Do record lows mean global cooling?

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby Jim Steele » Sat Feb 21, 2015 7:14 am

At least 72 record low temperatures were set Friday morning, all the way from Marquette, Mich. (minus 26 degrees) to Miami (42 degrees).

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2 ... /23728379/
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby Jim Steele » Sat Feb 21, 2015 9:33 pm

Anyonone over 10 years old can remember when climate scientists warned that global warming would cause less snow?



Here is more on record cold temperatures and snow throughout the eastern USA

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/21/e ... rom-space/


“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 10564
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am
Contact:

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby Pyrrho » Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:41 am

Weather != climate.

Can you guess the difference.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby Jim Steele » Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:50 am

Of course I know the difference Pyrho. You seem a tad defensive. I merely pose the question for those climate alarmists who have suggested heat waves and droughts are due to global warming, or the more extremists like Dr. Jennifer Francis who argue this record breaking cold is due to a wavy jet stream from global warming.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
psychiatry is a scam
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1395
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:23 am

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby psychiatry is a scam » Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:55 am

no - record lows do not mean global cooling .
Last edited by psychiatry is a scam on Wed Jan 20, 2016 1:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby Scott Mayers » Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:55 am

I'm guessing that '!=' to mean "not equal to", Pyrrho. Why is it so difficult to find standard logical/mathematical symbols? I notice that there isn't even any 'free' standard math symbols provided in my OS. The Windows version has this for use in their proprietary Microsoft things [like Math Input Panel] but are non-transferable with ease elsewhere!
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3593
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby Lausten » Sun Feb 22, 2015 3:30 am

JIm Steele wrote:Anyonone over 10 years old can remember when climate scientists warned that global warming would cause less snow?

No matter what age you are, you have access to recorded information. So, show me these "climate scientist" warning about less snow due to global warming. And then show me why it matters. Show me how some scientists being wrong in the past tells me that the current consensus is wrong.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby Jim Steele » Sun Feb 22, 2015 4:03 am

Lausten wrote:No matter what age you are, you have access to recorded information. So, show me these "climate scientist" warning about less snow due to global warming. And then show me why it matters. Show me how some scientists being wrong in the past tells me that the current consensus is wrong.


Why it matters? Good science demands that all alternative hypotheses be examined, but the alarmists try to prevent that process. Good science is not about consensus, its about a rigorous process that examines all the evidence. The alarmists argue the science is settled. But those failed model predictions show the science is far from settled. The questions is why does the current consensus cling to failed model predictions. And why do people want to believe in the political consensus versus all the evidence?

Regards top climate scientists claiming more CO2 will lead to less snow read:

Trenberth (1999) CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR CHANGES OF EXTREMES OF THE HYDROLOGICAL CYCLE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE National Center for Atmospheric Research,

"With higher average temperatures in winter expected, more precipitation is likely to fall in the form of rain rather than snow"


For climate scientists fear mongering in the media read : "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past"

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 24017.html

Regards climate scientists arguing global warming causes more snow like a clueless day trader promoting with whatever trend is happening in the short term present, read: Rutgers press release for Dr. Francis' work: http://news.rutgers.edu/news/climate-ch ... OlQ9RawBDI

Then read Dr. Cliff Mass arguments why Francis's hyped paper is so flawed. Read
http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2015/02/t ... ather.html Francis posts a rebuttal in the comments section, and then Mass decimates her.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 21822
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sun Feb 22, 2015 12:45 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:I'm guessing that '!=' to mean "not equal to", Pyrrho. Why is it so difficult to find standard logical/mathematical symbols? I notice that there isn't even any 'free' standard math symbols provided in my OS. The Windows version has this for use in their proprietary Microsoft things [like Math Input Panel] but are non-transferable with ease elsewhere!

A lot of this is left over from typewriter days. But we have free symbols out there.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3593
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby Lausten » Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:12 pm

Jim wrote:Good science is not about consensus, its about a rigorous process that examines all the evidence. The alarmists argue the science is settled

Ah I see. You don't understand the term scientific consensus. This is not the same as political consensus where people get a certain feel for something and vote, and if enough people, more than a majority agree, then it's a consensus.

