 locked up at far northern latitudes, causing a warm, dry U.S. winter.)
WEATHER MAKER: An unusual region of atmospheric pressure over the Arctic has kept the polar jet stream (green) locked up at far northern latitudes, causing a warm, dry U.S. winter.
Image: Courtesy of NOAA
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
A little snow and rain are falling in a few states today, but the 2011–12 winter has been extremely warm and dry across the continental U.S. Meteorologists think they have figured out why.
First, a few records: The initial week of January was the driest in history. And more than 95 percent of the U.S. had below-average snow cover—the greatest such percentage ever recorded—according to some intriguing data maps generated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. During December, approximately half of the U.S. had temperatures at least 5 degrees Fahrenheit above average, and more than 1,500 daily record highs were set from January 2 to 8. Europe has seen similar extremes.
The chief suspect behind the mysterious weather is an atmospheric pressure pattern called the Arctic Oscillation, which circles the high Northern Hemisphere. Its lower edge is known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Together, the related features influence the path and strength of the jet stream. The jet itself is an air current that flows west to east across the northern latitudes of the U.S., Europe and Asia, altering temperature and precipitation as portions of it dip southward or crest northward. A strong jet stream that flows in a somewhat straight line from west to east, with few southward dips, prevents cold arctic air from drifting south. "The cause of this warm first half of winter is the most extreme configuration of the jet stream ever recorded," according to Jeffrey Masters, a meteorologist who runs the Weather Underground, a Web site that analyzes severe weather data.
By "extreme," Masters means that the jet stream was far north and fairly straight, and stayed that way for an unusually long time. That position allowed warm southern air to prevail over the entire U.S., and prevented cold fronts from descending from the north and clashing with warm fronts, creating large snow- and rainstorms. The jet stream has been locked in that position by the NAO for most of the winter, and Masters says it has sustained the largest pressure gradient since tracking began in 1865.
Conversely, December 2010 set record snowfalls in many parts of the U.S. Sure enough, the NAO at that time had some of the lowest pressures ever observed, allowing the jet stream to move south and stay there. Arctic air descended, picked up moisture or interacted with warm fronts, and dropped snow. "The December Arctic Oscillation index has fluctuated wildly over the past six years," Masters notes, "with the two most extreme positive and two most extreme negative values on record." Data for the trends is available at the Weather Underground site.
Meteorologists are not certain what causes the oscillations to vary so dramatically. Some scientists say the loss of Arctic sea ice due to global warming is causing the Arctic Oscillation to drop in pressure. Others have noticed a correlation with sunspot activity, which was very low in December 2010 and very high during December 2011, although they haven't proposed a mechanism whereby sunspots would directly alter the Arctic Oscillation.
Of course, winter has many weeks to go, so the oscillations, and U.S. weather, could shift. But if plentiful precipitation does not fall, complications could arise for many more people than ski resort owners and their patrons. A small snowpack often leads to spring droughts in the Midwest and summer water shortages in the West as well as a longer wildfire season in the latter because the soil dries out earlier than usual.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
199 Comments
Add Comment"Meteorologists are not certain what causes the oscillations to vary so dramatically. Some scientists say the loss of Arctic sea ice due to global warming is causing the Arctic Oscillation to drop in pressure. Others have noticed a correlation with sunspot activity, which was very low in December 2010 and very high during December 2011, although they haven't proposed a mechanism whereby sunspots would directly alter the Arctic Oscillation."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClassic case of False Equivalency. It is a known FACT that the disintegration of the Arctic Ice Cap is causing massive changes in weather patterns. The ice on the pack can be -30C or even colder while the open ocean is fixed at 0C. In addition, the ice acts as an insulator to the water underneath and decreases the heat transfer to the air a great deal. In all, that's a HUGE difference in the energy exchange between the ocean and the air. This added energy amplifies weather extremes, so when the NAO is in a positive phase like this year, we get no snow, and when it's in a negative phase, we get precipitation to the extreme. This isn't predicting both possible outcomes to guarantee success, this is a prediction of increased variability and extreme weather from decades ago coming true.
On the other hand...the link to sunspot activity has just slightly more going for it than the "declining numbers of pirates gause global warming" hypothesis. Mentioning hard, established science in the same paragraph as nearly baseless conjecture is classic false equivalency and the media is totally bungling the climate change issue by falling into that trap over and over again. You see, if my ability to use the atmosphere as an open sewer for my waste products put TRILLIONS of dollars at stake, you'd better believe that I would do everything I could to delay the time when humanity actually made me pay for my fair share of the damage I was causing. Simply put, dirty energy has EVERY incentive to spread lies about climate science and personally attack the people who are raising awareness of this important issue. Articles like this are making it all too easy for them with this false equivalency nonsense.
Al..... is that you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGarbage. The lowest ice extent in modern history was the 2006/2007 season. Ice extent is considerably ahead this season. If your theory was correct, why did these conditions not occur back then. Ice cover at present is rapidly increasing while at the same point in the year of the smallest extent, it was declining. At the present rate this seasons ice extent will surpass the earlier maximum at least three weeks earlier. More inconvenient truths. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you trying to ignore reality? 2011 - 2012 and 2006 - 2007 have basically the same ice cover while 2011's October and 1st half of November were LOWER than the record low of 2007. If you can't even understand that BOTH years are OUTSIDE the +- 2 standard deviation range from normal, you have ZERO credibility when calling things "garbage".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess it's all that we can expect from you science deniers. It's kind of funny when the only REAL sources you can manage to post TOTALLY disprove the point you were trying to make.
How about, instead of cherry-picking data and just making stuff up with data that doesn't even prove your point, why don't you look at the long-term trends?
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2012/01/20110105_Figure3.png
"Ice cover is rapidly increasing..." Sure, if you still think you aren't dead wrong, I don't see how ANY evidence will change your mind.
Why did the same dry conditions refered to for this season, not occur in 06/07 if it is related to ice coverage as you claim?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnce again: what is your expertise (other than calling people names which you seem good at). Please state it for the record so the rest of us can judge your qualifications as you seem pretty good and pointing out everyone else's lack of expertise. If you cannot stop calling people names then stop posting because you sound like a maniac spouting off buzzwords like 'denier' and 'dirty energy'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow as far as your assessment of the graph and you evidence:
- Yes the values for 2006-2007 and 2011-2012 are both below the 1979-2000 average and 2 std deviations (which is around 97.7% of the data range). However if you go to three standard deviations then you are encompassing 99.9% of the data and with the exception of October all of the observed data fits well within 3 std deviations of the 1979-2000 data. So, while the past 7 years have been low they are not outside the total range of the 1979-2000 data set and therefore these graphs prove nothing more than the last 20% of the time series data is representitive of the low end of 100% of the data sets range. A fair representation of the 1979-2000 data would be the average with the entire range shaded. But then that would not prove the AGW people's point that the arctic is melting away to nothing would it?
-I would be happy to send you the analysis that I ran of the graph (which took about 5 minutes) if you would like. Also, why just average the ice cover from 1979 to 2000? Seems like that is a reasonably short time period even when compared to the instrument climate record (darn no satellites so we have to make assumptions based on too little data)?
- And the graph that you put forth is not cherry picking? That graph is a one month average taken from the data set and then a straight line is put through it (which is not a very reliable way to analyze time series data). This is nothing more than a scare tactic that attempts to trick people that do not know any better.
So when you say things like: 'I guess it's all that we can expect from you science deniers. It's kind of funny when the only REAL sources you can manage to post TOTALLY disprove the point you were trying to make.' maybe you should think before you reply and make yourself uninformed.
Yes and the people who rely on research grants to support themselves have no skin in the game and would never do anything even the least bit suspect to further their cause (like supressing other points of view in the peer review process, failing to produce the data sets they use, etc.).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou've got to be kidding me...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe last 7 years have been outside %97.7 of the data, but you're saying since they're still within basically %100 of the data, nothing is wrong? Do you even understand how circular that reasoning is? Why don't you actually SHOW that you are capable of a scientific discussion before you go asking around for other people's credentials?
EVERY SINGLE GRAPH of Arctic Sea ice shows a sustained decline. %95 of the world's glaciers are retreating. The temperature record shows over a century of sustained warming. How many graphs / charts / papers do I have to show until you understand this? If you DENY the hard data sitting in front of you, don't be surprised when someone calls you a denier! When your views put you in the lunatic fringe of science, don't be surprised when someone like me doubts that you even really want to discuss science.
As an aside, I've always wondered why you never rag on nuclear power boosters like sethdeyal when they mention the validity of climate change. Why is that...?
The reduced sea ice cover and higher sea surface temperatures merely magnify the extremes. This is why we get hardly ANY snow in a positive NAO year instead of just below average. The added heat in the climate flattens out the bell curve and makes both ends (flood or drought) more likely. Climate scientists have been predicting this for decades.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, and the people who get to use the atmosphere as an open sewer for free have no skin in the game and would never do ANYTHING to spread unwarranted doubt to keep that gravy train running as long as possible, would they?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The initial week of January was the driest in history."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally? This might be an accurate statement if it were stated: "The initial week of January was the driest in RECORDED history."
That's right. Keep hiding behind whatever it is that does not qualify you to do anything other than call other people names. I am not surprised when you call people names because that is how you attempt to diminish their arguement when you cannot do so with your 'well proven science'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom this point on your posts should be considered meaningless because you cannot even comprehend the concept of presenting data in a honest and forthright manner.
How many times do I have to prove to you that the science behind this mess is suspect at best before you actually admit that there is a lot of conjecture and opinion in the 'proven science'?
Thanks for all your comments sault... I get so tired of reading the either dishonest or misguided comments from the deniers, where they mimic rational discussion to attempt to sound like they are making good arguments... it all could sound quite reasonable to the casual reader until you dig into their sources and so-called facts the slightest bit, and find out it is all a smokescreen to prop up their agenda.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI appreciate your continuing efforts to point out their misleading and erroneous arguments.
I'm with you on this one "tharriss". Hang in there "sault", we all know how the GOP deniers operate to protect their anti-environmental agenda. They think that everyone is so stupid that we can't tell what they are doing or that they are spewing lies in all directions. They call us warmers and when we call them deniers, they whine like bitches in heat. The deniers are the only ones who can't see that what we humans are doing is destroying this planet and we need to stop doing it...now!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDidn't say that they didn't but I did point out that the other side is just as guilty. However, do not address that fact since you apprently worship at the AGW alter and every word that comes out of a climate modlers mouth should be taken as gospel with no questions asked.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo what is is that you do again? As I have said a number of times I build geomodels for a living and I am pretty successful (by most measures) and therefore I think that I have a reasonable grasp of such things as model building, running and results interpretation as well as the analysis of time series data and the determination of the interdependancies in various data sets. Along with that I am required (by both my employer and ethics) to present the range of uncertainty, as derived through a probablistic analysis (I like monte carlo), of the range of possible outcomes from my models. This is not the same as presenting the mean result of a number of different models and using the difference between them as the abolute range which is exactly what I have seen put forth with the analysis of the GCM results.
By the way you are one of those people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't deny the words of our Lord, James E Hansen. He spake before the US tabernacle in 1988 and he sayeth that the world will warm and the science be settled. If the temperature increase has thus not so far materialised, it is because the Lord doth move in mysterious ways. May the Lord striketh down blasphemers (or at least imprison them).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually the position of the OA and the corresponding flow of the jetstream coincide rather well to previous periods when we were in the 2nd winter of a La Nina. It seems that in such years the OA sets up closer to the pole and a bit further west than its normal winter position over Greenland, creating the anomaly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHa Ha! You are killing me here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWarmer climate causes a poleward expansion of Hadley cells. They have already shifted a degree or two in latitude, and will continue to expand as the climate continues to warm. The jet stream exists where Hadley cells meet Ferrel Cells. I'm thinking that this and the current phase of the AMO are likely additive effects, and that is why we are seeing something not recorded before.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOk. Guys, I'm not a scientist. I don't care about the underlying cause of this weather. I DO care about the economic and environmental impact. So my question to you is this: What's next? Will this trend continue? Will the extremes get worse? or will this subside? How bad can it get?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe climate models have uncertainty ranges too. That's why sea level rise could be anywhere from 3 to 9 feet by 2100 and the temperature rise anywhere from 1C to over 6C and climate sensitivity runs anywhere from 2C to 4.5C. These models have succesfully hindcasted past changes in climate and they are very reliable:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
Every "model" or prediction from the skeptic side of the argument has failed miserably:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/comparing-global-temperature-predictions.html
You can't look at this evidence and say that the climate models are unreliable...you just can't!
