Longtime WUWT reader Jimbo writes in Tips and Notes:
The following has been partly referenced and inspired by Numberwatch. The differences between this list and Numberwatch are:
1) I have tried to select my sources only from peer reviewed letters, papers, abstracts, correspondence etc, or from the IPCC.
2) The list contains only research that appears to arrive at contradictory and opposite findings.
3) Items and links in brackets are just for extra information purposes though some are peer reviewed.
4) I have also added many of my own finds to the list.
* Corrections, clarifications and paired, peer reviewed suggestions appreciated.
* Some abstracts provide a link to the full version.
* I am aware of the caveats and uncertainties stated in some of the documents listed below.
“Causes of uncertainty include insufficient or contradictory evidence as well as human behaviour.”
————-
Below are just a few things caused by man-made Global Warming Climate Change Global Climate Disruption Excessive Climate Change Research Funding.
Avalanches may decrease – wet snow more though [?]
Bird migrations out of fashion
Boreal forest fires may increase
Boreal forest fires may continue decreasing
Chinese locusts swarm when warmer
Chinese locusts swarm when cooler
Columbia spotted frogs decline
Columbia spotted frogs thrive in warming world
Coral island atolls to sink [?]
Coral island atolls to rise [? – ?]
East Africa to get more rain – pdf
Gulf stream speeds up a little
Indian rice yields to decrease – full paper
Indian rice yields to increase
Latin American forests may decline
Latin American forests have thrived in warmer world with more co2!
Leaf area index reduced [1990s]
Leaf area index increased [1981-2006]
Malaria may continue decreasing
Malaria in Burundi to increase
Malaria in Burundi to decrease [?]
North Atlantic cyclone frequency to increase
North Atlantic cyclone frequency to decrease – full pdf
North Atlantic Ocean less salty
North Atlantic Ocean more salty
Northern Hemisphere ice sheets to decline [? – ? – ?]
Northern Hemisphere ice sheets to grow [?]
Plant methane emissions significant
Plant methane emissions insignificant
Sahel may get more or less rain
Sea level rise decelerated – full pdf
Stone age hunters may have triggered past warming [?]
Stone age hunters may have triggered past cooling
Swiss mountain debris flow may increase
Swiss mountain debris flow may decrease
Swiss mountain debris flow may decrease then increase in volume
Wind speed to speed up then slow down
Winters maybe warmer [? – ?]
—END—
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As the World Climate Report has astutely noticed:
As far as words and terms cou’d go.
All which he understood by rote,
And, as occasion serv’d, would quote;
No matter whether right or wrong,
They might be either said or sung.
His notions fitted things so well,
That which was which he could not tell;
But oftentimes mistook th’ one
For th’ other, as great clerks have done.
He could reduce all things to acts,
And knew their natures by abstracts;
Weapons Of Mass Prediction.
Global warming seems to be making my hair turn gray as well. I know this finding is not ‘peer reviewed’, but trust me, it’s turning gray. So feel free to add that to the list if you want.
A man far wiser than me once said,
“Anything can be proven scientifically if you simply discard enough of the evidence to the contrary.”
I believe you’ll find quite a consensus on that today.
Reminds me of the old “warmlist” at http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
I must admit that when I first read ‘Columbia spotted frogs decline’ I thought ‘It’s amazing what you can see from a space shuttle window.’
Excellent list, Jimbo.
We are indeed doomed.
And, of course, simultaneously not-doomed.
Henry Holmes says: at 1:45 am
. . . is this just an exercise in self-flagellation?
