Failed Predictions from the man made Global Warming Community

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by MichaelJoeWilliamson, Aug 28, 2013.

  1. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    Not as authoritative (to some) as The Daily Mail, but from the National Snow and Ice Data Center:

    "Sea ice extent for August 2013 averaged 6.09 million square kilometers (2.35 million square miles). This was 1.03 million square kilometers (398,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average for August, but well above the level recorded last year, which was the lowest September extent in the satellite record. Ice extent this August was similar to the years 2008 to 2010. These contrasts in ice extent from one year to the next highlight the year-to-year variability attending the overall, long-term decline in sea ice extent..."​

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
  2. wargunfan
    Offline

    wargunfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
    Messages:
    4,567
    Likes Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Inside your head.
    Ratings Received:
    +189
    New EPA Data Show Futility Of U.S. Carbon Dioxide Restrictions
    Global carbon dioxide emissions may be rapidly rising, but the U.S. is not to blame, according to newly released data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

    U.S. carbon dioxide emissions declined 6% in 2009, and are now 8% below 2000 levels, the EPA reports. Global emissions, by contrast, have risen more than 25% since 2000.

    A closer look at global emissions trends shows how futile it would be for the U.S. to impose economically punitive self-restrictions on carbon dioxide.

    Underdeveloped nations, which are not required to make emissions cuts under the Kyoto Protocol, accounted for virtually all of the global increase in carbon dioxide emissions since 2000. China, which is one of the nations exempt from Kyoto Protocol emissions cuts, accounted for roughly half the global increase.

    In 2005 China was the second-largest emitter of carbon dioxide, trailing slightly behind the U.S. By 2009, however, China had left the U.S. far behind, accounting for 24% of global emissions, vs. just 17% for the U.S. When 2010 numbers are released it is a virtual certainty the gap will widen further. Most likely China in 2010 accounted for approximately 26% of global emissions, with the U.S. accounting for roughly 15%.

    China has not only surpassed the U.S. in terms of emissions, but in 2010 likely surpassed the emissions of the entire Western Hemisphere. Moreover, Chinese emissions have been rising by nearly 10% per year.

    This means that even if the U.S. and the entire Western Hemisphere immediately and completely eliminated all carbon dioxide emissions, the growth in Chinese emissions alone would likely render this action moot within a decade. China, moreover, has made it very clear it will not agree to carbon dioxide restrictions regardless of whether or not the U.S. and other nations restrict their own emissions.
    http://www.forbes.com/2011/02/23/ch...sions-opinions-contributors-james-taylor.html
    • Like Like x 1
  3. dadx4
    Online

    dadx4 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    28,346
    Likes Received:
    391
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Greenville SC
    Ratings Received:
    +780
    I always wondered why these global warming people never explained why the poles of other planets are receding as well. Mars being the closest. I call it the sun but they will probably try to tell us that the pollution from cows and suv's is leaving the Earth and hitting Mars as well.
  4. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,743
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +569
    Would it really matter if they did, dad? Would such an explanation stand any chance of changing your mind about anything? Just in case, here is the explanation that you are looking for.
  5. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,743
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +569
    Legitimate point. The other side of the uncertainty coin is something that I haven't really focused on. Maybe nothing costly will happen at one tail end, but if we want to talk tails, why not also consider the other tail?
  6. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,555
    Likes Received:
    2,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,274
    We need to send Al Gore to China and vehemently protest China's Carbon emissions.

    With any luck he'll be imprisoned for life.
  7. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,743
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +569
    I've been working my way up to this one, MJW.

    This psychological pattern is well documented. And the type of 'discounting' that I am talking about is one that you wouldn't know if you were doing it. And I am not saying that I know that you are, but I do know that the pattern is for "individualists" to give lower credence to conclusions that indicate a communal problem than the opposite conclusion...even when the data for both is the same. On the other hand, "communitarians" display the opposite pattern of reasoning. This type of confirmation bias is well represented in the literature.

    I know that the article that Fox brought here that estimated a lower climate sensitivity showed the total heat budget models were so far very accurate, and the right-leaning posters seemed to accept this article. A couple more articles identify the same pattern of continued total Earth warming over the last 15 years (here, here, and the recent ocean paper).

    I still disagree even with these. These are usually continuous variables that you are forcing to be categorical. People on the sports boards do the same thing with wins and losses, but for predictive purposes winning/losing is just an arbitrary demarcation along a spectrum of relative scoring. Hurricanes and ice (and all other factors) are going to go up and down. This is the noise. What we want to separate the signal from the noise, and I think this is very difficult for most of us.

    Possibly, but I'm still stuck on this total heat budget issue. If we end up with oscillatory bounces, like Oak is describing, I don't think the bounce extremes end up being all that important. I'm sure we love to be able to model them too, but the long-term trends are the important ones for biology and infrastructure.

