Mini Ice Age coming?

[kbace6]

According to Solar Weather Scientists we are headed for likely a mini ice age in the next 15 years. It seems they are predicting solar weather at a rate of 97% these days based on solar cycles and sunspot totals. And it's using these computer models that are predicting a "Maunder Minimum" starting between 2020 & 2030. The last time we had a Maunder Minimum was the "Little Ice Age" at the end of the 1600's to early 1700's. I guess I'm moving to TV just in time. This certainly explains the fluctuating weather extremes we have seen lately.

The term "Mini" or "Little Ice Age" is a bit deceiving in that it is not expected that the extreme hemispheres will be covered in mile thick ice but rather extended & extreme winters, not unlike the last 2 winters in a row. 1 for the Upper Midwest and just this past year for the Northeast.

I'm not trying to stir up any vitriol, but for those who feel that man's actions have altered the weather, please try to be open to the concept that the most powerful thing in our solar system may be a large contributing factor to our weather fluctuations and man's contributions are likely a secondary factor.

Is a mini ICE AGE on the way? Scientists warn the sun will 'go to sleep' in 2020 | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html)[/URL]

[Chi-Town]

According to Solar Weather Scientists we are headed for likely a mini ice age in the next 15 years. It seems they are predicting solar weather at a rate of 97% these days based on solar cycles and sunspot totals. And it's using these computer models that are predicting a "Maunder Minimum" starting between 2020 & 2030. The last time we had a Maunder Minimum was the "Little Ice Age" at the end of the 1600's to early 1700's. I guess I'm moving to TV just in time. This certainly explains the fluctuating weather extremes we have seen lately.

The term "Mini" or "Little Ice Age" is a bit deceiving in that it is not expected that the extreme hemispheres will be covered in mile thick ice but rather extended & extreme winters, not unlike the last 2 winters in a row. 1 for the Upper Midwest and just this past year for the Northeast.

I'm not trying to stir up any vitriol, but for those who feel that man's actions have altered the weather, please try to be open to the concept that the most powerful thing in our solar system may be a large contributing factor to our weather fluctuations and man's contributions are likely a secondary factor.

Is a mini ICE AGE on the way? Scientists warn the sun will 'go to sleep' in 2020 | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html)[/URL]
Isn't the Daily Mail a British tabloid?

53161

[kbace6]

Isn't the Daily Mail a British tabloid?

53161

It probably is. But according to Tommy Lee Jones in the movie "Men in Black" it's some of the best investigative journalism on the planet. :1rotfl:

I looked at it as the reporting of Solar Weather Scientists (a relatively new area of science) and actual observations of the sun's weather. Did you read the article? Or did you just dismiss it due to some disagreement of beliefs? I do my best to stay open to many different points of view. Only actual facts can prove or disprove ones beliefs. And actual experiments should be able to be duplicated by others without manipulation and still get the same results.

I have heard this theory before, but this is the first time I have seen the Maunder Minimum mentioned.

[villagetinker]

Next week (month) there will be another study refuting the first study, which will be followed by numerous other studies, each refuting or confirming a prior study. I will wait for the history book.:pepper2::pepper2::pepper2:

[Chi-Town]

It probably is. But according to Tommy Lee Jones in the movie "Men in Black" it's some of the best investigative journalism on the planet. :1rotfl:

I looked at it as the reporting of Solar Weather Scientists (a relatively new area of science) and actual observations of the sun's weather. Did you read the article? Or did you just dismiss it due to some disagreement of beliefs? I do my best to stay open to many different points of view. Only actual facts can prove or disprove ones beliefs. And actual experiments should be able to be duplicated by others without manipulation and still get the same results.

I have heard this theory before, but this is the first time I have seen the Maunder Minimum mentioned.
You must have a field day at a supermarket checkout counter. [emoji6]

[kbace6]

You must have a field day at a supermarket checkout counter. [emoji6]

Good one. :highfive:

[biker1]

I remember reading about this when I was an undergraduate in the early 70's. The Maunder Minimum coincided with part of the little ice age (1500-mid 1800s). Whether the low in the sunspot activity was the cause is not known with any certainty, if I recall correctly. Current theories of man's impact on climate trends also have uncertainties as those theories are based on modeling results. Climate is complicated.

You must have a field day at a supermarket checkout counter. [emoji6]

[Chi-Town]

I remember reading about this when I was an undergraduate in the early 70's. The Maunder Minimum coincided with part of the little ice age (1500-mid 1800s). Whether the low in the sunspot activity was the cause is not known with any certainty, if I recall correctly. Current theories of man's impact on climate trends also have uncertainties as those theories are based on modeling results. Climate is complicated.
I can hardly remember anything as an undergraduate in the early 70's (the late 60's probably didn't help any). But you've piqued my interest and will have to check it out. Thanks.

[rubicon]

I just wish the weather guys could get today's forecast right:D

[Navy (SSBN 633)]

sorry not drinking the kool aid

[biker1]

One of my meteorology professors had some material he had us read. He had an interest in sun-climate connections. The low in the sunspot activity may have played a roll. The real question for these sorts of thing is always "how much".

I can hardly remember anything as an undergraduate in the early 70's (the late 60's probably didn't help any). But you've piqued my interest and will have to check it out. Thanks.

[biker1]

There are two issues. What are you trying to forecast and how do you define the truth. Defining what is "right" is a difficult task all by itself. It's not binary.

I just wish the weather guys could get today's forecast right:D

[billethkid]

No differentthan the cheif meteorologists attempting to predict how many hurricanes there will be each year.

Knowing what the sun did is a major task unto itself. Imagine the data/info kept over the last thousand years!

I would categorize predicting what the sun will do to be about as productive as predicting who will win the lottery.

[outlaw]

Global Climate Change is settled theology.

