I would like to get an explanation here. In what way is this a myth? Because I learned in basic physicsy stuff that when you add heat to a system, you tend to increase its turbulence. Capturing radiation loss is not practically different from adding heat. So how would global warming not lead to an increase in extreme weather patterns?
It is IS appropriate to dismiss a winter trend. The year has 12 months, not three. So if, for example, world Dec-Jan-Feb winter temperatures dropped a degree a month (three degrees total) but rose a degree a month for the rest of the year (nine degrees total), then the worldwide difference would be a plus nine degree increase, right? Meaning that it would be a distortion to focus solely on the three winter months.
The graphics beginning 1988 clearly indicate worldwide warming. The graphics beginning 1998 indicate little or no change. There is not much dissent from those conclusions by reasonable authorities on either side of the argument, meaning that the entire NASA graph-generating exercise in this thread has not cast any new light on the subject.
I have followed the ‘Global Warming’ debate for years. Both sides need to shut up for a second and actually listen to what the other side is saying. They aren’t mutually exclusive.
‘Global Warming’ got revised to be ‘Global Climate Change’ once the proponents of the Global Warming theory got strong indications of contradictory results. I believe that there is Global Warming going on yet I still can’t bring myself to support the proponents of the original theory because it obviously is not true in its original hypothesis. It is just sloppy science when you attribute everything you see happening to fit your original theory even if it doesn’t. We are dealing with chaotic systems here with strong feedback loops that nobody on Earth can influence or control even if they did understand it and it is obvious that nobody does right now. In short, there is probably some man-made phenomenon that is causing some climate change but it hasn’t been well-modeled or explained yet.
Chaotic systems like global climate are among the hardest math and science problems to solve out of anything imaginable. It is not surprising that studies that depend on just a few variables get their predictions wrong. On the other hand, the true believers that think they can have a direct, personal influence on the same chaotic systems are equally ill-formed. The Earth itself is many orders of magnitude more complicated over anything that you can influence in the short or medium term (hundreds to thousands of years).
If you think you have all the answers and understand it all, you are a crackpot of the highest order. It isn’t true. The truth is that nobody understands it all. All we can do is take best guesses about the next course of action.
Map that out to future predictions down to specific consequences and then we might have something five years from now. Anything less than that is not science but just masturbatory prognostication. I am not a global warming denier but I still believe that scientists blew this one so far by claiming that they can predict chaotic systems with any certainty when they can’t. That overconfidence has a harmful effect on the overall theory to the general public. They need to admit that they still don’t understand many things about it but that the general trend is real. That is all they can say with certainty at this point.
My whole is that I do believe that humans have had some impact on global climate but they overstated but the predictions have been overstated and many have been shown to be false. It is embarrassing for the scientific aggregators to take individual research contributions (which are most likely legitimate) and then blow them up into a comprehensive narrative that is not supported at all based on current outcomes. It is always better to admit that you don’t understand what is going on than to hold fast to your position.
That is where the breakdown occurs. Let me put it to you this way. We can put a GPS satellite into orbit to beam back to the ground so that any person on Earth knows where they are within just a few meters at most. That is physics and real science.
Now we have the Global Warming Hypothesis which predicts (depending on the year) that we may get more snow, less snow or it may be warmer or less warm than the previous years. You just broke down severely on the scientific method on this one. It may be true that it is a problem and I think it probably is but I don’t think people are smart enough to predict chaotic systems (I use that term for a very good reason) with any degree of certainty.
Tell me how much warmer next year will be than this one and also 100 years from now and then we can talk.
Be sure wo watch the video at the end of the article.
What you miss is that there is one side that tells a lot of contradictory information expecting that some will stick. It is not the climate scientists.
And no, climate scientists are not doing weather, but climate.
A reasonable and logical advice. Meaning of course it will be completely ignored. The pitbulls are locked jaw and tooth, and reason isn’t going to sway anyone who is already in a pitched battle for the fate of the world.
Once more, a perfectly reasonable view, no doubt destined to fly unheeded, well over the head and shoulders of the believer as well as the cynic.
As pointed before, you are trying to make a climatologist into a weatherman, not the same.
Can we talk? The point stands, you are even ignoring that contrarians are using the media to plant the idea that there are two sides with the same problems, that is not the truth, as former skeptic Barry Bickmore can tell you.
As to the myth of “more heat = more chaos”, this is one of those idiot claims by people that just don’t seem to be able to reason. In their made up world, the summers should be all kind of hell for weather, and the tropics should be a constant churn of hideous unpredictable weather and chaos. As the continental climate regions warm each year the weather will become extreme (it does not of course).
And all the tropical areas are just one boiling mess of chaos and extreme weather (complete nonsense of course)
In their delusion the vast deserts, the hottest places, the weather is always extreme, rather than the dull monotony that exists in reality.
Same for the tropical oceanic climates, with their warm SSTs and unending sunshine and heat, they are a disaster of extreme weather events, with the mythical water vapor feedback causing the temperatures to keep climbing day after day, until the oceans boil and it is just too hot to live.
It’s even worse for the myth, as the polar summers are just one extreme weather event after another, with weakened jet streams allowing arctic air to spill into the tropics, and all kinds of chaos unfolds, which is just pure bullshit.
I wouldn’t go that far, as certain predictions are more of the “odds are” variety, but certainly the climate models are dead wrong at this point, no matter how hard the believers try to shoehorn everything into them still.
Like the OP says, they are still trying to make the warming match the models, which is so ironic for a multitude of reasons.
Not the least is the two big “excuses” for not seeing the predicted warming.
Pollution from Indochina is one. The other is “the heat is going into the deep oceans”, where it can’t be measured, or at least doesn’t effect the SSts or troposphere readings.
