A rare event this late in the year, we awoke to a blanket of white this morning just north of Chicago...as late as I can remember it actually covering surfaces.
Just another example showing the Global Warming models are just as inaccurate and biased as the virus models. Prejudice in....garbage out.
And the jumped up weather men modelers are not even as smart as the Medical statisticians who were always lower quartile in the required PhD stats courses.
Mozart its called Global Warming for a reason, its not called Warming just north of Chicago.
On any single day around the planet you can probably find many places that have above average temperatures and below average temperatures. Finding a location with a few days of unusually hot weather for the time of year does not prove Global Warming exists, nor does have a few days of unusually cold weather for the year disprove it either. What does prove it exists is the measurement of temperatures"globally" over time.
That's a pretty basic concept and if your getting that wrong you have absolutely no business whatsoever criticizing climate models or comparing them to virus models.
In the 33 years that I have lived in Canada, I have never seen snow at low elevations in the greater Vancouver area at this time of the year.
Surely it must be caused by PDT and his policies not allowing all that "Hot Air" generated by the Demorats to escape from California, Washington D.C. and New York.
Once more well done President Trump.
Your success is our success.
Four More Years.
Oh boy here we go again with the the man made global warming nutters.
Dr Moz demolished poor ab ASS on the subject and he was so embarrassed he quit the board. He thought he knew something about the subject till Dr Moz schooled the ASS.
Trust the globalist dupes Stav and sharkredvirus to get it wrong.
Sorry Dr Moz you may have to go through all the evidence again How tiresome these clowns are!
Suppose these two nutter think you can only see Manhattan if you are a good scuba diver. Hahahahahhahahaha
Amazing there are still those who buy into the man made climate change hoax!
Thanks for the little lecture Stav.....but I have a PhD with a minor in Applied Mathematics. I understand numbers.
What an event like this signifies is....in the second largest land mass on the planet, the probability distribution of temperatures is still covering 3 sigma (less than 0.003 likelihood) events on the downside. Which suggests that the curve as a whole hasn’t shifted much at any of it’s points.
‘Anecdotal’ but suggestive to use an overused word. What’s so hilarious about you brainwashed kids is you will never raise the ‘anecdotal’ argument when everybody’s hair is on fire because of a warm day in Australia.
Global warming of 1 degree over 150 years is still well within measurement error.....glaciers have been melting since 1820....oceans have been rising since 1700.
All happening very slowly as befits a 1 in 1000 increase in greenhouse gasses.
I think I found the diagrams that Draad used last time.
@Beeno
You almost make Donald Trump look smart................almost.
@mozart
"Thanks for the little lecture Stav.....but I have a PhD with a minor in Applied Mathematics. I understand numbers."
So your not a climate scientist then?
"What an event like this signifies is....in the second largest land mass on the planet, the probability distribution of temperatures is still covering 3 sigma (less than 0.003 likelihood) events on the downside. Which suggests that the curve as a whole hasn’t shifted much at any of it’s points."
Congratulations on using mathematical jargon to sound intelligent, it still doesn't make you a climate scientist or deflect from the fact that you made the very basic mistake of implying local temperature at one fixed point and time has any bearing on "global" temperatures over time.
"‘Anecdotal’ but suggestive to use an overused word. What’s so hilarious about you brainwashed kids is you will never raise the ‘anecdotal’ argument when everybody’s hair is on fire because of a warm day in Australia."
Yes because climate science and science in general is based on anecdotal and suggestive evidence right?. Then we have yet another example of an arm chair climate skeptics extreme arrogance on display to label anyone those who disagree with them as brainwashed kids and thinking they know better than the tens of thousands of climate scientists around the world and the decades upon decades of scientific peer reviewed research, evidence gathering and fact finding that supports man made climate change. Nah...Jimmy Joe Blogs on the internet knows better!
As for the anecdotal argument on everybody hair is on fire because of a warm day in Australia, again this is climate change skeptics twisting the words of what climate change proponents are actually saying. So no we can't say for certain if the recent extreme hot weather in Australia that lead to the fires was caused by global warming. What we can say is that due to global warming events like that will occur with more frequency than in the past and would of occurred had the temperature remained stable or risen at normal levels. So over the next 50 years we might see what happen in Australia it reoccur say 7 times instead of twice (I just made those numbers up) and as the temperature continues to increase the frequency so will increase.
