Co author is Michael Mann who tried to wipe out the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age. Joe Bastardi, also of Penn State came out this AM blasting the paper, noting that the AMO is already negative.
In a peer reviewed paper last year H Thomas Rossby refuted the claim that "Climate Change" is slowing the Gulf Stream.
So ya choose your scientist and you can believe whichever side of the discussion you started with.
The only thing you can be sure of is "the science is NOT settled". Scientists have hardly scratched the surface of all the uncertainties involved in "Climatology".
...It's likely too soon to tell, but reports such as this one and the condition of the Antarctic ice cap and Greenland glaciers could presage an acceleration of climate effects.
Co author is Michael Mann who tried to wipe out the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age. Joe Bastardi, also of Penn State came out this AM blasting the paper, noting that the AMO is already negative.
In a peer reviewed paper last year H Thomas Rossby refuted the claim that "Climate Change" is slowing the Gulf Stream.
So ya choose your scientist and you can believe whichever side of the discussion you started with.
The only thing you can be sure of is "the science is NOT settled". Scientists have hardly scratched the surface of all the uncertainties involved in "Climatology".
As a general observation, no science is ever really "settled." The term appears to be used as an exclamation point for either side of the climate arguments. Better to say, "as far as we know based on current data," and remove the idea of certainty.
At that point, we can look at the preponderance of the evidence and draw conclusions from that, which is what genuine scientists do. If someone wants to argue against the evidence, they'll have to marshall much more cogent data than simply saying, "I disagree with that."
I don't have time to read it now, but my guess would have been the Atlantic coast of the United States would be affected the opposite. You'd be even warmer as the cooler water wouldn't be coming down from the arctic.
But I'm not a scientist and haven't read the article yet so I'm just guessing really.
...warm air to the northeast U.S., Europe and Scandinavia also slows.
It is believed that large-scale fresh water dumps like the rapid draining of the massive Canadian Lake Agassiz around 10,000 years ago dramatically affects the Gulf conveyor, triggering dramatic cooling to the northern Atlantic region.
All theory, and up here in Binghamton, I hope Global Warming offsets it. I HATE cold weather.
Co author is Michael Mann who tried to wipe out the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age. Joe Bastardi, also of Penn State came out this AM blasting the paper, noting that the AMO is already negative.
In a peer reviewed paper last year H Thomas Rossby refuted the claim that "Climate Change" is slowing the Gulf Stream.
So ya choose your scientist and you can believe whichever side of the discussion you started with.
The only thing you can be sure of is "the science is NOT settled". Scientists have hardly scratched the surface of all the uncertainties involved in "Climatology".
Why pick 1 scientist?
What does the general consensus of all scientists qualified in this area say? That's what I'd go with.....Anybody know?
Look at it this way. This is the earth's self correction. As the "conveyor" slows, temps drop, possibly causing an ice age. As the temps drop, salinity rises, speeding up the "conveyor" and a return to "normal" temps.
It is well known that about every 11000 years there is an ice age. What triggers it? Who knows. We do know that the next ice age is overdue. Maybe "global warming" or "climate change" triggers it.
'Scientists just blow with the wind
BobOnLI : 9:51 am : link : reply
you give them fresh data and they change their theories. Not like those politicians who will [consistently change] their beliefs [mid election, to match] what the [polls and advisors tell them will help them get elected]'
Sad when scholars allow political bias to influence their findings
however, perhaps sciences occasional big moves forward are by individuals rather than consensus?
not that this is one, but.
Maybe for the guy who discovers bigfoot, or the guy who invented penicillin. I'd say for something like this, it's consensus, all day.
Even individual accomplishments/discoveries are dependent on the efforts, correct ir incorrect, of those who went before.
Not for penicillin...the discovery that penicillin is anti-bacterial was an accident...
But once Bigfoot is proven to be real, accolades to hunters like Matt Moneymaker will need to happen, unless he's the guy, of course....;)
Not the point whether or not it was accidental. It was discovered as a side effect from other related studies. Without the precondition of these studies, penicillin may have been "discovered" much later, or under different conditions.
given the impossibility of getting 7 billion people to NOT act in a self-interested fashion, ultimately we will have to resort to geo-engineering, its associated risks notwithstanding. i.e., put stuff into the lower or upper atmosphere that reflects more sunlight back into space.
I just do not believe that human's are capable of the needed self-regulation, but I do believe that accelerating technological change plus "cheating" (geoengineering) will achieve at least partial results.
