The Truth, Still Inconvenient

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Diemen

Seeing as the original BBC prediction was made 6 years ago, I'm not really all that shocked that it wasn't correct. The daily mail article does have an odd kind of gotcha-journalism "ha! look who got it wrong!" style rather than just reporting it straight, though.

the Daily Mail:

The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.

and here's the actual article the DM is trying to "refute":

Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.

Their latest modeling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.

so the distortion is entirely on the part of the DM.

plus the application of Drudge rules for headline (in the requisite colossal font, and written directly to imply some sort of dissent within what is a clear, established consensus when there is none):

And now it's global COOLING! Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year

[digitize]

From what I understand, the latest models indicate that the coming decade or so will be one of natural cooling, countered relatively evenly by climate change. The two effects will result in largely flat temperatures globally, as has been the case over the past few years. What is scary is what will happen after that.

[digitize]

Here's a much more sane article: Arctic sea ice rebounds, but don't jump to 'global cooling' conclusions - CSMonitor.com

[Diemen]

Following up on Irvine's counterpoint:

With Climate Journalism Like This, Who Needs Fiction? - ImaGeo | DiscoverMagazine.com

[U2NativeSon]

Originally Posted by digitize

From what I understand, the latest models indicate that the coming decade or so will be one of natural cooling, countered relatively evenly by climate change. The two effects will result in largely flat temperatures globally, as has been the case over the past few years. What is scary is what will happen after that.

I am sure we do damage to our environment but recent images of the sun indicate that the sun is actually cooling down, one recent image was very alarming as about 1/3 of the sun was shown to have a large cooling spot.

Global warming is mostly due to the activity of the sun, so Earth would not be the only planet warming, but I see it as solar cycles, and am sure the Earth will begin cooling and much of the polar regions will see a return of ice.

Said as an observer, not a scientist or politician. I choose to believe the Earth and our solar system are under control and that as humans we have only a small effect on the Earth.

[Irvine511]

there may well be many things beyond our control when it comes to the climate of the earth.

however, the amount of greenhouse gas and pollutants we pump into the atmosphere isn't beyond our control. regardless of the impossibility of knowing the exact, precise effect of CO2 gas -- which seems to be what the denialists demand -- we do know that not only is this stuff not good for the earth, it isn't good for us either. therefore, we should do what we can to reduce our impact on the planet. it's surely impossible to entirely stop pollution, but there are many things we can do to reduce our impact.

it's utterly beyond me why anyone would be opposed, unless you're a fossil fuel company. the idea that green science is some sort of socialist wealth redistributionist plan is a few steps into Loose Change tin foil asshattery.

[U2NativeSon]

Agreed, not against the reduction of the toxins we create, definitely bad for us and the environment, just suggesting that the temperatures we have seen, that seem to be record highs or lows can be attributed to solar activity as well.

Earth goes through cycles, and I think some of what we have seen over the past 10-12 years are because the sun was in a high activity cycle as well, now it could be in a cooling phase for the next 10-12 years, instead of flooding and hurricanes from excess water, we are likely to see more blizzards and colder temperatures during winter months.

But, yes, we still need to find options for cleaner energy.



Interesting reading :


http://rt.com/news/solar-activity-cycle-maximum-114/

[nbcrusader]

To the extent policy is created based on scientific predictions, we are going to end up with a lot of bad policy.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

To the extent policy is created based on scientific predictions, we are going to end up with a lot of bad policy.

So you'd prefer policy based on willy nilly whims rather than science?

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

So you'd prefer policy based on willy nilly whims rather than science?

Or is it public policy masquerading as science to create another layer of bureaucracy and taxation?

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

Or is it public policy masquerading as science to create another layer of bureaucracy and taxation?

No, it's not. Do you really think 95% of climate scientists are in cahoots with the government?

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

No, it's not. Do you really think 95% of climate scientists are in cahoots with the government?

Well the scientists get funded by the government and the U.N. policy alternatives at the front of the report usually takes the most alarmists claims. Government workers would benefit from the increased tax revenue and scientists would get more funding. Do you think that scientists (human beings) are not susceptible to politics and the reward punishment that exists in whether you get funding or not? You obviously haven't read any of the Climategates and probably don't want to. I would agree with you if the funding was 50/50 for skeptics and believers. It's not.

Diemen's repeated assertions that it doesn't matter if predictions don't match reality should be a warning bell. When results don't match a thesis it's time to revise the thesis or you are not a scientist. I don't know what a person would be at this point. Maybe an indirect U.N. employee or just toeing the line for a political spectrum a person likes. People don't have to be in a cabal or secret society to follow self-interest, despite what BVS keeps thinking will settle the issue.

The U.N.'s prescription (supposedly based on scientists) is to tax 70 trillion over 40 years to develop green energy. The U.S. (including most western countries) has enough debt to deal with so taxpayers should flip the U.N. the bird and clean their own financial messes.

This debate keeps popping up precisely because the reality isn't matching the computer models and when that happens it's healthy for some skepticism to arise. Just because people project authority doesn't mean they are right. It's actually possible for scientists to be as morally corrupt by short-term self-interest as any religious leader that disappoints. Science has had past disappointments before so it's nothing new.

What will settle the issue and the only thing that will is good predictions that match reality again and again. True science has always been this way and always will be. The projections have been wrong all the time going back to Hansen's 1988 projection that New York would be under water by the year 2000. We are even beating the 2 degree increase in world temperatures limit agreement and we haven't even lowered CO2 and it's approaching 400ppm.

