Top 10 global warming predictions

[MORAY37]

And here is the source of the problem - science and "climate change". The climate always changes, that is true and sound. Beyond that is where science becomes fuzzy. It is NOT well established that there is global warming, that is why the term was replaced by climate change, which could mean anything. There are endless things that are disputed in the "evidence" for abnormal climate, I have no wish to get into that.

 

The term "global warming" was changed to favor " anthropogenic global climate change" due to the properties of thermodynamics applied to the theory.  When one part of a system gets warmer, scientifically, another must lose thermal energy.  This is why the entire globe is not warming uniformly, and why other parts (Antarctica) are actually showing cooling.  You have obviously started your position with an opinion, and worked your way back to theory.  This, sir, is exactly opposite to the route that deductive reasoning takes. While technically, the average temperature of the globe has increased,  cases can be shown that individual locations have cooled.  Although "warming" has far exceeded the "cooling", skeptics such as yourself will latch on to the individuality of the data, i.e. the "tree" instead of the "forest" surrounding it.

"Global warming" as a statement, is often misrepresented and attacked by those who are not familiar with the principles behind the empirical data.  I, for one, wish the terminology had been contemplated better, or that it had not been represented in such a blanket manner.

One needs only to look at the way the climate system is currently responding, to realize there is something out of whack.  The sun is in a low output period, our orbit is snug and non-eccentric at this time, and it was 70 in the upper midwest a couple days ago.  70 yesterday in the Mid- Atlantic.  Tornado warnings in the heartland in late december.  These things are out of whack for the amount of energy being put into this closed system called earth. 

I do agree though, we get past causal blame, and get on to negating the effects.  I still maintain that, in 4 or 5 years, when the sun begins to reach it's 11 year maximum in activity, we're going to realize how exponential the problem really has grown.  I'm not a "sky is falling" type of person.... just realize that we were granted a slight reprieve based on our sun's normal cycle.  That reprieve could prove disastrous, though, as it surely could be masking the full effect that is sitting over our heads. 

[Chalenge]

I dont know moray it sure 'feels' like you are a 'sky is falling' type person. 

For a long time I thought the real reason the Earth is experiencing these problems is the orbital path... summer being closer and winter being further rather then the closer orbit we have been used to. The problem with that is the period shift of orbital variation is 11000 years and we would be seeing frost even in the summer of Alabama. Unless solar flares are ongoing at just the right points through the year this shouldnt be the case.

But looking at the chemistry of carbon dioxide I have to stick with my original impressions. Firstly that the popular films on global warming ('climate change') have inverted the cause/effect argument of reality and second that the people studying the lesser causes are living in a glass bottle (my analogy of trying to recreate the eco-system of Mars in a beer bottle). The cart has been tipped for quite awhile. Laboratories (more correctly scientists in laboratories)  cannot create life and yet scientists want us to believe they can understand a complex environment like the Earth. And Al Gore always tells the truth.

I am old and gray and my 'opinion' no longer matters but I am going to leave you with an impression of mine I have held my entire life. In education there are two types of people. First is the type that learns and learns and comes to the conclusion he knows it all. Second is the type that learns and learns and comes away realizing how much he doesnt know. Neither one is absolute truth but the interesting part is what makes the difference in the persons involved. That is something science is just as poor at discovering as it is in determining the cause of political or religious subjects.

Now... if the environment is really on the edge of peril then certainly the first volcanic eruption we experience will tip the scales and the Earth will be destroyed. Yeh... right!

[drdeathx]

Moray, it is not unusual to see periods that have warm days in winter but it is not common. Scientists look at averages and long term patterns not 1 warm spell.

[MORAY37]

Moray, it is not unusual to see periods that have warm days in winter but it is not common. Scientists look at averages and long term patterns not 1 warm spell.

Fully realized, my friend.  Also realized is the shear amount of "outliers" in the data.  Whence outliers become norm, the norm has shifted.