"Global warming of 1 degree over 150 years is still well within
measurement error.....glaciers have been melting since 1820....oceans
have been rising since 1700.
All happening very slowly as befits a 1 in 1000 increase in greenhouse gasses."
There is far too much data at this point to suggest the temperature rise is error of measurement
No one refutes when glaciers starting melting for or how long oceans have been rising, its the rate they have been melting and rising and the rate of temperature increase in the last few decades, a rate that's accelerating that's the issue.
Likewise the appeal that just because something is small, tiny or a trace amount does not mean it can't have a significant effect on something else. See Arsenic on the human body, ink in water or how important carbon dioxide is to planet life on the planet.
Draad’s graph is clear....we are in a long term 10000 year decline in Greenland ice. And the second derivative on that graph is positive , ie the decline is accelerating.
Useful data hardly ever mentioned by the Warmers.
‘So your (sic) not a climate scientist’... no I was a modeler in my academic days and I understand how easy it is to get a desired result in these large multivariate models. Unless they are validated by tracking reality they are just a bunch of assumptions....and thus far the models are way above trend.
‘Congratulations on using mathematical jargon’...you think a probability distribution is mathematical jargon? Perhaps you should take your own advice, you clearly ‘ have no business’ commenting about climate models.
Stav, nothing about the information in that graph has been debunked. And it's not the same graph I used before.
I just Google "Earth temperatures over time". The general trend of the information remains the same regardless of the source.
Everyone trying to prove a point about so called "climate change" and are using data of only a century or two, is willful slanting date to serve an obvious agenda.
Geological cycles span thousands of years and trying to predict outcomes from 100 or 200 year data models are just plain dishonest.
Obviously a populatio explosion will have an significant effect, but the models have too many variables to be even remotely accurate, so why all the fear mongering?
I don't see any significant way of reducing carbon emissions without reducing the population dramatically...the current solution seems to be taxing the population without suggesting real workable solutions.
I'm not saying that we should pollute without bounds and go about things without regard to the environment. I'm just saying that there is an obvios agenda...and that agenda has got nothing to do with the environment and all to do with lining someone's pocket...but if you start questioning the rationale and motives, you are immediately branded a "denier ".
If you look at the people driving this, you have to smell a rat...it's obvious.
Shark, in geological terms on earth, 70 years is less than a blink of the eye....the general "climate change alarmists ignores the million years before 1850 and you don't question that.
I know we have an environmental challenge ahead of us. I'm not denying that. I have a major problem with the fix the powers that be is trying to shove down our thoughts...and the focus on the data is all wrong. The answer being punted is profit driven and will have no effect on the actual problem.
"So your not a climate scientist then?"
From what I have observed over the years, "climate scientists" are over qualified geography teachers who ignores physics and general scientific principles...(like providing a verifiable model that predicts a measurable outcome.)
None of their actual predictions have come closer to being realized.
The last 50 years is too small to put into perspective in geological terms.
Look, modern human civilization has a massive influence on Earth as a whole. I'm not denying that. I'm saying our problem is way more complicated than burning fossil fuels...and the over emphasis on carbon emissions is a useless distraction of a much bigger problem.
@mozart
What the graph the climate skeptics claim to be showing is that modern temperatures in Greenland are no where near as high where as they were in the relatively recent past, thus climate warming occurs naturally without influence from man, nothing to worry about here.
That's the point DbDraad was no doubt trying to make because that's what the climate skeptics claim it shows when the graph has been brought up (or variations of the graph) over the last 10-11 years
Its been refuted on the grounds that
A) Its a temperature for a single location. You don't base Global temperature measurements off a single location.
B) Only recorded temperature data up till 1855 not 2000 (or 1950 as this version of the graphs claims).
C) Did not account for other potential factors such as elevation changes and snowdrifts.
D) Has been superseded by more recent data that did account for the factors in C and was taken from 6 Ice Cores in Greenland not 1 that the first graph showed.
"‘So your (sic) not a climate scientist’... no I was a modeler in my academic days and I understand how easy it is to get a desired result in these large multivariate models. Unless they are validated by tracking reality they are just a bunch of assumptions....and thus far the models are way above trend."
