Global Cooling is here

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by vangator1, Aug 21, 2013.

  1. GatorRade
    Online

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,950
    Likes Received:
    236
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +765
    Well, taking historical trends and extrapolating forward does work a lot of the time. The sun will probably rise tomorrow. But will and SEC team win the football national title? I'm not as convinced.

    I think that there also may be a time scale confusion in these predictions. These cycles are probably in the range of tens of thousands of years whereas CO2 forcing might have an impact in 20-30 years.
  2. GatorRade
    Online

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,950
    Likes Received:
    236
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +765
    It will be interesting to see if this happens and how scientists describe it.

    Meanwhile, a new study just came out implicating the Pacific Ocean in the slowdown:

    http://www.nature.com/news/tropical-ocean-key-to-global-warming-hiatus-1.13620
  3. wygator
    Offline

    wygator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    6,458
    Likes Received:
    290
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +946
    So if a La Nina can overcome the startling increases in CO2, how much do El Nino's contribute to warming in recent decades? Then there are the Atlantic decadal oscillations to consider. Nonetheless, we're told that man is responsible for practically all of the increase?

    In the meantime, we have the slowest start ever to a hurricane season. No hurricanes at all and it's nearly Sept.

  4. OaktownGator
    Offline

    OaktownGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    26,091
    Likes Received:
    2,358
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,616
    You'd have to look at the overall trend. If the next El Nino cycle pushes temperatures way up, and catches back up to AGW climate model projections, then their take on CO2 forcing would be vindicated... they'd just have to adjust models to account for these cycles, and be less straight line in warming predictions.
  5. GatorRade
    Online

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,950
    Likes Received:
    236
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +765
    Yeah, I have seen this argument, but I don't think that I really understand it. Where does the heat originate that is released by El Nino?

    I'm not sure how this relates, but I'm glad to see the trend. The Caribbean can use a break.
  6. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    One wonders how these "natural causes" fail to make it into the climate models. Here is what Dr Curry says about this new study

  7. GatorRade
    Online

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,950
    Likes Received:
    236
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +765
    Well my guess is that over longer periods of time, this variability isn't thought of as a cause. (see Oaktown's post just above) Rather the scientists see that this, as of yet non-predictable, oscillatory mechanism instead unequally (and unpredictably) distributes the heat over time. The model doesn't know what to do with this, so it is smooth. But the atmosphere is going to bounce up over the model's predictions (like 1998) and then fall back down (like now).

    Longer term variability is what I would be concerned with. If this is the short term variability that I am thinking it is (as a novice, I don't know), then like Oaktown implies, the models can still be useful even without incorporating the oscillatory peaks.
  8. wygator
    Offline

    wygator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    6,458
    Likes Received:
    290
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +946
    It relates because one of the key forecasts of the APGW alarmists was more powerful and more frequent hurricanes as temps increased. Instead, worldwide cyclonic energy has been average or below average in recent years.

    Remember, Al Gore featured the hurricane as one of the calamities to fear from global warming in his famous powerpoint presentation:

    [​IMG]
  9. GatorRade
    Online

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,950
    Likes Received:
    236
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +765
    I see. I'm not sure what makes a "key" forecast, but I do know that the idea that hurricanes will become more powerful was a hypothesis that was a result of warming, not as a cause of warming.

    It is sort of like saying that you think your wife will be mad about the new bowling ball that you bought. Then later, when she isn't mad, you assume that you must never have bought a bowling ball.
  10. wygator
    Offline

    wygator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    6,458
    Likes Received:
    290
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +946
    Wow...that's a deflective response.

    The hype about global warming isn't just that temps would increase, but also about all the horrible side effects it would supposedly cause. When we talk about failed predictions, we don't just talk about the temperature trend itself, but a variety of other climatological responses that are also derived from climate modeling.

    Among them are catastrophically rising sea levels, more rain in some areas, less in others, etc. And yes, more damaging hurricanes was among them.

    I call it "key" because it was one of the most popularized in the mass media (Inconvenient Truth image is further confirmation of that) and one of those of greatest concern because of the potential damage and disruption.

    That's the point...that not only is the temperature model failing, but most of their other forecasts as well.
  11. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

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

    The models are only marginally predictive and many of the dire consequences have not materialized.
  12. GatorRade
    Online

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,950
    Likes Received:
    236
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +765
    I disagree that it is "deflective", but I guess that's your opinion. You are pointing out Al Gore. MJW once pointed out that congresswoman thought that climate change was going to cause more women to be raped or something, and implication was that all of these people and predictions were one unit and discrediting anyone auto-implicated everyone else. This is simply not my line of reasoning. Al Gore doesn't have to do with anything, in my view. You may feel free to dismiss such reasoning as a 'deflection', but I personally will not accept that characterization.
  13. wygator
    Offline

    wygator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    6,458
    Likes Received:
    290
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +946
    Al Gore didn't create the hurricane calamity prediction. Maybe my post wasn't clear, but I wasn't suggesting that Al Gore was leading the science, just that he was popularizing the most dire forecasts. Judith Curry produced one of the best known of the increasing hurricane predictions.

