PDA

View Full Version : Climatologist: 30-Year Cold Spell Strikes Earth



annasophia
18-11-2014, 09:10
Climatologist: 30-Year Cold Spell Strikes Earth


Sunday, 16 Nov 2014 07:46 PM

With nasty cold fronts thrusting an icy and early winter across the continental U.S. — along with last winter described by USA Today as "one of the snowiest, coldest, most miserable on record" — climatologist John L. Casey thinks the weather pattern is here to stay for decades to come.

In fact, Casey, a former space shuttle engineer and NASA consultant, is out with the provocative book "Dark Winter: How the Sun Is Causing a 30-Year Cold Spell," which warns that a radical shift in global climate is underway, and that Al Gore and other environmentalists have it completely wrong.

The earth, he says, is cooling, and cooling fast.

And unless the scientific community and political leaders act soon, cold, dark days are ahead.

Casey says the evidence is clear that the earth is rapidly growing colder because of diminished solar activity.

He says trends indicate we could be headed for colder temperatures similar to those seen in the late 1700s and early 1800s when the sun went into a "solar minimum" — a phenomenon with significantly reduced solar activity, including solar flares and sunspots.

If he's right, that would be very bad news.

"Dark Winter" posits that a 30-year period of cold has already begun. Frigid temperatures and the food shortages that inevitably result could lead to riots and chaos.

Casey tells Newsmax, "All you have to do is trust natural cycles and follow the facts, and that leads you to the inevitable conclusion that the sun controls the climate, and that a new cold era has begun."

Casey is president of the Space and Science Research Corp., an Orlando, Fla., climate research firm.

His new book debunks global warming orthodoxy. For more than a decade, he reports, the planet's oceans have been cooling. And since 2007, the atmospheric temperature has been cooling as well.

"The data is pretty solid," Casey says. "If you look at the 100-year global temperature chart, you look at the steep drop-off we've had since 2007. It's the steepest drop in global temperatures in the last hundred years."

So how can the media and scientific elites make a case for global warming when it's actually cooling?

Casey suggests climate-change theorists have simply wedded themselves to the wrong theory — namely, that global temperatures respond to the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The environmental left focuses instead on ever-rising greenhouse emissions, suggesting nature is just taking a bit of a breather before the upward march in temperatures ineluctably resumes.

"There are two fundamental flaws with that," Casey says. "No. 1, the greenhouse-gas theory, and the global climate models that they produced, never permitted a pause. As long as CO2 levels were going up, the only thing that could happen was global temperatures could go up. That has not happened.

"No. 2, there could absolutely be no cooling, much less a pause. And yet we've been cooling for 11 years now."

The recent polar vortex that sent temperatures across the Midwest plunging to sub-zero records is not an aberration, Casey says.

If "Dark Winter" is right, that means the nation is busily preparing for the wrong calamity.

"We don't have 10 years," Casey warns. "We've squandered during President Obama's administration eight years ... and we didn't have eight years to squander."

The worst of the cooling cycle, Casey predicts, will hit in the late 2020s and the early 2030s.

Food riots will break out, demand for heating oil will spike, and the failure of the corn crop will put the squeeze on ethanol.

He even predicts the United States will ban agricultural exports to feed its own citizens.

When Casey developed his theories in 2007, he emerged with several predictions.

Rising temperatures would begin to reverse themselves within three years. The sun would enter a phase of reduced activity he called "solar hibernation." And oceanic and atmospheric temperatures would enter a long decline.

So far, all of Casey's predictions have come true. He says, "My theory tells you when it will be cold ... and it is the cold that kills."

Casey also suggests that a long-term cold spell will have dire effects on the earth's geology.

As air and ocean temperatures cool, the earth's crust begins changing, leading to more volcanic activity and earthquakes. Casey notes that the worst earthquake to strike the continental U.S. in modern times was in 1812 in New Madrid, Missouri — during the last great solar minimum.

The climate changes also will affect human activity and may be a prelude to revolutionary politics. He says the French Revolution took place at the beginning of the last solar minimum in 1789.

"It could be one of the reasons Putin is so eager to get Ukraine," Casey says. "For many decades before Ukraine became independent, it was the primary source of wheat for the Soviet Union during cold weather times. Putin must have the wheat of Ukraine for the new cold era."

Casey has a worried look as he talks about the revelations in "Dark Winter."

"There is no human on earth, much less here in the U.S., who has experienced the depth and duration of cold we're about to experience — it's that serious," he says.


http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/dark-winter-cold-global-cooling/2014/11/16/id/607672/

FatAndy
18-11-2014, 10:02
Gazprom and Rosneft' pay him, definitely.

Benedikt
18-11-2014, 10:41
Gazprom and Rosneft' pay him, definitely.



then why are we being bombarded every day with news about global warming.:suspect: severe water shortages in the USA, draughts in places where there is supposed to be rain. snow where there is supposed to be sunshine only.
I take my chances and take the weather as it comes. Too often to many experts have been proven wrong over and over again.:suspect: I rather believe my grandmother what she says about the weather, or my mother in law. :rolleyes:

annasophia
18-11-2014, 10:45
then why are we being bombarded every day with news about global warming.:suspect:


Because the peasants cannot be globally taxed for solar activity?

Suuryaa
18-11-2014, 11:21
What about melting of ice in the polar regions? It it happening because of cooling?

annasophia
18-11-2014, 11:33
What about melting of ice in the polar regions? It it happening because of cooling?

Antarctic sea ice hit 35-year record high Saturday
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/23/antarctic-sea-ice-hit-35-year-record-high-saturday/

Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches Record Highs Due to Increasing Polar Winds
http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/9544/20130918/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-record-highs-due-increasing-polar-winds.htm

Arctic Sea Ice 50% Thicker Than Last Year, Scientists ‘Didn’t Expect’ Growth In Wake Of 2012 Shrinkage
http://www.ibtimes.com/arctic-sea-ice-50-thicker-last-year-scientists-didnt-expect-growth-wake-2012-shrinkage-1510902

Uncle Wally
18-11-2014, 12:42
Weather is nice here in Moscow!

JanC
18-11-2014, 12:45
climatologist John L. Casey

...is not a climatologist in any way, shape or form. He has no relevant credentials or degrees to be called one.

When someone is doing their best to look like a credible expert on something they are actually not, your BS detector should go off.

He's been peddling this stuff for years. At least since 2008. It was flawed then and it's flawed now.

annasophia
18-11-2014, 13:05
So would you like to back that up or are you just throwing snowballs?

I might also point out that 'experts' with *credentials* such as contemporary "economists" seem to have F#@cked over a large number of global inhabitants with their theories of <economic austerity> which seems to have a large portion of the global youth "unemployed." But since they're experts, that must be good right? Right?

Fantastika
18-11-2014, 13:25
Climatologist: 30-Year Cold Spell Strikes Earth

Sunday, 16 Nov 2014 07:46 PM

With nasty cold fronts thrusting an icy and early winter across the continental U.S. — along with last winter described by USA Today as "one of the snowiest, coldest, most miserable on record" — climatologist John L. Casey thinks the weather pattern is here to stay for decades to come.