Average temperatures will increase, arctic sea ice will decrease and the Hadley Cells will keep creeping northward. Droughts, floods and storms will become more common and more severe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe answer to how bad it can get depends on when humanity starts cleaning up its act and how far you want to look into the future. If we continue on business as usual, we could have a mostly ice-free planet in 1000 years or so and sea level will be 300 ft higher. The Clathrate Gun would probably go off in this scenario and much of the methane from the world's permafrost would add even MORE to the positive forcing on the climate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
As the ocean warms, the rate at which it can absorb CO2 decreases, so there's another positive feedback. All the while, the climate disruption will ravage land and oceanic ecosystems, decreasing the ability of the biosphere to store carbon as well, ANOTHER positive feedback.
You get the idea. The Earth's long-term climate sensitivity is so high because of all these positive feedbacks in the system. A lot depends on the exact year we start to reduce emissions and how steep that curve is towards zero.
However, it's an easy trip to zero once we start to ignore all the bellyaching from the dirty energy interests that profit handsomely from destroying the climate. Energy efficiency measures can cut CO2 emissions 25 - 40% with EXISTING technology and many approaches pay for themselves via energy savings in under 2 years. Wind, solar, geothermal, wave, tidal, biomass and many other renewable energy sources can power a significant chunk of our energy supply. Cities can grow MUCH more responsibly and offer a variety of transportation options, lowering petroleum use a great deal. Finally, many people are realizing that buying more stuff doesn't necessarily make them happier and are decreasing the material intensity of their lifestyles. The more people that find this out, the less energy and materials need to go through our consumer economy.
I know there are other pieces of he solution that I failed to mention, but there are most of the big ones.
"...Energy efficiency measures can cut CO2 emissions 25 - 40% with EXISTING technology and many approaches pay for themselves via energy savings in under 2 years."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWonderful now prove it. The last time you tried you gave a coupla of specific examples. Great but we need an all encompassing study looking at all different sorts of efficiency savings with an estimate of the energy saved nationwide and the cost ie LCOE in cents per kwh from each. Instead of wasting all your time commenting do some research for once.
"Wind, solar, geothermal, wave, tidal, biomass and many other renewable energy sources can power a significant chunk of our energy supply. "
Wind/solar can't power anything until some way in the future cheap storage tech emerges. Large scale geothermal is massively polluting with sulfur emissions, causing earthquakes,and dependent on not yet invented technology, biofuels are earth raping air polluters potentially killing as many as coal, and wave tidal are far to expensive to be of any use.
With his mindless renewable way in the future renewable energy solutions Sault is one of the worse forms of warming denier not believing the science which tells us we only have a few year to do something able AGW.
Here's greenie superstar George Monbiot showing Sault for what he is.
"..This year, the environmental movement to which I belong has done more harm to the planet's living systems than climate change deniers have ever achieved. .."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/05/sellafield-nuclear-energy-solution
Only nuke power at 3 cents a kwh can eliminate GHG's fast enough to save our asses.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/comparing-global-temperature-predictions.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You can't look at this evidence and say that the climate models are unreliable...you just can't! "
Lol. You are one crazy dude. Not one of those predictions looks anywhere close to reality over a very short timescale, even those ones chucked out in the last few years.
Of course this isn't global warming. There is no such thing. So, can deniers answer two simple questions?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. What specific observational data would it take to prove global warming IS happening?
2. Explain the physics of how adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere does NOT make the climate warmer. I can explain how they trap heat. You explain how they don't.
1. If a climate scientist produced a model that predicted the future, then I'd accept the model.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. My understanding is that CO2 additions would only contribute 1C for a doubling of CO2 content within the atmosphere, assuming that CO2 doesn't transfer heat, and heat escape that way. Warmist theory is that CO2 does not only directly add 1C but causes a feedback loop which amplifies it's effect by increasing water vapour, reducing ice cover and hence reflection etc. There is no agreement between climate scientists what the effect of this feedback loop referred to as "climate sensitivity" is, however. Clearly, if climate scientists understand all of the complex interactions between elements within our environment, they'd be able to produce a climate model that accurately reflected reality. As they haven't, I can safely conclude they don't have a clue. If there is a 1C increase in global mean temperature when CO2 emissions are doubled, it would seem apparant that we'll exhaust fossil fuel supplies long before we cause any significant warming of the planet. Still, I'm not anti-cutting down CO2 emissions but mainly because related pollution e.g. soot particulates are unpleasant.
When the number of sunspots is high, the overall solar activity, and thus its light emissions, that are responsible for the heating of earth's atmosphere and seas, is also higher. So, in some way, the number of sunspots, that is the subject of cycles, could be a marker of solar activity. Is it ?. Salut +
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYea. How did you know. Freaky...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe post 22.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat evidence is there that sea levels will climb between three & nine feet? The rate of sea level rise is declining, not increasing. With more than 10% of the century passed already, should we not have had a minimum of 3.6 inches in increase already? Remember, the actual rate has been decreasing.
Another anomaly that rarely gets raised, Antarctic ice. It is NOT declining & in fact the sea ice is a little above average for this time of year. Arctic ice has not declined below the minimus set six years ago despite massive increases in Co2 output. If the losses were Co2 driven, why has the decline not continued year on year?
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Please reply to my question as to your qualifications to make such statements, other than the fact that you read skeptical science. We all know that you are going to quote that site whenever you cannot reply to something that someone with some expertise has posted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo what is it again that you do?
Also 3 to 9 feet is still way off from 400+ feet lower within the last 15000 years. What are we going to do when we can't stop the next evil glacial cycle (which won't be in our life time)?
What difference does it make what his "credentials" are? His statements are either factual or non-factual.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThose with the credentials, the climatologists, tell us that anthropogenic global warming is happening. They tell us that we can expect warmer temperatures, more frequent and more extreme weather, drought in some areas with heavy precipitation in others. We had all of that last year.
How many times do we have to hear "record breaking heat", "record tornado outbreak", "record drought", "record rainfall", "record snowfall" before we take action? It's scary.
I think you're on to something, sault. It appears another extinction event is looming on the horizon, only humans are the next obsolete species to go the way of the dinosaur.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason I ask is because he comes off as some kind of expert and is pretty adept at calling anyone that disagrees names in an attempt to diminish their opinion. His statements are true in the fact that it is one side of the debate by he is unwilling to answer any of the tough questions. I have repeatedly stated where my expertise lies and I expect the same from him if he wants people to believe his outrageous insults.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI tend to agree if you want to persuade anyone to accept your opinion, honey attracts bees better than vinegar as the old cliché goes. Also, if one is well studied but has no formal credentials, why not candidly state this fact? Opinions will stand on their own merit based on supporting facts. However, peripherally sault's statements sound plausible enough and being an opinion forum, it's open season on opinions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have difficulty seeing how anyone in the academic community with credible credentials can deny there is a major climate shift underway, however, I suspect this is historical and not necessarily caused by humans. That doesn't mean human abuse of the ecosystem isn't accelerating their demise as a species.
One thing that has always concerned me is the modeling of climate necessary to make predictions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRE: NASA page for Climate uncertainties: "Unresolved questions about Earth's climate," you find that significant assumptions must be made for these areas in the modeling programs, and these are not insignificant:
Forcings:
Solar irradiance: ...because there are no direct observations of solar output prior to the 1970s, climate scientists do not have much confidence that they understand longer-term solar changes.
Aerosols, dust, smoke, and soot: ... aerosol forcing is another substantial uncertainty in predictions of future climate.
Feedings:
Clouds: ... Current climate models do not represent cloud physics well...
Carbon cycle: ...Currently, natural processes remove about half of each year's human carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere, although this varies a bit year to year. It isn't well understood where this carbon dioxide goes, with some evidence that the oceans are the major repository and other evidence that land biota absorbs the majority. There is also some evidence that the ability of the Earth system to continue absorbing it may decline as the world warms, leading to faster accumulation in the atmosphere. But this possibility isn't well understood either.
Ocean circulation: ...Global ocean data sets only extend back to the early 1990s, so there are large uncertainties in predictions of future ocean changes.
Precipitation: ...Scientists and policymakers would like to use climate models to assess regional changes, but the models currently show wide variation in their results... This lack of agreement on even the direction of change makes planning very difficult. There's much research to be done on this question.
Sea level rise: ...The panel (IPCC) concluded that it could not "provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise" over the next century due to their lack of knowledge about Earth's ice.2. Many hundreds of millions of people live within that range of sea level increase, so our inability to predict what sea level rise is likely over the next century has substantial human and economic ramifications.
As an IC engineer with considerable experience in programming models, I am always skeptical of models for which significant assumptions are made. We have a phrase that reminds us to be humble in our modeling programs: "garbage-in, garbage-out."
In each case, an assumption is made and plugged into the models, and those assumptions change the models.
http://climate.nasa.gov/uncertainties/
Please check out my response to sault. I would appreciate your thoughtful opinion on the problem associated with climate modeling programs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=whats-causing-dry-winter&WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20120113&posted=1#comment-36
Yes, there is no need for name-calling and being nasty. It is not going to help anything.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut, from what I understand, the evidence from tree rings, sea floor sediment, ice cores, solar output, etc all show that the amount of warming that has occurred since the industrial revolution is unprecedented.
There is no "debate" amongst climate scientists anymore...the issue is settled.
Even if you assume anthropogenic global warming might not be occurring, we have far more to lose by not switching to renewable energy than by doing so. Fossil fuels are limited anyway. They also tend to line the pockets of tyrants.
People who argue against human caused global warming can only be those vested in the hydrocarbon energy industry or are people they have convinced that global warming is some kind of anti-American liberal conspiracy.
Science by nature is self-correcting and competitive. Anyone with real evidence that global warming is hogwash could make quite a name for themselves.
The North Atlantic Oscillation is has a 20-24 year cycle this isn't showing up on the sea ice graph. There must be something else driving it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe climate models are programs that include hard-data and assumptions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo accept the models as accurate, you must know and accept the assumptions, not only the data.
Following is a brief summary by NASA of the climate uncertainties, of the areas in the models for which we have limited understanding:
http://climate.nasa.gov/uncertainties/
Now, those involved in producing the models are the very ones who provide the assumptions for those uncertainties. When you read just how little they know, you realize the assumptions must have been made in favor of the theory.
Preachers of numerous faiths have been forecasting the end of the world since at least the beginnings of recorded history. They have an exceptionally poor track record. Nothing has changed. Strange how these prophets long to be vindicated too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem is that renewables have been a disaster. Wind farms increase not decrease consumption of fossil fuels through the use of fast spooling backup gas turbines that burn more than slow spooling turbines left running continuously & that does not include the hidden energy costs. Bio fuel is a disaster. Manufacturing costs for PVs are distorted by Chinas market & currency policies as well as appalling pollution problems in production. Unless of course you are calling nuclear renewable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is why we need to allocate a lot more resources towards non hydrocarbon energy R&D.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI understand that weather and climate are highly complex systems and we will probably never have a perfect model of them. That doesn't change the fact that there is much evidence to suggest humans are causing warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNothing is 100% certain. The bottom line is, there are many compelling reasons to move off of hydrocarbons and few good reasons for sticking with them.
