A Scientist, His Work and a Climate Reckoning

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Are you thrown by the article title? Because the article itself certainly doesn't support your position that the Antarctic ice is now "at an all-time high."

Don't really give a shit about the article,.

Apparently!

Ah, yes, the champion of "10 years is too short for a trend, unless it shows warming" - how are you today, John?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Get a grip.

I love how the mods get to act this way.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Debating the science of it all apparently is really tough. The waters have been clouded by those who don't understand the science and those who have political issues that disregard the realities of the science. Usually by those who suffer both the lack of understanding AND have the political issues.


Paul:
I think you've asked a bit much of those here. Few, if any, really understand enough of the real science behind it all to put up a decent argument one way or the other.

For most of us, it boils down to, "who are you going to believe". Kinda like religion, eh?

The thing is both sides oversimplify the whole situation.

And the bigger issue is just because you might agree with a cause does not automatically mean you should agree to the "solution" proposed.

The climate has been changing since the big bang/God said "poof". to claim it is all 100% due to mankind is ignoring history.

To claim all the pollution is doing nothing is ignoring science.

But even if one agrees with a problem... that does not mean the solution (For example carbon tax) is a good idea.

Of course, no one seems to be willing to look past party lines (not you specifically, just saw an opening here).

[rushmc 18]

I did not know that some of the new ice age charcters were now the warmists we hear today

Posted more for fun than anything

Found on FOX

Quote

Eight Botched Environmental Forecasts
By Maxim Lott



Twentieth Century Fox

The Statue of Liberty, depicted frozen solid in the movie "The Day After Tomorrow." Many weather forecasters and scientists wonder whether a coming period of "global cooling" may be on the way.

A new year is around the corner, and some climate scientists and environmental activists say that means we're one step closer to a climate Armageddon. But are we really?

Predicting the weather -- especially a decade or more in advance -- is unbelievably challenging. What's the track record of those most worried about global warming? Decades ago, what did prominent scientists think the environment would be like in 2010? FoxNews.com has compiled eight of the most egregiously mistaken predictions, and asked the predictors to reflect on what really happened.

1. Within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is." Snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event." Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.

Ten years later, in December 2009, London was hit by the heaviest snowfall seen in 20 years. And just last week, a snowstorm forced Heathrow airport to shut down, stranding thousands of Christmas travelers.

A spokesman for the government-funded British Council, where Viner now works as the lead climate change expert, told FoxNews.com that climate science had improved since the prediction was made.

Over the past decade, climate science has moved on considerably and there is now more understanding about the impact climate change will have on weather patterns in the coming years," British Council spokesman Mark Herbert said. "However, Dr Viner believes that his general predictions are still relevant."

Herbert also pointed to another prediction from Viner in the same article, in which Viner predicted that "heavy snow would return occasionally" and that it would "probably cause chaos in 20 years time." Other scientists said "a few years" was simply too short a time frame for kids to forget what snow was.

"I'd say at some point, say 50 years from now, it might be right. If he said a few years, that was an unwise prediction," said Michael Oppenheimer, director of Princeton University's Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy.

Of course, Oppenheimer himself is known for controversial global warming scenarios.

2. "[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." Michael Oppenheimer, published in "Dead Heat," St. Martin's Press, 1990.

Oppenheimer told FoxNews.com that he was trying to illustrate one possible outcome of failing to curb emissions, not making a specific prediction. He added that the gist of his story had in fact come true, even if the events had not occurred in the U.S.

"On the whole I would stand by these predictions -- not predictions, sorry, scenarios -- as having at least in a general way actually come true," he said. "There's been extensive drought, devastating drought, in significant parts of the world. The fraction of the world that's in drought has increased over that period."

That may be in doubt, however. Data from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center shows that precipitation -- rain and snow -- has increased slightly over the century.

3. "Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000." Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.

Ice coverage has fallen, though as of last month, the Arctic Ocean had 3.82 million square miles of ice cover -- an area larger than the continental United States -- according to The National Snow and Ice Data Center.

4. "Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010." Associated Press, May 15, 1989.

Status of prediction: According to NASA, global temperature has increased by about 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1989. And U.S. temperature has increased even less over the same period.

The group that did the study, Atmospheric and Environmental Research Inc., said it could not comment in time for this story due to the holidays.

But Oppenheimer said that the difference between an increase of nearly one degree and an increase of two degrees was "definitely within the margin of error... I would think the scientists themselves would be happy with that prediction."

