Climate change and other predictions of Imminent Doom

[Heracleum Persicum]

.


National Fire Season

.

"We've had nearly 600 wildfires since January 1 in California,"

..

The drought has hit hard in states like Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas and especially California, where the snow pack in the Sierra Nevada is at just 12 percent of the annual average. Snow pack in the Cascades in Washington and Oregon is also below normal.

That has dried out the trees, shrubs and grasses that end up fueling the fires.

.

.

[jerryberry]

There's no reason lawns can't be replaced with the California's native flora. The plant communities all over the state are very interesting. I worked with a fella for years that sold native landscaping exclusively and he made some beautiful, orderly yards. You still need to water but at a drastically reduced amount. If and when the water costs too much, the grass will be replaced. California is a desert state.
e5HwRXsw2Q8

[Simple Minded]

The history of "climate science" can be summarized as the history of flawed linear extrapolations, of quasi-periodic natural variation in climate, into the future.

Blaming human action, the minor production of CO2, is a novel addition to the most recent round of belief based predictions.

The entire field appears to be one big exercise in GIGO.

indeed. MMGW is simply the latest, most chic version of doomer porn.

"Give a small boy a hammer and he will find that everything he encounters needs pounding."
"Every man imagines his own life to be the New Year's Eve of time."

Give a climatologist a digital thermometer with a least count of 0.1 degrees and he can measure a single data point within +/- 0.05 degrees. With enough self-delusion, he/she can project the accuracy of a single data point over the entire Earth.... and even thousands of years into the past.

of course one has to ignore the effects of moving ten feet and getting a temp that varies by 10 degrees due to sun or shade or clouds. Ignore elevations, depth of water, output of sun, regional weather patterns, daily temp changes of 15+ degrees, annual temp changes of 60+ degrees. They are all irrelevant....... it's man's effect on CO2 baby.

Ask the same scientist to predict the temp at the local airport six days from now at 2 pm within +/- 3 degrees...... and bet $50 on his accuracy....

any thoughts on current accuracy of knowing Earth's actual mean temp? +/- 5 degrees?

Go back 40+ years..... +/- 10 degrees?

Or is the question What is the current mean temp of the Earth unknowable?

Better yet, What is the current ideal mean temp of the Earth?

[Typhoon]

To continue with one of your metaphors, you've hit the nail on the head.

The earth is an open dynamic system far from thermodynamic equilibrium.

So calculating a mean temperature for such system can be done [ignoring the measurement issues for the sake of argument] but is it a meaningful physical value?

Temperature is an intensive physical quantity, so I don't think that such a number is physically meaningful.

What should be calculated is an extensive physical quantity, such as the total energy of the system.

[Doc]

Silly controversy of minimal consequense. Sun tired of this, go back to sleep.....'>>.......

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... er-minimum

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedormin ... physicist/

But wait there's more !!

Windsor Star Sept 9, 1972:

screenhunter_06-may-07-09-01.jpg (175.15 KiB) Viewed 2210 times

[Typhoon]

"I read somewhere that the sun's getting hotter every year," said Tom
genially. "It seems that pretty soon the earth's going to fall into the
sun--or wait a minute--it's just the opposite--the sun's getting colder
every year.

~ The Great Gatsby

[Zack Morris]

The earth is an open dynamic system far from thermodynamic equilibrium.

So calculating a mean temperature for such system can be done [ignoring the measurement issues for the sake of argument] but is it a meaningful physical value?

Why not? We measure temperatures within open thermodynamic systems all the time: engine block temperatures, temperatures within and at the surface of integrated circuits, etc. "Open dynamic system" is an absurd red herring. A sudden acceleration in the dynamics of atmospheric temperatures is definitely something to worry about.

[Typhoon]

The earth is an open dynamic system far from thermodynamic equilibrium.

So calculating a mean temperature for such system can be done [ignoring the measurement issues for the sake of argument] but is it a meaningful physical value?

Why not? We measure temperatures within open thermodynamic systems all the time: engine block temperatures, temperatures within and at the surface of integrated circuits, etc. "Open dynamic system" is an absurd red herring. A sudden acceleration in the dynamics of atmospheric temperatures is definitely something to worry about.

J of Non Equl Therm | Does a global temperature exist?

The bit you did not address is "far from thermodynamic equilibrium".

[Nonc Hilaire]

Well, scientists SHOULD be able to take the earth's temperature.