We are not only not discussing a lack of 100% certainty (as you minimized the problems), but as admitted by NASA, we don't well understand the impact on our climate of the following:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClouds, solar radiance, Aerosols, dust, smoke, and soot, ocean circulation, precipitation, sea-level rise, but most importantly - the carbon cycle itself.
This ignorance parading as knowledge and certainty would be laughed out of consideration in any other field.
Are you talking nuclear energy or more voodoo wind wave & solar non base load? Do you really wish to limit the use of fossil fuels or play with the equivalent of crystals & pyramid power? At what point do we stop listening to sharmans in the alternative energy field & start looking at the facts. How many billions do we waste first?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurther to your observations:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn IPCCs exaggerated climate sensitivity and the emperor’s new clothes.
http://www.sciencebits.com/IPCC_nowarming
sault, I am continually amazed at the tenacious way you persist in arguments with bricks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you. Quite interesting. Having only loosely followed the debate, using the msm as a gauge, one could easily come to several conclusions:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) All people who disagree are nuts or industry hacks.
2) The scientists didn't hide anything significant nor manufacture any false claims, they were just provoked by deniers.
3) The science is settled. This view is supported by the majority of people who don't really have any way of sorting out fact/fiction.
What I mainly see in opposition on a few science sites:
1) All who are involved in climate-gate are research hacks in it for the grants, and strangely unscientific in their use of the argument from authority and in their use of ad hom attacks on "deniers."
The science isn't settled, nor very good science.
Over the years, I've owned a few companies in a highly technical field, and from what I can tell, the science is not only not settled, the politics involved control the outcomes.
Software can be programmed for any outcome, and as a skeptic, I become concerned when there is such religious fervor and certainty about a topic for which little is actually known, as admitted by NASA on their uncertainties page.
I realize that even though they admit the uncertainties, they claim there is no question remaining.
Having worked with NASA over the decades, including having my designs in space, I'm not in the least surprised that political decisions outweigh the scientific. Too many bureaucrats pumping the scientists to win research grants.
AGW is a never-ending project for them. Quite sad to see it happen.
Only 4 nukes plants to eliminate Japan.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMust you use false stereotypes that denigrate women in order to call AGW deniers out for what they are?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJames Hansen presented three scenarios, based on a model, back in 1988. He named them A, B and C, and suggested that scenario B was the most probable. Actual temperature rises since 1988 eerily follow scenario B.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe predicted a few years ago that 2012 would be the hottest yet. Do you really want to argue with that?
And the other thousands of scientists from all over the world who have worked for decades on the same problem -- all wrong? Please...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour claims about the recent arrival of usable data, and the length of historical understanding about these issues, is wrong. Your case that the models are built upon assumptions is similarly a pile of pro-pollutionist hogwash.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook, I don't know what else I can say...I show you how previous climate models can hindcast and models from 20 or so years ago have stacked up well. The "skeptics" around here either just dismiss the data I present entirely or make stuff up about the SAME data that disproves their points. Sure, models have uncertainty, but even the best-case estimates of climate sensitivity mean that we need to start cutting emissions NOW.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn't it riskier to wait until we know EXACTLY how bad climate change will be? By then, it'll be too late and the cost to society will be many times more than what it would have taken to cut emissions in the first place.
I still don't understand where the disconnect is really...just tell me the first question you answer "no" to and maybe we'll find out:
Does CO2 trap heat?
Have humans caused it to increase %40 in the past 150 years?
Does that %40 increase cause the Earth to retain an extra 1.7W/m2?
If you've answered "yes" to all these questions, what vale for the Earth's climate sensitivity are you basing your skeptical position upon? It can be a range of values or a single point estimate, doesn't matter. I'm really interested to see the hard data that makes people so skeptical around here.
Hansen's Scenario B predicted 1C for 2010. Actual global mean temperature - 0.63. i.e. he was 37% out. 2011, he's likely to be close to 50% out (coin tossing territory).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe concensus amongst scientists used to be that AGW theory was false. Now, warmists claim that as there's more warmists than skeptics, the science is settled. In reality,climate scientists haven't got a clue and change their minds dependent on whether the earth is warming or not. If you actually read the IPCC report, the headline is that AGW is very likely, but the detail reveals far less surety.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd you live in a fantasy world where proof dare not tread upon your pre-existing beliefs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor the very simple model that Dr. Hansen used back in 1988, the predictability is fantastic. I'm sure his runs had error bars, not sure if those were on the graphic he presented. We also know that aerosols from Asia are dampening warming due to global dimming. All in all, his scenario B was darned good!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFigure 1 shows Hansen's 1988 prediction in black, and Scenario B in Brown. Clearly, it's 37% out for 2010, and has diverged further and further away from reality since 2000 and that's just going on the trend. There isn't 1 year, where Hansen's prediction has matched the global mean temperature.
You can see from the CRU data that 2011 will be the 12th warmest year on record, slightly warmer than 2008. Even when CRU, GISS & NOAA finish consulting with each other as to how best to "hide the decline" and publish the annual 2011 data, it's likely that Hansen's prediction will be almost double the global mean temperature for 2011, in the space of only 23 years. Only members of a cult would consider these figures to be fantastic.
"northern latitudes of the U.S., Europe and Asia" I'm glad Canada has been spared! Or did the author forget that the US is not a continent like Europe or Asia, it is a country and not the only country in North America!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNormal weather cycles?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you were ACTUALLY trying to debate climate science, you'd have gone to the "advanced" page on skepticalscience.com and found this:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Total Scenario B greenhouse gas radiative forcing from 1984 to 2010 = 1.1 W/m2
The actual greenhouse gas forcing from 1984 to 2010 was approximately 1.06 W/m2 (NASA GISS). Thus the greenhouse gas radiative forcing in Scenario B was too high by about 5%.
In other words, the reason Hansen's global temperature projections were too high was primarily because his climate model had a climate sensitivity that was too high. Had the sensitivity been 3.4°C for a 2xCO2, and had Hansen decreased the radiative forcing in Scenario B slightly, he would have correctly projected the ensuing global surface air temperature increase.
The argument "Hansen's projections were too high" is thus not an argument against anthropogenic global warming or the accuracy of climate models, but rather an argument against climate sensitivity being as high as 4.2°C for 2xCO2, but it's also an argument for climate sensitivity being around 3.4°C for 2xCO2. This is within the range of climate sensitivity values in the IPCC report, and is even a bit above the widely accepted value of 3°C for 2xCO2."
But since you're just lying to prove your point, you're not really interested in debating climate science, are you?
So why don't your warmest chums provide a graph showing how hansen's model would have panned out if he'd used the lower climate sensitivity? Answer: because it would make hansen's model right for 2011 but wrong for every year preceding it. Hansen's model is miles out and tweaking 1 variable won't solve the problem. Is it not time for your chant? Ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese are cycles. Such cycles are hard to predict.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe AGW (Anthropological Global Warming) and AGC (anthropological Global Cooling) advocates will tell you that either drastic changes will happen, or that they won't.
The other side will claim that nothing will happen.
The true fact of the matter is that Climate Science is still very new, and all they have are theories and models. The Model predictions are not very good. Models get tweeked to account for the natural variability, and they are then projected forward. So far, none of these models has succeded in predicting correctly the climate for any ten year period without major data revision.
So, don't believe EITHER side in this issue. We are still trying to decode climate. It isn't very reliable yet.
That said, please remember that for the last 4,000 years, the best advice has always been to be prepared for nearly anything. There have been droughts that lasted for close to 300 years. There have been very wet seasons. There have been warming periods that also lasted for several centuries. These were offset by periods of intense cold. In the 17th Century there was even a 'year without a Summer'.
So, ignoring all of what is posted here, you should be careful in your planning. Remember Murphy's advice.
Meanwhile, the Climate Researchers will continue to make models and compare the models with what is recorded. They will also continue to argue about it, as the fans are doing here. Eventually, the models will get refined enough to begin to make reliable predictions.
The one thing we can be sure of is that the climate will not stay the same. It never has done that. Not in the past 2 Billion Years.
Regarding the sea rise, we know from Geological studies how high the sea can rise. We also know how far it fell during the last glaciation, which ended close to ten thousand years ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf all the ice on earth melted, then sea level would rise around 10 Meters, or 30 feet.
If we re-entered the Ice Ages, then seal level would fall around 600 feet (200 Meters).
We are currently in an interglacial period, with close to total melting having already occurred. The only major ice deposits remaining are Greenland and Antarctica. Ice in the oceans, such as Arctic sea ice and Antarctic ice shelves are already free floating, so they will not contribute to any sea level changes, even if they totally melt. What they would do if they totally melted would be to increase the amount of heat, and therefore the temperature in the Arctic, which might increase the annual melt in Greenland.
So far, the total 'increase' in sea level is less than the uncertainty in the measurement. If you want to know for sure if Global Warming is real, just measure high and low tides. When both are going up over a period of several months, then you will know that Global Warming is real.
Venice Italy is one good place for such measurements. But, you would have to include the sinking of the city, as it is built on piles sunk into mud. By measuring the depth of the piles and the height of the water, you can establish what the sea level has been for the past 800 years. Over that time, it seems that sea level has been fairly constant. Even today, Venice is still there. Still slowly sinking into the mud, but still there.
Something similar can be done in New York at the south end of Manhattan. Wall Street has been only about a dozen feet above sea level since the late 1700's. When Wall Street goes under water, you will know it is too late to worry! Until that happens, then it's all still theory.
However, doing something is still a good idea. Coal and oil should be replaced as primary sources of energy. We should take a good careful look at the replacements, as they will also have environmental impacts. Increased efficiency is also always good, whether the Globe is Warming or not! We do have time. Take enough time to make wise choices.
I hope this has not just confused you.
If we listened to those with the 'credentials' from 30 years ago we would have learned that by now the "Global Cooling" would have glaciers already covering most of Canada and Scandinavia. Is the current crop of experts any better?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen we were told that things were going to get much colder, they got slightly colder instead. Now, we have been told that things are going to get much warmer, and they have cooled off a little bit instead.
We need to just admit that this is a science still in it's infancy, and not put much stock in the predictions.
That doesn't mean that we should just throw it all out. It means that there is still a great deal of research to be done.
In the meantime, please remember that the models are just models, and incomplete models at that.
When we do get a model that can take in real meteorological data, and correctly forecast the next 1 to 5 years of general climate, then and only then should we start basing our policy on the results of the model. So far, I have seen no model that can correctly make such predictions.
So, it's sort of like Fusion Energy that way?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey guys, I've read all 70 comments and I'm impressed with the book learnin' in all of this but I just have one question....would it be alright with ya'all if we cut a few of these beetle-killed trees around here before ya'all let 'em burn; we need to build some barns & fences (we got enough houses for now since the banks are selling some of them city slickers' big houses). Oh, and some bearded stranger hereabouts wants some of those big,dead, old-growth trees to build the damnest big rowboat anybody ever heard of here in Montana!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe whole global warming debate as it relates to human activity is hogwash. Even Obama skipped out on the last international conference. Is there climate change? Yes. Is it empirically tied to industrialization? Absolutely not. The earth has undergone changes in climate since pre-history. There have been mini ice ages, and mini heat waves. That is a natural part of the earth's climate. Blaming humanity is just a way for third world nations to extort money from the more wealthy nations, and the scientists who doctored their data use the argument to remain funded.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-2-lindzen-vs-hansen-1980s.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook at Figure 3. If you think climate sensitivity is lower than 3C after reading that, you either don't know how to read a graph or you're profoundly disingenuous with your arguments. By the way, the deniers' great hope, Dr. Lindzen, is %90 - %95 too low. Using your absurdly flawed coin toss analogy, what does that make Lindzen's predictions? Is this flip of a icosahedron and hoping it lands on "20" territory?