Scientific consensus IS the evidence. No one person can trump the body of evidence. When repeated experiments come up with the same result and repeated predictions are verified by data, there is no vote that can override that. Since climate change data is one of the largest databases in the world, you could link hundreds of articles that refute that data, and they still wouldn't mean much.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3593
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby Lausten » Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:16 pm

JIm Steele wrote:Then read Dr. Cliff Mass arguments why Francis's hyped paper is so flawed. Read
http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2015/02/t ... ather.html Francis posts a rebuttal in the comments section, and then Mass decimates her.

Something happened with this link
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 10564
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am
Contact:

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby Pyrrho » Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:47 pm

The quote function seems to be breaking links that the system has autoshortened. I'll look into it.

ETA: Is this the broken link?

http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2015/02/t ... ather.html

I can't reproduce the error.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6029
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA
Contact:

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby Martin Brock » Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:51 pm

Lausten wrote:Scientific consensus IS the evidence.

Which is why the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change is prosaic and not alarming. In reality, no overwhelming majority of scientists expects climatic catastrophe in the next century without drastic action to lower CO2 emissions. Most scientists accept an anthropogenic rise in CO2 concentration, a rise in average global temperature measurements during the 20th century and a significant correlation between the rise in CO2 and some part of the rise in temperatures only during the latter half of the 20th century.

No scientific consensus attributes all warming during the 20th century to anthropogenic effects. No consensus attributes all warming since the 70s to anthropogenic effects. No consensus expects global average surface temperature to rise 3-6 degs C during the 21st century. No consensus expects megadroughts to reverse the green revolution and starve millions, even billions. No consensus expects polar ice caps to disappear or rising sea level to flood Manhattan. No consensus expects increasingly intense hurricanes to make coastal regions uninhabitable. No consensus predicts ski resorts closing across the northeastern U.S. in one year and then attributes record snow cover to the same climate change in the next year.

Major media report all of this stuff on a daily basis, but it's not reporting any scientific consensus. It's only reporting the most strident, alarming voice responding to each day's weather reporting, because generating interest among its readers, by generating hysteria among them, is its business model, and "scientific" rent seekers compete for research dollars similarly. If you've invested your career in a scientific research program in a very narrow domain supported exclusively by notoriously fickle politicians, you aren't likely to limit your reports to prosaic measurements.
Last edited by Martin Brock on Sun Feb 22, 2015 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 21822
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sun Feb 22, 2015 2:06 pm

Martin Brock wrote:
In MY reality, no overwhelming majority of scientists expects climatic catastrophe in the next century without drastic action to lower CO2 emissions.

ftfy
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6029
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA
Contact:

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby Martin Brock » Sun Feb 22, 2015 2:11 pm

Needless to say, Martin Brock didn't write what Gawd attributes to him there, but Gawd is content with this sort of mindless reply, as opposed to presenting some evidence of a scientific consensus in favor of climatic catastrophe in the next century without drastic action to lower CO2 emissions, because he's more interested in personal contests in this forum than in any science.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 21822
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sun Feb 22, 2015 2:17 pm

Martin Brock wrote:Needless to say, Martin Brock didn't write what Gawd attributes to him there, but Gawd is content with this sort of mindless reply, as opposed to presenting some evidence of a scientific consensus in favor of climatic catastrophe in the next century without drastic action to lower CO2 emissions, because he's more interested in personal contests in this forum than in any science.

Do better posts, get better replies.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3593
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby Lausten » Sun Feb 22, 2015 3:01 pm

Jim wrote:Francis posts a rebuttal in the comments section, and then Mass decimates her.

That statement can only be considered true if you first agree with Cliff's conclusions.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby Jim Steele » Sun Feb 22, 2015 4:18 pm

Lausten wrote: Scientific consensus IS the evidence. No one person can trump the body of evidence. When repeated experiments come up with the same result and repeated predictions are verified by data, there is no vote that can override that. Since climate change data is one of the largest databases in the world, you could link hundreds of articles that refute that data, and they still wouldn't mean much.


