The 'mini ice age' hoopla is a giant failure of science communication

July 24, 2015 by Michael J. I. Brown, The Conversation
A gigantic sunspot almost 130,000 km across captured by NASA’s Solar Dynamic Observatory on October 23, 2014. Credit: NASA/SDO

This month there's been a hoopla about a mini ice age, and unfortunately it tells us more about failures of science communication than the climate. Such failures can maintain the illusion of doubt and uncertainty, even when there's a scientific consensus that the world is warming.

The story starts benignly with a peer-reviewed paper and a presentation in early July by Professor Valentina Zharkova, from Northumbria University, at Britain's National Astronomy Meeting.

The paper presents a model for the sun's magnetic field and sunspots, which predicts a 60% fall in sunspot numbers when extrapolated to the 2030s. Crucially, the paper makes no mention of climate.

The first failure of science communication is present in the Royal Astronomical Society press release from July 9. It says that "solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s" without clarifying that this "solar activity" refers to a fall in the number of sunspots, not a dramatic fall in the life-sustaining light emitted by the sun.

The press release also omits crucial details. It does say that the drop in may resemble the Maunder minimum, a 17th century lull in solar activity, and includes a link to the Wikipedia article on the subject. The press release also notes that the Maunder minimum coincided with a mini ice age.

But that mini ice age began before the Maunder minimum and may have had multiple causes, including volcanism.

Crucially, the press release doesn't say what the implications of a future Maunder minimum are for climate.

Filling in the gaps

How would a new Maunder minimum impact climate? It's an obvious question, and one that climate scientists have already answered. But many journalists didn't ask the experts, instead drawing their own conclusions.

The UK's Telegraph warned:

[…] the earth is 15 years from a mini ice age that will cause bitterly cold winters during which rivers such as the Thames freeze over.

Pictures of glaciers and frozen rivers loomed large.

A dramatic fall in the number of sunspots won’t lead to a dramatic fall in the light produced by the sun. Credit: NASA/SDO/Goddard Space Flight Center

News Corp's Andrew Bolt used the mini ice age to attack climate science. Many climate sceptic bloggers readily accepted the story, despite climate never being mentioned in the peer-reviewed paper.

The media failed in its duty to investigate and inform. It didn't seek expert comment to put the research into context. Instead journalists tried to answer technical climate science questions themselves, and mostly got it wrong.

As discussed previously, the impact of a new Maunder minimum on climate has beenstudied many times. There's 40% more CO2 in the air now than during the 17th century, and global temperature records are being smashed. A new Maunder minimum would slow , but it is not enough to stop it.

The scientist at the centre of the media storm, Valentina Zharkova, told USA today:

In the press release, we didn't say anything about climate change. My guess is when they heard about Maunder minimum, they used Wikipedia or something to find out more about it.

Don’t put your ice skates on just yet. Even a new Maunder minimum won’t reverse climate change. Credit: CSIRO

Mixed messages

While Zharkova was surprised by the media coverage, she and others continued to discuss a new mini ice age.

If a mini ice age is at odds with the prior literature, why does Zharkova continue speculating about it? In personal correspondence with Zharkova, she told me it was only after the media coverage that her research was connected to climate change and the Maunder minimum. However, she said that once the connection was made, it did make sense to her.

Zharkova also told IFLS: We didn't mention anything about the weather change, but I would have to agree that possibly you can expect it [a mini ice age].

So it seems Zharkova's justification is based on media extrapolation of her own press release and Wikipedia, not the extensive peer-reviewed literature on the Maunder minimum itself.

I emailed Zharkova and she sent me two studies that support her views, but they aren't representative of the literature and I don't believe she has critically evaluated their content.

Is there any quantitative basis for claims of a mini ice age? Zharkova and her colleagues have cited a 1997 article by Judith Lean, who showed the sun's brightness (quantified by solar irradiance) was 3 W per m2 less during the Maunder minimum than today. More recent studies, including those by Lean, find the solar irradiance varies less than was thought in 1997.

In plain English, the small change in sunlight reaching the Earth during a new Maunder minimum wouldn't be enough to reverse climate change. For the technically minded, even a 3 W per m2 change in irradiance corresponds to a radiative forcing of just 0.5 W per m2 (because the Earth is a sphere and not a flat circle), which is less than the radiative forcing produced by anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

To be blunt: no mini ice age for us. The real story of the impending mini isn't about at all. It is a cautionary tale, of how science should and shouldn't be communicated.

The lessons to be learned from this is scientists must communicate their science concisely and accurately, especially if we are to avoid the media frenzy highlighted by the ABC's Media Watch. If scientists, science organisations and media aren't careful, they can inadvertently end up promoting dangerous misinformation.

Explore further: Irregular heartbeat of the Sun driven by double dynamo

Related Stories

Irregular heartbeat of the Sun driven by double dynamo

July 9, 2015

A new model of the Sun's solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun's 11-year heartbeat. The model draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface ...

Researchers show new Ice Age may begin by 2030

July 17, 2015

The arrival of intense cold similar to the weather that raged during the "Little Ice Age", which froze the world during the 17th century and in the beginning of the 18th century, is expected in the years 2030 to 2040. These ...

Why is the sun going quiet?

January 22, 2014

The sun is our nearest star and the source of all our light and heat on Earth but recent reports have highlighted an ongoing steep decline in solar activity.

Recommended for you

A switch in ocean circulation that helped end the Ice Age

April 24, 2018

Changes in the circulation of the North Pacific Ocean about 15,000 years ago released large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere, helping warm the planet and end the last Ice Age, according to research by scientists at the University ...

201 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Doug_Huffman
1.9 / 5 (18) Jul 24, 2015
Click-bait. Science is not consensus.
docile
Jul 24, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (17) Jul 24, 2015
Ah, Michael Brown crawls out from under his sun baked rock with more of his ignoRANT..er..excuse me, "science". Someone is desperate for priesthood in the AGW Cult.
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (22) Jul 24, 2015
So, the message I get from this is that only CO2 can alter the climate, and that if we fix CO2, we will all be saved from the tyranny of the climate.

What I would suggest for all those who insist that magnetic fields have nothing at all to do with the Earth's temperatures is that you never be allowed to cook your food on an electric grill ever again, because -- to be clear -- your electric grill is creating magnetic fields as it passes an electric current through those coils.

Likewise, the solar wind plasma is as conductive as copper, and there are multiple groups today competing to create new climate models which take these electric currents into account -- one of them being NASA. See the work of Yue Deng of the University of Texas. The models are called Global Ionosphere-Thermosphere Models (GITM).
HannesAlfven
1.2 / 5 (20) Jul 24, 2015
And by the way, for the record, electric currents over solar plasma can be just as much implicated in volcanism as the climate.
Scroofinator
1.5 / 5 (22) Jul 24, 2015
To be blunt: no mini ice age for us.

Sounds like your smoking it too.... Just a bold and ignorant statement from another clown who thinks man is more powerful than the Sun.

If TSI falls by even 2w/m^2 the effects will be felt globally. All of this still misses the heart of the concern though, that the solar cycle forces the oceanic oscillations. NAO is slowing, PDO is ramping up, ENSO is primed for a record El Nino... And it's just a coincidence that the Sun is entering a grand minimum?
rick_cavaretti
4 / 5 (13) Jul 24, 2015
The only hoopla is from news organizations selective quoting of what was actually said and what they actually wrote, all in the interests of generating revenue through massive readership. It worked, didn't it?
Wadenoth
5 / 5 (9) Jul 24, 2015

The press release also omits crucial details. It does say that the drop in sunspots may resemble the Maunder minimum, a 17th century lull in solar activity, and includes a link to the Wikipedia article on the subject. The press release also notes that the Maunder minimum coincided with a mini ice age.

So is it surprising if the press got the wrong end of the stick?

The media may be a pack of voracious beasts but those in the scientific community who are so eager to make use of these opportunities to communicate need to bring the same integrity to the presentation of their work as they are supposed to maintain when communicating with their peers. It looks like standards are falling across the board.
RichManJoe
2.2 / 5 (10) Jul 24, 2015
Zharkova also told IFLS: We didn't mention anything about the weather change, but I would have to agree that possibly you can expect it [a mini ice age].

It is true that the possibility of a mini ice age does exist during the same period as the solar minimum. As the author stated earlier, it may be caused by the solar cycle, or by volcanism. So don't criticize Zharkova for speaking the truth. Criticize the scientifically dysfunctional headline creating journalists for reporting without qualifying.
denglish
1.2 / 5 (18) Jul 24, 2015
Propaganda on a science site. Well played.
rossim22
1.9 / 5 (14) Jul 24, 2015
This is such a strange article, written to attack how thinking against the mainstream "consensus" (wtf?) is a failure of media for allowing such adolescent minds to run wild with ridiculous statements.

Now I do not think we are in store for a mini ice-age, but I do believe that the sunspot cycle and Maunder minimums do play a role in the warming and cooling of the climate. I am skeptical that greenhouse gasses are the be-all end-all of climate change and scientists should always be investigating alternatives.
zz5555
4.7 / 5 (15) Jul 24, 2015
Now I do not think we are in store for a mini ice-age, but I do believe that the sunspot cycle and Maunder minimums do play a role in the warming and cooling of the climate. I am skeptical that greenhouse gasses are the be-all end-all of climate change and scientists should always be investigating alternatives.

It's well understood that the sun plays an important role - that's an important part of climate science and knowledge about the sun is one confirmation that greenhouse gasses are the primary driver of the current warming. The "60%" in the headlines was always, I think, misunderstood (or written to create misunderstandings). The reality is that the change in the sun's output as claimed by this model is small compared to the increased forcing caused by CO2, so this was never going to cause a mini ice age.
nevermark
5 / 5 (11) Jul 24, 2015
Now I do not think we are in store for a mini ice-age, but I do believe that the sunspot cycle and Maunder minimums do play a role in the warming and cooling of the climate. I am skeptical that greenhouse gasses are the be-all end-all of climate change and scientists should always be investigating alternatives.


Scientists are always investigating alternatives and the energy industry has trillions to support research targeted at finding contrary forcers. So there is no lack of such a search.

The above article is about a forcer in the opposite direction. Lots of papers highlight opposite forcers or corrections, such as finding out that reflective particles at some altitude decay more slowly than thought.

But most discovered effects are small, and new effects compounding climate change are also discovered.

The vast majority of scientists did not conclude that increased CO2 is driving climate change until a lot of evidence was in. Maybe people should be listening.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (14) Jul 24, 2015
Re: "The reality is that the change in the sun's output as claimed by this model is small compared to the increased forcing caused by CO2, so this was never going to cause a mini ice age."

You seem to not understand that CO2 has never been able to explain the dramatic wiggles in the jet stream (Rossby, aka planetary waves). This was admitted by members of the Royal Society to Piers Corbyn.

Neither can these conventional climate models explain the polar vortex, and especially its splitting. Oops.

So, the focus SHOULD be on observations like why Enceladus has a hot pole (an unexpected observation). It's already admitted that this moon is electrically connected to Saturn by its poles.

And, further, it's increasingly recognized that the wild weather has something to do with these sudden stratospheric warming events (SSW's) -- again related to the activity at the poles.

Come on, guys. This is NOT THAT COMPLICATED. You just have to pay attention to what is happening.
rossim22
1.3 / 5 (16) Jul 24, 2015

It's well understood that the sun plays an important role - that's an important part of climate science and knowledge about the sun is one confirmation that greenhouse gasses are the primary driver of the current warming. The "60%" in the headlines was always, I think, misunderstood (or written to create misunderstandings). The reality is that the change in the sun's output as claimed by this model is small compared to the increased forcing caused by CO2


That's the problem, the fact that science has "confirmed" that greenhouse gasses are the "primary driver" is poor investigating. I'm sure elevated CO2 levels have an affect on the temperature and acidity of the oceans, but the greenhouse gas model has been an overly-anxious attempt to explain what's going on before acquiring all necessary data. IMO a proper scientist would say that climate driving mechanisms are still open for debate, yet we still shouldn't be polluting our planet with huge amounts of CO2.
PsycheOne
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 24, 2015
This article sounds like damage control. The prose is out of breath it is working so hard.
xstos
4.1 / 5 (16) Jul 24, 2015
I love how everybody just misses the boat time after time.

- Atmospheric CO2 is rising significantly quickly
- There is no proof to the contrary that more CO2 is good for us and plenty of proof otherwise
- Instead of dealing with our pollution, we're rolling the dice and constantly looking for excuses to perpetuate the status quo and our capitalist consumptionfest and trashfest

Humanity has surpassed nature's abilities. Nature will not repair our planet. We have to reverse our activities and own up to our epic mess.
denglish
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 24, 2015
Humanity has surpassed nature's abilities. Nature will not repair our planet. We have to reverse our activities and own up to our epic mess.