Is there climate change? Yes. Do you provide ANY proof to back up your assertions? NO Do you deniers look silly when you dismiss MOUNTAINS of scientific evidence and disrespect the consensus of the world's ENTIRE scientific establishment? Absolutely. Actually learning the facts from ACTUAL science instead of the angry man spouting conspiracies on the TV / Radio / Blog? Priceless.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook at Figure 4. Sea level rise has been on the extreme upper end of the model projections. BTW, the rise since 1970 is 10 cm and the satellites have a resolution in mm. So yes, we know for sure that sea level is rising and it's rising FASTER than we had previously thought. This only makes sense because ice is melting faster than we thought around the globe and the Earth's climate sensitivity is a little higher than we had thought previously.
Sault, my belief is that no climate scientist has any clue about the climate, that includes Lindzen and Hansen, so the fact that their predictions are all rubbish comes as no surprise to me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for doing this -- I burned out on it a couple of years ago already.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving read your link it's made quite clear that Lindzen never made any such predictions, so the article is entirely pointless other than to members of the Skepticalscience cult. It does at least admit that Hansen is 30% ( will be close to 50% in 2011) wrong. Science requires predictions to be far more accurate than 50% to have credibility you know
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, we can expect the Maldives to be abandoned in the next few years can we? In the real world, sea level hasn't risen for 40 years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we18.htm
If you live in a cave in Nevada, putting graphs on a cult website, all kinds of 'end of the world' scenarios seem likely, however.
Let's get serious, folks - I find it most inordinate that a publication as well-connected as your organization is - and boasts the word "Scientific" as part of your name, to boot - would have the poor taste to ask a question such as the one you pose in the title of this article. What - are you just putting it out there for feelers, to see what you can reel in?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA well-place stratagem, to see if you can find out how many people are hip to what's going on in the skies above Anytown, USA? Hmmm?
I mean, YOU people seem to have noticed something ..... you're the ones asking the question, (and, I quote you): "What's causing one of the dryest, warmest winters in history?" As well, you're the ones that made the statement, (and, I quote you again): "strange forces are controlling the jet stream this season." Hey, since you guys are the ones who brought it up, why don't YOU tell us the causation for this oddity? You are a 'professional' scientific inquiry-type organization ...... so surely you must have some notion as to the Who, What, When, Where,and Why - no? Certainly you have the connections to get the answers, right? I mean, right?
And, of paramount importance, an organization as prestigious as yours, is unarguably familiar with the fact that as professional journalists, it is your DUTY
to strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty in providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. For; I needn't remind you that professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility; do I? And, I am also certain that you'll agree with me that professional journalists share a dedication to public enlightenment through ethical behavior - because it is unthinkable to do anything but that; to insure that you uphold the standards of practice, as well as the integritous principles of the Society of Professional Journalists; correct? Are we on the same page here?
All of that said, it would behoove your organization to follow this article up with a comprehensive study and subsequent publication of the subject of "Weather Modification." Do you GET me, Sweetheart?
mtrancher, I like you! I'm still laughin'! Hey, check out my answer - it's #80. You are tooooo much, and yours is the most insightful answer in the whole herd!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you so much for making my day!
Reader's Digest stopped publishing in the UK a few years back. I'd assumed SciAm was the relaunch.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere, here, evosburgh! You're on target at every turn, my friend! Did you notice how this "sault" individual continues to to apply that time-worn diversion tactic with weak attempts trying to make it look as though you don't know what you're talking about - to avoid simply answering your inquiry about his credentials? And, those others backing his play by jumping right up on his bandwagon - shame on them! Just wanted to let you know it not's you - it's the rest of the the world!! See my entry at #80; and also check out mtrancher's at #71 - it's hilarious!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHa, ha, ha, hee-hee - dig it, jdey123!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour post #75
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow come tide gauge levels chiseled in rock, thousands of miles apart, nearly two hundred years ago in Australia show practically no increase in sea levels. Also, with all the ice melt & thermal expansion you have on numerous occasions expounded upon, why has the tiny average decadal rate of increase declined over the past decade ? Naturally, if you rely on tidal measurements where there is land subsidence or upheaval you will get false readings.
By the way you refer to ,Faster than WE thought. Who is WE ? What cult do WE belong to ?
Skeptical Science cult members can be found here:-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttps://twitter.com/#!/skepticscience/followers
Then how do you gather information about climate change, from whom, and how do you make ANY informed opinions on this subject if you dismiss ANY expert opinion on it? Yuo have to realize that this is a reckless approach to studying an issue with this much importance. You're basically flying blind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey, what kind of business is it of yours what my qualifications are? If you don't like my arguments and proof, argue against them. But since it is apparent all you can do is just hurl personal insults and chuckle like a dolt at the mind-numbing rants of the other dolts around here, this is probably asking too much.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, what are YOUR qualifications, huh? Are they pertinent to this discussion? Are you ever going to bring any actual proof to this debate or just try to derail it?
Sorry, that's a paper admitted to the parliment record by a bunch of pro-polluter politicians to give it a bit of credibility. NONE of his data and results mesh with what EVERY BODY ELSE is getting and he has to TILT a graph to make the data jive with his predetermined conclusions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"For the last 30 years, our data sets are so contaminated by personal interpretations and personal choices that it is almost impossible to sort up the mess in reliable and unreliable data."
Wow, no wonder you deniers are so fond of making fact-free rants to support your predetermined conclusions...
Sloppy figures with typos and unlabeled axes, unfounded assertions and vitriolic words. Hey, don't take my word for it, listen what the experts had to say:
"A comment made on the article on estimating future sea level change from past records by Nils-Axel Mörner is presented, where the major errors are pointed out. It is believed that there are so many errors in the article that it completely misinterprets the record of sea level change from the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite altimeter mission. Any satellite data set, calibration and validation of the data must be performed after launch to determine if there are any instrumental errors, and evaluate their behavior over time. The sea level measurements can be affected by the method used to process the altimeter waveforms, and by the techniques and data used to compute the orbit of the satellites. Mörner also ignores other oceanographic and cryospheric evidence of sea level rise, which corroborate the altimeter observations."
The author is on the lunatic fringe of science:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils-Axel_M%C3%B6rner
Key Quote:
"Views on dowsing
Mörner has written a number of works claiming to provide theoretical support for dowsing. [2] He was elected "Deceiver of the year" by Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning in 1995 for "organizing university courses about dowsing...".[2] In 1997 James Randi asked him to claim The One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, making a controlled experiment to prove that dowsing works.[14] Mörner declined the offer.[15]"
you have to realize that citing kooks like this is highly damaging to whatever credibility you're trying to present in this debate.
Watch this if you want some good evidence for climate change:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHrVOnLKjuQ&feature=g-all-u&context=G2aa5843FAAAAAAAAFAA
Skeptical Science/wikipedia/youtube are not valid sources. lrn2research like a grown up
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, my - down, boy! "What kind of business is it of mine what your 'qualifications' are"? - you inquire?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUmmm, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a forum that invites participation? (incidentally - I love being wrong: it provides an opportunity to learn something! You know what I'm sayin'?)
Now then, Sault - I really touched a nerve in there, didn't I? Didn't mean to - I spoke only the truth to Evosburgh; regarding my evaluation of your continued and repeated propensity to demonstrate avoidance when asked by more than one individual to reveal your "credentials". Incidentally, if you are going to reference something I said, get it right next time - I used the word "credentials" - not the word "qualifications" - big difference there, Bub.
As well, I never stated anything about liking, or not liking, your "arguments" and your "proof" - conversely; I wouldn't strive to touch what you put forth with a ten-foot pole, as it were. I'm just not in the mood to bite into the mode of "arguing against you"! Don't misunderstand (again) - I love a good debate, but the key words there are "good debate". Right? I mean, right?!
And, one more thing, tough guy - if you think I was "hurling personal insults" at you by stating precisely how you have been conducting yourself by sidestepping the "credentials" issue, then there's something wrong with the way you think .... because you have no platform for a valid defense there - circumvention is exactly what you are doing. I sought not to insult you; what I said was simply a fact, no? I must admit that you are on target, though; about one thing you said: I was indeed chuckling - but not like a dolt. And the only mind-dumbing dolt ranting around here
is y ..... well; I really don't favor name-calling, so
I'll refrain; unlike you. Name-calling isn't nice, it
isn't necessary, it isn't a method for effective communication; and besides - it was one of the main lessons we were taught in Kindergarten: learn to share, don't steal, and don't call other people names.
I was told by a wise old man many years ago; he said,
"Kid - if you say something to somebody that is accurate - and if they react in anger; you're probably right." So, c'mon now, Sault - this is a time for growth. Me, personally; I'd respect the heck out of you if you admit you're self-educated with no credentials. I always look for the learning, and I self-educate every day. But you gotta be discerning about what & who you believe, my friend. And it is imperative to check more than one source to secure reliable information.
Wow. I started to read the comments and then realized that it was pointless after the first page because everything after that was simply a, "So, what are your credentials, tough guy?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd to think that this could have been a fruitful discussion...
*Yawn*
Collette,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you love a good debate, do you have plans to provide one here? All of your comments have been completely off-topic. Why did you come here?
1. I asked for specific observational data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. You didn't give us a scrap of physics. Instead of "my understanding," cite sources.
Predicting a rise of 1 degree and getting half a degree is NOT coin-tossing territory. Getting as many decreases as increases is random. Predicting increases and getting them is prediction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI haven't read a Scientific American article in quite some time, and it may be a while before I do so again. To see a (once) respected scientific publication reduced to the common journalistic failure of "False Equivalency" was a far greater disappointment than you can imagine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSault, in his first comment in this thread, was correct. That absurd statement about sunspots laid up there as equivalent to actual climatic interactions between atmosphere and water vs ice is a complete betrayal of science. It does not belong in any publication with the words "Scientific" or "Science" it its name.
Absolutely correct, sault. It's a crying shame that Scientific American would commit such a fallacy. It was once a publication well-respected for its ability to make sometimes arcane scientific reports and discussions understandable to ordinary folks. Now it allows its writers to pander to the political agenda's of the deniers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps you did not observe the first entry I submitted; it is at #78. I conjecture that the causation for the "strange forces" that give rise to the "driest, warmest winters in history" ... as quoted from the author of this article; are Weather Modification. In the area in which I reside, I have experienced observable sudden drastic alterations in the weather following the presence of planes exuding substances (and I'm not talking about a vapor trail that typically dissipates) as they repeatedly fly in a large circular pattern for many revolutions. I don't have to time to go into the details right now - I've got to take care of some errands. But if you're willing to listen, I will relay to you several occurrences; in several hours.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(Introduced in Senate)
S 517 IS
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 517
To establish the Weather Modification Operations and Research Board, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
March 3, 2005
This Act shall take effect on October 1, 2005.
SEC. 8. FUNDING.
(a) IN GENERAL- There is established within the Treasury of the United States the Weather Modification Research and Development Fund, which shall consist of amounts appropriated pursuant to subsection (b) or received by the Board under subsection (c).
(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be appropriated to the Board for the purposes of carrying out the provisions of this Act $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2014. Any sums appropriated under this subsection shall remain available, without fiscal year limitation, until expended.
Look, here is the deal.. more people die from extreme cold then extreme heat so global warming is good. We may lose a few polar bears but even the most dire predictions only equals the number culled for food, so we can just send them some beef that with thrive in canada when things warm up. As far as sea levels, it is the rich that own the waterfront so F-em. The predictions about 10 foot sea level rises are ridiculous here are too many low lying areas in this world. We could just create some great lakes when the rivers back up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd if you think that satellite technology can measure moving waves in the ocean down to a MM you are suffering from sun spots. I am not a credentialed scientist but I know BS when I read it. The Tsunami that hit japan is supposed to effect ocean waves for two years so how you gonna measure the the level of the oceans from hundreds of miles out down to the thickness of an credit card?