[/url]

Noooooh, please don't tell me that...my plumbing barely survived last year. At one point everything froze - kitchen and bathroom - and I stayed at a motel.

JanC
18-11-2014, 13:26
So would you like to back that up or are you just throwing snowballs?

Well, he has an undergraduate degree in physics and math and a master's in management. That doesn't make him a climatologist.

His "research" consists of cherry picking data to establish a trend (which falls apart when you look at all available data) and outright inventing things which have not (yet) been discovered or shown to be valid mechanisms (e.g. solar radiation interaction with the atmosphere)

Some of the papers he references (like a NASA one) do not actually back up what he is claiming at all.



I might also point out that 'experts' with *credentials* such as contemporary "economists" seem to have F#@cked over a large number of global inhabitants with their theories of <economic austerity>

Do you think physics and economics are comparable science? One is considerably more *exact* and testable than the other. Secondly, qualified economists are not actually in charge of the global economy. Politicians are. They have a tendency to mix what experts tell them ought to be done with promises to influential parties and the electorate itself.


I'm not a global warming "advocate" as such. I don't believe we accurately understand all the mechanisms involved in the climate on this planet. I do think it is likely our activities are having some effect one way or the other.

However, as laymen, it would be illogical to be convinced of one particular avenue whilst a large majority of experts thinks otherwise. They could be wrong, certainly, but whilst there is no unanimous expert agreement how could we bystanders justify believing this climate thing to be either true or false? There is no certainty.

But I'll point out that the consequences for being right or wrong about this are not equal. In the same way that evolution shaped our agency detection to err on the side of caution (run away rather than double-checking if it is indeed a tiger stalking you in the bushes) we should err on the side of caution when the future of the planet is involved. It's a habit which is clearly beneficial for survival.

Fantastika
18-11-2014, 13:30
...is not a climatologist in any way, shape or form. He has no relevant credentials or degrees to be called one.

When someone is doing their best to look like a credible expert on something they are actually not, your BS detector should go off.

He's been peddling this stuff for years. At least since 2008. It was flawed then and it's flawed now.

You don't have to be a scientific expert to spot the fraud, waste and corruption in "scientific research", such as drug companies funding research that "prove" their new drugs effective, or universities receiving government grants "proving" the hypothesis of "global warming" and the unavailability of grants to prove hypotheses postulating alternative climate scenarios.

JanC
18-11-2014, 13:37
Actual science does not set out to "prove" or "disprove" a specific hypothesis. You go out and see what you can find and try to formulate a theory that explains what you find. That's precisely how the majority of climate science works.

Drug companies are commercial enterprises. They have to show their drug works, if it doesn't, then that's the end of that drug. How else would you suggest this would work? Clinical trials and double blind studies tend to produce fairly reliable results. Modern drugs do actually cure people. Why do you think cancer survival rates (to take one example) have soared the past decades? Luck?

People who set out only to disprove a particular hypothesis are not living up to scientific standards. Even so, there seems to be considerable private funding out there for anti-warming *science*. Not all of it necessarily biased. There have been some that expected to find warming a hoax and ended up changing their minds.

Fantastika
18-11-2014, 13:40
Well, he has an undergraduate degree in physics and math and a master's in management. That doesn't make him a climatologist.
...
However, as laymen, it would be illogical to be convinced of one particular avenue whilst a large majority of experts thinks otherwise.

The "experts" say what they say because they want the money to keep flowing in.

JanC
18-11-2014, 13:43
The "experts" say what they say because they want the money to keep flowing in.

Well that's one (ignorant) opinion.

Experts are responsible for just about all technological and medical progress in the world. Like it or not, experts are right a heck of a lot more often than non-experts. That's just a statistical fact you can't avoid.

When you disagree with expert opinion, odds are you are wrong.

Fantastika
18-11-2014, 13:53
In the exposed as fraudulent "science" posited about "Global Warming" the main villains are environmental extremists.

The science behind global warming is speculative and incomplete, meaning no concrete conclusions can be drawn regarding human involvement in climate change.

Scientific elites ("experts") in various fields of "science" use either real or artificial crises to maintain the existing social order, misusing the "science" behind global warming.

As a result of potential conflicts of interest, the scientists conducting research on topics related to global warming may subtly change their findings to bring them in line with their funding sources.

Since climatology can not incorporate double-blind studies, as are routine in other sciences, and climate scientists set experiment parameters, perform experiments within the parameters they have set, and analyze the resulting data, a phenomenon known as "bias" is offered as the most benign reason for climate science being so inaccurate.

There exists today a "government-science-media" complex, comparable to the "military industrial complex," of the Cold War era. "Climate science" began using extreme, fear-inducing terms such as "crisis," "catastrophe," and, "disaster," shortly after the fall of The Berlin Wall, in order to maintain a level of fear in citizens, for the purpose of social control. USSR is no more, we need something else to keep the citizens in line.

1. Media prints the stories about Global warming that scare the public.
2. Government politicians provide the money to conduct research to solve the "Problem of Global Warming."
3. Science provides the "proof" and researchers gain credibility and stay employed.

1. Media gets more circulation.
2. Government gains more power.
3. Science gets more money.

And start over at "1." again, with a different "crisis."

Fantastika
18-11-2014, 13:55
Well that's one (ignorant) opinion.


You are the scientific expert on being an ignoramus.

annasophia
18-11-2014, 13:55
Utterly off topic here, but since it's my thread I can do that.

I'm afraid JanC that I don't have your faith in academic *experts*.

Here is an interesting example of an ordinary guy, a no-account Latvian immigrant Edward Leedskalnin who lived in Florida, and in solitary constructed a massive stone project over several decades without any kind of mechanical assistance. It still stands today and it is completely unknown how the construction was accomplished:

Coral Castle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_Castle

And might I gently remind you that Albert Einstein failed his university entrance exams:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2004/06/23/1115185.htm?site=science/greatmomentsinscience

JanC
18-11-2014, 14:00
You are the scientific expert on being an ignoramus.

You've provided such a mountain of data that it was unavoidable really.

JanC
18-11-2014, 14:07
I'm afraid JanC that I don't have your faith in academic *experts*.

I was arguing against having faith when it comes to these things.

If you have no faith in climate scientists, you most definitely should not have faith in the claims by the bloke from your first post, either.

The position of uncertainty is the only reasonable one.


Coral Castle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_Castle

Could've been constructed in any number of ways. The question is whether any of the legend is true. No expert in the world will be able to prove such an unprovable thing, naturally.


And might I gently remind you that Albert Einstein failed his university entrance exams:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2004/06/23/1115185.htm?site=science/greatmomentsinscience

Ah, yes. But see the reason why. Not because he was bad at science. Being bad at French did not make him any worse at physics, did it? The Theory of Relativity certainly didn't hinge on it.

This is like saying my expertise in photography is doubtful because I failed biology at school.

JanC
18-11-2014, 14:17
The science behind global warming is speculative and incomplete, meaning no concrete conclusions can be drawn regarding human involvement in climate change.

Ya know what, I agree entirely with this.

But don't you think that, maybe, in the meantime, seeing that so many scientists do believe that the possibility of catastrophic climate change exists we ought to be a little careful about it?

