Does the snow storm disprove climate change?

[-LEK-]

Mao loves you.

No communism. Just don't commit crimes pal because others do them .

 

[RacerX.ksr]

LEK, you keep saying "climate change" is real. Of course it is. How much do you think is attributable to man?

 

[rodgerblue]

No communism. Just don't commit crimes pal because others do them .

Running a filthy country is not a crime. It's every day life in the majority of countries in the world. If "the entire scientific world" believes in "climate change", why do they continue, after decades of "irrefutable" scientific proof, to pollute the air they breathe and the water they drink?

 

[Bill Derington]

Bill, by your logic, laws are doing same thing. So if someone is murderous, yes, I would lock them up.

Bill, the point is that climate change is real, it's not even debatable. You all keep yapping while the rest of us from people, to corporations, to world governments plan accordingly to the models to reduce the damage.

As I said Bill, I support your right to be wrong. But like laws or other various things in the social contract or social security government payments people take, there are things that are just done. We know climate change is settled. All the people who work in emergency services work with it.

So like the government paving your roads, keeping you safe from crime and disasters, fighting off foreign enemies, we will make you safe, all while you complain it's not needed.

First of all YOU aren't doing anything other than regurgitating other people's thoughts.

Secondly, murder kills someone, there is actual effects of that without doubt. Lawmakers have accountability, although that too is shrinking. The people you would so blindly let control every aspect of your life have none.
In their mind if they are wrong it's all good because of the greater good. That sounds good in a Disney movie, but in the real world real people are affected by this.

Climate change is always happening, it's constant. Where we live will someday be desert, it just happens and man has no control over it.

 

[-LEK-]

First of all YOU aren't doing anything other than regurgitating other people's thoughts.

Secondly, murder kills someone, there is actual effects of that without doubt. Lawmakers have accountability, although that too is shrinking. The people you would so blindly let control every aspect of your life have none.
In their mind if they are wrong it's all good because of the greater good. That sounds good in a Disney movie, but in the real world real people are affected by this.

Climate change is always happening, it's constant. Where we live will someday be desert, it just happens and man has no control over it.

No Bill. No matter how much you scream, climate change is real and is caused by man. This has been proven.

I'm sorry this doesn't fit your agenda. You keep screaming I am controlled, yet, I'm the informed one here, not you.

Bill, it doesn't matter what you believe in this instance. If you don't believe in Gravity, it doesn't matter, it exists. Doesn't matter, we already left you behind.

 

[-LEK-]

Running a filthy country is not a crime. It's every day life in the majority of countries in the world. If "the entire scientific world" believes in "climate change", why do they continue, after decades of "irrefutable" scientific proof, to pollute the air they breathe and the water they drink?

Because of people like you who think it's hocus pocus. That's why we had to move past you. Your ignorance is killing the world.

 

[Bill Derington]

No Bill. No matter how much you scream, climate change is real and is caused by man. This has been proven.

I'm sorry this doesn't fit your agenda. You keep screaming I am controlled, yet, I'm the informed one here, not you.

Bill, it doesn't matter what you believe in this instance. If you don't believe in Gravity, it doesn't matter, it exists. Doesn't matter, we already left you behind.

Of course gravity exists as does changing climates, man has no control over that either.

I'm not the one running around calling posters names, nor passing myself off as another poster.It doesn't matter anyhow, you're trolling.

 

[DaBossIsBack]

Of course gravity exists as does changing climates, man has no control over that either.

I'm not the one running around calling posters names, nor passing myself off as another poster.It doesn't matter anyhow, you're trolling.

Man has no control over climate. Man does influence climate.To say otherwise is either being ignorant or disingenuous. I'm glad you guys are the minority this time around.

 

[-LEK-]

Of course gravity exists as does changing climates, man has no control over that either.

I'm not the one running around calling posters names, nor passing myself off as another poster.It doesn't matter anyhow, you're trolling.

passing off as another poster? Sure Bill, I see you live in a world of delusion.

I'm not calling you names, just showing you lack a skill set of logic and understanding.

There is no debate. Just keep your kooky thoughts, you have every right. As I said, we've moved past, and we're used to having to take care of people like you.

 

[qwesley]

Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called "Gifts to the United States." This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782

FYI, for the omni-evolved that want to "pay" for the apes.

 

[Bill Derington]

passing off as another poster? Sure Bill, I see you live in a world of delusion.

I'm not calling you names, just showing you lack a skill set of logic and understanding.

There is no debate. Just keep your kooky thoughts, you have every right. As I said, we've moved past, and we're used to having to take care of people like you.

My logic and understanding is fine LEK. I understand money is required for science to continue, as they don't actually create a product for market grants from Govt's or corporarions are required. At this moment in time climate change has an almost limitless purse, and has become political. I assure you I'm using logic and reason as well as putting human behavior in the equation.

 

[KyFaninNC]

2015 was warmest since 1880. What was mankind doing in the 1800's to create global warming?

 

[crazyqx83_rivals88013]

Soooo... Now that we've agreed that there is no agreement on our contributions to the climate, what are some things that you all would propose to reduce our dependence on energy resources? Surely everyone agrees that they would like to have their energy costs reduced...

