worst long term prediction ever ?

[fujiwara79]

2 hours ago, dseagull said:

Very curious as to what folks on here would say, as the meteorological field seems very divided on where we lay in the current evolution of climate on the planet.  

Meteorology and climatology are two different fields.  Climatology should actually be easier to predict compared to weather.  Meteorologists assume climate models are like the 16-day GFS.

And are we seriously debating the veracity of climate change based on a random thermometer in Chester County, PA?  LOL

[fujiwara79]

2 hours ago, dseagull said:

Mankind operates under an assumption that "we" are at the center of the universe.  That's well documented.

Where is this documented?  Man being the center of the universe and the most prized, special creation tends to be a prevailing view amongst most organized religions.  But I'm not aware of scientists viewing the world that way.  If anything, they're the ones who push back against that philosophy.

[chubbs]

22 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Ocean of course cools and warms at a much different pace than land....I only address land temps for Chester County PA....

You are demonstrating your lack of knowledge. The ocean changes slower than land because heat can mix to great depths in the ocean resulting in vast heat capacity. Almost all the energy in the climate system is stored in the ocean. If the ocean is warming, heat energy is coming into the climate system faster than it is going out. I'll let you try to figure out why.

Good luck avoiding warming in Chester county under the current circumstances. Per chart below, Chester county is warming like the rest of the world, but a little noisier and faster, as expected based on its mid-latitude land location.

Its going to take roughly 1000 years for the entire ocean to equilibrate once the CO2 concentration stops rising. That's why your “cooling cycle” prediction in this decade is so laughable.

 

[dseagull]

13 hours ago, fujiwara79 said:

Where is this documented?  Man being the center of the universe and the most prized, special creation tends to be a prevailing view amongst most organized religions.  But I'm not aware of scientists viewing the world that way.  If anything, they're the ones who push back against that philosophy.

Thanks for the responses.  I did a poor job articulating myself.  I'm simply doing a lot of reading while on bed rest, and wanted to dig into the topic again while recovering from surgery and stuck working off the water for a months.  

 

I should have explained that until recently, this was a prevailing view.  And you are correct that this is driven mostly by religious groups.  For a whole host of reasons, this has rapidly shifted over the past few hundred years.  Different anthropology discussion I suppose.  

 

I believe that I just have an issue with the mass politicization of climate "news," which only harms the actual field of climatology.   I often like to refer to the radio isotope studies in glacial ice cores.  Doing so is only useful if one really grasps the concept of geological timescales.  

 

Extreme views are never beneficial to society as a whole.  There is no debate that anthropogenic forces have lead to an increased rate of warming.  I can accept that.  However, I am still fascinated by the extreme measures being suggested to slow the RELATIVELY small jumps in even forcecasted rising temperature.  The climate and temperature oscillations have been very small over the past 10-15 thousand years...  whereas the shifts were much more extreme in ages prior.  

 

Its a fascinating scientific field, as it intersects with many other aspects of life (politics, sociology, economy, etc...)

 

I guess I have a difficult time understanding how man believes that any solutions they come up with will have any significant impact on the current warming.  Natural forces will always far exceed the anthropogenic. (That doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt solutions, so long as we don't go backwards.   The cure shouldn't be worse than the problem.) If this is about survivability of the human race, it would be wise to continue with studies without political agendas interfering from both sides of the aisle.  Eventually, if we are honest with ourselves, we will have to expand to other planets if we wish to survive.

 

It's frustrating to watch extreme views on both sides of the aisle.   Unfortunately, money drives agendas, and society is easily fooled by those in power. 

[ChescoWx]

11 hours ago, dseagull said:

Thank you.  

Thanks dseagull! great to have some diversity of thought and opinions on this topic!!

[ChescoWx]

8 hours ago, fujiwara79 said:

Meteorology and climatology are two different fields.  Climatology should actually be easier to predict compared to weather.  Meteorologists assume climate models are like the 16-day GFS.

And are we seriously debating the veracity of climate change based on a random thermometer in Chester County, PA?  LOL

LOL! actually make those thermometers/stations plural so thermometers in Chester County PA!!!

