skierinvermont Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 You've been "had" my friend. And this post is the poorest attempt of trying to wiggle your way out of this one. You can argue all you want to (and you will) but you were completely in the wrong the other day when I questioned your position that the warming has been "obvious" since 1998 & temps haven't leveled off. I even posted a peer reviewed paper that admitted halt in warming that you intelligently blew away with fictional language...even saying the paper wasn't saying what it was really saying. No one, or at least I wasn't trying to argue with you about AGW but about the past decade but for whatever reason you misrepresented the facts. Whether the temps arose, declined, or leveled off the past decade has no real bearing on the AGW debate but at least you can give an honest admission. I'm not going to argue with people that don't have the desire to think or learn. You can insult me all you want. I am through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gracetoyou Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 I'm not going to argue with people that don't have the desire to think or learn. You can insult me all you want. I am through. I am not at all against thinking or learning. I am against your assertion that warming since 1998 is "obvious". You can't have it all one way. You have to think & learn a little too. I greatly enjoy reading your posts! I think you're very knowledgeable & represent what you think very well, but I disagreed with that statement you made & I felt you dishonestly argued with me to no point. If you would just admit that the warming was there but not "obvious" & that more of a leveling trend on temps is represented since 1998 then I'm cool. Don't take it personal, I do not intend it to be that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Sure. One statement is made from a purely statistical standpoint regarding the lack of statistical significance of short term trends to indicate an altered underlying trend due to the high amount of noise introduced by measurement error and other climate factors. From a statistical standpoint, there if far too much noise to use 10 or 14 year trends to prove a change in the underlying trend unless the 10 or 14 year trend were very different from the underlying trend. In the case of the 10 year, the trend would have to be quite negative. The other statement, instead of chalking up all this measurement uncertainty and short-term variability as 'noise', attempts to actually causally filter out this noise and derive the underlying trend. There is still measurement error and uncertainty introduced in by the causal relationships used to derive the underlying trend, and thus one could attach error bars to these estimates but the central estimate shows an unchanged underlying trend over the last decade. None of this makes your statements consistent. You said that the statistical noise over short time periods makes it "meaningless" to try to guage the global warming trend. And yet you then turn around and say you can filter through the noise and make definitive, certain statements about the underlying warming trend, despite the error bars. It's contradictory to say it's meaningless to try to detect a trend, but then claim you can come up with meaningful trends. There is no way around that, you can't have it both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 None of this makes your statements consistent. You said that the statistical noise over short time periods makes it "meaningless" to try to guage the global warming trend. And yet you then turn around and say you can filter through the noise and make definitive, certain statements about the underlying warming trend, despite the error bars. It's contradictory to say it's meaningless to try to detect a trend, but then claim you can come up with meaningful trends. There is no way around that, you can't have it both ways. One statement is made from a purely statistical standpoint concerning trend and variance analysis. According to this, "The underlying trend is not statistically significantly different from .4C, .2C or 0C/decade" Another is made after using causative correlations to remove the variance. According to this, "The underlying trend is approximately equal to what it has been the past 30 years, or .18C/decade" Both statements are true simultaneously. Think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 I am not at all against thinking or learning. I am against your assertion that warming since 1998 is "obvious". You can't have it all one way. You have to think & learn a little too. The warming since 1998 is not only obvious it is a mathematical fact. The trend is .12C/decade (GISS) or .08C/decade (HadCRUT+UAH poles). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gracetoyou Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 The warming since 1998 is not only obvious it is a mathematical fact. The trend is .12C/decade (GISS) or .08C/decade (HadCRUT+UAH poles). Mathematical fact...I agree with that, but "obvious, very noticeable" warming I do not agree with. In my mind "obvious, very noticeable" warming was what happened between 1978-1998. What has taken place after that is an obvious slow down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 One statement is made from a purely statistical standpoint concerning trend and variance analysis. According to this, "The underlying trend is not statistically significantly different from .4C, .2C or 0C/decade" Another is made after using causative correlations to remove the variance. According to this, "The underlying trend is approximately equal to what it has been the past 30 years, or .18C/decade" Both statements are true simultaneously. Think about it. I see you rephrased what you originally said, so obviously you recognized my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 I see you rephrased what you originally said, so obviously you recognized my point. No I have not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Mathematical fact...I agree with that, but "obvious, very noticeable" warming I do not agree with. In my mind "obvious, very noticeable" warming was what happened between 1978-1998. What has taken place after that is an obvious slow down. So a slowdown from .18C/decade to .12C/decade is an 'obvious' slowdown but warming of .12C/decade is not 'obvious' warming? Correct me if I'm wrong, but .12C/decade is a lot closer to .18C/decade than it is to zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 No I have not. Then why did you take out "meaningless" and rephrase it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 So a slowdown from .18C/decade to .12C/decade is an 'obvious' slowdown but warming of .12C/decade is not 'obvious' warming? Correct me if I'm wrong, but .12C/decade is a lot closer to .18C/decade than it is to zero. The .12C/decade is, of course, on the high end of estimates. I believe the range we both agreed on before was around .08C-.12C, depending on the source. RSS is significantly lower. Regardless, that's a 33% drop in warming rate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Then why did you take out "meaningless" and rephrase it? Because there is more than one way to say the same thing. Meaningless = the underlying trend of the last decade is not significantly different from 0, .2 or .4C/decade, from a statistical standpoint using an ARMA(1,1) model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Because there is more than one way to say the same thing. Meaningless = the underlying trend of the last decade is not significantly different from 0, .2 or .4C/decade, from a statistical standpoint using an ARMA(1,1) model. Yup, and I helped you clarify what you meant. You're welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 I guess the teens will start off pretty warm with 2011 in the top 15. October is pretty warm. Where does everyone think It will end up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mencken_Fan Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Generally, those who embrace a hypothesis as fact (without proper vetting of the Sci method) are of the same ilk as those who think 9/11 was an inside job, chemtrails, and want to redifine peer review....again.....check the mirror... While I agree with you about the conspiracy theorists being as bad as the other irrational thinkers I noted, I still have a qualm with AGW skeptics and others (creationists, etc.) who are so infatuated with the point that something isn't a fact, absolute truth, etc. AGW could be wrong; evolution could be wrong, the theory of relativity could be wrong, the theory of gravity could be wrong, and so on. But as Isaac Asimov pointed out in an excellent essay long ago, one must consider the relativity of wrongness. As Asimov noted, when we went from a flat earth to a round one, we made a leap in the right direction but we weren't absolutely correct (because of course, the Earth is not perfectly round.) Furthermore, the leap from flat to round wasn't nearly as great a leap as one might assume; because the curvature of the earth is so small over limited distances, the error people made was relatively small based on their scale of reality. I hate to be repetitive but again, it comes down to what's possible, what's plausible, and what's probable; because there are no absolutes in science. At what point do we take action in our personal lives? When something is possible? (meh; many things are possible but not plausible or probable) When something is plausible? (perhaps yes; we may take some minor countermeasures) When something is probable? (very much yes; because the risk of doing nothing is too high. ) Example: If I cross a busy intersection after looking in all directions and with a green light, it's probable I will safely make it; but there's no guarantee I will. Reality is not based on guarantees or absolutes; it's based on what's most probable. Because human evolution is still a work in progress, our logic functions (the newest part of our brain) are still far from perfect. I'm sure you already know this but I point it out because faulty logic is pervasive in our species; we all suffer from it in varying degrees. I accept AGW because it's relative probability is high. It's not as high as evolution (which has been with us since the 1800s) but it's still high; higher than just plausible. We might say the details of AGW are