 

[crazyqx83_rivals88013]

2015 was warmest since 1880. What was mankind doing in the 1800's to create global warming?

Starting the industrial revolution?

This argument is going around in circles. There's evidence (that most people accept) that the earth has been warm enough at some point that the entirety of florida was underwater. There's also evidence that it's been cold enough that a great deal of europe was glacialized. Obviously man has not impacted tgose cycles. But using that as an argument that man cannot affect the climate is pure stupidity.

 

[TheEgyptianMagician]

People just don't understand the basics of science, may protest that you do but you don't. It's the unfortunate reality.

What Science Is, and How and Why It Works
Neil deGrasse Tyson·Saturday, January 23, 2016
(Re-posted here from the Huffington Post November 21, 2015)
If you cherry-pick scientific truths to serve cultural, economic, religious or political objectives, you undermine the foundations of an informed democracy.
Science distinguishes itself from all other branches of human pursuit by its power to probe and understand the behavior of nature on a level that allows us to predict with accuracy, if not control, the outcomes of events in the natural world. Science especially enhances our health, wealth and security, which is greater today for more people on Earth than at any other time in human history.
The scientific method, which underpins these achievements, can be summarized in one sentence, which is all about objectivity:
Do whatever it takes to avoid fooling yourself into thinking something is true that is not, or that something is not true that is.
This approach to knowing did not take root until early in the 17th century, shortly after the inventions of both the microscope and the telescope. The astronomer Galileo and philosopher Sir Francis Bacon agreed: conduct experiments to test your hypothesis and allocate your confidence in proportion to the strength of your evidence. Since then, we would further learn not to claim knowledge of a newly discovered truth until multiple researchers, and ultimately the majority of researchers, obtain results consistent with one another.
This code of conduct carries remarkable consequences. There's no law against publishing wrong or biased results. But the cost to you for doing so is high. If your research is re-checked by colleagues, and nobody can duplicate your findings, the integrity of your future research will be held suspect. If you commit outright fraud, such as knowingly faking data, and subsequent researchers on the subject uncover this, the revelation will end your career.
It's that simple.
This internal, self-regulating system within science may be unique among professions, and it does not require the public or the press or politicians to make it work. But watching the machinery operate may nonetheless fascinate you. Just observe the flow of research papers that grace the pages of peer reviewed scientific journals. This breeding ground of discovery is also, on occasion, a battlefield where scientific controversy is laid bare.
Science discovers objective truths. These are not established by any seated authority, nor by any single research paper. The press, in an effort to break a story, may mislead the public's awareness of how science works by headlining a just-published scientific paper as "the truth," perhaps also touting the academic pedigree of the authors. In fact, when drawn from the moving frontier, the truth has not yet been established, so research can land all over the place until experiments converge in one direction or another -- or in no direction, itself usually indicating no phenomenon at all.
Once an objective truth is established by these methods, it is not later found to be false. We will not be revisiting the question of whether Earth is round; whether the sun is hot; whether humans and chimps share more than 98 percent identical DNA; or whether the air we breathe is 78 percent nitrogen.
The era of "modern physics," born with the quantum revolution of the early 20th century and the relativity revolution of around the same time, did not discard Newton's laws of motion and gravity. What it did was describe deeper realities of nature, made visible by ever-greater methods and tools of inquiry. Modern physics enclosed classical physics as a special case of these larger truths. So the only times science cannot assure objective truths is on the pre-consensus frontier of research, and the only time it couldn't was before the 17th century, when our senses -- inadequate and biased -- were the only tools at our disposal to inform us of what was and was not true in our world.
Objective truths exist outside of your perception of reality, such as the value of pi; E= m c 2; Earth's rate of rotation; and that carbon dioxide and methane are greenhouse gases. These statements can be verified by anybody, at any time, and at any place. And they are true, whether or not you believe in them.
Meanwhile, personal truths are what you may hold dear, but have no real way of convincing others who disagree, except by heated argument, coercion or by force. These are the foundations of most people's opinions. Is Jesus your savior? Is Mohammad God's last prophet on Earth? Should the government support poor people? Is Beyoncé a cultural queen? Kirk or Picard? Differences in opinion define the cultural diversity of a nation, and should be cherished in any free society. You don't have to like gay marriage. Nobody will ever force you to gay-marry. But to create a law preventing fellow citizens from doing so is to force your personal truths on others. Political attempts to require that others share your personal truths are, in their limit, dictatorships.
Note further that in science, conformity is anathema to success. The persistent accusations that we are all trying to agree with one another is laughable to scientists attempting to advance their careers. The best way to get famous in your own lifetime is to pose an idea that is counter to prevailing research and which ultimately earns a consistency of observations and experiment. This ensures healthy disagreement at all times while working on the bleeding edge of discovery.
In 1863, a year when he clearly had more pressing matters to attend to, Abraham Lincoln -- the first Republican president -- signed into existence the National Academy of Sciences, based on an Act of Congress. This august body would provide independent, objective advice to the nation on matters relating to science and technology.
Today, other government agencies with scientific missions serve similar purpose, including NASA, which explores space and aeronautics; NIST, which explores standards of scientific measurement, on which all other measurements are based; DOE, which explores energy in all usable forms; and NOAA, which explores Earth's weather and climate.
These centers of research, as well as other trusted sources of published science, can empower politicians in ways that lead to enlightened and informed governance. But this won't happen until the people in charge, and the people who vote for them, come to understand how and why science works.
Neil deGrasse Tyson, author of Space Chronicles: Facing the Ultimate Frontier, is an astrophysicist with the American Museum of Natural History. His radio show StarTalk became the first ever science-based talk show on television, now in its second season with National Geographic Channel.