Just get a thermometer. The earth has plenty of assholes they can use.

[Typhoon]

Well, scientists SHOULD be able to take the earth's temperature.

Just get a thermometer. The earth has plenty of assholes they can use.

Indeed. And after having done so, they can then give each other awards.

Q: Why are awards like hemorrhoids?

A: Sooner or later, every asshole gets one.

[Simple Minded]

Well, scientists SHOULD be able to take the earth's temperature.

Just get a thermometer. The earth has plenty of assholes they can use.

Indeed. And after having done so, they can then give each other awards.

Q: Why are awards like hemorrhoids?

A: Sooner or later, every asshole gets one.

determining the mean temperature of the Earth within +/- 0.1 degrees is like using a digital caliper to determine mean penis length to +/- 0.001"

er, uh, wait, that may also be temperature dependent...... never mind....

[Simple Minded]

The earth is an open dynamic system far from thermodynamic equilibrium.

So calculating a mean temperature for such system can be done [ignoring the measurement issues for the sake of argument] but is it a meaningful physical value?

Why not? We measure temperatures within open thermodynamic systems all the time: engine block temperatures, temperatures within and at the surface of integrated circuits, etc. "Open dynamic system" is an absurd red herring. A sudden acceleration in the dynamics of atmospheric temperatures is definitely something to worry about.

"A sudden acceleration in the dynamics of atmospheric temperatures is definitely something to worry about."

got any data? Just kidding Zack!

think about your analogy of an engine block for a minute. If it is in a car, how can you prove the change in temperature that you are concerned about (+/-how many? degrees) is not due to change in load or fuel or cooling? maybe the flock of butterflies or the dust cloud you just drove thru has changed the heat sinking capacity of your radiator?

I don't ever recall operating a car, truck, motorcycle, or piece of construction equipment with an engine temperature gage with a least count or 0.1, 1, or even 10 degrees. I can imagine the engineer that proposes such a gage getting severely reprimanded by the sales group. "yer gonna panic our customers!!!!"

what is the heat input and the heat sinks for the earth? are they static? really? prove it!

[Typhoon]

The earth is an open dynamic system far from thermodynamic equilibrium.

So calculating a mean temperature for such system can be done [ignoring the measurement issues for the sake of argument] but is it a meaningful physical value?

Why not? We measure temperatures within open thermodynamic systems all the time: engine block temperatures, temperatures within and at the surface of integrated circuits, etc. "Open dynamic system" is an absurd red herring. A sudden acceleration in the dynamics of atmospheric temperatures is definitely something to worry about.

"A sudden acceleration in the dynamics of atmospheric temperatures is definitely something to worry about."

. . .

Perhaps ZM is referring to the now discredited Mann-made "hockey stick" graph which

1/ spliced instrumental data with proxy data, mixed apples and oranges, floating the normalization of the proxy data so that the endpoints matched and

2/ used the dubious measure of tree-ring growth as a proxy for temperature assuming other factors were constant over centuries
ignoring Liebig's law of the minimum and

3/ used a highly selected subset of proxy tree data and

4/ used an unverified type of statisical PCA [principal component analysis]

If I'm not mistaken, unlike previous reports,the current IPCC AR5 report no longer features this work.

[Simple Minded]

simple minded epiphany:

AGW is marketed solely upon the claim that any change in temperature of the Earth is due only to emissivity and insulation changes in the atmosphere, which of course, has to be caused by man!

Solar output, heat sink of space, effect of changes in ocean, changes in forested area, changes in black top/paved area, effect of agriculture, effect of irrigation, reflectivity of polar ice caps, etc. all are irrelevant!

the best bogey men are always invisible....... CO2..... hmmm..... yeah! that'll work!

me be thinking that not only is the mean temperature the Earth probably unknowable within several degrees, but probably meaningless.

I wonder how many people who believe in MMGW/AGW look down upon Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. as idiotic and/or primitive because of their "faith?"

I think wide spread belief in AGW is nothing more than an indicator of our current narcissism, spawned by those who are making a ton of money, not necessarily in terms of deception, but also born of self-delusion regarding their own sense of expertise and self-importance.

I wonder if June Bugs feel they are responsible for the temperature changes they see in their short life span and speculate on the Earth's temperature before their birth and after their death?

[Zack Morris]

The earth is an open dynamic system far from thermodynamic equilibrium.

So calculating a mean temperature for such system can be done [ignoring the measurement issues for the sake of argument] but is it a meaningful physical value?