today as murky as the details of evolution were a century ago; but that doesn't mean we can reject it just because we don't fully understand it. That people have qualms with AGW is easily understandable, but I would suggest outright rejection comes only from those with dysfunctional logic. That said, I doubt humanity will do much about AGW because evidence of how poorly the world's societies manage themselves surrounds us endlessly. And hells bells, it's not easy to do anything about it! Best bet: long-term continued warming, and mankind deals with the consequences. There will be winners and there will be losers. Such is the way of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vortmax Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 who are so infatuated with the point that something isn't a fact, absolute truth, etc. AGW could be wrong; evolution could be wrong, the theory of relativity could be wrong, the theory of gravity could be wrong, and so on. I challenge you to attend almost any public school in the USA (and likely Europe). You'll quickly realize that it's not just the 'creationists' who proclaim absolute truth, but it's also the secular folks as well. Evolution, AGW, relativity and gravity is being taught to our young folks as the ONLY truth and any other option is considered rubbish and stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 I guess the teens will start off pretty warm with 2011 in the top 15. October is pretty warm. Where does everyone think It will end up? Quite a bit cooler than September on the satellite sources (UAH/RSS). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 While I agree with you about the conspiracy theorists being as bad as the other irrational thinkers I noted, I still have a qualm with AGW skeptics and others (creationists, etc.) who are so infatuated with the point that something isn't a fact, absolute truth, etc. AGW could be wrong; evolution could be wrong, the theory of relativity could be wrong, the theory of gravity could be wrong, and so on. But as Isaac Asimov pointed out in an excellent essay long ago, one must consider the relativity of wrongness. As Asimov noted, when we went from a flat earth to a round one, we made a leap in the right direction but we weren't absolutely correct (because of course, the Earth is not perfectly round.) Furthermore, the leap from flat to round wasn't nearly as great a leap as one might assume; because the curvature of the earth is so small over limited distances, the error people made was relatively small based on their scale of reality. I hate to be repetitive but again, it comes down to what's possible, what's plausible, and what's probable; because there are no absolutes in science. At what point do we take action in our personal lives? When something is possible? (meh; many things are possible but not plausible or probable) When something is plausible? (perhaps yes; we may take some minor countermeasures) When something is probable? (very much yes; because the risk of doing nothing is too high. ) Example: If I cross a busy intersection after looking in all directions and with a green light, it's probable I will safely make it; but there's no guarantee I will. Reality is not based on guarantees or absolutes; it's based on what's most probable. Because human evolution is still a work in progress, our logic functions (the newest part of our brain) are still far from perfect. I'm sure you already know this but I point it out because faulty logic is pervasive in our species; we all suffer from it in varying degrees. I accept AGW because it's relative probability is high. It's not as high as evolution (which has been with us since the 1800s) but it's still high; higher than just plausible. We might say the details of AGW are today as murky as the details of evolution were a century ago; but that doesn't mean we can reject it just because we don't fully understand it. That people have qualms with AGW is easily understandable, but I would suggest outright rejection comes only from those with dysfunctional logic. That said, I doubt humanity will do much about AGW because evidence of how poorly the world's societies manage themselves surrounds us endlessly. And hells bells, it's not easy to do anything about it! Best bet: long-term continued warming, and mankind deals with the consequences. There will be winners and there will be losers. Such is the way of the world. If you have a "qualm with" people who have beliefs other than yours....then you probably (if you detailed every belief of everyone) would have a "qualm" with nearly everyone. My suggestion is focus more on the commonalities in our society using that as stepping stones for respectful debate in areas of disagreement. Keep an open mind when discussing differences, especially when discussing a topic that is politically divisive. (ie challange your OWN beliefs).... Oh, and lastly, understand that your effort in equating differing "hypotheses/theories" with one another is both embellishment and fruitless in that it eminates from a differing interpretation of the supporting data than others see it. Best bet: The conclusions drawn from the AGW hypothesis are wrong. (Funny how you stated that the AGW hypothesis has a "relatively high" probability of being correct....implying a slight possibility of it not being so...yet your "best bet" doesn't include that same possibility....ie having to admit your conclusions would be wrong.