Many scientists, especially in the 1970s, made an error in the other direction by predicting global freezing:

5. "By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." Life magazine, January 1970.

Life Magazine also noted that some people disagree, "but scientists have solid experimental and historical evidence to support each of the following predictions."

Air quality has actually improved since 1970. Studies find that sunlight reaching the Earth fell by somewhere between 3 and 5 percent over the period in question.

6. "If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Kenneth E.F. Watt, in "Earth Day," 1970.

According to NASA, global temperature has increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1970.

How could scientists have made such off-base claims? Dr. Paul Ehrlich, author of "The Population Bomb" and president of Stanford University's Center for Conservation Biology, told FoxNews.com that ideas about climate science changed a great deal in the the '70s and '80s.

"Present trends didn't continue," Ehrlich said of Watt's prediction. "There was considerable debate in the climatological community in the '60s about whether there would be cooling or warming … Discoveries in the '70s and '80s showed that the warming was going to be the overwhelming force."

Ehrlich told FoxNews.com that the consequences of future warming could be dire.

The proverbial excrement is "a lot closer to the fan than it was in 1968," he said. "And every single colleague I have agrees with that."

He added, "Scientists don't live by the opinion of Rush Limbaugh and Palin and George W. They live by the support of their colleagues, and I've had full support of my colleagues continuously."

But Ehrlich admits that several of his own past environmental predictions have not come true:

7. "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.

Ehrlich's prediction was taken seriously when he made it, and New Scientist magazine underscored his speech in an editorial titled "In Praise of Prophets."

"When you predict the future, you get things wrong," Ehrlich admitted, but "how wrong is another question. I would have lost if I had had taken the bet. However, if you look closely at England, what can I tell you? They're having all kinds of problems, just like everybody else."

8. "In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970

"Certainly the first part of that was very largely true -- only off in time," Ehrlich FoxNews.com. "The second part is, well -- the fish haven't washed up, but there are very large dead zones around the world, and they frequently produce considerable stench."

"Again, not totally accurate, but I never claimed to predict the future with full accuracy," he said.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 3]

I hope I live long enough to return to this thread and you in 30 years.

It would be "interesting" to see which of the two of us was more correct.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 18]

Quote

I hope I live long enough to return to this thread and you in 30 years.

It would be "interesting" to see which of the two of us was more correct.

Yes that would be intersting

It is interesting looking back and seeing how past predictions came true too

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I hope I live long enough to return to this thread and you in 30 years.

It would be "interesting" to see which of the two of us was more correct.

CO2|Temp correlation: .44

AMO+PDO|Temp correlation: .83

AMO+PDO+Solar Activity Integral|Temp correlation: .96

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

I hope I live long enough to return to this thread and you in 30 years.

It would be "interesting" to see which of the two of us was more correct.

CO2|Temp correlation: .44

AMO+PDO|Temp correlation: .83

AMO+PDO+Solar Activity Integral|Temp correlation: .96

What level of confidense are you using?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quade
I got thinking about this thread, my last post on it and our exchange about the future and it got me wondering, do you know of any messurable predictions about CO2 and the climate are now proven to be true? Or at least thought to be true because of observations that me the predictions. Other than it (CO2 amounts) have increased?

Thanks

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

But Oppenheimer said that the difference between an increase of nearly one degree and an increase of two degrees was "definitely within the margin of error... I would think the scientists themselves would be happy with that prediction."

laughing - I guess that's the nice thing about predicting a 2 degree increase and then claiming that 0.7 is only a [well, more than) a degree off, within error. Nevermind it's a 200% overstatement.

Quote

Many scientists, especially in the 1970s, made an error in the other direction by predicting global freezing:

5. "By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." Life magazine, January 1970.

Air quality has actually improved since 1970. Studies find that sunlight reaching the Earth fell by somewhere between 3 and 5 percent over the period in question.

6. "If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Kenneth E.F. Watt, in "Earth Day," 1970.

According to NASA, global temperature has increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1970.

This one isn't so off base. The air pollution outlook in 1970 was very different than what was achieved, at least in the US, Europe, since then. If they expected this to continue to worsen, that would be a substantial part of the basis for thinking the sunlight would be blocked, and energy received decreased.

Quote

8. "In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970

"Certainly the first part of that was very largely true -- only off in time,"

This is true(ish) not because of dead zones, but because of overfishing.

[quade 3]

Quote

Quade
I got thinking about this thread, my last post on it and our exchange about the future and it got me wondering, do you know of any messurable predictions about CO2 and the climate are now proven to be true? Or at least thought to be true because of observations that me the predictions. Other than it (CO2 amounts) have increased?

