Global Warming Could Trigger Global Cooling
In another example of just how little we have a grasp on the mechanics of our planets climate system, new research out of Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research has predicted colder winters as a result of global warming in the Arctic.
http://planetsave.com/2010/11/19/global-warming-could-trigger-global-cooling/
And we thought that people from the 14th century were clueless.
amazing how these ph.d’s just say whatever they want and don’t bother to actually do any research or justify anything these days. Unlike here at realscience where all the information is looked at without bias to reveal the truth.
You too can download a climate model, run some simulations, and then pretend that they are providing useful information.
Well, of course it will! Up is down and war is peace.
and Real Science is….?
Not what you believe in!
Not in the above claptrap. Are you standing by the “science” that warming will lead to cooling?
Again ask mike about the YD. he will give some explanation I am sure abut how cycles actually mean that the warming led to cooling makes perfect sense in this instance, whereas when climate scientists suggest this it is just those idiots again
wow, so how come the minoan warming and other warming which were much “warmer” then the current warming didn’t trigger this Ice Age
Obviously the Minoan warming was a bull market, so temps only went higher.
I guess it was a speculative bubble that burst, this run has more fundamentals, it’s not a bubble :P?
booyah! and you say you’re not a comedian tony!
but i guess it’s not really that funny..if only climatologers were that consistent
Whereas now is a polar BEAR market?
True, but I didn’t have the 7 years of rigorous study necessary to fool the entire scientific community and be able to publish all this stuff that you see through so clearly.
Obviously, (and I think delingpole said this) the whole thing is falling apart and soon (you keep neglecting to tell me when) all the idiocy of ACC will go down the toilet and the real honest scientists will prove that you have been right all along. Honorary doctorates in climatology for you all around the globe I am sure.
Well I have seven years of study, and 32 years of work experience.
Well, I’m not interested in Honorary anything, but I think restitution would be in order. People such as myself, Steven, and many others have been forced to pursue this junk science in lieu of something more tangible. For instance, the knowledge of wave length absorption of CO2 is of little interest to me. Nor is the overlapping wave length of absorption of other molecules of interest. Neither was counting the spots on the sun. The research necessary that catching the malfeasance to fudging temp numbers is very time consuming. Re-reading ancient statistics texts just to make sure they were indeed in error when calculating their various imaginings, is an horrendous undertaking.
The fact is, many of us have accumulated vast amounts of knowledge that has no redeemable value. Other than challenging the assertions of this climate quackery, I can see very little practical application for the most of us. Can you imagine what this world could have accomplished if all of us could have spent our mental capacities and energies towards something useful? But, no, many of us felt obliged to stop what we were pursuing and save humanity from the planet savers. (And my heart-felt thanks to all that did!)
But don’t you see? All the malfeasance you are discovering? All the falsified data you are unearthig? It is going to bring down the biggest scientific hoax of all time. Since it is all so obvious and you have painstakingly documented all these instances of total corruption that the entire scientific establishment is too stupid to see, you are going to force science to come back to being a search for the truth. What nobler purpose could one have?
Again I ask, please tell me when the whole thing will come tumbling down. Can it possibly be more than a year? Such widespread fraud cannot be perpetrated for this long and not fall apart completely. And there is going to have to be a climate scientist who sees it coming and jumps on the bandwagon so that he can protect himself from the worst consequences. The writing is on the wall, and the notoriety of the one that admits it is all a hoax will be irresistable to someone.
And since they are mostly totally immoral characters, I bet if you just offered a few million to one of them, they would jump at it and start naming names. Like that NAZI officer in Unglorious basterds.
It is never a waste of time fighting against evil.
TonyD:
You are a bit confused. What is being found by independent research is the current standard operating practices in academia. In the corporate world it would be considered FRAUD but in Academia it is freedom of expression and attempts to out bid another for research funding by making a project seem to be the most important to be researched. Prior to being considered for any government action climatology should have been subjected to the scrutiny that drugs are submitted or even the stock markets.
The goal has been to find evidence that supports the idea that humans are the leading cause of climate change. If all other evidence is ignored or minimized evidence can be found for any thing.
Thhe goal was never to achieve a better understanding of what drives long term weather patterns and the current definition of climate rules out ever studying long term weather patterns.