[Angus]

It may snow too much in some US states, and the prediction is cold for the UK over the new year. Meantime, I am worried about ploughing jobs hitting me when I have no plan for them,,,in January,,,in Iceland.
This is climate change I guess, and on my Icy turf it is Warming.
(just to counter the snow complaint, for it only requires air temp of a couple degs to turn that into rain.)

[bozon]

The term "global warming" was changed to favor " anthropogenic global climate change" due to the properties of thermodynamics applied to the theory.  When one part of a system gets warmer, scientifically, another must lose thermal energy.  This is why the entire globe is not warming uniformly, and why other parts (Antarctica) are actually showing cooling.  You have obviously started your position with an opinion, and worked your way back to theory.  This, sir, is exactly opposite to the route that deductive reasoning takes. While technically, the average temperature of the globe has increased,  cases can be shown that individual locations have cooled.  Although "warming" has far exceeded the "cooling", skeptics such as yourself will latch on to the individuality of the data, i.e. the "tree" instead of the "forest" surrounding it.

"Global warming" as a statement, is often misrepresented and attacked by those who are not familiar with the principles behind the empirical data.  I, for one, wish the terminology had been contemplated better, or that it had not been represented in such a blanket manner.
...

MORAY,
I have a PhD in physics and currently hold a post doctoral fellowship in quite a respectable institute. Trust me, I know a few things about the "principles behind the empirical data". Just because of this I am a skeptic and know how to read a plot with a line that goes through it with no theory behind it. Outliers don't mean a thing and are usually a result of systematic errors (theory or empirical). You can plot a line through the data and call it science, but if you don't understand the principles of the process behind the system, your prediction is not scientific. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that whatever is happening, if anything is happening at all, is man made. ZERO. Instead, there is a hypothesis that "we" must have caused this and we need to figure out how we did it. Anyone who tries to suggest that we should consider the possibility that it is not our fault and we should just deal with it instead of trying to prevent it, is being attacked because it is no longer a hypothesis - it is an agenda.

[WWhiskey]

i predict this thread will burn a large hole in the atmosphere,
please stop,
can't you see all this fighting is going to hurt our planet
we must stop the giant sized rants, there to big, they burn to much fuel,
try some one liners, maybe even some one word rants,
better yet, just be nice, no rants at all, we used to live in a rant free world,
give earth a chance
 




















 see i just changed from cars to rants, lol see, see,

i was afraid you wouldn't get it 

[Angus]

MORAY,
I have a PhD in physics and currently hold a post doctoral fellowship in quite a respectable institute. Trust me, I know a few things about the "principles behind the empirical data". Just because of this I am a skeptic and know how to read a plot with a line that goes through it with no theory behind it. Outliers don't mean a thing and are usually a result of systematic errors (theory or empirical). You can plot a line through the data and call it science, but if you don't understand the principles of the process behind the system, your prediction is not scientific. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that whatever is happening, if anything is happening at all, is man made. ZERO. Instead, there is a hypothesis that "we" must have caused this and we need to figure out how we did it. Anyone who tries to suggest that we should consider the possibility that it is not our fault and we should just deal with it instead of trying to prevent it, is being attacked because it is no longer a hypothesis - it is an agenda.

Would you claim that man has no influence on the surface and atmosphere at all?
Would you then claim that the atmosphere and the surface of the planet have no inflence on climate?

[Hornet33]

I still say all those that think man is the problem should eliminate themselves to "reduce" the problem. Oh wait, forgot. They're not the probem, just everyone else who doesn't "believe" the hype.

Face it, if "man" is such a problem for the planet to handle then maybe we need to get rid of half the population on this rock. You can't regulate the atmosphere or control the weather, but we can control the population.

[Chalenge]

Every one of us expels huge amounts of carbon dioxide during the course of our lives. Prepare to pay higher taxes.