    I called your response "deflective" because I felt you were intentionally ignoring what you knew to be true...that I was not suggesting that hurricanes were a global warming driver, but a global warming outcome. I consider you to be among the more intelligent and rational posters on the board. This response was, in my opinion, out of character for you.
  14. GatorRade
    Online

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,950
    Likes Received:
    236
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +765
    I understand the point that dire forecasts are usually the ones that grab the most attention (and I agree with it), but I hope that you can see my point that inaccuracy of hurricane models isn't evidence for inaccuracy of climate models. In fact, many climate scientists indicated at the time that the Al Gore image to which you were referring was a bad call, due to extreme hurricane variability.

    What I am picking up on is a tribal mentality, where the point is to discredit the "other side" as if there are simply two sides to this issue. MJW currently has a "failed climate predictions" thread. This thread is ostensibly intended to compile one type of data, failed predictions from scientists, in order to discredit that group. Clearly, now it is Row's job to build a "Failed skeptic predictions" thread to defend his tribe. That is lunacy.

    So when you respond, "Wow that's deflective" to my trying to explain that hurricane predictions should not be thought of as indicative of climate models, I am confused. It seems to me that (1) you do not understand my point and (2) you are trying to be insulting and/or defend your tribe. But in the end, I do not feel like I am in another tribe than you are. I hope that we are in the exact same situation: trying to find the truth. I don't want to deal with accusations of "deflective". Or any accusations of my consciousness (however, accusations of sub-conscious are always welcome :)).

    Since I am not a climate expert, I have a very simple model for my beliefs: Follow the broad agreement of experts, if one exists. That's it. I can pick apart some simpleton logic here and there (It warmed in the past so...), but on real high level issues, I don't feel like any of us are qualified to criticize. If I misunderstood you, I apologize, but I'm not used to the "wow deflective" comment. (Unless it is from someone like neis, in which case, that might be his most pleasant comment he's made to me)
  15. OaktownGator
    Offline

    OaktownGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    26,091
    Likes Received:
    2,358
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,616
    Rade - excellent point. Trying to find the truth should be where we are all on this issue, but it is easy to get into a "tribal mentality" as that is the primary mentality brought to the overwhelming majority of threads on this forum.
  16. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    I hate it when people misrepresent my views.

    In a thread long since pruned, you were the one that said it "gave you pause" when I presented presented a science article on global warming written by a scientist who was also a Christian. You strongly implied that is it inappropriate to use his scientific work in the discussion seemingly based on his religious beliefs. (As an aside, you later scolded OakTown for using the work from the same scientist in a different argument)

    You got you feelings hurt when I pointed pointed this kind of argument containes a lot of intellectual dishonesty. I further pointed out that if this was your stance, then why had YOU not repudiated the claims from this congresswoman?

    Just to set the record straight.
  17. GatorRade
    Online

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,950
    Likes Received:
    236
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +765
    Yeah the tribal mentality part of the board is easily my least favorite attribute, but it seems such a common trait among people, that I think we all have a hard time with it. I'd like to believe that the climate threads have potential to help us rise out of this way of thinking since this is a scientific question.
  18. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    My goodness. Prediction and measurements are the stuff of science. If measurements show that the predictions are wrong, the science is wrong.

    Pretty basic stuff.

    "It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

    --Richard Feynman
  19. GatorRade
    Online

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,950
    Likes Received:
    236
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +765
    It certainly is not my intention to misrepresent you, and I apologize if I missed your reasoning for bringing up the congresswoman. As I said at the time, she didn't post on the board - in fact, I had never even heard of her- so I'm not sure how I was supposed to be repudiating her.

    If you are serious about setting the record straight, I'll remind you that I repeatedly explained that my skepticism of Dr. Spencer had nothing to do with his religion in and of itself. Instead, his version of belief seems to pre-suppose a climate change conclusion, which has to be the number one on our list of reasons to disqualify a view. (And, I hope that Oaktown doesn't see me saying that "I am a little wary" of Dr. Spencer as a "scolding")

    Also, you seem to misunderstand my relationship to the board. You never hurt my feelings. Our relationship is intellectual, not emotional. The reason that I don't appreciate you accusing me of being consciously dishonest is that it is rude, disrespectful, and irresponsible. Do you ground your kids for talking back because they "hurt you feelings"? Of course not. But it is certainly an unacceptable level of discourse, and I had hoped that you had grown beyond that.
  20. GatorRade
    Online

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,950
    Likes Received:
    236
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +765
    I absolutely agree with Feynman and you...as long as the analysis is carried out with a random and consistent approach. What I worry about is publishing only criticisms that bolster your team's arguments. Science doesn't just attempt falsify; it must attempt to falsify in an unbiased manner. This is also pretty basic stuff.

Share This Page