Global Cooling

[geekster]

Climate Science Parasites

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content ... -parasites

[quote]For a second time, a letter has appeared in the journal Science urging scientists to action regarding climate change. “Because of the physics of the climate system, we must ensure that global emissions of greenhouse gases peak and start to decline rapidly within a decade in order to have a reasonable chance of meeting the 2°C goal,â€

[neon tetra]

Even if the entire thing was a scam (which it isn't), I think I would still support it b/c less pollution is a good outcome regardless.

[geekster]

You must be young.

The US is *much* less polluted now than it was when I was a kid. The US has been getting cleaner over the past 40 years. When I was a kid, people swam in a Chesapeake Bay that had dead fish and foams of various colors floating on it. The Hudson and the Thames were dead rivers.

Today there are fish running up the Potomac above Washington D.C., salmon run up the Thames and sturgeon are again seen in the Hudson.

But you buy into that crap that things are getting worse because you have no perspective. You didn't see things as they were in the 1960's. I did. Things are a hell of a lot better now. Things are improving, not getting worse. You need to get a little perspective and some understanding of reality before you start preaching your religion.

[neon tetra]

The waterways you mentioned are cleaner only because of MASSIVE cleanup efforts, not because of less overall pollution on the planet.

[geekster]

Have you ever been to a major city in China or Brazil or India or Eastern Europe? The US is like a national park compared to those places. Spend a year in Mexico City and then a year in LA and compare the difference.

Try spending a year in the downtown area of an Indian city.

Most of the pollution you breathe ... the heavy metals, for example, don't originate in the US. China pumps more mercury into the atmosphere than any country on the planet. Why don't you go to China and bitch at them for a while?

[neon tetra]

Every country needs to improve.

And the whole "other places are worse, so therefore we don't need to improve" sentiment is pretty ignorant, IMO.

[ygmir]

Have you ever been to a major city in China or Brazil or India or Eastern Europe? The US is like a national park compared to those places. Spend a year in Mexico City and then a year in LA and compare the difference.

Try spending a year in the downtown area of an Indian city.

Most of the pollution you breathe ... the heavy metals, for example, don't originate in the US. China pumps more mercury into the atmosphere than any country on the planet. Why don't you go to China and bitch at them for a while?

+1

[neon tetra]

In the middle east, they kill homosexuals. So if we just cut off their arms it's much better.

+1


Again, that mentality is ridiculous.


Also, much of that Chinese pollution is for products that the U.S. consumes.

[dr.placebo]

Geekster is mostly correct about pollution. The US is substantially cleaner than most developing nations because of the prodding of scientists, the political action of citizens, and the response of the government. There is some effect from the reduction of manufacturing, but it is mostly regulatory action that has made the air and water cleaner. Similar actions have taken place in Europe and Japan.

We do not have a cleaner environment because of freely chosen actions by most corporations. With a few exceptions the energy companies and the automotive industry have resisted the regulations.

The problems with pollution and with global warming are not just ours. Both problems are global, both need action by nearly all nations.

[neon tetra]

We don't make anything here anymore. Of course it's worse in the places where all our junk is made.

[can't sit still]

Here's a solution for both warming AND cooling;

[can't sit still]

I couldn't resist this;
http://www.xepisodes.com/southpark/epis ... arpig.html

[can't sit still]

This guy has a good track record. He also predicted the heat in Russia the and flooding in Pakistan.

[geekster]

December was 9 degrees below average in Miami. It is snowing in Phoenix. They are saying it will possibly be the coldest winter in 1000 years in parts of Europe. They had snow on the first day of summer in Australia. It has been raining like never recorded in many places in Australia.

Lake Eyre in Australia experiences "flood on flood"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010 ... 103613.htm

The San Francisco bay area had the coldest summer on record.

[dr.placebo]

In some (not all) portions of the northern hemisphere we are experiencing colder than normal temperatures. Yet this comes after a record (according to GISS) warm Dec-Nov year (and, very likely, a record warm 2010) on a global basis. So, inquiring minds want to know, WTF?