[biker1]

I have no idea what that means and I am pretty sure you don't either.

Global Climate Change is settled theology.

[gomoho]

I have no idea what that means and I am pretty sure you don't either.

Thank you.

[tuccillo]

Seasonal hurricane predictions are in the same category as seasonal temperature and precipitation forecasts: there is skill as demonstrated by statistical analysis. I don't personally have experience with solar activity predictions but I would expect that there is also some demonstrated skill. Unless you are involved in that particular science your comparison to lottery predictions is pretty worthless. Sorry to be so blunt but it is what it is.

No differentthan the cheif meteorologists attempting to predict how many hurricanes there will be each year.

Knowing what the sun did is a major task unto itself. Imagine the data/info kept over the last thousand years!

I would categorize predicting what the sun will do to be about as productive as predicting who will win the lottery.

[Carl in Tampa]

Well, in spite of the cute responses, the Maunder effect (related to sunspot cycles) is well documented (and undisputed) science.

Shortwave radio operators are very familiar with sunspot cycles because they affect shortwave communications.

The sunspot cycle is generally known to be a cycle of approximately 11 years between successive peaks in sunspot activity. What is less known and understood is that with each successive 11 year peak, the magnetic field of the sunspots is reversed. So the sunspot cycle is in reality a 22 year cycle when the magnetic fields of the sunspots are taken into account.
On January 4th 2008, the first recent "reverse polarity" sunspot was recorded. This officially marked the start of sunspot cycle 24. (Incidentally, the magnetic poles of the Earth also reverse, but it happens over a period of eons.)

The subject is much too complex for a discussion here. By the way, sunspots are (relatively) COLD areas of the sun. Having large COLD areas on the sun could arguably affect the climate on Earth. Where did the term "Maunder" come from on the subject of sunspots? Edward Maunder was an astronomer and pioneer in the study of sunspots. His study identified the Maunder Minimum which coincided with the "Little Ice Age."

:read:

NASA/Marshall Solar Physics (http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml)


.

[jimmemac]

I hope I live ling enough to see is so that I am even happier that I moved here rather than stay up north.

[outlaw]

I have no idea what that means and I am pretty sure you don't either.
Man Made Global Climate Warming/Change/Disruption is anything but science. It is more of a cult or political movement requiring virtual religious faith to continue to believe this nonsense after the exposure of the climategate emails, the debunked hockey stick analysis using manipulated data, and the complete failure of every computer model prediction. But, that's just my opinion.

[blueash]

Global cooling: No, were not headed for a mini–ice age. (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/07/14/global_cooling_no_were_not_headed_for_a_mini_ice_a ge.html)

[Chi-Town]

Man Made Global Climate Warming/Change/Disruption is anything but science. It is more of a cult or political movement requiring virtual religious faith to continue to believe this nonsense after the exposure of the climategate emails, the debunked hockey stick analysis using manipulated data, and the complete failure of every computer model prediction. But, that's just my opinion.
I was wondering how long it would take for the climate denier posts.

[Polar Bear]

I was wondering how long it would take for the climate denier posts.
What the heck is a "climate denier"?

[tuccillo]

The real issue is that nobody really knows the size of the anthropogenic perturbation on the natural climate drift. Estimates are based on computer models and certain aspects of the physics are not well understood and therefore not easily incorporated into a computer model. This is particularly true with the modelling of cloud-radiation interactions. There is an enormous amount of science involved in the modelling-based investigations. I view it as a continued research effort that is not ready for use in setting public policy. You are correct in suggesting that there is some politics involved, particularly with the IPCC.

Does burning of fossil fuels impact our climate drift? Almost certainly. How much? That is the real question. Should we burn less fossil fuels? Probably. Will driving a Prius save the world? Probably not

Full disclosure: I wrote computer models for NASA and the National Weather Service.






Man Made Global Climate Warming/Change/Disruption is anything but science. It is more of a cult or political movement requiring virtual religious faith to continue to believe this nonsense after the exposure of the climategate emails, the debunked hockey stick analysis using manipulated data, and the complete failure of every computer model prediction. But, that's just my opinion.

[tuccillo]

I am not aware of anyone who denies that there is climate.

I was wondering how long it would take for the climate denier posts.

[Polar Bear]

...Does burning of fossil fuels impact our climate drift? Almost certainly. How much? That is the real question. Should we burn less fossil fuels? Probably. Will driving a Prius save the world? Probably not

Full disclosure: I wrote computer models for NASA and the National Weather Service.
tuccillo used words in his full post that I can barely pronounce let alone understand. But IMHO his summary is spot-on.

Full disclosure: I built airplane models and love to play in the weather. :)

[Justus]

Global Climate Change is settled theology.

:BigApplause:

Those who don't believe that man-made global climate change is a religion, should at least read the recent speech and writings of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever, saying this theory is "All wrong!"

NASA, along with NOAH, have been recently caught manipulating and manufacturing data on the subject, in order to maintain their funding. Unlike NASA and NOAH, Dr. Giaever has no financial interest in misrepresenting the facts.

[tuccillo]

It is actually NOAA, not NOAH. NOAH built the Ark, but I digress.

Yes, some of the surface observations are "cooked" a bit to try to account for urbanization and perhaps changes in instruments/location. Surface observations are not the most reliable data if you have to "cook" it. I wonder about whether the amount of "cooking" is of the same magnitude as the warming signal that is being looked for.

One of the "problems" with the way science is funded is that research proposals are peer reviewed. In other words, they are reviewed by people doing the same research as you. Papers are also peer reviewed for publication.


:BigApplause:

Those who don't believe that man-made global climate change is a religion, should at least read the recent speech and writings of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever, saying this theory is "All wrong!"