Say what? That makes no sense. Please pull on your horse hair shirt and do your penance.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/thomas_becket.htm
I’d say his list shows that there is at least a modicum of uncertainty. 😉
Quote from the first paragraph of the IPCC document Cited above:
“Mitigation policies are developed in response to concerns about the risk of climate change impacts. However, deciding on a proper reaction to these concerns means dealing with uncertainties. Risk refers to cases for which the probability of outcomes and its consequences can be ascertained through well-established theories with reliable, complete data, while uncertainty refers to situations in which the appropriate data may be fragmentary or unavailable. Causes of uncertainty include insufficient or contradictory evidence as well as human behaviour. The human dimensions of uncertainty, especially coordination and strategic behaviour issues, constitute a major part of the uncertainties related to climate change mitigation ”
That is “legalese” at its finest. A great, long, circuitous way of saying “determine your actions, even though you don’t know why”. Further condensation: “you are going to screw up”. This is an organization bloated by its own self-importance to the point that it really has no clue of what it’s on about.
In the clamour to provedisprove, eager researchers first of all have to fugure out, from the welter of uncertainty, exactly what it is they are trying to prove. Hence the list above.
Looks like an expanded list subliminally taken from “The 10 Commandments”.
Jimbo forgot
Global warmists go bonkers over climate change.
Global warmists go bonkers over lack of climate change.
Climate Change needs to be called Prediction Change.
Sparks says:
April 3, 2011 at 4:15 am
Great quote from Orwell.
Having been exposed in depth to the theories of Gravitation and Sub Atomic particles, I’m continually astonished at how current science continues to ignore the original discussions of Space Time Resonances as the source of particles. Much of the mystery of the building blocks dissipates, much like a critically damped wave, when physics stops taking the stand that there are Particles and Waves, as if they were exclusive beasts.
The result of that is that Einstein still has the best run at describing our universe. There will be additions, maybe even real corrections to his physics, but I don’t see it being totally overturned – unlike the pseudo-science being dished up under the guise of “Climate Science.”
Climate Change papers are lagging indicators at best. The good ones can tell you what happened.
Jimbo? Let us know if you ever come across a pair of papers that can tell us whether we are coming or going. You seem to have found plenty that tell us we are coming and going. ;o)
Henry Holmes says:
April 3, 2011 at 1:45 am
“The two on the columbia spotted frog don’t contradict.One talks about a decline once warming eliminates the moist habitat, the other says that up until the habitat becomes unsuitable due to warming, there is a benefit from the milder winters…”
Apart from the whole thing being just plain stupid – look at the geographic range of this species to see the range of its tolerances – it is particularly stupid to suggest that frogs in that range will benefit from “milder winters” when they are hibernating through them. Would they benefit from shorter winters? The ones now living where there are shorter winters presumably do.
Ever since the fungus introduced by either the pet trade, returning ecotourists, and definitely researchers traveling between areas, amphibians have been a popular doomsday poster child. But not the Columbia spotted frog, which is uneffected by that fungus. So I guess the enterprising herptologists who live getting paid to play with their childhood pets needed to bring in the planetary fever to keep their (wasted) research funds flowing.
That said, if the climate ever changes enough to dry up Columbia spotted frog breeding and wintering ponds – look where they live – frogs will be our last concern.
A very useful compilation. Fully displays the erroneous idea that very specific events in space and time can be predicted in a dynamical system (i.e. the climate) that exhibits deterministic spatio-temporal chaos, and especially one that is undergoing significant external forcing (i.e 40% increase in CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years.)
The Global Climate Models are woefully inadequate at given specifics (as well they should be for that is not their purpose), and their inadequacy is well displayed when someone tries to take a long-term trend which they may indicate and fit it into a specific time and place. These is even further complicated when the full nature of all feedbacks (positive and negative) are not fully understood.
I think everyone (“warmist” and skeptic alike) should review lists such as the one Jimbo has compiled here to remind them of the nature of climate and the limitations of the models, and hence, the level of uncertainty and limitations in trying to find shorter-term specific effects in a dynamical system exhibiting spatio-temporal chaos should always be addressed. These limitations do not, however, in any way invalidate the general direction of longer-term trends indicated in GCM’s, such as year-to-year sea ice decline, general global glacial decline, polar amplification of warming, etc.
