to ignore and what to weight heavily? LOL
gkam
3 / 5 (10) Oct 29, 2014
Why do you folk play these semantic games with dusty? He is obviously a kid or an adult with no life of his own.

It's a game to him and the ones I block now.
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 30, 2014
dustywells didn't notice
Hey, Mike, how about answering MR166's questions instead of attacking him with a bunch of bull? Simple enough for you to understand?
I've asked MR166 lots of questions but, he only responds with questions based on assumptions arising from propaganda, not helpful to the discussion.

MR166 proposed taxes are propaganda based speak.

Decision to raise taxes is independent of the fundamentals of Science of heat which is the backbone of climate change investigation.

Please guys focus on science, leave the propaganda to the bad media.

When u get an good education is science you are immune to propaganda, especially of the polarized bad type all deniers favour BECAUSE they cannot focus on the Science.

Education Please !
runrig
5 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2014
Why do you folk play these semantic games with dusty? He is obviously a kid or an adult with no life of his own.

It's a game to him and the ones I block now.

yep have done...
he'll have to shout a lot louder for me to see his denialist bollocks
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2014
Trillions in carbon taxes proposed, and so the reason for the "science" becomes clear.

http://ecowatch.c...bon-tax/

I love the part where they have it already spent on SS and forgiving student loans.


MR: trillions would be spent on any measure to change a paradime on this planet.
That does not change the fundamentals... the science - and the need for change.

If only from a pollution standpoint.

The infrastructure need building and to do that an economy of scale is required. When built the fuel is free.... forever. Until the Earth gets swallowed by the Sun.
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2014
gkam said
Why do you folk play these semantic games with dusty? He is obviously a kid or an adult with no life of his own.

It's a game to him and the ones I block now.

runrig replied
yep have done...
he'll have to shout a lot louder for me to see his denialist bollocks
Just as any religious faithful would react.

"You must not question or mock the priest/imam/pope/prophet or you will be excommunicated/ostracized/rejected/shunned."
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 30, 2014
dustywells claimed with a misplaced satire attempt
Just as any religious faithful would react.
"You must not question or mock the priest/imam/pope/prophet ..."
Surely Religion is based upon an all powerful creator deity & laid down arbitrary dogma never proven.

The fundamentals of climate change as influenced by humans (AGW) are subject to test ie CO2 has particular vibrational states which lead to the molecule re-radiating long wave radiation.

No deity stops you doing any tests or learning mathematics to qualify those tests properly, therefore by virtue of the definition, Science is not a religion, it goes back in mature form for ~200 years, which deity started "doing their thing" back then ?

dustywells, why do you think all deniers of AGW cannot answer this simple question:-

"How can adding a greenhouse gas such as CO2 to the atmosphere with known thermal properties of re-radiation NOT increase thermal resistivity ?"

Convergence on truth please :-)
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2014
If any of you think that the main stream media is not a tool being used to program you here is a little article that might wake you up.

http://www.zerohe...am-media
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2014
dustywells, why do you think all deniers of AGW cannot answer this simple question:-
Because CO2 does increase thermal resistivity. The question is simply an attempt to deflect and distract.
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2014
dustywells claimed with a misplaced satire attempt
Just as any religious faithful would react.
"You must not question or mock the priest/imam/pope/prophet ..."
Surely Religion is based upon an all powerful creator deity & laid down arbitrary dogma never proven.
Not satire. Comparison.

It is never the deity that punishes the questioner, it is the faithful who are unable to defend the deity who refuse to associate with the doubter and will attempt to remove him/her from their society.
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2014
I guess that he is not among the 97%.

http://www.breitb...rofessor
runrig
5 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2014
MR:
from your Professor...
"Climate models linking human CO2 output to rising temperatures are unreliable, he writes. "Conclusion: our addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere does not appear to be increasing Earth's temperature. Whatever is happening to Earth's climate does not seem to be our fault."

Conclusion actually is>>>
Climate models are NOT empirical science. Read what Mike's being saying about that.
The man plainly does not understand what GCM's can and (importantly) cannot do.