NASA, along with NOAH, have been recently caught manipulating and manufacturing data on the subject, in order to maintain their funding. Unlike NASA and NOAH, Dr. Giaever has no financial interest in misrepresenting the facts.

[outlaw]

My understanding: The warmists' theory/models/predictions are based on a positive feedback with water vapor. As the CO2 increases, warming the atmosphere by re-radiating the heat "bouncing" off of earth, water vapor (BIG green house gas) increases resulting in even more radiating of heat. Without this water vapor positive feedback, the catastrophic predictions don't exist. Counter arguments say that CO2 released into the air actually reaches a saturation point in which there is less and less radiative effect (nonlinear). So, while initial CO2 levels may contribute to warming, more and more input has less and less of an effect on temperatures. One thing most scientists agree on is that much higher levels of CO2 in our air promotes plant growth. Russian, Chinese and Polish leaders are laughing at the West. I believe the AGW scare mongering will go down in history as possibly the biggest fraud ever on the world's people.

[Justus]

It is actually NOAA, not NOAH. NOAH built the Ark, but I digress.

Yes, some of the surface observations are "cooked" a bit to try to account for urbanization and perhaps changes in instruments/location. Surface observations are not the most reliable data if you have to "cook" it. I wonder about whether the amount of "cooking" is of the same magnitude as the warming signal that is being looked for.

One of the "problems" with the way science is funded is that research proposals are peer reviewed. In other words, they are reviewed by people doing the same research as you. Papers are also peer reviewed for publication.

Sorry about the NOAH...had religion on my mind when I posted. My bad.

Peer review, as you are aware, occurs through the publication of scientific works in well-known Scientific Journals. The problem with theories and data that oppose the AGW theory, i.e., Man-Made Global Warming, is that those "vaunted" peer-reviewed publications, for whatever reason, have for years categorically refused to publish those submissions, regardless of their validity. As a result, top scientists have been shunned, fired and black-listed. There's too much money and too many government jobs at stake. Only recently, as the theory collapses under the preponderance of actual data and observation, has the fraud been exposed for what it is.

BTW, the rain is starting and Noah is loading the boat...

[Justus]

My understanding: The warmists' theory/models/predictions are based on a positive feedback with water vapor. As the CO2 increases, warming the atmosphere by re-radiating the heat "bouncing" off of earth, water vapor (BIG green house gas) increases resulting in even more radiating of heat. Without this water vapor positive feedback, the catastrophic predictions don't exist. Counter arguments say that CO2 released into the air actually reaches a saturation point in which there is less and less radiative effect (nonlinear). So, while initial CO2 levels may contribute to warming, more and more input has less and less of an effect on temperatures. One thing most scientists agree on is that much higher levels of CO2 in our air promotes plant growth. Russian, Chinese and Polish leaders are laughing at the West. I believe the AGW scare mongering will go down in history as possibly the biggest fraud ever on the world's people.

A big thumbs up! You are correct!:BigApplause:

[tuccillo]

It is more complicated than the simple linear argument you presented. Numerous non-linear interactions can take place such as increased clouds, which both reflect shortwave radiation and absorb longwave radiation. Heat can be stored in the oceans. Reduced snow cover impacts the albedo and amount of shortwave radiation absorbed. You could also argue that it has to get warmer to get colder since warmer temperatures can hold more water vapor that can potentially fall as snow and increase the albedo.

It would be foolish to assume a vast conspiracy. The impact is real. The real questions are how much of an impact and will it be catastrophic. I would guess/hope that we will have a handle on this within the next 20 years. Unlike the people at the extremes, my mind is still open as I understand that this is really a research effort (and one that should be done). Ultimately the models may not be a useful tool for setting public policy since I don't think you can get it right without getting the clouds right and that may not be possible.

My understanding: The warmists' theory/models/predictions are based on a positive feedback with water vapor. As the CO2 increases, warming the atmosphere by re-radiating the heat "bouncing" off of earth, water vapor (BIG green house gas) increases resulting in even more radiating of heat. Without this water vapor positive feedback, the catastrophic predictions don't exist. Counter arguments say that CO2 released into the air actually reaches a saturation point in which there is less and less radiative effect (nonlinear). So, while initial CO2 levels may contribute to warming, more and more input has less and less of an effect on temperatures. One thing most scientists agree on is that much higher levels of CO2 in our air promotes plant growth. Russian, Chinese and Polish leaders are laughing at the West. I believe the AGW scare mongering will go down in history as possibly the biggest fraud ever on the world's people.

[Justus]

...And one single volcanic eruption has a greater effect on the atmosphere and global weather conditions than the machinations of all humans combined.

[tuccillo]

Extremism on either side of the issue is not constructive. This is still a research area. I don't agree with the concept that "it is a done deal" since if it was then all climate change research can be stopped since we know the answer. Neither would I call it a fraud.

Sorry about the NOAH...had religion on my mind when I posted. My bad.

Peer review, as you are aware, occurs through the publication of scientific works in well-known Scientific Journals. The problem with theories and data that oppose the AGW theory, i.e., Man-Made Global Warming, is that those "vaunted" peer-reviewed publications, for whatever reason, have for years categorically refused to publish those submissions, regardless of their validity. As a result, top scientists have been shunned, fired and black-listed. There's too much money and too many government jobs at stake. Only recently, as the theory collapses under the preponderance of actual data and observation, has the fraud been exposed for what it is.

BTW, the rain is starting and Noah is loading the boat...

[kbace6]

Extremism on either side of the issue is not constructive. This is still a research area. I don't agree with the concept that "it is a done deal" since if it was then all climate change research can be stopped since we know the answer. Neither would I call it a fraud.

Tuccillo, you seem to be the only real authority in this area on TOTV so I would appreciate your take on the following.