If a geologist came by your house and told you there was a chance that huge rock hanging off the side of the mountain might come down some time and wipe out your family, wouldn't you take notice? Even if the odds were estimated at 1 in 50?

What's the worst that will happen by reducing things like CO˛ emissions? Less economic growth?

What's the worst that will happen if "catastrophic" global warming were to occur? You deprive your grandchildren of a future.

Not equally serious consequences, wouldn't you say?

Nobbynumbnuts
18-11-2014, 14:29
Ya know what, I agree entirely with this.

But don't you think that, maybe, in the meantime, seeing that so many scientists do believe that the possibility of catastrophic climate change exists we ought to be a little careful about it?

If a geologist came by your house and told you there was a chance that huge rock hanging off the side of the mountain might come down some time and wipe out your family, wouldn't you take notice? Even if the odds were estimated at 1 in 50?

What's the worst that will happen by reducing things like CO˛ emissions? Less economic growth?

What's the worst that will happen if "catastrophic" global warming were to occur? You deprive your grandchildren of a future.

Not equally serious consequences, wouldn't you say?

Got to agree and is it really possible that we have been pumping out greenhouse gasses for around 150 years and other by products of the industrial age without any effects on the atmosphere? Anyway you look at it, we're playing Russian roulette with the planet.

Fantastika
18-11-2014, 15:36
If a geologist came by your house and told you there was a chance that huge rock hanging off the side of the mountain might come down some time and wipe out your family, wouldn't you take notice? Even if the odds were estimated at 1 in 50?

A rock is a real thing I can see. Global Warming is a fraud promoted by self-interested scientists and bureaucrats, and funded by unaware taxpayers.


What's the worst that will happen by reducing things like CO˛ emissions? Less economic growth?

When "scientwits" start f*cking around with the balance of gases in the earth's atmosphere - Oxygen, CO2, Nitrogen - then all plant and animal life is threatened.


What's the worst that will happen if "catastrophic" global warming were to occur? You deprive your grandchildren of a future.

What's the worst that will happen if "scientwits" come up with more ideas like thermonuclear bombs? You deprive your grandchildren, your children, yourself and your dog of a future.


Not equally serious consequences, wouldn't you say? No, I wouldn't.

I am sick and tired of having ignoramuses and bureaucrat "experts" micro-managing my life, and indoctrinating me through state-controlled education and state-run media. Mandating how many gallons of water a toilet can flush with, telling me what size light bulbs to use, how many meters the sink must be located from the toilet, managing my health care with new criminal penalties if I don't participate in "voluntary" taxes, a program which triples the amount of money everyone pays for health care.

Besides that, the more power the medi-crats gain, the more massive the fraud becomes:

http://www.infowars.com/just-another-day-at-the-office-scientific-fraud-scandal-at-the-cdc-is-simply-routine/ (http://www.infowars.com/just-another-day-at-the-office-scientific-fraud-scandal-at-the-cdc-is-simply-routine/)

Government experts micromanaging "unemployment" have misused compensation to the point that some recipients have become dependent on it and have lost the desire to rejoin the workforce. Social safety nets engineered by social scientists with ever-increasing payouts are rapidly conditioning a large segment of society to be comfortable and obedient serfs.

Pointy-headed "scientwits" forced the end of incandescent lights and forcibly replaced them with CFL's, which contain mercury and are much more environmentally dangerous. And gave rise to millions of new cases of malaria by banning the use of DDT. Best of all, amoral scientwits blessed us with thermonuclear bombs, meaning the end of human civilization is, at any given second, less than 30 minutes away.

Quite a track record for ignorant worshipers at the altar of the God of "Science."

Fantastika
18-11-2014, 15:44
You've provided such a mountain of data that it was unavoidable really.

Why is it that you feel you have to always give the first insult, and the last? You call me ignorant, I say you're ignorant. Tit-for tat. End of story. An insult for an insult. No, that's not good enough for you. You have to call me ignorant, then when I call you ignorant, you reply *again* that I am ignorant.

That's why, aside from the arrogant and condescending attitude you reveal when you throw gratuitous insults, you will never get a single person to accept a single unoriginal (you don't have original ideas) copied idea, that you paste from a URL.

I suppose you go to your meetings or whatever, and start them off by telling the customer or client that he is "ignorant."

Armoured
18-11-2014, 16:05
Antarctic sea ice hit 35-year record high Saturday
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/23/antarctic-sea-ice-hit-35-year-record-high-saturday/

Funny how those who want to question the science neglect to mention the other parts of the world (even though in the article):

"Thus, in the Antarctic, we shouldn’t necessarily expect to witness the kind of steep decline in ice that has occurred in the Arctic."

JanC
18-11-2014, 16:40
I am sick and tired of having ignoramuses and bureaucrat "experts" micro-managing my life, and indoctrinating me through state-controlled education and state-run media.

I suppose, at the end of the day, the problem (for you) is that you possess such a mysterious transcendent level of intellect that you instantly know how things really are without a single bit of study. No knowledge required. You just know when you see it.

Like all those Monty Hall contestants who happily refused to double their chances of winning by following their gut instead of math class.

Yaks
18-11-2014, 17:08
I do believe in the possibility but i don't trust the scientists who advocate it the most. We have the issue, yet unexplained, of carbon(CO2) lag in the atmosphere plus of cause this talk of pauses etc.

but my biggest indicator is that it might be BS is having a splendid memory. I listen to sea level rising predictions and they make me smirk. I should have been typing this underwater 10 years ago. And they then keep pushing the date back for sea level rises.

It is no different to Orwell's 1984(paraphased) On Monday chocolate rations were 20 grams a week. On Tuesday due to the war everyone must belt tighten(pun unintended) and it is reduced to 5 grams a week. On Wednesday due to productivity improvements chocolate rations can be increased to 10 grams a week. Well done! This is doubling the chocolate ration. No there has never been a 20 gram ration, that is a lie spread by the enemy to cause division. everyone forgets the 20 grams originally.

sea level predictions and temperature rising predictions are no different. next time they say in 50 years sea levels will rise 1m or the earth will be 2 degrees hotter-take note of the date. and close to that date wait for them to say in 50 years(the exact same thing) even though there is little different.

It is like collective amnesia has fallen over the world.

JanC
18-11-2014, 17:25
I listen to sea level rising predictions and they make me smirk. I should have been typing this underwater 10 years ago. And they then keep pushing the date back for sea level rises.

Could you show me any of these predictions?

I've only ever seen talk of rises measured in centimeters. Not meters. Millimeters if talking on a yearly basis, and it depends where you are (see link below).

Nothing that would ever put you underwater in a decade. Even if the ice caps melted completely and the oceans warmed (= expanded) by several degrees C it would still leave most of the currently dry world well above water.

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

In any case, compared to 10 years ago, global sea levels most certainly have risen.

Uncle Wally
18-11-2014, 17:49
Well that's one (ignorant) opinion.

Experts are responsible for just about all technological and medical progress in the world. Like it or not, experts are right a heck of a lot more often than non-experts. That's just a statistical fact you can't avoid.

When you disagree with expert opinion, odds are you are wrong.


Depends on which expert no?