Thanks

Well, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the northern ice cap is getting smaller and smaller every year. That's visually obvious in photographs, so it's pretty indisputable.

Some people have attempted to debate whether the same is true about the total amount of ice at the southern ice cap. That's a bit more difficult to see visually, but NASA can measure the total mass via satellite and it's gravitational effects.

There is absolutely no doubt that planet-wide temperatures are steadily increasing year after year. That's also a scientifically measurable thing.

Increasing amounts of CO2 do, in fact, trap more heat on the planet. That's a scientific fact and can be independently verified through simple experiments.

If a person wants to say that humans aren't contributing enough CO2 to "create" the problem, I question their logic. Certainly we're "not helping" the situation.

I don't know about you, but in my house, when the temperature starts getting too hot, I reach over and turn the thermostat down because i'm pretty damn sure it's not going to turn itself down. As long as heat keeps getting added by my actions, the house will continue to be hotter than I want it.

The human race has the opportunity to at least moderate what they do. I think we should take advantage of that.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Increasing amounts of CO2 do, in fact, trap more heat on the planet. That's a scientific fact and can be independently verified through simple experiments.

If a person wants to say that humans aren't contributing enough CO2 to "create" the problem, I question their logic. Certainly we're "not helping" the situation.

I don't know about you, but in my house, when the temperature starts getting too hot, I reach over and turn the thermostat down because i'm pretty damn sure it's not going to turn itself down. As long as heat keeps getting added by my actions, the house will continue to be hotter than I want it.

the global weather system is far more complicated than CO2 = hot, and a simple analog to the temperature in your house. His list of 'missed' predictions is proof of what happens when you try to avoid real science.

BTW, turning down the thermostat in my house does nothing if it's hot inside. I have to open the window and hope the ocean breeze is going. It only works the other way - I can heat the place if it is cold. (And it's been a cold month!)

[quade 3]

If you're in bed and it's too hot, do you take off blankets or put them on?

Yes, of course it's a simplistic analogy. Duh.

That said, CO2 ABSOLUTELY has an insulating effect and does trap more heat on the planet. That's not in question whatsoever.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quade
I got thinking about this thread, my last post on it and our exchange about the future and it got me wondering, do you know of any messurable predictions about CO2 and the climate are now proven to be true? Or at least thought to be true because of observations that me the predictions. Other than it (CO2 amounts) have increased?

Thanks

Well, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the northern ice cap is getting smaller and smaller every year. That's visually obvious in photographs, so it's pretty indisputable.

Some people have attempted to debate whether the same is true about the total amount of ice at the south ice cap. That's a bit more difficult to see visually, but NASA can measure the total mass via satellite and it's gravitational effects.

There is absolutely no doubt that planet-wide temperatures are steadily increasing year after year. That's also a scientifically measurable thing.

Increasing amounts of CO2 do, in fact, trap more heat on the planet. That's a scientific fact and can be independently verified through simple experiments.

If a person wants to say that humans aren't contributing enough CO2 to "create" the problem, I question their logic. Certainly we're "not helping" the situation.

I don't know about you, but in my house, when the temperature starts getting too hot, I reach over and turn the thermostat down because i'm pretty damn sure it's not going to turn itself down. As long as heat keeps getting added by my actions, the house will continue to be hotter than I want it.

The human race has the opportunity to at least moderate what they do. I think we should take advantage of that.

I take your absolutes with a grain of salt Paul
The things you state are not undisputed

Less ice extent but more/thicker ice equals no net loss (I generalize for a point here) And as lawrocket has posted so well the reasons are varied and many

In any event thanks
Not that I agree but it helps when other debates come up because a context is laid

As for moderation?
That is one my points I make here often
For many, AWG is a tool for others to try and push a life style they think we all need to live on others
So much for freedoms huh

Thanks for the reply

Marc

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quade
I got thinking about this thread, my last post on it and our exchange about the future and it got me wondering, do you know of any messurable predictions about CO2 and the climate are now proven to be true? Or at least thought to be true because of observations that me the predictions. Other than it (CO2 amounts) have increased?

Thanks

Well, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the northern ice cap is getting smaller and smaller every year. That's visually obvious in photographs, so it's pretty indisputable.

So? There was less ice in the 1920s, as well as submarines surfacing in open water in the 1950s and 1960s.