You need to read up on Anthropocentrism.

Re: C02, it is very good for living things, and there is no evidence that it is a significant greenhouse gas.
zz5555
4.8 / 5 (16) Jul 24, 2015
That's the problem, the fact that science has "confirmed" that greenhouse gasses are the "primary driver" is poor investigating. I'm sure elevated CO2 levels have an affect on the temperature and acidity of the oceans, but the greenhouse gas model has been an overly-anxious attempt to explain what's going on before acquiring all necessary data.

The effects of CO2 have been investigated for well over 100 years. There is an enormous amount of data confirming its effects. The data shows quite clearly that adding the amount of CO2 to the atmosphere should cause temperature changes very close to what has actually happened. Many attribution studies have showed that, yes, CO2 is currently the primary driver of the climate. I'm not sure what more "necessary data" you're looking for.
Returners
1 / 5 (13) Jul 24, 2015
which is less than the radiative forcing produced by anthropogenic greenhouse gases.


I don't believe that, because I can account for nearly the entire northern hemisphere melting and warming from waste-heat alone, before even accounting for other man-made warming activities, such as concrete and asphault roads, bridges, high-rise buildings, and glasses and actual "green houses" trapping heat, and before accounting for positive alebedo feedback from past melting caused by all these things.

In fact, near as I can tell, "green house gases" contribute at most less than half of the man-made warming.

It was claimed in an article a while back that CO2 only takes like 65 days to trap as much additional heat as the initial combustion which produced the CO2, but I find this to be BS, because the rate of warming would actually be a double-exponential if that were true....whereas the real rate of warming is less than linear...
zz5555
4.7 / 5 (15) Jul 24, 2015
IMO a proper scientist would say that climate driving mechanisms are still open for debate

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of science. First, there are no debates in science. The best explanation that fits all the data wins. Second, scientists are always open to alternative explanations. The problem is that greenhouse gasses so beautifully explain the current climate changes that it's going to require something phenomenal to displace greenhouse gases. And the problem with that is that, not only would someone have to find a better explanation than greenhouse gases, but they also need to explain why greenhouse gases don't work the way we know they do. There will undoubtedly be changes to the theories involved in climate science - there always are - but they will be evolutionary, not revolutionary. CO2 will remain the main issue: http://www-atm.da...ci10.pdf
denglish
1.8 / 5 (15) Jul 24, 2015
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of science. First, there are no debates in science.

Wrong.

The best explanation that fits all the data wins.

False. Observations win. This graph shows how poor the explanations are:
http://www.drroys...2013.png

CO2 will remain the main issue

.04% of the atmosphere will not be a significant forcer, especially compared to water vapor. Also, rising CO2 is a symptom of warming, not a cause.

The war against CO2 is a war against society. How we maintain what we have, how we get to where we need to be, how we will one day realize better energy alternatives. Make no mistake, this war on CO2 has an end-game that creates dependent subjects, not citizen-actors.
zz5555
5 / 5 (16) Jul 24, 2015
False. Observations win. This graph shows how poor the explanations are:
http://www.drroys...2013.png

You're well aware that Spencer doctored that graph to pretend the models have failed. You're also well aware that the models are not the science and, as such, cannot falsify the science.

.04% of the atmosphere will not be a significant forcer, especially compared to water vapor. Also, rising CO2 is a symptom of warming, not a cause.

Water vapor, as a condensing gas cannot work as a driver, unlike CO2 water vapor is always a feedback. CO2 can serve as a feedback, but it's well known that currently it is a driver of the climate. The .04% comment is, of course, a silly (and rather pathetic) one and illustrates a failure (or inability) on your part to think.

The war against CO2 is a war against society.

I think everyone is aware of your silly belief that politics creates reality. This appears to be another example of that.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (9) Jul 24, 2015
First, there are no debates in science

Really?
https://en.wikipe..._debates
shavera
5 / 5 (16) Jul 24, 2015
Let's pretend, just for a moment, that, if we *only* consider the sun and this study even suggested a "cooler" sun, we should be going into a "little ice age." Let's imagine for a moment that's true. When we look at our temperatures and see that they're continuing to climb at record rates.... (including ocean temperatures and other heat sinks)... What does that say about our situation?

Doesn't it say that the human driven component (CO2 and other atmospheric changes we create) must be overwhelming the contribution to climate a "cooler sun" might be creating?

I mean, if the situation were reversed, that the sun was "warming up" then at least denialists could be like "it isn't us, it's the sun getting warmer."

Denialists gonna deny, I guess.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (11) Jul 24, 2015
You're also well aware that the models are not the science and, as such, cannot falsify the science.

Just when I believe I've found the dumbest of you Chicken Littles another one of you steps up.
Tell us, who created these models and for what purpose?
marcush
4.6 / 5 (18) Jul 24, 2015
Looking at the number of "I know better than the scientists" type comments here (from the usual denialist pundits that troll this site) it seems this insightful article hit a sore point. Keep them coming....
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (13) Jul 24, 2015
Re: "When we look at our temperatures and see that they're continuing to climb at record rates.... (including ocean temperatures and other heat sinks)... What does that say about our situation?"

You seem to not realize that the satellites have failed to record this continued rise. It is only the adjusted data which continues to rise ... hence the debate.

The comments here reek of positivism -- people who still think that there are no worldviews in science, that data is inherently objective, and other nonsense.

Fact is that the large chunk of people advocating for AGW only really know about CO2. They never took the time to study the Sun, for if all they did was learn about the various critiques of the SSM, they'd realize that we are still learning the cause for things like sudden stratospheric warming events. And CO2 is NOT well positioned to be that cause. Might be time to change the name back to global warming, once the SSW's are linked to the solar wind currents.
rossim22
1.5 / 5 (16) Jul 24, 2015
I love how everybody just misses the boat time after time.

- Atmospheric CO2 is rising significantly quickly
- There is no proof to the contrary that more CO2 is good for us and plenty of proof otherwise
- Instead of dealing with our pollution, we're rolling the dice and constantly looking for excuses to perpetuate the status quo and our capitalist consumptionfest and trashfest

Humanity has surpassed nature's abilities. Nature will not repair our planet. We have to reverse our activities and own up to our epic mess.


Skeptics do not argue that the climate has been warming. They do not argue that CO2 is not at its highest levels ever measured. Most do not argue that CO2 is still polluting the planet and affecting the climate. I am merely skeptical that the 'greenhouse gas mechanism' is the most significant factor to the warming (and cease of warming) of earth.
zz5555
5 / 5 (14) Jul 24, 2015
I am merely skeptical that the 'greenhouse gas mechanism' is the most significant factor to the warming (and cease of warming) of earth.

On what facts are you basing this skepticism?
denglish
1 / 5 (10) Jul 24, 2015
You're well aware that Spencer doctored that graph to pretend the models have failed.

Says you.

Water vapor, as a condensing gas cannot work as a driver, unlike CO2 water vapor is always a feedback

Wow. Start here:
https://en.wikipe...ouse_gas

The .04% comment is, of course, a silly (and rather pathetic) one and illustrates a failure (or inability) on your part to think.

Wow. Start here:
https://en.wikipe...mosphere

I think everyone is aware of your silly belief that politics creates reality. This appears to be another example of that.

I believe that one of the saddest things about liberal plebs is that they believe politics drive beliefs. Actually, it is the exact opposite. Beliefs drive politics. This is something understood by those that draw independent conclusions.
denglish
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 24, 2015
Skeptics do not argue that the climate has been warming. They do not argue that CO2 is not at its highest levels ever measured. Most do not argue that CO2 is still polluting the planet and affecting the climate. I am merely skeptical that the 'greenhouse gas mechanism' is the most significant factor to the warming (and cease of warming) of earth.

Exactly. This is why the violent response of AGWites to sincere concern re: the veracity of science and societal policies based on that same science (some of which is solidly falsified) is so perplexing. The explanation of their behavior can only be found in politics.
jorma_jorko
5 / 5 (12) Jul 24, 2015
"The media failed in its duty to investigate and inform."

And that fails to understand that today's media is not about truth or investigation. Today's media is about money, money, and money.

What sells, is written. If something doesn't sell as is, but must be written, it is written so that it sells.

"Sunspost might decline 60% by 2030" vs. "Sun's activity will decline 60% by 2030".. 1st one will not sell as no-one cares about sunspost. Second one.. well.
Keyto Clearskies
1 / 5 (2) Jul 24, 2015
The professional swindler Mark Goldes swindles the readers of Huffington Post and other sites by making use of false and fraudulent pretenses, involving his non-existent make-believe "breakthroughs," to obtain loans from them, which he never repays.

https://fraudcraf...stitute/

Posted to the following HuffPost article by James Gerken you can find yet another of Mark Goldes' latest efforts to swindle the readers of Huffington Post, by way of yet another false and fraudulent spam comment advertising his fraudulent sham "AESOP Institute:"

http://www.huffin...14d0a2de

WHY does Huffington Post continue to help the professional swindler Mark Goldes to swindle THEIR OWN READERS, by posting his countless spam comments advertising his fraudulent sham "AESOP Institute?"
antigoracle
1 / 5 (8) Jul 24, 2015
Let's pretend, just for a moment,...blah...blah....
Denialists gonna deny, I guess.

Let's pretend you grow a brain and just for a moment you use it. You would see that temperatures have flat-lined while CO2 is increasing.
But then, stupid is gonna stay stupid, I know.
Mike_Massen
4.7 / 5 (13) Jul 24, 2015
rossim22 stated
I am merely skeptical that the 'greenhouse gas mechanism' is the most significant factor to the warming (and cease of warming) of earth
Its called Physics especially radiative heat transfer, in particular it is well proven, a simple study for the (intelligent) layman here
https://en.wikipe...transfer

IOW, in essence "Everything radiates/absorbs light ALL the time"
Eg Observe with remote IR thermometer

Re CO2, properties well proven & known for >100yrs in the (educated) Physics community
https://en.wikipe..._forcing

This is demonstrated as to why Mars is so warm, despite atmosphere < 1% of Earth but its CO2 is >98%
https://en.wikipe...perature

Venus also hot & high CO2
https://en.wikipe..._climate

Our CO2 rising
http://woodfortre...esrl-co2

Our temps rising
http://images.rem...ies.html

Learn Physics !
Wadenoth
4 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2015
Life has always been a victim of its own success and is constantly running to catch up with the never ending consequences of its own behaviour. Rule one of evolution: it's a matter of life and death.

We, and everything else alive today, are all the product of massive climate change over the last million years and more; Olympic athletes all. Respect. It's the source of our resilience.

The mass extinction currently under way is the product of our ever increasing exploitation of the world, carried out in the name of progress and mediated by our exploitation of one another. CO2 is simply a scapegoat for the global destruction of ecosystems that our exploitation of the world increasingly brings about.

We can fix this problem but we have to transform the systems we designed for the purpose of exploiting the world and one another into systems for taking care of the world and one another. God willing, we will do this (see Rule One) but it will take time and intelligence.
leetennant
5 / 5 (10) Jul 24, 2015
It's been a frustrating week. I also had some thoughts on the issue I put into a rare blog post (rare for me)

https://dameholly...-denial/
leetennant
4.7 / 5 (12) Jul 24, 2015
I am merely skeptical that the 'greenhouse gas mechanism' is the most significant factor to the warming (and cease of warming) of earth.


This is like saying that you're "merely sceptical" of the fact that gravity is the main reason things don't shoot off into space and, by the way, birds fly so there!
zz5555
5 / 5 (12) Jul 24, 2015
You're well aware that Spencer doctored that graph to pretend the models have failed.


Says you.

Hmmm. So let's review: Spencer took a graph whose original data showed the models hadn't failed, did some unknown manipulation on the data, and - hey presto - now the models had failed. He is a clever boy, isn't he? ;)

By the way, here's what the data really looks like: http://www.climat...vations/
Water vapor, as a condensing gas cannot work as a driver, unlike CO2 water vapor is always a feedback


Wow. Start here:
https://en.wikipe...ouse_gas

From your link:
The average residence time of a water molecule in the atmosphere is only about nine days, compared to years or centuries for other greenhouse gases such as CH
4 and CO2.[86] Thus, water vapor responds to and amplifies effects of the other greenhouse gases.

So your link agrees - water vapor is a feedback, not a driver. Thanks for refuting yourself.
zz5555
5 / 5 (12) Jul 24, 2015
The .04% comment is, of course, a silly (and rather pathetic) one and illustrates a failure (or inability) on your part to think.