From what I understand the Pro-"Man Made Global Warming" individual belief is on the side of increased CO2 by man has caused the global temperature to rise. Even the most opposed to that does not really believe the global temperature has not risen. It's too easy to verify. Although I admit they often state that in order to tweak the believers.

The non-believer does not buy into the man-made part and that it is a natural occurring cyclical event.

So here is the settled science from my understanding. There IS a coloration between CO2 and temperature. What IS NOT settled is this. There is no proof one way or the other, that our man made increase in CO2 causes the temperature to rise vs. the natural cyclical rise in temperature actually is causing the increase in CO2 beyond the man made kind.

There is just too much cooking of the books, so to speak, in the scientific community that rely on government funding for them to not give those funding them what they are looking for. It's the tail wagging the dog from what I can see.

I am open to the concept that warming is caused by man, but you absolutely have to prove it. You can't pile on the assumptions because you can't find the data you are looking for. You need to examine all the data you have and if you don't have enough to prove your theory you find more. What you don't do is make up your own data to suit your theory.

Your thoughts sir.
Respectfuly,
-Kevin

:spoken:

[tuccillo]

You bring up good points. There is apparently some evidence (ice cores, I believe) to suggest that increases in CO2 lag increases in temperature. Also, the only "data" (in my mind anyway) to link anthropogenic CO2 increases with global temperature increases comes from climate models. The problem I see is public policy is being shaped based on model simulations and I don't believe they are ready for prime time (and may never be). The rhetoric on both sides can be nauseating but the worst is when anyone says "the science is settled" - that is just a stupid thing to say. You will be attacked if you suggest otherwise. This is still a research area. Eventually the truth will bubble to the surface as it is out there. My belief is that anthropogenic increases in CO2 does have an impact but it will be less than is currently believed and will not create catastrophic events. Don't believe everything you are told but don't bury your head in the sand either.


Tuccillo, you seem to be the only real authority in this area on TOTV so I would appreciate your take on the following.

From what I understand the Pro-"Man Made Global Warming" individual belief is on the side of increased CO2 by man has caused the global temperature to rise. Even the most opposed to that does not really believe the global temperature has not risen. It's too easy to verify. Although I admit they often state that in order to tweak the believers.

The non-believer does not buy into the man-made part and that it is a natural occurring cyclical event.

So here is the settled science from my understanding. There IS a coloration between CO2 and temperature. What IS NOT settled is this. There is no proof one way or the other, that our man made increase in CO2 causes the temperature to rise vs. the natural cyclical rise in temperature actually is causing the increase in CO2 beyond the man made kind.

There is just too much cooking of the books, so to speak, in the scientific community that rely on government funding for them to not give those funding them what they are looking for. It's the tail wagging the dog from what I can see.

I am open to the concept that warming is caused by man, but you absolutely have to prove it. You can't pile on the assumptions because you can't find the data you are looking for. You need to examine all the data you have and if you don't have enough to prove your theory you find more. What you don't do is make up your own data to suit your theory.

Your thoughts sir.
Respectfuly,
-Kevin

:spoken:

[Polar Bear]

...the worst is when anyone says "the science is settled" - that is just a stupid thing to say...

Couldn't agree with you more on that point.

[Carl in Tampa]

Tuccillo, the big heater in this whole situation is the Sun, regardless of how the heat is processed when it arrives on Earth.

1. Do you dismiss the effects of the Maunder Effect?

2. We have had ice ages, and the retreat of the ice caps (from as far South as current Kansas) before there were humans on Earth polluting the atmosphere. Why should we not expect Global Cooling and Global Warming to continue regardless of what we do?

3. As resourceful as humans are, shouldn't we able to accommodate ourselves to moderate climate change over the decades? After all, wasn't farming once done in Greenland? With global warming we could do that again.

[rubicon]

A guy is going to start a company. He gathers an engineer, lawyer and accountant. He asks each of them only one question in separate interviews: How much is 2 + 2? The engineer answers with "absolutely it can only be 4". The attorney says "its 4 but I can argue that it is 5". The accountant closed the door pulls down the shades and says "how much do you want it to be"? I offer this story not to denigrate any profession but to illustrate the human experience

Experts have manipulated data/facts forever and or been so wrong on issues from the evolution of mankind to Y2K to health scares about food or a population explosion that would not been able to sustain itself, to the topic of discussion here ....but here we are

So the average Joe like me has witnessed so many of these "scientist now believe" or "chicken little stories" that the scientific/ expert communities have loss credibility especially when they see what nature can do and yet mankind still survives. And not to be unkind to this community the undertaking is just too vast stretching over millions and millions of years with so many variables some known and many unknowns that to make such prediction it difficult but to make such absolute claims either strong belief or conceit. No i am not saying its impossible I am only saying it should be done with "certainty as we know it now or a qualified opinion/ always unsettled

[tuccillo]

Yes, that is pretty much what I said. It is still, in my opinion, an area of research and we shouldn't be setting public policy at this point.

A guy is going to start a company. He gathers an engineer, lawyer and accountant. He asks each of them only one question in separate interviews: How much is 2 + 2? The engineer answers with "absolutely it can only be 4". The attorney says "its 4 but I can argue that it is 5". The accountant closed the door pulls down the shades and says "how much do you want it to be"? I offer this story not to denigrate any profession but to illustrate the human experience

Experts have manipulated data/facts forever and or been so wrong on issues from the evolution of mankind to Y2K to health scares about food or a population explosion that would not been able to sustain itself, to the topic of discussion here ....but here we are

So the average Joe like me has witnessed so many of these "scientist now believe" or "chicken little stories" that the scientific/ expert communities have loss credibility especially when they see what nature can do and yet mankind still survives. And not to be unkind to this community the undertaking is just too vast stretching over millions and millions of years with so many variables some known and many unknowns that to make such prediction it difficult but to make such absolute claims either strong belief or conceit. No i am not saying its impossible I am only saying it should be done with "certainty as we know it now or a qualified opinion/ always unsettled

[tuccillo]

As I previously stated, we really don't know the size of the anthropogenic perturbation on the longer term natural climate trend. It could be big or small. I suspect it will be small but, again, we don't know (although some people are convinced it is large).