I believe CO2 warms, but the planet doesn't appear to be as sensitive to the increased CO2. When we had 20 times the CO2 it didn't destroy the planet. We should look for new sources of energy because fossil fuels aren't unlimited but we have much more time to do this than all these scare scenarios of "there's only 10 years left before it's too late". They are trying to use fear and emotion to get taxpayers to part with their money that they wouldn't otherwise do in a lucid state of mind. If doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere only adds a degreee of warming most people wouldn't give a shit and there would actually be some benefits to food production by the CO2 and increased temperatures in remote areas.

The Climate Science Capitulation Begins…Hans von Storch: “We Definitely Have Seen Less Warming Than Expected”

On whether global warming has stopped, Hans von Storch says: “No. We don’t expect that. But it is indeed true that we have seen a considerably reduced warming trend compared to what our climate model scenarios showed over the last 15 years. [...] We definitely have seen less warming than we expected.”

On what the cause could be, von Storch says many candidates are possible, and it points to climate variability, which would be natural fluctuations, which is what skeptics have been saying from Day 1. He also says that perhaps the climate sensitivity of CO2 was perhaps “a bit over-estimated“. Hans von Storch even mentions the S-word, claiming that it could have something to do with the sun.

On whether or not it could be the oceans eating up the heat, von Storch says that it’s possible, and that “what is obvious here is that our climate models didn’t anticipate this“.

On if models can still be trusted? von Storch obstinately insists:

Yes, completely. [...]. It could be that the climate models are completely okay and that nothing bad can be said about them. But we haven’t put all the ingredients which we believe are important for the future into them.” [Garbage in -> Garbage out?] My emphasis

The best thing to do is keep the powder dry and don't light the fuse until we have better science.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

Diemen's repeated assertions that it doesn't matter if predictions don't match reality should be a warning bell.

1) Repeated? I made one comment that it wouldn't be surprising if a prediction was inaccurate - that in no way is the same as saying it doesn't matter if predictions don't match reality. I have no idea where you're getting this "repeated assertions" thing from.

2)Apparently you missed the follow up, which showed me to be a bit hasty to take the Daily Mail article at it's word:

With Climate Journalism Like This, Who Needs Fiction? - ImaGeo | DiscoverMagazine.com

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by Diemen

1) Repeated? I made one comment that it wouldn't be surprising if a prediction was inaccurate - that in no way is the same as saying it doesn't matter if predictions don't match reality. I have no idea where you're getting this "repeated assertions" thing from.

You mentioned the same thing before when I brought up the James Hansen failed prediction of New York being underwater in the year 2000. When predictions fail it's time to look at the thesis. The predictions are continued warming and eventually accelerated warming. All the hot predictions are wrong. Only the slightly warmer to slightly cooler predictions (done by skeptics who are supposed to be outliers) were correct.

Originally Posted by Diemen

2)Apparently you missed the follow up, which showed me to be a bit hasty to take the Daily Mail article at it's word:

With Climate Journalism Like This, Who Needs Fiction? - ImaGeo | DiscoverMagazine.com

That article doesn't solve anything because AGW proponents cherry pick data (especially the satellite start date which started in a natural cool period) in order to make the current temperatures exaggeratedly high and don't get me started on eliminating the medieval warm period with cherry picked tree data in order to again make the current temperatures appear to be industry's fault. It's fun to see people talk about journalistic malpractice but the AGW lobby groups have been doing this for decades. What was the arctic ice like in the 1930's? Can we know what it was like during the medieval warm period? The entire argument on the AGW side is perception which affects how people feel which is really the point. Al Gore wants you to FEEL like it's bad because for some people concepts trump observation which should never happen, which is what the German article I posted pointed out about climate models. More observation is needed to make the models predict better. In other words we actually have to understand climate better than we do now.

I would love to see AGW lobbies stop lying and return to actual science and realistic predictions. Unfortunately that would mean no fear and alarmism which would derail cap and trade schemes for revenue generation which is what it's all about.

It's not just one year up or down. It should have been far more warm now than it is. Next year and the year after would have to be exceedingly warmer to catch up to those predictions. I'm not even talking about the higher temperature predictions that would have us at 6 degree increase in 100 years which would require much higher temperatures now.

Then there's the predictable lamentation of people that the "cool period will offset the temperatures but wait until the warm period returns then it will be really bad!" We need to know if excessive warm temperatures are our fault as well. Nature can dole out high temperatures on her own regardless of what we do. That's why understanding cosmic rays and the sun's effect plus the sun's effect on oceans is also important instead of blaming CO2 for most of it.

[AEON]

In about 15-20 years, solar power will be so cheap and ubiquitous we won't need to worry about 99% of this...the biggest issue will become cleanup (prevention will be in place).

[AEON]

Could Kurzweil be right about solar, the Google of energy?

"We also see an exponential progression in the use of solar energy," he has predicted. "It is doubling now every two years. Doubling every two years means multiplying by 1,000 in 20 years. At that rate we'll meet 100% of our energy needs in 20 years."

[nbcrusader]

If the US conducted a quest for fusion power in the same fashion as the quest to put a man on the moon, we'd have a true long term solution to our energy & environmental concerns.

[the iron horse]

Global warming is just HALF what we said: World's top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong | Mail Online

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

Global warming is just HALF what we said: World's top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong | Mail Online

Again, the Daily Mail is a tabloid. Are the climate change deniers really going to rely on a tabloid that mostly reports on celebrities to prove their point? I think you all can do a lot better than that.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by AEON

Could Kurzweil be right about solar, the Google of energy?

"We also see an exponential progression in the use of solar energy," he has predicted. "It is doubling now every two years. Doubling every two years means multiplying by 1,000 in 20 years. At that rate we'll meet 100% of our energy needs in 20 years."

It's amazing that we've yet to efficiently harness the power of the thing that literally supplies nearly the entire planet with its raw energy