[ChescoWx]

1 hour ago, chubbs said:

You are demonstrating your lack of knowledge. The ocean changes slower than land because heat can mix to great depths in the ocean resulting in vast heat capacity. Almost all the energy in the climate system is stored in the ocean. If the ocean is warming, heat energy is coming into the climate system faster than it is going out. I'll let you try to figure out why.

Good luck avoiding warming in Chester county under the current circumstances. Per chart below, Chester county is warming like the rest of the world, but a little noisier and faster, as expected based on its mid-latitude land location.

Its going to take roughly 1000 years for the entire ocean to equilibrate once the CO2 concentration stops rising. That's why your “cooling cycle” prediction in this decade is so laughable.

 

Why the insults again...thanks for allowing me to figure out the impacts of ocean warming and related energy!! LOL!!!!!

Of course Charlie no prediction or forecast is "laughable" until we have verification....let's chat in the late 2030's and 2040's.....

[dseagull]

5 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Thanks dseagull! great to have some diversity of thought and opinions on this topic!!

Without differing stances and debate, there is no progress.  We are evolving into a society where if opposing views are shared and disliked, they are silenced.  This is both unhealthy and unproductive.  Echo chambers are fine for entertainment and social purposes, but they are generally frowned upon in professional scientific debate.  (I'm no professional in climatology.  I have an oceanography degree, and only work as a hydrographic survey vessel captain.  I have zero other credentials, but enjoy looking at raw data and attempting to understand it. Insults don't bother me, so long as I am learning.  I don't have to agree with you, and you don't have to agree with me.  That's what makes life in a civil society so fun and interesting.)

 

Having said that, there is much I don't understand. 

 

In my own case, I simply do not understand the "crisis-mode" that folks resort to.  Sure, I think we can all agree that we are in a warming phase.   But, that is only true if we look at a relatively short geological scale.  There a tens of thousand of warming and cooling oscillations over a given period of time.  This has happened throughout the history of the earth.  We have had swings of nearly 10 degrees centigrade over relatively short geological time spans.  

 

Looking at 100 year charts, how can we accurately predict where we will wind up in another 100 years?  How can we HONESTLY assign blame to anthropogenic forces?  We can mitigate our impact, sure.  But we shouldn't go backwards in progress as a species.  The hysteria, without feasible solutions is what trips me up.  

 

I am watching the evolution of our windfarm projects, and it is clear to most folks that the projects are being rushed through for financial gain of many politicians.  The climate agenda is something I have an issue with.  Many people are opening their eyes to this now.

 

 

[ChescoWx]

4 minutes ago, dseagull said:

Without differing stances and debate, there is no progress.  We are evolving into a society where if opposing views are shared and disliked, they are silenced.  This is both unhealthy and unproductive.  Echo chambers are fine for entertainment and social purposes, but they are generally frowned upon in professional scientific debate.  (I'm no professional in climatology.  I have an oceanography degree, and only work as a hydrographic survey vessel captain.  I have zero other credentials, but enjoy looking at raw data and attempting to understand it. Insults don't bother me, so long as I am learning.  I don't have to agree with you, and you don't have to agree with me.  That's what makes life in a civil society so fun and interesting.)

 

Having said that, there is much I don't understand. 

 

In my own case, I simply do not understand the "crisis-mode" that folks resort to.  Sure, I think we can all agree that we are in a warming phase.   But, that is only true if we look at a relatively short geological scale.  There a tens of thousand of warming and cooling oscillations over a given period of time.  This has happened throughout the history of the earth.  We have had swings of nearly 10 degrees centigrade over relatively short geological time spans.  

 

Looking at 100 year charts, how can we accurately predict where we will wind up in another 100 years?  How can we HONESTLY assign blame to anthropogenic forces?  We can mitigate our impact, sure.  But we shouldn't go backwards in progress as a species.  The hysteria, without feasible solutions is what trips me up.  