JanC
18-11-2014, 18:10
Depends on which expert no?

Of course, but overall someone who is a genuine expert on a subject is much more likely to be correct on something in his field of study than a layman.

When experts can't agree between each other which way it is, how can any of us be rationally convinced of one way or the other?

An underused combination of words is "I don't know". It can be followed by "but, I think..." if one wishes, but the first 3 are important.

Nobbynumbnuts
18-11-2014, 18:41
A rock is a real thing I can see. Global Warming is a fraud promoted by self-interested scientists and bureaucrats, and funded by unaware taxpayers.



When "scientwits" start f*cking around with the balance of gases in the earth's atmosphere - Oxygen, CO2, Nitrogen - then all plant and animal life is threatened.



What's the worst that will happen if "scientwits" come up with more ideas like thermonuclear bombs? You deprive your grandchildren, your children, yourself and your dog of a future.

No, I wouldn't.

I am sick and tired of having ignoramuses and bureaucrat "experts" micro-managing my life, and indoctrinating me through state-controlled education and state-run media. Mandating how many gallons of water a toilet can flush with, telling me what size light bulbs to use, how many meters the sink must be located from the toilet, managing my health care with new criminal penalties if I don't participate in "voluntary" taxes, a program which triples the amount of money everyone pays for health care.

Besides that, the more power the medi-crats gain, the more massive the fraud becomes:

http://www.infowars.com/just-another-day-at-the-office-scientific-fraud-scandal-at-the-cdc-is-simply-routine/ (http://www.infowars.com/just-another-day-at-the-office-scientific-fraud-scandal-at-the-cdc-is-simply-routine/)

Government experts micromanaging "unemployment" have misused compensation to the point that some recipients have become dependent on it and have lost the desire to rejoin the workforce. Social safety nets engineered by social scientists with ever-increasing payouts are rapidly conditioning a large segment of society to be comfortable and obedient serfs.

Pointy-headed "scientwits" forced the end of incandescent lights and forcibly replaced them with CFL's, which contain mercury and are much more environmentally dangerous. And gave rise to millions of new cases of malaria by banning the use of DDT. Best of all, amoral scientwits blessed us with thermonuclear bombs, meaning the end of human civilization is, at any given second, less than 30 minutes away.

Quite a track record for ignorant worshipers at the altar of the God of "Science."


Could you show me any of these predictions?

I've only ever seen talk of rises measured in centimeters. Not meters. Millimeters if talking on a yearly basis, and it depends where you are (see link below).

Nothing that would ever put you underwater in a decade. Even if the ice caps melted completely and the oceans warmed (= expanded) by several degrees C it would still leave most of the currently dry world well above water.

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

In any case, compared to 10 years ago, global sea levels most certainly have risen.

Yup, if my excellent memory serves me right, sea level rises are measured in millimeters/centimeters not meters. ;)

I imagine future generations will look back upon us the way we look back at those alive during the slave trade. How could that happen??

Fantastika
18-11-2014, 18:46
I suppose, at the end of the day, the problem (for you) is that you possess such a mysterious transcendent level of intellect that you instantly know how things really are without a single bit of study. No knowledge required. You just know when you see it.

NO, I just didn't like self-righteous other people trying not only to impose their beliefs on me, but their entire belief system.


Like all those Monty Hall contestants who happily refused to double their chances of winning by following their gut instead of math class.

That last remark shows just how far off you are from reality.

"Math class" - yes, I attended math class. At university, I took Calculus 3 first, followed by Calc 1 then Calc2 because of scheduling difficulties. I have a degree in Math - that's my professional occupation, I am a Mathematician.

JanC
18-11-2014, 19:07
NO, I just didn't like self-righteous other people trying not only to impose their beliefs on me, but their entire belief system.

That's fair enough, but it's not all "beliefs". Science is precisely about bypassing inherently unreliable beliefs in favor of what can be verified and tested indefinitely.

Also, welcome to democracy. Can't have it all your way. Feel free to move to wherever things are more the way you like them.



yes, I attended math cl**** I am a Mathematician.

Well done. What does it have to do with my comparison? We're not still struggling on that I hope?

My example was people thinking with their gut rather than their head. Again, it's unreliable.

Before Wally gets here:

Argument Clinic - Monty Python&#39;s The Flying Circus - YouTube

Fantastika
18-11-2014, 19:09
Could you show me any of these predictions?

In any case, compared to 10 years ago, global sea levels most certainly have risen.

Doesn't make any sense to me. If you have a glass full of ice water, and the ice melts, does the level of water in the glass rise?

See Jan. See Jan run. See Jan run to Google and paste a URL that proves me wrong.

Oh, here's an interesting one: Fake Sea Level Rise Approved by NASA in Climate Fraud:

http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/37328.html (http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/37328.html)

Like I said in my first post, about the "Government-Science-Media" complex, and as Michael Crichton documented so well in his 736-page book "State of Fear" it's about money and power - "With interest in global warming now bottoming to a 20-year low, desperate new measures are being dreamt up to scare voters into accepting more tax rises to stem non-existent 'human caused climate change.’"

Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Crichton are not bad people because they oppose environmentalist whacko's. Now I suppose politically-correct concerned scientists probably want to ban children from watching Jurassic Park and the rest of Crichton's movies.

TolkoRaz
18-11-2014, 19:21
It is nice & warm in Cairo at the moment! :p

From Cairo, I fly to Dubai & then drive to Abu Dhabi next week where it will be even hotter! :p :p

I will make the most of it before I return to the cold! :(

JanC
18-11-2014, 19:23
Doesn't make any sense to me. If you have a glass full of ice water, and the ice melts, does the level of water in the glass rise?

Ever heard of Antarctica? It's a continent. Solid. Ice stays on top of it. When it melts, water runs downhill into the sea. Complicated, I know, but try to imagine it.


run to Google

I can remember what I learned in school when I was 11 just fine, thanks.



http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/37328.html (http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/37328.html)

Please. All the scientific links in the world wouldn't change your mind, don't expect to change mine with conspiracy sites.


desperate new measures are being dreamt up to scare voters into accepting more tax rises to stem non-existent 'human caused climate change

Does that really make sense to you on any level? As if governments would need to go through such breathtakingly complex ways of collecting more taxes by spending money on research and buying off tens of thousands of scientists around the globe. I can only speak for the EU country I come from, but the government certainly isn't making any extra money off "global warming" there. Subsidies for environmentally friendly cars and solar panels and such have caused a hole in the budget, in fact.

The budget would do a lot better if people bought more fuel for their cars and homes.


environmentalist whacko's

As opposed to unqualified nutjobs calling themselves scientists warning of global cooling?

As long as you're as far out of touch with reality as this, the world will always appear to be "against you'. So get used to it, it's not going to change.

FatAndy
18-11-2014, 19:24
:emote_popcorn:

Fantastika
18-11-2014, 19:26
That's fair enough, but it's not all "beliefs". Science is precisely about bypassing inherently unreliable beliefs in favor of what can be verified and tested indefinitely.