First, a number of climate scientists have been predicting that putting more thermal energy into the system is going to result in more extreme weather. It's not absolute proof, but 2010 has seen a rather full plate of extreme weather, from cold winters in the US and parts of Europe to broiling hot temperatures in Russia and much of central Asia. So, another cold winter in some locations is actually consistent with global warming. Persistent cold weather on a global basis for the span of years would be inconsistent with global warming. Since 2010 has been a warm year (even if it does not get the record), then I would say that we need at least several years of declining air temperatures (and increasing Arctic ice and especially decreasing global sea temperatures) to say that global warming is not active.

Second, recent studies suggest that a cold winter in Europe is a consequence of disappearing arctic sea ice. If validated, then Europe should start expecting this kind of winter more often.

Third, be careful to distinguish between cold temperatures and snowfall. Increased snow is actually a sign of ocean and lake warming because of the extra water in the air. There is a recognized trend for warmer years to have more snow in the winter.

See

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... f-warming/

http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/29/n ... -december/

http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/29/b ... te-change/

http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/13/m ... te-change/

[can't sit still]

Varying variables.
http://www.dailytech.com/Dust+Study+May ... e20516.htm

[dr.placebo]

One thing that made me distrust the cited blog (Jason Mick for dailytech) is that it contains the following: "Solar activity also climbed over the last few decades as the Earth heated up." But that's just wrong. Solar activity has declined since about 1950 as we have experienced significant warming since about 1975, and we have just had a very low minimum of solar activity in the past 3 years.

Here's a somewhat more balanced description of the same paper on dust:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 203436.htm

If this finding is validated, correcting for dust will have some effect on climate models. Having a larger number of larger particles, which are associated with warming, will likely adjust down the effect of greenhouse gases. But notice that the ScienceDaily article says that the larger particles have a limited range, so it will be necessary to determine the weighted effect.

Note that significant efforts to measure dust particle size and distribution are underway. See

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 163209.htm

[can't sit still]

dr. Placepo, what say you?
"when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... z19jfG5AAH"

[dr.placebo]

Let's see, Time magazine of June 1974 (at least, that's what the link destination claims). Just before the slight cooling trend from 1940 turned into sustained global warming.

Should I have more than a passing historical interest in this article? Not really.

A more complete response, also citing the Time article, is

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age ... ediate.htm

[can't sit still]

My contention isn't so much cooling or warming.
"Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…"
My contention is that; we still don't have an understanding that is complete enough to be close to certain.
In the vid, that I linked, the guy was heavily weighted to solar conditions rather than terrestrial. The "Met" in GB was horrifically inaccurate. THEY rely on terrestrial data
If their predictions of a "barbecue summer" and a "mild, wet" winter were completely wrong, why should we even consider their data inputs and analysis?
East Anglia, being in GB, should, at the very minimum, be able to predict one season of "home" weather.

Leaving out the big picture for a moment, why should we believe that the MET in GB is competent?

[can't sit still]

I forgot the link;

"Dominic Lawson of the Sunday Times asserted, “A period of humility and even silence would be welcome from the Met Office, which had promised a “barbecue summerâ€

[dr.placebo]

Reliably predicting a season for a limited area (like the UK) is, to my understanding, beyond the ability of the MET or anyone. Probably the MET makes seasonal predictions because everyone wants them to. It would be a good idea to publish a track record when they make a seasonal prediction, just to keep people aware of the inherent errors that can come up. Maybe they are right more often than chance, maybe not. I certainly don't know.

It's not hard for individuals to be lucky, although a few good predictions don't support the rationale given. It's like having an octopus predict the World Cup.

There are some cases where seasonal prediction is starting to be realistic. For example, the 2010 hurricane season was estimated accurately, although no reasonable group made predictions of landfall. That is just as well, since the storms that even touched the US were very few, and no hurricane eye actually made the US coast. An unusual season overall.

What we measure from satellites and other sources is an imbalance in global thermal energy. As far as we can tell more is coming in from the sun than is going out. The effects are consistent with the forcing from greenhouse gases. Predicting warming is not all that difficult. Predicting the when and where of warming has to be done, but it will be subject to a lot of things that are not fully understood or measured, and there will be errors.