At the very least he is ignorant of the oceans as a heat sink.
Sad really that a supposed intelligent man feels the need to speak so ignorantly on something plainly not his specialism.
As I keep saying the 3% are generally accounted for by human nature - There's no accounting for it.
runrig
5 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2014
If any of you think that the main stream media is not a tool being used to program you here is a little article that might wake you up.

http://www.zerohe...am-media

Also....
http://mediamatte...e/197612
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2014
dustywells offered
Because CO2 does increase thermal resistivity.
Thats great you accept the Science, unfortunately many people Eg Water_Prophet who claimed to have a uni degree in physical science doesn't accept that

dustywells
The question is simply an attempt to deflect and distract.
CO2 is the fundamental issue at the core of climate change, it cannot distract from AGW - it is one of the core tenets. Is your choice of words perhaps careless ?

MR166
If any of you think that the main stream media is not a tool being used to program you here is a little article that might wake you up.
This is WHY Science education is so important, you become immune to ANY propaganda as you learn to interpret maths & the physical sciences reliably + you develop skill to conduct your OWN experiments :-)

Doing the common things MR166 like other political deniers does you no credit.

When you focus on the Science you cannot be manipulated by ANY politics !
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 30, 2014
dustywells got mixed up with definitions again
It is never the deity that punishes the questioner, it is the faithful who are unable to defend the deity who refuse to associate with the doubter and will attempt to remove him/her from their society.
You claimed AGW is a religion, which has a (claimed) deity by definition as no deity has been exposed by you to follow your claim then AGW cannot be a religion - this is extrapolation of definition countering attempt at logic of your claim.

Religion is NOT about experiment, Science is.

YOU dustywells, with a little skill can construct your own experiment to determine the truth.

No religion can ever do that, do you understand now, they/you are not in the same league.
runrig
5 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2014
If any of you think that the main stream media is not a tool being used to program you here is a little article that might wake you up.


The PhysOrg edit gremlin strikes.
Again:

MR: there is another view on that my friend. The one not coloured by your bias....

http://en.wikiped...d_States

http://www.eci.ox...latn.pdf

http://mediamatte...e/197612

The above but just a few.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2014
runrig triggered a clarification, tah
Climate models are NOT empirical science. Read what Mike's being saying about that.
to put this in as straightforward terms as possible for dustywells & MR166 & the other unfortunate deniers who imagine you don't need education to challenge the language & the fundamentals of AGW..

"The science is settled" means essentially the fundamentals, ie The core tenets, the basis such as; CO2 (& other gases) thermal properties, specific heat, thermodynamics, statistical mechanics etc

What is "Not settled" is the management of that Science & obviously how it is applied, it is asymptotic.

ie. High level models are a collection of the works of many, each with interest & often specialisation in particular parts, they are immensely complex & despite dumb claims are rather good down to fractions of a degree.

But, deniers should know that no credible scientist would claim any model is proof, the only proof is evidence...
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2014
dustywells did you take the logic of your acceptance of CO2 further following this concession ?
Because CO2 does increase thermal resistivity.
This means you understand the irrefutable science of thermal properties of re-radiation in respect of heat flow ?

From high school experience Eg USA if some general science philosophy & practical applications of "resistivity" is taught, then you would accept an increase in resistivity is reflected by an increase in potential.

With electronics the resistivity is a resistor, results in increased voltage.
With hydraulics resistivity is a restriction, results in higher pressure.
With heat the resistivity is re-radiation, results in higher temperature.

Water_Prophet cannot accept this basic Science and walks around it by spouting a 'belief', obviously Science is not about belief it is about "balance of probabilities" based upon evidence connected with the theory.

So how can you claim there is no AGW if you accept resistivity ?
runrig
5 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2014
For those really interested in the causation path for High latitude blocking and consequent cold plunges of air to more southerly regions than the norm - read the post by Steve Murr here...

https://forum.net...e/page-3

Go to the start of the thread for a more involved assessment.
gkam
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2014
I said: "Why do you folk play these semantic games with dusty? He is obviously a kid or an adult with no life of his own."
----------------------------------------------

Sorry, dusty, I meant MR166
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2014
With heat the resistivity is re-radiation, results in higher temperature.

Water_Prophet cannot accept this basic Science and walks around it by spouting a 'belief', obviously Science is not about belief it is about "balance of probabilities" based upon evidence connected with the theory.