And so it will extraordinarily easy to prove this.
After all Steve has documented dozens of clearly falsified data that is easily available and irrefutable. You have a theory that explains the reality, and shows how inadequate ACC is.
All you have to do is get it all consistent. Get a couple of well know deniers to see the accuracy and have a united front. Then just show the fraud, explain and document how your theory fits the facts and start publishing. It will all be over in a year or two at the most.
Once you used the word “rigorous” you lost.
and how many published papers on climate science?
Of course none of the conspiracy controlled journals would allow your work.
so just tell me how many papers Lindzen has given his seal of approval on?
When will stock picking become a science with a journal? Hang on, isn’t that the Wall St Journal?
You cannot predict Climate, as we can’t even predict the weather.
Contrary to the smokescreen put out by climate scientists, climate is weather – and climate models are little more than extended weather models.
So if climate is weather, and you can’t predict the weather,
obviously if the sun’s energy output increased by 1% no one could hazard a guess as to how it would effect the planet. Just as likely start another ice age, as have us drinking Piña Colada’s on the beach in Thule in 50 years.
TonyD:
The cool sun paradox describes what would happen if the sun’s energy was to increase by a mere 1%. I guess you have not really studied what you are arguing about.
How many “published papers” do you see coming from industry? Ever wondered why?
It’s like stocks, 5 year old kids keep outperforming senior stock analysts, because nobody can predict the future, no matter how good their models are. One single variable does not control the future either, that is the most flawed part of their model, the over emphasis on one variable which is completetly the wrong one as well. So tea leaves would work better.
Mike,
There it is. Yup if the sun were to increase in output right now by 1% you can compare that to the cool sun paradox. You are right I AM an idiot. I forgot the albedo switch that is connected to solar energy output. My bad.
I agree with that comment!!!!!
Yeah,
those stupid physicists. it was those engineers that had the hands on experience with the real world that figured out relativity and quantum mechanics. No need for those idiots with their funny symbols and their peer reviewed papers.
Like time slows down when you go fast. That is even STUPIDER than changing wind patterns due to regional temp changes could cause other temp changes elsewhere.
You are comparing Hansen with Einstein?
TonyD:
It was a patent clerk that came up with the theory of relativity!!!!!!
It was a hobbyist Astrologer and Alchemist that came up with the theory of gravity and was among those who denounced the idea of a Geocentric universe.
Yes, and the patent clerk PUBLISHED a paper and in a VERY short period of time the whole edifice of science changed forever.
(I think he might have gone to a university and studied math and physics a little on the side)
It looks like they are getting their excuses in early 🙂
Warm = Cold, Left = Right and, presumably, Up = Down.
Welcome to the other side of the mirror people, tea anyone?
It is unfortunate that the Tirana earth observation satellite project, one of Al Gore’s better ideas, got ridiculed into oblivion.
A satellite far enough to observe the full disc of the earth at once can also measure the total thermal emission of the earth. It would have allowed a credible measurement and tracking of the global heat budget.
We would not be reduced to following the ebb and flow of warmer or colder patches of air in an attempt to measure the earth’s overall temperature.
That said, this paper does seem at least a cautionary development for climate scientists. It indicates that the atmosphere’s response to the increased level of green house gases may be much different from the simplistic current model of a global temperature increase. Ideally, it might even induce a new recognition that humility and unending skepticism are essential scientific tools.
Steve I think you are just promoting a logical fallacy.
This seems to be the Argument from Incredulity, you don’t believe warming could trigger cooling so you dismiss it without even having to criticise the science that supports it.
Actually this idea has been around for decades, backed up by research.
And maybe it is just ridiculous.
May,be but there is no evidence of it. Common sense is a poor filter for Real Science’. So the question is do you accept things based on your beliefs or on the evidence?
It is called scientific judgment based on decades of experience.
Cold is not caused by heat
“It is called scientific judgment based on decades of experience.”
Statements like this prove you have a very poor understanding of what science is. Science is not a result of experience but evidence – for which you have shown little.
“Cold is not caused by heat”
Of course it is. Have you ever noticed how much heat comes out of the back of your freezer? I assume that you think that is magic.
How are things down the rabbit hole?