The famous El Nino (or ENSO) warming is essentially a heat transfer between sea and air. We know that it happens, but we barely understand it. Other heat transfers are far less understood, such as the increased heat transfer in the arctic made possible by warmer waters and less ice. We know that the effects are large, but we rarely know where or when they will happen.

What is the point of modeling and predicting if there are so many failures? Some time back I mentioned that the point of modeling was to gain insight into a complex system. One compares the model output with the data and tries to improve the models. In the 70's the models were crude, the computers small and slow (a single PS3 could whip any supercomputer of that era), and the understanding was only nascent. There have been 35 years of improvement in all areas, but the systems are complex and are known to be chaotic.

I expect that we will gain understanding slowly from models and predictions, and I expect that we will learn more from faulty predictions than from correct ones.

[can't sit still]

Doctor, I have been accused of intellectual laziness. I must pass this charge on to you. This is about the third time that you have ducked an unpalatable question.
The MET should never have made a prediction if it is beyond it's ability. If the MET is incapable in making a general seasonal prediction, why should anyone have faith in ANY of it's predictions? Don't tell me that "scope" is going to change the outcome. Accuracy is accuracy.
Step up to the mic. Tell us that Corbyn was lucky. Lucky in Pakistan,,, lucky in Russia,,, lucky in GB.
While you're at it, tell us how lucky Jennifer Lawson was. She used much the same analysis criteria that Corbyn used. She too has a great track record. Terrestrial analysis, absent a heavy weighting on extraterrestrial influences, is hopeless.

[theCryptofishist]

It's like having an octopus predict the World Cup.

You make your living your way and I'll make mine, mine.

I have got to start taking things seriously around here. I thought it was a joke!

There have been 35 years of improvement in all areas, but the systems are complex and are known to be chaotic.

Isn't climate--or at least weather--where chaos theory cut its teeth?

[can't sit still]

"I have got to start taking things seriously around here. I thought it was a jok"
It IS a joke. Why so tiny?
BTW, what ARE my bonafieds?

[can't sit still]

Corbyn, Lawson and others have shown that extraterrestrial inputs are very important to the weather on Terra. Here's an article about solar activity. All things considered, it should be taken very seriously. After all, the Holocene has been nice for a VERY long time.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... longrange/

[dr.placebo]

Doctor, I have been accused of intellectual laziness. I must pass this charge on to you. This is about the third time that you have ducked an unpalatable question.
The MET should never have made a prediction if it is beyond it's ability. If the MET is incapable in making a general seasonal prediction, why should anyone have faith in ANY of it's predictions? Don't tell me that "scope" is going to change the outcome. Accuracy is accuracy.
Step up to the mic. Tell us that Corbyn was lucky. Lucky in Pakistan,,, lucky in Russia,,, lucky in GB.
While you're at it, tell us how lucky Jennifer Lawson was. She used much the same analysis criteria that Corbyn used. She too has a great track record. Terrestrial analysis, absent a heavy weighting on extraterrestrial influences, is hopeless.

Uh, I'm not sure that I ducked a question. Would you care to point it out to me?

I actually do not know whether Corbyn is lucky, genuinely psychic, gifted in his understanding of weather, or none of the above. I don't have access to his track record. I do admit to being quite skeptical of analysis based on "solar patterns, the number of cosmic rays hitting the earth, the Moon’s impact on streaming particles, and jet streams". It seems like an awkward combination of things, blending together things that are unlike in kind and magnitude. So I'd like better arguments for his methodology.

I did a brief scan of references to Piers Corbyn, and I have not found any reliable confirmation or refutation of his forecasts. I did find a number of quotes that indicate that he does not understand computer modeling, does not think that humans contribute to global warming, and that the whole global warming theory is a deliberate fraud. He also supports that insidious quack TVMOB (Monckton), so it seems unlikely that we would be friends.

