ICE AGE EARTH: Global FREEZE lasting 120 YEARS threatens ‘more intense’ winters from 2019

If predicting climate is so easy why have the predictions so often been wrong? Why for example has the cult been looking for the "missing heat " they predicted and that failed to materialize?

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...-s-missing-heat?r3f_986=https://www.bing.com/

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

https://phys.org/news/2010-04-affect-future-climate.html

 

There's probably some confusion about the way scientists and the media use the term "missing heat". The context is not that the heat isn't there. The context is in finding exactly where it is. Scientists aren't scratching their heads trying to figure out if the ocean takes up 10% or 99% of the heat. They are trying to hone in on the exact value down to the nearest percent here. Is it 91% or 95%. Why the 4% discrepancy? Is it measurement error or did the heat flux processes change? Why does it change with time? It's questions like that. This topic is almost always in relation to the warming hiatus in the troposphere from 1998 to 2012 as well. The "missing heat" here is in trying to figure out where exactly the heat that had been going into the troposphere went during these 14 years and why it got diverted in the first place. No one is saying that the heat isn't there. They're just trying to figure out how much went into the deep ocean, shallow ocean, ice, land, etc. It's not good enough for scientists to guess at it. They want actual measurements. That's the context of "missing heat" here. I think the articles you linked to do a pretty good job of articulating this message already all things considered.

 

When they can accurately and consistently forecast NEXT WEEKS weather maybe I'll believe a forecast for 100 years in the future

 

Define "accurately" and "consistently"? What is "accurate" to you?

Anyway, this is your way of saying you'll never believe a forecast of the global mean temperature 100 years in the future regardless of how "accurate" a forecast of the exact temperature in your backyard is at any given moment in time. It doesn't matter if the climate forecast exhibits skill or not. It doesn't matter that Callendar and Arrhenius predicted the global warming within a reasonable margin of error 70 and 122 years ago. You've decided not to believe it...because. Am I right?

 

" The context is not that the heat isn't there. The context is in finding exactly where it is. "
Oh I see. They don't know where the missing heat is but they just know it's their somewhere and won't stop looking until they find it. Kind of like the second shooter of JFK I guess.

 

That's not correct. Winters may be more "intense" (whatever that means) in some parts of the world in certain years despite global warming and perhaps even because of it. You can't make a broad and vague statement like this about the weather in some unknown location and decide if it is consistent with or falsifies global warming. That's not how this works.

 

You've already misinterpreted what scientists are saying. The heat in the entire geosphere is already accounted for. Scientists already know that the geosphere is accumulating heat at about 10e21 joules/year. That's not in dispute; at least not in a general sense. Sure, they're debating whether it is 10.1e21 or 10.2e21 or 10.9e21, but they're not debating whether it was only 1e21 or some outrageous number like 100e21. They also know that the "missing heat" is already mostly accounted for in the ocean and in melting ice. But they'd like to be able to narrow the uncertainty range of exactly what depths and what parts of the ocean and how much ice and what the distribution was between Arctic and Antarctic. Or be able to quantify down the hundredth of decimal place how much radiative forcing the higher than expected amount of aerosols reduced the warming.

If we go with your analogy it would be like trying to figure out if Oswald pulled the trigger at 11:21:30 or 11:21:35. They know he shot JFK. They just might not know exactly when the shot was made down to the second or whether he ate pancakes or waffles for breakfast that morning.

 

That is about it. They go through this massive calculation with numerous assumptions and come up with an answer. When the answer does not actually work, they claim the heat that their calculations came up with must have gone somewhere else. They ignore the possibility that it might have headed back out into space where it came from to start with.

 

Ha ha. Equating co2, a gas that life demands, to mercury?

That is like me comparing my first wife to cyanide. But I admitted it was hyperbole, and being dishonest to boot. The church of AGW will never do that. But true believers are like that. ha ha

I hope the climate does warm up some. For a warmer climate, at least in the past, has been more beneficial to humanity than not.

 

I think you misread what I wrote. We're saying the exact same thing.

 

interesting how you talk in certainties while the climate scientist you defend use words such as, "at least partially" "suggests that" "potential answer" "may have"


"The world’s average air temperature has warmed 0.8°C since the late 1880s, but the warming has slowed precipitously in the last 15 years. Scientists have identified a number of factors—among them a temporary downturn in solar activity and more sun-blocking aerosol pollution—that at least partially explain why air temperatures have barely risen since the turn of the millennium. But recent research suggests that Earth is still taking in more energy from the sun than it’s letting out, to the tune of almost a 60-watt light bulb’s worth for every 100 square meters. This excess energy has to go somewhere. A potential answer? The tropical Pacific Ocean. Changing trade winds here may have helped lower sea surface temperatures by altering ocean circulation patterns and making it so heat that otherwise would be warming the air is now trapped deep underwater."

 

I definitely misread what you wrote

 

Exactly. They're not saying that they are completely clueless and have absolutely no idea why the warming in the troposphere stalled while it continued in the rest of the geosphere. They're trying to figure out exactly why. And they already have some pretty good ideas. This is the essence of the "missing heat" discussion. The issue isn't that 150e21 joules of energy is completely unaccounted for. It's not. Most of it is right there in the ocean. They just trying to figure out exactly why the heat transfers from one medium to another in the climate system and how much gets transferred by which processed.

