It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The fact that you do not see how geology comes into play with regards to the history of climate labels you and paints a very poor picture.
reply to post by bbracken677
Apparently you are not too sure about yourself of you would be comfortable with your "pet" theory taking on skeptics. Apparently you are not too secure.
IE there is nothing unusual from the macro view about glaciers melting right now. NOTHING. There is every chance that within the next thousand, 10 thousand years that we could return to glacial growth
What I have stated repeatedly is that we do not know enough
and the fact that these so called "sciency" guys are blaming it ALL on humans is suspect to the nth degree.
They never want to discuss how that is affecting our climate. They never care to include in the discussions around solar activity either, do they?
So... Care to actually bring something to the table other than rhetoric? Seems everytime you dissect my posts I tear you a new one. I rather enjoy it, since you got nothin. No training, no experience, no scientific background.....nothing but parroting others who write what you want to believe.
Hold your champagne glasses high this holiday season, because the end of 2013 marks the 17th year without global warming.
This year has been trying for climate scientists and environmentalists who have been trying hard to explain away the 17-year hiatus in global warming and link “extreme weather” to rising greenhouse gas emissions — despite strong evidence to the contrary. There has been a breakdown in the manmade global warming consensus, and some even argue we are headed for an ice age.
In honor of the 17th year without global warming, The Daily Caller News Foundation has put together seven setbacks for global warming alarmism.
The top seven global warming alarmist setbacks in 2013
Kali74
reply to post by bbracken677
Everything that I have read has indicated that we should be in this ice age for another few thousand years, give or take... that puts the extensive summer melting of the Arctic that we have been seeing, well before it's time.
Which of the hundreds of climate models being used are wrong? See the last 10 year? What am I supposed to be seeing? Are you referring to the 'pause' that wasn't? Slowed GST increase a pause does not make.
Now as far as the magnetosphere, I haven't heard much about this at all. The only thing I can think of short of full pole reversal which is likely going to be pure chaos... I don't see how it relates currently has earth's rotation changed, earth's wobble, earth's orbit?
xuenchen
Hmmm.
Hold your champagne glasses high this holiday season, because the end of 2013 marks the 17th year without global warming.
This year has been trying for climate scientists and environmentalists who have been trying hard to explain away the 17-year hiatus in global warming and link “extreme weather” to rising greenhouse gas emissions — despite strong evidence to the contrary. There has been a breakdown in the manmade global warming consensus, and some even argue we are headed for an ice age.
In honor of the 17th year without global warming, The Daily Caller News Foundation has put together seven setbacks for global warming alarmism.
The top seven global warming alarmist setbacks in 2013
Since many do make this some political thing, it is not and should not be political.
Personally I do not totally exclude the possibility that man has had an affect on the climate. However I disagree with the extent to which we are blamed for the previously mentioned reasons.
I also have serious issues with theories being floated that we can seriously have an affect on climate, in what we perceive as a positive manner, with the meager changes being espoused.
The earth is a huge and powerful system. There is a quote from one leading climatologist that (paraphrasing from memory) is along the lines of: "It is man's extreme hubris to believe he can seriously affect climate" (short of nuclear war, of course).
If you look at geologic history you will find that our current climate is extremely mild and favorable for humans. You will also find that that is not the normal case. You will also find that, given that history, we are bound to experience change. Change can happen rather rapidly, at least according to some indications (not fact, theory).
Are you willing to sacrifice your standard of living based on unproven theory? Are you willing to bet your life, and those of your family on solutions that may cause more problems than doing nothing?
Now adding in the magnetosphere bit, 15% decrease over 200 years is it? The timing is accurate, if that's indeed what's happening but how does it affect climate?
AthlonSavage
reply to post by xuenchen
Why does it get colder when the planet is getting hotter?
There is danger in the exuberant feeling of ever growing power which the advance of the physical sciences has engendered and which tempts man to try… to subject not only our natural but also our human environment to the control of a human will. The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson of humility… . “
Hayek’s observations are important because individuals who consider themselves the smartest in the room continue to try to capture the workings of the world in complex computer models that substitute value judgments and assumptions for facts and reality for the purpose of informing policy. When it becomes clear that model results don’t match reality, too often the reaction is not to admit the flaws in models; it is to explain away reality. That is being demonstrated over and over in the field of climate change.
