Oh, We Have Another Global Warming Prediction That Got Busted...And Glacier National Park Was Forced

Cool start a thread on that. This threads about GNP removing signs that predicted glaciers there would be gone by now, glaciers that are instead growing.

 

Its exactly what I claimed it was. Your source said this was going on for only a few years. Also this cooling is local and isn't happening globally. Its short-term local cooling that scientists can't perfectly predict.

 

April and May: Above average, but nothing to write Nome about
FEATURED
June 12, 2019

Just like cold weather is not the result of global warming, neither is warm weather. Weather happens and around Greenland, for many different reasons. Yes, June had a spike but it will soon go back to it's statistical bounds.

This is the premier organization that keeps track of Greenland.

 

Fair enough if you interprut and extrapolate "several years in a row of high snowfall and cold temperatures" to mean the source predicts it will end soon which they do not as you seemed to imply. You do at least admit the AGW pretend scientist can't predict local cooling so that's a step toward reality. Congratulations and maybe they should stop doing that as they did in Glacier NP. Ya think?

 

Lots of inconvenient truths in your link.

 

I never said the cooling is going to end soon, I'm just saying that as of now, the cooling is still very much short-term. Maybe Glacier National Park will turn into Antarctica while the rest of the world warms around it, its not very likely, but regions often deviate from global trends.

It can be very hard to predict short-term climate because its impacted by so many local weather patterns that are often unpredictable. Its a lot easier to predict the general direction of global climate over several decades. Its kind of like how it can be difficult for us to precisely predict the temperature tomorrow but we can be very certain that its going to warm significantly from winter to summer.

 

Actually easier to predict short term climate than long term climate just like it is to predict short term weather over long term weather. Funny how the global warming dogma is all about science but totally ignores solar scientists predicting coming cooling due to the major heat source for climate, the sun.

 

Actually climate scientists always take solar cycles into account. These cycles are always short-term and reverse themselves every 10 years or so.

 

Wrong again. They only include total TSI in the global warming dogma but exclude solar activity which has a much greater effect. Why are the solar scientists papers claiming coming cooling based on solar activity not included in the dogma?

 

Your so called scientist claimed glacier NP would be glacier free by 2020. The NP put up signs in front of glaciers propogating this myth.Now it's obvious the so called scientist were wrong and the signs came down. I know you'd like to change the subject and derail the thread but it is what it is and no amount of obfuscation will change that.

 

I just googled TSI and it stands for total solar irradiance and represents the power per unit area heating up the earth from the sun. Sounds pretty complete to me. I'm not a scientist but do you have a definition of "solar activity" that TSI is missing?

 

He is a scientist, not my scientist, or all scientists. And he claimed it would melt by 2020 or 2030, not just 2020. And he might be wrong about the local climate in that park but we will have to wait another 10 years to see. Maybe he will be a bit off and the ice will be mostly melted instead of completely melted, and I'm sure you will come down on him hard if he is wrong. If I had a dollar for every time my local weatherman was wrong, I'd be driving a lambo.

 

Solar activity goes way beyond TSI. The sun's magnetic field changes which affect solar wind which affects the ability of cosmic rays to penetrate the atmosphere which affects the climate. Recently it was only thought that cosmic rays did not affect cloud formation but recent experiments prove they do. Clouds affect Earth's albedo. What is readily apparent to anyone that reads the science is that there are many known unknowns and unknown unknowns. Of course none of these can be modeled and the whole CO2 centric global warming dogma is based on models, not observations. According to the dogma, global warming should appear in the troposphere before surface warming is affected yet just the opposite has occurred. Why? Well all surface warming is based on surface measuring stations also affected but urban heat sinks. The idea that there is one global temperature is a fabrication. It doesn't really exist without models which conveniently change the past temperatures every iteration.

Besides, the earth emits heat in the same amount as incoming heat from the sun. That is a constant. The CO2 centric hypothesis is based on changing the composition of the atmosphere's ability to retain heat longer at the surface. The hypothesis states that the atmosphere expands when this happens yet that is another thing that has not happened.

 

Ok, that fair, there is more to the sun's impact on the earth's temperature. But in my mind, the sun's impact on the clouds and the magnetic field are kind of indirect and a lot smaller than the literal heat pounding the earth every second from the sun. Yet you claim this solar activity with the clouds and magnetic field has a much greater impact than TSI. Doesn't seem right to me.