Desired results?, yeah so your not the guy who keeps saying you can exclude New York Corona virus deaths from America's overall death rate to make it (but more importantly by extension the Trump administration) look like its handling the situation really well. What are New Yorker's not American's now or is it they just don't count because the majority of them voted Democrat. Do other countries get to cook the books as well, like Ireland would cut its date rate more than half if we could exclude deaths up in Dublin and looking at the last election Dubliners voted mostly left wing so surely they don't count as well?
‘Congratulations on using mathematical jargon’...you think a probability distribution is mathematical jargon? Perhaps you should take your own advice, you clearly ‘have no business’ commenting about climate models.
I'm not a mathematician nor did I ever claim to be, but I do know what an appeal to authority is. Go get your mathematical climate models disproving man made climate change published in a peer reviewed scientific journal and then come back to me. As it stands your have no more credibility than any any other of the thousands of armchair internet climate change skeptics that inhabit online discussion forums. And no saying all the scientific journals censure anything that claims to disprove man made climate change is not going to wash with me.
@sharkbok
If you look it up, the data that was used to compile the graph only goes up to 1855.
The point is the ice on Greenland has been declining dramatically long before climate change was an issue. In fact Greenland has been almost clear of ice in the past:
“Their analysis shows that Greenland was deglaciated for extended periods during the Pleistocene epoch (from 2.6 million years ago to 11,700 years ago), on the basis of their measurements of cosmic-ray produced beryllium and aluminum isotopes in the bedrock core. Within the rock, the scientists found traces of radioactive beryllium-10 and aluminum-26. The isotopes decay at known rates, and since they cannot be created if the rock is covered with ice, their abundance can be tied to the time when the rocks were exposed. Modelers agree that the region where the core was taken would be one of the last to melt were the ice sheet to disappear. The authors thus concluded that the ice sheet must have been down to less than 10 percent of its current mass when this site was ice-free.”
All naturally occurring. So the leap that the ‘acceleration’ if we can believe it, is all due to man made effects is just that...a leap. The authors who published this finding, wanting to get their article published raised the risk of man made forcing reproducing these effects.....but that’s just speculation.
We don’t know because the models don’t reproduce reality and you can’t solve for a result with pure mathematics. It’s not an engineering problem.
........
There are a whole bunch of other stupid arguments you have been fed.....like the temperature readings in one spot aren’t reliable argument.
Temperature averages are constantly being revised....new stations added, measurements on ships substituted for measurements on buoys, heat island effects increasing with urbanization,
One thermometer planted anywhere in the middle of a huge continent, will over time be typical of that vast land mass and not subject to manipulation. It will be more, not less indicative than a managed average.
And the point I’m making with New York is equivalent to looking at the different countries in Europe......the US is a vast continent with a federal system. Each state is creating it’s own approach. It’s nothing like Ireland.
Grow up sonny!
Stav, nothing about the information in that graph has been debunked. And it's not the same graph I used before.
The data the graph was compiled from was legit but the graph deliberately obfuscated where the end point of the data was. The data has been superseded by more recent more accurate data taken from 6 Ice cores. Your free to look it up. I know its not the same graph you used before. But that was another graph climate skeptics used claiming it showed climate change was not happening and it also had been debunked.
I just Google "Earth temperatures over time". The general trend of the information remains the same regardless of the source.
Funny, I just did the same search in Google and that image came up as the 14th image in Google. You just happened to miss all the graphs showing the temperatures going up and clicked on the one that said GREENLAND GISP2 Ice Core, coincidentally an image climate skeptic frequently use, not anything that would say something like oh Global Average Temperatures for example that you searched for?. And even with most basic rudimentary glance at google search results there is no way anyone without being hugely biased could conclude the general trend of information remains the same as that graph. Come on now, you think I was born yesterday?
"Everyone trying to prove a point about so called "climate change" and are using data of only a century or two, is willful slanting date to serve an obvious agenda.
Geological cycles span thousands of years and trying to predict outcomes from 100 or 200 year data models are just plain dishonest."