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Best bet: The conclusions drawn from the AGW hypothesis are wrong. (Funny how you stated that the AGW hypothesis has a "relatively high" probability of being correct....implying a slight possibility of it not being so...yet your "best bet" doesn't include that same possibility....ie having to admit your conclusions would be wrong.) LEK takes on all of the peer-reviewed scientists!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 LEK takes on all of the peer-reviewed scientists!!! LOL! Yep, it's just 'lil old LEK...and all the extreme conclusions are so set in stone...just need to accept the Kool-Aid! So narrow minded! Does it feel better to try and make it "one" vs. The world? Not quite, but I can see why you'd try! Marginalize/stereotype/warp the skeptical side all you want....and overstate the AGW "consensus" position til your cup runnith over...but it does nothing but to only feed the publics' perception of skepticism...try an IV for your Kool-Aid....drinking it seems to not satisfy your fix.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mencken_Fan Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 I challenge you to attend almost any public school in the USA (and likely Europe). You'll quickly realize that it's not just the 'creationists' who proclaim absolute truth, but it's also the secular folks as well. Evolution, AGW, relativity and gravity is being taught to our young folks as the ONLY truth and any other option is considered rubbish and stupid. The primary difference in those schools is that U.S. schools teach by memorization and European schools teach by employing critical thinking. While the Europeans outperform us at every level, the greatest gap is at the top; their advanced placement students leave ours in the dust. (I guess memorization can only take one so far.) So guess who accepts science at the highest rates? Of course; the Europeans. This is not to say Americans are stupid; we're generally not. It only shows the higher the level of critical thinking in a society, the higher the level of accepting science. Heck, some Muslim nations have good school systems but Islamic fundamentalism, like Christian fundamentalism, is anti-science; so they too struggle with critical thinking. The acceptance of AGW, evolution, etc. is no more accepted in Islamic nations than it is in ours. (It is Europe and Asia where science is most accepted.) I must have been quite naive when young. I attended top-notch public schools in Maryland during the 1960s; taking earth science (9th), biology (10th), and physics (11th), and never heard of such a thing as "creationism." I actually entered adulthood blithely unaware such nonsense even existed! Is it any wonder I'm "intellectually depressed" seeing my country the way it is now, 40 years later? Getting back to your point; there's an awful lot to learn in school and time is limited. Why on earth should we waste time teaching highly implausible concepts? That NO alternative to accepted theory should taught is because besides being a destructive waste of time, doing so would wreck the functionality of reality itself. Something has to define reality. We need to know cause and effect to reduce the number of bad decisions we make. The less grasp of reality a leader has, the greater the consequences to the followers. Scientists of all sorts define reality; period; no one else does. Like I've said before, yes - it's possible accepted theories may be wrong but it's highly improbable. Furthermore, as the renowned physicist and prolific writer Isaac Asimov noted, the degree of wrongness itself must be considered. Do I accept or teach as an alternative the world is flat just because it's "wrong" to say it's perfectly round? A rational person does not accept the highly unlikely simply because the highly likely is imperfect. This is the function of reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 The primary difference in those schools is that U.S. schools teach by memorization and European schools teach by employing critical thinking. While the Europeans outperform us at every level, the greatest gap is at the top; their advanced placement students leave ours in the dust. (I guess memorization can only take one so far.) So guess who accepts science at the highest rates? Of course; the Europeans. This is not to say Americans are stupid; we're generally not. It only shows the higher the level of critical thinking in a society, the higher the level of accepting science. Heck, some Muslim nations have good school systems but Islamic fundamentalism, like Christian fundamentalism, is anti-science; so they too struggle with critical thinking. The acceptance of AGW, evolution, etc. is no more accepted in Islamic nations than it is in ours. (It is Europe and Asia where science is most accepted.) I must have been quite naive when young. I attended top-notch public schools in Maryland during the 1960s; taking earth science (9th), biology (10th), and physics (11th), and