Unfortunately, I thing that many nations who might otherwise be taking climate change seriously are thinking the same way: we can screw things up now, and then let advancing science fix them later.
given the impossibility of getting 7 billion people to NOT act in a self-interested fashion, ultimately we will have to resort to geo-engineering, its associated risks notwithstanding. i.e., put stuff into the lower or upper atmosphere that reflects more sunlight back into space.
I just do not believe that human's are capable of the needed self-regulation, but I do believe that accelerating technological change plus "cheating" (geoengineering) will achieve at least partial results.
Unfortunately, I thing that many nations who might otherwise be taking climate change seriously are thinking the same way: we can screw things up now, and then let advancing science fix them later.
Until China and India change the methods, nothing any engineer can think of will help.
Quote:
Thank you. Can you address the idea that global WARMING would lead to COLDER weather? That seems to confuse, eh...the confused also?
Sure! That's easy.
Because the Easter US was the ONLY part of the world that froze this year. The rest of the world suffered droughts and record highs.
Basically, the reason NE US, Northern Europe and Scandinavia stay warm is because of the Gulf Stream. Disruption of the Gulf Stream can cause exactly that phenomenon. An insane melt-off of Northern Ice has likely slowed the Gulf 'conveyor' - (fresh water and saltwater have different weights, so the effect is real)
of short term and longer term weather patterns, and the different abilities to predict the phenomenon.
Thank you. Can you address the idea that global WARMING would lead to COLDER weather? That seems to confuse, eh...the confused also?
Well they have to stop being like Ted Cruz (who believe it or not, is actually the head of the committee that overseas NASA) and pulling the "We got snow in Tobacco Spit TN, so much for Global Warming". Which mistakenly confuses Weather ( which fluctuates all the time), and Climate, which measures long term
aaand still not getting what all this has to do with my friend
alarmists and their articles predicting ice ages, warming and all sort of shit. Propping it up with unproven or bogus science or fear porn newspaper articles.
We are living on a dying planet, and anyone that has studied any form of physical or astronomical sciences in college knows this, but it does not imply that you can tax people while the world you live on eventually loses it's atmosphere like all terrestrial type planets do eventually due to gravitational effects. Nothing is forever, including our Sun, it has a death cycle too. Maybe some of these scientists need to find a better way to earn a living.
RE: aaand still not getting what all this has to do with my friend
alarmists and their articles predicting ice ages, warming and all sort of shit. Propping it up with unproven or bogus science or fear porn newspaper articles.
We are living on a dying planet, and anyone that has studied any form of physical or astronomical sciences in college knows this, but it does not imply that you can tax people while the world you live on eventually loses it's atmosphere like all terrestrial type planets do eventually due to gravitational effects. Nothing is forever, including our Sun, it has a death cycle too. Maybe some of these scientists need to find a better way to earn a living.
You need to go into some depth here. It sounds like you're spouting some Sci-Fi writer's story line. In fact, the whole hot mess makes little rational sense.
RE: if you go back in time you will find these climate
alarmists and their articles predicting ice ages, warming and all sort of shit. Propping it up with unproven or bogus science or fear porn newspaper articles.
We are living on a dying planet, and anyone that has studied any form of physical or astronomical sciences in college knows this, but it does not imply that you can tax people while the world you live on eventually loses it's atmosphere like all terrestrial type planets do eventually due to gravitational effects. Nothing is forever, including our Sun, it has a death cycle too. Maybe some of these scientists need to find a better way to earn a living.
LOL...its Gravity, not man that is causing it...
RE: if you go back in time you will find these climate
given the impossibility of getting 7 billion people to NOT act in a self-interested fashion, ultimately we will have to resort to geo-engineering, its associated risks notwithstanding. i.e., put stuff into the lower or upper atmosphere that reflects more sunlight back into space.
I just do not believe that human's are capable of the needed self-regulation, but I do believe that accelerating technological change plus "cheating" (geoengineering) will achieve at least partial results.
Unfortunately, I thing that many nations who might otherwise be taking climate change seriously are thinking the same way: we can screw things up now, and then let advancing science fix them later.
My advice manh - don't buy seafront property. While I don't view catastrophic temperature change as a serious threat, sea level rise is a whole different beast and we are already past the point of no return on it coming back to bite us.
and its continuous and inevitable melting beyond epic proportions will unfortunately silence the american political machine so beholden to oil and gas special interests (though that's debatable when you have people like Ted Cruz looking to lead this country). People in places like Bangladesh are paying for our sins now and will continue to do so for generations. It will eventually hit places like Florida and we'll all wonder what happened despite the overwhelming evidence that this started decades ago because of our own hubris.