Except they are not using data of only a century or two, even your graph showed that (it just hid the end point of it). There is no agenda on the part of climate change advocates, its what the science shows. The agenda is on the other side of the climate debate as funnily enough that graph shows.
No one denies geological cycles span thousands of year but that doesn't preclude the possibility that mankind's action can change the climate.
Obviously a population explosion will have an significant effect, but the models have too many variables to be even remotely accurate, so why all the fear mongering?
Well I'll take scientific models produced by climate scientist over some random internet person who says there is too many variables for them to be accurate. Again its not fear mongering its what the data shows.
I don't see any
significant way of reducing carbon emissions without reducing the
population dramatically...the current solution seems to be taxing the
population without suggesting real workable solutions.
Then look harder and not just listen to right wing propaganda that claiming its all a scam to tax everyone to death. Green fuels and technology, electronic cars, government action/regulations the regions that produce the most CO2.
I'm not saying that we should pollute without bounds and go about things without regard to the environment. I'm just saying that there is an obvios agenda...and that agenda has got nothing to do with the environment and all to do with lining someone's pocket...but if you start questioning the rationale and motives, you are immediately branded a "denier ".
If you look at the people driving this, you have to smell a rat...it's obvious.It doesn’t preclude man made melting....but the fact that melting has accelerated doesn’t prove the 1 degree C since the Industrial Revolution caused it.
The scientific community benefits from Climate Change....the journals wont publish anything else in the absence of a blow out finding. And this argument deals with tiny increments. The consensus is much like the now largely debunked medical doctrine about the devastating consequences of fat in diets. And like the early consensus in the virus models.
Hell these climate models not only vastly overstated temps, they totally missed the start of the climate hiatus and the restart of modest warming. They have predicted pretty much nothing.
The scientists also came up with an initial solution for the ozone layer that was subsequently found to be a huge contributor to greenhouse gasses.
Scientific consensus has a long history of mistakes. And scientific progress has often been made by those who reject conventional wisdom...eg Galileo. There is a huge role for science, but that doesn’t preclude a challenging public or government. Science is challenged by management every day in big businesses and the better for it.
On to your second point, of course global temperatures are not measured in one place. But nor should the measurements be constantly tinkered with....in the light of that, one point in the middle of the world’s second largest land mass, over time....is significant. It’s not the... ‘it’s hot today’ ...argument.
So don’t bother to ‘hammer it home’. You have missed the point.
You come at this like a religion, and the scientists are your priests. There is no objectivity just the same old hackneyed and ignorant arguments.
On a more prosaic note, there is a new Irish based movie out called Sea Fever....the two heroes are a young scientist and a moslem man. The other Irish characters are dupes, greedy, selfish and stupid. But the young scientist is willing to give up her life to save mankind.
This movie is filled with religious symbolism, but it’s about the new religion, science. The public is being brainwashed with this nonsense every day.
@mozart
"It doesn’t preclude man made melting....but the fact that melting has accelerated doesn’t prove the 1 degree C since the Industrial Revolution caused it."
So basically you just made a point that doesn't prove or disprove anything. Is that not rather pointless point then. Or maybe the point was just to change the topic from ice core temperatures over time to ice sheets melting over time and get the two of them conflated.
"The scientific community benefits from Climate Change....the journals wont publish anything else in the absence of a blow out finding. And this argument deals with tiny increments. The consensus is much like the now largely debunked medical doctrine about the devastating consequences of fat in diets. And like the early consensus in the virus models."
Ah yes the argument that scientific community needs to back climate change to perpetuate climate change. Money to do research so they can get money to do research so they can get money to do research so they can get money to do research too infinity and beyond. And its virtually the whole world scientific community that's in on this scam. This is quite the vast conspiracy we are looking at here, be f**ked if anyone can produce any evidence to support it though.
We also have that classic chestnut of the armchair climate change skeptic, that Science journals are censuring climate skeptics.
Firstly some genuine professional climate scientists who are climate skeptics have managed to get their research publish in legitimate scientific journals. It is not as common as scientist getting published who support climate change simply because most climate scientists are climate change proponents not skeptics. When they are published, then anyone from professional climate scientists to a layman can look over the published papers and ask questions, and the researchers can offer rebuttals and rebuttals to rebuttals etc.