The predictors all had to say something, and the one that was closest got the credit as if he knew. Its the same "scientific" theory they use on "the Price is Right"
And if you think the rest of the world is going to stop using oil and coal because the US does you are all nuts.
China will burn every last ounce of both to further their influence. Personally I would rther see the fuel used to heat my hot tub than in a chinese Tank.
and one last thing.... they defend Mann and his tree rings and hockey sticks but remember he was cleared by the same University that covered up Sandusky buggering little boys for over a decade.
Just sayin....
I may not be as well educated as some here, but I do remember clearly that science is not conducted by consensus. Heck, Al Gore predicted in his movie that flooding would be widespread by now.... Still waiting on that one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have a friend that flies to Nunavut quite frequently for an airline. First thing he is given off the airplane is a gun to protect himself from polar bears. Their population is actually exploding..... I wonder why the WWF and Coka Cola is telling us otherwise? Right!!! They stand to make a crapload of cash this way. I suspect Sault is the way he is because he has interest in his green energy stock?
A lot of the posts have dealt with the issue of credentials. Here's why credentials matter. Trying to debate science without credentials is the exact equivalent of a flag football player going up against Tom Brady. Then, when he gets flattened, saying it doesn't prove anything.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor those skeptical of computer modeling, here's a simple test. Just write a computer program that does successfully model climate. This is just a version of what I tell all the folks who are up in arms about health care: just start an insurance company that provides full coverage for minimal cost. Ought to be a piece of cake for experts like you.
Or, if writing a complete climate model is a bit too ambitious, write an Excel spreadsheet that does your taxes correctly. Show us you have some skin in the game.
Facts are not democratic. You don't get to vote on whether evolution is true, or whether climate is changing. You can vote for people who tell you what you want to hear on those issues, but that's another matter altogether.
It appears CollettedesMaris is nothing more than a yard-dark called in to bark at others' contributions. Even the 'ha ha hee hee' is the cackle of individually-insecure immaturity, and the latest vent is the kind of personal attack usually associated with grade school bullying. Check out how the evidence for AGW is buried underneath a credential attack - without basis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe polar bear population isn't exploding. What a ridiculous notion. They're moving inland and competing with Browns and Grizzlies. Their actual population is declining... rapidly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK Collette, you just gave away any pretense at rational discussion. Weather modification? Chemtrails? We won't be corresponding again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAstroturf and pro polluter blogs aren't real science. EVERYTHING on skepticalscience, wikipedia and the youtube video is backed up by peer-reviewed science. EVERYTHING on those conspiracy-laden astroturf blogs is either vitriol or EXACTLY what their fossil fuel paymasters wanted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you even know how ridiculous you sound? If you're going to make assertions like that, AT LEAST be informed of the basic science behind the issues on which you are commenting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChem trails ... Here, this should take care of that:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://zapatopi.net/afdb/
Chem trails explanation is a bookend to go with the theory of sunspot influence for the extreme arctic anomaly explanation.
Btw, that attempt at the weather-control Senate Bill reference - it was thrown out. Even the anti-science syndrome evident in that prosperous deregulated session couldn't get that one off the turf.
Crickey,, the Druid Klan have come out of their skepticalscience cave en-masse. Usual rubbish about how only they are allowed to predict the future, or analyse the past. Ommmmmmmmmmmmm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow getting it 50% wrong is prediction. My horoscope reading is accurate more often than that. Ommmmmmmmmmmmmm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPolar bears evolved from brown bears. Arctic ice was prophesied to disappear completely by 2013, in 2007. Ommmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvery article in skepticalscience and youtube has appeared first in a scientific paper and been peer-reviewed? What a chuckle you are, sault. Ommmmmmmmmmmmm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think skeptics are claiming to be expert scientists. I'm just looking at the rubbish that the scientists are pumping out, and analysing it, as that is my trade. You can't blag a blagger.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnce again, remind yourself that you are probably dealing with conservabots who are being paid to sit in a cubicle somewhere in Missouri or Mississippi, to sew disinformation on the web in order to foment controversy around the incontrovertible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisT
Last I checked, he was right - you haven't yourself posted anything other than circular reasoning and zero real data to back up your own point. And I haven't seen him call names yet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisT
"...Al Gore predicted in his movie that flooding would be widespread by now.... Still waiting on that one."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUmm, no, he didn't. You might want to go back and watch it again.
And in case you hadn't been watching the real (i.e. Non-FOX) news, had he done so, he would have been correct - do you not remember the news about Pakistan being half inundated? India getting monsooned hugely in 2006? New York 2011? Queensland?
Seriously. Wise up a bit.
T
Mohawk742 - "We won't be corresponding again?" With all due respect, I honestly do not recall corresponding with you a first time - so how could we not do it again?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI sure am hoping you'll reconsider the thought behind that well-honed brush-off, because I have only two questions to pose to you. I did not use the word "Chemtrails" in any of my posts - would you kindly define what a "Chemtrail" is? As well, please explain why Weather Modification would be so far out of the realm of possibility for giving rise to abnormal weather patterns. Thank you
Yep, they probably do paid to post schemes like this:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.freeforumwork.com/
They just LOVE these 100+ comment threads we go through to beat back their misinformation!
sault, you've got to ask yourself mate, why climate science is getting picked on. Do you really think that everybody whose seeing through this myth watches Fox News and is the pockets of the fossil fuel industry? If you think about it, oil and gas is due to run out in the next 50 years, if not earlier, so it's in nobody's interests not to look at alternative energy. From the climate science point of view, I thought you'd concluded that it's too late and that even if mankind stopped all CO2 emissions right now, we'd still be heading for a disaster, so if the science were settled we're all screwed so why are you bothered?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason why I comment against you is because the science is rubbish and you're bringing the entire science community down by pushing a myth as though it were settled facts.
Owl905 - I gotta get hip, because you are the second individual that used terms I don't comprehend. 'Cause, you know, since you aimed to insult me, it's only fair that I comprehend the terms that you used so at least the insult will have full impact!! You'd prefer it that way, no?!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, what the heck is a "yard-dark"? Like I said to Sault, I rarely resort to name-calling, so forgive me if I'm not familiar with the latest label that folks create to make mockery of others. I'm from the generation who used descriptors like, "jerk" and "creep"; and I honestly can't figure out what you're calling me. Would you kindly enlighten me?
Your evaluation of my use of the "Ha-Ha" words as being indicative of immaturity - how else would you suggest that one write genuine laughter? I wrote "Ha-Ha", etc. to convey that I found jdey's statement about SciAm being the relaunch of Reader's Digest, etc.; very amusing. One abbreviated term that I do know is the well-used "LOL", and I had assumed abbreviations like that were reserved for use in text conversations for space conservation - we are not texting here, so it never occurred to me to use "LOL" instead of "Ha-Ha". Somehow I have my doubts that if I had used "LOL" instead of "Ha,Ha", that you 'd have been any less likely to strike out. And grade-school bullying? I am not now; nor have I ever been a "Bully". I'm a female, for one thing - and I'm definitely not inclined towards bullying anyone or anything. I felt compelled to respond to your comment about me because your evaluation was not accurate. Your misinterpretation of the words I used to convey amusement, gave rise to you equating the words I used
to describe my amusement with being representative of something a grade-school bully does - and your assessment is not correct.
Lastly, your final statement was: "Check out how the evidence for AGW is buried underneath a credential attack-without basis." I have no earthly idea what this means, either! Translate "AGW", please. And, I didn't "attack" Sault about "credentials". What I did do is notice that a number of folks had asked Sault to provide his credentials; and he would sidestep the issue every time. All I did was state an observation that he appeared to be using diversion tactics to circumvent the credentials issue. I never asked for them, nor am I interested in them. Just joining in on the conversation like everyone else. I did not have anything "buried underneath a credential attack without basis." I openly stated what the man was doing - with basis.
"Do you really think that everybody [whose seeing through this myth] watches Fox News and is the pockets of the fossil fuel industry?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReplace what's in the brackets with "denying climate science" and I PARTIALLY agree with that statement. The %2 of scientists that do not agree that human emissions are causing the Earth to warm are mostly funded by fossil fuel companies or their associated front groups and astroturf organizations. See here for an example:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Willie_Soon
The noise machine that parrots these lies is either funded by fossil fuel interests or is just responding to "tribal" affiliations to capture market share. See the fact that a Saudi Oil prince owns %10 of News Corp. The rest of the noise is generated by people who hate hippies with a passion and want to destroy everything they stand for. Here's a good breakdown of the how/why this happens:
http://www.grist.org/climate-skeptics/2011-08-02-stuff-white-people-like-denying-climate-change
"it's in nobody's interests not to look at alternative energy."
Considering that just the top 5 oil companies made $1 TRILLION in profits in the last decade and they used over %50 of that money NOT to develop alternatives or even look for more oil. NOPE, they used more than half of those massive, subsidized profits to buy back their own stock. Screw working families paying more and more for fuel, the shareholders must be rewarded! This is how short-term, profit-driven, and inconsiderate these people are. This is how the decision to save $500K on a proper blowout preventer that allowed the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster to happen was made. This is why their GULF OF MEXICO spill response plan included saving WALRUSES. As in, they just cut and pasted from their arctic response plan and the regulators didn't even notice!
So no, these people are not thinking of the future. There's too much money to be made NOW and even if they do screw up, they'll get a golden parachute to set them for life on their way out. Either they are blinded by their hatred of hippies, or any others not part of the "tribe", or they just don't care. Either way, you're being suckered by one of the biggest systematic lies in modern history. Just to keep their gravy train running for a few more years...
There, am I helping you keep your post count up?
Ok, so if you are still convinced that oil companies are looking short term and don't care if the oil runs out in 50 years time because the current executives will all be retired by then, what about countries like Saudi Arabia and Norway whose entire economies are dependent on oil. Wouldn't they want to be leaning on the oil company execs?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSadly, I don't watch Fox News, am not in the pay of an oil company but work as an analyst, so can see through any statistical tricks that are presented to me. Science is about making predictions that are verified via observation, not ignoring the facts when they don't match your hypothesis.
When are GISS and CRU going to announce their 2011 figures, by the way? NOAA state on their website 19th January. CRU had published 3 datasets by this date, last month.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy so slow? The satellite records were ready within a few days of the start of this month. They can't still be "hiding the decline", can they?
If the ice is receding as you claim, Would the polar bears not move north and actually leave the populated areas? They are certainly not going to move south and follow the incredible heat that is coming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe same could be said of those on the AGW bandwagon. They are milking what is left of our tax dollars to try and shut the rest of us up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"And in case you hadn't been watching the real (i.e. Non-FOX) news, had he done so, he would have been correct - do you not remember the news about Pakistan being half inundated? India getting monsooned hugely in 2006? New York 2011? Queensland?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat you are describing is weather related and not due to a rise in sea level.
What I don't get is how the article makes conclusions of this winter season while the season is barely 3 weeks old. It ain't over 'til it's over. It would have been a different story if the article had been posted in late March.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTake your conspiracy theories elsewhere, kiddo. Results are results. The world doesn't have to appease your sense of what's right and wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisT
Why don't you take yours elsewhere? Right!! Because the "consensus" has decided to skip over the theory part of the research and right on to the conclusions before the entire research was complete. So at this point it is easier to snuff out dissent than having to prove your consensus.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI take it you have no answer for the questions I posed earlier?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally, give me a break. All that was done between Model B and the adjusted Model B was a tweak to get the fit better. I dare say that the tweak was not really all that scientific.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe equation is:
DeltaT = (lam)DeltaF = (lam)*5.35*ln(CO2b/CO2a)
Seriously, everything is due to CO2?!?!?! There are no other drivers?
If you just read the graphs (which you seem to have done) I could see where you would come to this conclusion. However, if you had bothered to actually read the text and investigate the math behind the graph you would find that it is pretty sketchy.