Why not? We measure temperatures within open thermodynamic systems all the time: engine block temperatures, temperatures within and at the surface of integrated circuits, etc. "Open dynamic system" is an absurd red herring. A sudden acceleration in the dynamics of atmospheric temperatures is definitely something to worry about.

J of Non Equl Therm | Does a global temperature exist?

The bit you did not address is "far from thermodynamic equilibrium".

This misleading paper has been addressed. For example, see here and here.

[Zack Morris]

Perhaps ZM is referring to the now discredited Mann-made "hockey stick" graph which

1/ spliced instrumental data with proxy data, mixed apples and oranges, floating the normalization of the proxy data so that the endpoints matched and

Nobody uses the hockey stick plot anymore nor do they need to. There is nothing inherently wrong with using proxy data and in the field of climate science, an enormous amount of data has been analyzed, generally providing a consistent conclusion.

2t/ used the dubious measure of tree-ring growth as a proxy for temperature assuming other factors were constant over centuries

Are you referring to one particular study by a now-deceased researcher who may have cherry-picked data samples from Siberian tree rings? Because, you know, plenty more such studies have been conducted. It sounds to me like you're engaging in extremely selective cherry-picking here.

ignoring Liebig's law of the minimum

Totally pointless. People who study tree rings are doubtlessly aware of this, which is why there is a Wikipedia article about it in the first place.

3/ used a highly selected subset of proxy tree data and

4/ used an unverified type of statisical PCA [principal component analysis][/quote]

Yawn.

If you want to pretend that the literature on climate science is confined to a handful of papers you dislike, go ahead, but meanwhile, the back-log of data and papers for you to "debunk" is only growing.

If I'm not mistaken, unlike previous reports,the current IPCC AR5 report no longer features this work.

So why are you still wasting time with it?

[Typhoon]

Perhaps ZM is referring to the now discredited Mann-made "hockey stick" graph which

1/ spliced instrumental data with proxy data, mixed apples and oranges, floating the normalization of the proxy data so that the endpoints matched and

Nobody uses the hockey stick plot anymore nor do they need to. There is nothing inherently wrong with using proxy data and in the field of climate science, an enormous amount of data has been analyzed, generally providing a consistent conclusion.

Consistency, in the case of proxy data, is not proof of anything except similar assumptions and methods of analysis.

http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/9/4499 ... -2013.html

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/ ... e1816.html

http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/9/5227 ... -2013.html

The entire field of proxy paleoclimate reconstruction still has many unsolved open problems especially with regards to systematic bias.

Not something on which to make economic policy decisions.

2/ used the dubious measure of tree-ring growth as a proxy for temperature assuming other factors were constant over centuries

Are you referring to one particular study by a now-deceased researcher who may have cherry-picked data samples from Siberian tree rings? Because, you know, plenty more such studies have been conducted. It sounds to me like you're engaging in extremely selective cherry-picking here.

As far as I know, Michael Mann, is still alive.

If you're going to claim "extreme cherry picking", then you should provide evidence to back up your current content-free assertion.

ignoring Liebig's law of the minimum

Totally pointless. People who study tree rings are doubtlessly aware of this, which is why there is a Wikipedia article about it in the first place.

You faith in presumed authority is nostalgic, rather touching really, however, it's not science.

The onus of evidence is on them, that one may extract a physically meaningful temperature record from trees whose growth is limited by a very large number of factors such as sunlight, precipitation, nutrients, etc., besides temperature.

Your assumption/assertion is weightless.

3/ used a highly selected subset of proxy tree data and

4/ used an unverified type of statisical PCA [principal component analysis]

Yawn.

Indeed. Science is, in part, about details, which the secular true believers in the religion of AGW find both inconvenient and boring.

If you want to pretend that the literature on climate science is confined to a handful of papers you dislike, go ahead, but meanwhile, the back-log of data and papers for you to "debunk" is only growing.

If you actually paid attention to the original literature, rather than have it filtered for you by AGW advocacy sites, you'd reach a somewhat different conclusion.

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-chan ... at-1.14525

The field is beginning to experience a crisis as nature continues to ignore the dictates of AGW advocates, er, scientists.

If I'm not mistaken, unlike previous reports,the current IPCC AR5 report no longer features this work.

So why are you still wasting time with it?

It's now a classic and instructive example of the type of junk science mispromoted as climate science.

Still widely promoted by AGW activists as supposed "proof".