 

[Big_Blue79]

Climate change - perpetuated with half truths, lies and hack, follow-the-leader science.

Too long for a bumper sticker, sorry. Although it might be a good GChat status or tweet. Also, your lack of an Oxford comma really mucks up the water.

 

[Supreme Lord Z]

For Bill and others that think we cannot impact the atmosphere and that good Government can't do anything about it if we do:

"The Clean Air Act is a genuine American success story and one of the most effective tools in U.S. history for protecting public health. It has sharply reduced pollution from automobiles, industrial smokestacks, utility plants, and major sources of toxic chemicals and particulate matter since its passage in 1970. The law has saved tens of thousands of lives each year by reducing harmful pollutants that cause or contribute to asthma, emphysema, heart disease, and other potentially lethal respiratory ailments. Despite continued gloom-and-doom forecasts by polluters and their corporate lobbyists, the Clean Air Act has consistently provided huge health, economic, and environmental benefits to our communities over the past four decades that far outweigh any small costs associated with controlling lifethreatening toxic pollution.

Millions of Lives Saved

The first 20 years of the Clean Air Act programs from 1970 to 1990 resulted in the prevention of more than 205,000 premature deaths in the year 1990 alone.1 The 1990 amendments have provided significant additional benefits—nearly 2 million lives have been cumulatively saved from 1990 to 2010, according to NRDC’s analysis of data from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent report, “Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020.”2,3

Millions of Hospital Admissions and Emergency Room Visits Avoided

The 1970 to 1990 Clean Air Act programs prevented 209,000 hospital visits in 1990.4 According to NRDC’s analysis of the EPA’s data, the 1990 Amendments prevented an additional 896,000 hospital admissions and 1,040,000 visits to the emergency room between 1990 and 2010.5,6

Hundreds of Thousands of Cases of Pollution-Related Illnesses Avoided

In 1990 alone, 18 million child respiratory illnesses, 843,000 asthma attacks, and 672,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, in addition to 21,000 cases of heart disease, and 22.6 million lost work days were avoided as a result of the 1970 to 1990 Clean Air Act programs.7 Based on NRDC’s analysis of the EPA’s data, between 1990 and 2010, the 1990 amendments to the Act provided additional benefits, including the prevention of roughly:8 n 21.2 million asthma attacks; n 1.7 million cases of acute bronchitis; n 624,000 cases of chronic bronchitis; n 38.5 million cases of upper and lower respiratory symptoms; n 1.5 million heart attacks; and n 148 million lost work days.9

60 Percent Less Pollution in Our Air

Since 1970, the Act has significantly reduced air pollutants, including those that cause smog and particulate pollution, by 60 percent.10

Trillions of Dollars Saved

Net direct monetized benefits of the Clean Air Act from 1970 to 1990 total an overwhelming $21.7 trillion from lower mortality, fewer cases of chronic and acute illness, less frequent trips to the hospital, and lost work days.11 The 1990 amendments are securing even more benefits—$1.24 trillion in net direct monetized benefits in 2010 alone and $12 trillion in monetized benefits from 1990 to 2020.12,13

…All While Providing Benefits that Far Outweigh Costs, Growing Our Economy, and Adding American Jobs

Total benefits of the Clean Air Act between 1970 and 2010 exceeded total costs by as much as 40 to 1. 14 The Clean Air Act has achieved all these benefits over the last 40 years while GDP has increased by 207 percent. 15 The Clean Air Act has played a significant role in growing a first-class environmental technology industry in the United States. Environmental firms, and small businesses in this industry generated $282 billion in revenues and $40 billion in exports and supported 1.6 million American jobs in 2007.