(one of the major references for the "consensus" position) is Nullius in Verba, which translates as "take no one's word for it
'.
Irony much?
The definition of a scientist is a "skeptic" despite how the MSM demonizes that term.
What the term means (and my position) is " we just don't know" (one way or another).
Legitimate scientists (including Lindzen MIT, Curry Geo Tech, Happer Princeton, Tinsdale) point out uncertainties, such as the effect of clouds, the sun (who would have thought!) and El Ninos which are not understood in climate models [u]per the IPCC [[/].
I repeat, we just don't know!
(one of the major references for the "consensus" position) is "Nullius in Verba", which translates as "take no one's word for it".
Irony much?
The definition of a scientist is a "skeptic" despite how the MSM demonizes that term.
What the term means (and my position) is "we just don't know" (one way or another).
Legitimate scientists (including Lindzen MIT, Curry Geo Tech, Happer Princeton, Tinsdale) point out uncertainties, such as the effect of clouds, the sun (who would have thought!) and El Ninos which are not understood in climate models per the IPCC .
I repeat, we just don't know!
Keep your mind open.
as if climate change is something evil and that it is happening for the first time.
The problem is that we are looking at recent data (past 100 years for example) and it may look like the world is coming to an end. This graph is a prime example of how someone will take a slice of data without showing the big picture.
Meanwhile, if you step back and look at the graph below, it seems as if we are just in another one of those cycles. Maybe getting all worked over about recent warming trends would be like freaking out if the Dow Jones Average drops 100 points in one day....if that day took 100 years to unfold.
except that in the bottom graph, you didn't bother to show CO2 concentration. Perhaps there were other causes the other times, or maybe there was a temporary rise in CO2 for non-human reasons. Does that prove that there is no correlation this time?
So, if there were heat-ups before, but this one happens to align perfectly with an inexorable human-caused rise in CO2 levels, are we supposed to pretend or hope that there is no correlation this time?
And what if as Weatherman suggests, the magnitude of the temperature rise may be modest, but the impact on sea level rise may be great? Should people in Florida, Bangladesh and Holland stop worrying?
understanding of patterns and that chart do not go hand in hand
the AMO looks to have gone negative in the last couple years, the PDO did earlier this decade, and those don't show up fast enough in global charts to accurately represent their massive impact on short term patterns. That doesn't even touch ENSO, or any of the many other shorter range patterns of importance, let alone the the long term impact of changing atmospheric composition.
Has to be one of the silliest ones used by the deniers. All of the so-called past cycles occurred due to other factors, throwing 7.2 Billion people with all their emissions, waste, and man-made pollutants into the mix just make these cycles more pronounced and quicker on the time table.
The real asinine aspect to this is we are probably already past the tipping point and yet we still have people trying to claim that 7.2 billion people can't effect changes in our environment. We can't hope to find a fix that is both economical and personally viable if we can't even get past the silliness and arrogance of thinking we are effecting anything.
Put your money into Carbon, Economist came out just today and stated it should be 200% higher in value then it currently is.
Atlantic Gyre Slowdown - ( New Window )
In a peer reviewed paper last year H Thomas Rossby refuted the claim that "Climate Change" is slowing the Gulf Stream.
So ya choose your scientist and you can believe whichever side of the discussion you started with.
The only thing you can be sure of is "the science is NOT settled". Scientists have hardly scratched the surface of all the uncertainties involved in "Climatology".
In a peer reviewed paper last year H Thomas Rossby refuted the claim that "Climate Change" is slowing the Gulf Stream.
So ya choose your scientist and you can believe whichever side of the discussion you started with.
The only thing you can be sure of is "the science is NOT settled". Scientists have hardly scratched the surface of all the uncertainties involved in "Climatology".
As a general observation, no science is ever really "settled." The term appears to be used as an exclamation point for either side of the climate arguments. Better to say, "as far as we know based on current data," and remove the idea of certainty.
At that point, we can look at the preponderance of the evidence and draw conclusions from that, which is what genuine scientists do. If someone wants to argue against the evidence, they'll have to marshall much more cogent data than simply saying, "I disagree with that."
Yaay.
But I'm not a scientist and haven't read the article yet so I'm just guessing really.
