Global Warming Could Devastate California’s Ski Resorts, Report Finds

Dude... seriously... you have to tell folks you're going to lay a turd so they don't spit water on the computer.... This is entirely laughable, easily demonstrated (see the hockey stick) and frankly EVERYONE understands that his work is unrepeatable. EVER.

 

Still crickets?? Or do you now see the money train the IPCC is fronting?

 

More crickets?? Still no response to the extortion bucket that is the IPCC?

 

Mann's hockey stick graph has been corroborated by multiple independent studies using multiple techniques even by people who were at odds with him. No one to date as found any egregious errors with his original 1998 publication. Sure, there have been a lot of unsubstantiated claims that Mann messed up, but none of them have survived critical review. In fact of the reviews that have been conducted since 1998 have all lent overwhelming support to the general conclusion that temperatures during the holocene and especially over the last two thousand years have been stable relative the significant warming that has occurred in recent centuries. So I don't know why you're saying this is laughable.

 

That was a good read. Thank you. However, no where is it mentioned that the IPCC is acting as front to transfer $5-10 trillion to UN coffers. In fact, the IPCC isn't even mentioned at all.

If you're concern is the proposed carbon tax or carbon credit markets then let's discuss that. I don't have much experience with these though so I can't comment a whole lot regarding the pros and cons of the various proposals. I presume you are opposed the idea of a carbon tax or carbon credit market? Is there a policy you support that reduces global warming and reduces the economic risks of a fossil fuel based global economy?

 

When all the monkeys see the big monkey do it, they would like to do it too, if they could afford it.

Despicable leadership.

 

Absolutely so. And more than that. They crave the fuel taxes to fix highways. They want the funds for bridges. Bridges are extremely costly compared to paved freeway. i have not verified the numbers in a very long time but up to 1967 when I worked my arse off daily on pile driving jobs for bridges, we were told by state inspectors that then a mile of freeway cost a million dollars. That was so long ago and prices climbed fast if I was told it was 10 million per mile, i would not be very surprised. You need a lot of cars to pay for those miles of paved highway. Add to that a lot more for bridges.

What in taxes do electric cars provide to fix highways? Well not one dime. They use the roads for free. And do not believe the government does not understand this. They bait you today into electric cars and wham, you get hit later by very extreme high taxes. They will tell you is is due to high number of electric cars.

 

Miss Cleo was more accurate than climate alarmists.

 

From your site: The North American continent has been running above the 1951-1980 average the last 2 years. The only place that has been noticeably cooler is in the Atlantic just south of Greenland.

 

The data in that chart is the average from 2017-2018 minus the average from 1951-1980. It shows you the temperature difference relative to what it was between 1951 and 1980. That doesn't mean the data ends in 1980...it doesn't. It ends in 2018 which is the most recent year. I posted it to show there has not been "major cold over the north american continent two consecutive years".

And yes. The only place where it was noticeably cooler is just south of Greenland. That was my point. I even said exactly that in post #41.

Question...Does the fact that it was cold south of Greenland mean that the Earth isn't warmer overall?

 

Prove it.

Sure there is, if it makes any sense to apply the term to a hypothesis that is not testable in any practical sense.

Which of course it doesn't.

On the contrary, given that there's no objective metric for the underlined, it can hardly be anything else.

 

I'm obviously talking about the period of time in which records are available.

It's definitely testable.

#1: To test the warming part you measure the temperature of the Earth. If the measurements do not show warming then you have falsified that hypothesis. Here is a chart of this test.



#2: To test the greenhouse gas forcing you first measure gas concentrations. If CO2/CH4/CFCs/etc are not increasing then you've falsified this hypothesis. Next you measure the troposphere and stratosphere. If the troposphere is not warming and the stratosphere is not cooling then you've falsified this hypothesis. Below is a chart of this test. By the way, it was announced on Monday this "fingerprint" which has been called the smoking gun has been confirmed by satellite data with 5-sigma confidence. See here.