16 1,4,11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Benefits and Cost of the Clean Air Act, 1970 to 1990, October 1997, via http://www.epa.gov/oar/sect812/1970-1990/chptr1_7.pdf, (accessed 2/28/2011). 2 In the EPA’s March 2011 report Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020, the agency provides PM 2.5 adult mortality, PM 2.5 infant mortality, and ozone mortality avoided in years 2000, 2010, and 2020. To estimate the cumulative life savings of the 1990 amendments from 1990 to 2010, NRDC assumed a roughly linear growth rate (based on the difference between the EPA’s benefit estimates for years 2000 and 2010, divided by the number of years) to calculate and aggregate benefit estimates for each year from 1995—when the EPA’s Acid Rain Program Phase 1 began to secure the first benefits under the amendments—through 2010. 3,6,9,13U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020, March 2011, via http://www.epa.gov/oar/sect812/feb11/fullreport.pdf, (accessed 3/1/2011). 5,8 Similar to the estimates for lives saved between 1990 and 2010, NRDC made the same linear assumption to calculate and aggregate benefit estimates for other metrics, including hospital admissions and emergency room visits, and cases of pollution-related illness, for each year from 1995 through 2010. 7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Highlights from the Clean Air Act 40th Anniversary Celebration, September 14, 2010, via http://www.epa.gov/oar/caa/40th_highlights.html, (accessed 2/28/2011). 10 The White House Blog, So What Does the Clean Air Act Do?, February 9, 2011, via http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/02/09/sowhat-does-clean-air-act-do, (accessed 2/27/2011). 12 In the agency’s March 2011 report Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020, the EPA interpolated benefit estimates for each year between target years and then aggregated the annual estimates across the period from 1990 to 2020 to provide a present discounted value of $12 trillion in total aggregate benefits from the 1990 amendments. Please note that this estimate does not represent net monetized benefits, as cost figures for the period are not available. 14,15,16 Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, Remarks on the 40th Anniversary of the Clean Air Act, As Prepared, September 14, 2010, via http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpres...0b6/7769a6b1f0a5bc9a8525779e005ade13!OpenDocu ment, (accessed 2/27/2011).

https://www.nrdc.org/air/files/cleanairactsuccess.pdf

 

[RacerX.ksr]

People just don't understand the basics of science, may protest that you do but you don't. It's the unfortunate reality.

I'm glad you posted that, the first sentence is exactly what I've been trying to tell you lemmings. When you KNOW that data has been manipulated to PROVE man made global warming, and you KNOW that in spite of continued addition of CO2 to the atmosphere the temperature rise has been negligible for over 18 years, how can you have faith in the science?

Why can't the models make accurate predictions?

 

[RacerX.ksr]

For Bill and others that think we cannot impact the atmosphere and that good Government can't do anything about it if we do:

"The Clean Air Act is a genuine American success story and one of the most effective tools in U.S. history for protecting public health. It has sharply reduced pollution from automobiles, industrial smokestacks, utility plants, and major sources of toxic chemicals and particulate matter since its passage in 1970. The law has saved tens of thousands of lives each year by reducing harmful pollutants that cause or contribute to asthma, emphysema, heart disease, and other potentially lethal respiratory ailments. Despite continued gloom-and-doom forecasts by polluters and their corporate lobbyists, the Clean Air Act has consistently provided huge health, economic, and environmental benefits to our communities over the past four decades that far outweigh any small costs associated with controlling lifethreatening toxic pollution.

Millions of Lives Saved

The first 20 years of the Clean Air Act programs from 1970 to 1990 resulted in the prevention of more than 205,000 premature deaths in the year 1990 alone.1 The 1990 amendments have provided significant additional benefits—nearly 2 million lives have been cumulatively saved from 1990 to 2010, according to NRDC’s analysis of data from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent report, “Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020.”2,3

Millions of Hospital Admissions and Emergency Room Visits Avoided

The 1970 to 1990 Clean Air Act programs prevented 209,000 hospital visits in 1990.4 According to NRDC’s analysis of the EPA’s data, the 1990 Amendments prevented an additional 896,000 hospital admissions and 1,040,000 visits to the emergency room between 1990 and 2010.5,6

Hundreds of Thousands of Cases of Pollution-Related Illnesses Avoided

In 1990 alone, 18 million child respiratory illnesses, 843,000 asthma attacks, and 672,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, in addition to 21,000 cases of heart disease, and 22.6 million lost work days were avoided as a result of the 1970 to 1990 Clean Air Act programs.7 Based on NRDC’s analysis of the EPA’s data, between 1990 and 2010, the 1990 amendments to the Act provided additional benefits, including the prevention of roughly:8 n 21.2 million asthma attacks; n 1.7 million cases of acute bronchitis; n 624,000 cases of chronic bronchitis; n 38.5 million cases of upper and lower respiratory symptoms; n 1.5 million heart attacks; and n 148 million lost work days.9

60 Percent Less Pollution in Our Air

Since 1970, the Act has significantly reduced air pollutants, including those that cause smog and particulate pollution, by 60 percent.10

Trillions of Dollars Saved

Net direct monetized benefits of the Clean Air Act from 1970 to 1990 total an overwhelming $21.7 trillion from lower mortality, fewer cases of chronic and acute illness, less frequent trips to the hospital, and lost work days.11 The 1990 amendments are securing even more benefits—$1.24 trillion in net direct monetized benefits in 2010 alone and $12 trillion in monetized benefits from 1990 to 2020.12,13

…All While Providing Benefits that Far Outweigh Costs, Growing Our Economy, and Adding American Jobs

Total benefits of the Clean Air Act between 1970 and 2010 exceeded total costs by as much as 40 to 1. 14 The Clean Air Act has achieved all these benefits over the last 40 years while GDP has increased by 207 percent. 15 The Clean Air Act has played a significant role in growing a first-class environmental technology industry in the United States. Environmental firms, and small businesses in this industry generated $282 billion in revenues and $40 billion in exports and supported 1.6 million American jobs in 2007.

