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.
Jimbo says:
April 3, 2011 at 3:30 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.
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’.
_____
Jimbo, as far as warmer temps leading to great snowfall accumulation…this is simply the ice-core record. I will never refrain from speaking as to what the data tell us, especially when there are strong physics supporting the data. Skeptics and warmists alike would do themselves a great deal of good by not trying to see things in black and white, and realize (as my prior post indicates) that a dynamical system existing in spatio-temporal chaos and undergoing change from outside forcing is very hard to predict in the short-term, but trends in such a system can far easier than the weather to predict in the long-term. One such trend is that Arctic sea ice (and eventually Antarctic sea ice) will decline as the climate warms and more external forcing occurs. Polar amplification of the warming is another such trend. The problem arises when warmists or skeptics jump on small wiggles up or down in such trends and try to extrapolate further. When the big drop in 2007’s arctic sea ice occurred, a few “warmists” were predicting an ice-free arctic by 2013. They were of course wrong as they forgot they were dealing with spatio-temporal chaos. So too, when the Arctic sea ice made some very modest recovery in 2008-2009, some skeptics were calling for the reversal of the longer-term downtrend. They were also of course wrong as they too forgot they were dealing with a system existing in spatio-temporal chaos. Neither of these incorrect predictions invalidated the longer-term trend of reduced Arctic sea ice caused by a net increase in energy entering the arctic from both ocean and atmosphere over past several decades.
This post is brilliant! Even if there are a few mistakes in which findings do not actually contradict each other, the number of examples listed still makes the point. Would someone please send this list to the House, Senate, and White House?
I can see the mistake you’ve made. Glaringly obvious really. you’ve used Normal mathematics not post-normal mathematics in your equations. As any child in any British primary School can tell you, in post-normal mathematics 2 + 2 = 5
You have to remember that, as pointed out by Dr. Pangloss, we live in the best of all possible worlds, so any change would detract from it.
Up is the new down… or is it down is the new up or is sideways the new… oh wait….
As some guy said… lies, damn lies and statistics… well we could add climate models to the list
Please add:
More hurricanes due to AGW
Less hurricanes due to AGW.
Oh, you Philistines, you just don’t understand believing in impossible things!! If you really want to believe you can. Truth, science, whatever, are irrelevant.
****
Alice laughed, “There’s no use trying,” she said, “one can’t believe impossible things.”
“I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
****
So…..(to mix metaphors) if you close your eyes and clap your hands and believe really, really hard, Tinkerbelle will live! And, therefore, so will your funding.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)
Reminds me of a conversation I had here a few weeks back, regarding food production. I was told by the same person that we would suffer food shortages if the climate warmed, and also that we would suffer food shortages if the climate cooled, too. It seems that ANY change in climate spells our doom.
I would add my name to those suggesting have such a list in a prominent place. It would be useful for reference and would become more definitive over time as people criticise/correct information and further examples are added.
Miket
I picked, at random, the “North Atlantic cod to decline/thrive” pair. Contrary to Jimbo’s claim, the two papers agree. These quotes are taken directly from the provided links:
I think we have identified a new element: warmsicoldium. It is located on the periodic table right next to upsidaisium that was discovered by Moose and Squirrel.
Jon Thaler says:
April 4, 2011 at 2:01 pm
You’re already about 35 hrs late on this, as Jimbo corrected this here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/03/the-big-self-parodying-climate-change-blame-list/#comment-634977
On another note, I wonder how many people here question your “at random” comment…especially considering that this finding was already noted on Steven Goddard’s blog. However, I’ll refrain from speculating on the motives of other people at this point. The point is, this was already noted by Jimbo here before it was brought up by someone here (though someone at Goddard’s site did note it first).
-Scott
The GCM’s are woefully inaccurate.
The GCM’s are perfectly robust
addendum.
Over 100 years, GCM’s of the arctic region are even more woefully inadequate and even more adequately robust
Congratulations Anthony,
(sarc)
You have found a further example of the close connection between climate science and quantum mechanics.
Like with Schroedingers cat, the effects are both there and not, or are there and their opposite is also there at the same time, depending on the eye of the beholder.
Another example of that close link between those sciences in teleconnecting larch trees. No explainable mechanism for that action at a distance, exactly like in quantum entanglement.
(/sarc)
I just hope these things don’t give quantum mechanics a bad name.
Sic et Non
Things may well get a whole lot worse, with lesser than before;
but, on the other hand, we say, much better, maybe more.
The planet’s warmth or coolth could sway, but awfully, we fear;
and Armageddon might be nigh, or maybe not so near.
Whatever happens to the seas—they’ll surely rise or fall—
We climate scientists declare, “Our models forecast all!”
It has been said that “Money is the root of all evil.” I think it’s time to say it again, and again, and again, and…
Now let me get this straight. Congress is going to close down this country because they can’t agree on a few trillion $ worth of budget cuts. Hummm… OK! Close it down! Close it down for a full year! Let’s see what the impact is of a little Voter withholding on the Global Temperature of the !@ur momisugly#$@ur momisugly@#$ world. Worth a try, right? I mean just think of all the CO2 we wouldn’t have if we shut everything down for just 365.24756 days.
I’ll be back! Give me till March 2012. I intend to produce a yearly list of AGW nonsense [adjusted after corrections and additions]. This list is marque I.