So how can you claim there is no AGW if you accept resistivity ?
As I said elsewhere, I accept ACC and we do have massive evidence of ACC.

AGW on the other hand has not been proven to my satisfaction. It assumes that the blanket of CO2 is the only/major change and ignores the change in climate. As climate changes, other factors that affect insolation and re-radiation also change, negating the effect of CO2.

Anthropogenic warming occurs on a local scale, such as urban heat islands or deforestation or agriculture. But on a global scale, the planet has checks and balances.
gkam
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2014
Dusty, I have been watching this for decades. I think we have overcome the checks and balances, which is why the climate is changing.
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2014
Dusty, I have been watching this for decades. I think we have overcome the checks and balances, which is why the climate is changing.

But climate change is not a failure of the checks and balances, it is a part of them.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2014
Just as any religious faithful would react.
@dustybrain
no, a faith would ignore evidence that is proven and in front of them for the sake of clinging to a belief, like ignoring AGW when this is available:
http://www.scienc...abstract

you are reacting like a faith based acolyte, not the others

Why do you folk play these semantic games with dusty?
He is obviously a kid or an adult with no life of his own.

It's a game to him and the ones I block now.

yep have done...
he'll have to shout a lot louder for me to see his denialist bollocks
@Runrig
@Gkam
considering that he has yet to provide any empirical evidence
proof
or even a logical reason that is not based upon semantics, fear, conspiracy and redefining modern well known words and acronyms, I am seriously considering it
it is bad enough having people argue against empirical evidence without any proof, but to have them completely redefine the lexicon at will?
WOW

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2014
If any of you think that the main stream media is not a tool being used to program you here is a little article that might wake you up.

http://www.zerohe...am-media
@mr166

the media is being manipulated: by those with money and a vested interest in undermining the science... like here:
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

and just because you link a fringe website that you believe supports your ideals doesn't mean that it is all empirically proven or true
there could be an agenda (all news agencies have one- especially now that they are owned by a few people)

scientific studies work hard at being objective
which is why science trumps agenda driven fringe web-sites
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2014
It is obvious to me that this discussion will never be settled by even 30 years of colder than normal weather since there will always be a new cause for it and we will always face an apocalypse when the "normal" CO2 created weather finally returns.

BTW colder than "normal" weather can is considered an anomaly since climate science knows everything there is to know about solar cycles, ocean oscillations, cloud forcings, and all of the various climate feedback loops both positive and negative.

If you ask me, running out of low cost fossil fuels before viable alternatives are found is a much bigger threat to mankind than CO2.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2014
It is never the deity that punishes the questioner, it is the faithful who are unable to defend the deity who refuse to associate with the doubter and will attempt to remove him/her from their society
@dusty
i am glad you put this up here
why are people ignoring reality for companies that hide their money?

here is one reason
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx
and another
http://arstechnic...nformed/

this is not a game, religion, political point or "belief without evidence" (which is a faith, the precursor to a religious organization)

this is science

the companies that have a vested interest in making sh*t loads of cash by undermining the science are hiding behind the scenes making good people think there is a problem with the science

the problem is the companies and their profits
not the science
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2014
It is obvious to me that this discussion will never be settled
@mr
as long as there are people like you willing to ignore the evidence and the science for the sake of a few bucks, their peers, some other irrational belief system or just out of ignorance, then there will never be a resolution

not because the science is bad
or that we know "knows everything there is to know" [sic]
but because there are those who would hide their heads in the sand and baltantly ignore reality around them for the sake of a few bucks or the feedback they get trolling science sites with non-empirical evidence

I am seriously considering adding you to the ignore user because you have YET to refute any studies with any science, and continually bash reasonable scientific discourse without logical arguments or links
in fact, all you do is argue and post politically charged or fringe sites like rygg...
making you... what?

argue with science!
this is a science site, not a chat room
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2014
Capt. lets face it any site to the right of MoveOn.org, CNN or MSNBC you consider a "Fringe" site. I know that you consider FOX news to be a "Terror" site that is on par with ISIS as far as you are concerned.

antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2014
Simulations show.....