 

It always amazes me that people can think scientists would miss something as glaringly obvious as the sun

 

Clouds directly reflect energy back to space so more clouds means less energy reaches the surface. Most of the sun's energy goes into the oceans. The majority of energy leaving earth leaves at the poles and is moved through ocean and atmosphere circulation. The amount of energy from the sun is balance with the energy leaving earth. The whole CO2 hypothesis is based on how the atmosphere reacts and that is all based on computer models. There is an old saying in computer modeling. GIGO, garbage in, garbage out (I have worked in computer science since 1971). Since models cannot model much of what the non-linear chaotic atmosphere does, parameters are used. For instance, the models cannot model cloud formation, mainly for two reasons, the known unknowns, unknown unknowns and the limitations of computing power so clouds are parameterized by 100 km squares. Where weather models will model 100 iterations of the same thing and decisions are made on how many of the iterations are similar (when they don't agree is when you see the variations in weather reporting), the global models can only run one iteration due to the complexity and length of time it takes to run. If they were able to model cloud formation and every atmospheric movement it would run longer than you would be alive.

TSI has an impact but even that is not fully understood as some papers say a small change makes a much bigger impact than other papers or even the IPCC says.

One thing that I can state with authority is that there are a couple of things every scientist agrees with, that it has warmed since the beginning of the last century and that we have added CO2 to the atmosphere. After that the actual scientific agreements diverge. Currently only one opinion is acceptable which is CO2 as a control knob but there is a lot of inconvenient science to the dogma but because this has become political that science is shunned and even suppressed by some. CO2 has never been a control knob for temperature throughout earths history so I personally doubt it is now, not that it doesn't have an impact, just not the impact by those trying to change what government does. When science gets on one track, historically the 'consensus' holds for a long time even when it is totally incorrect. It is also the reason you saw a lot of defensive backtracking when we had 2 decades of what was called the hiatus in warming which was not predicted. In fact so far, all of the past doomsday predictions have come and gone without appearing. That should be instructive to anyone listening to the current doomsday predictions.

One of the errors happening now is that all of the doom and gloom announcements you hear on the news and from the activists pushing for change are based on the RCP 8.5 (Representative Concentration Pathways) computer models which are considered to be the least likely outcome. Observed science is actually following more closely with RCP 2.6 which is the low end of the computer modelling scenarios and not really a problem as change would be slow enough to adapt. Back when Hanson pushed his first modeling observed science is following his lowest curve where CO2 stopped increasing by the year 2000.

Don't get me wrong, modeling is a useful tool used in science all the time and as time goes on, as more is understood, they will improve but they should never be used to make political decisions.

In some ways, the current hysteria about man affecting the global climate is much like the past history of man affecting what the Gods for weather except now we do not sacrifice lives to the Gods but wish to sacrifice our living standards as fealty to the current god of possibly wrong science.

 

Clearly false.

Then climate scientists aren't taking into account solar cycles that occur over much longer century- to millennium-scale periods, like the Maunder Minimum that coincided with the Little Ice Age or the 20th century maximum that coincided with the 20th century warming period. You stand refuted.

 

Not if they are paid to miss it:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" -- Upton Sinclair

 

Show me the study that doesn't take them into account.

 

We are already past the point of reversing change with has already been done in the immediate future. Now it is just a question of whether we can stop it in time to avoid human extinction. If we did that it might be possibly to reverse things but it would take hundreds of years.

 

I see the fact that there's no evidence for that claim isn't slowing you down at all.

Go on. Show us the science that says something besides TSI is the critical factor for climate.

But they're not saying that, except for that one Russian woman. And it's kind of dopey to say it. The changes in forcing from changes in solar output are tiny in comparison to the forcings from changes in greenhouse gases. Even if the sun goes full Maunder Minimum, that can only slow down the warming a bit.

 

Just because you are totally uneducated on things like the IPCC or climate science doesn't mean others aren't.

 

This lady speaks for me:

 

As climate has gone in the exact opposite way of what the cosmic ray theory predicted, the cosmic ray theory is conclusively debunked.

The fact that averages exist and are useful is simple common sense.

You actually think global temperature averages are a _model_? Tell me you're not serious.

As the temperature adjustments make the warming look smaller, that conspiracy theory of yours also faceplants.

Well, no. It currently emits less than it receives, which is why the earth is warming.

Not, it doesn't say that. The thermosphere is only affected by space weather, not terrestrial weather.

 

Let's get back to what you're running from, since you clearly can't answer, and I love pointing that out.

You claimed a solar factor besides TSI was driving climate. I asked what it was. We know it's nothing to do with cosmic rays, because that theory was completely debunked when climate went the opposite way that the cosmic ray theory predicted. So what is it?

You refuse to answer. You just have a _feeling_ that is has to be something besides TSI.

Like I said before, you're just waving your hands around and invoking magic. That's not science, that's more like religious fervor on your part. And it's why you're not taken seriously.