This is so bogus that you should be ashamed that you present it as science.
As usual attack someone else and hide behind what expertise it is that you have?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExactly. While the possible consequences of greenhouse gas emissions are pretty scary the postulated outcomes are well within any kind of change that has happened due to natural phenomena. Granted they may happen sooner than they would have but what difference does that make? We as a species have has a relatively calm period in which to flourish and sonner or later (assuming we are still around) we are going to get a taste of something truely epic by way of a meteor impact or a super volcano or something else truely incomprehensible to us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe earthquakes that happened in Indonesia, Hati and Japan are nothing out of the ordinary in Earth's history but since we have 24/7 news channels (all included) that are more than willing to blow things out of proportion they seem like major disasters, which they are in terms of the human toll, but are just business as usual on the 3rd rock.
Hey, before you go casting wild dispersions in an emotional manner about how and why companies do what they do here are some thoughts:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- corporations are money making enterprises and if you do not agree with the way that they do what they do stop buying their products.
- if you had actually read the report on Macondo, and had some insight into how things work on a deep water drilling rig, you would see that the single most important reason for the disaster (in my opinion) was the lack of communication between the team and managers (both on and offshore). The failure of the BOP was the final blow in a disaster that had been brewing for quite some time. Now that should never have happened but also it was not just due to a $500k BOP issue.
True. Much of the results of some weather related disasters in some areas are due to deforestation on mountainsides, changes to rivers like damming and course changes, are leading to more severe aftermaths than if the topography had remained untouched. Some flooding is due to natural causes because possibly flood plains should not be inhabited?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost of Florida is an ancient corral reef. Maybe the oceans were in fact higher in the distant past, before humans even knew how to strike two rocks to create fire?
There is so much money to be made in green energy that some will stoop to anything to create a crisis to keep them employed. Dalton McGuinty current Premier of Ontario Canada, who had introduced the Green Energy Act at great cost to taxpayers, even posed for pictures in a solar cell plant that was revealed later to have been idle for weeks, for lack of demand.
This comment thread is still going on, huh. Observations of changing climate must really threaten those in denial. That would be consistent with why so few want to talk about this article, and instead just attempt to sew doubt in general.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBTW, jdey, I'm wondering where you are getting your information about the accuracy of Hansen's models. For instance, Patrick Michael's (of Forbes and World Climate Report) has made similar claims, and been caught in a deception.
http://www.grist.org/article/hansen-has-been-wrong-before
I do not think that it is so much the accuracy as the way that the result was derived. There is no possible way that the warming of the entire climate system can be captured in a single simple equation (see post #129 for the math).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is absolutely no possible way that a sinle parameter (lambda) is controlling the system and that it is all related to CO2 concentration. I could jack a single parameter around all day long and get a fit to an existing data set but that does not make the analysis fact.
@Chris,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is very topical. Patrick Michaels' fraudulent data deletions are the subject of a recent devastating take down piece over at Skeptical Science.
Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1222
Here is a excerpt from the article on scumbag Michaels technique of lying:
"Pat Michaels, has taken the graph from our 1988 paper with simulated global temperatures for scenarios A, B and C, erased the results for scenarios B and C, and shown only the curve for scenario A in public presentations, pretending that it was my prediction for climate change. fraud?"
They have links to the original Hansen work along with graphs of that work and Michael's graph of lies. Pretty devastating.
I am guessing though that our local ideologues will ignore these illustrations of skullduggery and just repeat the lies.
I'm getting it from that well known denialist website - NASA GISS:-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ (then clicking on the page 2 hyperlink) takes you to:-
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/
And the figure in question is this one:-
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/PNAS_GTCh_Fig2.pdf
The black line represents the global land and ocean temperature. The light blue line is Hansen's 1988 scenario B prediction for the global land and ocean temperature. In 2010, you can see that his prediction was 1C anomaly. And going back to Hansen's GISS website, we can see that it was infact 0.63C in 2010 (i.e. 37% less than the prediction).
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.txt
Now, I further claim that in 2011, Hansen will be almost 50% out. Going back to the graph, his prediction is just under 1C, let's say 0.95C. GISS haven't published their 2011 result yet, but a look at the monthly data on the NOAA NCDC and CRU websites, show us that 2011 will be substantially cooler than 2010, and only the 11th or 12th warmest year on record. As such, it will be surprising if the GISS published anomaly were above 0.5C, which means Hansen will be approximately 50% out. Given that when Hansen made his prediction, a warming trend had been established so a wise man would have followed "the trend is my friend" advice so beloved of stock market investors, his prediction is no better than tossing a coin. Hansen is unfortunate in that the trend only lasted 10 years after he made his prediction, otherwise he could have spun this myth out quite convincingly for a number of years yet.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2011/11
Having read your link, Michaels highlighted in that presentation the difference between observed temperature and scenario A, which was one of the scenarios that Hansen used in his 1988 paper.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn Hansen's abstract (shown on his own website here):-
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha02700w.html, he says of the 3 scenarios
"Scenario A assumes continued exponential trace gas growth, scenario B assumes a reduced linear linear growth of trace gases, and scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000"
You can see that most people reading that would assume that Hansen thought scenario A to be the most likely. However, as it's turned out CO2 emissions have been close to scenario B, and it's on that comparison that I'm stating that Hansen was 37% wrong in 2010 and likely to be almost 50% wrong in 2011.
Jdey Says: ou can see that most people reading that would assume that Hansen thought scenario A to be the most likely.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: No we can't because Hansen SAID that B was. Why lie? You have been shown EXACT quotes from Hansen saying B and you insist on A. Why do you and Michaels insist on contining this retarded game?
.
As I say, scenario B has most closely matched reality, so can you explain why Hansen's prediction is miles out, and why you're still defending a hypothesis where observations don't match predictions (which is a basic requirement of scientific advancement).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust to put the nail in the coffin that JDEY currently resides in. Here is a quote from the 1988 paper that Hansen based his Senate testimony on:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlobal Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute of Space Studies Three Dimensional Models:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
"These scenarios are designed to yield sensitivity experiments for a broad range of future greenhouse forcings. Scenario A, since it is exponential, must eventually be on the high side of reality in view of finite resource constraints and environmental concerns ... Scenario C is a more drastic curtailment of emissions than has generally been imagined ... *SCENARIO B IS PERHAPS THE MOST PLAUSIBLE OF THE THREE CASES."
Can it be made anymore clear that Patrick Michaels and his acolytes here are dishonest?
* I changed the text to all caps for emphasis for the hard of learning.
Look up Masdar City in Saudi and Norway is a renewable energy leader...mostly hydro though.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Seriously, everything is due to CO2?!?!?! There are no other drivers?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/A-detailed-look-at-Hansens-1988-projections.html
"However, if you had bothered to actually read the text and investigate the math behind the graph you would find that it is pretty sketchy."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease point me to text and "math" in question. Gosh, if you would have READ the VERY NEXT LINE, you would have your answer:
"dF(CO2) = 5.35*ln(389.1/343.8) = 0.662 W/m2
dF(N2O) = 0.12*(N - N0) - (f(M0,N) - f(M0,N0))
= 0.12*(329 - 304) - 0.47*(ln[1+2.01x10-5 (1750*329)0.75+5.31x10-15 1750(1750*329)1.52]-ln[1+2.01x10-5 (1750*304)0.75+5.31x10-15 1750(1750*304)1.52]) = 0.022 W/m2
dF(CH4) =0.036*(M - M0) - (f(M,N0) - f(M0,N0))
= 0.036*(2220 - 1750) - 0.47*(ln[1+2.01x10-5 (2220*304)0.75+5.31x10-15 2220(2220*304)1.52]-ln[1+2.01x10-5 (1750*304)0.75+5.31x10-15 1750(1750*304)1.52]) = 0.16 W/m2
dF(CCl3F) = 0.25*(0.541-0.221) = 0.080 W/m2
dF(CCl2F2) = 0.32*(0.937-0.378) = 0.18 W/m2
Total Scenario B greenhouse gas radiative forcing from 1984 to 2010 = 1.1 W/m2"
More importantly, how can Hansen's prediction be 37% more than that observed and yet you're still peddling this rubbish.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"We as a species have has a relatively calm period in which to flourish and sonner or later (assuming we are still around) we are going to get a taste of something truely epic by way of a meteor impact or a super volcano or something else truely incomprehensible to us."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWait a sec...you criticize the certainty of climate predictions, but then you reassure yourself with these whoppers?! I...just dont...understand...how....you think...
More importantly, how can Hansen's prediction be 37% more than that observed and yet you're still peddling this rubbish
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience for dummies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Create a hypothesis
2. Make a model to support your hypotheis
3. Take observations
4. Correlate observations with predictions produced by the model.
Warmists are fine up until step 4, which they've replaced with
4b) If the observations don't match your predictions, ignore the science and accuse your opponents of being deniers, trolls, ignorant, part of a worldwide funded right wing conspiracy etc.
WOW, it took you THAT long to produce ANY data backing up your nonsense claims?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisToo bad Hansen's scenarios were ALL predicting a strong El Nino for 2010 - 2011 and what we've been getting is La Nina dominance for the past 5 years. Paid climate disinformers are ALWAYS cherry-pickers though, so I shouldn't be surprised...
How come GISS and CRU haven't published their 2011 annual data yet? GISS did it on 12th January last year (it being a warm year). Why are they dragging their feet?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStop trying to avoid the question. How can Hansen's prediction be 37% more than that observed in 2010 and yet you're still peddling this rubbish.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou really don't know what you're talking about, do you. We've had a La Nina that's lasted 5 years. Lol.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMight be worth the warmist's time to read this article as to why your attempts to avoid science and engage in ideological crusades doesn't work:-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/03/16/global-warming-alarmism-continues-to-backfire/
Anyone else want to guess why JDEY is not wanting to revisit his parroted lie about Hansen saying he thought scenario A was more likely?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNotice the silence on the fact that Michaels deleted inconvenient data that did not fit with fossil friendly narrative.
So, jdey, care to explain why you are pushing misinformation forward again? I don't see a single El Nina event that has lasted 5 years in this graph. Looks like one, maybe two - depending on cutoff, cycles here:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
You would better describe climate as averages over multiple years rather that focusing on any one year. Most of us can see that there is a lot of noise about the trend. Why the fascination with a 23-year old model/paper anyway? Is that the best that you got?
You are aware that more physics have been built into models since then? And that Hansen's model is one of many? I'm not sure that it is an indictment of Hansen's 1988 model that he did not predict the increasing level of sulfates and other aerosols coming out of India and China, or that the heat content of the deep ocean would increase as much as it has.
What is your model? Or, one written by your favorite climate scientist. Let's see how well it compares with Hansen's, or a more modern one.
Exactly, starting in 2007, we've had 1 year of El Nino and 4 years of La Nina...combined with an historic lull in solar activity, but cherry-pickers like jdey123 will lash out incorrectly at a 24-year old model that predicted a strong El Nino for 2010 - 2011 and average solar irriadiance. This is from a model that also got the greenhouse forcing 5% too high and incorporated the higher long-term climate sensitivity into its calculations, instead of the slightly lower short-term climate sensitivity that we have seen up to this point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjdey123 doesn't discus these pertinent facts because they totally destroy his argument and they really aren't interested in reasoned debate. It's either gratituous hippie punching for them or just part of doing their job...
Hey, Sault! That's quite an array of equations there - would you please explain them, step-by-step? 'Cause I
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisam having difficulty translating them into the answer; you know what I'm sayin'? Thank you, Sault.