Wow. Start here:
https://en.wikipe...mosphere

From your link:
Despite its relatively small concentration, CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas and plays a vital role in regulating Earth's surface temperature through radiative forcing and the greenhouse effect.

So your link agrees: You have failed to (or are incapable of) thinking. You only thought of the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere, and you ignored its strength as a greenhouse gas. Thanks, again, for refuting yourself.

Of course, after making a general fool of yourself it's time for the traditional "Yes, I've shown myself to be an idiot, but since I don't agree with you, I'm going to go on a political tirade against you - even though I have no idea what political belief system, if any, you follow." Well done. ;)
Robert_D
1 / 5 (9) Jul 24, 2015
The problem in not with the science. The problem is with the idea that AGW will always lead to doomsday. THAT is where the deniers are making a big mistake. The science is sound and it will always win in the end, but the left-wing is using AGW to justify massive social restructuring and centralized political power. The deniers should acknowledge the climate is changing, but that does NOT justify the unremitting doom and gloom of the climate alarmists: https://video.xx....55B31AB4
cjones1
1 / 5 (9) Jul 24, 2015
As I recall, the models that forecast warming temperatures for Earth's climate using increased CO2 concentrations due to human activity have failed miserably. The author does include volcanic activity as having an effect, so there is a possibility he will reconsider sunspots and orbital cycles as causes of climate change. There have been a series of articles recently attributing Northern Hemispheric climate cycles to Milankovitch (?) orbital cycles. Researchers are getting better at tying volcanic events and space object impacts to recorded historical climactic events.
The excessive concentration of science news on AGW has been detrimental to climate science in my opinion.
I suggest readers to also familiarize themselves with the Panama hypothesis that suggests decreased salinity of the Arctic Ocean 2.5 may caused ice on Iceland and the current Northern ice cap.
rossim22
1 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2015
I am merely skeptical that the 'greenhouse gas mechanism' is the most significant factor to the warming (and cease of warming) of earth.


This is like saying that you're "merely sceptical" of the fact that gravity is the main reason things don't shoot off into space and, by the way, birds fly so there!


Nope, but I would be skeptical that the atoms of mass which comprise the earth are somehow warping an imaginary space-time which forces things to accelerate towards it.
runrig
5 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2015
As I recall, the models that forecast warming temperatures for Earth's climate using increased CO2 concentrations due to human activity have failed miserably


You "recall" wrongly:

http://phys.org/n...ict.html
http://phys.org/n...ate.html
http://phys.org/n...sed.html

May I suggest you learn what GCM's can and (crucially) cannot do.
Most notably - forecast the PDO/ENSO cycle length/periodicity.
Which as we know (you do don't you?) has largely caused the "pause" due it's prolonmged cool cycle.
Additional hint; You have noticed the developing El Nino is now boosting temps?
FFS
runrig
5 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2015
"Sunspots might decline 60% by 2030" vs. "Sun's activity will decline 60% by 2030".. 1st one will not sell as no-one cares about sunspots. Second one.. well.


True.
But the worrying thing about the particular comment above is that it wasn't made by the media.
It was made by "Royal Astronomical Society press release from July 9." !!!!
NiteSkyGerl
3 / 5 (14) Jul 25, 2015
Science has got to get out of the rut that broadcasting has been in since the day it was born. Popularizing for the sake of funding is stupid. People are too uneducated to appreciate the issues. How far would Galileo have gotten if he had to sell his ideas to the public to do any research? In the meantime we have to stop supporting the self promoters and media stars and keep cutting the nuts off the worst trolls. Every person that appreciates the scientific method is FALLING DOWN if they do not emasculate at least 3 trolls per year. Buck up, already!
cjhm1986
1 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2015
Wow propaganda much?
Weird how in the past theyve linked C02 rise with temperature rise....just never figured out if the C02 causes the temp rise or vice versa. In fact, plenty of science, from real scientists not propaganda machines like this quack, points to the latter being the more likely case.
To completely ignore the effects of the sun is complete ignorance, everything about our planet and its climate are due to the state of our sun, and our electromagnetic connection to it, including seismic activity and volcanism.
Is pollution out of control? By all means yes, but to suggest were destroying the planet with it? Ridiculous, typical arrogant minded man thinking everything is about him. Our planet has warmed and cooled, gone from heat to ice age, C02 levels have risen and fallen, many, many, many times, all without our help. And you know who loves C02? Plants. The ones who will be cleaning our air.
cjhm1986
1 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2015
And to add to that, why exactly is it that, while C02 levels have continued to rise, temperature strangely stopped rising with it? If C02 were the main reason for the warming, then the warming should continue indefinitely in accordance with rising C02 levels, yes? Odd how they stopped corresponding, someone should let the earth know shes forgetting to raise the thermostat to match C02 levels in the atmosphere.
Returners
1 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2015
Mike Massen:

Do not compare Earth to Venus.

Venus isn't even the same type of planet as Earth. Its atmosphere contains 25000 times as much CO2 as Earth's atmosphere, and if you learned anything about the propagation of Light, Venus was NEVER a stable planet, as its temperature, even if you take away the CO2, would have always been above the boiling point of water and the melting point of some metals.

I'm betting Venus has had a run-away greenhouse effect since the day it formed, because prior to that all the materials would have been boiling hot due to accretion and higher radioactivity four billion years ago anyway.

The misconception that Venus was ever a stable planet is based on BAD SCIENCE in the early years "post-telescope" astronomy, when cranks theorized that Venus was a tropical paradise, and that mars had martian-made canals on it.

Learn real science.

Venus has about 110 Earth atmospheres and receives twice as much light from the Sun as Earth.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 25, 2015
Wow propaganda much?
Weird how in the past theyve linked C02 rise with temperature rise....just never figured out if the C02 causes the temp rise or vice versa. In fact, plenty of science, from real scientists not propaganda machines like this quack, points to the latter being the more likely case.

Wow, ignorance much?
Please link science that points to temp rise causing CO2 increase (since the start of the industrial era). We know that (in absence of volcanic discharge) that has been the case in the past but not now.

Also scientists are not "completely ignoring" the Sun. To say that is both ignorant and absurd. It's the first and obvious thing to look at.
If C02 were the main reason for the warming, then the warming should continue indefinitely in accordance with rising C02 levels, yes?

Why on earth would you think that?
Not in the short term in such a complicated system .
Heat moves around the climate system.
You are aware that the oceans hold ~93% of that.
Returners
1 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2015
Venus' mean temperature (if accretion and internal radioactivity in the Early solar system were ignored), and if it only had 1 Earth atmosphere, would be roughly 342.5Kelvin. That's the mean, not the equator during a summer day. However, when the planet first formed it would be molten anyway, so the surface temperature would already be hotter than the heat it was receiving from the Sun, and gases like CO2 would have outgassed from Venus much easier than from the Earth, since earth's mean equilibrium temperature, given only 1 atmosphere, would still be about 28Kelvin cooler.

IN Summary, there has never been a time when Venus wasn't experiencing a "runaway greenhouse effect".

That's a fairy tail made up by bad scientists and crackpots.
Returners
1 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2015
To give you an example, if the Sun doesn't get any hotter...

Venus "1 atmosphere equilibrium temperature" is exactly 1 Kelvin HOTTER than an ideal Greenhouse effect could ever make the planet Earth become, given the same solar luminosity, and given the planetary equilibrium temperature formula.
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (11) Jul 25, 2015
IN Summary,


More of that, eh Cher?
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2015
Science has got to get out of the rut that broadcasting has been in since the day it was born. Popularizing for the sake of funding is stupid. People are too uneducated to appreciate the issues. How far would Galileo have gotten if he had to sell his ideas to the public to do any research? In the meantime we have to stop supporting the self promoters and media stars and keep cutting the nuts off the worst trolls. Every person that appreciates the scientific method is FALLING DOWN if they do not emasculate at least 3 trolls per year. Buck up, already!

Damn, NiteSkyGerl...
Don't think I ever wanna get caught in YOUR crosshairs...:-)
(I like my nuts)
Other than that - good article...
greenonions
5 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2015
cjhm
If C02 were the main reason for the warming, then the warming should continue indefinitely


Your reasoning is very child like cj. Look - here is a graph of global temps over the past 100 years or so.
http://www.cru.ue...RUT4.png

And here is a graph of C02 levels.
http://en.es-stat...7573.png

So you notice that while there is definitely a long term correlation between the 2, - temps have not always gone up in the short term (look at 1940 to 1980). Now to suggest that the scientists studying the climate are not aware of data as basic as that is nuts. Of course it is understood that heat moves around inside this complex system - and also there are other factors such as vulcanism, that affect the system. If C02 is not the main driver of the current longer term warming - what is?
antigoracle
1 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2015
Its called Physics especially..blah..blah...blabbity..blab
--MoronMike
Looky, it's Blabbering Mike back from his walk-about, still pretending to know science and blabbering like the moron he is.
jeffensley
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 25, 2015
Some believe the narrowly focused ghg driven climate narrative MUST be preserved at all costs. The above opinion piece is written by an activist for the cause. Another article mentioning how drastically climate can change with no input from anthropogenic CO2 sources was picked apart by such activists who say that this quick change was only regional. In the end it's ALL regional. If the Earth warms 3 degrees C, it doesn't mean that all regions will warm by that amount. Some will stay the same, some will warm more, some will even cool. Our intelligence and understanding of the climate never come close to matching the certainty that our models and calculations numbers actually mean something.
jeffensley
1 / 5 (9) Jul 25, 2015
Every person that appreciates the scientific method is FALLING DOWN if they do not emasculate at least 3 trolls per year. Buck up, already!


Trolls, deniers... such limited imaginations. You guys need more and better labels if you want to keep the witch hunt fresh and exciting.
denglish
1 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2015
So your link agrees: You have failed to (or are incapable of) thinking. You only thought of the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere, and you ignored its strength as a greenhouse gas. Thanks, again, for refuting yourself.

Wrong. You learned CO2 is .04% of the atmosphere. We have made progress. I do not fear posting any article, for I do not engage in intellectual dishonesty. Anyway, we have taught you something. I am satisfied.

He is a clever boy, isn't he? ;)

Says you.

By the way, here's what the data really looks like

(It is the same thing as what Spencer presents, except Spencer was a bit kinder. Theory leading to model projections still falsified)

water vapor is a feedback, not a driver

You learned something. Again. I am sincerely hopeful that it will guide you to further enlightenment.

gkam
2.3 / 5 (12) Jul 25, 2015
" I do not fear posting any article, for I do not engage in intellectual dishonesty."
--------------------------------

Yes, you do, you accused me of lying about my military service, even after I sent you to military sites with my name and picture on them. You make up what you want to believe, like Ronnie Alzheimer Reagan.
denglish
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2015
You make up what you want to believe, like Ronnie Alzheimer Reagan.

Employing a reference to any person struck down by a deadly and debilitating disease in order to mock another person is reprehensible. That someone upvoted it is disturbing.

Your lying aside (your actions belie your boasting), what does any of that have to do with an article that does not speak to science, but instead to "how it is communicated"?

If you are as smart as you claim, then your tactic of introducing red-herrings into a discussion is proof that standing on the foundation of the veracity of the tenet of the article is impossible.

If you are not as smart as you claim, then you do not grasp the article or the dialogue, and are falling back on hatred.

Neither are worthy of credulity.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2015
Every person that appreciates the scientific method is FALLING DOWN if they do not emasculate at least 3 trolls per year. Buck up, already!


Trolls, deniers... such limited imaginations. You guys need more and better labels if you want to keep the witch hunt fresh and exciting.

You do ask a lot from our little feathered "friends". After all, venture beyond the parroted vocabulary of the indoctrinated requires independent thought and that would prove detrimental to their collective.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2015
Re: "Also scientists are not "completely ignoring" the Sun. To say that is both ignorant and absurd. It's the first and obvious thing to look at."

Actually, here is a quote from the book, The Manic Sun. Notice that the quote specifically refers to the solar PLASMA, not TSI ...

"The solar physicists cared just as much as the official climatologists, about keeping the world safe for their grandchildren. They said it was rash to suppose that every possible variation in the Sun's output of light had been seen by the satellites in the course of a single solar cycle. The solar-terrestrial physicists, for their part, pleaded for consideration of other ways in which the Sun might affect the Earth via the solar wind -- auroras, that sort of thing. They were awfully vague, though, about how it could happen."

People who claim AGW by pointing to TSI do not understand that there has been a debate for half a century over how to model cosmic plasmas.
zz5555
5 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2015
(It is the same thing as what Spencer presents, except Spencer was a bit kinder. Theory leading to model projections still falsified)

Interesting. That figure shows - quite clearly - that the models haven't failed. The temperatures are within the 95% range of the models for all but a short period. (Remember, by definition, we would expect the temperature to be outside the 95% range for 5% of the time.) So if, as you claim, Spencer's plot didn't show that the models had failed, why did you claim that they had?