16 1,4,11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Benefits and Cost of the Clean Air Act, 1970 to 1990, October 1997, via http://www.epa.gov/oar/sect812/1970-1990/chptr1_7.pdf, (accessed 2/28/2011). 2 In the EPA’s March 2011 report Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020, the agency provides PM 2.5 adult mortality, PM 2.5 infant mortality, and ozone mortality avoided in years 2000, 2010, and 2020. To estimate the cumulative life savings of the 1990 amendments from 1990 to 2010, NRDC assumed a roughly linear growth rate (based on the difference between the EPA’s benefit estimates for years 2000 and 2010, divided by the number of years) to calculate and aggregate benefit estimates for each year from 1995—when the EPA’s Acid Rain Program Phase 1 began to secure the first benefits under the amendments—through 2010. 3,6,9,13U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020, March 2011, via http://www.epa.gov/oar/sect812/feb11/fullreport.pdf, (accessed 3/1/2011). 5,8 Similar to the estimates for lives saved between 1990 and 2010, NRDC made the same linear assumption to calculate and aggregate benefit estimates for other metrics, including hospital admissions and emergency room visits, and cases of pollution-related illness, for each year from 1995 through 2010. 7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Highlights from the Clean Air Act 40th Anniversary Celebration, September 14, 2010, via http://www.epa.gov/oar/caa/40th_highlights.html, (accessed 2/28/2011). 10 The White House Blog, So What Does the Clean Air Act Do?, February 9, 2011, via http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/02/09/sowhat-does-clean-air-act-do, (accessed 2/27/2011). 12 In the agency’s March 2011 report Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020, the EPA interpolated benefit estimates for each year between target years and then aggregated the annual estimates across the period from 1990 to 2020 to provide a present discounted value of $12 trillion in total aggregate benefits from the 1990 amendments. Please note that this estimate does not represent net monetized benefits, as cost figures for the period are not available. 14,15,16 Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, Remarks on the 40th Anniversary of the Clean Air Act, As Prepared, September 14, 2010, via http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpres...0b6/7769a6b1f0a5bc9a8525779e005ade13!OpenDocu ment, (accessed 2/27/2011).

https://www.nrdc.org/air/files/cleanairactsuccess.pdf

Two different arguments, but I'm not surprised you try to equate the two. CO2 is not pollution. It is a primary ingredient for life to exist.

As far as I'm concerned you look like a clown by repeating those numbers. Bet you think second hand smoke killed 4,362 people last year as well. You hate the government when it serves your purpose, but in cases like this where you can use government propaganda to help socialize the world, they're your buddy, they're your pal.

 

[rodgerblue]

Because of people like you who think it's hocus pocus. That's why we had to move past you. Your ignorance is killing the world.

I don't live in China not India. However, the scientific communities in both countries are "all in". Just ask them.

 

[Supreme Lord Z]

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...t/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate

In the weeks and months leading up to the publication of the final 2013 IPCC report, there has been a flood of opinion articles in blogs and the mainstream media claiming that the models used by the IPCC have dramatically over-predicted global warming and thus are a failure. This narrative clearly conflicts with the IPCC model-data comparison figure shown above, so what's going on?

These mistaken climate contrarian articles have all suffered from some combination of the following errors.

1) Publicizing the flawed draft IPCC model-data comparison figure
Late last year, an early draft of the IPCC report was leaked, including the first draft version of the figure shown above. The first version of the graph had some flaws, including a significant one immediately noted by statistician and climate blogger Tamino.

"The flaw is this: all the series (both projections and observations) are aligned at 1990. But observations include random year-to-year fluctuations, whereas the projections do not because the average of multiple models averages those out ... the projections should be aligned to the value due to the existing trend in observations at 1990.

Aligning the projections with a single extra-hot year makes the projections seem too hot, so observations are too cool by comparison."

In the draft version of the IPCC figure, it was simply a visual illusion that the surface temperature data appeared to be warming less slowly than the model projections, even though the measured temperature trend fell within the range of model simulations. Obviously this mistake was subsequently corrected.

This illustrates why it's a bad idea to publicize material in draft form, which by definition is a work in progress. That didn't stop Fox News, Ross McKitrick in the Financial Post, Roger Pielke Jr., the Heartland Institute, and Anthony Watts from declaring premature and unwarranted victory on behalf of climate contrarians based on the faulty draft figure.

2) Ignoring the range of model simulations

A single model run simulates just one possible future climate outcome. In reality, there are an infinite number of possible outcomes, depending on how various factors like greenhouse gas emissions and natural climate variability change. This is why climate modelers don't make predictions; they make projections, which say in scenario 'x', the climate will change in 'y' fashion. The shaded regions in the IPCC figure represent the range of outcomes from all of these individual climate model simulations.

The IPCC also illustrates the "multi-model mean," which averages together all of the individual model simulation runs. This average makes for an easy comparison with the observational data; however, there's no reason to believe the climate will follow that average path, especially in the short-term. If natural factors act to amplify human-caused global surface warming, as they did in the 1990s, the climate is likely to warm faster than the model average in the short-term. If natural factors act to dampen global surface warming, as they have in the 2000s, the climate is likely to warm more slowly than the model average.

When many model simulations are averaged together, the random natural variability in the individual model runs cancel out, and the steady human-caused global warming trend remains left over. But in reality the climate behaves like a single model simulation run, not like the average of all model runs.

