Well if you look back only 5 or 10 years, you can always find alarmist projections and models which are consistent with recent observations and data. As for the older projections and models, the alarmists can claim that climate science has improved since then. So they never need to admit they were wrong, and never ever will.
Besides which, if you look at the pronouncements on climate change which are trumpeted by the warmists, you will see there is usually plenty of wiggle room
Most likely it will just be ignored. Like all other evidence that doesn't support the "official" story.
What you will read, and I already posted a link to this, is commentary about “models”. Not theory, but models based on “the theory”. No, this is not a joke.
source (all the following quotes are from this source)
They are of course talking about the “Traditional radiative GHG theory”, which is the very thing the self proclaimed experts here have danced around for the entire thread. The theory that is used to program and create the models. These models are based on assumptions, hypothetical ideas about climate, WV, forcings, feedbacks, and all kinds of things, which have also been avoided in this thread.
The reason I started off with cold events, as well as mentioning the cooling trend, is really quite simple. The evidence is showing the models are wrong. The models are based on “the theory” (with many variations in the details), but there is no doubt that we are talking about models based on “the theory”, and it is this theory that is so avoided by so many. It’s why skepticalscience is considered a pseudo-scientific blog by so many. It simply ignores the important things.
That it is cold and snow that is showing the theory to be wrong, that is just irony on top of the fail cake. It’s sometimes hard for true believers to grasp actual science, and this is understandable. Note the stillness and silence that has greeted the scientific information. It will probably get worse.
Translation: The AGW theory did not predict what happened, and can’t account for what happened.
In fact, it is the exact opposite of what AGW predicted would happen. it is called this unforeseen trend in the paper. (of course they can’t come out and say “the models were wrong, everybody was wrong”, nobody is ever wrong in science)
Which is exactly the kind of thing brazil84 is talking about. Even when the AGW theory/models based on it are COMPLETELY fucking wrong, they aren’t really wrong. They just need to be adjusted.
It wasn’t that anyone was “wrong”, it’s “an unforeseen thing happened”, and the theory needs “adjusting”.
The superb irony is, this is pretty much exactly the case. In science, when your theory turns out to be wrong, you change it. It doesn’t change the basis of the theory, that increasing GHGs will cause warming. It just means all the assumptions and unproven predictions you made were wrong.
Not that anyone will ever put it that way. Because in this case, political and economic and even moral issues have clouded the science, and it’s a fucking religion to some people, and it isn’t just a matter of science and study and research.
Before anyone goes off on that paper, remember it’s just one argument that is on the table right now to explain the record cold winters, the unexpected heavy snow, and the cooling trends in areas of the NH winters.
The point is that what is happening right now is not what AGW theory predicted. The people still insisting it is are the real deniers. They even came up with this “deep ocean heating” idea to just not admit anything is wrong.
They will tell you global warming has actually INCREASED just like their theory predicted.
Well yes but you need to be honest and even-handed when you adjust your theory or hypothesis.
To use a non-scientific example, suppose if the girl you like doesn’t return your call and doesn’t respond to your e-mail, you can adjust your theory to be “Maybe she likes me back but her phone isn’t working and she didn’t see my e-mail” or you can conclude that the girl is not interested.
It’s dishonest to adjust your hypothesis selectively so that you can cling to the part of the hypothesis you like. Which is basically what the warmists do as evidence mounts against them.
Not really. It’s not like there is some code or set of laws for science that everyone has to follow, or else. It seems pretty much anything goes out there in climate land. Now that is of course a very limited POV, as I don’t know what really goes on. The glimpse into that (the emails) did show a serious lack of oversight, and the deletions and hiding certainly didn’t ease the concerns of those who suspect some shenanigans are going on behind the scenes.
One can only imagine that the same sort of thing goes on in smoke filled back rooms of the fossil industries and the super wealthy. It’s all kinds of fucked up.
That is a bit of a stretch, especially since none of it directly effects me in any way.
I don’t see it that simply, but I can understand how it could be viewed that way. Certainly it seems some parties have a huge vested interest at this point. Bias is a real problem in science. It’s why it has to be open, not closed.
It’s actually fascinating to have lived long enough to see yet again, a possible change in the global climate, and enough time has gone by that the 1988 predictions are going to either happen, or go down in flames. Of course predictions being wrong is pretty much standard for science, when it deals with the earth, and large chaotic systems.
There has been no massive warming trend. In fact, if you look at the boreal winter trend, the warming has been very slow compared to historical warming periods.
We are just now reaching a point (maybe) that is almost equal to past warm periods during human civilization.