[Typhoon]

The earth is an open dynamic system far from thermodynamic equilibrium.

So calculating a mean temperature for such system can be done [ignoring the measurement issues for the sake of argument] but is it a meaningful physical value?

Why not? We measure temperatures within open thermodynamic systems all the time: engine block temperatures, temperatures within and at the surface of integrated circuits, etc. "Open dynamic system" is an absurd red herring. A sudden acceleration in the dynamics of atmospheric temperatures is definitely something to worry about.

J of Non Equl Therm | Does a global temperature exist?

The bit you did not address is "far from thermodynamic equilibrium".

This misleading paper has been addressed. For example, see here and here.

To be fair, neither the paper nor the "rebuttals" address the main point:

The earth is an open dynamic system far from thermodynamic equilibrium.

So calculating a mean temperature for such system can be done [ignoring the measurement issues for the sake of argument] but is it a meaningful physical value?

Temperature is an intensive physical quantity, so I don't think that such a number is physically meaningful.

What should be calculated is an extensive physical quantity, such as the total energy of the system.

[Typhoon]

Settled science, so-called . . .

Cloudy forecast - The biggest source of climate uncertainty is white and fluffy

Clouds can both warm and cool the planet. How clouds will respond to global warming is the largest source of uncertainty in climate change predictions.

[Simple Minded]

...........I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can't be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people---the best people, the most enlightened people---do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.

Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation......

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Articles ... igion.aspx

[Simple Minded]

Settled science, so-called . . .

Cloudy forecast - The biggest source of climate uncertainty is white and fluffy

Clouds can both warm and cool the planet. How clouds will respond to global warming is the largest source of uncertainty in climate change predictions.

Latest theme song for the AGWers?

Bows and flows of angel hair
And ice cream castles in the air
And feather canyons everywhere
I've looked at clouds that way
But now they only block the sun
They rain and snow on everyone
So many things I would have done
But clouds got in my way

I've looked at clouds from both sides now
From up and down and still somehow
It's cloud's illusions I recall
I really don't know clouds at all.......


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7Xm30heHms

[Ammianus]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/29/world ... d=tw-share

It matters not what we're debating now. If the sea levels do rise and countries like Bangladesh gets submerged, they WILL blame it on carbon emissions. I really really want to see climate change deniers do that then.

[Typhoon]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/29/world ... d=tw-share

It matters not what we're debating now. If the sea levels do rise and countries like Bangladesh gets submerged, they WILL blame it on carbon emissions. I really really want to see climate change deniers* do that then.

1/ Living on the planet's largest delta one will experience periodic flooding, occassionally catastrophic.
Bangladesh has a long history of such floods. Ever since the formation of the Ganges delta.

2/ Erosion has nothing to do with climate change, natural or man-made

3/ There is no evidence for an ongoing increase in cyclones or their intensity:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 1/abstract

An increase in extreme weather is an often-repeated meme in the MSM that has no basis in science.

4/ Current average sea level rise is less than 3mm per year with no evidence of acceleration, so by 2050
the sea level will have risen about a whooping 11cm.

Some geohistorical perspective:



*"denier" is an offensive termed purposely coined to associate those skeptical of claims of man-made climate change with holocaust deniers,
please refrain from using it here as you would other such pejoratives

[Simple Minded]

Some geohistorical perspective:



*"denier" is an offensive termed purposely coined to associate those skeptical of claims of man-made climate change with holocaust deniers,
please refrain from using it here as you would other pejoratives

Looking at the graph, the obvious solution is to determine what "THEY" did 8000 years ago to slow the rise of the oceans and do the same thing again.

The cost of failure is such, that by screwing around and trying to re-invent the wheel, we could really get butt f**ked!

We should stick with historically proven solutions.....right?

Lets do it for the children!

[Typhoon]

Some geohistorical perspective:



*"denier" is an offensive termed purposely coined to associate those skeptical of claims of man-made climate change with holocaust deniers,
please refrain from using it here as you would other pejoratives

Looking at the graph, the obvious solution is to determine what "THEY" did 8000 years ago to slow the rise of the oceans and do the same thing again.

Another secret technology of the ancients lost forever in the sands of time . . .

The cost of failure is such, that by screwing around and trying to re-invent the wheel, we could really get butt f**ked!

We should stick with historically proven solutions.....right?

Indeed. So when do we start work writing the US NSF and DOE grant applications?

Lets do it for the children!