Your response is interesting. You showed previously that, despite the low concentrations, CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas and that water vapor is acting as a feedback to the rise in CO2. You seem to support the science completely. And now you admit the models haven't failed. Why all the noise?
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2015
The difference between now and then, of course, is that these claims about the solar wind heating the Earth are today far less vague. We have a whole new lexicon today associated with climate change:

the polar vortex -- what makes it stable? why does it split? why do circulation and chemistry models struggle to explain its characteristics?

the sudden stratospheric warming events -- they happen at the poles, of course, and Piers Corbyn has had some successes predicting extreme weather events several weeks in advance by predicting these events; he does this by tracking solar and lunar phenomena

vertical thermospheric winds -- they've surprised researchers by how sustained they can be, at the poles of course, variable directionality even

electric joule heating -- it's today recognized that it is under-estimated and HIGHLY variable, and the data necessary to accurately estimate is not yet being taken. at the poles.

There is a pattern here ...
gkam
2 / 5 (12) Jul 25, 2015
"Employing a reference to any person struck down by a deadly and debilitating disease in order to mock another person is reprehensible."
------------------------------------

Really? Remember what he did to America? Want to PAY for him?

You are the one who turned to personal attacks, unable to debate the issues. Who screamed "Stolen Valor" repeatedly and disingenuously? Never having served, you have no idea what "valor" is.

Now, let's get back to how the Deniers will wind up killing us if we let them.
zz5555
5 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2015
You make up what you want to believe, like Ronnie Alzheimer Reagan.

Denglish has stated that he feels it is ok for him to lie for political reasons, so this wouldn't seem surprising.
zz5555
5 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2015
Nope, but I would be skeptical that the atoms of mass which comprise the earth are somehow warping an imaginary space-time which forces things to accelerate towards it.

Ahh, so none of your skepticism is based on any kind of science. Got it.
denglish
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2015
You make up what you want to believe, like Ronnie Alzheimer Reagan.

Denglish has stated that he feels it is ok for him to lie for political reasons, so this wouldn't seem surprising.

You are apologizing for a person that made a reference to a person being struck down by disease in order to mock another person. That is reprehensible.

Where have I said it is ok to lie for political reasons?

Really? Remember what he did to America? Want to PAY for him?

You are now claiming that Reagan was struck down by disease based on "what he did to America", and that it is OK for you to reference that tragedy in order to mock others. You are sick.

Never having served, you have no idea what "valor" is.

How do you know I haven't served.

Now, let's get back to how the Deniers will wind up killing us if we let them.

Is that what the article is about?

gkam
2 / 5 (12) Jul 25, 2015
"How do you know I haven't served."
---------------------------

Because of your ignorance of the military and how it works.

And Ronnie Alzheimer was not struck down, he very slowly started failing decades before it was obvious to the public, according to my doctor father-in-law, who thought Reagan was smart until he had to admit he was hobbled for decades with Early-Onset disease.
denglish
1 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2015
The temperatures are within the 95% range of the models for all but a short period.

Take another look. Focus on the min/max.
http://www.climat...vations/

Then, look at the mean:
http://www.drroys...e-wrong/

Spencer says it better than I can, but I support his view 100%:
Whether humans are the cause of 100% of the observed warming or not, the conclusion is that global warming isn't as bad as was predicted. That should have major policy implications…assuming policy is still informed by facts more than emotions and political aspirations.

And if humans are the cause of only, say, 50% of the warming (e.g. our published paper), then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 25, 2015
"expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies "
---------------------------------------

We cannot store Plutonium for long periods now. How are we going to assure all the thousands of tons of extremely-radioactive waste stays away from all life for the requisite 200,000 years?

What will the cost of that little problem be?
denglish
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 25, 2015
Because of your ignorance of the military and how it works.

Where was that demonstrated?

And Ronnie Alzheimer was not struck down, he very slowly started failing decades before it was obvious to the public, according to my doctor father-in-law, who thought Reagan was smart until he had to admit he was hobbled for decades with Early-Onset disease.

I had no idea your father in law treated Reagan. Wow. Now *that's* a whopper!

The pleasure you take in the misfortune of others...to the point that you will seek to diminish the seriousness of a terrible affliction and use it to mock others to justify political hatred is grotesque. Ugly is as ugly does. You are ugly.

But again, I have to ask: what does any of that have to do with an article that says how science is communicated is more important than science?

denglish
1 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2015
We cannot store Plutonium for long periods now. How are we going to assure all the thousands of tons of extremely-radioactive waste stays away from all life for the requisite 200,000 years?

What will the cost of that little problem be?

Have you ever thought that reference-to and reliance-on the lowest-common-denominator may be why your life was a failure to the point that you have nothing left in you but the worst?

It didn't take much effort to see how the government is dealing with nuclear waste. Here you go:
http://www.nrc.go...ste.html
gkam
1.7 / 5 (11) Jul 25, 2015
Gosh, denglish it was your statement I was responding to. Did you forget?

How are you Deniers going to save the Earth?
zz5555
5 / 5 (9) Jul 25, 2015
Where have I said it is ok to lie for political reasons?

You made a claim about something Gore said. Now, I don't know too much about Gore (and can't say I like what I do know), but your claim was well known to be wrong. To defend yourself, you linked to a video showing that Gore had not said what you claimed. Your statement was that it was ok to make up your claim in order to counter the liberals (or some such political nonsense). So to sum up: you said something that wasn't true, you provided evidence that what you said wasn't true (as you often do), and then said it was ok for you make up your claim because of politics. You can spin this however you want, but it's still you saying that it's ok for you to make things up for political reasons.
runrig
5 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2015
the polar vortex -- what makes it stable? why does it split? why do circulation and chemistry models struggle to explain its characteristics?

Sudden stratospheric warming events -- they happen at the poles, of course, and Piers Corbyn has had some successes predicting extreme weather events several weeks in advance by predicting these events; he does this by tracking solar and lunar phenomena


The PV is known to be affected by changes in UV levels during periods of low sunspot activity. This gives rise to arctic plunges that give REGIONAL cold in the NH winter. Global ave temp is unaltered as warm sub-tropical air is advected north to balance.
Mr Corbyn is a fraud. Else we would know how he does what he does (sic).
He's has not had success beyond what would be expected by the science.
SSW events can happen due to breaking waves in the Strat initiated by mountain torque events.

http://blog.metof...ing-ssw/
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2015
Re: "The PV is known to be affected by changes in UV levels during periods of low sunspot activity."

You seem to want to completely ignore Earth's larger plasma/magnetic environment when discussing the polar vortex. And to be clear, NASA is not placing much stock in these UV speculations. The real problem is that none of the science journalists seem interested in talking about NASA's $1 million investment, which to be clear is a validation of Piers Corbyn's approach, and ENTIRELY focused upon electric joule heating and these electrical currents traveling through Earth's atmosphere.

Corbyn has been very explicit about how he makes his predictions. I've created a transcript here:

https://social-sc...aims/131
denglish
1 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2015
You made a claim about something Gore said.

Oh, you mean the one where he said the polar ice would be gone.

I like the music in this one:
https://www.youtu...yTbPwhlw

Talk about lying for political expediency I won't. Perhaps he was just really bought into it like you guys. Paragraph 13 as he craps on Nobel laureates that actually did something useful for the word:
http://www.nobelp..._en.html

You can spin this however you want, but it's still you saying that it's ok for you to make things up for political reasons.

you're going to have to point out the spin. I'm not seeing it.

But, what does this have to do with an article that ridicules science based on how it is communicated? Lie for political expediency? Is this what we've devolved to?
denglish
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2015
How are you Deniers going to save the Earth?

The Earth doesn't need saving. It cares not for your concern, and will do what it does regardless of your or anyone elses/things feelings.

The arrogance of socialists is astounding. They have the best answer for everyone, even Mother Nature.
chapprg1
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2015
Methinks thou dust protest too much.
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2015
You seem to want to completely ignore Earth's larger plasma/magnetic environment when discussing the polar vortex. And to be clear, NASA is not placing much stock in these UV speculations. The real problem is that none of the science journalists seem interested in talking about NASA's $1 million investment, which to be clear is a validation of Piers Corbyn's approach, and ENTIRELY focused upon electric joule heating and these electrical currents traveling through Earth's atmosphere.


Sorry, not interested in Corbyn's self aggrandizement or explanations ... it's just hand-waving from a charlatan. I have followed his "efforts" for longer than I care to think (you know I worked for the UKMO?). He is always right after the fact and always, but always, the UKMO is wrong .... according to him. Of course "contrarian" peeps think the sun (sic) shines out of "his arse" as he cocks a snook at established science.

cont
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2015
cont

Correct - I do ignore the Earth's "plasma/magnetic environment" as there is no science that backs up the addition of W/m^2 from it into the the earth's climate system (and why now when the correlation with CO2 meets all validations). There are "top down" effects that alter wind regimes in the Trop. I repeat: They cause regional effects in deltaT and not ave global ones. Tell me how they add W/m^2 to the climate please. In a science paper not via his self advertisemnets.
That would be the only validation. Not him saying so.

BTW: He makes so many predictions one must come off eventually. BUT he of course only needs the odd one to be "always correct" whereas the UKMO only needs one to be wrong to be "always wrong".
Yes, it rankles ... maybe because I've witnessed blind acceptance of the arrogant long-haired boffin's genius when in reality the Emperor plainly has no clothes.

This is his usual "success" rating ....

http://www.skepti...-15.html
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2015
Re: "Correct - I do ignore the Earth's "plasma/magnetic environment" as there is no science that backs up the addition of W/m^2 from it into the the earth's climate system"

You're confusing your decision to ignore science as an absence of science ...

See http://wattsupwit...nt-down/

---

... UCLA atmospheric scientists have discovered a previously unknown basic mode of energy transfer from the solar wind to the Earth's magnetosphere. The research, federally funded by the National Science Foundation, could improve the safety and reliability of spacecraft that operate in the upper atmosphere.

"It's like something else is heating the atmosphere besides the sun. This discovery is like finding it got hotter when the sun went down," said Larry Lyons, UCLA professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences ...
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2015
cont'd

... The sun, in addition to emitting radiation, emits a stream of ionized particles called the solar wind that affects the Earth and other planets in the solar system ...

... Charged particles carry currents, which cause significant modifications in the Earth's magnetosphere ...

... The rate at which the solar wind transfers energy to the magnetosphere can vary widely, but what determines the rate of energy transfer is unclear.

"We thought it was known, but we came up with a major surprise," ...

... The interplanetary magnetic field fluctuates greatly in magnitude and direction.

"We all have thought for our entire careers — I learned it as a graduate student — that this energy transfer rate is primarily controlled by the direction of the interplanetary magnetic field," ...
zz5555
5 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2015
Oh, you mean the one where he said the polar ice would be gone.

I like the music in this one:
https://www.youtu...yTbPwhlw

Thanks for including the evidence of your lie. Gore clearly said "a 75% chance that the arctic could be ice free during some summer months" which you have changed to "would". Since "would" is much different then "could" (I'm not convinced that even a corrupt politician would claim they were the same), you've admitted you made it up. I appreciate your admitting to the lie.
you're going to have to point out the spin. I'm not seeing it.

Interesting. You said you didn't lie (for some reason). The video shows you did. I'm not sure what else you need to know.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2015
cont'd

... "The energy of the particles and the fields in the magnetosphere can vary by large amounts. It can be 10 times higher or 10 times lower from day to day, even from half-hour to half-hour. These are huge variations in particle intensities, magnetic field strength and electric field strength," Lyons said ...

... In our field, this finding is pretty earth-shaking. It's an entire new mode of energy transfer, which is step one. The next step is to understand how it works. It must be a completely different process." ...

---

Of course, none of this should have been a surprise, considering that we see hot poles on other planets like Venus, Saturn, Enceladus, Neptune ...

On Neptune, the poles are a full 50 degrees warmer than the rest of the planet. And it is of course 30 times the Earth-Sun distance.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2015
How do you know I haven't served
-The same way we know that george served in nam as a 20yo noncom tech changing tubes, plugging things in, turning things on and off, and spending his evenings sleeping in a cushy hotel in thailand.

Evidence.
you accused me of lying about my military service, even after I sent you to military sites with my name and picture on them
Well since you have proven yourself to be a pathological liar it was only a reasonable conclusion.

You can understand that cant you? Try.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2015
This too ... http://www.uta.ed...rant.php

... University of Texas at Arlington physicist Yue Deng will receive more than $500,000 from NASA to study how space weather events such as solar flares drive vertical winds to affect electrodynamics in the Earth's upper atmosphere ...