Secondly, there is a huge volume of climate skeptics who are not climate scientist and a small amount who are that simply don't get published because their research is found by the peer review process to be so full of errors and long debunked theories that no proper scientific journal will publish them so as not to damage their own credibility. That's not censorship, its the elimination of junk science and its the whole point of the peer review process.
Thirdly, what about the rise of large numbers of fake scientific journals online over the last few years, where that climate skeptics do get published on. Effectively online blogs masquerading as real scientific journals charging money to preform so called peer reviewing before publishing only to be exposed as complete frauds. Real scientists have caught them out sending them in papers with nothing but "DO NOT F**KING PUBLISH THIS" written 50,000 times or the full content of Karmasutra. These fake journals took the money and published them anyway.
Hell these climate models not only vastly overstated temps, they totally missed the start of the climate hiatus and the restart of modest warming. They have predicted pretty much nothing.
The scientists also came up with an initial solution for the ozone layer that was subsequently found to be a huge contributor to greenhouse gasses.
Scientific consensus has a long history of mistakes. And scientific progress has often been made by those who reject conventional wisdom...eg Galileo. There is a huge role for science, but that doesn’t preclude a challenging public or government. Science is challenged by management every day in big businesses and the better for it.
No one would argue that climate scientists haven't made mistakes, factors overlooked, improvements to measurements made over time etc. But each of those mistakes and factors when looked at, have not come close to over turning the over arching abundance of data supporting the theory of man made climate change.
Galileo was more rejecting of conventional scientific wisdom at a time when conventional wisdom was based as much if not more on religious belief than actual evidence and data. Its not the same situation in the modern day. And just because conventional wisdom has been wrong before does it mean current conventional wisdom is wrong now.
Your right its good to challenge science, mistakes can be made and its good to have them corrected. Society as a whole is better for it. That doesn't mean the science, research and data behind climate change is wrong though.
"On to your second point, of course global temperatures are not measured in one place. But nor should the measurements be constantly tinkered with....in the light of that, one point in the middle of the world’s second largest land mass, over time....is significant. It’s not the... ‘it’s hot today’ ...argument.
So don’t bother to ‘hammer it home’. You have missed the point."
Great we agree we need measure temperatures globally to get global temperatures not just at one location, can we now agree that temperatures will need to be constantly measured globally over time to see if the temperature is going up or down, and also so we can see if the rate of change is accelerating?
You come at this like a religion, and the scientists are your priests.
There is no objectivity just the same old hackneyed and ignorant
arguments.
Your the one coming at this like a religion, Religion is based on belief, science is not a religion and its not belief based, its based on evidence something the scientists can produce to back up their theories. Imagine being in a court of law and a killers defense when DNA evidence is
brought out against him is that "sure ah that scientific DNA evidence is
just religious mumbo-jumbo" . You think that would get him anywhere? You're talking to me about lacking objectivity and using old hackneyed ignorant arguments when you repeatedly bring up the long debunked arguments of its cold in x location today therefore global warming is bogus, that CO2 is just a trace gas so it can't have much of an effect or small temperature increase can't have a significant impact. That's barely beyond primary school level thinking, yet you refer to side that relies on evidence as brainwashed kids.
Try showing some humility, put your political and ideological viewpoints aside, do not start at your preferred conclusion and work back only to evidence that supports it. Take all the evidence both for and against man made climate change and apply the same level of skepticism equally, that's the mark of a true skeptic that actually cares about getting to the truth.
"On a more prosaic note, there is a new Irish based movie out called Sea Fever....the two heroes are a young scientist and a moslem man. The other Irish characters are dupes, greedy, selfish and stupid. But the young scientist is willing to give up her life to save mankind.
This movie is filled with religious symbolism, but it’s about the new religion, science. The public is being brainwashed with this nonsense every day."
Never heard of that movie but I'll probably watch it now as it Irish and the reviews seem pretty good for it (thanks for ruining the ending by the way) . In my experience people read too much into the meaning of the movies, often they don't have any meaning other than to entertain the audience for 90 or so minutes and after you watch them you never really think about then again. Even if the creators of a movie did have a message and meaning behind it, it often goes unnoticed by the audience.
