Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Does record breaking winter cold cast doubt on climate predictions of milder winters? Could ANY weather or climate shift cast doubt on the dominance of that wicked little trace molecule? Apparently not, according to leading climate explainers.
It’s cold outside, but that doesn’t mean climate change isn’t real
Sammy Roth, USA TODAY Published 5:13 p.m. ET Dec. 28, 2017
This week’s cold snap has brought record-low temperatures, freezing rain and heavy snow to much of the United States. But 2017 is still on track to be the second- or third-hottest year ever recorded globally — and scientists say climate change is to blame.
…
Even this week’s cold weather is probably being caused at least in part by global warming, said Jonathan Overpeck, a climate scientist at the University of Michigan.
The Arctic is warming much faster than most of the planet, leading to a dramatic decline in the amount of sea ice that covers the region each winter. That loss of ice has allowed more heat to transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere, causing a weakening of the polar vortex winds over the Arctic. Those winds usually “insulate the rest of the Northern Hemisphere” from freezing Arctic temperatures, Overpeck said. But as the winds have weakened, it’s gotten easier for freezing Arctic air to swoop further south, he said.
“That is due to the warming of the Arctic, which in turn is due to human emissions of greenhouse gases and primarily burning of fossil fuels,” Overpeck said in an interview.
Arctic warming may also be contributing to the long-term drying of the U.S. Southwest, although the science on that front is less certain, Overpeck said. Unlike most of the rest of North America, the Southwest is warmer than usual right now, and 2017 will “without a doubt” go down as one of the region’s hottest years ever measured, Overpeck said.
“This is contributing to our record wildfires in California, and the drying out of vegetation that’s leading to those wildfires, and the drying out of the Southwest’s water,” he said.
…
So what happens if global temperatures take a real plunge for a sustained period? Don’t worry, the explainers have that one covered as well – James Hansen, former NASA GISS Director, published a paper which suggests global warming will trigger a short ice age in the near future (see the graph at the top of the page).
… Global temperature becomes an unreliable diagnostic of planetary condition as the ice melt rate increases. Global energy imbalance (Fig. 15b) is a more meaningful measure of planetary status as well as an estimate of the climate forcing change required to stabilize climate. Our calculated present energy imbalance of ∼ 0.8 W m−2 (Fig. 15b) is larger than the observed 0.58 ± 0.15 W m−2 during 2005–2010 (Hansen et al., 2011). The discrepancy is likely accounted for by excessive ocean heat uptake at low latitudes in our model, a problem related to the model’s slow surface response time (Fig. 4) that may be caused by excessive small-scale ocean mixing.
Large scale regional cooling occurs in the North Atlantic and Southern oceans by mid-century (Fig. 16) for 10-year doubling of freshwater injection. A 20-year doubling places similar cooling near the end of this century, 40 years ear- lier than in our prior simulations (Fig. 7), as the factor of 4 increase in current freshwater from Antarctica is a 40-year advance.
Cumulative North Atlantic freshwater forcing in sverdrup years (Sv years) is 0.2 Sv years in 2014, 2.4 Sv years in 2050, and 3.4Sv years (its maximum) prior to 2060 (Fig. S14). The critical issue is whether human-spurred ice sheet mass loss can be approximated as an exponential process during the next few decades. Such nonlinear behavior depends upon amplifying feedbacks, which, indeed, our climate simulations reveal in the Southern Ocean. …
Read more: http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.pdf
Global warming is an infinitely flexible, unscientific, unfalsifiable theory which can be stretched to accommodate any observation. Some Climate Scientists even shamelessly reject the very concept of scientific falsification with regard to the conduct of climate science.
…
1. Methods aren’t always necessarily falsifiable
Falsifiability is the idea that an assertion can be shown to be false by an experiment or an observation, and is critical to distinctions between “true science” and “pseudoscience”.
Climate models are important and complex tools for understanding the climate system. Are climate models falsifiable? Are they science? A test of falsifiability requires a model test or climate observation that shows global warming caused by increased human-produced greenhouse gases is untrue. It is difficult to propose a test of climate models in advance that is falsifiable.
Science is complicated – and doesn’t always fit the simplified version we learn as children.
This difficulty doesn’t mean that climate models or climate science are invalid or untrustworthy. Climate models are carefully developed and evaluatedbased on their ability to accurately reproduce observed climate trends and processes. This is why climatologists have confidence in them as scientific tools, not because of ideas around falsifiability.