Quote

Some people have attempted to debate whether the same is true about the total amount of ice at the south ice cap. That's a bit more difficult to see visually, but NASA can measure the total mass via satellite and it's gravitational effects.

With a rather large margin of error, yes, hence further research reducing the amount of melt stated by NASA by some 60%.

Quote

There is absolutely no doubt that planet-wide temperatures are steadily increasing year after year. That's also a scientifically measurable thing.

Um, no - the temp anomaly has been virtually flat for the last decade.

Quote

Increasing amounts of CO2 do, in fact, trap more heat on the planet. That's a scientific fact and can be independently verified through simple experiments.

Clara Peller Kevin Trenberth: "Where's the heat?"

Again, I refer you to the last decade - CO2 *up*, temp anomaly flat.

Quote

If a person wants to say that humans aren't contributing enough CO2 to "create" the problem, I question their logic. Certainly we're "not helping" the situation.

If you make the LARGE assumption that CO2 is the driver, yes. Given the historical CO2 record showing levels several times current levels, you'll forgive me for not giving much credence to the ecochondriacs.

Quote

I don't know about you, but in my house, when the temperature starts getting too hot, I reach over and turn the thermostat down because i'm pretty damn sure it's not going to turn itself down. As long as heat keeps getting added by my actions, the house will continue to be hotter than I want it.

Of course...because only your heater has the ability to warm your house.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 3]

Quote

There was less ice in the 1920s, as well as submarines surfacing in open water in the 1950s and 1960s.

Nobody in the 1920s ever suggested we'd have a perennial northwest passage across the arctic ocean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage

Today, countries are vying to control it.

No. Your statement is false.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If you're in bed and it's too hot, do you take off blankets or put them on?

Yes, of course it's a simplistic analogy. Duh.

That said, CO2 ABSOLUTELY has an insulating effect and does trap more heat on the planet. That's not in question whatsoever.

There you go with more simplistic partial truths, yet declaring it absolutely true with no doubt whatsoever. Were it actually 100% true, there would be no ice caps, the seas would be 50 ft higher, blah blah blah. Now I read articles talking about how the sea levels at Cancun will go up an inch in 12 years, and the sea walls are at risk!

That sort of mindless, unsupportable scare tactic is undermining the message. And since addressing the problem is going to hurt, it's really stupid to keep using such tactics. It gives so much ammunition to the opposition who would rather do nothing.

[quade 3]

Quote

Um, no - the temp anomaly has been virtually flat for the last decade.

No. Your statement is false.
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/#globalTemp

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

There was less ice in the 1920s, as well as submarines surfacing in open water in the 1950s and 1960s.

Nobody in the 1920s ever suggested we'd have a perennial northwest passage across the arctic ocean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage

Today, countries are vying to control it.

No, your statement is false.

From NatGeo, 1922:

Quote

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

Next?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

There was less ice in the 1920s, as well as submarines surfacing in open water in the 1950s and 1960s.

Nobody in the 1920s ever suggested we'd have a perennial northwest passage across the arctic ocean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage

Today, countries are vying to control it.

No, your statement is false.

From NatGeo, 1922:

Quote

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

Next?

Data about a specific location is not the same as data about the entire ice cap.

You're simply wrong.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Um, no - the temp anomaly has been virtually flat for the last decade.

No. Your statement is false.
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/#globalTemp

Au contraire.

Sorry, I don't give GISTEMP much credence anymore, what with arbitrary adjustments that change cooling trends to warming trends.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

There was less ice in the 1920s, as well as submarines surfacing in open water in the 1950s and 1960s.

Nobody in the 1920s ever suggested we'd have a perennial northwest passage across the arctic ocean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage

Today, countries are vying to control it.

No, your statement is false.

From NatGeo, 1922:

Quote

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

Next?

Data about a specific location is not the same as data about the entire ice cap.

You're simply wrong.

I look forward to seeing your letter to NatGeo telling them that their article from 90 years ago was in error. Maybe you can follow it up with letters to the sub crews telling them how they didn't actually find open water at the North Pole 50 years ago.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 3]

If you don't trust "science" or the government or government science, then exactly where are you getting your information from?

If a National Weather Service satellite is showing a storm coming to your town, do you avert your eyes?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

If you don't trust "science" or the government, then exactly where are you getting your information from?

If a National Weather Service satellite is showing a storm coming to your town, do you avert your eyes?

No, I roll them at stupid analogies.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

for fun:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=20516

"Dust Study May Invalidate Most Warming Modeling Work Done to Date"