To Jimbo and Henry Holmes
So anyway, I read both when the list was posted at Steve’s,
Jimbo, you can keep it in the list. From each study, respectively.
“In this study, we found fewer amphibian species per hydrated pond than in 1992–1993, further suggesting that amphibians have been challenged by the environmental conditions of the past 16 years.”
And,
“We documented an increase in survival and breeding probability as severity of winter decreased.”
Jimbo, when your list grows to this size and larger, it may be helpful to document why they are contradictory. If this gains much traction, you’ll be challenged more and more.
Cheers,
James
One to add? (No, not really)
http://dereksorensen.com/?p=80
You like the ice I see. Let us wait and sea. Arctic ice concentration is looking bad. Antarctica has had a bad record since 1979.
The problem with climate science funding is that it is churning out uselsess results. How can governments make decisions based on contradictory nonsense? After the last few brutal winters the British Government had asked its chief scientific advisor whether there had been a regime shift in the climate. How silly of the UK government to ask such silly questions.
Please don’t remind me that a warmer climate causes more snow. Please do not remind me that global warming causes colder and snowier NH winters. Please don’t remind me that Antarctica is just ‘average’, ‘declining ice extent’, ‘declining mass balance’.
R. Gates says:
April 3, 2011 at 12:59 pm
….”These limitations do not, however, in any way invalidate the general direction of longer-term trends indicated in GCM’s, such as year-to-year sea ice decline, general global glacial decline, polar amplification of warming, etc.”
===========
Are you suggesting that climate stasis is an achievable goal, which should be pursued?
What I think is most telling that it is all BS is that the crazed climate hippies, or the man-did-it and it must then become catastrophic climate change, don’t know which climate they want to go back to, or explain why as in what was so good with that historic superior ulterior one year climate, blink of the eye in an 12.7 billion year and counting drama, instance.
What was so great with the climate in 1788? Or as IPCC would have it in 1988?
Why would the numb nuts want to go back to “acid” rain and mass starvation and hundreds of tornadoes and crashing real estate market . . .
The biggest parody, though, has to be the fact the crazed climate hippies actually can’t say if the weather, and therefor the climate, will become better if the world actually reduces all the CO2 emissions by the amount they say is a must, or else, or what actually is going to get saved if their targeted reduction in CO2 levels is reached.
Will we get fewer hurricanes and tornadoes?
Will Africa get more rain?
Will there be fewer forest, grass, and bush fires?
Will farmers still be abel to harvest 2-4 times per year? (In 1988 farmers weren’t able to do that in general.)
Will the people of South America, Central America, India, China, Indonesia and Africa still become a prosperous industrialized peoples?
Will the crazed climate hippies of the future, aka the greens, still be an angry bunch lefties that want the world to become a “better” place?
u.k.(us) says:
April 3, 2011 at 5:07 pm
R. Gates says:
April 3, 2011 at 12:59 pm
….”These limitations do not, however, in any way invalidate the general direction of longer-term trends indicated in GCM’s, such as year-to-year sea ice decline, general global glacial decline, polar amplification of warming, etc.”
===========
Are you suggesting that climate stasis is an achievable goal, which should be pursued?
___
I currently am not an advocate of any national or international program, taxation, or geoengineering project to try and bring about climate “stasis”. Such efforts, especially geoengineering I would actually be in strong opposition to as far too little is known about how such efforts might interact with a system such as climate that exists in spatio-temporal chaos (i.e. any attempted “cures” might actually end up causing more damage than good).
I currently am approaching the issue of AGW from a purely scientific viewpoint (i.e. is it happening, why is it happening, how is it happening, to what level, how fast, etc.). There may come a time when I move toward some kind of activism as required, however, I think volunteer personal responsibility for care of the ecosystem of the earth based on education is far more meaningful and likely to succeed such that in my private life, I make the free individual choice to live as “green” as possible for both economic reasons and personal ones, but would strongly resent the further intrusion into my life by being forced to go green by federal or international agencies.