This is why it's important to retain the shaded range of individual model runs, unlike Bjorn Lomborg in The Australian, Judith Curry in The Australian, Benny Peiser at GWPF, Roger Pielke Jr., David Rose in the Mail on Sunday (copied byHayley Dixon in The Telegraph), and Der Spiegel, all of whom only considered the model average.

This group all made an additional related third error as well.

3) Cherry Picking
Most claims that the IPCC models have failed are based on surface temperature changes over the past 15 years (1998–2012). During that period, temperatures have risen about 50 percent more slowly than the multi-model average, but have remained within the range of individual model simulation runs.

However, 1998 represented an abnormally hot year at the Earth's surface due to one of the strongest El Niño events of the 20th century. Thus it represents a poor choice of a starting date to analyze the surface warming trend (selectively choosing convenient start and/or end points is also known as 'cherry picking'). For example, we can select a different 15-year period, 1992–2006, and find a surface warming trend nearly 50 percent faster than the multi-model average, as statistician Tamino helpfully illustrates in the figure below.

Global surface temperature data 1975–2012 from NASA with a linear trend (black), with trends for 1992–2006 (red) and 1998–2012 (blue). Open Mind blog
In short, if David Rose wasn't declaring that global surface warming was accelerating out of control in 2006, then he has no business declaring that global surface warming has 'paused' in 2013. Both statements are equally wrong, based on cherry picking noisy short-term data.

IPCC models have been accurate
For 1992–2006, the natural variability of the climate amplified human-caused global surface warming, while it dampened the surface warming for 1997–2012. Over the full period, the overall warming rate has remained within the range of IPCC model projections, as the 2013 IPCC report notes.

"The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g., 1998 to 2012)."

The IPCC also notes that climate models have accurately simulated trends in extreme cold and heat, large-scale precipitation pattern changes, and ocean heat content (where most global warming goes). Models also now better simulate the Arctic sea ice decline, which they had previously dramatically underestimated.

All in all, the IPCC models do an impressive job accurately representing and projecting changes in the global climate, contrary to contrarian claims. In fact, the IPCC global surface warming projections have performed much better than predictions made by climate contrarians.

It's important to remember that weather predictions and climate predictions are very different. It's harder to predict the weather further into the future. With climate predictions, it's short-term variability (like unpredictable ocean cycles) that makes predictions difficult. They actually do better predicting climate changes several decades into the future, during which time the short-term fluctuations average out.

That's why climate models have a hard time predicting changes over 10–15 years, but do very well with predictions several decades into the future, as the IPCC illustrates. This is good news, because with climate change, it's these long-term changes we're worried about:

IPCC AR5 projected global average surface temperature changes in a high emissions scenario (RCP8.5; red) and low emissions scenario (RCP2.6; blue). IPCC

 

[bigblueinsanity_rivals250340]

Starting the industrial revolution?

This argument is going around in circles. There's evidence (that most people accept) that the earth has been warm enough at some point that the entirety of florida was underwater. There's also evidence that it's been cold enough that a great deal of europe was glacialized. Obviously man has not impacted tgose cycles. But using that as an argument that man cannot affect the climate is pure stupidity.

Exactly. Theres a very subtle strawman being employed here that's gone unnoticed. One side argues man made global warming doesn't exist. In opposition, the other side screams "YOU CANT DENY GLOBAL WARMING".

Well....that's not the argument. The argument is what effect we, as humans, have on the climate. The only true answer is - we don't know. First, we have no true starting point. So there cant be an accurate measurement. There just cant. And without it, theres no way to know if this is man made, or if its just a natural cycle. Anyone who suggests otherwise, with any certainty, is just misleading you. No matter what side of the debate your on.

Then to make it worse, global warming alarmists altered data to try and reach a conclusion. That tells me they don't truly believe the data alone would show the conclusion they wanted to reach. So, in effect, they don't even believe their own conclusion. Otherwise, the data wouldn't have to be manipulated. Conclusions should come after the research and data, not before.

Its about money, power, and politics. Nothing more. Is there global warming? Maybe. Do humans have an effect on the environment? Certainly. Is it a negative or profound effect? Cant be proven, so doubtful. Will these laws and taxes make any measurable difference? No.

 

[RacerX.ksr]

Oh lord, Z. You're one of the smart ones. I need to count on people like you to lead the others to the light. This entire thing has been so convoluted over the years and excuses for mistakes and missteps have been finely crafted to fool the average person.

When I read things like that, I cannot overlook the questions about urban heat islands. I cannot overlook the fact that the climate history has been changed to warm the Little Ice Age and diminish the Medieval Warming Period. I cannot overlook the fact that internal emails were revealed that prove the science is not science at all, but rather a convenient ruse backed by pseudo-science.

 

[DaBossIsBack]

CO2 is essential to life. Too much CO2 and you get Venus; the hottest planet in our solar system. Now is a runaway greenhouse effect a possibility? Maybe, but probably not. I don't think it's even theoretically possible anymore. Still too much CO2 in the atmosphere will have consequences. It's not hard to figure out.