It is believed that large-scale fresh water dumps like the rapid draining of the massive Canadian Lake Agassiz around 10,000 years ago dramatically affects the Gulf conveyor, triggering dramatic cooling to the northern Atlantic region.
All theory, and up here in Binghamton, I hope Global Warming offsets it. I HATE cold weather.
In a peer reviewed paper last year H Thomas Rossby refuted the claim that "Climate Change" is slowing the Gulf Stream.
So ya choose your scientist and you can believe whichever side of the discussion you started with.
The only thing you can be sure of is "the science is NOT settled". Scientists have hardly scratched the surface of all the uncertainties involved in "Climatology".
Why pick 1 scientist?
What does the general consensus of all scientists qualified in this area say? That's what I'd go with.....Anybody know?
not that this is one, but.
It is well known that about every 11000 years there is an ice age. What triggers it? Who knows. We do know that the next ice age is overdue. Maybe "global warming" or "climate change" triggers it.
not that this is one, but.
Maybe for the guy who discovers bigfoot, or the guy who invented penicillin. I'd say for something like this, it's consensus, all day.
Quote:
however, perhaps sciences occasional big moves forward are by individuals rather than consensus?
not that this is one, but.
Maybe for the guy who discovers bigfoot, or the guy who invented penicillin. I'd say for something like this, it's consensus, all day.
Even individual accomplishments/discoveries are dependent on the efforts, correct ir incorrect, of those who went before.
The ultimate in flip-floppers!
BobOnLI : 9:51 am : link : reply
you give them fresh data and they change their theories. Not like those politicians who will [consistently change] their beliefs [mid election, to match] what the [polls and advisors tell them will help them get elected]'
Decrease in Atlantic circulation? - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12200320 idiotsavant said:
Quote:
however, perhaps sciences occasional big moves forward are by individuals rather than consensus?
not that this is one, but.
Maybe for the guy who discovers bigfoot, or the guy who invented penicillin. I'd say for something like this, it's consensus, all day.
Even individual accomplishments/discoveries are dependent on the efforts, correct ir incorrect, of those who went before.
Not for penicillin...the discovery that penicillin is anti-bacterial was an accident...
But once Bigfoot is proven to be real, accolades to hunters like Matt Moneymaker will need to happen, unless he's the guy, of course....;)
Quote:
In comment 12200332 I Love Clams Casino said:
Quote:
In comment 12200320 idiotsavant said:
Quote:
however, perhaps sciences occasional big moves forward are by individuals rather than consensus?
not that this is one, but.
Maybe for the guy who discovers bigfoot, or the guy who invented penicillin. I'd say for something like this, it's consensus, all day.
Even individual accomplishments/discoveries are dependent on the efforts, correct ir incorrect, of those who went before.
Not for penicillin...the discovery that penicillin is anti-bacterial was an accident...
But once Bigfoot is proven to be real, accolades to hunters like Matt Moneymaker will need to happen, unless he's the guy, of course....;)
Not the point whether or not it was accidental. It was discovered as a side effect from other related studies. Without the precondition of these studies, penicillin may have been "discovered" much later, or under different conditions.
Watch This Time-Lapse NASA Video Of Us Turning Earth Into An Oven - ( New Window )
Watch This Time-Lapse NASA Video Of Us Turning Earth Into An Oven - ( New Window )
Wonder how they got all that data from all those places in the 1st 50 years.
Pretty neat time lapse, though.
I just do not believe that human's are capable of the needed self-regulation, but I do believe that accelerating technological change plus "cheating" (geoengineering) will achieve at least partial results.
Unfortunately, I thing that many nations who might otherwise be taking climate change seriously are thinking the same way: we can screw things up now, and then let advancing science fix them later.
I just do not believe that human's are capable of the needed self-regulation, but I do believe that accelerating technological change plus "cheating" (geoengineering) will achieve at least partial results.
Unfortunately, I thing that many nations who might otherwise be taking climate change seriously are thinking the same way: we can screw things up now, and then let advancing science fix them later.
Until China and India change the methods, nothing any engineer can think of will help.
Quote:
Thank you. Can you address the idea that global WARMING would lead to COLDER weather? That seems to confuse, eh...the confused also?
Sure! That's easy.
Because the Easter US was the ONLY part of the world that froze this year. The rest of the world suffered droughts and record highs.