 

I am watching the evolution of our windfarm projects, and it is glear to most folks that the projects are being rushed through for financial gain of many politicians.  The climate agenda is something I have an issue with.  Many people are opening their eyes to this now.

 

 

Thank you! Agreed the fact that some have been convinced that this is a crisis and that young children like mine rank climate change as a threat to their future is ludicrous. Apparently they are concerned about bringing children into the world due to this so called "climate disaster" is pure unadulterated lunacy!! Even if we warm by 1 degree (a big assumption) in their lifetime by 2100 their life will not significantly change for them or their children. The fact anyone with dissenting opinions on any topic is silenced or derided is sad. Science must always be questioned!!

[bdgwx]

3 hours ago, dseagull said:

Natural forces will always far exceed the anthropogenic.

The abundance and consilience of evidence says otherwise. Right now anthropogenically modulated forcings are about 30x higher than naturally modulated forcings. See IPCC AR6 WG1 Annex III for details.

Quote

Again, 50 years ago.... "global cooling,"  "the next ice age..." 

See Peterson et al. 2008 for details on this topic.

[bdgwx]

On 2/14/2023 at 7:45 AM, ChescoWx said:

I only address land temps for Chester County PA....

We know with a high degree of confidence that you are not addressing the land temps for Chester County, PA. You are only addressing biased measurements of them.  That's a problem.

[dseagull]

55 minutes ago, bdgwx said:

The abundance and consilience of evidence says otherwise. Right now anthropogenically modulated forcings are about 30x higher than naturally modulated forcings. See IPCC AR6 WG1 Annex III for details.

See Peterson et al. 2008 for details on this topic.

Thank you for the information.  

 

It is of my opinion that the IPCC is inherently biased.  I have listened to several scientists that have resigned from the IPCC because of the panel's directors circumventing the scientific method, under the guise of selective peer reviewed journals. 

 

We can agree to disagree, or healthy debate can be had.  Many scientists do not agree with the agenda that is outlined in the framework of the IPCC. 

 

Being called a skeptic in the scientific field should be interpreted as a compliment.  I will continue to do my own research, and be appreciative of others' opinions and links to where I can do further research.  Thanks. 

[ChescoWx]

1 hour ago, bdgwx said:

We know with a high degree of confidence that you are not addressing the land temps for Chester County, PA. You are only addressing biased measurements of them.  That's a problem.

Of course as the actual real world data is not aligned with the popular global story....I get it

[bdgwx]

27 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

Of course as the actual real world data is not aligned with the popular global story....I get it

First, I think you are deflecting and diverting here. The topic is the temperature in Chester County, PA. You are claiming that the observations show no increase in temperature in that region but not addressing the fact the claim is based on biased observations. That is what I'm asking you to address.

Second, if by "popular global story" you mean the global average temperature (GAT) then know that the actual real world data in Chester County, PA is aligned with the GAT (aka "popular global story"). It is one of the inputs to the GAT afterall. The temperature in Chester County, PA has the same effect on the GAT as any other region of equal area.

[ChescoWx]

6 minutes ago, bdgwx said:

First, I think you are deflecting and diverting here. The topic is the temperature in Chester County, PA. You are claiming that the observations show no increase in temperature in that region but not addressing the fact the claim is based on biased observations. That is what I'm asking you to address.

Second, if by "popular global story" you mean the global average temperature (GAT) then know that the actual real world data in Chester County, PA is aligned with the GAT (aka "popular global story"). It is one of the inputs to the GAT afterall. The temperature in Chester County, PA has the same effect on the GAT as any other region of equal area.

Except the statistical analysis proves there is no bias or by chance relationships between the various data sets and observations in the data. If there was the statistical p-value in the data would not have delivered the level of significance against the null hypothesis. It's simple scientific data testing and analysis.

[fujiwara79]

5 hours ago, dseagull said:

Natural forces will always far exceed the anthropogenic.

I'm not sure about that.  Seems like that statement is an article of personal faith, not anything based on evidence.  If the world were to unleash all the nuclear weapons in existence, I'm sure the climate would change pretty quick.  Man can affect climate.  Urban heat islands are anthropogenic.  The Dust Bowl was anthropogenic.