As for the Met, it seems to me that they have little chance of avoiding making predictions for the UK, and being wrong twice is part of the state of the art. The question for me is whether the prediction process is yielding anything of value. If not, then it should be discontinued (but that is unlikely, given the very human desire to know the future).

There is quite a difference between having reliable predictions for a relatively small area over a relatively short time period and having more global predictions. That we have an energy surplus coming into the earth right now is pretty well established by measurement. That this will lead to global warming is widely supported by climate scientists. That this warming should lead to more extreme weather is widely predicted. But which extremes and when they happen and where they happen is beyond the state of reliable modeling (as far as I can tell). Scale matters, scope matters, context matters.

Chaos theory does indeed owe something to the study of weather. But it goes back further. See the Wiki article on Chaos theory if you get curious about the history.

Now, about the statement "Terrestrial analysis, absent a heavy weighting on extraterrestrial influences, is hopeless." Sure, solar radiation is a critical determiner of climate and weather. But not everything outside of our atmosphere has a significant effect. The right approach is to measure effects and understand the causality. Merely establishing a correlation is insufficient.

[can't sit still]

Ah, the good doctor is arguing scope. I don't buy it.
"being wrong twice is part of the state of the art" Funny, I thought it was a science, NOT an art. 'twice" doesn't really describe it accurately. They missed completely for the WHOLE season,,, twice.
Yes,Moncton is somewhat hard to digest What good is a command of computer modeling if it's completely inaccurate?
When I wrote,, extraterrestrial influences, I was not limiting the energies to solar radiation. Plasma flows must, evidently, be taken into account. There is a plasma loop to and from the sun carrying a potential of a billion amperes. There are also intergalactic and inter-system plasma flows. I don't have cites at my fingertips. The Electric Universe is a good place to start.
John Bedini claims that the earth is a homopolar motor driven by currents from the sun. While I understand that this is not a widely accepted theory, that does not meant that it is invalid. I do understand the requirements for an iron core. I'm not certain just how this relates to the rest of the planets.
I'm writing from fuzzy memory but, I believe that the outer mantle rotates at a different speed than the inner core. I imagine that this creates a huge amount of friction. Crap, one more thing to read up on and file away.
All very interesting

[dr.placebo]

Scope matters. The characteristics of the system change with scale and time.

I'll give a simple example of how scope matters. Consider a pot of water on a stove. Assume that we know a lot of characteristics pretty well: the amount of water, the amount of heat transferred into the pot, the amount lost by conduction, convection, and evaporation. Even suppose that this is not the first, but the tenth such experiment we have run. The amount of time it takes to boil the water will vary, although probably not by a large amount, and we can predict the time with reasonable accuracy. What we cannot predict is where or when the bubbles will appear on the surface. The overall system may be understood, but on a small scale chaos takes over.

You asked "What good is a command of computer modeling if it's completely inaccurate?" If it is completely inaccurate then it is probably no good at all. But if it is sporadically inaccurate then it provides information where it breaks down. I don't know enough about the Met's track record. If it is no better than chance, and the number of trials is significant, then I would argue that whatever method they are using needs substantial revision. But I don't have that data available. Nor do I have it for Corbyn.

Now, as to external influences other than solar radiation. I've not seen any convincing evidence that weather or climate is significantly affected by solar wind (with or without the effect of the moon), cosmic rays, or the sun's magnetic field. My own leaning is to strongly doubt the presence of mechanisms where the underlying effect is much smaller than the known operating mechanisms (solar radiation, tides, orbital mechanics). For example, at the earth's orbit the sun's magnetic field is about 2-5 nanoteslas, while the earth's magnetic field (at the surface) is 30000-60000 nanoteslas, making the sun's field far weaker than natural variations in the earth's field.

I'm not sure where the source is for "plasma loop to and from the sun carrying a potential of a billion amperes." First, an ampere is a current, not a potential. Second, the solar wind is mostly driven outward by solar radiation, and the return path is generally negligible (except near the sun's surface). Maybe a cite?

[can't sit still]

Dr, you would find it quite interesting to read up on Birkeland currents. This is a good start;
http://www.thunderbolts.info/webnews/12 ... ricsun.htm