It's just proving that CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas incorporated into models like some of the deniers would have us believe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Paid climate disinformers"? What the heck is that about, Sault? I've heard it all now - there used to be just informers - now "they" have gotten so caught up in misbehaving and treachery that they've created a need for a "disinformer"? Wait a minute - if you add (1) disinformer to (1) informer, what do you get? A zero? Another thing - do you think one plus one equals two or eleven? Wow! When will anyone ever realize that it's so much more sensible and a whole lot easier to just deal with the truth? What a concept, huh? Sounds like "they" have gotten so far off the beaten path of no return that to entertain the thought of that (the truth) would really twist their brains. And they think they're better than everyone else ....!! My goodness, what has the world come to? You got an equation for that, Sault?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd one more thing, Sault ... how do you know disinformers exist, anyway? Hmmm? I've never even heard of the hooligans. Now, don't call me a "dolt" again, okay? I didn't call you any names. Just please provide the answers. Thank you so much!
Thanks for confirming it. I should have put "We've had a La Nina that lasted 5 years" in quotes. It was your good friend sault that came up with that rubbish, if you check the link that I was commenting on. Sault, ChrisG says you're an idiot. I concur.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm sorry but science works by a scientist creating a hypothesis publishing a paper and getting it peer-reviewed. If Hansen has got significant parts of his paper wrong, then he should retract it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm an analyst. I examine data provided by scientists. I've yet to come across a single model from any climate scientist that matches reality.
Hansen's model was actually created in 1984. He published his paper in 1988 after his model had been making predictions for 4 years. The entire global warming hypothesis relies on this seminal paper, which is by warmist admissions completely wide of the mark. Hansen had 3 scenarios in the paper, the lowest of which scenario C was based on all CO2 emissions having ended in 2000. This marks the lowest range of his possible predictions but is way off what's happened in reality. In 2011, the observed temperature will be below that predicted in scenario C.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSault, I've got a couple more questions for you, Sir:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(1) How do you know what you know? (2) Please define the word "denier" that you keep using. Who are these people, and what are they denying? (3) Please define the word "cherry-picker" in the context in which you are using it. The only cherry-picker I am familiar with is the one that pulls an engine out of a vehicle. Seems to me you're using it as a name for a person. (uh-oh .... you're not "name-calling" again, are you, Sault? It sounds like you are. Oops! Just a friendly reminder here, that we're not supposed to do that. You don't want to get kicked off the forum for misbehaving since you're making so much headway here, do you?)
We must be killing Exxon's profits with our army of deniers on their payroll. lol.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've pointed out to sault already, that oil companies and oil-based countries all know that the oil is going to run out in the next 50 years. As the world governments are pumping billions in to alternative energy research, which the oil companies would otherwise having to be paying for, it's wholly irrational that they would want to kill the myth, in order to sustain short term profits.
I haven't read all the comments, but I think that two points are being left out:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) Temperature is not that important. Before 1990, much of the arctic sea ice was several decades old, which means that it did not all melt during the Summer, but accumulated year after year. The excess, old ice aided the growth of the seasonal sea ice. In the early 1990s, a great deal of that old sea ice was circulated out through Fram Strait, past Greenland. Rigor & Wallace (2004) showed that it was the anomalously high, sustained Arctic Oscillation Index winds, which generated the strong transpolar currents, which drove the old sea ice out into the Atlantic to melt. Since then, the sea ice has not recovered. Therefore, it may be that the lower sea-ice extent can affect the intensity of the AOI swings, but it's neither warming nor cooling which drives arctic sea-ice extent. It is interesting that Ineson, et al. (2011) postulated that the recently discovered wild variations in solar UV emission, which vary by up to 20-30% over a solar cycle, could be linked with changes in the Arctic Oscillation.
2) The real climate game is not big-time energy tycoon vs. the Earth-lovers. It's the British Empire vs. human civilization. The real, *final*, solution to the fictional "global warming threat," according to the fanatics, is to kill off all the Africans and the Asians, since population growth is ultimately the cause of the fictional threat. Read Thomas Malthus, who proposed a similar threat, and also a similar solution. The British Empire hates people, not carbon dioxide.
I am not Sault but I just can resist answering these "questions".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCollettedesmaris Says:(1) How do you know what you know?
Trent Says: Is this some sort of college sophomore question about How-Do-We-Really-Know-We Are-Really Sitting-In-a Chair kind of question or are you just clueless about the evidence for AGW?
Sorry to answer a question with a question but you seem pretty vague.
Collettedesmaris Says: Please define the word "denier" that you keep using. Who are these people, and what are they denying.
Trent Says: Deniers are people or organizations that are in denial of scientific facts and/or invoke scientific conspiracies and herd mentality to explain those facts.
Here are some scientific facts that deniers are in denial of: They either deny the Earth is warming or say that the Earth is warming but it is for other reasons such as the sun or their favorite oscillation of the week. Which brings me to the observation that deniers are a pretty incoherent bunch. One group will insist that the Earth is:
1. Not warming.
2. Not warming but heading into a cold phase.
3. Warming but it is the sun.
4.Warming but is galactic cosmic rays.
5. Warming but it is El Nino/ La Nina or some sort of oscillation.
Etc, not a very coherent group are they? What they are united in though is that it is not humanities fault
Which leads me to Trent's First Iron Law of Denialism. No denier or luke warmer shall ever criticize another denier no matter how incoherent or contradictory the other denier is from his own position.
Collettedesmaris Says: Pease define the word "cherry-picker" in the context in which you are using it.
Trent Says: Allow me to offer to two post that beautifully explain this concept:
Cherry Jubilee
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/cherries-jubilee/
Going Down the Up Escalator:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/going-down-the-up-escalator-part-1.html
Collettedesmaris Says: Just a friendly reminder here, that we're not supposed to do that.
Trent Says: Just a slap from reality here: Scientific
American regularly uses the term "denier". So what are you going on about?
Jdey,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are an analyst? Of What? Of publically traded equity in corporations? Or any marketable asset? If so, then you should be a billionaire since you require that all predictions be precisely correct for a model to have any scientific merit.
Also, aren't you the one who mentioned something about the flip of a coin in describing Hansen's predictions? Do all predictions come in 50-50 probabilities? You'll have to explain your flip of the coin comment before I have any trust in your analytical abilities.
Sure, some analysis for you to deal with rather than ideology
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisArctic Sea Ice isn't getting thinner:-
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2012/01/20110105_Figure2.png
The world isn't getting warmer:-
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend
Hansen's predictions are getting wildly inaccurate:-
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/PNAS_GTCh_Fig2.pdf
I don't have an issue separating analysis from ideology, but I do see that you have an inability to partake in a dialogue. And that may imply something about your own analytic abilities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, jdey, what is your favorite climate model?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisre #168,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat do you think a graph showing ice _extent_ growing over Sept - Jan, which is winter by the way, indicates about the decline in \_thickness\_ that has been observed over the last decade\(s\)\?
Why did you pick 1998 and HadCRUv3? Could it be that any other year and any other data set shows an incline\?
You are aware that even in the HADCRU data, the statistical significance since 1998 is not high enough to make any claims, right\?
Your attempts to deceive are getting tiresome.
What is your favorite climate model?
Producing a climate model without having accurate measurements or even a basic understanding of something as fundamental as climate sensitivity, let alone understanding anything about other forcing agents and their cumulative interactions is an entirely pointless exercise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe climate is like the Eton Wall Game, it'll be centuries before we fully understand what's going on.
I'd prefer it if you sent me a link showing that the ice extent is larger but the actual depth of the ice is smaller. The link needs to come from a credible source, and show data (dataset or graph) again with a clearly referenced source, rather than analysis/hearsay.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes and each of those equations is applied to something like 2 million cubic miles of atmosphere and are nothing more than curve fitter knobs that were used to history match the instrument record.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, those equations were not on the link that you poosted but I did find them and plug them into excel and guess what? I can make a curve fit to the instrument record by changing the constants around with the solver feature and it does not make it any better a predictave tool.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn another note I used the term 'history match' which has been, per my experience the term used when matching a model to past data, and I now see the term 'hindcast' used by the climate scientists. This goes further to prove my point that if the climate scientists could get off of their high horse and actually get some help from people who are skilled in building and running multi-dimensional models they might get a better result. Of course that might open them up mto some critique of their methodologies and give the 'deniers' more ammunition regarding the reliability of the results thus far so maybe they are right in re-inventing the wheel.
Can anyone spell HAARP? I think 'they' are messing with our weather and experimenting with different settings...then the scientists are given the duty to try to come up with an explanation plausible to the common citizen who is being dumbed down in an attempt to be gullible to anything, even pseudo-science. Weather is the last frontier to be domesticated by man. The goofy explanations are meant to distract us from the real cause...and to get us involved with solutions that really do not fix anything and often create a bigger burden on the environment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCoincidence? This article comes out as the Pacific Northwest is BURIED under the most snow I've seen since I moved here. The state capitol, Olympia, got 17 inches yesterday. All the area schools and most of the government are shut down.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat a thing to say about Progressives who force the added N2O (298X worse than CO2) of 40 million more acres of marginal farmland to be used to grow biofuel feedstock.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr of the ethanol mandate that creates much more ground level ozone.
Or of the massive radioactive thorium pollution effluent from the Chinese rare earth element mining and refining to make the 4000 pounds of REEs needed for each large wind turbine.
YES! Climate change was always about perturbations
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2008RealityCheck,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProgressives???
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was passed by George W Bush and a Republican Congress.
You probably also blame the "Progressives" for the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003.
I'd prefer it if you explained why you used a graph showing annual ice extent growing over the winter (It would be very surprising if it did not.), while arguing that ice thickness is increasing, when the general context is over multiple years. But, since it was trivial,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html
Scroll down to "Decline in Arctic Sea Ice Thickness"
Google is your friend.
So, on models, what you are saying is that we don't know everything; therefore, we know nothing.
Look, if you have a model which can explain the recent warming without CO2 as a driver, and can hindcast in a respectable manner, we'd love to see it. That's kind of how science works; you can't replace an existing hypothesis or theory with nothing, you have to replace it with something that works better. You appear to have nothing.
This lot should keep you busy ChrisG :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisArctic Sea Ice is more extensive today than for the same period for any year since 2007:-
http://tinyurl.com/7449wry
Antarctic Sea Ice is more extensive today than it has been since records began:-
http://tinyurl.com/86z98bo
The world hasn’t got any warmer since 1998:-
http://tinyurl.com/5t3u7ke
There is no correlation between CO2 emissions and global mean temperature since reliable instrument records were produced:-
http://tinyurl.com/6uxhkml
http://tinyurl.com/6mpq4v2
Global sea level rise is 2mm per year:-
http://tinyurl.com/ybz33mw
UK winter’s mean temperature in 2010-11 was the same as it was in 1910-11 and has barely changed in all of the intervening years (select link, choose “Mean Temperature” in “Climate Variable” and “Winter” in “Month/Season/Annual” list boxes:-
http://tinyurl.com/7mbpeod
Hansen’s predictions are laughable (scenario B is the light blue line and closest to actual CO2 emissions, black line represents actual temperature’s recorded. Scenario B predicted 0.97C temperature anomaly for 2011, actual observed 0.52c:-
http://tinyurl.com/6t9kzao
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.txt
Scientific advance requires the following to hold true:-
i) A hypothesis be postulated
ii) A model produced which predicts expected results
iii) Observations taken which match the predicted results.
If observations do not match predicted results, the hypothesis should be withdrawn.
Do you really not know how to analyse data? Or do you think the people reading your arguments are that stupid. None of the data that you present even supports your conclusions. Your knowledge of inferential statistics appears to be lacking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJdey,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe I'll wait until you address the discrepancies I've already pointed out between the information you have provided and the conclusions you have drawn before I try to correct anything else you say.
I was mistaken, it is too easy to show that you don't know what the heck you are talking about on this one:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"There is no correlation between CO2 emissions and global mean temperature since reliable instrument records were produced:"
Here is a graph smoothed enough to take most of the ups and downs out; if you squint your eyes just right, you can almost see the upward trend in temperature coinciding with the upward trend in CO2 concentration.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:132/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/normalise
Ah, but you will say correlation is not causation, and I will say, right you are, but in this case, the cause and effect relationship was established 100 years ago. Seems to be playing out largely as Arrhenius said it would.