[MORAY37]

MORAY,
I have a PhD in physics and currently hold a post doctoral fellowship in quite a respectable institute. Trust me, I know a few things about the "principles behind the empirical data". Just because of this I am a skeptic and know how to read a plot with a line that goes through it with no theory behind it. Outliers don't mean a thing and are usually a result of systematic errors (theory or empirical). You can plot a line through the data and call it science, but if you don't understand the principles of the process behind the system, your prediction is not scientific. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that whatever is happening, if anything is happening at all, is man made. ZERO. Instead, there is a hypothesis that "we" must have caused this and we need to figure out how we did it. Anyone who tries to suggest that we should consider the possibility that it is not our fault and we should just deal with it instead of trying to prevent it, is being attacked because it is no longer a hypothesis - it is an agenda.

I do wonder if your "respectable" institute is the same as my own "respectable" institute, as that is the same way I would frame it.  You headquartered in a castle by chance?

As to your post.... there is something to be said for the tail end of it.  I don't like the fact it's become an all encompassing "agenda" to some in our line of work.  Yet, going back to the data, there have been exhaustive studies on other causal agents that have panned out flat.  Earth is a closed system with only one source of energy.  That source of energy didn't increase in magnitude, yet still we have these things going on.

Zero evidence?  C'mon.  Talk about starting from a position and working your way back to theory.  There's plenty of evidence, both historical and current.  Where that evidence fits, only further time will tell.  But, i see you live in the camp that states..."It's simply massive coincidence this all started when man began to put CO2 into the atmosphere by the Industrial Revolution."  Millenia of stable temperatures that all changed in one hundred and fifty years, with no solar shift (actually a lag) or orbital wobble.....but there's no evidence.  Even the most skeptic skeptic has to agree... there's at least a smidgeon of evidence....  We see a direct correspondence to CO2 and CH4 concentrations to global temp in the historical record.  Of course CO2 concentration lags the temperature, that's because the last shifts in climate were started NATURALLY.  CO2 and CH4 were released, THEN pushed the temp in a feedback loop.  In this case, we put them into the air first, without natural, outside the system input.

And, you're right about outliers... to a point.  As any self respecting scientist knows, outliers don't mean a thing unless they become the norm.  We all love that tight grouping of data points, though. 

I would like to entertain your own personal theory though.  What explains all this?  If you are so willing to disprove the prevailing ideology, there must be your own reasoning, or that of your advisor.  Physicists are always a wily bunch,  prone to ignore the empirical and embrace the hypothetical at a moments meandering.

[Angus]

I still say all those that think man is the problem should eliminate themselves to "reduce" the problem. Oh wait, forgot. They're not the probem, just everyone else who doesn't "believe" the hype.

Face it, if "man" is such a problem for the planet to handle then maybe we need to get rid of half the population on this rock. You can't regulate the atmosphere or control the weather, but we can control the population.

Now, that is the whole question. Maybe we're at it ourself at an impressive pace....

[bozon]

I would like to entertain your own personal theory though.  What explains all this?  If you are so willing to disprove the prevailing ideology, there must be your own reasoning, or that of your advisor.  Physicists are always a wily bunch,  prone to ignore the empirical and embrace the hypothetical at a moments meandering.

I doubt we are from the same institute, given that if you try to squeeze all the people in my institute into a castle, even if you fill up the dungeons many will still be falling off the walls. It is one of the largest in Europe and I do not wish to get into details for the same reasons you mentioned.

I do not deal with global warming so I have no theories of my own. I know some of the people that do, but aside from attending their seminars and coffee talks I have no independent sources of data or information about other research. As to my personal views, I have no clear preference as I have nothing to base it on. All I know is that all evidence is extremely marginal, so much so that there may not be anything to explain. More importantly, nothing I have seen so far suggests that if that elusive climate change is indeed meaningful, it has something to do with humans. I am sorry, but the fact that it happens now does not mean that it is because human industry has changed. If the change started in the 70s, maybe I did it, because I was born in 1975. Or maybe it was cellular phones - it killed the bees didn't it? To me, the immediate assumption that humans did it is just a self centric point of view. Exactly the same as the old obvious assumption that the earth is the center of the universe and everything revolves around it - without real information, isn't that the most obvious thing to assume?