I will once again state, science is not a religion, one is evidence based, the other is faith/belief based. I'm sorry if the evidence, research and facts don't support your world view, doesn't make it brainwashing or nonsense though nor calling it so does anything to discredit it. Its just a deflection to hide the fact the evidence isn't on your side of the debate.
.
"I will once again state, science is not a religion, one is evidence based, the other is faith/belief based."
If you personally understand how everything works, it's evidence based, but that's really a very small percentage of society...the rest believe what they are told...they have faith in the scientific community. I love science, but it's a tool that's exploited regularly.
The assumptions in science are not evidence, they are just what the word says.....assumptions. Those assumptions have no scientific credibility until the models they drive predict reality. Thus far they haven’t.
All the models have done is justify a raft of legislation that will cost trillions but do little to solve warming...if it’s even a problem.
So far common sense would have been more useful than these models.
@Dbdraad
The majority of the population goes along with the general consensus (and I'm aware science is not done by consensus) that man made climate change is occurring. Its true most don't really understand the science, they are either not that interested or just don't have the time to look into it, that doesn't mean they are stupid or not intelligent.I t also doesn't change the the fact that if you want to know the truth, stick with it and if you keep pulling on the string long enough you will eventually find the evidence. Now you question that evidence all you want, but if you going down that road you can literally question everything and say there is no such thing as evidence ever.
@mozart
The evidence in science are not assumptions, they are just what the word says.....evidence. "En Garde!"
You mean evidence that has for most parts has driven models that have been fairly accurate at predicting reality.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-models-got-it-right-on-global-warming/
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf
Its fair to say that legislation has been inadequate in tackling the issue so far. However the research indicates that cost of action will be far higher.
https://energypost.eu/the-cost-of-climate-inaction-putting-a-price-on-4-5c-warming/
That's it ladies and gentleman you heard it here, scientists can pack up their bags and head home, they are no longer needed, common sense is all that's needed if only we had known we could have saved all that time, effort and money!
Stav, just wrote a long reply that disappeared ...in short...I don't question the evidence for climate change. I question the viability of the solutions offered...and the fact that the impression is created that we can keep the climate constant if we adhere to some of these solutions. Earth's climate is in a perpetual state of change, regardless of humans. We must try our best not to influence that change too much and try to keep the change gradual enough for us to be able to adapt in time.
The only real way to curb human influence would be to reduce the population...and that's a subject no politician will touch with a stick. The unsustainable population explosion in poor countries being the actual problem...no way of fixing this without solving that first.
Allot of backtracking by the climate change deniers on this thread.
It really is irresponsible behavior to not consider the environment for future generations.
Even if by chance man is not radically changing the environment- showing some responsibility is prudent.
It may well be that if the earth gets to a certain population size that changes to the environment are irreversible , however we should at least try take precautions to safe guard the interest of future generations.
In the real world, climate model simulations have been self-debunking over recent decades due to the constant prediction failures.
And the latest embarrassing example of model prediction failure is very relevant to the doomsday Arctic meltdown myth that the anti-science 'climate emergency' cult pushes.
A new peer-reviewed study by a group of researchers set out to determine the accuracy of top-tier climate model predictions of Arctic warming rates versus the actual Arctic warming rate. Their research involved the output of the same 36 climate models used for the UN's IPCC work.
This chart is a snapshot of their work, which visually portrays the computer climate model simulations over a 138-year period, from 1880 to 2017, and how they consistently overestimate how fast the Arctic is warming since around 1950.
Not really the scientists first solution to ozone was a major screw up:
The Montreal Protocol led to a global phase-out of most substances that deplete the ozone layer, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). A happy side-effect of the gradual ban of these products is that Earth's climate has also benefited because CFCs are also potent greenhouse gases. However, now a "rebound effect" threatens to accelerate the rate of global warming.
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which have been used in recent years in increasing quantities as substitutes for CFCs, are also climatically very active and many are also extremely long-lived. In the journal Science an international team of researchers recommends that the most potent of these gases also be regulated. This could save the positive "side effect" of the Montreal Protocol for the global climate.
It is regarded as the most successful international environmental agreement and has, to date, been ratified by 196 countries -- the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer. As a result, CFCs and ozone "killers" will gradually disappear from the atmosphere over the coming decades. And because many of these substances are also very active greenhouse gases, Earth's climate will profit from the sinking concentrations too.