... During times of greater solar output, like after a coronal mass ejection (CME) or solar flare, spikes of energy can enter the thermosphere/ionosphere, also known as the upper atmosphere ...

... The new four-year, $534,000 grant builds on a $408,000 NASA grant Deng received in 2013 to further develop the Global Ionosphere-Thermosphere Model or GITM ...
HannesAlfven
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2015
More details from here ... http://www.uta.ed...rant.php ...

... "Right now, estimation of the amount of energy entering the Earth's thermosphere is not very precise and can be underestimated by 100 percent. We know even less about how that energy is distributed," Deng said. "This information is critical because if you put the same amount of energy at 400 kilometers the impact can be 100 times larger than if you put it at 100 kilometers." ...

... Deng said the grant team plans to integrate information from several different scientific models and the COSMIC satellite program. They will create a more comprehensive model of how conductivity is distributed through altitudes. The research also will explore the role that Joule heating, or friction heating, and charged particles in the ionosphere play in energy distribution ...
denglish
1 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2015
Gore clearly said "a 75% chance that the arctic could be ice free during some summer months" which you have changed to "would".

There is a 25% chance that there will be ice on the polar caps.

There is a 75% chance you'll win the lotto. Will you play?

Should ruinous social policies be based on a 75% chance (that aren't supported by observation)?

Which one is could? Which one is should? Which one has happened despite falsified predictions?

Don't feel bad. Observation has defeated anthropocentric science since anthropocentric science was first posited.

The same way we know that george served in nam as a 20yo noncom tech

I've been thinking about this a bit. The USAFSS is a select group. Those that cut it are true American heroes, and never stop being that. Those that couldn't cut it are true American zeroes. One group loves their country, the other hates it.

runrig
5 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2015
You're confusing your decision to ignore science as an absence of science ...

See http://wattsupwit...nt-down/


Sorry, but a link to Watty's denialist/conspiracist Blog doesn't constitute peer-reviewed science, or anything that might be linked to there (been there, done that and got the T-shirt ta).

More hand-waving I see to boot. About as credit worthy as Corbyn's claims of infallibiity and everyone else in climate science being incompetent.
Oh also, I see he reckons the world is cooling. You too?.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2015
Re: "Sorry, but a link to Watty's denialist/conspiracist Blog doesn't constitute peer-reviewed science, or anything that might be linked to there"

That's a pathetic excuse for thinking, because these articles very plainly mention that the research is being performed by NASA, UCLA and the University of Texas.

I do appreciate, however, your own decision to be so transparent that you are merely here to convey the thoughts of others -- not to actually learn and think about claims made about the climate.

I also appreciate that you are more forthright than most that you eagerly ignore the larger plasma environment, and I've already snapshotted this quote as a demonstration of a much larger problem which most people do not actually admit to.
AGreatWhopper
3.9 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2015
Can't imagine why there's a failure in science communication when sites like this take revenue from scammer marketing like Outbrain and Adblade, and conservative groups like The Heritage Foundation and The Koch Foundation to let every tinfoil job on the planet jerk off all over the virtual page whenever they feel like it.

And all the prima dona, alpha primate video-ready personalities that saturate science programming really communicates how science isn't about personalities. When was the last time you heard a Popper-esque falsifiability criterion mentioned in a Creationist debate?

Yeah, I can't imagine why there's a failure in communication. Mon dieu, idiots, you have given anyone that wants to muddy the uneducated society's conception carte blanche. ALL of you. When you debate those idiots, you further their cause. If you don't have the frustration tolerance to ignore them, why should they have the discipline to learn what they're talking about? A pox on all your houses.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (11) Jul 25, 2015
USAFSS?

Is that the Security Service, the guys who change transistors on the keyers?
denglish
1 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2015
USAFSS?

Is that the Security Service, the guys who change transistors on the keyers?

No.

Now get out of our country and take your hatred with you.

When you debate those idiots, you further their cause.

There is no debate. The models that have spurned the destructive policies have been falsified by observation.

http://www.drroys...2013.png
gkam
2 / 5 (12) Jul 25, 2015
Oh, that's right, you are referring to the USAF Sanitary Service.

We respect you guys, . . honest.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (11) Jul 25, 2015
" The USAFSS is a select group."
-------------------------------

Yeah, we had their equipment, (actually NSA brown boxes), five of them on each aircraft. But your supertroops never got to see them because our radios were of higher classification, so we had to go to barbwire High School at Lackland and do the maintenance ourselves.

I still have my copy of AF47b Crypto Access Certificate.
Returners
1 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2015
Jim Henson believes sea levels will rise by 5 to 9 meters this century.

If 9 meters happens I would literally be living on the beach, and property values here would go up ten fold (with respect to inflation) and this piece of land would be worth millions.

NOLA and Shanghai will be the next two "sunken cities", although Venice sort of has a head-start on them, but since they are closer to the equator sea level rise should happen faster there due to astronomical/tidal reasons.

nine meters.

HOOOeey, Uncle IRA, you sure you still want to live in Louisiana, Cher? You gotta protect that wife of yours. My advice is gtfo of here while you have money to do so, before the next economic bubble screws you over and you're left to live in Keven Costner's "water world".

The dinosaurs went extinct in one day, and here yalll are worried about a millennia long process.

"Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die."
denglish
1 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2015
" The USAFSS is a select group."
-------------------------------

Yeah, we had their equipment, (actually NSA brown boxes), five of them on each aircraft. But your supertroops never got to see them because our radios were of higher classification, so we had to go to barbwire High School at Lackland and do the maintenance ourselves.

I still have my copy of AF47b Crypto Access Certificate.

You are a disgrace. You have no idea about the USAFSS, or the services ancillary to the USAFSS.

If you did, you would show respect, and you would not talk. Those that know don't talk. Those that don't know, talk. #selfrevealed

Back to the article, science is not based on the skill of the presenter. it is based on observation, where AGW theories fail.
zz5555
5 / 5 (8) Jul 26, 2015
There is no debate. The models that have spurned the destructive policies have been falsified by observation.

http://www.drroys...2013.png

Interesting. You've admitted that the graph doesn't show a failure in the models, so how, exactly have they been falsified?

And you've never been able to enumerate how a failure of the models (which are, by definition, different from the science) would constitute a falsification of the science.
zz5555
5 / 5 (7) Jul 26, 2015
There is a 75% chance you'll win the lotto. Will you play?

Should ruinous social policies be based on a 75% chance (that aren't supported by observation)?

Ahh, the inevitable changing of the goalposts when you lose one argument. Your claim of "ruinous social policies" with absolutely no proof is silly. Many studies have pointed out that mitigation is cheaper than adaptation and that mitigation is better for the poor, so your claim seems baseless. And the claim of "aren't supported by observation" is similarly nonsensical since the model used for this was actually a curve fit of the observations. (Which is why most people were highly skeptical of it.)

You also ignore the fact that in the same talk (immediately before the part you lied about) Gore mentioned that most scientists don't think the ice will disappear until 2030ish. So the consensus (and what policies are based on) is ~2030. You seem to be whining about nothing. As usual.
HannesAlfven
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 26, 2015
I think it's clear from comments online lately that we are in a new phase of discourse on climate change. People don't believe the sh*t anymore, and for a variety of reasons. And it's not just a handful of people. These people will over time become yet better at explaining their cases. For many people who care deeply about science, this subject emits all of the most characteristic traits of what is wrong with science today.

I want to thank people for taking time from their busy lives to have a say, because when every single scientific subject is suddenly looked at through the lens of underperforming ad hoc models, it is like a cancer on our system of creating and discussing knowledge.

The headline today was that rapidly rising sea levels will kill turtles because the eggs will be under water. People will one day ridicule ALL of us for not speaking up about the absurdity of it. We are all implicated in the stupidity simply because we lived in this time.
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Jul 26, 2015
That's a pathetic excuse for thinking, because these articles very plainly mention that the research is being performed by NASA, UCLA and the University of Texas


If that is the case then link directly to them.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2015
Re: "If that is the case then link directly to them."

Possible reasons for underestimating Joule heating in global models: E field variability, spatial resolution, and vertical velocity
Yue Deng and Aaron J. Ridley
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 112,

http://nldr.libra...-001.pdf

It is important to understand Joule heating because it can significantly change the
temperature structure, atmosphere composition, and electron density. It is thought that many coupled ionosphere-thermosphere models underestimate Joule heating because the spatial and temporal variability of the ionospheric electric field is not totally captured within global models.

... High-latitude Joule heating is one of the most significant energy deposition processes from the magnetosphere into the ionosphere-thermosphere system ...
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Jul 26, 2015
... During the January 1997 magnetic cloud event, 47% of the solar wind energy was deposited in the form of Joule heating, while 22% was in the form of particle heating [Lu et al., 1998]. During a typical storm, more than half of the energy is deposited through Joule heating [Sharber et al., 1988]. Joule heating has significant consequences in the thermosphere and ionosphere. The obvious response is the rapid increase of temperature ...

While Joule heating has been investigated utilizing measurements obtained by satellites [Rich et al., 1987; Heelis and Coley, 1988; Kelley et al., 1991; Gary et al., 1995; Lu¨hr et al., 2004] and ground-based radars, [Banks et al., 1981; Kamide and Kroehl, 1987; de La Beaujardie´re et al., 1991; Thayer et al., 1995; Thayer, 1998], it is currently impossible for observations to give a precise specification of global Joule heating due to the difficulty of observing conductivity, electric field, and neutral wind simultaneously at all locations ...
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Jul 26, 2015
... Joule heating has been consistently underestimated because it is frequently assumed in general circulation models (GCMs) that the electric field is relatively smooth both in space and time. Codrescu et al. [1995] showed that the polar region electric field is variable and that the variability can significantly increase the amount of Joule heating ...

... Using the satellite CHAMP data, Lu¨hr et al. [2004] analyzed the correlation between field-aligned currents (FAC) and the neutral density enhancements in the cusp region. They found that small-scale FAC filaments are significant to Joule heating.

Electric field spatial variability, as well as temporal variability, strongly affect the accurate calculation of Joule heating

---

ETC.

Pretty much spills the beans on where the heating is likely coming from. People have not yet recognized the importance of this research, because most people do not understand that plasmas conduct currents through thin filaments.
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 26, 2015
That's a pathetic excuse for thinking, because these articles very plainly mention that the research is being performed by NASA, UCLA and the University of Texas


If that is the case then link directly to them.


@runrig

So far I haven't found any papers on Yue Deng's research but have found four papers she co-authored.

http://onlinelibr...2182/pdf
http://onlinelibr...754/full
http://onlinelibr...8039/pdf

One of the papers seems to be the most relevant
:http://onlinelibr...840/full

I've only skimmed through the papers but my take is that Hannes is like JVK in misinterpreting and finding significance that doesn't exist. Nothing in papers I've read diminishes the role of CO2 in AGW.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Jul 26, 2015
There are two reasons for errors in Corbyn's methodology:

(1) He lacks a supercomputer. So, his methodology is crude by modern simulation standards. His detractors like to point to his failures as proof that he's a fraud, but his successes are really just a proof-of-concept. This field of study is really only getting started.

(2) Piers does not understand how all of the layers of our atmosphere electromagnetically interact with one another. That is what Yue Deng studies. She is asking all of the right questions to actually answer this question. She's so far ahead of the game that AGW advocates have no idea that she's about to destroy their vision of a frightened public.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Jul 26, 2015
Re: "Nothing in papers I've read diminishes the role of CO2 in AGW."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

It is funny because you have no idea how this paper actually fits into the larger picture. If all you did was actually read the materials I've been sending here to these forums, you would understand why she is so devastating. There is no rhetorical distance between this woman and Wal Thornhill. She will burn AGW to the ground before she is done, and the public will love her because she will give us predictive 4-week forecasts with NASA supercomputers, based upon extreme solar events.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Jul 26, 2015
A sneak-peak at where the climate change debate will end up ...

https://social-sc...0#claims
Vietvet
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 26, 2015

There is no rhetorical distance between this woman and Wal Thornhill. She will burn AGW to the ground before she is done, and the public will love her because she will give us predictive 4-week forecasts with NASA supercomputers, based upon extreme solar events.


You are delusional.
Kedas
5 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2015
The problem is how many % of the people can understand it, (Independent if the message was clear or not. How many people even known what sunspots are.)

How many times do you hear that they have to simplify it so people understand it.
Einstein's razor:
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."
Vietvet
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 26, 2015
@Hannes

All through this thread you've demonstrated you don't understand the difference between weather and climate.