Lausten you are very naive to think the climate consensus is not based on what scientists feel is happening and politics, and that holds true for many disciplines. So I suspect you have no experience in scientific academia. Take the case of Nobel prize winner Dan Shechtman who discovered quasi-crystals that are now used in surgical equipment. Linus Pauling's conceptual framework for atomic bonding and crystal formation asserted quasi crystals were impossible, but Shechtman saw them. Pauling would get up at conferences and shout,"There are no such things as quasi crystals - just quasi scientists." Shechtman's research lab asked him to recant his observations due to political fear of loss of status and funding. Shechtman refused and was thrown out of his lab, but Shechtman persisted, and when he finally got a journal to publish his findings, suddenly everyone started seeing the impossible quasi crystals.

The climate has undeniably change but what are the causes? The null hypothesis should be natural variability due to changes in the sun and ocean oscillations. Trenberth argued to flip that and argued the null hypothesis is climate change is due to rising CO2, and skeptics must prove that it natural. Then quelch skeptical articles in the literature Trenberth suggested skeptics are the greatest threat to the earth. Now Trenberth asserts that every winter event is partially due to CO2 climate change, despite the fact that several researcher show that recent droughts and heat waves are well within natural variability. That's the politics of the scientific consensus even when there is not a consensus.

We know ocean oscillations and oscillations of solar irradiance happen over periods of many decades and centuries. That is the length of time needed to analyze the natural experiments of climate change. Until that is done, all climate claims are mere hypotheses. However there have been several failed claims already such as milder winters. All the models argued Antarctic sea ice should be melting not reaching record extents.That's a failed experiment. None of the models predicted the 18 year warming hiatus. That is failed experiment. But as would be expected, those who hitched their status and funding to CO2 warming will naturally look for a way to defend their theories and dismiss the contradictions. So we see a wealth of papers arguing warming cause more severe winters, ice to grow, etc. etc. It is analogous to the myriad of epicycles created to defend the earth is at the center of the universe theories. Indeed non-existent epicycles explained the motion of the stars and planets so well, the gear patterns that create the illusion of motion on planetarium walls are based on those imaginary epicycles the consensus had adopted.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby Jim Steele » Sun Feb 22, 2015 4:23 pm

Martin Brock wrote:Gawd is content with this sort of mindless reply, as opposed to presenting some evidence of a scientific consensus


No matter how good or how detailed your posts are Martin, Gawd will reply the same way. He is just another internet sniper with nothing constructive to offer.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23542
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby scrmbldggs » Sun Feb 22, 2015 5:20 pm

Lausten wrote:
JIm Steele wrote:Then read Dr. Cliff Mass arguments why Francis's hyped paper is so flawed. Read
http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2015/02/t ... ather.html Francis posts a rebuttal in the comments section, and then Mass decimates her.

Something happened with this link



Links look like that if one simply copy/pastes from a post/somewhere like I did with a portion of JIm Steele's Post #8 here, including the faulty link in question:


For climate scientists fear mongering in the media read : "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past"

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 24017.html

Regards climate scientists arguing global warming causes more snow like a clueless day trader promoting with whatever trend is happening in the short term present, read: Rutgers press release for Dr. Francis' work: http://news.rutgers.edu/news/climate-ch ... OlQ9RawBDI

Then read Dr. Cliff Mass arguments why Francis's hyped paper is so flawed. Read
http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2015/02/t ... ather.html Francis posts a rebuttal in the comments section, and then Mass decimates her.



ETA Perhaps he took it from here viewtopic.php?p=449040#p449040 :-P
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6029
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA
Contact:

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby Martin Brock » Sun Feb 22, 2015 6:10 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Do better posts, get better replies.

You don't present evidence of a scientific consensus, in favor of climatic catastrophe in the next century without drastic action to lower CO2 emissions, here either.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby Scott Mayers » Sun Feb 22, 2015 6:39 pm

I understand how scientific consensus is troublesome since I do believe it acts no different than political consensus logically. While the scientific community may appear to have superior authority on this area over any other conventions, this is still a matter of trust AND for those without the capacity to follow the evidence provided, it acts ironically to beg others to simply place faith in them. In this way, it counters the very concept of empiricism because it expects others who can't realistically be able to 'observe' to reasonably question why the scientific community should demand others to a different standard: blind faith that the authorities of science are both wiser and morally superior (in the assumption that scientists would never lie or cheat.)