The models on which advocates base their predictions of dread do not accurately replicate the workings of the climate system. Recent analyses have shown that the models consistently over predict warming and cannot account for the 16 year halt in warming. The problem is that the model advocates have too much of their egos and reputations invested in the models and climate orthodoxy to admit failings. Psychologists call this the Backfire Phenomenon—“rather than facts driving beliefs, our beliefs can dictate the facts we chose to accept.”
Personally? Absolutely, but I don't get to decide for everyone and that's for the best even if it means we die off. However I don't think it need be that dramatic. We either go back to horse and buggy or we die? Nah. We only only need to stop with the burning of fossil fuels and luckily for us, we're learning how to without sacrificing all our wonderful technology and comforts. Just imagine though if this argument hadn't been raging for 30 years, how much closer would we be to achieving that?
bbracken677
reply to post by Kali74
Regarding what is normal for earth: All I can say is normal tends to be much more extreme than what we are used to. So should we be surprised if our climate becomes more extreme?
MATT ENGLAND: Oh absolutely. There are people actually out there trying to say that the IPCC has overstated or overestimated climate change. This report shows very clearly that the projections have occurred.
SARAH CLARKE: So the forecast was of a predicted rise of 0.7 to 1.5 degrees, is that right?
MATT ENGLAND: That's right, and it's by 2030, so we're halfway through this projected period. And the warming to date is consistent with that projection.
And so anybody out there lying that the IPCC projections are overstatements or that the observations haven't kept pace with the projections is completely offline with this. The analysis is very clear that the IPCC projections are coming true.
Prof. Matt England 2012
However, climate models exhibit individual decades of GMST trend hiatus even during a prolonged phase of energy uptake of the climate system (e.g.Figure 9.8; Easterling and Wehner, 2009; Knight et al., 2009), in which case the energy budget would be balanced by increasing subsurface–ocean heat uptake (Meehl et al., 2011, 2013a; Guemas et al., 2013).
www.climatechange2013.org...
Do global temperature trends over the last Decade falsify climate predictions?
Observations indicate that global temperature rise has slowed in the last decade. The least squares trend for January 1999 to December 2008 calculated from the HadCRUT3 dataset (Brohan et al. 2006) is +0.07±0.07°C/decade, much less than the 0.18°C/dec recorded between 1979 and 2005 and the 0.2°C/dec expected in the next decade (IPCC; Solomon et al. 2007). This is despite a steady increase in radiative forcing as a result of human activities and has led some to question climate predictions of substantial twenty-first century warming (Lawson 2008; Carter 2008).
El Niño–Southern Oscillation is a strong driver of interannual global mean temperature variations. ENSO and non-ENSO contributions can be separated by the method of Thompson et al. (2008). The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08±0.07°C/dec, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the "ENSO-adjusted" trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C/dec, implying much greater disagreement with anticipated global temperature rise.
Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.
www.metoffice.gov.uk...
Finally for the simulations of the entire 21st century there is still about a 5% chance of a negative decadal trend, even in the absence of any simulated volcanic eruptions. If we restrict the period to the first half of the 21st century the probability increases to about 10% revealing that the trend in surface air temperature has its own positive trend in the A2 emissions scenario.
The control experiment has an equal percentage of statistically significant positive and negative trends. The observations and the 20th century simulations show similar small percentages although the model results reveal a somewhat broader distribution. The difference may in part be due to the single realization for the observed record. However, for the A2 forcing scenario, both for the first half and the entire 21st century there are no statistically significant negative trends.
www.esrl.noaa.gov...
The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012). For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade. It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period — not significantly different from zero — suggests a temporary ‘hiatus’ in global warming.
Differences between observed and simulated 20-year trends have p values that drop to close to zero by 1993–2012 under assumption (1) and to 0.04 under assumption (2). Here we note that the smaller the p value is, the stronger the evidence against the null hypothesis. On this basis, the rarity of the 1993–2012 trend difference under assumption (1) is obvious. Under assumption (2), this implies that such an inconsistency is only expected to occur by chance once in 500 years, if variation might combine differently in observations than in models.
www.see.ed.ac.uk...
Kali74
bbracken677
reply to post by Kali74
Regarding what is normal for earth: All I can say is normal tends to be much more extreme than what we are used to. So should we be surprised if our climate becomes more extreme?
Surprised? No. There's been greenhouse gas warming before. Should we pretend there hasn't been just because we are releasing gigatons of Co2 in the name of profit and progress? Should we pretend that we are so horribly stupid that we can't progress without fossil fuels?