The Conversation: Climate change has changed the way I think about science. Here’s why
No matter what happens to the weather, the climate explainers shamelessly cobble together an explanation which blames bad weather on your sinful lifestyle.
Whatever the observation, the climate explainers have their theory – their infinitely adaptable theory, which they claim is science. Warm weather confirms their worst fears. Cold weather is waved away. Whatever the observation, the explainers shamelessly adapt their theory to provide an explanation, based on their “scientific” theory which cannot be falsified by any conceivable observations, event an abrupt plunge into a new ice age.
Due to the failure of the education system these self-described climate experts never could have become real scientists. None of them would ever be able to explain why the fundamental building blocks of matter occupy no space but still exist or why a double slit wave pattern is changed to a particle pattern just by looking at it. True science strives to unlock these greatest mysteries of the universe and find the answers that will save humanity when the next six mile wide asteroid says “Time’s up, pencils down. The test is over.”
“This difficulty doesn’t mean that climate models or climate science are invalid or untrustworthy. Climate models are carefully developed and evaluated based on their ability to accurately reproduce observed climate trends and processes. This is why climatologists have confidence in them as scientific tools, not because of ideas around falsifiability.”
In other news, storms and other natural disasters are caused by the actions of powerful, capricious gods. This theory accurately reproduces observed climate trends and processes, so we’re done here.
are the models really carefully developed and evaluated – – – – in modeling there are constants for many factors that are not known and adjusted to match reality – – – some such as the H2O evaporating from the ocean is one of these – – – they actually adjust this factor to show the results that they ant – – – add in 100’s more of these correction factors – – – –
and guess what – – the Sun’w output that does vary is figured in as a constant – – – – we all have heard about the 11 year sun spot cycle and its related sun’s output variations – – – that is not included in any model for it would prove that C02 is that the driving factor – – – but the sun’s output – – – – note the warmth of the sun on a hot summer day – – – – if the sun varies 0.1 % it will effect the temperature on earth, and also Mars – – –
See? The Climate is Changing. Just like we predicted.
Correct, the climate is not a constant temperature at all times ;D
The only disagreement, is the notion that humans had ANYTHING to do with it.
By isolating a particular time-period, anyone can show that it got warmer, or colder, unless they use the entire history of the Earth. So far, AGW has only argued correlation as an argument, while not even including SEQUENCE since CO2-increases clearly LAG temperature-hikes– which would be like saying that one BURPS after drinking cold soda, because the CO2 made their body-temperature higher, causing gas-bubbles.. rather than the obvious fact that their body-temperature was ALREADY higher than the soda, causing the CO2-bubbles to OUTGAS in their stomach.
And this is pretty much what happens: i.e. the earth is BELCHING CO2 bubbles from higher temperatures that are caused by something else.
Meanwhile, they IGNORE other factors, like the proximity of Jupiter being closer in 2010 than in the prior 50 years, leading to greater temperature-extremes by increasing the Earth’s axial-tilt.
But of course, AGW attributes increased COLD as well as heat as “proof” of their hypothesis not FACT… that’s not science, it’s psychosis.
Back in 2000 the National Climate Assessment said for the Northeast:
“Over the coming century, winter snowfalls and periods of extreme cold will likely decrease.”
https://downloads.globalchange.gov/nca/nca-2000-report-overview.pdf
Also no mention in the 2009 National Climate Assessment of cold winters due to Arctic warming, just that winters would become warmer.
The concept of cold spells due to Arctic warming seems to be of recent origin, though maybe someone can find predictions before such cold spells occurred?
A few months ago I read on the NOAA web site that this winter was predicted to be colder than average in most of the northern US.
I’m not surprised they have found ways to explain things to fit their view. It’s the way people are today.
Climate change IS REAL and has been going on for a few billion years……
Correct! And it’s been “disrupted” a LOT by a LOT of variables other than man’s activities!
If the climate DIDN’T change, I’d consider that evidence of intelligent design… i.e. “God’s thermostat…” as well as a lot of questions regarding what killed the dinosaurs.