 

[RacerX.ksr]

How much is too much? You don't know. I know that marijuana has been shown to thrive at levels up to 1,600ppm. Increase in CO2 means more food, we know that. Does it mean higher temperatures? Seems like it doesn't.

Water dilutes alcohol every time it is added. It doesn't dilute it to a certain proof and then stop. If CO2 affected temperatures to the extent I have been led to believe, it would be a constant and cumulative effect.

Hoping someone says "natural variability" to prove AGW.

 

[TheEgyptianMagician]

I'm glad you posted that, the first sentence is exactly what I've been trying to tell you lemmings.

It is indeed a very important point. It is probable that most Republicans holding office are well aware of the reality of man made global warming and its ramifications, but due to political expediency have created the rather simplistic and shockingly successful argument that seems to have misinformed so many in this thread.

I don't think it's fair to call you all idiots, just misinformed.. THere are however essential fundamentals with regards to science you all are missing. The science doesn't care whose politics it serves.

 

[DaBossIsBack]

How much is too much? You don't know. I know that marijuana has been shown to thrive at levels up to 1,600ppm. Increase in CO2 means more food, we know that. Does it mean higher temperatures? Seems like it doesn't.

Water dilutes alcohol every time it is added. It doesn't dilute it to a certain proof and then stop. If CO2 affected temperatures to the extent I have been led to believe, it would be a constant and cumulative effect.

CO2 traps long wave radiation. Continue to pump more of it into the atmosphere then what do you think will happen? Even if the temperature raises slightly there will be consequences. The composition that made life possible to begin with is being effed with. If you can't see that you're a moron. This is a resilient planet but it's also a delicate organism.

 

[Bill Derington]

It is indeed a very important point. It is probable that most Republicans holding office are well aware of the reality of man made global warming and its ramifications, but due to political expediency have created the rather simplistic and shockingly successful argument that seems to have misinformed so many in this thread.

I don't think it's fair to call you all idiots, just misinformed.. THere are however essential fundamentals with regards to science you all are missing. The science doesn't care whose politics it serves.

I don't think it's fair to call you naive or you allow people to think for you, but that's what you're doing.
The people that manipulate data do care whose politics they serve, that's the whole point.

 

[RacerX.ksr]

That is a very simplistic way to look at it. Water vapor traps long wave radiation as well. Which traps more? The temps have increased already, what are the consequences?

I don't think you have any idea how small an amount 400ppm is.

 

[Big_Blue79]

I'm glad you posted that, the first sentence is exactly what I've been trying to tell you lemmings. When you KNOW that data has been manipulated to PROVE man made global warming, and you KNOW that in spite of continued addition of CO2 to the atmosphere the temperature rise has been negligible for over 18 years, how can you have faith in the science?

Why can't the models make accurate predictions?

Why 18 years ago? Did you consider why that date is used? Could it be that a temporary atmospheric high temperature due to a strong El Nino ~ 1998 that released trapped ocean heat into the atmosphere, increasing atmospheric temperatures? And that atmospheric heat is only one measure of global temperature (and all that satellites measures)? Did you know that most trapped heat is stored in the oceans? Or that by picking 1998 and using only atmospheric temperature climate change deniers are cherry-picking information to best suit their argument? It's the equivalent of using the moved in NBA three point line (94-97 iirc) as the baseline for NBA three point attempts and success, then saying that for 18 years three point shooting was down in the NBA. No, not really, but nice try.

Of course, you'll counter that the data was adjusted (you'd say manipulated), to which the counter is not adjusting is itself misleading. And on and on we go. But the way you use the word know (IN ALL CAPS!) in that sentence is pretty misleading - that is not something that anyone knows. No one's changing anyone's mind here because people see what they want to see. Those that believe in worldwide conspiracies will still be shouting their discredited arguments long after 2016 is the new hottest year on record.

But let's look at an analogy (analogies suck, btw, but bear with me) re data adjustment. Oscar Robinson averaged a triple double in 1961-62. Only time that's ever happened. It's cool (and nevermind that a triple double is itself an arbitrary measure of success based on humans having 10 fingers), and he had a great season. But it's not as impressive as it would be to average a triple double now (or in most other years), because we have to account for things like pace. If you normalize for pace, Magic has 3 such seasons and Kidd has 1. Not quite as special anymore. Is that manipulating data to point that out, or is it adjusting to allow for more meaningful comparisons? You'd have to be a sports neanderthal to ignore the pace argument, frankly. That's because we have a higher advance stats literacy in the sports public than science literacy in the general public. I mean, sure, some people still think Moneyball was about walks and home runs, not a method, but those people are largely marginalized. But the point is that sometimes things require adjustments, and that does not necessarily make them invalid for being manipulated.

 

[rodgerblue]

Current prevailing scientific wisdom - "Climate change is real. We can prove it."

Old prevailing scientific wisdom - "The earth is flat. We can prove it."

 

[crazyqx83_rivals88013]

Current prevailing scientific wisdom - "Climate change is real. We can prove it."

Old prevailing scientific wisdom - "The earth is flat. We can prove it."

You probably might want to go study the history of science.

 

[RacerX.ksr]

If it was true, that man is responsible for most of the perceived warming, then they wouldn't have to lie about any of it.

