Scientists Get Buried In Snow At Davos While Lecturing On Global Warming

2015 and 2016 saw a very strong El Nino. 2017 saw a weak La Nina that didn't effect it more than 2/3rds of a degree. And so far, 2018 (with neither Nino or Nina) is headed towards being cooler than 2017. I do like how the headlines I saw made up for 2017 not being hotter than 2016 by saying that 2017 was the hottest without an El Nino, imagine that.

I never said it wasn't CO2, I said it wasn't man, and if it was then it was so minuscule that it wouldn't effect it enough to tell the difference.

 

Kusatsu-Shirane just erupted yesterday in Japan...

 

I'm not here to hold your hand. I can get you to the river, but you still have to decide to drink. Ta....

 

I am unsurprised by your response.

 

Decades of data, for weather patterns that go back 4.5 million millenia...

 

Yes. I'm serious. What evidence can you point to that shows that when solar flares intersect Earth's orbital path that they cause regions to warm? Everything I've read says 1) solar flares are fleeting, 2) most of the energy is reflected back out to space, 3) their energy is relatively small compared to the onslaught of persistent visible/infrared/ultraviolet radiation, and 4) the energy that is absorbed comes in at a frequency that is tuned to form auroras and not heat. I'm not aware of any research that has identified even a sliver of a warming signal that can be pinned on solar flares even on a local or regional basis nevermind on a global scale.

But, yeah, your point about the Sun being huge and having enormous energy is well taken. And I agree with it. The Sun is THE driving force behind the temperature on Earth. Even small changes in it's output have an effect. And it's been dimming for 60 years now. Why is the Earth not cooling? I mean, if the Sun is THE sole factor in the global mean temperature then the Earth should be cooling right now, but it's not.

 

Holy crap, alert the media, we have something we agree on. Or do we? What can be agreed to is the Sun controls in inputs. What likely we will disagree on is the idea that somehow the sun has been "dimming" for 60 years now. I doubt that "dimming" is what you really meant to say. Perhaps you meant solar weather abating, or something else. But in any event, perhaps you misunderstand the dynamic as we haven't actually gotten to the minimums yet, we are only now starting to enter into that phase. So, suggesting that for 60 years, there was this agreement that we should be delivering substantive cooling seems, well, not entirely truthful. Call it a truthiness failure.

So here's a fun experiment. If the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere remains constant over a period of time, but water vapor doesn't, which has a more direct impact on the temperature? Think winter, consistent CO2 concentrations, and having a cloud layer or not. Now, demonstrate the extent to which CO2 impacts the actual temperature once the sun is down given both. Do you agree that the cloudless sky will deliver lower overnight temperatures? And if so, how did the CO2 concentration effect the level to which that temperature was achieved.

 

Horsefart. That's not from a blogger, that's from a journalist at BBC. Al Gore didn't make it up, he bought into the same line of BS other people who believe in AGW by into.

"Page last updated at 10:40 GMT, Wednesday, 12 December 2007

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

Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.

Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.

Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.

"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.

"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."


Yet, here we still are, and there those ice caps still are, 4 years after they were supposed to be melted.

 

Nuh-uh, they were all lying back then and we'll now be ice free by Trump's next election! First it was 2005, then 2014, now 2020. In 2020, they'll say "Just kidding, we REALLY meant 2035"

 

The Sun just entered its hibernation period a year or two ago. I don't know where you get your info from but it's contradicting.

 

Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister said, “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits [...] Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Every once in awhile the left lets the cat out of the bag. They will frighten people with unverifiable tales from some unknowable point in the distant future in order to redistribute wealth and power today.

 

Not unlike unruly children....

 

Why would we have to wait until the minimum before we see evidence of cooling. I mean, if the minimum has just occurred then total solar irradiance is now going up. You're not suggesting the Earth cools in the presence of more radiation and warms in the absence of it are you? I mean, I get there is an inertia lag between the peaks/troughs of solar irrandiance the atmospheric response, but it's not 60 years. And if we account for all energy storage mechanisms in the biosphere (air, land, and ocean) the inertial lag should be almost imperceptible, no?

But, at any rate, yeah. I agree. The next grand minimum will be a good test of the solar only theory. I'm not holding my breath though. Afterall, everyone who has attempted predictions of using solar theory can't even get the direction of the temperature change correct.

Yes. That's a fun thought experiment. I don't have time to give it the thought required right now though. I'll follow back up with this later.