I think that this IS the major problem with regards to global warming issues. Scientists have an onus here to find more clever ways to provide easier access and do it in a way that doesn't impose everyone to require having a degree to qualify. I think that it can likely be done but recognize the difficulty.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3593
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby Lausten » Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:37 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:I understand how scientific consensus is troublesome since I do believe it acts no different than political consensus logically.

Scientists have an onus here to find more clever ways to provide easier access and do it in a way that doesn't impose everyone to require having a degree to qualify. I think that it can likely be done but recognize the difficulty.

Your belief about consensus is wrong.

There is no way to return to a simpler world where degrees and certifications are not needed. The only way to do that is to reduce the amount of knowledge available. No thanks.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby Jim Steele » Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:43 pm

Chris Mooney is a journalist who has been a devoted mouthpiece for CO2 advocates. Sure enough he has posted an article claiming Boston's snow is due to global warming and quotes the usual global warming cheer leaders- Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth. Their evidence? Warmer sea surface temperatures pump more moisture into the air. As Chris Moooney says sea surface temperatures are "flashing red".

However this is a deception that obscures the basic science. Waters delivered northward by the Gulf Stream are heated in the tropics and due to evaporation are much saltier and denser and thus sink below the surface. Thus in the winter warmer waters of the Gulf Stream are always lurking below cooler surface waters. Cyclonic storms (low pressure systems) always upwell subsurface waters. Always. When a storm, originating just east of the Rockies, passes over the cold winter ocean surface, it always brings warm water to the surface creating warm anomalies, that "flash red". Those anomalies are a result, not the cause, of the storm. However it still may be possible "global warming contributed to those anomalies.

If that warmth is due to global warming, then we must look at the trends in heat content in the upper layers of the ocean, not just the surface change during cyclonic upwelling. A recent 2014 paper from MIT and Harvard Oceanographers reveals that between 1993 and 2011, the heat content in the upper 700 meters of the ocean along the USA's eastern seaboard has cooled as seen in a graph from their paper



Instead of educating people about all the climate dynamics, Mooney, Mann and Trenberth would rather tell half-truths to protect a theory to which they have tied their status, in order to ward off the increasing contradictions and failed predictions.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby SweetPea » Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:48 pm

Lausten wrote:
Jim wrote:Good science is not about consensus, its about a rigorous process that examines all the evidence. The alarmists argue the science is settled

Ah I see. You don't understand the term scientific consensus. This is not the same as political consensus where people get a certain feel for something and vote, and if enough people, more than a majority agree, then it's a consensus.
You haven't made a case for your opinion that scientific consensus is different than any other form of consensus.

Scientific consensus IS the evidence.
Are you saying that "the evidence" is merely what a bunch of people who agree with each other, believe? That's wacky.
If you're saying the "reverse", that the consensus is made up of evidence, that's silly - consensus is quite obviously agreed-upon opinion about what the evidence means.
What you have a hold of, is, I think, something akin to a religious belief in science, where definitions don't mean what they mean, because it's about science, and words don't mean what they mean, because it's about science. Very much like a religious belief system.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby SweetPea » Sun Feb 22, 2015 9:08 pm

Pyrrho wrote:Weather != climate.

Can you guess the difference.


Can you explain what they are?
Does weather somehow become climate?
If so, when and for what reasons?
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby Scott Mayers » Sun Feb 22, 2015 9:20 pm

Response to Lausten from my last post above:

It's not simply any irrational belief, though, Lausten. It is about pure logic. I'm not suggesting returning to any 'simpler' worldview. What needs to be done is to improve upon bridging the diverse areas of science to the general public to demonstrate its accountability to communicate things better. Some of it is being done all the time and they are improving. But for what is out there so far, it still isn't up to par yet.