Tuccillo, the big heater in this whole situation is the Sun, regardless of how the heat is processed when it arrives on Earth.

1. Do you dismiss the effects of the Maunder Effect?

2. We have had ice ages, and the retreat of the ice caps (from as far South as current Kansas) before there were humans on Earth polluting the atmosphere. Why should we not expect Global Cooling and Global Warming to continue regardless of what we do?

3. As resourceful as humans are, shouldn't we able to accommodate ourselves to moderate climate change over the decades? After all, wasn't farming once done in Greenland? With global warming we could do that again.

[outlaw]

The AGW community has made it's bed. 18 years and no warming. Yes, I know there are explanations for this "hiatus"; 50 of them, take your pick. And one of those is that the extra heat is being stored in the oceans. And now our own government is doctoring ocean temperature buoy data to show higher temperatures than the data actually shows. None of their predictions have come to fruition. More and more scientists are speaking out against this fabricated disaster. It is all about grant money, wealth redistribution, and control. Don't be naive to think a conspiracy can't be in play. We're talking about a few men who controlled two or three data sets from which 90% of papers were written. Climategate revealed how calculating and dishonest these few men are.

[Justus]

The AGW community has made it's bed. 18 years and no warming. Yes, I know there are explanations for this "hiatus"; 50 of them, take your pick. And one of those is that the extra heat is being stored in the oceans. And now our own government is doctoring ocean temperature buoy data to show higher temperatures than the data actually shows. None of their predictions have come to fruition. More and more scientists are speaking out against this fabricated disaster. It is all about grant money, wealth redistribution, and control. Don't be naive to think a conspiracy can't be in play. We're talking about a few men who controlled two or three data sets from which 90% of papers were written. Climategate revealed how calculating and dishonest these few men are.

Amen!

[tuccillo]

I suspect you were never trained as a scientist. I was. Although I remain skeptical, I try to be open minded. I know some of the players involved in the research and to state there is a conspiracy is nonsense. Time will tell if we are on a bad trajectory of man's doing as more research is done. To state categorically that there is no anthropogenic impacts is as ludicrous as saying the "science is settled". By the way, many papers are about results from model simulations and the modellers control their own datasets, not some "few men".

The AGW community has made it's bed. 18 years and no warming. Yes, I know there are explanations for this "hiatus"; 50 of them, take your pick. And one of those is that the extra heat is being stored in the oceans. And now our own government is doctoring ocean temperature buoy data to show higher temperatures than the data actually shows. None of their predictions have come to fruition. More and more scientists are speaking out against this fabricated disaster. It is all about grant money, wealth redistribution, and control. Don't be naive to think a conspiracy can't be in play. We're talking about a few men who controlled two or three data sets from which 90% of papers were written. Climategate revealed how calculating and dishonest these few men are.

[Chi-Town]

Regardless of where you stand this is an easy read from NASA:

What's Really Warming the World? Climate deniers blame natural factors; NASA data proves otherwise (http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/)

[tuccillo]

Only on the short term. Climate trends, either natural or man-made, have a much longer time scale. "Climate" and "weather" mean much different time scales.

...And one single volcanic eruption has a greater effect on the atmosphere and global weather conditions than the machinations of all humans combined.

[tuccillo]

The issue is that the "data" is modelling based. Modelling is very incestuous so the fact that there are several modelling groups does not increase my comfort with modelling results. Having written models, I always cringed at some of the assumptions I was forced to make because of a lack of understanding and/or lack of computer power to do what I really wanted to do. Just keep in mind that many of the conclusions are not based on real observational data. Keep an open mind.

Regardless of where you stand this is an easy read from NASA:

What's Really Warming the World? Climate deniers blame natural factors; NASA data proves otherwise (http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/)

[Polar Bear]

Regardless of where you stand this is an easy read from NASA:

What's Really Warming the World? Climate deniers blame natural factors; NASA data proves otherwise (http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/)

This article is not from NASA. The article is from two guys who have nothing to do with NASA and use data from ONE of NASA's models to draw their own conclusions.

They take very little time to show their bias...the first sentence is all it takes.

("...proves..."? That's a good one.)

[Justus]

I suspect you were never trained as a scientist. I was. Although I remain skeptical, I try to be open minded. I know some of the players involved in the research and to state there is a conspiracy is nonsense. Time will tell if we are on a bad trajectory of man's doing as more research is done. To state categorically that there is no anthropogenic impacts is as ludicrous as saying the "science is settled". By the way, many papers are about results from model simulations and the modellers control their own datasets, not some "few men".

I am not a scientist, but am married to a former published research scientist, so I do know about how cutthroat and conspiratorial the scientific community is. One poster described it perfectly...it's all about keeping that government grant money rolling in. If they have to alter data or destroy the credibility of a fellow researcher, as has happened in this case, those wed to the cause are not above doing so.

Not everyone is fooled or intimidated by the dropping of a Federal Agency name. The EPA, NASA and NOAA (or Noah) have s**t in their mess kits on this subject, and now they're backing and filling on the subject in an effort to find safe ground...ergo the change from "global warming" to "global climate change".

I will grant you this...time will tell. However, the continuing cost to the American taxpayers has gone much over the value of this religion.

[tuccillo]

You really should try to know what you are talking about before you go off on a rant and slander other people. I think we are done as I have no time or interests in extremists and those who don't have a clue what they are talking about.