Hundreds of years of continuously releasing CO2 that is deeply sequestered underground is a radical experiment that hasn't happened before.

 

3 hours ago, dseagull said:

We have had swings of nearly 10 degrees centigrade over relatively short geological time spans.  

Modern civilization began around 5000 years ago.  Our modern industrial society began about 170 years ago.  All of these things occurred within the bounds of a relatively stable and hospitable climate and a very short geological timespan.  Humans have been around for millions of years, and yet modern civilization only began 5000 years ago.  Some people think a inhospitable climate is the one of the reasons it took so long.  Simply claiming that there were rainforests in the North Pole back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth is, frankly, a dumb argument that doesn't prove or disprove anything.

[dseagull]

27 minutes ago, fujiwara79 said:

I'm not sure about that.  Seems like that statement is an article of personal faith, not anything based on evidence.  If the world were to unleash all the nuclear weapons in existence, I'm sure the climate would change pretty quick.  Man can affect climate.  Urban heat islands are anthropogenic.  The Dust Bowl was anthropogenic.

Hundreds of years of continuously releasing CO2 that is deeply sequestered underground is a radical experiment that hasn't happened before.

 

Modern civilization began around 5000 years ago.  Our modern industrial society began about 170 years ago.  All of these things occurred within the bounds of a relatively stable and hospitable climate and a very short geological timespan.  Humans have been around for millions of years, and yet modern civilization only began 5000 years ago.  Some people think a inhospitable climate is the one of the reasons it took so long.  Simply claiming that there were rainforests in the North Pole back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth is, frankly, a dumb argument that doesn't prove or disprove anything.

You are describing an argument as "dumb."  This is not an argument that I made.  

 

You bring nuclear detonations into the conversation.  I did not even begin to go in that direction.  (Although, I would think our species would have bigger concerns at that point.)

You then go on to list examples of how anthropogenic warming is real.  I never argued that it isn't.  As you listed, there are certainly many examples.  All honest individuals agree.  The extent of contributable warming is up for debate, simply because too many variable exist.  

It is OK for everyone, regardless of opinion or level of education on the subject matter, to say, "I don't know."

 

And if we do not know, it is perhaps a wise idea to approach the situation with care.  Mitigation efforts must not do more harm to society than the effects of the change in climate.   I absolutely agree that we should push forward with clean energy.  I believe we should do so carefully.

 

However, I stand by my statement and scientific fact that natural forces will always be greater than anthropogenic.  This has been proven through core samples.  This is not a hypothesis.  If you wish to use nuclear war as an example, you are dealing with hypothetical predictions.   One would have to operate under the assumption that full-scale nuclear war is an inevitability.  It is not.  An asteroid impact is 100% an inevitability.  

 

I don't wish to argue or name call or have this escalate into something unproductive.  Having said that, there are evidence based scientific facts that must be considered before mankind attempts to address a problem that may not be as severe as an agenda-driven collective asserts. 

 

"Crisis," loses it's value as a descriptor when it is used in abundance.   We should be responsible when addressing POSSIBLE calamity.  Humans are susceptible to being controlled via fear, and "leaders" and authority are both well aware of this.  We need to tread lightly and continue to have scientific and philosophical debate.  

 

We must first acknowledge that opposing ideas seem to be silenced now at an alarming rate/frequency.  This is dangerous, especially in the field of science.  I'm sure we can both agree with that.  

[bdgwx]

4 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Except the statistical analysis proves there is no bias or by chance relationships between the various data sets and observations in the data. If there was the statistical p-value in the data would not have delivered the level of significance against the null hypothesis. It's simple scientific data testing and analysis.

I must have missed it. Can you post details on that null hypothesis test or link to where you did it? I'd like to review it.

[bdgwx]

3 hours ago, dseagull said:

However, I stand by my statement and scientific fact that natural forces will always be greater than anthropogenic.  This has been proven through core samples.  This is not a hypothesis.