Reality proves the AGW Cult's simulations to be abject failures.
Why? Because they are all based on the same al.gor.e.dumb.
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2014
I just love how the warmists here defend the faulty climate simulations by claiming they are not based on empirical data and that they are within the "error bands". Well most of them are outside or very close to these bands. What excuse will you cling to when these bands prove the programs to be wrong????
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 30, 2014
dustywells beginning in Science, MR166 take note
As I said elsewhere, I accept ACC and we do have massive evidence of ACC.
I take it U mean Anthropomorphic Climate Change (ACC).

From your approach its obvious as U indicated & seen as a "local effect" could U say its self-evident then ?

Question then, if U sum more locals when does it reach global, especially as Greenhouse gases (GHGs) R present in ALL local areas - do U mean >50% earth's surface area - land AND oceans makes it 'global' - what metric ?

dustywells
AGW on the other hand has not been proven to my satisfaction.
Are U claiming rising land & ocean temperatures integrated over the planet are not sufficiently "satisfying" ?

GHG's (incl H2O) R proven to add thermal flow resistivity. therefore temperatures Must rise unless your "checks & balances" either; reduce insolation OR increase radiation to space to offset ALL that extra GHG resistivity, do you see that ?

Do you accept that proposition ?
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 30, 2014
MR166
..love how the warmists here defend the faulty climate simulations by claiming they are not based on empirical data and that they are within the "error bands"
ANY model, Eg Electronic Fuel Injection (EFI) CPU's - R 'sampled data systems" with error bars - they can't predict exact chaotic combustion behavior in chambers BUT, they DO predict power (integration).

ie
U can drive & expect ~same acceleration/speed each time U press accelerator by ~ approx amount, understand ?

As stated, fundamentals of AGW "The Science is settled" & Proven so. Obviously true (& refer control systems) that

"The management of the Science is NOT settled"

Eg early EFI, larger error bars, higher emissions.

Do U see MR166, even with feedback systems - ALL models R asymptotic ?

MR166 claimed
Well most of them are outside or very close to these bands.
Evidence PLEASE ?

MR166, U make arbitrary claims but NO evidence, just barking angry complaint, can u be smarter please.
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2014
"GHG's (incl H2O) R proven to add thermal flow resistivity. therefore temperatures Must rise unless your "checks & balances" either; reduce insolation OR increase radiation to space to offset ALL that extra GHG resistivity, do you see that ?"

So now AGW includes H2O. In other words evaporation is man's fault and the warming that is causes is part of AGW.

I have news for you the warming effect of clouds has not been proven to be true in the overall heat balance of the planet. In fact, cloud cover is more likely to be part of a negative feedback loop.
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 30, 2014
MR166 missed the point claiming
So now AGW includes H2O.
It always has, is it new to U, if U read some of the links offered U on phys.org U would know !

Oh & Ignored ugly propaganda, it's why education is essential, so U don't get misled by bad opinion blurts.

MR166 further claimed
In other words evaporation is man's fault and the warming that is causes is part of AGW
Your logic is flawed. Properties of materials R no-ones fault, well unless they R unnatural compounds emitted maliciously.

MR166 muttered
I have news for you the warming effect of clouds has not been proven to be true in the overall heat balance of the planet.
This is why education (& taking time to think before posting) is SO important.

BULK of H2O in atmosphere is vapor ie Gas, NOT suspended droplets as in clouds.

MR166 almost got there
In fact, cloud cover is more likely to be part of a negative feedback loop.
Sure, potentially, smart to find the comparative values ?
MR166
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2014
Damm,,,,, In my effort to save the world I promise to shut off my tea kettle one minute after it starts to boil. After all we would not want to increase the amount of H2O in the atmosphere and incinerate the earth.
Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (11) Oct 30, 2014
MR166 finally relaxed his invective with a considered thought
Damm,,,,, In my effort to save the world I promise to shut off my tea kettle one minute after it starts to boil. After all we would not want to increase the amount of H2O in the atmosphere and incinerate the earth.
Hmmm...

Although its fairly likely largest effects won't happen for several decades, as equilibria changes there are going to be any number of odd chaotic effects. The strangest but likely is passivation with oceans continuing to absorb heat & more subsurface whilst ice continues to melt further decreasing salinity.

We use a lot of ocean food, balance of food chain is already under stress, mainly over-fishing & pollution (plastic islands), adding to stress with increased temps & higher CO2 affects lower life forms more as food for the fish we eat. ie Long term troubles...