However most AGW’ers also seem to be ID’ers, i.e. they seem to deny the notion that the Earth is ball of rock and molten iron out in the cold of space, revolving around a large nuclear fireball with another smaller rock revolving round the Earth itself, always at difference distances….and all working together to form a crude electric motor that deflects charged particles from the sun, which also deflect charged particles from space– while also pulling on the molten core to divert its heat to different parts of the Earth’s surface at different rates… while other rocks orbiting the sun, also affect the Earth’s axial tilt, particularly Jupiter, thereby changing temperature-extremes.
So this notion that climate-change is some sort of ill-omen of divine wrath for human sins, comes right out of medieval ignorance and fearmongering. Even Pliny knew that Mt. Vesuvius was a volcanic eruption, not Vulcan getting pissed off about the Pompeiian orgies.
However I think this AGW-panic shows that the same politicized nature of scientific community, also creates the overall scientific ignorance and illiteracy in the world at large, which allows such irrational outbursts to take place– like when the plagues were blamed on cats, rather than the rats they HUNTED, resulting in mass-epidemics.
Similarly, today natural climate-change is being blamed on human activity by politicians, rather than the scientific illiteracy that’s CAUSED by the politicization of the scientific process as a tool for power rather than knowledge.
And so we’re experiencing a modern epidemic of overall global stupidity, and AGW is just a symptom.
[? .mod]
The world’s climate is way too complex…with way too many significant global and regional variables (e.g., solar, volcanic and geologic activity, variations in the strength and path of the jet stream and major ocean currents, the seasons created by the tilt of the earth, and the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere, which by the way is many times more effective at holding heat near the surface of the earth than is carbon dioxide, a non-toxic, trace gas that all plant life must have to survive, and that produce the oxygen that WE need to survive) to consider for any so-called climate model to generate a reliable and reproducible predictive model. Hence, climate science, like science in general, is never “settled.” Compared to these major variables, man’s burning of fossil fuels is pretty insignificant in the big picture.
Bottom line: The AGW movement has NEVER been about “saving the planet;” it’s “ALL about the Benjamins,” and how they would be redistributed.
The world’s climate is not so complex, that a hypothesis cannot be scientifically tested, and proved as a theory.
The AGW hypothesis simply never HAS been.
And it’s not just about the Benjamins, so much as the political nature of science and academia, with both being funded, regulated and accredited by by the state; but if you mention any influence whatsoever, they call you a “conspiracy theorist” as if there’s no conflict. And this shows the corrupt nature of all science, if politics can so easily lead it to produce whatever conclusion it desires in the mainstream scientific community; as the saying goes, “if you torture logic, it’ll confess whatever answer you want.”
In order to be accurate, science must objective and neutral, and therefore, FREE from outside influences like politics and fear-mongering, since otherwise emotion and ignorance are simply validated under the scientific label– leading to disaster and mass-waste, as well as overall stupidity.
From the article:
“Global warming is an infinitely flexible, unscientific, unfalsifiable theory which can be stretched to accommodate any observation. ”
Here’s the “Elephant in the room” that nobody mentions: GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT EVEN A THEORY!
Under the scientific method, a “theory” requires that proponents of a HYPOTHESIS first statistically demonstrate it against NULL-hypothesis beyond an established error-margin– typically from 90-99%.
And this requires a DOUBLE-BLIND STUDY under peer-review.
However AGW-proponents HAVE NEVER DONE THIS!
So it’s NOT A THEORY!
It’s an ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS! NOTHING MORE!
The Null Hypothesis, is that THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING.
And AGW-hypothesizers have NOT scientifically refuted it in the scientific manner.
So it is JUNK-science– nothing more.
Even using the term “denial,” PROVES it is junk-science; since science NEVER “denies” a proposed hypothesis; it simply REJECTS it in favor of the Null Hypothesis if not scientifically demonstrated.
So clearly AGW is not a scientific theory, but a junk-science PAC.
Excellent comments Brian. As a scientist myself (Chemistry, Physics and Microbiology) by training, I understand and appreciate the explanation of the scientific method. I was merely trying to present the underlying nature of our complex climate and the many substantive factors that affect it — in simplistic terms that even the “Gruberized” could understand. (Everyone gets “follow the money!”)
I agree, AGW is NOT really a theory…and I love the quote about torturing logic! So true! In this case, the government “tortured” logic by bribery — throwing money at pseudo-scientists so long as they produced results (fabricated and cherry-picked data inserted in “wag” climate models) that supported their AGW hypothesis.
BTW, do you know why I got 5 e-mails of your latest comment yesterday, all in only 6 minutes?