We're just gonna have to agree to disagree. I think science should be used as a tool in a more encompassing system, you think science is the be-all and the end-all. Where is the moral code of a scientist? What is his system of ethics? What values do they all share? At least doctors have a Hippocratic oath, but scientists? They operate in a moral-ethical-value vacuum.

Also, welcome to democracy. Can't have it all your way. Feel free to move to wherever things are more the way you like them.

That's another can of worms, and you'd have to define what you mean by "democracy" and whether "democracy" by today's definition is 'good", etc.

My example was people thinking with their gut rather than their head. Again, it's unreliable.

Okay, but there are occasions when there is little evidence - for example, you meet a stranger and have to decide whether to do a business deal or further develop a relationship without knowing him/her well - a person's gut is more reliable than not.

Argument Clinic - Monty Python's The Flying Circus - YouTube

I love Monty Python, he's outrageous! But I am laughing at the absurdity, you are thinking it is serious point.

JanC
18-11-2014, 19:31
We're just gonna have to agree to disagree. I think science should be used as a tool in a more encompassing system, you think science is the be-all and the end-all. Where is the moral code of a scientist? What is his system of ethics? What values do they all share? At least doctors have a Hippocratic oath, but scientists? They operate in a moral-ethical-value vacuum.

Can the quest to determine reality (truth) and increase our collective knowledge ever be immoral? I don't think science is everything, but when it comes to issues like climate or physics in general, there's really no other way to get reliable results. The only moral issues I can see are really with biologists who are creating and modifying things that could get a bit too close to home. But genetic research has some pretty strict rules.


That's another can of worms, and you'd have to define what you mean by "democracy" and whether "democracy" by today's definition is 'good", etc.

I'm just saying what it's like. Good or bad, we're stuck with it. I don't really see a better alternative anyway. A benevolent dictator might be preferable, the problem is that they require character traits that don't fit one person.


Okay, but there are occasions when there is little evidence - for example, you meet a stranger and have to decide whether to do a business deal without knowing him well - a person's gut is more reliable than not.

Totally. Because our intuition was shaped over hundreds of thousands of years dealing with each other. Intuition has no clue about complicated scientific principles and facts. It's useful in its own right, but it shouldn't be used to judge anything that can be established more...reliably.


I love Monty Python, he's outrageous! But I am laughing at the absurdity, you are thinking it is serious point.

I very rarely think anything is serious. Now I'm going to dig up my Holy Grail DVD.

Also: Monty Python isn't a person :)

FatAndy
18-11-2014, 19:39
It is nice & warm in Cairo at the moment! :p

From Cairo, I fly to Dubai & then drive to Abu Dhabi next week where it will be even hotter! :p :p

I will make the most of it before I return to the cold! :(
Don't forget to buy funny silk/kashmere shawls in Dubai ;)

Fantastika
18-11-2014, 19:45
Ever heard of Antarctica? It's a continent. Solid. Ice stays on top of it. When it melts, water runs downhill into the sea. Complicated, I know, but try to imagine it.

And when it snows, ice forms on top of existing snow. Complicated, but try to imagine it. You have these funny glasses in the EU, where, when the ice cubes melt, the water level in the glass rises? :rofl:


Please. All the scientific links in the world wouldn't change your mind, don't expect to change mine with conspiracy sites.

As opposed to your Global Warming fraud sites? If you have facts to dispute the allegation that there is widespread and specific "scientific fraud" occurring, let's hear them, rather than just a non-rational curt dismissal.


Does that really make sense to you on any level? As if governments would need to go through such breathtakingly complex ways of collecting more taxes by spending money on research and buying off tens of thousands of scientists around the globe. I can only speak for the EU country I come from, but the government certainly isn't making any extra money off "global warming" there. Subsidies for environmentally friendly cars and solar panels and such have caused a hole in the budget, in fact.
It's not like the EU knows their asz from a hole in the ground when it comes to spending money, is it? Their brilliant "economic science" has caused a decade of stagnation, led Italy, Spain, Portugal to the brink of economic collapse and pushed Cyprus and Greece over the cliff.


The budget would do a lot better if people bought more fuel for their cars and homes.

Now you want people to buy more fossil fuels, pollute the earth and cause more greenhouse-gas global warming? I thought you were against that.


As opposed to unqualified nutjobs calling themselves scientists warning of global cooling?

As opposed to scientists committing fraud by coming up with results that fit the desires of their grant-givers.


As long as you're as far out of touch with reality as this, the world will always appear to be "against you'. So get used to it, it's not going to change.

"Junk science" is out of touch with reality, not me. Sorry, can't avail myself of more "science lessons" from the JanC Junkmeister today, I have to do something with a purpose. :D

JanC
18-11-2014, 20:19
And when it snows, ice forms on top of existing snow. Complicated, but try to imagine it. You have these funny glasses in the EU, where, when the ice cubes melt, the water level in the glass rises?

What?

Your ice cube in a glass of water works for the North Pole, but not the South Pole. The South pole would be like ice melting on the kitchen sink dripping into your glass of water. It's on land, not floating on top of water. Should be easy to understand for a mathematician.


If you have facts to dispute the allegation that there is widespread and specific "scientific fraud" occurring, let's hear them, rather than just a non-rational curt dismissal.

I must've missed the facts you gave regarding this issue. Burden of proof is on the maker of the claim. Logically, you can't prove a negative.


Now you want people to buy more fossil fuels, pollute the earth and cause more greenhouse-gas global warming? I thought you were against that.

Reading comprehension. You need more of it.



As opposed to scientists committing fraud by coming up with results that fit the desires of their grant-givers.

Your perception of scientific funding is flawed. Also, anyone who wants to make a good living by telling porky pies really shouldn't go into science. It's not very well paid.
And you might want to look up who is funding those research teams that are out to prove global warming isn't happening.


"Junk science" is out of touch with reality, not me

How do you tell junk science from real science, Mr. Fantasist? The same way you "remember" how the space shuttle's computer works? What science education do you have anyway?

90% of scientists believe in "junk science", must be a record. Makes you wonder how they get anything done.

Fantastika
19-11-2014, 00:59
Your ice cube in a glass of water works for the North Pole, but not the South Pole. The South pole would be like ice melting on the kitchen sink dripping into your glass of water. It's on land, not floating on top of water. Should be easy to understand for a mathematician.

Huh? Oh, you still think the world is flat, and water drips off the bottom, into space. :rofl:


I must've missed the facts you gave regarding this issue. Burden of proof is on the maker of the claim. Logically, you can't prove a negative.

Actually, I already offered plenty of facts, websites, books, etc. Instead of reading anything or replying cogently to anything I post you dismiss it all as "conspiracy theories".


Reading comprehension. You need more of it.

Thanks for the gratuitous insult. Sorry, but you can't score higher than 800 on the GRE's in Math and English. That's the max score, and I got those while taking the tests with a horrible hangover, so bad, in the middle of the test I had to go into the bathroom and upchuck. :D But I only got a 780 in Logic. How about you, did you get perfect scores, too?


Your perception of scientific funding is flawed.
Your logic is flawed.


Also, anyone who wants to make a good living by telling porky pies really shouldn't go into science. It's not very well paid.
I have no idea what that sentence means and I don't care to learn Euro-slang.