Thinking what we can do with positive multiplier effect is an interesting & rewarding challenge.
dustywells
1 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2014
dustywells beginning in Science, MR166 take note
As I said elsewhere, I accept ACC and we do have massive evidence of ACC.
I take it U mean Anthropomorphic Climate Change (ACC).
LOL. Mikey made a funny.

Here I was beginning to think that you have no sense of humor.

You WERE joking. No?
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 31, 2014
dustywells
LOL. Mikey made a funny.
The conventional writing method is to qualify the abbreviation in brackets after 1st use, this method avoids misunderstanding & allows the dialectic method of convergence so people (also) don't name call etc. I'm focused on the Science and being precise.

Can you respond by focusing on the question I raised, it has a useful logical basis, in my last post addressed to you, copy here for you with extra clarification:-

From your approach its obvious as U indicated & seen as a "local effect" could U say its self-evident then ?

Question then, if U sum (increasingly) more locals when does it reach (what amounts to) global, especially as Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are present in ALL local areas - do U mean >50% earth's surface area - land AND oceans makes it 'global' - what metric is applicable ?

Are U claiming rising land & ocean temperatures integrated over the planet are not sufficiently "satisfying" ?
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2014
Yet more proof of AGW and the validity of the models.

http://www.dnainf...n-record
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Oct 31, 2014
If all of you true believers in the NH have not filled up your oil tanks yet with cheap oil courtesy of the US trying to screw over Putin I suggest that you do so.

http://weather.un...anom.gif
dustywells
1 / 5 (3) Oct 31, 2014
Can you respond by focusing on the question I raised, it has a useful logical basis, in my last post addressed to you, copy here for you with extra clarification:-
No. I because focusing on the question presumes that I accept the premise on which you base it.
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2014
dustywells replied
... copy here for you with extra clarification:-
No. I because focusing on the question presumes that I accept the premise on which you base it.
The premise you accepted is Local Climate Change (LCC) isnt that correct ?

Clearly we need to do this in small increments as I guess you were not lucky to physics at high school or uni, so a step by step appreciation of the logic will be helpful to you. Physics afterall can take up to 3 years to get a good grounding although heat/gases etc takes about a year.
So I accept its a steep learning curve for you.

What is your opinion of when LCC becomes Global Climate Change (GCC), that is, are you able to assign a numerical value such as is more 50% of area of LCCs covered reaching GCC ?

If you are unable to answer that numeric then perhaps either of us misunderstood the interpretations possible of any number of premise ?

Which specific premise do you not consider acceptable & why ?
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2014
MR166 seems a bit confused with
Yet more proof of AGW and the validity of the models.
http://www.dnainf...n-record
AGW is about the globe not a local region, it is the integration of the local regions which is representable as a global change over a suitably (long) period of time.

Chicago weather is a local effect, isnt it ?

Where do any climate models predict local weather ?

Where have you also seen climate models that predict a local short term event ?

MR166, this has been mentioned to you before that weather is local & short term, why do you seem to be going backwards, are you unwell, forgotten what you have learned ?

Or is there some other reason your emotions are so compelled to satire narrow exceptions ?

Need to expand that intellect & recall what you have read & recap the definitions of weather.
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2014
MR166 diverted to politics when he has been shown physics doesnt care
If all of you true believers in the NH have not filled up your oil tanks yet with cheap oil courtesy of the US trying to screw over Putin I suggest that you do so. http://weather.un...anom.gif
1. Did you not notice the flakey legend at the bottom left ?
Eg. It shows blue for -13.5, -3, 11 AND 21.5
Do you Think this is a reliable graphical representation of a data set ?

2. Graph also labelled as an 'anomaly' which is construed as delta (difference) above or below a mean ie such as an exception, didnt you notice AND see problems with the graph ?

3. Did you also notice this is for ONE day only, ie Weather & there is no comparative integration.

4. Did you also not notice the site link domain is "weather.unisys.com" doesnt that say a lot ?

Is there anything suggesting its not ?

All these issues u didnt notice, were u forced to post it or easily led & told u NOT to look at it ?
runrig
5 / 5 (5) Nov 01, 2014
Yet more proof of AGW and the validity of the models.

http://www.dnainf...n-record

MR: Really.
I expect better.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2014
Sorry about that Runrig I thought that they were saying the abnormal weather was a symptom of AGW.