    I'm confused by this critique, because I'm even sure how you could do one without the other. What I mean is that you said this to the climate scientist, there is no way that he/she would say, "Well natural variation is unknown and unimportant". All the climate models have factors other than humans in them, right?

    This may end up being surprising, but I am a bit of skeptic on the benefits of energy independence. I think many factors should go into our choices for energy source, but as a free trade advocate, I am really not sure that country of origin is one of them. If the free market ends up pushing us away from carbon, even without any help from green motivations, then great. The politicians can leave the climate debate to the scientists. But if it doesn't, I think it is appropriate to attempt to assess the external costs of carbon, even if we know that we can't do it perfectly.

    It is my understanding that biological ecosystem damage isn't even a factor in these assessments, because no one knows how to price their inherent value. I'd rather save millions of people than the Everglades, but the value of the Everglades cannot be zero.

    I am unfortunately very unfamiliar with Europe's attempts at carbon taxes. Carbon trading seems doomed to special interest corruption, but taxes might not be so. We know that basic economics tells us that when something costs more, people will consume less of it. Currently, we are taxing income, meaning that we are likely dissuading people making money, which doesn't seem right. Why not switch this burden over to things like carbon? Worst case scenario, all we do is help marine ecosystems and encourage people getting jobs. Best case, we help most every ecosystem.
  8. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    Row's definition of "cherry pick" is to ignore the scientists that INSISTED the Arctic would be free of ice in the summer of 2013.
  9. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    Who are they? Got a reputable link?
  10. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    Row needs to learn to read

  11. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    I'll give you a second chance since you couldn't perform on the first:

    1 Where's the link?
    2 Where's the part where "scientists" - I assume you mean more than one and presumably some sort of consensus - "insisted that the arctic would be free of ice" by 2013?

    You made those claims in post #48 above, in case you've forgotten already.
  12. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    I gave you two names. Stop being lazy and look them up.
    • Like Like x 1
  13. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    Whatever. This sounds like an attempt to derail the discussion into "your kind tends to distrust science and my side does not." Those kinds of social studies are notoriously unreliable. And it is silly to use them in this kind of debate, except as an attempt to expunge the intelligence/character of the opposing side.


    Heat budget models have to assume the heat/energy goes somewhere. And in a universal aspect, it does. Earth's climate is not a closed system though.


    If scientists say this particular thing will happen by this particular time, then we get to measure if they are accurate.

    They have not been accurate

    Same with sports betting. You are right on a particular prediction or you are wrong.


    This is an academic point of view. Until we understand what caused the overall trend among the decadel or even multi-decadel oscillations, then we really are not able to understand how mankind can impact that trend

    Indeed. And absent CO2 being forced into the atmosphere, that is ALL climate scientists would be studying

    I agree. But the time to make policy that we know WILL cost people is when the "cost" to the environment is better well understood.
  14. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
  15. neisgator
    Offline

    neisgator Belligerent Gator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    10,618
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Quincy IL
    Ratings Received:
    +106
    Martian farts have a TON of methane.
  16. wargunfan
    Offline

    wargunfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
    Messages:
    4,567
    Likes Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Inside your head.
    Ratings Received:
    +189
    Not nearly as much as Venusian cows. Look it up.
  17. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,743
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +569
    Again, confirmation bias is ever present, on both sides. If one don't believe this, he is virtually certain to be over-confident in his views. And these aren't just some "notoriously unreliable" studies. There is a mountain of randomized control studies. With your interest in the philosophy of science, I am very surprised that you don't recognize this limitation. I mean, neis and the ardent right comes here to proclaim the whole science as fake. Fred and the ardent left comes here to speak of deniers. And you don't think bias has anything to do with this?

    The links that I provided suggest that the totality of Earth has not stopped or even slowed in its warming.

    Well, I still think this is too simplistic an analysis. If I say that there is a 60% chance that Florida beats Miami, and they lose in their one contest, was I "wrong"? To me, that categorization fails to understand the problem.

    How do we know when we understand the trend? That's the epistemic quandary that surrounds this type of non-experimental data.

    We can always understand the costs better. In fact, the only way to understand them fully, is to wait until we incur them. The solutions will always be imperfect. I am not saying that I think we need to take extremely costly measures tonight, but there will always be somebody wanting to better understand the cost, no matter how long we wait.
  18. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    Row needs to learn to read

    • Like Like x 1
  19. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    Let;s revisit a few more predictions and the behavior of the IPCC, via Donna Laframboise.

    I always love to bring this up. It is definitely an on/off prediction.

    And this one should give everyone pause that reads anything from the IPCC

    More here


    http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/09/laframboises-new-book-on-the-ipcc/#more-12909
  20. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497

Share This Page