I am not a scientist, but am married to a former published research scientist, so I do know about how cutthroat and conspiratorial the scientific community is. One poster described it perfectly...it's all about keeping that government grant money rolling in. If they have to alter data or destroy the credibility of a fellow researcher, as has happened in this case, those wed to the cause are not above doing so.

Not everyone is fooled or intimidated by the dropping of a Federal Agency name. The EPA, NASA and NOAA (or Noah) have s**t in their mess kits on this subject, and now they're backing and filling on the subject in an effort to find safe ground...ergo the change from "global warming" to "global climate change".

I will grant you this...time will tell. However, the continuing cost to the American taxpayers has gone much over the value of this religion.

[Justus]

You really should try to know what you are talking about before you go off on a rant and slander other people. I think we are done as I have no time or interests in extremists and those who don't have a clue what they are talking about.

Phew! Thanks! BTW, it's not slander when it's true. Check it out on line.

[Chi-Town]

Phew! Thanks! BTW, it's not slander when it's true. Check it out on line.
"It's true. Check it out on line".
That's rich. Thanks.

[Arctic Fox]

One area to which Mankind contributes significantly is air pollution. According to the World Health Organization, seven million people die every year because of it.

So, whether or not you believe that much of recent climate change has been caused by Mankind, reduction in the use of carbon fuels is still a worthwhile aim.

[tcxr750]

The mini Ice Age should be good news for your favorite cruise line. The Glaciers you see now look nothing like the same glaciers 30 years ago. Once they refreeze the 7 day Alaska Cruise will be worth the trip. Start saving now!

[Polar Bear]

The mini Ice Age should be good news for your favorite cruise line. The Glaciers you see now look nothing like the same glaciers 30 years ago. Once they refreeze the 7 day Alaska Cruise will be worth the trip. Start saving now!

I can state from experience...the 7 day Alaska cruise was worth it last month. :)

[dbussone]

I am not a scientist, but am married to a former published research scientist, so I do know about how cutthroat and conspiratorial the scientific community is. One poster described it perfectly...it's all about keeping that government grant money rolling in. If they have to alter data or destroy the credibility of a fellow researcher, as has happened in this case, those wed to the cause are not above doing so.



Not everyone is fooled or intimidated by the dropping of a Federal Agency name. The EPA, NASA and NOAA (or Noah) have s**t in their mess kits on this subject, and now they're backing and filling on the subject in an effort to find safe ground...ergo the change from "global warming" to "global climate change".



I will grant you this...time will tell. However, the continuing cost to the American taxpayers has gone much over the value of this religion.


And the cost continues to help Al Gore pay his $1200/month electricity bill for his estate in the Bellemeade section of Nashville. Now he's someone who has no scientific training unless you include tobacco farming.

[mtdjed]

Global Warming is upon us.

The last snow from Boston's winter melted 7/14/2015. From NPR

"If you bet that Boston's last bit of snow would melt July 14, you'd be right.

You may remember that the city got a lot of it this winter, and it dumped much of the cleared snow in unused parking lots — which it called "snow farms." The last one to melt, in Boston's Seaport District, was once 75 feet high.

As member station WBUR reports, "Mayor Marty Walsh tweeted Tuesday that a giant snow pile in a Seaport District parking lot, where the city dumped some of the winter's record-breaking snowfall after moving it off city streets, had finally melted." Walsh had challenged people to guess when the giant snow pile would disappear."

[tcxr750]

Alaska is a beautiful state full of scenic wonders. We need someone in the villages from Alaska to testify on the changes in glacial formation in our lifetimes. It isn't Global Anything it's just melting caused by hot exhaust gasses from the stacks of cruise ships.

[outlaw]

I suspect you were never trained as a scientist. I was. Although I remain skeptical, I try to be open minded. I know some of the players involved in the research and to state there is a conspiracy is nonsense. Time will tell if we are on a bad trajectory of man's doing as more research is done. To state categorically that there is no anthropogenic impacts is as ludicrous as saying the "science is settled". By the way, many papers are about results from model simulations and the modellers control their own datasets, not some "few men".

Since when do model simulation results constitute data sets? Model simulations are not scientific experiments.

[outlaw]

I suspect you were never trained as a scientist. I was. Although I remain skeptical, I try to be open minded. I know some of the players involved in the research and to state there is a conspiracy is nonsense. Time will tell if we are on a bad trajectory of man's doing as more research is done. To state categorically that there is no anthropogenic impacts is as ludicrous as saying the "science is settled". By the way, many papers are about results from model simulations and the modellers control their own datasets, not some "few men".

I didn't say there weren't AGW impacts. I merely stated the AGW movement is a scam. CO2 is now classified as a pollutant by our government! This is what every human EXHALES in each breath. This is what plants REQUIRE to thrive. I wonder how many people on the anti fossil fuel train think that CO2 is the black sooty stuff that comes out of the 18 wheeler exhaust stack, or think that the "smoke" rising out of the infamous power plant cooling towers is CO2? Although I am familiar with the scientific method, I don't think it takes a "scientist" to understand the corruption and deception that has permeated this Global Climate Warming/Change/Disruption scheme. But at least you are leaning toward minor AGW impacts.

[tuccillo]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion but don't try to pass off your opinion as fact. You have no subject matter expertise so your opinion was apparently formed by reading one-sided material. Again, you should refrain from slandering people, who you don't know, in your rants. My opinion is inconsequential and I certainly don't try to pass it off as fact. Further research is needed and continues. To suggest that there is a wide spread conspiracy borders on paranoia.