 

The sun has short 11 year cycles. That's what you're referring to. I'm referring to the grand cycles. This grand cycle peaked around 1958 and has been on decline ever since. Everyone is in agreement that we are fast approaching another grand minimum.

 

You really should educate yourself on the subject.


1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.8 years).

14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”

15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

http://www.aei.org/publication/18-s...irst-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/

Next time read up on a subject before embarrassing yourself again.

18 failed predictions by the same side for 30 years proves his point in spades.

Can you even point to a single predicted temperature change over years that actually came true? Let's see if you can find it.

 

It is amusing to watch those who are in denial of science, as they submit to their ideological dogma, cherry-pick those factors that climatologists provide them to deny the conclusions reached by those scientists who, apparently, err in integrating those factors into a comprehensive analysis that includes other factors that are, apparently, inconvenient for the ideologues in denial.

Essentially, It amounts to espousing half-arse science over science.

Pretending the atmosphere is a magic toilet of infinite capacity, and that there is a vast global conspiracy of climatologists who refuse to admit that, is actually more coherent.

 

Your citation is an editorial (not peer reviewed study) by an economists who lambasted editorials by other people who are not climate scientists.....I told you in the past you are extremely bad at sourcing. You did not change your behavior.

I have educated myself. The subject is about climate science, and AGW, not being fake. Which is why I agree with over 90% of publishing climate scientists, 13 federal agencies, and most major science orginizations on this matter.

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

Directly (quote what is wrong) debunk this several hundred page report with recent peer reviewed studies. Or concede to the fact of AGW/GW.

Furthermore, on your little irrelevant model mis-understanding:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-climate-models-have-not-exaggerated-global-warming

"A number of media reports have asserted that our [study] indicates that global temperatures are not rising as fast as predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and hence that action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is no longer urgent. Both assertions are false. Our results are entirely in line with the IPCC’s 2013 prediction that temperatures in the 2020s would be 0.9-1.3 degrees above pre-industrial [levels]."

Someone who thinks global warming is fake (lol what) and that all studies are wrong is telling me to read up on the subject. Uh huh.

This is like evolution and vaccines. You guys are just literally wrong on this one. The data is too substantial and vast. The debunking data is nearly non existent, or red-herrings. I'm sorry, but your political view do not effect the facts.

 

The only such theory I've ever seen concerns the way some volcanoes are kept "plugged" by the glaciers on top of them, and removing the ice makes it easier for the volcano to erupt. That's not controversial. For example, a few years ago, the eruption in Iceland started under a glacier, but was then quickly quenched by the glacier. That resulted in the magma finding a new outlet some miles away in a spot that didn't have a glacier on top of it.

In any case, the level of volcanic activity now is normal. There are always several volcanoes on earth going off at any given time. Anyone claiming that it's caused by global warming is erupting with crap, which is why no actual scientists are saying such a thing.

 

Your side has been predicting imminent cooling for over 40 years now, since the 1970s. In contrast, almost all of the climate scientists have been predicting warming that whole time. They've been right, your side has been wrong.

Given your side's unblemished record of failure here, why should anyone pay attention to them now?

The CO2 raised the temperature, which caused more water vapor in the air, which was a positive feedback that raised the temperature more.

Why did you think that was difficult? It's rather basic. Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing.

 

You really embarrassed yourself there. You took a bunch of predictions from random people who were not climate scientists, then pretended they were predictions by climate scientists. That makes you either shockingly inept or shockingly dishonest.

Never a problem, as the models have been very good. The fact that you didn't know that just highlights how ignorant you are of the actual science.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/

 

No, they haven't.

That's some brazen fraud-pushing on your part there. Why did you think you wouldn't get called out on it?

I'll give you a chance to back down from that statement now, before I list some of the models --- that is, basically all the models -- that say the opposite of what you claim. Will you admit that you were simply mistaken and your statement was false, or will you double down on the fraud now, and completely crater your credibility?

 

You can use fossil fuel in a clean way that doesn't pollute and most of what is emitted is C02 which is not pollution.

 

So, she says the economy has to move away from fossil fuels, and that causes you to hallucinate a wild conspiracy theory about the global socialist conspiracy.

Thanks for helping illustrate my point, which is how denialism is a bizarre mandated belief of a right-wing-extremist political cult.

If you'd like, you can move on to the Ottmar Edenhofer conspiracy theory now.

The way that you won't be allowed to implement your commie utopia worldwide, not if we can help it. You know, the way you want government controlling all aspects of life, with corporations being your government.

 

I'm well aware of the cults rules. I hotter than normal event is climate while a colder than normal event is weather.