Gravity is very apparent and its effects are easily measured. Gravity acts the same way at all times. Is there settled science about why gravity acts as a force? Science can't explain everything but it is the best way to go about finding out all we can know about a subject. Sound science is very useful. It is not sound science to come up with a theory and go about finding data that supports your hypothesis.

Look where we would be as a society today if science had never been questioned. A questioning attitude is the very basis for science. It is easy for me to read any literature written by the climate alarmists and see the ambiguity in the words. The use of "maybe", "could", and "might", throw up red flags for me. The term "settled science" and the practice of telling people they are stupid if the don't take our word for it, cause me to wonder.

You people always use logical fallacy of "97% of all scientists agree with AGW, therefore it must be true". First off, that number is inflated, second, the vast majority of those people do not study climate, third, that gives no weight to the extent of man's effect on the climate. Show me at least one area that is considered "settled science" where there is not 100% agreement among scientists.

 

[DaBossIsBack]

That is a very simplistic way to look at it. Water vapor traps long wave radiation as well. Which traps more? The temps have increased already, what are the consequences?

I don't think you have any idea how small an amount 400ppm is.

You think it's going to stay at 400ppm? Are you considering 60-80 years from now? 100 years from now? It's a very simplistic way to look at it because it's pretty simple stuff. Water vapor traps radiation. Which gas traps more is irrelevant because if you increase CO2 then it's going to increase water vapor. The greenhouse gases are essentially our blanket. They keep us warm. Adding more of any of them is like getting a thicker blanket. I'm done. Peace.

 

[Big_Blue79]

Look where we would be as a society today if science had never been questioned.

I know, right? Society would be totes awesomer. I mean, think of how awesomer it would be if science itself contained such methods? Whoa!?!

 

[RacerX.ksr]

You think it's going to stay at 400ppm? Are you considering 60-80 years from now? 100 years from now? It's a very simplistic way to look at it because it's pretty simple stuff. Water vapor traps radiation. Which gas traps more is irrelevant because if you increase CO2 then it's going to increase water vapor. The greenhouse gases are essentially our blanket. They keep us warm. Adding more of any of them is like getting a thicker blanket. I'm done. Peace.

You should do some research and find out what happens to water vapor, clouds, in the atmosphere as the temperature increases.

 

[RacerX.ksr]

I know, right? Society would be totes awesomer. I mean, think of how awesomer it would be if science itself contained such methods? Whoa!?!

[laughing] you didn't have to make yourself look quite so foolish. You could just say "maybe you're right, I'll do some research on my own, with an open mind, and see how the theory holds up".

 

[Barleycorn]

2015 was warmest since 1880. What was mankind doing in the 1800's to create global warming?

The often overlooked "Great Flatulance Epidemic of 1879". There were lots of folks living off of pork and beans in those days.

 

[WettCat]

So..help me here. This really is mind blowing. 500 years ago the World was flat? Flat--like flat as a pancake--everywhere? All the way to China and back? And then because of man-made activities it became round? Like a sphere?

Did they ever figure out what we did that made it round? Or, did they just wake up one day and there it was--all round and everything.

My head just imploded.

 

[Supreme Lord Z]

Now is a runaway greenhouse effect a possibility? Maybe, but probably not.

Runaway Methane Global Warming

Methane (CH4) is a greenhouse gas that remains in the atmosphere for approximately 9-15 years. Methane is over 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a 100-year period and is emitted from a variety of natural and human-influenced sources. Human-influenced sources include landfills, natural gas and petroleum systems, agricultural activities, coal mining, stationary and mobile combustion, wastewater treatment, and certain industrial process. (reference)

There are enormous quantities of naturally occurring greenhouse gasses trapped in ice-like structures in the cold northern mud and at the bottom of the seas. These ice structures, called clathrates, contain 3,000 times as much methane as is in the atmosphere. Now here's the scary part. A temperature increase of merely a few degrees would cause these gases to volatilize and 'burp' into the atmosphere, which would further raise temperatures, which would release yet more methane, heating the Earth and seas further, and so on. There are 400 gigatons of methane locked in the frozen arctic tundra, enough to start this chain reaction, and the kind of warming the Arctic Council predicts is sufficient to melt the clathrates and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.(reference)

Once triggered, this cycle could result in runaway global warming worse than the most pessimistic scenario. Strong geologic evidence suggests something similar has happened at least twice before. The most recent of these catastrophes occurred about 55 million years ago in what geologists call the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when methane burps caused rapid warming and massive die-offs, disrupting the climate for more than 100,000 years.

The granddaddy of these catastrophes occurred 251 million years ago, at the end of the Permian period, when a series of methane burps came close to wiping out all life on Earth. More than 94% of the marine species present in the fossil record disappeared suddenly as oxygen levels plummeted and life teetered on the verge of extinction. Over the ensuing 500,000 years, a few species struggled to gain a foothold in the hostile environment. It took 20 million to 30 million years for even rudimentary coral reefs to re-establish themselves and for forests to grow again. In some areas, it took more than 100 million years for ecosystems to reach their former healthy diversity.

http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Global-Warming/Methane.htm