 

Exactly, they are trying to find why their predictions of a warmer climate failed and instead of admitting the prediction failed they are desperately looking for the "missing heat".

 

So the troposphere (5% of the thermal inertia) underperformed predictions for a period of time but the hydrosphere (90% of the thermal inertia) tracked pretty true to predictions and you're ready to call global warming predictions a failure?

I get that troposphere predictions were less than stellar from 1998 to 2012 but don't you think 1998 being an El Nino and 2012 being a La Nina had something to do with it? Don't you think the aggressive ice melt in the Arctic region had something to do with it? Don't you think changes in ocean currents had something to do with it? Don't you think increased aerosols had something to do with it?

If you're bar for not "failing" is perfection then yeah, I agree global warming is a "failed" theory. But the thing is no one defines "failure" as less than perfect.

Failure in my opinion is predicting that the Earth would cool over long periods of time and observing that it actually warmed like it is. Failure is predicting that the global mean surface temperature anomaly would be 0.0C and it actually ended up being +0.9C. Do you disagree? In other words, what makes Dilley's predictions successful and the scientific consensus' failures in your mind?

 

I have a problem with it for several reasons. They consistently mislead. There is no 97% scientific consensus. They come up with some wild calculation based on published papers. They have been consistently wrong in their predictions. Most of all they claim it is an established science and anyone who questions their predictions is not quite bright. If they are that scared of opposition, then there is something very wrong. Science should welcome doubters because that is what makes it stronger in the long run.

This whole concept of missing heat would never be accepted as legitimate science. They make a series of heat balance calculations and when it does not work out, they say the heat must have gone somewhere else. You can apply that concept when all factors are absolutely known, not when there are numerous approximations and assumptions to start with.

 

I think you're problem is that scientists are consistently imperfect. Which is a fair point. Just know that no discipline of science makes perfect predictions. If that's your bar for not being misled then you're not going to be very satisfied with science in general.

And there's plenty of opposition to the established theory of climate change. There's probably more opposition to climate change science then most other theories in science. Can you think of another theory that has 120 year history that is more opposed?

Trying to determine the complex details of where the heat winds up once it is trapped in the geosphere is not even remotely close to being illegitimate. It is absolutely legitimate. There is nothing wrong with testing your hypothesis of the heat budget and fine tuning it based observations and new evidence that becomes available. Not doing that and pretending like everything is completely unethical. And just so you know...almost everything in science is an approximation with uncertainty. The goal is to reduce the uncertainty as much as you can. But, it's rare to get a perfect match. And it certain doesn't happen on the first time if it even happens at all.

 

Yet the actual uncertainty is never part of the conversation, only the certainty of the least likely scenario is.

One of the major issues of the CO2 hypothesis is the missing troposphere heat. According to the hypothesis the heat will show there first yet it isn't even following the lowest prediction. The high temperatures are only showing in the surface temperatures which have a multitude of problems.

 

If they cannot forecast snow 2 days in advance then what can I say....

 

But they do not welcome opposition. Anyone who opposes must not be quite bright.

There is nothing wrong with it when they look at it with an open mind. An open mind would consider the possibility that their calculations were wrong to start with rather than assuming their calculations were correct, but the heat must have just somehow escaped. It is mathematically wrong to make a series of calculations based on assumptions and approximations and then assume the calculations are correct and the delta difference just appears in a different column.

 

That sums it up right there. When presented with scrutiny of truth, alGorians flail like fools to prove what they say is correct. Their FAITH is flimsy and that's all it is.

Christianity, Islam, Hindu, alGorian, it's all faith. Humans need faith.

 

I don't claim any hypotheses on climate change is anywhere near being conclusive. That is the domain of true believers such as yourself that would have us change our lives and entire fossil fuel based economic structure based on your beliefs that you have climate all figured out beyond a shadow of a doubt. I merely point out there are competing hypothesis that are just as relevant and as I earlier said the last line in the linked to article is what everyone including you needs to keep in mind on every hypothesis.

"There is a huge amount of research going into this, and the honest truth is that we don’t yet have all the answers.”

 

Do you understand how the hydrosphere is measured and what uncertainties are involved, they are huge? The problem with the CO2 centric hypothesis is that it is based on computer models, not observed science. There is a saying in modeling that all models are wrong. We are basing political direction based on models, not on observed science.

One of the problems in climate change is most of the funding is going to computers and modelling, not field work.

If a burgeoning scientist wants to find work, they better toe the dogma line or they won't find work. It is interesting that the major scientists that speak out against the dogma are those with tenure or retired. Of course the usual accusation is that they are working for big oil which is ridiculous and many state the would like those checks.

 

We don't yet have all of the answers regarding how gravity and the quantum world works and yet we were able to exploit what knowledge we do have to better humanity. We don't yet have all of the answers regarding cancer yet people are effectively treated for it on a daily basis. We don't have all the answers in most things, but that doesn't mean we can't make informed decisions based on what knowledge we do have.

 

I understand a little bit about it. But, I'm certainly no expert.

I'm going to stop you right here. This is not true at all. It's not even remotely true. The fact that CO2 puts a positive radiative forcing on the climate system has nothing to do with computer models. It's properties were first discovered and even quantified in the 1800's long before computers were even a thing. Molecular physics and quantum mechanics theories came along and explained how it works. Again, this was before computers were even a thing.