I didn't say there weren't AGW impacts. I merely stated the AGW movement is a scam. CO2 is now classified as a pollutant by our government! This is what every human EXHALES in each breath. This is what plants REQUIRE to thrive. I wonder how many people on the anti fossil fuel train think that CO2 is the black sooty stuff that comes out of the 18 wheeler exhaust stack, or think that the "smoke" rising out of the infamous power plant cooling towers is CO2? Although I am familiar with the scientific method, I don't think it takes a "scientist" to understand the corruption and deception that has permeated this Global Climate Warming/Change/Disruption scheme. But at least you are leaning toward minor AGW impacts.

[outlaw]

You really should try to limit your posting to things you know something about. You are wrong on both accounts.

OK. Simulations DO produce data...but the AGW simulations have failed miserably in their catastrophic predictions. Raw empirical data continues to disagree with the simulation projections (data sets, results...). Bottom line is that the simulations do not seem to represent the real world. The models' "data" does not agree with the real world data. So whatever you want to call the ones and zeros the simulations are pumping out, it should not be influencing policy.

[tuccillo]

If you were to go back and actually read my posts you will see that I already expressed the opinion that climate simulation modelling is still an area of research and is not ready for use as a tool for setting public policy. Again, that is just my opinion. Others feel differently and I would never suggest they are wrong or, as in the case of your rants, dishonest and unscrupulous.

This does not mean that there is not a significant anthropogenic perturbation on the natural climate trend or that such a perturbation will send our climate into a regime that would never have occurred naturally. Fortunately, the physics of radiative transfer will prevent a run away scenario. Regarding the fidelity of climate models to reproduce the past, depending on what you read they have done fairly well. Certain features, such as ENSO, are not simulated well but it may not matter since the effect may average out over a long simulation. To suggest that the models have "failed miserably" is amateurish as you don't understand the process. You apparently see everything as black or white when in reality it is grey. Progress comes in small steps, especially when you are trying to solve non-linear systems with literally millions of lines of source code. The degree of difficulty is something you most likely cannot fathom.

I have indulged your rants in apparently a futile effort to bring some sanity to yet another inane thread. No more. I am done exchanging thoughts with closed minded people as it is a waste of my time. Believe what you will, I really couldn't care less.

OK. Simulations DO produce data...but the AGW simulations have failed miserably in their catastrophic predictions. Raw empirical data continues to disagree with the simulation projections (data sets, results...). Bottom line is that the simulations do not seem to represent the real world. The models' "data" does not agree with the real world data. So whatever you want to call the ones and zeros the simulations are pumping out, it should not be influencing policy.

[outlaw]

If you were to go back and actually read my posts you will see that I already expressed the opinion that climate simulation modelling is still an area of research and is not ready for use as a tool for setting public policy. Again, that is just my opinion. Others feel differently and I would never suggest they are wrong or, as in the case of your rants, dishonest and unscrupulous.

This does not mean that there is not a significant anthropogenic perturbation on the natural climate trend or that such a perturbation will send our climate into a regime that would never have occurred naturally. Fortunately, the physics of radiative transfer will prevent a run away scenario. Regarding the fidelity of climate models to reproduce the past, depending on what you read they have done fairly well. Certain features, such as ENSO, are not simulated well but it may not matter since the effect may average out over a long simulation. To suggest that the models have "failed miserably" is amateurish as you don't understand the process. You apparently see everything as black or white when in reality it is grey. Progress comes in small steps, especially when you are trying to solve non-linear systems with literally millions of lines of source code. The degree of difficulty is something you most likely cannot fathom.

I have indulged your rants in apparently a futile effort to bring some sanity to yet another inane thread. No more. I am done exchanging thoughts with closed minded people as it is a waste of my time. Believe what you will, I really couldn't care less.

Can we just agree to disagree?

[Polar Bear]

You really should try to limit your posting to things you know something about. You are wrong on both accounts.

Can't agree with you here, tuccillo. Model simulations do produce data sets. But a model simulation in and of itself is does not automatically constitute a scientific experiment.

Anybody can sit down and write a formula (model) that they claim simulates world temperature (or anything else). It would be a model, but it certainly wouldn't be a valid scientific experiment.

[tuccillo]

Sure it does. Modelling is used in a whole host of disciples including industrial design. Many of the climate experiments early on were made by doubling the CO2 concentration of the model. I was a model developer.

Can't agree with you here, tuccillo. A model simulation in and of itself is does not constitute a scientific experiment.

[mtdjed]

Thank God it is over! All this because someone posted a note about someone's prediction.

[Polar Bear]

Sure it does. Modelling is used in a whole host of disciples including industrial design. Many of the climate experiments early on were made by doubling the CO2 concentration of the model. I was a model developer.
Yes. Modeling is used in a whole host of desciples (disciplines?) including industrial design. What's your point? That does not mean every model ever written down on a piece of paper or typed onto a computer screen is a valid scientific experiment. You've made a lot of good points here, but I can't believe you're trying to say that.

All models = valid scientific experiment? That's the point I'm disagreeing with.

[tuccillo]

And you are the judge of what constitutes a valid scientific experiment because of what? Current models are much more than a formula. The foundation is a set of PDEs solved via numerical methods for the atm and ocean plus treatments of turbulence, radiation, liquid phase change, surface exchange, aerosols, etc.


Can't agree with you here, tuccillo. Model simulations do produce data sets. But a model simulation in and of itself is does not automatically constitute a scientific experiment.

Anybody can sit down and write a formula (model) that they claim simulates world temperature (or anything else). It would be a model, but it certainly wouldn't be a valid scientific experiment.

[tuccillo]

Those are your words, not mine. I only stated that running models constitutes a valid experiment. Not sure what your point is here. You are not a subject matter expert so your opinion on what is valid is really not meaningful. Sorry to be so blunt but it is what it is.