And you might want to look up who is funding those research teams that are out to prove global warming isn't happening.
Pray tell, who is, Mr. Junkmeister?

Like I already said, funding by the government comes with strings attached - to make sure you come up with the desired result. If not, you get no funding.


How do you tell junk science from real science, Mr. Fantasist? The same way you "remember" how the space shuttle's computer works?

Quite bizarre, how you have access to the Pentagon's Siprnet and know for a fact exactly what software was uploaded to Houston, the Cape, and the Space Shuttle.


What science education do you have anyway?
What science education do you have? And who cares?


90% of scientists believe in "junk science", must be a record. Makes you wonder how they get anything done.

Where'd you get "90%"? Pull it out of your hat? Or was it a BBC-CNN poll?

99% of politicians are gutless cowards and procrastinating bureaucrats. That most scientists go along with group-think would not be surprising, in this era of the corruption of science. Say you're questioning "Global Warming" -> lose your job.

Fantastika
19-11-2014, 01:13
Also: Monty Python isn't a person :)

Score one for the Janerator. Most Americans don't know the difference between MP and John Cleese. I was in a store once, and an old rerun of Fawlty Towers was playing, and another customer told me that Monty Python and John Cleese were twin brothers. :)

Yaks
19-11-2014, 01:31
this is where I live with with 50-80 and 110cm rise predictions by 2100.
http://www.ozcoasts.gov.au/climate/Map_images/SthEastQld/mapLevel2_North.jsp

As I said I have been following this since the 80s with talk of 20-30 years time sea levels will be x-ranging up to a metre higher(which yes puts my house underwater). All this info is buried now with any search showing a zillion other results. That's why I said take note of the predictions now. write them down if you have to and watch them change over time.

this is from Yale and basically says " We just don't know and we are just guessing"

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/rising_waters_how_fast_and_how_far_will_sea_levels_rise/2702/

Yaks
19-11-2014, 06:00
here's another one. 2.5metres by 2040

http://arctic-news.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/more-than-25m-sea-level-rise-by-2040.html

This one predicts a 20 metre rise over several hundred years: http://takvera.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/global-warming-means-20-metre-sea-level.html

this one predicts a 2.3 metre rise in sea levels per 1 degree of global heating(taking into account predictions of 2 degree increase in temperatures this century):
http://takvera.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/longterm-sea-level-rise-estimated-at-23.html

JanC
19-11-2014, 15:26
Score one for the Janerator. Most Americans don't know the difference between MP and John Cleese. I was in a store once, and an old rerun of Fawlty Towers was playing, and another customer told me that Monty Python and John Cleese were twin brothers. :)

You should watch "Yes, (prime) Minister" if you haven't already. Brilliant series and particularly amusing for those who don't take government too seriously.

JanC
19-11-2014, 15:35
this is where I live with with 50-80 and 110cm rise predictions by 2100.
http://www.ozcoasts.gov.au/climate/Map_images/SthEastQld/mapLevel2_North.jsp

At that rate, 10 years worth of rises won't be very noticeable.


That's why I said take note of the predictions now.

My chances of being alive in 2100 are slim to none I'm afraid :(
Anyway


this is from Yale and basically says " We just don't know and we are just guessing

Which they are, essentially. The problem is that although establishing that the average global temperature is rising at an abnormal rate is relatively straight forward, calculating sea level adds an extra level of uncertainty.

It's based on an uncertain number and then that number gets plugged into a system which is rather complicated on its own. We've already seen some ice increases on the south pole even though temperatures went up, as it led to a change in wind patterns which helped the ice. One of those things you can't really predict. Still, if temperatures continue to rise sooner or later it will reverse.

It's all "what if" right now, but the point I've been attempting to make (rather unsuccessfully) is that whilst nothing is close to proven, only a fool could believe that there is absolutely no chance of global warming being a threat in the future. It's mind boggling how people buy insurance, wear a seat belt, and so forth, but aren't willing to change the slightest of habits in order to be on the safe side with this thing. The climate is a very slow moving thing, by the time anyone would start to notice that things have gone t*ts up it would likely be too late.

What's the worst that could happen by playing it safe and limiting CO˛ output? In time, switching to alternative energy sources wouldn't necessarily be any worse for the world economy. Even if warming was never a threat, we get some cleaner air to breathe as a bonus.

Armoured
19-11-2014, 15:44
It's all "what if" right now, but the point I've been attempting to make (rather unsuccessfully) is that whilst nothing is close to proven, only a fool could believe that there is absolutely no chance of global warming being a threat in the future.

I think the experts have already been proven right in one significant way that gets overlooked: many/most of the models predict increases in weather unpredictability and extreme 'weather events' - everything from freak storms to unusual droughts to increased lightning strikes - as well as localised impacts that may be unexpected (this would include the increased ice in Antarctica) or far more severe than the 'average' temperature rises might imply.

In one simplistic sentence, increased volatility.

This is why the 'well, Russia [or other cold place] might be nicer if it was one or two degrees warmer' is potentially very dangerous. In places that currently have permafrost of bogs year round, it may be devastating.

Yaks
19-11-2014, 23:21
At that rate, 10 years worth of rises won't be very noticeable.


who said anything about 10 years worth of rises? I stated I should be typing underwater 10 years ago. The predictions are older than 10 years.The point it some of the claims are clearly ridiculous.

as for your notion of where's the harm in acting now on incomplete data- huge swaths of Australia have had their houses devalued because of ICC assumptions on sea levels being accepted by local councils-restricting any improvements and additions to properties on beachfront etc.

furthermore Australia just went a highly taxing "Carbon tax" scheme which had electricity prices shoot through the roof. And developing nations were off the hook, even though being huge polluters.

I am all for improving air quality and this can sometimes be a side benefit in attempts to curb CO2-most of Asia has trouble breathing it is so bad there. but rather than making polluting CO2 more expensive in carbon taxes, efficiency and air quality preventing all pollutants(as well as water pollutants) should be the goal.

just as also alternative energy should always be explored because it is smart to do. 30% of households in my state have solar for instance, 1 million Australian homes. This was good policy mostly(though many pensioners couldn't afford the systems so were slugged with higher energy prices.)

efforts and money poured into a gas that we respire and trees soak up might better be spent on eliminating heavy metals and other carcinogens as well as particles that contribute to unhealthy smog.

Armoured
20-11-2014, 04:25
As I said I have been following this since the 80s with talk of 20-30 years time sea levels will be x-ranging up to a metre higher(which yes puts my house underwater).

Respectfully, I suggest it's more likely to be your memory or recollection of the reports (like headlines that mangled the actual content, as often happens).

The first IPCC report, from 1990, representing the consensus of science at the time, said 20 cm by 2030 and 6 cm per decade over 100 years, with uncertainty bars / some non-linearity in the rise. Actual to date seems pretty close to that report.