And then you will say that he was even more wrong than Hansen was 20+ years ago, and I will say; so what, you think the understanding of the earth system hasn't improved over the years? Models are approximations, everyone should know that. Else, they would not be called models.
So, again, please provide us a climate model that does not consider CO2 a major factor and we can compare its performance with models that do.
"Global sea level rise is 2mm per year:"
Try to understand, it is not the current rate that is the major concern. Unless your position is that ice doesn't melt faster when it is warmer, I'm not sure what your point is.
Not sure how your woodfortrees link shows correlation there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the 1960s and 1970s, you can see that the global mean temperature didn't increase, whereas CO2 continued to increase.
Here's another woodfortrees link which shows the temperature trends over the entire temperature record. I've used HADCRUT rather than GISS but they've been proved to correlate.
http://tinyurl.com/8yarmd3
And here's the CO2 & SO2 emissions over that period
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7046/box/nature03671_BX2.html
I fail to see any correlation between CO2 which has been rising throughout the temperature record and the temperature record which has experienced:-
i) Cooling (1880 to 1910)
ii) Warming (1910 to 1940)
iii) Flat (1940 to 1980)
iv) Warming (1980 to 2000)
v) Flat (2000 onwards).
You can use statistical tricks such as 11 year means to mask the more recent flattening period if you like, and I'll expose this.
"I fail to see.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's just leave it at that.
I do not understand how this article could be written without mentioning Canada! Most of the jet stream is generally in that country.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMohawk742:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey, Mohawk - you never responded to my inquiry. To refresh your memory, I asked you to please define the word "Chemtrails" that you used in one of the comments you directed at me. It was the one in which you made mockery of a previous post I submitted - you remember, right? You claimed I referred to a thing you called "Chemtrails", but there's no doubt in my mind that I did not do so. I say this with such certainty because I am not familiar with the word; nor am I aware of it's definition. I replied to your comment; requesting that you kindly explain/define what the word "Chemtrails" means that you used. The premise for your impolite dismissal of me was based upon your statement that I spoke about "Chemtrails"; which I never did. If you're gonna quote me; get it right - and since the word "chemtrails" did not appear in the post that gave rise to your dismissal - it follows that you need to explain to me why you misquoted me; and what the word that YOU introduced into the scenario, means.
Considering how you aggressively singled me out initially; when you & I had not even been interacting within this forum; I would have thought you wouldn't let the opportunity go by to get your licks in again!
I mean, I laid it right in your lap, tough guy - easy prey. Regardless that I came from a position of sincere inquiry, what your style of approach reveals about you, says that the position from whence I came is of no importance to you. But it was another opportunity for you to discredit me, because after all; I said I didn't know what you were talking about! You could have had a field day with that one, no? i venture to say that from your perspective, it doesn't get any better than that, no?! Heaven forbid that the sincere question warranted a sincere answer - but I'm presuming you didn't know the answer, or surely you'd have responded by now.
So, I ask you again: what the heck is this "Chemtrail" that you spoke of that was the causation for your curt dismissal?
I'm tired of environmentalists blaming every weather event on global warming. Lets go with sunspot activity for this one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent1492
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding my "how do you know what you know" inquiry of Sault,no; it was not a ".... really sitting in a chair" kind of question. Sault referred to people that he called "paid climate disinformers"; and also labelled jdey123 as a "cherry-picker"; and in another post,made reference to "cherry-pickers" as a group of particular people. Sault made these statements with authority;as though he had a sense of certainty about it.I was simply inquiring how he knew what he professed to know (ie: how do you know what you know).
My question would have made more sense had I specified what I was relating it to; but I presumed he would comprehend. I was not in any way relating my inquiry to evidence for AGW. As I've already explained,
I was inquiring how he knew with such certainty; the existence of folks he called "paid climate disinformers". Disinformation is supplied
to deliberately mislead or deceive - I find it astounding that an individual would be paid to convey misleading or deceiving information on the climate!
Why would one strive or choose to do that? That concept is so far away from my way of thinking, that I find it quite inordinate, to say the very least. What
would the purpose be for providing misleading information about the climate? It seems so bizarre.Why would anyone have a necessity to lie about the climate? But, being paid to disinform about the climate suggests clearly that there is a group behind that money that's being paid out - so they're the ones
with the directive. That is so twisted & screwy.
Since you did a much better job of responding to my inquiry, perhaps you would be kind enough to explain that all to me; and why a group would strive to do that.
Thank you for your explanation of "Deniers". I can understand one person being a "denier" - but the thought of an entire organization being in denial
seems unthinkable - particularly in the scientific arena.
However, if one was in denial about a scientific fact, I don't think it could be thought of as a "conspiracy"; because I believe the very nature of a conspiracy is that the info/plan is intentionally concocted - a person who is in denial has an incorrect
interpretation of whatever, and are not compelled to purposely deceive.
A conspirator has full intention of being deceptive - so it follows that that type of individual would be the culprit for invoking these scientific conspiracies of which you speak.
(continued next post)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(Continued from above)
Now, your summary on "deniers", & the examples you provided make me agree with you that someone with a mindset like that would indeed not be a very coherent
group.Trent's First Iron Law of Denialism holds validity-and is quite reminiscent to the phrase:"that's like the pot calling the kettle black."!
You asked"what are you going on about";as relating to a statement in response to Sault's post - my statement was "Just a friendly reminder here, etc...." Forgive me,but I have not been participating in the forums at Scientific American for very long at all, and at the time I made the statement to Sault, was also unaware that deniers were so prevalent in this community that "Scientific American regularly uses the term 'denier'" (to quote you). How unfortunate that this publication has been reduced to such a state where deniers are so commonplace that we can no longer count on Scientific American for articles of the high intellectual quality that they used to publish. When you said, "just a slap from reality here," - I have noticed a disturbing trend that runs through all of their blogs and articles, too. Several of the blogs contained information that was completely off base; and all three times, by three different people. But there
was a definite parallel in their style of presentation; as if to indicate "this is how we do
it at SciAm now." Another aspect they've got going on is that they provide links to supporting data that backs up the erroneous information in the article. So, if one were not the wiser ahead of the fact, one might just buy into it because the linked data
supports the article data; and those who have no knowledge of the subject that that particular article is about, would just believe it - hook, line, & sinker! There's your herd mentality you spoke of, no?
Trent - the first post I submitted to this thread stated my conjecture for what is causing the driest, warmest winter in history; as well as an explanation for what "strange forces" are controlling the jet stream.I said it could be Weather Modification.
My post stating that,was;of course, targeted by several people here; which I expected it to be. They made mockery of my conjecture, but that bothers me not - that kind of strategy to divert attention from my idea is a classic diversion tactic. I have discovered
additional information since my first post. I shall
now close this one to you, and submit the new data I
learned about Weather Modification.
Thank you for your reply, Trent!
My conjecture that Weather Modification could be the causation for the "strange forces" is quite plausible. One can't help but form a conclusion from a statement such as the one that is made just underneath the title of this article: " ... strange forces are controlling the Jet Stream this season." So strange, it says; that the result is "one of the driest, warmest winters in History." To me, the answer is easy to the question, "What strange forces could possibly be "controlling" the weather?" Key word: "controlling".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's have a look at information about Weather Modification that was published in "Science News"
way back in 1972:
"Weather Modification As A Future Weapon: The Military May Have Added The Weather To Its Arsenal"
by Louise A. Purrett, "Science News", April 15, 1972, Vol. 101, page 255.
"Both intentionally and by accident, man has discovered ways to alter the weather. In 1968,
Gordon J.F. MacDonald, a Geophysicist who is now a member of the "President's Council on
Environmental Quality" [President Nixon], described possible military applications of existing
weather modification technology in a chapter of the book,'Unless Peace Comes'."
Louise Purrett then lists some of the devastating weather that can be produced:
Heavy Precipitation
Drought
Directing Hurricanes toward targeted shores
Warm or cool the entire world temperature
Punching a hole in the Ozone Layer over an enemy nation
Alter the Ice Caps
-------------------------------
This information reveals the technology already existed in 1968, which means that they were
playing around with it long before 1968. That's over forty years ago!!
As well, I found information provided by "USA Today", indicating that it is not just the two activities
this article designates as being responsible for the actions of the Jet Stream - there are actually
(5) basic air masses that affect the Jet Stream .. & neither the "Arctic Oscillation" or the
"North Atlantic Oscillation" were included in the group of five air masses in the information provided
by the researcher employed by "USA Today".
"Five basic types of Air Masses determine the USA's weather. They can bring anything from scorching
heat to bone-chilling cold depending on the type of Air Mass. The USA's most violent weather usually
occurs in spring when continental polar air clashes with maritime tropical air."
These (5) Air masses are: Continental Arctic (cA);Continental Polar (cP); Maritime Polar(mP);
Maritime Tropical(mT); and Continental Tropical(cT).
Continued
I seek not to state a conclusion regarding the motivation behind Weather Modification; if indeed,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthat is what is causing the "strangest weather in history". I simply am providing information I
found for participation in this forum. Those that are far more educated than I am, may combine
it with their data and ultimately arrive at a conclusion. I'm just saying that it's not beyond the
realm of possibility that modifying the weather could be contributory to odd weather patterns that this article suggests are being noticed. the very patterns this article describes are included in the list of how they were able to modify the weather over forty years ago. If you think that weather modification could not possibly be a consideration, then there's something wrong with the way you think.
But what I find somewhat questionable is that, according to the Sci Am article, "professional
meteorologists have not yet determined the reason for the oddest weather in history." I am just a High School graduate, but my good sense tells me that the professionals have a better handle on 'what causes what weather' than is suggested here. As well, in the data I read about the Jet Stream (other than this article),none of the sources I found contained any
correlation between the Arctic Oscillation & the North Atlantic Oscillation as being the primary influential factors affecting the actions of the Jet Stream. Rather, the primary influential factors are the five air masses I mentioned above. But, I have a real hard time believing that "professional meterologists" have no clue for the causation of this "odd weather". For, if they really don't have a clue - then perhaps it would behoove them to go back to school for
a refresher course.
Regardless, all of this information aside - I think there is something else that warrants more attention regarding the weather dilemma.The better issue to discuss here is, since we have the technology readily available , why are we not using it to enhance or alter the negative conditions to right the weather? Why would we let things get to the point of allowing a drought to occur, when we are fully capable and have the equipment to solve that drought problem? My understanding of the purpose for Weather Modification is just that: to modify it when it's exceptionally bad to avoid situations such as a drought. What's wrong
with this picture?
As a biochemist I alsways wondered, why climate scientists are only looking at the possible hugh increase in methane emissions. As far as I know, production of methane happens only under anaerobic (oxygen free) conditions. In oxygen rich atmosphere with rising levels of methane, I would expect strong proliferation of methane breathing microorganisms consuming this carbon source?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlberta <3 global warming!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf ther winter in N. america isn't as warm or dry next will it be 'proof' of a reversal of global warming?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNope...the Al gore cultists will conveniently ignore it.
Fanatics have always put on the blinkers scouring around turning over rocks for proof that 'The end is nigh'. Drink the Kool-Ade or perish!
Interesting that people worry and argue about this. We are in an interglacial period and the most that global warming can do, if it is true, is delay the inevitable by 50 to 200 years. Even now, ever larger amounts of fresh water are being dumped into the arctic basin and it will disrupt the thermohaline circulation once it crests. At that point we won't be complaining about warming except that we don't have enough of it. Think about the Younger Dryas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs there any chance that weather pressure patterns are also affected by the local changes in the electromagnetic fields created by movements in the liquid mantle?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this