Your linking Deng to Thornhill and the goofs at Thunderbolts is ludicrous.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Jul 26, 2015
Re: "All through this thread you've demonstrated you don't understand the difference between weather and climate."

Come on, now. You guys are your own worst enemy. You just refuse to read.

What these theorists are investigating, if you actually study this subject, is that there are events which suddenly pump electrical charge into our very complex atmosphere -- which, to be clear, is a layering of what -- in the plasma laboratory -- is called a double layer. I am not speaking of ionization; we are talking about electrical currents which travel over the solar wind plasma.

What they are starting to look into, which all of you guys are trying so hard to ignore, is that these influxes of charged particles can not only create sudden warming events -- specifically observed at the poles -- but perhaps more importantly, that charge then circulates around the global electric circuit, where it then alters the Earth's fundamental weather parameters.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Jul 26, 2015
It's been known for many years now that the lower stratosphere temperatures do indeed correlate really quite well with the sunspot cycle; the correlation gets yet better if you also take into account the "open" magnetic field lines -- that stuff coming out of the polar coronal holes.

In high school, you learned that magnetic fields and electric currents tend to go hand-in-hand. So, we of course understand that the Sun has numerous overlapping magnetic cycles, and these cycles can even be observed to resonate with one another -- as observed on transmission lines.

There is even some growing discussion in the mainstream of the role of conjunctions in these cycles, but that's a far deeper and more complex subject. That conversation is made all the more interesting insofar as planetary scientists have recently come to understand that the magnetotails can suddenly lengthen by 50x (!), and in many instances sufficient to touch the next planet.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Jul 26, 2015
As theorists continue to move in this direction, the distinction between weather and climate will simply become more blurred. Accurate weather predictions will expand in length, but probably only conditionally, based upon the existence of certain solar events. But, to be clear, these solar events themselves will quite possibly turn out to be rather predictable, the more that researchers investigate them.

The story of how all of this came to be is really quite long -- which is why I'm attempting to reduce it to its core elements. You cannot learn this stuff by trying to NOT learn it.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (12) Jul 26, 2015
"You are a disgrace. You have no idea about the USAFSS, or the services ancillary to the USAFSS."
--------------------------------------

What does that have to do with the ice age?

Give up your petty personal pique, please.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (8) Jul 26, 2015
One of the most amazing things to watch over the years in places like this is this chorus of pseudoskeptics, who have not authentically taken the time to actually run claims back-and-forth, yelling at anybody who suggests it that if electricity is at play in the solar system, then build the models already.

What was predictable from the start of my own awareness of the situation was that that is indeed what would continue to happen, as it had already begun long ago, and is part of a much larger historical trend that this mob was simply not paying attention to.

The part I find interesting is that this trend was accessible to anybody who simply took the time to follow the critiques suggested by the Thunderbolts Group. What happens, in practice, however is that people feel inclined to defend their knowledge, and take shortcuts to the hard work of rationally engaging the arguments being made. The reward for discovery will go to Deng, and the mob will continue to be the mob.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (9) Jul 26, 2015
The Thunderbolts Group might not, at the end of the day, receive much direct attribution for these sorts of things. But, there can be no doubt of their legacy, at this point. There is a stage of discussion which occurs prior to the publication of any paper, where a theorist decides what would be a fruitful direction to go into with their research. The value that the Thunderbolts Group has provided to the world is that they have opened up these discussions of electricity in space to a far broader, more public audience. And we have the really quite odd situation that is actually quite common today where regular laypeople who are simply paying attention can know a bit more about where things are heading today than the larger, more conventional body of theorists -- who seem incapable of pursuing actual original research beyond the co2 nipple that they feed upon, and who are far more likely to take for granted the word of a specialist within a neighboring discipline.
denglish
1 / 5 (6) Jul 26, 2015
Your claim of "ruinous social policies" with absolutely no proof is silly

California AB32

Many studies have pointed out that mitigation is cheaper than adaptation and that mitigation is better for the poor, so your claim seems baseless.

Mitigation of what? Climate? The theories have been proven wrong via observation. Fraud has been exposed in the IPCC.

"aren't supported by observation"

Yes, they are. The theories have been falsified:
http://www.drroys...2013.png

the ice will disappear until 2030ish

Talk about moving the goalposts! Ok, so are you on board for ice disappearing 2030"ish"?
Check this out first. Notice the ice levels going up and down:
http://arctic.atm...rend.jpg

Anthropocentrism; so many humans embrace the absurd thought that they matter in the universe.

runrig
5 / 5 (9) Jul 26, 2015
That's a pathetic excuse for thinking, because these articles very plainly mention that the research is being performed by NASA, UCLA and the University of Texas


If that is the case then link directly to them.


@runrig

So far I haven't found any papers on Yue Deng's research but have found four papers she co-authored.

http://onlinelibr...2182/pdf

I've only skimmed through the papers but my take is that Hannes is like JVK in misinterpreting and finding significance that doesn't exist. Nothing in papers I've read diminishes the role of CO2 in AGW.

Thanks for that Viet:

A quote from that paper....
"The mass of the thermosphere above about 85 km is only 0.002% of the total mass. Therefore, no significant energetic feedback from the thermosphere to the lower atmospheric regions can be expected."
AGreatWhopper
2 / 5 (8) Jul 26, 2015
When I'm out hunting fossils there's a guy that, when he finds a really promising spot, warns everyone that he thought he saw a rattlesnake crawl under one of the loose rocks in the vicinity. He keeps feeling blindly under the rocks with unprotected hands the whole time he's saying it. Obviously no one believes him.

Acting 180 degrees contrary to what you're saying is the grossest form of failing to communicate, and you have to lay that 100% at the AGWites feet, not the skeptics. I will bet good money that the average number of kids each poster on this page has is less for the skeptics. I will bet there is no difference in car ownership. I will be that not one AGWite has ever turned down a job somewhere because living there is not environmentally sustainable. I will bet that the AGWites are patrons of Las Vegas as frequently as the skeptics.

Absolutely no difference in behavior. The whole ecosystem is at risk...but we're acting the same. BELIEVE US! No. I'm not stupid.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (9) Jul 26, 2015
what does that have to do with the ice age?
What does your alleged mil service have to do with the ice age?

Besides the fact that all these threads offer an opportunity to brag and lie about your ruined career.

Thermodynamics sees fit to defend liars and fabricators whose actions are 'trivial' to him which means that he is probably prone to casual lying and fabricating himself.

When it suits him that is.
zz5555
5 / 5 (9) Jul 26, 2015
"aren't supported by observation"

Yes, they are. The theories have been falsified:
http://www.drroys...2013.png

So your whole argument against the science seems to rest on this graph. Nothing in the plot seems to falsify any science. Can you explain how this falsifies any of the science? Please remember to discuss the probability range of the models and how the discretization used in the models affects the model results.

Thanks!
denglish
1 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2015
So your whole argument against the science seems to rest on this graph.

No, my whole argument is that regarding AGW, humanity is innocent until proven guilty without a reasonable doubt. There is plenty of reasonable doubt, thus instituting moral and economic ruin as a global -or worse- local policy is very poor judgement.

Can you explain how this falsifies any of the science?

Absolutely. Theories predict an outcome. When observation shows a different outcome, those theories are falsified.

Please remember to discuss the probability range of the models and how the discretization used in the models affects the model results.

I can't, because I am not trained, nor do I have the time/inclination to parse the data. Are you? Do you?

I don't need to, because those that are trained have already done it, and summarized it in a way that I can understand.

What do you think about AB32? Ya know, other states said they'd do it too. None have. I wonder why.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (12) Jul 26, 2015
"Thermodynamics sees fit to defend liars and fabricators whose actions are 'trivial' to him which means that he is probably prone to casual lying and fabricating himself."
-------------------------------------

otto, please grow up , . . then, leave!
NiteSkyGerl
3.5 / 5 (13) Jul 26, 2015
You're not debating anyone, you're trying to make a psychiatric intervention over the 'net. Is your time worth so little? http://www.livesc...ies.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 26, 2015
What does your alleged mil service have to do with AGW george?

WHY did you bring it up?

ANSWER the question george.
denglish
1 / 5 (6) Jul 26, 2015
What does your alleged mil service have to do with AGW george?

WHY did you bring it up?

ANSWER the question george.

zz5555
5 / 5 (10) Jul 26, 2015
Absolutely. Theories predict an outcome. When observation shows a different outcome, those theories are falsified.

Can you point out the theoretical outcomes that are different from observations here? Remember to discuss how model outputs differ from theoretical ones. Thanks!
I can't, because I am not trained, nor do I have the time/inclination to parse the data. Are you? Do you?

My PhD is in aerospace engineering with a concentration in CFD (same methods as climate modeling). So, umm, yeah.
I don't need to, because those that are trained have already done it, and summarized it in a way that I can understand.

Again, nothing in that graph shows any science being falsified. You admit to not understanding what the graph shows or what errors, if any, are shown. Why are you claiming anything's been falsified again? Thanks!
gkam
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 26, 2015
That's my line, if you remember:

denglish: "You are a disgrace. You have no idea about the USAFSS, or the services ancillary to the USAFSS."

"Stolen Valor!"
--------------------------------------
Me: What does that have to do with the ice age?

Give up your petty personal pique, please.

denglish
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 26, 2015
My PhD

Another internet liar. Why are all of you on the same side of the AGW coin? Seriously. Give it up before you find yourself in the same pot as gkam.

Can you point out the theoretical outcomes that are different from observations here?

Absolutely. Check out the graph link. The squiggly lines are all predictions. The black line with squares in it is the average of them all. The line with the blue and green circles are what actually happened.

http://www.drroys...e-wrong/

Again, nothing in that graph shows any science being falsified. You admit to not understanding what the graph shows or what errors, if any, are shown.

Wrong. See above.

Why are you claiming anything's been falsified again?

Again. Because the theories of prediction have not been vindicated by observation.

"Stolen Valor!"

You seem to be very proud of it.

zz5555
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 26, 2015
Absolutely. Check out the graph link. The squiggly lines are all predictions. The black line with squares in it is the average of them all. The line with the blue and green circles are what actually happened.

http://www.drroys...e-wrong/

Spencer's page doesn't discuss any errors, he just says there are some. Again, what errors are you seeing. What is the probability range of the model projections and how does the discretization used by the models affect those projections? Thanks!

Wrong. See above.

But you've admitted you don't understand the graph. Again, what is it about this graph that falsifies the science. What is the probability range of the models and how often, if at all, do the observations go outside bounds? How does the discretization used by the models affect the results and the ability for that graph to falsify the science? Thanks!
gkam
1 / 5 (8) Jul 26, 2015
Proud? Well, I did a really good job at the time, in the service, at both Edwards and with the 553rd Reconnaissance Wing, which put together, tested, deployed, and operated the Electronic Battlefield for Sec Def McNamara. It was called Igloo White, although I did not know that at the time. We were just technical spooks of a sort.

What did you do?

Oops, never mind, I am going to put you on Ignore, instead. Bye-bye.
denglish
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 26, 2015
What is the probability range of the model projections and how does the discretization used by the models affect those projections?

I already told you. I am neither qualified, nor inclined to parse the data. I will rely on a PhD to tell me, as Dr. Spencer has.

On that subject, wtf are you thinking claiming to be a PhD? I mean, haven't you seen how gkam has been eviscerated for his lies?

he just says there are some

Therefore, humanity is not guilty of AGW.

But you've admitted you don't understand the graph

Wrong. See above.

Again, what is it about this graph that falsifies the science.

Again. Described above.

What did you do?

I lied on the internet and paid for it to the extent that I couldn't face my audience anymore, so put them on ignore. /sarcasm

Bye-bye.

You cowardice will not conceal your ridiculousness.

philstacy9
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 26, 2015
xpowderx
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 27, 2015
Sun currently is spotless. According to Landscheidt. Nothing expected in the near future either. Do not have to worry about a reduction in solar activity by 2030. It is already happening now. Also for the record, volcanic activity is currently increasing exponentially. Is that not nice to know.!

Love stories like the one above who say one false premise is wrong. But replaces it with another false premise using skewed and fudged data. But supporting his agenda!
xpowderx
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 27, 2015
Also would like to add. The pic of the sun as the cover. With multiple sunspots even. When did that get taken? Back in the 90ies, early 2000's. Show a pic of the sun currently(I know would not fit the AGW/Climate Change agenda). Is ok, you will wake up in just a couple years.

Then most of the agenda driven NASA scientists will have to come up with something new!

Maybe we should discuss NASA's "New Method" of telling us how many sunspots are actually there.

As to CO2, just in the past couple of days 5 different volcano's erupted in Indonesia producing enough CO2 as all of humanity in the past 100 years!
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 27, 2015
Also for the record, volcanic activity is currently increasing exponentially.