I'd hate to see large scale operations set into motion based on such thin foundations, trying to treat a disease that may not even be there. It is not like we have nothing to loose. Humanity has so many better paths to improve its situation that I can't see the justification in combating CO2, while we have other kinds of real pollution, poverty and famine or can find ways to deal with the inevitable. I support every dollar that goes into research as long as it is reasonable, but object to all the CO2 deals, treaties, low CO2 power plants and laugh at silly things like hybrid cars. The absolute worst thing that can happen is... nothing. Lets say that we get all worked up by this CO2/global change thing, spend billions to trying to prevent it, but fail to reduce CO2 emission due to our expected incompetence and politics. Then, in spite of that, nothing happens. The public will demand blood and science as a trusted method will suffer a huge hit. This is not something to be taken lightly, science depends upon the public's trust in it.

I am not sure where your remark about physicists  being "prone to ignore the empirical and embrace the hypothetical at a moments meandering" comes from or what it refers to. I will just ignore it was actually posted here and assume that there was a joke there. Just like that.

I think this thread is pretty much exhausted.

[Angus]

Bozon:
"There is absolutely ZERO evidence that whatever is happening, if anything is happening at all, is man made. ZERO."

Sounds like a theory ....

[MORAY37]

I doubt we are from the same institute, given that if you try to squeeze all the people in my institute into a castle, even if you fill up the dungeons many will still be falling off the walls. It is one of the largest in Europe and I do not wish to get into details for the same reasons you mentioned.

I do not deal with global warming so I have no theories of my own. I know some of the people that do, but aside from attending their seminars and coffee talks I have no independent sources of data or information about other research. As to my personal views, I have no clear preference as I have nothing to base it on. All I know is that all evidence is extremely marginal, so much so that there may not be anything to explain. More importantly, nothing I have seen so far suggests that if that elusive climate change is indeed meaningful, it has something to do with humans. I am sorry, but the fact that it happens now does not mean that it is because human industry has changed. If the change started in the 70s, maybe I did it, because I was born in 1975. Or maybe it was cellular phones - it killed the bees didn't it? To me, the immediate assumption that humans did it is just a self centric point of view. Exactly the same as the old obvious assumption that the earth is the center of the universe and everything revolves around it - without real information, isn't that the most obvious thing to assume?

I'd hate to see large scale operations set into motion based on such thin foundations, trying to treat a disease that may not even be there. It is not like we have nothing to loose. Humanity has so many better paths to improve its situation that I can't see the justification in combating CO2, while we have other kinds of real pollution, poverty and famine or can find ways to deal with the inevitable. I support every dollar that goes into research as long as it is reasonable, but object to all the CO2 deals, treaties, low CO2 power plants and laugh at silly things like hybrid cars. The absolute worst thing that can happen is... nothing. Lets say that we get all worked up by this CO2/global change thing, spend billions to trying to prevent it, but fail to reduce CO2 emission due to our expected incompetence and politics. Then, in spite of that, nothing happens. The public will demand blood and science as a trusted method will suffer a huge hit. This is not something to be taken lightly, science depends upon the public's trust in it.

I am not sure where your remark about physicists  being "prone to ignore the empirical and embrace the hypothetical at a moments meandering" comes from or what it refers to. I will just ignore it was actually posted here and assume that there was a joke there. Just like that.

I think this thread is pretty much exhausted.

It amazes me we can agree on so much, and yet come to so different an opinion on this one topic. 

Such is life though.  Inconveniently complex.

We are not from the same institute, or you would have gathered the castle reference quickly.  Besides, you are based in Europe, meaning CERN, NPL or RISO.