Yes. Modeling is used in a whole host of desciples (disciplines?) including industrial design. What's your point? That does not mean every model ever written down on a piece of paper or typed onto a computer screen is a valid scientific experiment. You've made a lot of good points here, but I can't believe you're trying to say that.

All models = valid scientific experiment? That's the point I'm disagreeing with.

[tuccillo]

Some people just like to argue a point of view devoid of knowledge. Attempts to shed some light on reality is often met with attacks.

Thank God it is over! All this because someone posted a note about someone's prediction.

[Justus]

Tuccillo,
You keep saying you are through with this argument. Outlaw even asked if you could agree to disagree...yet still here you are. Is it possible that any dissenting opinion is not acceptable in your universe?

[tuccillo]

I only said I wouldn't respond to outlaw's posts. So the posts have taken two positions: "anthropogenic climate change is real" and "anthropogenic climate change is a scam". The only position I have taken is we don't know the extent of it yet. So I am only arguing against extremist positions. I am the only one saying I don't know. Everyone else seems to believe their opinion is fact. Think about that for a minute.

Tuccillo,
You keep saying you are through with this argument. Outlaw even asked if you could agree to disagree...yet still here you are. Is it possible that any dissenting opinion is not acceptable in your universe?

[Justus]

Yawn...

[Polar Bear]

Those are your words, not mine. I only stated that running models constitutes a valid experiment. Not sure what your point is here. You are not a subject matter expert so your opinion on what is valid is really not meaningful. Sorry to be so blunt but it is what it is.
"Model simulations are not scientific experiments" (not your words). You said that statement is "wrong" (your words). Your reply was wrong because all model simulations are not scientific experiments. Your later posts are still defending that statement.

you said to me "And you are the judge of what constitutes a valid scientific experiment because of what?" I made no such claim. I simply stated what should be obvious to anybody trained in modeling and/or the scientific method. All models are not scientific experiments.

Finally, I am much a subject matter expert in this discussion as you are. I'm a professional engineer trained in modeling and the scientific method. I think you feel the weakness of your rebuttal and have resorted to personal attack.

How long ago did you declare your participation in this thread over?

Sorry to be blunt, but...well you get the gist.

[Polar Bear]

...I am the only one saying I don't know. Everyone else seems to believe their opinion is fact. Think about that for a minute.
Have you even read this thread? Many others don't claim to know. How casually you state something that is so easily shown to not be factual. Think about that for a minute.

[Justus]

"Model simulations are not scientific experiments" (not your words). You said that statement is "wrong" (your words). Your reply was wrong because all model simulations are not scientific experiments. Your later posts are still defending that statement.

you said to me "And you are the judge of what constitutes a valid scientific experiment because of what?" I made no such claim. I simply stated what should be obvious to anybody trained in modeling and/or the scientific method. All models are not scientific experiments.

Finally, I am much a subject matter expert in this discussion as you are. I'm a professional engineer trained in modeling and the scientific method. I think you feel the weakness of your rebuttal and have resorted to personal attack.

How long ago did you declare your participation in this thread over?

Sorry to be blunt, but...well you get the gist.

:BigApplause: Well said!

[tuccillo]

I am not sure why to choose to defend a position where you define what is valid and not valid in a discipline in which you have no expertise. Trying to say that model experiments are not valid without defining the model used and the purpose of the experiment is useless. You are arguing some truly inane position for some unknown reason.

Do you realize that this subthread started with the following statement by outlaw?

"Since when do model simulation results constitute data sets? Model simulations are not scientific experiments."

What exactly is your point about refuting an obviously incorrect perception?


"Model simulations are not scientific experiments" (not your words). You said that statement is "wrong" (your words). Your reply was wrong because all model simulations are not scientific experiments. Your later posts are still defending that statement.

you said to me "And you are the judge of what constitutes a valid scientific experiment because of what?" I made no such claim. I simply stated what should be obvious to anybody trained in modeling and/or the scientific method. All models are not scientific experiments.

Finally, I am much a subject matter expert in this discussion as you are. I'm a professional engineer trained in modeling and the scientific method. I think you feel the weakness of your rebuttal and have resorted to personal attack.

How long ago did you declare your participation in this thread over?

Sorry to be blunt, but...well you get the gist.

[Polar Bear]

I am not sure why to choose to defend a position where you define what is valid and not valid in a discipline in which you have no expertise. Trying to say that model experiments are not valid without defining the model used and the purpose of the experiment is useless. You are arguing some truly inane position for some unknown reason.
You say _I_ am trying to define what is valid/not valid??!!?? Really?!? Good one. LOL!!

[tuccillo]

Whatever you say. Your the expert in climate simulations.

You say _I_ am trying to define what is valid/not valid??!!?? Really?!? Good one. LOL!!

[Polar Bear]

Whatever you say. Your the expert in climate simulations.

Finally you understand. :)

[outlaw]

I only said I wouldn't respond to outlaw's posts. So the posts have taken two positions: "anthropogenic climate change is real" and "anthropogenic climate change is a scam". The only position I have taken is we don't know the extent of it yet. So I am only arguing against extremist positions. I am the only one saying I don't know. Everyone else seems to believe their opinion is fact. Think about that for a minute.

I think I said the AGW "movement" is a scam. That's what I meant, anyway. I thought I said CO2 does heat the atmosphere, but to a point. It is the positive feedback assumptions used in these models that drive the catastrophic predictions. The climategate emails prove beyond reasonable doubt the conspiracy of the holders of the key global temperature measurement data sets to withhold the raw data from any skeptical scientists, to manipulate the data sets to reflect increased warming over time, and their conspiracy to shut down any dissenting papers via the peer review process. If that isn't a conspiracy, I don't know what is. Hopefully, sanity will prevail before the AGW movement destroys our world economy.

[dbussone]

Finally you understand. :)


Polar - I think you may have discovered VPL's lost brother.