Considering on average there are 50-60 active volcanoes out of potentially 1500 there is nothing
"exponentially" happening..
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 27, 2015


As to CO2, just in the past couple of days 5 different volcano's erupted in Indonesia producing enough CO2 as all of humanity in the past 100 years!


" Human activities emit roughly 135 times as much climate-warming carbon dioxide as volcanoes each year"

http://news.disco...0627.htm

@xpowerx

This is a science site, not a chat room for ignorant and stupid fools, though you'll fit in with the science denying trolls.
EnricM
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 27, 2015
Click-bait. Science is not consensus.


Nope? So, may I disent on gravity?
EnricM
3 / 5 (4) Jul 27, 2015
Re: "Nothing in papers I've read diminishes the role of CO2 in AGW."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

If all you did was actually read the materials I've been sending here to these forums, you would understand why she is so devastating.


Judging by this answer I am rally not quite in the mood. What should I expect to read, LOLSPEAK and pictures of funny cats ?

xpowderx
1 / 5 (7) Jul 27, 2015


As to CO2, just in the past couple of days 5 different volcano's erupted in Indonesia producing enough CO2 as all of humanity in the past 100 years!


" Human activities emit roughly 135 times as much climate-warming carbon dioxide as volcanoes each year"

http://news.disco...0627.htm

I prefer "reality" over faulty made up AGW charts!
xpowderx
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 27, 2015


As to CO2, just in the past couple of days 5 different volcano's erupted in Indonesia producing enough CO2 as all of humanity in the past 100 years!


" Human activities emit roughly 135 times as much climate-warming carbon dioxide as volcanoes each year"

http://news.disco...0627.htm

@xpowerx

This is a science site, not a chat room for ignorant and stupid fools, though you'll fit in with the science denying trolls.

Just to put the AGW alarmist in check. Nice cherry picking by the way! I prefer reality over those ignorant agw ALARMIST FOOLS. That is true! Now some science 101 just for you! http://www.geocra...ata.html
fidh
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 27, 2015
This article really forces you to wonder if climate change is an actual thing or just another God that you just have to believe in for the sake of greater good.
gkam
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 27, 2015
You do not have to "believe" in anything. Just stop polluting the Earth.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 27, 2015
Just to put the AGW alarmist in check. Nice cherry picking by the way! I prefer reality over those ignorant agw ALARMIST FOOLS. That is true! Now some science 101 just for you! http://www.geocra...ata.html

So?
What are you trying to say .... that H2O overwhelms Co2 as a GHG? Get away, I never relised that!
And that man-made CO2 is a small proportion of the total? ... well heck again.

FYI: Mr/Ms/Miss ignorant the amount of H20 present in the atmosphere is regulated by temperature ... which is where GHG's come in .... which is where fossil burning comes in.
Before the industrial revolution sources and sinks of CO2 were in balance.
What we've done is tip the balance and the Oceans can't sink it all any more - hence a build-up in the atmosphere.
Oh, also the volcano idiot... if that much CO2 were emitted by volcanoes, wouldn't you think it would show up on monitor sensors??

http://blogs.edf....lcanoes/
zz5555
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 27, 2015
My PhD


Another internet liar. Why are all of you on the same side of the AGW coin? Seriously. Give it up before you find yourself in the same pot as gkam

Interesting. So the only answer to your question that you would accept was "No, I'm as dumb as a post"? If you didn't want an honest answer, why did you ask it? That seems incredibly disingenuous of you. Remember, you're the only one here that is known to lie.

As for whether you believe me or not, that really isn't relevant. The important thing would be whether you can find any errors in my arguments. You've said you're not competent enough to do that, but if that's true, why are you commenting? If you're not competent enough to understand any errors that are presented to you, why do you believe someone like Spencer, who has made a career out of making errors? Oh yeah, because his errors confirm your political belief system.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 27, 2015
I prefer "reality" over faulty made up AGW charts!

No, you prefer bending reality to fit your world view.....

As Eddie Izzard says "considering the logic situation here..."

You prefer to think that the world's scientists (many disciplined - here volcanologists) and experts in their fields are variously lying/incompetent/mercenary/dishonest/socialist revolutionaries (pick to suit), rather than your dislike of the science of AGW be wrong just because it hit's "your tax dollars"?

Ah didums, sorry the way the universe works isn't on your side ... great shame. No really.
denglish
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 27, 2015
So the only answer to your question that you would accept was "No, I'm as dumb as a post"?

No, of course not.

Remember, you're the only one here that is known to lie.

?

As for whether you believe me or not, that really isn't relevant.

Good for you. If you slip, you'll get called out.

The important thing would be whether you can find any errors in my arguments.

Why?

If you're not competent enough to understand any errors that are presented to you, why do you believe someone like Spencer

Because I know for a fact that he is academically accomplished.

who has made a career out of making errors?

Says you

Oh yeah, because his errors confirm your political belief system.

Beliefs beget politics, not vice versa. As a PhD, you should know this.

As a PhD, you should also know that this article, promoting communication style over content, is indefensible as a scientific submission. Why do you defend it?

xpowderx
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 27, 2015
I prefer "reality" over faulty made up AGW charts!

No, you prefer bending reality to fit your world view.....

As Eddie Izzard says "considering the logic situation here..."

You prefer to think that the world's scientists (many disciplined - here volcanologists) and experts in their fields are variously lying/incompetent/mercenary/dishonest/socialist revolutionaries (pick to suit), rather than your dislike of the science of AGW be wrong just because it hit's "your tax dollars"?

Ah didums, sorry the way the universe works isn't on your side ... great shame. No really.


Actually I have much respect for many scientists. They just do not work for NASA, or NOAA.

As to bending reality. Do not have to do that. You see many NASA and NOAA scientists already do that! Fudging numbers to make AGW fit! How is that"New Method" working for counting sunspots?

Leaving out variables that are required and necessary when testing out a hypothesis.
xpowderx
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 27, 2015
PT2:
Then taking that tested faulty hypothesis that is already faulty and tell the general public it is "FACT".
No sir, I am not the one bending reality. Rather those AGW scientists in the U.S and UK do. AGW scientists are more pseudo scientists than actual real scientists. Regardless of a PHD!
xpowderx
2 / 5 (8) Jul 27, 2015
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
Richard Feynman, Nobel-prize-winning physicist
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Jul 27, 2015
As to bending reality. Do not have to do that. You see many NASA and NOAA scientists already do that! Fudging numbers to make AGW fit! How is that"New Method" working for counting sunspots?


QED
zz5555
5 / 5 (6) Jul 27, 2015
So the only answer to your question that you would accept was "No, I'm as dumb as a post"?

No, of course not.

Then why get so huffy about my academic qualifications? Are your lack of academic qualifications a sore spot with you?
Good for you. If you slip, you'll get called out.

As should happen. On the whole I prefer to be correct, so pointing out an error on my part will improve me.
Because I know for a fact that he is academically accomplished.

But you've admitted that you're not competent to judge his qualifications.why not accept the majority opinion of the scientists?
Beliefs beget politics, not vice versa. As a PhD, you should know this.

I understand reality, but everything you've said indicates you don't believe this. Spencer is well known for getting things wrong (and that's not just my opinion). Yet you believe whatever he says without question even though you're incapable of understanding what he's saying. Why would anyone do that?
zz5555
5 / 5 (6) Jul 27, 2015
As a PhD, you should also know that this article, promoting communication style over content, is indefensible as a scientific submission. Why do you defend it?

Did I do that? I wasn't aware of that. In fact, I'm pretty sure I didn't defend it. I believe I did point out, early on, that the paper that this article discusses predicts a future solar minimum (in 2030?) that isn't sufficient to stop global warming, let alone cause anything like an ice age. Other than that, I've attempted to correct mistakes made by other commenters.

For example, you continue to claim that the models have failed, pointing to a graph that doesn't give enough information to determine if the models have failed. I pointed you to another link that shows the models, in fact, have not failed. You then admitted you don't have the competency required to judge whether the models have failed. I then asked why you feel qualified to comment, then. And here we are.
jeffensley
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 27, 2015
You do not have to "believe" in anything. Just stop polluting the Earth.


Just out of curiosity, how often do you have to feed the hamster that runs your computer? Is it organically grown hamster food? ;)

Stop polluting he says... this from the crowd that has managed to label an atmospheric gas a "pollutant". If some of you weren't such extremists, it might be easier to have a realistic discussion about the practical aspects of reducing CO2 output. At the moment however, most of you come off as a "do as I say, not as I do" sort of crowd which makes the above conversation VERY difficult.
gkam
3 / 5 (14) Jul 27, 2015
" . . this from the crowd that has managed to label an atmospheric gas a "pollutant"."

You may enjoy sitting a cloud of your own carbon dioxide and sulfurous methane, but to the rest of us it's a pollutant.
denglish
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 27, 2015
Are your lack of academic qualifications a sore spot with you?

No, people creating false real-life personas in order to attain internet credibilty is.

But you've admitted that you're not competent to judge his qualifications.why not accept the majority opinion of the scientists?

I don't need to judge his qualifications, so my competency to do so is moot. I look at both sides, and my judgement is the same: AGW is not proven to an extent that justifies moral and economic chaos.

Yet you believe whatever he says without question even though you're incapable of understanding what he's saying.

Actually, i did question it. After weighing both sides, his was by far the most reasonable.

I pointed you to another link that shows the models, in fact, have not failed.

Which I pointed out was the same as Spencer's, just described differently.

And here we are.

Politics. Who knew facts could be so muddy.

TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 27, 2015
Proud? Well, I did a really good job at the time, in the service, at both Edwards and with the 553rd Reconnaissance Wing etcetc
And are you proud of trying to use these dubious claims of service as evidence that you know what you are talking about when you claim that

"-HIGH ENERGY alpha cant penetrate skin

-Dried manure which you think is called volatile solids is a MAJOR constituent of 'high air' pollution in the central valley

-Swimming pools are typically used to cool houses

-Plutonium is raining down on idaho

-You have the right to double the number and magnitude of earthquakes on a given day

-you are an engineer even though you admit (and have demonstrated) that you have NO relevant education, degree, experience, or licence

-H2 deflagrations can compress dirty molten Pu and throw vessel parts 130km when conventional nukes cant even throw debris more than a few km
http://phys.org/n...sts.html
gkam
2.5 / 5 (11) Jul 27, 2015
otto, you are developing a really intense fixation on me since I showed the folks your admission of hiding behind pseudonyms playing your "games" here. You thought you had found another phony like yourself, and could not wait to "out" him. But after you screamed I was lying about being in the Air Force, then in the 553rd, then doling contract research, then at PG&E, then a consultant, you got madder and madder until it became your all-encompassing mania, dominating your tiny little life.

Work done, I guess I can go now.
zz5555
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 27, 2015
No, people creating false real-life personas in order to attain internet credibilty is.

Why would you care? Are you actually swayed by an appeal to authority fallacy? Is your competency that weak? (I also find it amusing that someone who has admitted to lying for political reasons makes this comment, but such is life.)
Actually, i did question it. After weighing both sides, his was by far the most reasonable.

Hmm, you've claimed not to be competent enough to weigh either side. Now you say you are. So looking at Spencer's graph, what is it about that graph that falsifies any science? Make sure to discuss the probability range of the models and the discretization used by the models. ;)
Politics. Who knew facts could be so muddy.

I don't know - maybe that's why I stick to science and try to avoid politics. Discussing politics is boring and makes you look like a moron, so I'm not sure why anyone does.
denglish
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 28, 2015
Are you actually swayed by an appeal to authority fallacy?

No, I hate liars.

Hmm, you've claimed not to be competent enough to weigh either side. Now you say you are. So looking at Spencer's graph, what is it about that graph that falsifies any science? Make sure to discuss the probability range of the models and the discretization used by the models.

I won't be tasked by time-prohibitive chores that will go no-where. Those calculations have already been made. The two graphs we showed each other are the same thing, described differently.

As a PhD, you should know that experts do the work, and bosses make the policy. Bosses therefore need not be experts, but do need to be skeptical.

This knowledge is business 101.

so I'm not sure why anyone does.

Probably because this is a political issue. Check this out:
https://stevengod...at-noaa/

Cya in the next thread.
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 28, 2015
otto, you are developing a really intense fixation on me since I showed the folks your admission of hiding behind pseudonyms playing your "games" here. You thought you had found another phony like yourself, and could not wait to "out" him. But after you screamed I was lying about being in the Air Force, then in the 553rd, then doling contract research, then at PG&E, then a consultant, you got madder and madder until it became your all-encompassing mania, dominating your tiny little life.