And Mike I suggest that you do a little research on Unisys and then comment on the validity of their temperature maps. I have been looking at this map for years and have never seen the NH so much below the norm.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2014
Also, although it is a daily map the anomalies do not really change that fast since it is displaying sea surface temperatures.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2014
"Sorry about that Runrig I thought that they were saying the abnormal weather was a symptom of AGW." BTW "they" in this case means the climate scientists not the article. Pardon me for having to have to clear up my own post.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (8) Nov 01, 2014
MR166 missed the point
And Mike I suggest that you do a little research on Unisys and then comment on the validity of their temperature maps.
The credentials of the organisation mean nothing IN THE CONTEXT" of the SINGLE graphic you posted for ONE day.

MR166 admitted
I have been looking at this map for years and have never seen the NH so much below the norm.
I'm sorry for U, really - why would you look at a single 'map for years', surely smarter to see animation re change ?

Answer please
Eg. Graph Legend shows same blue for -13.5, -3, 11 AND 21.5
Do you Think this is a reliable graphical representation of a data set ?

How could it possibly be acceptable to anyone, there are multiple colours for different temps !

MR166 claimed
.. do not really change that fast ...
Where does it say that on the site and what does "..that fast.." really mean please ?

Surely you can be smarter than that; ie. colours, animation, fast etc ?

runrig was right, please ?
MR166
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 01, 2014
Excuse me Mike if I prefer to see the daily unmassaged data before there is a chance to corrupt it. Your inability to accept the data for what it really is just highlights how much the politics of climate science outweighs the true science in your mind.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (8) Nov 01, 2014
MR166 hasnt seen good graphing methodology
Excuse me Mike if I prefer to see the daily unmassaged data before there is a chance to corrupt it.
:-)
a. U so sure its "un-massaged" ?
b. Aren't misused colours corrupting ?

MR166 made boo boo
Your inability to accept the data for what it really is just highlights how much the politics of climate science outweighs the true science in your mind.
What has politics got to do with obvious errors in the graph legends eg Blue. What do U think blue refers to re multiplicity, did you find the explanation & not share it ?

Good data graphs have:-

1. Provenance
2. Sound Representation method
3. Interpretation ie Inferential, deductive

ONE page shows a static ONLY indicative of Weather, how can it show anything else ?

Addressing above 3:-
1. Provenance - how etc, nothing yet from U
2. Representation, why the multiple colours ?
3. Interpretation - none :-(

How do U imagine ONE day is useful without change indicators ?
dustywells
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 01, 2014
Which specific premise do you not consider acceptable & why ?
1. That AGW is not an opportunist hoax.
2. That AGW is a threat.
3. That you are not a troll in the employ of the AGW opportunists.
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2014
dustywells sidestepping the Science
Which specific premise do you not consider acceptable & why ?
1.That AGW is not an opportunist hoax.
2.That AGW is a threat.
3.That you are not a troll in the employ of the AGW opportunists.
Why is it not possible for you to focus ONLY on the Science ?

1. You have accepted local climate change
2. You have accepted CO2 is a GHG which increases thermal resistivity
3. Increased CO2 is everywhere

In respect of this thread & AGW, there is no opportunism is recognising Science (alone) & no opportunism for Science educated people (esp physics for >100yrs) in making simple logical steps in Science.

Given you accept 1 to 3 above then Why can you not offer a figure which goes from local climate change (LCC) to global climate change (GCC) given facts you accept & which I might add are proven scientifically for decades without political delineation ?

Is it 50% coverage for LCC to make GCC ? AND Which way does GCC go due to item 3 ?
SamB
1 / 5 (3) Nov 01, 2014
My computer simulations show me sprouting wings and flying off with Tinkerbell...
adam_russell_9615
5 / 5 (3) Nov 01, 2014
Freethinking, the idea people shouldn't get funding for climate research is asinine, every one wants to know what the weather is going to be like, it's a basic tenant of small talk.



I dont often do this but - tenet not tenant.
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 02, 2014
adam_russell_9615 corrected me
I dont often do this but - tenet not tenant.
Np, you are correct of course, turning property investment auto-complete spell checker typing script off :-)

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.