Say what? Core samples prove that natural forces will always be greater than anthropogenic? In all my years of studying the climate I have never heard that. And considering that the 2 biggest contributors to climate forcing today are GHGs and aerosols which have both been implicated in numerous climatic shifts in the past and which are supported by core sample evidence I am left perplexed by this statement. Look at what happened during the PETM when large quantities of carbon got released into the atmosphere. Look at what happened when Tambora or even more recently Pinatubo released large quantities of SO2 into the atmosphere. Remember, the laws of physics say that anthropogenically modulated GHGs and aerosols work the exact same way in regards to their radiative properties as naturally modulated GHGs and aerosols.

[fujiwara79]

6 hours ago, dseagull said:

You are describing an argument as "dumb."  This is not an argument that I made.

Any argument involving a characterization of Earth's climate a bazillion years ago is dumb.  Usually this argument is cleverly masked as "well, the climate has always changed".  Yes, the Earth was a furnace a billion years ago.  Who cares?  Humans didn't exist back then.  Stick with the climate record from 5000 years ago to today.  

 

6 hours ago, dseagull said:

You bring nuclear detonations into the conversation.  I did not even begin to go in that direction.

It is a notional example which illustrates how anthropogenic forces can easily overwhelm natural forces in a very short period of time.  Unless you don't believe in the nuclear winter theory.  Which is fine.  Hopefully it will always just be a theory.

 

6 hours ago, dseagull said:

However, I stand by my statement and scientific fact that natural forces will always be greater than anthropogenic.  This has been proven through core samples. 

Anthropogenic forcing has only been a factor since the Industrial Revolution.  Of course core samples from thousands of years ago will show natural forces exceeding anthropogenic forces - because there was no anthropogenic forcing back then.  Do you think the cavemen starting some fires is anthropogenic forcing?

[bdgwx]

2 hours ago, bdgwx said:

I must have missed it. Can you post details on that null hypothesis test or link to where you did it? I'd like to review it.

Nevermind. I found it. I'm not sure the exact details of the test, but it only covered the overlap period between your PWS and Coatesville 2W from 2003/12 to 2007/12. That is important because Coatesville 2W (USC00361591) did not have any documented changes during that period so the expectation is that there would be no difference between the region and thus your PWS. Using a period in which it is expected for 2 stations to be equivalent and then finding that they are equivalent is not proof of an equivalency of other stations and other time periods. BTW...Berkeley Earth's analysis did not find any breakpoints for Coatesville 2W during this period. However, their analysis did find two breakpoints prior to this period. Both breakpoints biased the observations higher and so the breakpoint adjustment reduced the warming in this case [1].

[1] Note that although Berkeley Earth performs a breakpoint adjustment for each station they actually don't use it for the spatial averaging step. It is only provided for informational purposes. They actually use what they call the "scalpel" method. When a breakpoint is found they split the station timeseries and treat it as if it were another station. This is quite clever because it addresses the concern of adjustments and the impact it may have on the final global average temperature product. See Rohde et al. 2013 and Rohde & Hausfather 2020 for details.

[bdgwx]

On 2/15/2023 at 7:17 PM, fujiwara79 said:

Of course core samples from thousands of years ago will show natural forces exceeding anthropogenic forces - because there was no anthropogenic forcing back then.

Correct. This fallacy is common enough that it has a name. It is called affirming a disjunct. I see it all of the time. Two options are presented: A (natural) or B (anthropogenic). Then the argument is because A is true therefore B is not true. This is essentially how the null hypothesis test I discussed just above plays out as well. Two options are presented: A (breakpoint analysis doesn't matter) and B (breakpoint analysis does matter). A test is performed showing A is true for an isolated case and then the erroneous conclusion that therefore B is not true follows. Both arguments (that it is only ever natural and that breakpoint analysis never matters) are absurd. They are absurd because in both cases A does not preclude B. 

[DarkeWeather]

The issue with the general public arguing about issues such as this... and honestly most other topics, is the belief that their opinion and biases carry any merit. I really hate to both sides this issue but in this case I have to.