All three can’t be true at once. It is nonsense.
Obviously not everyone is on the same page in this regard.
Not because you say so, that isn’t science, nor of any use. You can’t just make up something, and pretend it has the force of factual information. In the real world, the winters are extremely relevant. And in utmost irony, one reason the winter cold is so important is the need to provide vast amounts of fossil fuels to people, so they don’t die. Same for livestock and transportation, snow and cold are real world events that can’t be ignored. If “global warming” actually means more extreme winters, with the warming happening in the rest of the year, we need to know this, it actually matters.
As some astute minds have pointed out, nobody actually knows what is going to happen, those that claim they do are nutjobs. Seriously, they are delusional, especially considering the evidence we have now, showing very much how wrong the predictions have turned out to be.
Nobody has argued that the annual trend from 88 is warming, though the arguments over 1998-2013 are still ongoing. You are using a strawman argument. Please desist.
Returning to the OP for a moment
The description of people looking at the data as the** “no warming in 16 years” crowd** is quite telling, that this may not actually be a scientific debate going on.
I’m sorry, can you show me examples of these “predictions”? From what I can tell, they are doing large-scale trend analysis and plausible long-term effects predictions. Mostly, I am not hearing that global warming will or will not cause this or that specific thing, but that a given effect is likely. The problem is, there is a language divide between the science community and the general public – you put the press in that gap and the message gets distorted into the kind of gibberish you posted.
I am not sure whether we can fix this. There seems to be a large and active ignorance-is-good community doing their best to make sure communication and understanding gets properly headed off at the pass. People do not even grasp the scale of the stakes in this issue, and given how arcane the material is, it is far too easy to confound almost everyone.
Thank you, Shagnasty, for such a welcome relief from ill-informed opinions. It is true that Climatology is a very inexacting science, a “soft” science as it were. Where’s the mathematical proofs, where is the basic theories? Pffft, we don’t have them. Hell, we’re still trying to figure what we should be measuring. I see people here posting volumes of speculation, conjecture and opinion … none of it proven … let me repeat …
NONE OF IT PROVEN
Show me the derivations, or are you just exterpulating? Only the stupid would talk about climate change in less than 100 year increments, only the very stupid.
Go ahead … throw all the damn quotes you want too … I’ll ignore them because YOU don’t know what they mean. They sound fancy, they make you look smart, but they SAY nothing out of context. Hey stupid-people, read the GISS paper … ROFL. … it’s data is only been presented for corroberation … oh sorry, no way could you understand it.
Climatology is for people who couldn’t handle third year Calculus
As usual, no one is perfect, some issues were not quite as accurate, but Plass is not called the father of the modern theory of climate change for nothing.
Of course now that we hear that “Only the stupid would talk about climate change in less than 100 year increments, only the very stupid.” One then has to realize that there are a lot of contrarians doing the same thing with the “warming pause” “or it is cooling now” (less of 100 year increment indeed)
It does not ring any contradictory bells for some reason. And then there is the issue of where that insult is really going to.
@FXMastermind: I believe that I’ve detected your debating strategy. It seems to be to make preposterous statements like the one about water vapor not being a feedback that you announced and was duly debunked in the other thread, or the new claim about cooling winters that was debunked in this one, and then just ignoring the refutations and plowing on with new fantasies. Hey, I’m cool with it if it makes you happy, but it doesn’t rank very high on the credibility scale.
With all respect, that is pseudo-scientific claptrap. To begin with, “sides” on this issue exist only among scientific illiterates in the popular media and in numerous Internet junk science sites. There are no “sides” concerning the legitimacy of AGW in the legitimate published scientific community – this would be an example, where in the last 13 months, out of 2,258 articles written by a total of 9,136 authors, one rejected AGW, and its origin was dubious to say the least. It seems to be related to the same bunch of lunatics at the Russian Pulkovo observatory who believe that CO2 isn’t a GHG. I’ve seen many such “skeptical” papers, and they invariably suffer from bad data or bad methodology or both, or sometimes are legitimate papers that have been grossly distorted by an ignorant or agenda-driven media.
The appeal to chaotic systems argument is a misleading strawman that ignores important basic facts about climate change. Weather is chaotic, and climate can be in short timeframes, in regional geographies, or even in the longer term within tightly bounded constraints. What this misleading strawman tries to gloss over is that within the chaos that exists at various spatial and temporal levels, there is a clear and dominant signature of both the causes and the effects of anthropogenic climate change. The earth’s energy budget is a relative constant in the short term, but the cumulative net new amount of CO2 emitted can be measured and the amount of new new radiative forcing is straightforward physics. Climate may have chaotic elements, especially at local levels and short timeframes, but the earth’s total energy budget is not chaotic, and natural and anthropogenic forcings as they affect the overall planet can be measured. Chaotic components certainly exist, but they mainly apply to internal variabilities whose effect on the global energy budget is minimal and temporary and usually cycles between opposite signs.
A good reflection of the ordered nature of the earth’s energy budget is that ice age cycles have been remarkably well bounded over the past 1.2 million years, with roughly regular ~100Ky cycles and very well bounded CO2 excursions between about 180 and 280 ppm. When the present CO2 level of 400 ppm is plotted on that geological timescale, you get a huge vertical spike going right off the chart. Radiative transfer physics is not a mystery, and climate change doesn’t happen by magic. The global temperature is just beginning to respond, and the earth’s energy budget is rapidly shifting, the climate system is being rapidly forced toward a major new equilibrium, and the probabilities of more and more extreme weather events are rapidly becoming higher. Arguing about “chaotic” components in this context is much like pissing into a hurricane.