There is some science. And it shows clearly something besides increasing CO2 is effecting the planet right now. The trend towards colder winters, with more snow, in the boreal winters (winter in the mid lattitudes of the NH), is the exact opposite of what the climate models and theorists have predicted. That they also denied it was happening (and most still do) shows how little science is involved in the global warming hysteria.
The few who are smart enough to accept the science jumped right into trying to explain it as ALSO being caused by CO2. Everything HAS to be CO2 because they already decided that it is happening, it's AGW, so any and all changes get slotted into the AGW CO2 forcing theory, or some other human cause. These people, they actually have convinced themselves human beings are more powerful than nature.
We control the climate, we control the oceans, we control the atmosphere, we control what will happen! And if anyone comes to their senses, and says, "Hey! Wait a minute. What is the evidence for this? What we can measure isn't supporting this idea", they get labeled, dismissed, called names and treated like somebody who just raped your Mom's eye socket.
Or, of course, we get a 4chan reject for comedy relief.
The arctic so far is record cold this year, even a rebound to above freezing temperatures won’t change that.
If last winter in the NH was an anomaly, it could be handwaved away. But it actually fits with [the trend since 88 of worse winters, in parts of the NH](http://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal_ERL12.pdf). The trend for the last 17 years is much colder, with more fall and winter snow. Key image from the paper (from Tamino)
Tamino actually did some interesting number crunching, using the same NCDC data I used years ago to discover what was wrong with the official story. Winters have not been warming in the NH, instead some areas have been getting colder, while others warm. His animated gif shows this behavior for every Cont US climate region since 88.
He of course handwaves it away with the blithe phrase "those monthly trends aren’t really significant", which is of course the expected response from anyone who isn't skeptical about the climate reporting. None of which MSM mentions this of course, the colder winters trend. Or, if it's impossible to ignore a particular disastrous winter, it's blamed on global warming. Yes, once it was impossible to just ignore it, the colder winters were now theorized to be due to AGW. Certainly once the real glacier and ice data is impossible to ignore, growing glaciers will also be blamed on global warming. Except of course, that already happened years ago. (there was an entire topic about it).
The typical believer will, of course, think this is some sort of "attack" on AGW, and rather than do any work, any thinking, respond in some churlish manner, thanks internet.
The curious scientists will want to know what is really happening, like when [the GRACE data](http://rses.anu.edu.au/geodynamics/gps/antarctic/rich.html) shows an increase in snow in Antarctica. Go put a GPS there and find out what is actually happening. That is how real science operates. Same for when the GRACE data showed an increase in snow in the Himalayas, but a decrease in mass at lower altitudes. Ground water being sucked out of the aquifers gave a false image of ice loss. The glaciers aren't rapidly dwindling at all. (of course you never heard of this)
Certainly the lower elevations are melting, and experts who actually study them have been trying to get attention, the black soot from India and China may be the cause. That deadly carbon pollution certainly isn't helping them.
Could the daily shit ton of pollution from India be reduced? Of course. Same for a lot of other human activities that we know for certain are messing with our ecosystem. Will complaining about it do a damn thing? Probably not.
Nobody here is listening to you, douchebag. They’re listening to climatologists. Try another, more receptive forum, populated with like-minded douchebags.
If the now silent Gigogalloper hadn’t run away, we might have eventually reached the critical issues surrounding “the theory” and AGW. Just kidding, his bible the SS blog doesn’t even mention them, so of course we don’t hear about it from that never ending fount of “you are all stupid and I am not”.
Real issues in actual climates science are complex, hard, difficult, and still unknown, but not that we haven’t thrown a pittance of funding at them.
The Aerosol issue.
The stratospheric ozone effects.
Response of the tropical convective-cirrus clouds to warming SSTs
The extra-tropical storm-track systems.
The persistent coastal stratus issue, both from global warming and to the regional emissions of aerosols.
The causes of excess solar absorption in clouds.
And of course the upper troposphere water vapor feedback effects.
Then there is the really really big issue. Already mentioned many times here.
It’s no wonder the braying cocksure are reduced to silence, ignorance and the occasional half assed attempt at trolling.
So as I understand it, the theory is that the process of warming the planet via increased C02 will slow down for a number of years, until the sunspot cycle changes again.
At which point the warming will pick up pace again.
So we may have a brief reprieve. So I guess it might give us time to get our shit together and actually do something about pumping more C02 into the atmosphere. So that’s good news.
I’m very glad that climate scientists continue to look into the science, and refine their models and theories. This is what science is about - finding the facts and then changing your theories and models. This is what they are doing.
This is as opposed to the denier community, that starts off with an ideological mindset (I don’t want to change my lifestyle or my profitable company), and then seeks facts to fit.