#3: To test the link between greenhouse gases an human behavior there are many tests. If you measure the amount of carbon dug up by human activity and the amount being added to the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biomass and observe a substantial mismatch in the mass accounting then you've falsified this hypothesis. If you measure the 14C to 13C/12C ratio and observe something other than a decrease prior to WWII then you've falsified this hypothesis. Note that this experiment does not work after WWII because of nuclear weapons testing. If you measure the 13C to 12C ratio and observe something other than a decrease then you've falsified this hypothesis. If you measure the O2 concentration and observe something other than a decrease then you've falsified this hypothesis. Here is a matrix of 10 such tests of this hypothesis.

The defining metrics of global warming are the global mean surface temperature and oceanic heat content. Out of all the theories that try to explain these metrics it's trivial to find the one that matches best. It just so happens that the best match is the theory that incorporates all known climate forcing agents including greenhouse gases. Actually, the theories that selectively ignore greenhouse gases actually match the least. For example, the Sun-only theories don't match reality very well at all and, in fact, are inconsistent and even completely contradictory to reality.

 

Ultimately it doesn't matter if the alarmist predictions of reduced snow pack and ski resorts going out of business comes true or not. I just enjoy pointing out their failed doomsday scenarios. Whether snow pack increases of decreases tells us nothing as to whether it's getting warmer or not and it tells us nothing as to whether or not man is causing it. They could have just as well claimed snow pack would increase and California would flood and if that does happen I'm sure they will "hindcast" it and say see we were right all along. This is just about presenting scary stories to persuade America we need democrats to take control and save us from certain doom.

 

I didn't realize a reduction in snow pack in the Sierra Nevada region qualified as a doomsday.

Anyway, why can't Republicans take control and save us from the "doom"? It could be a win-win. They could save us from the "doom" and monetize it in the US's favor making us wealthier in the process.

 

There is no climate doom to save us from. The democrats need a boogeyman under the bed and they need to convince voters only they can slay this boogeyman so you simply have to vote for them.
The predicted forecast for ever lower snow pack in the Sierras was custom tailored to fit with the recent California drought and meant to build on fear that already exist. It's now appearing this drought may be breaking and a couple more big winters like this and the predictions will change to fit the new reality and the new scare will be more big winters to come and California will face major floods all due to global warming. Be very afraid and vote Democrat.

 

Here is where I sit on this issue. I really pay a lot of attention to global clouds.

As to the data, sounds like your point was missed by me. I am here in CA in the second consecutive very cold year. We have closed our major artery highway into Nevada in the north section of CA. We have intense flooding. We have such cold weather it is all they talk about all day long on the news. So if you think a .5 degree warmer overall globe bothers me, no it does not bother me at all.

 

Not within a reasonable time frame, it isn't.

More accurately, you measure it over a period of time; and surely there's no better way to do it than to start with a few hundred temp sensors at t=0, end up with hundreds of times that many at t=100 years, and pretend the datasets at either end of that time interval have the same uncertainty.

Got that about right, haven't I?

Looks like somebody doesn't get that failure to falsify doesn't equal verification.

None of them more important than the assumption that correlation = causation.

Did you really not understand what you were responding to?

 

They don't have the same certainty. The best scientists can do around 1900 is an error of about 0.15C. The best they can do around 2000 is about 0.01C. And since these are RMS values it is astronomically unlikely that the real difference between measured and reality would be 0.15 + 0.01 = 0.16C when doing a subtraction of a 2000 measurement and a 1900 measurement to get the warming. But, let's assume that the error really is that high. That just means the warming was 0.85C instead of 1.00C. Hardly enough of a difference to change conclusions especially considering it is just as likely that the warming was 1.15C and not 1.00C. By the way, Berkeley Earth publishes an error of about 0.05C for their modern 5yr moving average. Reanalysis datasets are much better and offer precision on the order of 0.01C.