A lot more rational than La La Land it seems. Your the one promoting a logical fallacy.
I have noticed that you tend to change the subject to such things when posters point out the lack of actual credible evidence to support your assertions.
So if warming will do this, why have the previous warming not done it? It’s clearly known it was warmer in the past http://westinstenv.org/wp-content/postimage/Lappi_Greenland_ice_core_10000yrs.jpg eg the Minoan period and other periods.
This we are going into an Ice age after a 1 degree rise rubbish is just stupid, the treeline in the arctic was much higher in the past, we can find the tree stumps to prove it.
Scarlet
You should talk to Mike about the YD.
according to a scientist he trusts temps plummeted 8° as we were warming up at the end of the last ice age in just 40 years.
TonyD:
You need to read better or refresh your memory skills.
I claimed temperatures dropped over 4c in a certain region during the Younger Dryas period. My information on the YD covers regions in the entire Northern hemisphere and there is evidence of it being recorded in the Southern Hemisphere as well. I did NOT give a specific temperature as the errors are large but n some regions the records show a temperature drop and recovery of 18C or more over a 2 to 3 thousand period with a 4 to 10 degree drop in less than 50 years.
I brought up the YD period in response to your claim that the warming we are experiencing is unprecedented in the last “Million Years” or was it hundred tgousand years.
Mike, Mike, Mike
You really do have to read what I actually write. maybe you could hire an assistant just to keep our correspondence straight.
The whole YD thing started when you said you could predict a 4° drop in temp, as easily as these stupid climate scientists predict a 4° rise in temp in the 21st Century. I said that yes you could do that except there was no precedent for a 4° drop in temp in less a hundred years. You pointed me to a link where Easterbrook talks of an 8° drop in 40 years during the YD.
I found idiot scientists who question whether there was a large global temp drop during that period and you kind of forgot about the whole thing since I linked to one of those idiot papers in that rag Nature that said just that.
I don’t recall saying the warming we have experienced recently is unprecedented over any time frame, please point that out to me. (or have your assistant do so).
At least you are now mumblingly acknowledging that your assertion of a global drastic cooling during the YD is not settled science.
TonyD:
We were discussing a specific region and not global conditions because I have already stated that over any long term period the temperatures around the equator vary little and extreme temperature swings are seen in the polar regions sometimes in less than 100 years. A four degree temperature swing in the Arctic regions would not be uncommon in that region over the span of just one cycle of the AO which averages about 60 years. So high to low would be 30 years!
Mike,
Uh. No we weren’t. That might be what you IMAGINED we were talking about. That might be what you thought we were talking about. But you are referring to the thread where I brought the issue up again form ANOTHER thread where you said you could just as easily predict a 4° temp decrease, as climate scientists predict a 4° temp increase. that was about global temps. Global means the average around the entire world.
Steve posts so many things I can’t keep track of them. But you comment a lot so i found you on another thread and sent you the link of the Nature paper which did not support Easterbrooks 8° decrease in 40 years as a global phenomenon.
Aren’t you glad I am so patient with you and willing to help you get back onto the actual argument we had?
Well Tony:
It really does not matter because a 4C increase in global temperature in 90 years is just as likely as a 4C decrease in global temperature.
“In another example of just how little we have a grasp on the mechanics of our planets climate system, new research out of Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research …”
This is the first paragraph – I think it says it all.
I don’t know whether to be glad that global warming will lead to global cooling or worried that global cooling induced by global warming may lead to global warming.
Or perhaps I should be glad that such warming may lead to more cooling?
Help – I’m confused.
See Brother Al or Big Jim you are now qualified to receive an honorary degree in Climatology!
The reality is that none of our climate scientists have much of a clue about how climate works. Maybe one day in the long distant future they will but I doubt even that.
In the meantime they are welcome to continue their research quietly in the background as most scientists do but we should not pay too much attention to them.
Pretty much anything can be blamed on global warming. Whatever the weather, it is always global warming which caused it. I suggest that you watch this great video of the most ridiculous things blamed on global warming http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UNXv6IUhC4
And this also great video, which summarises the global cooling scare of the 1970’s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttLBqB0qDko
holy frickin shit…54 posts arguing about whether colder=hotter
we’re doomed.