never heard of such a thing as "creationism." I actually entered adulthood blithely unaware such nonsense even existed! Is it any wonder I'm "intellectually depressed" seeing my country the way it is now, 40 years later? Getting back to your point; there's an awful lot to learn in school and time is limited. Why on earth should we waste time teaching highly implausible concepts? That NO alternative to accepted theory should taught is because besides being a destructive waste of time, doing so would wreck the functionality of reality itself. Something has to define reality. We need to know cause and effect to reduce the number of bad decisions we make. The less grasp of reality a leader has, the greater the consequences to the followers. Scientists of all sorts define reality; period; no one else does. Like I've said before, yes - it's possible accepted theories may be wrong but it's highly improbable. Furthermore, as the renowned physicist and prolific writer Isaac Asimov noted, the degree of wrongness itself must be considered. Do I accept or teach as an alternative the world is flat just because it's "wrong" to say it's perfectly round? A rational person does not accept the highly unlikely simply because the highly likely is imperfect. This is the function of reality. So if the Europeans are so much better than Americans at critical thinking, why is the European economy in even worse shape than the U.S.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mencken_Fan Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 So if the Europeans are so much better than Americans at critical thinking, why is the European economy in even worse shape than the U.S.? Not all of Europe is in worse financial shape than the U.S.; but the few there are definitely dragging down the many. And it is no surprise that Southern Europe is the culprit. (It has to do with how "time" is perceived culturally....but that's another story.) So why is such an educated society having financial difficulty? In one word; BANKS. Consider this by Thomas Jefferson: "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 I challenge you to attend almost any public school in the USA (and likely Europe). You'll quickly realize that it's not just the 'creationists' who proclaim absolute truth, but it's also the secular folks as well. Evolution, AGW, relativity and gravity is being taught to our young folks as the ONLY truth and any other option is considered rubbish and stupid. Science based (secular) ideas are not a proclamation of absolute truth. They are a determined, rational, logical interpretation of evidence. Other options to those you mention are not well supported by the available evidence. Schools teach consensus science based on evidence and as such represent the scientific explanations for those issues. If you don't believe in science then so be it, but don't complain about kids being taught science in science class.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Science based (secular) ideas are not a proclamation of absolute truth. They are a determined, rational, logical interpretation of evidence. Other options to those you mention are not well supported by the available evidence. Schools teach consensus science based on evidence and as such represent the scientific explanations for those issues. If you don't believe in science then so be it, but don't complain about kids being taught science in science class.. Well, a lot of it goes back to origins, and some of the interpretation of the science comes down to personal beliefs. There is very little actual evidence available regarding where everything came from. It is entirely possible to believe in a creator and also believe in evolution (though of course evolution can have different scientific interpretations as well, as far as to how exactly and to what extent it has occurred) and other widely accepted tenets of science. Some of the scientific theories taught are essentially based on the presupposition that there is no creator. Therefore, it is not possible to completely separate personal beliefs/interpretations from science. It's not as simple as secular (which is actually defined as anything "not connected to religion") vs. religion in the classroom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Well, a lot of it goes back to origins, and some of the interpretation of the science comes down to personal beliefs. There is very little actual evidence available regarding where everything came from. It is entirely possible to believe in a creator and also believe in evolution (though of course evolution can have different scientific interpretations as well, as far as to how exactly and to what extent it has occurred) and other widely accepted tenets of science. Some of the scientific theories taught are essentially based on the premise that there is no creator. Therefore, it is not possible to completely separate personal beliefs/interpretations from science. It's not as simple as secular (which is actually defined as anything "not connected to religion") vs. religion in the classroom. It is not possible to believe in a strict interpretation of the Biblical story for origins and simultaneously accept biological evolution. A more reasoned approach is to apply theology in areas where scientific investigation can not venture, such as what caused the Big Bang (the physics defining our world did not exist). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Quite a bit cooler than September on the satellite sources (UAH/RSS). I would assume it is. I am talking about it's anomalies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 It is not possible to believe in a strict interpretation of the Biblical story for origins and simultaneously accept biological evolution. A more reasoned approach is to apply theology in areas where scientific investigation can not venture, such as what caused the Big Bang (the physics defining our world did not exist). I didn't say it was. You don't have to believe in a strict interpretation of one theological text to accept the possibility of a creator. But again, theories like the Big Bang as essentially based on the idea that everything came to be without any sort of creation. So when theories like that are taught in schools, personal beliefs that go beyond pure science are introduced. I wouldn't go so far as to say atheism is taught, but that does seem to be the preferred belief system in place for many theories on origin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 I would assume it is. I am talking about it's anomalies. So am I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Science based (secular) ideas are not a proclamation of absolute truth. They are a determined, rational, logical interpretation of evidence. Other options to those you mention are not well supported by the available evidence. Schools teach consensus science based on evidence and as such represent the scientific explanations for those issues. If you don't believe in science then so be it, but don't complain about kids being taught science in science class.. It all ends here. I really can not accept that other humans are not as "gifted in these" areas as others. It might be the truth. But from my perspective it is hard to grasp. Another poster above said "memorization can only go so far." That hit home. I personally have seen 2 professors/teachers and 1 doctor al tell me if schools tested on what your good at (critical thinking, creativity, aptitude, spatial awareness, spatial thought, extrapolation, causality, logic, rational behavior and so on I would be considered top of class and gifted. They teach on memorization so it's always hurt me bad. It is no surprise to me that I do so good with weather predictions once I understand the basics or even further. This started locally with our weather blog. I have been nails the last couple of years when I could shove my bias out from wanting snow bad. There is something about the spatial way weather is presented on maps and graphs an the linear progressions of it that make it possible. I see forecasters who use memorization over instinctual gifts like the ones listed above and they rely on historical patterns and there knowledge of the system working. I have a feeling the best forecasters just break out the charts and the last few days of weather and can make more often that not pretty damn good forecasts on that. And of course the models help immensely. It is 2011 and skeptics have been totally wrong about AGW. The common defense is going to find one scientists that over predicted one facet like decade temp rise, sea ice extent, ocean temps, ohi, and so on. Whatever can be used to cast doubt it used. Instead of investigating they want to pick it apart and say it's not valid because one man or one report messed up or one theory of it was wrong. These threads like get derailed with loads of bunk. The PDO went negative, we don't exactly know why...it helps cool the earth, we have seen la nina over el nino or more of it, the sun went into a grand min, the arctic ice dropped more(positive), the snow cover went down(positive) the amo is positive but weakening(positive) ghgs increased(positive). That is enough to decipher this decade probably slightly cooled, stayed the same or slightly warmed. 1990s: PDO was positive to negative, AMO went positive middle, more El nino(including record one), arctic sea ice extent dropped some, ghgs increased, sun was active more than not, snow cover anomalies went up a bit, major volcanic eruption Must have seen strong warming..which was partially interrupted by a volcano. This is not that hard. Who wants to be if the 2010s go like this: PDO is negative, amo is positive, solar is stronger than 2000s but not like the previous decades, no volcanoes of significance, ghgs rise faster than ever, sea ice extent drops more, snow cover anomalies stay the same or slightly increase, la nina over el nino slightly that we warm faster than the 2000s but not at the fastest decadal pace of the 20th century. So tell me again we do not have a good grip on this? as long as we take away ice and snow and add GHGs it will warm because the solar energy increases...the rest just play the game but do not set the rules. wild cards are volcanoes and other major events like asteroids, comets, earth tilt shifts, suns energy output and so on. Yeah I think we have an idea of what is going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.