IPCC First Assessment Report - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


this is from Yale and basically says " We just don't know and we are just guessing"

It says nothing of the sort. It goes into pretty good detail and says there are complicated factors, and methodological differences (heck, at this scale, the effect of gravity makes a difference), but direction overall is not in question.


here's another one. 2.5metres by 2040
\This one predicts a 20 metre rise over several hundred years:
this one predicts a 2.3 metre rise in sea levels per 1 degree of global heating(taking into account predictions of 2 degree increase in temperatures this century):

You're pulling things out of context - note the last one, for example, says 2.3 metre rise per degree _over the next couple of thousand years_. The first one clearly doesn't 'predict' 2.5 metres by 2040, but outright asks "what would be more appropriate, to expect sea levels to continue to rise in a linear way, or to take into account feedbacks that could speed things up?"


who said anything about 10 years worth of rises? I stated I should be typing underwater 10 years ago. The predictions are older than 10 years.The point it some of the claims are clearly ridiculous.

I don't think you've shown that yet. But sure, some studies will be wrong - on both sides. If you want to get the most reliable, stick to the consensus/best guess reports, especially the IPCC ones.


I am all for improving air quality and this can sometimes be a side benefit in attempts to curb CO2-most of Asia has trouble breathing it is so bad there. but rather than making polluting CO2 more expensive in carbon taxes, efficiency and air quality preventing all pollutants(as well as water pollutants) should be the goal.

I agree on the pollution part - but the goal of reducing carbon emissions is largely complementary to that, i.e. the worst pollution emitters (such as coal) are also bad on carbon, etc.


efforts and money poured into a gas that we respire and trees soak up might better be spent on eliminating heavy metals and other carcinogens as well as particles that contribute to unhealthy smog.

You're phrasing this as either/or and mostly it is not.

Yaks
20-11-2014, 11:45
er what the IPCC say is irrelevant, my memory isn't faulty. I listen to the noise out there-the alarmists such as greenpeace etc. What some government or intergovernment panel actually believe has little to do with the hysteria. And ultimately it is the hysteria, not the scientists, that move government policy. Governments go where the votes are. People in the streets marching with slogans, voting for greens and alternative parties-are what make the major parties come up with new platforms. whether it is the environment, gender equality or gay rights.

It is a passioned debate, little to do with objective facts. And that's the problem and why I am ever so cautious about it, despite largely being a supporter of the environment.

Yaks
20-11-2014, 11:53
today's news is that China's CO2 emissions, despite the deal done with the US, will rise at a rate double the US cuts theirs.

Armoured
20-11-2014, 14:20
er what the IPCC say is irrelevant, my memory isn't faulty. I listen to the noise out there-the alarmists such as greenpeace etc. What some government or intergovernment panel actually believe has little to do with the hysteria. And ultimately it is the hysteria, not the scientists, that move government policy.

That's way over the top. It's like saying I don't believe bears are dangerous because I once heard that bears shoot laser beams out their butts, and that was a lie.

If the main credible scientific consensus is holding up, government policy should be based on that - and you're right to argue that it should be based on that, and not hysteria.

But it doesn't at all follow that 'all the predictions are wrong' if you're basing that judgment on the hyped ones.

FatAndy
20-11-2014, 14:50
today's news is that China's CO2 emissions, despite the deal done with the US, will rise at a rate double the US cuts theirs.
At the same time there are some reports about NE states of US having a nice snowfall, up to 1 m thick... but with several victims :jawdrop:

http://top.rbc.ru/photoreport/20/11/2014/546d57cecbb20f36a50de720

Yaks
20-11-2014, 16:32
That's way over the top. It's like saying I don't believe bears are dangerous because I once heard that bears shoot laser beams out their butts, and that was a lie.

If the main credible scientific consensus is holding up, government policy should be based on that - and you're right to argue that it should be based on that, and not hysteria.

But it doesn't at all follow that 'all the predictions are wrong' if you're basing that judgment on the hyped ones.

My point is there are a lot of different predictions by a lot of different groups and now especially in the time of social media we are seeing outlandish claims gobbled up without scrutiny. And this leads to protests and lobbying and changing how politicians vote.

I see a few faults with some of the theories(especially since the Nuclear winter effect was based on much of the same principles) and also compare what we are going through to times of great cooling and heating our planet has gone through without manmade emissions. Plus what we know of the solar cycle- 11 year, 22 year etc. And the very mention of a "pause" should raise at least an eyebrow as would the quiet dropping of "global warming" for "climate change".

That all said there probably is some correlation between manmade emissions and rising sea levels/rising temperatures. But if it is true I suspect it is at the lower end of predictions. And the second and third world are going to continue to demand to industrialise whilst essentially be exempt from emission reductions currently.

Armoured
20-11-2014, 16:52
My point is there are a lot of different predictions by a lot of different groups and now especially in the time of social media we are seeing outlandish claims gobbled up without scrutiny.

I'm all for scrutiny. Scrutinize away. All I'm saying is that starting with the IPCC report - as close as a real consensus as exists - is the right way to start scrutinizing, not starting with the outlandish claims.


And the very mention of a "pause" should raise at least an eyebrow as would the quiet dropping of "global warming" for "climate change".

The mainstream reports deal with both the question of 'pauses' (that's why they use long-term averages) and provide ranges of estimates,etc.

The new emphasis on climate change as opposed to global warming is entirely logical - i) it responds to those who say, well, Greenland or Russia might be nicer if two degrees warmer, and ii) emphasizes that the change in climate - and the volatility, extreme weather events and other aspects - are real and significant dangers. And quite probably the change is far more important than the end level.


And the second and third world are going to continue to demand to industrialise whilst essentially be exempt from emission reductions currently.

That's the significance of the China deal - for the first time, China has been willing to explicitly target lower growth rates in emissions and eventual 'caps'. Yes, it continues to grow, but up until now, China has refused to even contemplate - and this has been a major stumbling block in getting many other countries to discuss (like your objections earlier in this thread).

It's a mediocre start but it's a start.

Yaks
20-11-2014, 17:15
well climate change is a brilliant concept because ALL weather can be attributed to it-every natural disaster becomes the fault of climate change. EVERY time a hurricane or whatever hits, climate change is mentioned. As if they never had those things before.
The frequency increase=climate change
Strength and size increase=climate change
frequency decreases=climate change
strength and size decreases= climate change
heatwave=climate change
snow=climate change.

I mean we have people on here who challenge the notion of a creator yet have no problem accepting this "climate change can't lose" argument. When you start to attribute everything to climate change, one should challenge whether anything is climate change.

JanC
20-11-2014, 17:50
who challenge the notion of a creator yet have no problem accepting this "climate change can't lose" argument.

We're mixing something that cannot be scientifically examined which something that is being examined around the clock. By people who generally aren't actually highly paid, I should add.

Climate change is indeed a very broad term, and many things can be potentially attributed to it. But the only "change" we actually care about is the kind which has negative results for us.

When a large majority of scientists who spend their time investigating think that our human activities are likely responsible for abnormal patterns in the climate, it is entirely irrational for us laymen to dismiss it.

No-one is suggesting we suddenly stop burning fossil fuels and breeding cows altogether. But governments creating incentives to reduce the potential impact we are having on the global climate is entirely rational.

Again, compare the worst that will happen if warming is real/not real. You wouldn't take your chances with most dangerous things in real life, why would you with this? A lack of understanding on our part wouldn't make it any less real. It's like people living under a volcano getting tired of volcanologists making warnings when week after week nothing happens. And then they get Pompeii'd in the end.