Basically, the reason NE US, Northern Europe and Scandinavia stay warm is because of the Gulf Stream. Disruption of the Gulf Stream can cause exactly that phenomenon. An insane melt-off of Northern Ice has likely slowed the Gulf 'conveyor' - (fresh water and saltwater have different weights, so the effect is real)
Quote:
of short term and longer term weather patterns, and the different abilities to predict the phenomenon.
Thank you. Can you address the idea that global WARMING would lead to COLDER weather? That seems to confuse, eh...the confused also?
Well they have to stop being like Ted Cruz (who believe it or not, is actually the head of the committee that overseas NASA) and pulling the "We got snow in Tobacco Spit TN, so much for Global Warming". Which mistakenly confuses Weather ( which fluctuates all the time), and Climate, which measures long term
We are living on a dying planet, and anyone that has studied any form of physical or astronomical sciences in college knows this, but it does not imply that you can tax people while the world you live on eventually loses it's atmosphere like all terrestrial type planets do eventually due to gravitational effects. Nothing is forever, including our Sun, it has a death cycle too. Maybe some of these scientists need to find a better way to earn a living.
As much, perhaps, as your comments on this thread?
We are living on a dying planet, and anyone that has studied any form of physical or astronomical sciences in college knows this, but it does not imply that you can tax people while the world you live on eventually loses it's atmosphere like all terrestrial type planets do eventually due to gravitational effects. Nothing is forever, including our Sun, it has a death cycle too. Maybe some of these scientists need to find a better way to earn a living.
You need to go into some depth here. It sounds like you're spouting some Sci-Fi writer's story line. In fact, the whole hot mess makes little rational sense.
We are living on a dying planet, and anyone that has studied any form of physical or astronomical sciences in college knows this, but it does not imply that you can tax people while the world you live on eventually loses it's atmosphere like all terrestrial type planets do eventually due to gravitational effects. Nothing is forever, including our Sun, it has a death cycle too. Maybe some of these scientists need to find a better way to earn a living.
LOL...its Gravity, not man that is causing it...
Another grant to fool an uneducated general public.
I just do not believe that human's are capable of the needed self-regulation, but I do believe that accelerating technological change plus "cheating" (geoengineering) will achieve at least partial results.
Unfortunately, I thing that many nations who might otherwise be taking climate change seriously are thinking the same way: we can screw things up now, and then let advancing science fix them later.
My advice manh - don't buy seafront property. While I don't view catastrophic temperature change as a serious threat, sea level rise is a whole different beast and we are already past the point of no return on it coming back to bite us.
'.
Irony much?
The definition of a scientist is a "skeptic" despite how the MSM demonizes that term.
What the term means (and my position) is " we just don't know" (one way or another).
Legitimate scientists (including Lindzen MIT, Curry Geo Tech, Happer Princeton, Tinsdale) point out uncertainties, such as the effect of clouds, the sun (who would have thought!) and El Ninos which are not understood in climate models [u]per the IPCC [[/].
I repeat, we just don't know!
Irony much?
The definition of a scientist is a "skeptic" despite how the MSM demonizes that term.
What the term means (and my position) is "we just don't know" (one way or another).
Legitimate scientists (including Lindzen MIT, Curry Geo Tech, Happer Princeton, Tinsdale) point out uncertainties, such as the effect of clouds, the sun (who would have thought!) and El Ninos which are not understood in climate models per the IPCC .
I repeat, we just don't know!
Keep your mind open.
The problem is that we are looking at recent data (past 100 years for example) and it may look like the world is coming to an end. This graph is a prime example of how someone will take a slice of data without showing the big picture.
Meanwhile, if you step back and look at the graph below, it seems as if we are just in another one of those cycles. Maybe getting all worked over about recent warming trends would be like freaking out if the Dow Jones Average drops 100 points in one day....if that day took 100 years to unfold.
So, if there were heat-ups before, but this one happens to align perfectly with an inexorable human-caused rise in CO2 levels, are we supposed to pretend or hope that there is no correlation this time?
And what if as Weatherman suggests, the magnitude of the temperature rise may be modest, but the impact on sea level rise may be great? Should people in Florida, Bangladesh and Holland stop worrying?
The real asinine aspect to this is we are probably already past the tipping point and yet we still have people trying to claim that 7.2 billion people can't effect changes in our environment. We can't hope to find a fix that is both economical and personally viable if we can't even get past the silliness and arrogance of thinking we are effecting anything.
Put your money into Carbon, Economist came out just today and stated it should be 200% higher in value then it currently is.