Work done, I guess I can go now.

Nurse...NURSE!!
It's off it's meds again!
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2015
Now that we know Deniers are still wrong, can we unite and save the Earth?

It won't be easy: Emotionally-manipulated by political prejudice, the Deniers have an ego stake in this now. The same folk who SCARED them with screams of "WMD!" are now telling them it is everybody else who are the problem.
xpowderx
1 / 5 (9) Jul 28, 2015
Regardless if it is a Ice Age or actual Global Warming. Things need to be done. It is a shame that most AGW Advocates and supporters have a horrible track record of lying and deception. To the point where they are the Bernie Maedoffs of the Science Community. And are often among general public the "Brunt end" of a joke.

Regardless, Ice Age or AGW. both are very bad! Hopefully, we all can unite under one cause. The betterment of humanity!
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 28, 2015
It is a shame that most AGW Advocates and supporters have a horrible track record of lying and deception.


That'll be just like the Lord Monckton then.....

https://www.youtu...-aHvjOgM
https://www.youtu...3Ki7pBr4
https://www.youtu...48b6Lsbo
https://www.youtu...5GaQ8OKk
xpowderx
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2015
It is a shame that most AGW Advocates and supporters have a horrible track record of lying and deception.


That'll be just like the Lord Monckton then.....

https://www.youtu...-aHvjOgM

Interesting... Like a bad version of Monty Python!
jljenkins
3.5 / 5 (11) Jul 29, 2015
You should ridicule poor souls like Denglish. It can lead to suicide.

Actually, now that I've looked at his profile and posts, carry on.
AGreatWhopper
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 29, 2015
denglish

-2.3 / 5 (3) 21 hours ago

Are you actually swayed by an appeal to authority fallacy?

No, I hate liars.


Self hate is a bitch!
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 29, 2015
No, I hate liars.

Then why do you do it? Do you enjoy being a hypocrite?
The two graphs we showed each other are the same thing, described differently.

And, yet, mine shows clearly that the models haven't failed. In fact, it shows the models have done quite well considering what the models are. Since you seem to agree that the models haven't failed, I'm left wondering why you were spouting "falsified" all the time.
Cya in the next thread.

That seems unlikely. Your comments here state unequivocally that all your beliefs about science are based on an Argument From Authority logical fallacy. Since you admit to having no clue about any of the claims you make (and refuse to ask questions about things you don't understand - which, as you say, is everything), it's hard to see how you could add anything useful to any conversation.
jscroft
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 29, 2015
Lower solar activity -> Fewer charged particles in the solar wind -> fewer captured by Earth's magnetosphere -> less protection against cosmic rays close to the ground -> more cloud formation -> colder climate.

All pretty mainstream stuff. But the article--written by somebody who presumably knows better--just bleats on about irradiance, as if that were the only mechanism whereby solar output affects climate.

Gosh, it's almost as if the author has an axe to grind.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Jul 29, 2015
otto, you are developing a really intense fixation on me since I showed the folks
ALL the 'folks' have to do is see the sorry list of lies I posted above, and know that you insist they are all true because you are george kamburoff.

Theyre not true. They will never be true no matter who you are.
xpowderx
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 29, 2015
Lower solar activity -> Fewer charged particles in the solar wind -> fewer captured by Earth's magnetosphere -> less protection against cosmic rays close to the ground -> more cloud formation -> colder climate.

All pretty mainstream stuff. But the article--written by somebody who presumably knows better--just bleats on about irradiance, as if that were the only mechanism whereby solar output affects climate.

Gosh, it's almost as if the author has an axe to grind.

Heh, they do have a Axe to grind. After Climategate and a few other instance AGW scientists have -0- credibility with the majority of the public. Many non AGW scientists have to live with those Maedoffs of the science community.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 29, 2015
Lower solar activity -> Fewer charged particles in the solar wind -> fewer captured by Earth's magnetosphere -> less protection against cosmic rays close to the ground -> more cloud formation -> colder climate.


Then as the Sun has been slowly weakening for ~50 years, why has it got warmer, not colder?

http://www.skepti....php?g=5

Oh, and would it be high cloud or low?
High cloud warms overall, and low cloud cools.
jscroft
1 / 5 (4) Jul 29, 2015
Well the cosmic ray effect probably increases with atmospheric density, so I would guess probably low on the average.

And there are, what, 5 distinct solar cycles of different periods? Or more? So "slowly weakening for ~50 years" doesn't quite capture it, huh.

And warmer, not colder? Take a walk outside, genius. Anyway, if you make up the data I guess you can make it say whatever you want: https://stevengod...at-noaa/
runrig
5 / 5 (8) Jul 29, 2015
And warmer, not colder? Take a walk outside, genius. Anyway, if you make up the data I guess you can make it say whatever you want: https://stevengod...at-noaa/


Err, that would be local weather my friend not global climate, now wouldn't it?
Been visiting WUWT have we?

Steven Goddard (Tony Heller) witters on about changes required to homogenize US historical temp data, not least because of TOBS ... a little matter of in the past taking max temps in the early evening and resetting the thermometers at the same time - Well, surprise, surprise, we have an inbuilt warm bias, as the reset temp would often record as the max for the next day as well! So we correct for that stupidity and there is now a cooling of data in the past. Do you think it reasonable to plot apples and oranges on the same graph?

Oh also the US is NOT the globe. I know some US citizens cant fathom that, but it IS the case.
leetennant
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 29, 2015
Oh look, let's quote Steve Goddard. I can only assume those who do have never actually *read* that joke of a blog.

I should start one myself. Here goes:

I took this graph from a NASA website. I have removed all metadata and contextual information but have left the title that says "Average ice" on the top. I've then flattened the axis to make the data look flatter and have used Excel to put in a linear trend line (although without any metadata you have no idea what it's a linear trend line *of*).

Now I write a blog post that says

"Look at this graph! This is NASA data! See how it's flat! Arctic ice is stable! Climate change is a lie".

The End.

I'm sorry but how can anybody take that "analysis" seriously? That's an essay written by a 13 yr old vege maths student who's hoping the exclamation marks will hide the fact he doesn't know how maths works.

It's truly pathetic.
xpowderx
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 29, 2015
I heard 250,000 Alpacas have died so far this year due to a extreme winter. As it is the hottest year(supposedly)on record. Scotland and Ireland prepare for some serious ICY conditions(In July). Something about Finland saying its the coldest summer on record. Just a sampling of real current events from around the world.

Since NOAA said its the Hottest June on record. Wonder how much of that data uses "El Nino" to up the numbers. Like I said and most know it! AGW peeps are scammers!
leetennant
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 29, 2015
@xpowderx

That is the perfect example of everything that's wrong with the current dialogue. I read stuff like that and I don't know if that's genuine or, once again, a deliberate attempt to confuse the issue.

You've just cherry picked a few regional locations and then gone "Hottest year ever?!" I don't think so!. Ignoring the fact that "global average temperatures" are just that - *global* *average* temperatures.

And the El Nino reference is just brilliant. Oddly enough, we do publish temperatures without accounting for the El NIno - just like we didn't account for the La Nina. We also look at trends outside the ENSO cycle and, guess what, that shows a warming trend too.

You can't use the La Nina to claim temp rises have "stalled" (even though they didn't) and then call foul when the El Nino overcomes that.

This is the pinnacle of bullshit cherry picking designed solely to confuse ordinary people who don't have time to study the science.
xpowderx
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 29, 2015
US National Weather Service Billings Montana: We have 10 days or more of solid summer coming up and past that...don't have a strong feel. https://www.faceb...ef=photo
gkam
3.2 / 5 (9) Jul 29, 2015
xpowderx, you are not getting what they are telling you.
leetennant
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 29, 2015
xpowderx, you are not getting what they are telling you.


Now now @gkam, as an Australian I'm completely fascinated by the current weather in Montana and it is totally relevant to year-to-date average global temperatures.
xpowderx
1.8 / 5 (6) Jul 29, 2015
@leetennant
I agree with you wholeheartedly. That was done a bit intentionally. I think the difference between theoretical modeling and real natural events. Which is a average person going to rely on?

I could go on and give argument for or against AGW or Cooling but really it would be meaningless. From my view we have bigger issues currently than either of those. Population sustainability would be one. Aeolian process due to human population is another. Which has very little to do with AGW or Cooling. Although it can set up a climate for either.
leetennant
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 29, 2015
And I was being ridiculously sarcastic. Australia is in the middle of its hottest year on record. But a few weeks ago, we had some record cold weather in Sydney. Unfortunately that's where all the national journalists live. As such, we had to endure acres of newsprint of "climate change isn't real because I'm cold right now".

The "average" person would benefit from people not cherry picking short-term regional weather as "evidence" against a long-term trend.

The weather where you live right now is utterly meaningless. I don't care whether you're cold. It is completely irrelevant to anything.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Jul 29, 2015
"From my view we have bigger issues currently than either of those"
-------------------------------

Nationalism and rising militarism. Read the Asian dailies from China/Hong Kong, South Korea and Japan.
TehDog
5 / 5 (9) Jul 29, 2015
http://iceagenow....ld-snow/
Sigh, look at Peru on a relief map, alpacas are high altitude adapted animals, an extended cold spell will have an exaggerated effect on normal mortality rates (which are not mentioned in that blog post)
http://www.thegua...ter-cold
Maybe we should be worrying about the farmers.

@133t "as an Australian I'm completely fascinated by the current weather in Montana and it is totally relevant to year-to-date average global temperatures."
:)

xpowderx
1 / 5 (5) Jul 29, 2015
The biggest issue is destabilization of natural environments/processes due to human influence. All the energy reduction, green solutions really do nothing to counter the real issue for this planet. Which is a unsustainable population. Or in a laymans term. Overpopulation! Desertification is a big one on my list.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 29, 2015
The biggest issue is destabilization of natural environments/processes due to human influence. All the energy reduction, green solutions really do nothing to counter the real issue for this planet. Which is a unsustainable population. Or in a laymans term. Overpopulation! Desertification is a big one on my list.


Surely you are being facetious. What do you think will exacerbate desertification? How exactly do you think that this somehow evidences against human caused global warming?
xpowderx
1.6 / 5 (8) Jul 29, 2015
The biggest issue is destabilization of natural environments/processes due to human influence. All the energy reduction, green solutions really do nothing to counter the real issue for this planet. Which is a unsustainable population. Or in a laymans term. Overpopulation! Desertification is a big one on my list.


Surely you are being facetious. What do you think will exacerbate desertification? How exactly do you think that this somehow evidences against human caused global warming?

LOL, could care less about Global Warming. Due to desertification caused by erosion due to man. Human CO2 footprints are worthless in the overall scheme. Loss of plant life, species is a greater concern. As less plant life means less CO2 being absorbed/synthesized. Which means more CO2 overall in the world.

AGW offer solutions that put a bandaid on a gaping gash. Like I said population is a issue more so than CO2 and or Global Warming!
xpowderx
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 29, 2015
More desert means less plant life which in turn means more CO2. A excerpt: The Gobi desert in central China gobbles up 3,600 square kilometres of grassland each year, creating powerful sandstorms, robbing farmers of food-producing land, and displacing people from their homes.

Other examples, Sahara, Mohave which continue to grow and replace plant life. Then we can look at places like the Amazon ect. How did the Sahara become the Sahara desert by the way.
xpowderx
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 29, 2015
Global Warming and increased CO2 in the world is a by-product of desertification and erosion. Even more so than any carbon footprint by man. The only way to avert destabilization of this planet is there needs to be a big reduction in the human population.
xpowderx
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 30, 2015
A question to ask yourself. Where are the hottest places on this planet. What are they and how did they get there? What do they lack? All the shenanigans of AGW go out the room on this. AGW advocates fights a war but in all the wrong places!
leetennant
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 30, 2015
*taps mike*

Is this thing on?
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2015
*taps mike*

Is this thing on?

Try tapping your head, I'm positive it's off.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Jul 30, 2015
Australia is in the middle of its hottest year on record.
- leetennant

How can you know it's the hottest year on record if you're only in the middle?
leetennant
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 30, 2015
I did actually write and even publish a facetious response to that but, actually, you're right. Language is important. It's shaping up to be the hottest year on record globally but it may not be the hottest for Australia regionally. That was 2013.

antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 30, 2015
Australia is in the middle of its hottest year on record.
- leetennant

How can you know it's the hottest year on record if you're only in the middle?

Easy.
First you get yourself a CO2 filled crystal ball.
Then you just make sh!t up.

http://judithcurr...stralia/
xpowderx
1 / 5 (2) Aug 16, 2015
Heh, just released about a week ago. Need to watch this and learn! https://www.youtu...bKF5-qUE

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.