So far, so good. In many processes where previously CFCs were used, these are now being increasingly substituted by fluorinated compounds such as HFCs (which, simply put, are similar substances to CFCs but do not contain chlorine and do not deplete stratospheric ozone). They are used as cooling agents in air conditioning plants and refrigerators, as propellants in aerosol cans, as solvents and as foaming agents in the manufacture of foam products. However, there is a downside to the use of HFCs -- they are also very potent greenhouse gases. HFC-134a, also known as R-134a, for example, which is used in automobile air conditioning units, is 1430 more active than the "classic" greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2).
.....
They found a solution 1430 more active as a greenhouse gas than CO2
Then there’s this article suggesting as others have, that the main stream models are failing, while only the Russians are getting accurate results:
Many recent climate models have been predicting dire global changes. The problem is climate forecasters currently ignore decades of scientific best??practices that would offer more accurate predictions.
Thankfully, there are attempts to rectify the truly dodgy methodology that has been used to crank out forecasts of 21st??century climate.
An important new climate paper published in Nature Climate Change, written by Viktoria Eyring of the University of Bremen and 28 co??authors from around the world, does just that.
That’s sorely needed. Here’s why:
Weather forecasters know that some models work better than others in specific situations, and they tend to rely on the versions that work best, depending upon the forecast problem. When the issue is a potential big snow along the eastern seaboard, forecasters usually lean upon the model from the European Center for Medium??Range Weather Forecasting (the “Euro” model). When diagnosing shifts in jet stream patterns a week or 10 days ahead, they may place more weight on the American Global Forecast System model.
But the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change simply averages up the 29 major climate models to come up with the forecast for warming in the 21st century, a practice rarely done in operational weather forecasting. As dryly noted by Eyring and others “there is now evidence that giving equal weight to each available model projection is suboptimal.”
Indeed. The authors of the new paper show that the aggregate models are making huge errors in three of the places on earth that are critical to our understanding of climate.
The first big error is over the entire Southern Ocean, the huge circumpolar body of water separating South America, Africa and Australia from Antarctica. The 29 models calculate, on average, it to be much less cold than it actually is, with large swaths 2.7 degree Fahrenheit or more warmer than reality. Given that the southern margin of the Southern Ocean is mostly sea??ice, this means that vast areas of real??world ice are simulated as being liquid water.
Further, almost all of the moisture that precipitates over Antarctica comes from the Southern Ocean, and an enormous amount of additional water vapor in forecasts comes from the practice of using models that raise the ocean temperature a few degrees beyond what it actually is. The result is a forecast of gobs of nonexistent snow originating from an ocean with swaths of nonexistent open water.
Another important error is along the west coast of South America. In the real world, thanks to the steady pull of the trade winds diverging water away from the coast, cold subsurface water wells up. When, for largely unknown reasons, the trade winds temporarily weaken, the surface water temperature rises dramatically, inducing an El Niño that may cause floods thousands of miles away in Southern California.
In a world experiencing a modest warming trend, El Nintilde;o usually yields record warm temperatures. The model also greatly underestimates a similar area of upwelling off of the African coast that induces the tropical Atlantic’s version of El Nintilde;o, known as the Atlantic Niño.
There’s a current theory that some of the heat from each El Nintilde;o is retained in the atmosphere, and temperatures do not return to their previous value once an El Nintilde;o goes away. As a result, surface temperatures appear to jump with each big one. Climate models that substantially underestimate the natural cold upwelling have a propensity to create El Nintilde;o-like conditions, which may explain their tendency to predict too much global warming.
But one of the models actually works. According to University of Alabama’s John Christy and his colleagues, only the Russian model, designated INM-CM4, gets things right. So why not weight heavily on the model that is working? Perhaps because it has less global warming in it than all the other U.N. models?
Its successor, INM-CM5, is so good that it is the only one that diagnoses the “pause” in warming from 2002 to 2014. That the “pause” was real is obvious in the global surface temperature record that the that the IPCC relies upon most heavily, from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
It’s high time that the scientific community come clean about longstanding climate shenanigans. Averaging up a large number of models that don’t work well is guaranteed to produce an unreliable forecast. Using ones that get things right, like the two Russian models, is accepted best??practice in weather forecasting. With regard to forecasting methodology, new research at least moves climate science closer to the 20th century.