Those in the general public and political realm that interpret data and conclude that climate change is anthropogenic tend to overgeneralize the issue. They recognize the very real changes happening in the world, but in the global world that we live in they tie it to every small issue occurring in the world.  This unintentionally leads to an opening for those that interpret data and conclude that climate change isn't real or is naturally occurring or is overhyped. When any issue is over generalized, all it takes is a small localized incident antagonistic to the generalized theory to "disprove" said theory. Are these people actually disproving said theory with their individual data points? No, absolutely not, but the doubt has been created.  And here is where the argument loop starts... one side says that the other is being ignorant, anti-science, and peddling misinformation and the other side says the other is being naïve, pseudo-factual, and authoritarian. Are they both correct? Yes! Are they both wrong? Absolutely. Because one side overgeneralized, it created doubt, which leads to more over generalization to "disprove" said doubt, which creates more doubt, and so on and so on. 

Another thing that irks me is when both sides use individual weather to " prove" what side they are on.  No; record cold does not disprove climate change. No; record heat does not prove climate change. Individual weather occurrences are no more than that; individual weather occurrences. Whether the world is warming or not, there would still be multiple locations throughout the world setting extremes. This is why we average information and smooth information out. These averages are what is important. 

In a previous life I worked in a climate research center. The scientists I worked with were true data types; spending years in the field. They looked at the public and politicians in general with a sense of annoyance and trepidation because of these arguments. Neither side gets the science right at all, and yet both parrot as if they do.  The data DOES show a dramatic change of warming globally; especially in the polar regions. Most of the glaciers throughout the world are receding. This is happening; one can go to each location and verify. However, not everyone is going to die because of it (although many animal species have and will continue to), and not every bleeping news story is tied to climate change. 

The good news is that every ecological issue that we can see throughout the world can be reversed or remedied. The Aral Sea disaster was directly caused by humanity and can be reversed by reversing the actions that lead to it. The Gulf of Mexico Hypoxic Zone, The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, The Ozone Hole (Almost remedied), and the Amazon degradation are all excellent examples of humanities collective ability to mess up the world on a regional level. Thus if we have the ability to change the world on a regional level, is it out of the range of possibility that these regional changes could add up into a larger world wide issue?

 

A general rule of thumb: If someone uses anecdotal evidence to prove a point but simultaneously refuses to accept the anecdotal evidence of another, they are being scientifically and logically inconsistent and should be able to accept the fact that neither sufficiently understands the issue at hand. 

Contrarianism is often mistaken as intelligence. But who is the true contrarian? Roughly 50% of the population of the US believes in climate change, roughly 50% doesn't.  

[TimB]

On 2/15/2023 at 9:34 AM, ChescoWx said:

Thank you! Agreed the fact that some have been convinced that this is a crisis and that young children like mine rank climate change as a threat to their future is ludicrous. Apparently they are concerned about bringing children into the world due to this so called "climate disaster" is pure unadulterated lunacy!! Even if we warm by 1 degree (a big assumption) in their lifetime by 2100 their life will not significantly change for them or their children. The fact anyone with dissenting opinions on any topic is silenced or derided is sad. Science must always be questioned!!

Why do they always play the “children” card when they’re losing? 

[dseagull]

6 hours ago, TimB said:

Why do they always play the “children” card when they’re losing? 

...Because they follow a narrative, and refuse to look at grounded facts.  They do the same thing with "gun control" and "equity and inclusion."

[TimB]

3 hours ago, dseagull said:

...Because they follow a narrative, and refuse to look at grounded facts.  They do the same thing with "gun control" and "equity and inclusion."

The “they” I was referring to was people like Chesco. Climate denial is not rooted in grounded facts, it’s rooted in appeals to emotion like “but my kids.”

[ChescoWx]

11 hours ago, TimB said:

The “they” I was referring to was people like Chesco. Climate denial is not rooted in grounded facts, it’s rooted in appeals to emotion like “but my kids.”

Facts over feelings folks like me embrace climate change....climate change is real and constant this cannot be denied. But warming unabated for centuries to come is far from factual.