Yaks
20-11-2014, 19:53
here is National geographic who you would think is fairly conservative and solid:

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/

and the last part:

Oceans will likely continue to rise as well, but predicting the amount is an inexact science. A recent study says we can expect the oceans to rise between 2.5 and 6.5 feet (0.8 and 2 meters) by 2100, enough to swamp many of the cities along the U.S. East Coast. More dire estimates, including a complete meltdown of the Greenland ice sheet, push sea level rise to 23 feet (7 meters), enough to submerge London.

Armoured
20-11-2014, 20:04
well climate change is a brilliant concept because ALL weather can be attributed to it-every natural disaster becomes the fault of climate change. EVERY time a hurricane or whatever hits, climate change is mentioned.
...
I mean we have people on here who challenge the notion of a creator yet have no problem accepting this "climate change can't lose" argument. When you start to attribute everything to climate change, one should challenge whether anything is climate change.

Sorry, you're refusing to look at the main consensus document, discrediting everything based on documents you're misreading (yes! like the one that makes it clear it is not predicting but posing a question about whether the relationship is linear or polynomial), and then saying everything confirms it.

There _are_ testable hypotheses there. And sometimes even the consensus is wrong (not on the overall, but on some details), and (largely speaking) they are admitting when things are wrong. It is not remotely comparable to religion.

But instead what we get is people saying "it's not global warming because we got snow yesterday!" when this is, in fact, covered in the projections.


No-one is suggesting we suddenly stop burning fossil fuels and breeding cows altogether. But governments creating incentives to reduce the potential impact we are having on the global climate is entirely rational.

Which, in addition, happens to coincide with negative impacts of local pollution in many cases, such as the dust and particulate matter we have in Moscow this week.

Yaks
21-11-2014, 00:14
they aren't testable-they are predictions. You know, like by 1984 we will have landed on mars. You have to wait until some date in the future to see if you are right. that article from national geographic has a prediction range from 0.8 to 2 metres by 2100(quite a difference) to an extreme of 7 metres. That is not a testable hypothesis in this day and age.

Armoured
21-11-2014, 09:45
they aren't testable-they are predictions. You know, like by 1984 we will have landed on mars. You have to wait until some date in the future to see if you are right. that article from national geographic has a prediction range from 0.8 to 2 metres by 2100(quite a difference) to an extreme of 7 metres. That is not a testable hypothesis in this day and age.

You're right, I was imprecise in my terminology (although I think you're splitting hairs) - they are not testable (because you can't run separate experiments). They are, however, falsifiable hypotheses - unlike religion which was your comparison.

It's a bit like Halley's Comet - he predicted when it would come, and it did. It wasn't a test - but it was falsifiable, one of the key definitions of the scientific method.

As for the range: it is still specific. This is how uncertainty about how big the outcomes is expressed.

But if the end result ends up being, say, 1 metre lower, it will be considered falsified (wrong).

And you can go back and compare the range of outcomes predicted in the first IPCC report and compare to what happened. It's not, however, meaningful, to cherry-pick some small percentage of scientific papers and say e.g. "Bob predicted up to five meters by 2014 - therefore all climate science is wrong!"

Consensus predicted a range of possible outcomes, and has to date largely been right.

Armoured
21-11-2014, 13:07
2014 on track to become hottest year ever. No cold records set for 100 years.

F5ymM00tR9o

There is a clear trend visible.

And yes, wild winter weather _appears_ to be connected:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/20/theres-growing-evidence-that-global-warming-is-driving-crazy-winters/

(And of course, big snow storms don't tell us that average global temperatures are lower...)

Yaks
21-11-2014, 13:35
2014 on track to become hottest year ever. No cold records set for 100 years.

F5ymM00tR9o

There is a clear trend visible.

And yes, wild winter weather _appears_ to be connected:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/20/theres-growing-evidence-that-global-warming-is-driving-crazy-winters/

(And of course, big snow storms don't tell us that average global temperatures are lower...)

"Winter 2014 set to be 'coldest for century' "
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/520672/Winter-weather-2014-UK-forecast-cold-snow-November

http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/85724214833/global-warming-alert-2014-coldest-year-on-record

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/record-breaking-cold-winter-we/24831365

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/coldest-year-on-record-for-minimum-temperatures/story-e6frg1rc-1225911950643?nk=998167b85ac929733dbe0c50ffaa486e

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/brisbane-records-coldest-morning-in-103-years/97640

JanC
21-11-2014, 14:01
"Winter 2014 set to be 'coldest for century' "
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/520672/Winter-weather-2014-UK-forecast-cold-snow-November

http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/85724214833/global-warming-alert-2014-coldest-year-on-record

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/record-breaking-cold-winter-we/24831365

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/coldest-year-on-record-for-minimum-temperatures/story-e6frg1rc-1225911950643?nk=998167b85ac929733dbe0c50ffaa486e

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/brisbane-records-coldest-morning-in-103-years/97640


Bit early to declare the winter of 2014 actually cold, no? But that's one prediction we can test soon enough.

Also, these are talking about specific places, not the global average. London or Brisbane could perfectly break cold records whilst the average global temperature is rising. The "winter" in Africa or Asia, never mind the middle of the pacific ocean, might be warmer than usual and it wouldn't show up in articles like that.

Yaks
21-11-2014, 14:13
true but getting different articles from Australia to the UK to the US saying coldest in 100 years can be a guide to global rates.

Anyway it was just to show, once again, more noise out there that doesn't make Armoured's post about no coldest years and higher highs etc- as simple as one would like.

Global warming is something that can be tested and challenged. Calling it climate change and attributing all weather to it, can't be.

Anyway I think i have spent enough time on this thread conveying my point, which you are free to reject.

JanC
21-11-2014, 14:17
Global warming is something that can be tested and challenged. Calling it climate change and attributing all weather to it, can't be.

Anyway I think i have spent enough time on this thread conveying my point, which you are free to reject.

Fair enough, but labeling it "climate change" makes more sense precisely because of the articles you linked to.

Most people aren't scientists. They don't understand how global warming can be true when they are having a bloody cold winter. Climate change is a better way to describe it because the effects of the effect of "average global warming" are not universally the same everywhere you go.

Still, making the public understand what the scientific message is precisely has been monumentally difficult and the name change hasn't helped. The name change is a matter of PR if you wish. The underlying studies and theories are the same. Even if the public name for it is ambiguous, the actual theories behind it are quite strict.

Armoured
21-11-2014, 14:45
true but getting different articles from Australia to the UK to the US saying coldest in 100 years can be a guide to global rates.

Anyway it was just to show, once again, more noise out there that doesn't make Armoured's post about no coldest years and higher highs etc- as simple as one would like.

I'm sure someone as informed as yourself is able to tell the difference between a global average and local highs and lows. It is pretty simple, and you know it.


Global warming is something that can be tested and challenged. Calling it climate change and attributing all weather to it, can't be.

That's a misleading statement. It's not all weather that's being attributed to it - they are predicting (in addition to temperature rises) more volatile weather. If it is less volatile in future (which would be 'weather'), that would demonstrate that at least part of the theory is wrong.