Global Cooling...again

Current Events Environmentalism
1

…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.

2

…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.

3

And don’t forget that it just snowed here in central Florida for the first time in about 20 years. Man made-global warming is obviously the cause of this… lol

4

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.

5

Couldn’t get to David’s link… but how about this one.

6

No matter which way the climate turns, it will be the fault of the Capitalists.

Bob Kolker

7

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.

8

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.

9

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

10

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.

11

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.”

12

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.”

Well, driving your SUV is doing something. :slight_smile:

13

The models on which we are relying for the evidence of global warming didn’t predict this recent cooling. How can they be relied on for predicting… anything?

14

, 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.

15

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.

16

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

17

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

I would assume science first starts with identification, and classification of facts backed up by careful measurement. Facts first, Hypotheses second.

Bob Kolker

18

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.

19

One thing is for sure, it is either going to get colder or warmer. Or stay the same. Or none of those.

More at 11.

20

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.