Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Global Cooling...again

Rate this topic


aequalsa
 Share

Recommended Posts

...the world will be warmer....or cooler...or the same as a result of CO2.

New from the IPCC:

The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists....

Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007...

‘A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent. ...

'They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer.

And the finally...

In March 2000, Dr David Viner, then a member of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, the body now being investigated over the notorious ‘Warmergate’ leaked emails, said that within a few years snowfall would become ‘a very rare and exciting event’ in Britain, and that ‘children just aren’t going to know what snow is’.

Now the head of a British Council programme with an annual £10 million budget that raises awareness of global warming among young people abroad, Dr Viner last week said he still stood by that prediction: ‘We’ve had three weeks of relatively cold weather, and that doesn’t change anything.

'This winter is just a little cooler than average, and I still think that snow will become an increasingly rare event.’

The longer the cold spell lasts, the harder it may be to persuade the public of that assertion.

Ya think?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/art...tarts-here.html

I, by admission, am not qualified to maintain much of a scientific opinion on whether CO2 will melt us, but the level of certainty and extremism they present in the face of significant opposition in regard to an empirical process on a scale this wide strikes me as implausible to the point of laughableness.

If these guys are right, I am happy in that it will be much harder to convince everyone to stop consuming but a little saddened at the notion of 30 years of colder winters. I was getting used to 60degrees in January. Ah well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...the world will be warmer....or cooler...or the same as a result of CO2.

New from the IPCC:

And the finally...

Ya think?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/art...tarts-here.html

I, by admission, am not qualified to maintain much of a scientific opinion on whether CO2 will melt us, but the level of certainty and extremism they present in the face of significant opposition in regard to an empirical process on a scale this wide strikes me as implausible to the point of laughableness.

If these guys are right, I am happy in that it will be much harder to convince everyone to stop consuming but a little saddened at the notion of 30 years of colder winters. I was getting used to 60degrees in January. Ah well.

After Climategate you should not be reading anything from the IPCC. They are completely corrupt. Stick with Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, et. al. They've proven their veracity and scientific acumen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In March 2000, Dr David Viner, then a member of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, the body now being investigated over the notorious ‘Warmergate’ leaked emails, said that within a few years snowfall would become ‘a very rare and exciting event’ in Britain, and that ‘children just aren’t going to know what snow is’.
Except of course the ones living in this area.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today I heard someone reiterate, three times, that this cold snap is just a "blip on the radar." Of course there was nothing else added to the statement, like proof or evidence. The statement alone was to be regarded as fact; if dismissed, presume the one who disregarded it would be considered a moron or unenlightened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today I heard someone reiterate, three times, that this cold snap is just a "blip on the radar." Of course there was nothing else added to the statement, like proof or evidence. The statement alone was to be regarded as fact; if dismissed, presume the one who disregarded it would be considered a moron or unenlightened.

Of course, because, unlike every other science from Newtonian physics onward, the science is in and immutable. It is known with absolute certainty that nothing else could be the case. I've always been a fan of Scientific American and Discover but mildly annoyed that they sensationalize findings a bit. Nothing on this scale though.

This feels like a complete rewrite of what science fundamentally is and can be expected to provide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today I heard someone reiterate, three times, that this cold snap is just a "blip on the radar." Of course there was nothing else added to the statement, like proof or evidence. The statement alone was to be regarded as fact; if dismissed, presume the one who disregarded it would be considered a moron or unenlightened.

One knows a trend after the fact. Climate is a moving average of weather conditions over a fairly long interval (at least a decade, maybe longer). We shall see whether the last few cold winters are a blip or a trend, but we will have to wait to see.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This feels like a complete rewrite of what science fundamentally is and can be expected to provide.

That's exactly what it is. You stated in the OP that you are "not qualified to maintain much of a scientific opinion". However, the debate centered around the information in the leaked emails is not about the science, it's about the scientific method which falls under the domain of philosophy. Steve McIntyre, the lead critic of Mann and the hockey stick graph, is not dis-proving global warming. He is "auditing" the work of the scientist behind the IPCC findings and demonstrating inconsistencies in method and deliberate attempts to massage or remove data that does not support the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming. The MSM and Al Gore wants everyone to believe that it's so complicated that they shouldn't look into it, just leave it to the experts, - but it's not. What's been done is so blatantly un-scientific and arbitrary that any adult can understand it and reach a conclusion regarding the quality of data upon which the IPCC findings rests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get in these discussions with the "warmers" (lol) sometimes and I always present them with this question and NEVER get an answer:

If I accept warming, accept that man causes it, and accept that we can take measures to cool the earth, then: What if in 1997 when the world was "the hottest it has ever been" we decided to turn down the Earth's thermostat? OOOPS! The temps were actually going to go way down over the next 11 years (as a "blip")! Whoops!! We would have caused untold death, crop loss, environmental chaos, and possibly pushed us into another ice age. Whoops?

Blank-out.

Edit: Actually I do get an answer, but it is always not to the question. It is always a change of subject and the statement: "Well, we cannot just do nothing. We have to do something."

Edited by freestyle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

, it's about the scientific method which falls under the domain of philosophy.

Apparently not "any" adult, since so many are convinced, but yeah...that's where I'm at. The scientific method seems to have become

1 collect data,

2 write a program that postdicts it,

3 claim absolute knowledge of causation,

4 ignore all other feedbacks as insignificant.

5 slander detractors

I am curious what happened to

1 form hypotheisis,

2 collect data,

3 eliminate variables,

4 TEST IT,

5 submit single, falsifiable, causative relationship for open peer review(especially to critics) with full disclosure of all original data and calculations.

Something changed a lot since I last took a science class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One knows a trend after the fact. Climate is a moving average of weather conditions over a fairly long interval (at least a decade, maybe longer). We shall see whether the last few cold winters are a blip or a trend, but we will have to wait to see.

Bob Kolker

Are you kidding? There's no time to wait! We must act now!

You're right though. Even more money and time has been spent by professionals in the security industry trying to postdict a massively complex system with no success. Every once in awhile someone like motley fools comes along with a model that seems to, but a few years later and it is inevitably found to be untrue.

Even if it is a 30 year "blip" what kind of technological changes could happen in the next 30 years that would fundementally sabotage any energy reduction plans? Clean, safe, thorium based nuclear energy with little waste and no weapon potential perhaps?

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes

So even if they could perfectly predict the entire planet's response to CO2 they certainly couldn't predict man's capacity to adapt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An objective approach to science does not start with forming a hypothesis.

Sorry, I meant hypothesis in the sense that you have some idea about something you wish to investigate. Ostensibly this would have come out of some observation and introspection initially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two years ago winter was pretty cold, too. I remember because that's when I bought a heater for the office.

At the time I told a colleague "If I'd knwon this global warming was going to be co damn cold, I'd have taken it seriously." I don't need to point out the irony here, right? Well, he answered:

"You should. Global warming will make things much colder."

He was serious, not ironic. We got into an argument where he managed to hold two contradictory positions: 1) Global warming will warm the planet disastrously and 2) Global warming will coll the planet disastrously.

In other words: A is A is non-A, regulations without end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They corrected this flaw (contradiction) in their language a few years ago. There has been an intentional switch to using the term "climate change" instead of global warming. This way they're covered on both ends.

I became aware of this about 2 years ago when I saw an article refer to a particular scientist as a "climate change skeptic". I thought to myself, "Who could possibly be skeptical about whether or not the climate changes if they've lived for more than two consecutive days?!?"

I cannot think of a better example of doublethink.

Edited by freestyle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...