Falsification is a central tenant of theory building. Theories are composed of all the hypothesis that survive falsification. It's done this way because truthification requires infinite effort. Remember, all you have to do is show convincing evidence which refutes the evidence already available that GHGs are not increasing. That's what's cool about falsification. It's easy to do if the hypothesis were truly false. But it's very difficult when the hypothesis is likely true.

Humans are definitely the cause of the GHG increases. It's not just a correlation. There are physical processes that necessarily lead to GHG increases as a result of anthroprogenic actions. It is absolutely causative because the laws of physics say so. I'd be happy to discuss the details with you if you want.

I don't know. Maybe I didn't understand your post. Maybe you clarify what you mean?

Here is what I mean. When given the choice between a set of theories you pick the one that best matches reality. The defining metric for AGW is the global mean surface temperature and oceanic heat content. Each theory provides a prediction of these metrics. They are then compared to the observations are scored by how well they match. There are various techniques for doing objective match scoring including but not limited anomaly correlation coefficients, Brier skill score, ROC area skill score, Murphy skill score, etc. Theories that provide no prediction at all are obviously disqualified. No theory in any discipline of science achieves a perfect score on all predicted metrics. In fact, no theory achieves a perfect score on even one predicted metric. But, when evaluating candidate theories you choose the one that yields the highest objective matching scores. Climate science is no different.

 

So does that include all uncertainty, or just instrumental error?

I'm sure we all get that the failure to falsify is necessary for verification. What you seem not to get is that it is not sufficient.

So the way you figure it, nothing in science is known to be true. Right?

Pilgrim, I don't have to do a damn thing, because I haven't obligated myself to falsify AGW.

Well I must say I'm impressed that climatologists have managed to cram an infinite amount of effort into the last century and a half or so.

Maybe you do, if for some reason you are obligated to pick one. Something tells me you've never stopped to reflect on the basis for such an obligation.

 

Interesting bit of data... First time in recorded history Los Angeles didn't have a day in February that reached 70F. I expect to see more of these little snippets of data for 2019 winter records to start rolling out. Like heaviest single day snow event in Flagstaff, record snow in the Sierras, coldest Jan/Feb ever in Vegas... Most snow in Vegas, etc.

 

More NH category 5 tropical cyclones in February as well?

 

Hmm... New Hampshire had category 5 tropical cyclones... who knew.....I suppose having one would be a record... huh? Except, so far, didn't happen...

 

NH = Northern Hemisphere

Wutip became a category 5 super typhoon last week...in the month of February. It peaked at 140 kts with gusts to 170 kts on Feb. 25th, 2019 at 6Z. Yes, it is a record. Yes, it happened.

 

Cool... Nature's heat dissipation churns on... Can you explain that given the set of circumstances why Wutip "exploded"? Water temps weren't that unusually high, and winds weren't unusually light... So, why the explosion? Rapid intensification because????

 

Because sh*t happens. That's my point. I don't use Wutip as supporting evidence for global warming just like I don't use record snowfall in Flagstaff as refuting evidence. That's not how this works.

AGW does not predict that record cold or record snowfall at various locations on the planet will stop happening.

Let me see if I can demonstrate how this works. Consider that are about 50,000 100x100 km (10,000 sq km) regions on the planet.

If there is a 1-in-100 chance that each region will experience record in any given year then that means you have a 1 - (0.99^50000) = 0.99 with over 200 9's chance of finding just one that had a record. It's basically a statistical certainty that you'll find one that experience a record low.

Now let's say global warming changes the odds from 1-in-100 to 1-in-1000. That means you a 1 - (0.999^50000) = 0.99 with 22 additional 9's chance of finding just one that had a record. Again, even though the odds are substantially lower it is still a statistical certainty that you'll find one that experience a record low.

The point...even with global warming it would be astonishing if you couldn't find a record low somewhere to cherry-pick.