And if you think man made warming has magically caused run away warming at the poles, there’s this:
Following Earth's last ice age, which peaked 20,000 years ago, the Antarctic warmed between two and three times the average temperature increase worldwide, according to a new study by a team of American geophysicists.
The disparity -- Antarctica warmed about 11 degrees Celsius, nearly 20 degrees Fahrenheit, between about 20,000 and 10,000 years ago, while the average temperature worldwide rose only about 4 degrees Celsius, or 7 degrees Fahrenheit -- highlights the fact that the poles, both the Arctic in the north and the Antarctic in the south, amplify the effects of a changing climate, whether it gets warmer or cooler.
.........
It’s been going on for 20000 years.
You are either being obtuse, or you genuinely do not understand that the spike in recent years is a statically anomaly.
Mans understanding of science is limited, therefore man made climate change cant be proven or disproven. This is not due to science, but our understanding of it.
However, the changes to the icecaps and ozone layer are facts. Both are radical changes, and if they continue it will be catastrophic for all life on earth.
We are in a warming period after the ice age. Every major trend ....glaciers receding, temperatures modestly increasing, sea levels rising ....was in place before any significant effects fro m the industrial revolution.
No doubt the very modest increases in the greenhouse effect caused by man have increased temperatures. But how much? Satellite data shows much less warming than land based thermometers....heat island effect? And to assume that there is zero underlying natural increase when it’s been a trend for 20000 years is BS.
So we have a 1.2 degree increase in 150 years. Which might be more like a 0.7 degree increase if we had satellite data for the period. And then we need to subtract about 0.4 degrees of natural increase if we extrapolate the trend from 1600.
So perhaps the man made effect is about 0.3 degrees. A bit speculative for sure, but no more speculative than the nutty ideas out there, like reversing the Gulf Stream with climate change.
What’s less speculative is we should already be experiencing many more effects if you look at the speculation 20 years ago by opportunists like Al Gore.
So Shark what % has man made emissions added to the greenhouse effect? Do you know?
@mozart
Did you actually check for yourself what the peer reviewed research actually said or did you just copy that from C3headlines?
Here's are a few quotes from the paper itself.
"The Arctic has experienced a rapid warming during the past decades (Huang et al., 2017). Along with such fast-increasing near surface air temperature (SAT), the Arctic climate has undergone tremendous changes, such as Arctic wetting, reduction of Arctic sea ice thickness and coverage, decrease of snow cover extent and duration, melting of Greenland ice sheet as well as thawing of permafrost (IPCC, 2013; Broeke et al., 2016; Chadburn et al., 2017; Box et al., 2019). These changes also have thrown impacts on the local ecosystem and the climate outside of the Arctic (Greene et al., 2008; Mori et al., 2019)."
"The Arctic warming over the past century has been attributed to anthropogenic influence (Gillett et al., 2008; Najafi et al., 2015). With the increase of the human emissions, anthropogenic influence will continue playing a leading role in the future Arctic climate. Therefore, quantitatively examining the contribution of human influence in the past Arctic warming will increase our understanding of the representation of the amplified Arctic warming in climate models and improve our predictions of future climate change."
"From Figure 2a, it is very clear that the anthropogenic forcings almost dictate ST of the Arctic SAT during the past century, while the natural forcing has little contribution."
Gee wheez...sounds awfully like the researchers behind this paper are actually proponents of man made climate change and once again the internet armchair climate skeptics didn't bother to actually read it, just the headlines from their favorite skeptic blogs.
As for the modelling what this study actually is about, is researchers coming up a new method to tackle a known difficulty in modeling the system.
This is a fairly common occurrence, and generally the more researchers have time to dig into it and
try to independently validate it, what invariable happens is they find out the results turn out to
be pretty close to the original results (in this case the CMIP5 model). As per usual climate skeptics will jump on any new research that indicates differences from climate models predicting warming, but will never go back at a later stage to see if the authors behind this new research have refined their methodology after peer review and updated their results.