One example is how Wikipedia intended in their project by providing freely accessible knowledge to the world with links that attempt to help people interactively digress further into any depth of natural inquiry that anyone can use. But even there it has problems as many of the writers on the science there don't have the same standard of skills to communicate and for certain issues only obfuscates the understanding since many of them do not think of their audience and only speak assuming certain pre-requisite understandings of the reader.

Also, there is the issue of education itself as a commodity. While there are many 'free' resources that one may be able to find out there, much of it when it is free only attends to basic explanations. When or where proof is concerned, if it uses 'proofs' it still often relies too heavily on some other prerequisites that still require more depth. There are gaps in which much of it is more about imposing upon people to spend money.

As an indirect analogy, when we buy good quality-related software, like Adobe suites ...or even much OS software, they purposely skim on the way they provide the educational materials to understand and use them with exception to the most trivial means to use them. Instead of providing the easily understood educational materials to understand and operate their products with appropriate depth, they require further investments such as books or videos (often as 3rd party offers) and service assistance, etc. These act as barriers that prevent easy access to such knowledge unless one is privileged with the money [*and time] to do so.

The same is with educational materials. It adds value to the need for authorities, but it unfairly biases general public access to the quality means to the necessary material and places the burden upon them to have to prove (or disprove) things on their own. To me, this is no different than what happens through time again and again. It IS politics. And I fear that even the institutes of science only act as just one stage in becoming the next religion for another future because of this in cycles.

So, it is appropriate to question these things. The climate science involved with global warming is only a contingent aspect of it that suffer the same faults as the social sciences at present until they can find some proof for all general cases in all worlds to appropriately predict the future.

Edit at *
Last edited by Scott Mayers on Sun Feb 22, 2015 9:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby Jim Steele » Sun Feb 22, 2015 9:35 pm

Lausten wrote:Your belief about consensus is wrong.

There is no way to return to a simpler world where degrees and certifications are not needed. The only way to do that is to reduce the amount of knowledge available. No thanks.


If one reads most of the peer review literature on climate change, one quickly realizes there is a whole spectrum of interpretations. Researching how climate affected wildlife and researching my book, I have read at least 2000 peer reviewed articles and I would guess that encompassed much less than half of what has been published. But several of those articles were pure rubbish as I have blogged.

Most everyone agrees that CO2 has risen and CO2 is a greenhouse gas that slows the loss if infrared radiation. But other than that, the "consensus" is all over the board. What I understand that Scott is trying to say is simply the literature is so vast and so diverse, few people have the time or training to sift through it all. He is not arguing for reduced knowledge but a better way to access and synthesize it all. Models are one form of synthesizing what is known, and testing the predictions of those models is one way of determine the skillfulness of that synthesis. These failed model predictions suggest there is much more to learn.

I have also argued that one way to present the science to the public is to promote more respectful debates. But climate scientists have circled the wagons and refuse to debate skeptics because it gives credence to alternative explanations. Alarmists would rather engage in internet sniping and avoid sincere debate. But examining alternative explanations is the very foundation of science. To stifle that debate only denigrates honest science. Internet snipers are bent on protecting their views, much like religious fanatics try to crucify whoever they see as a heretic.

There is one reason to "return to the past." What good science has advocated for centuries is witnessed in the motto of the oldest scientific organization of which Newton once presided over as president. Nullius In Verba or Take no one's Word! As Einstein advocated never stop questioning.

Those who appeal to the false notion of "settled science", to the authority of self proclaimed experts, and mindlessly snipe at alternative explanations prefer to engage in the politics of "consensus' and have deserted the true principles of science.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby SweetPea » Sun Feb 22, 2015 9:40 pm

JIm Steele wrote:
Lausten wrote:Your belief about consensus is wrong.

There is no way to return to a simpler world where degrees and certifications are not needed. The only way to do that is to reduce the amount of knowledge available. No thanks.


If one reads most of the peer review literature on climate change, one quickly realizes there is a whole spectrum of interpretations. Researching how climate affected wildlife and researching my book, I have read at least 2000 peer reviewed articles and I would guess that encompassed much less than half of what has been published. But several of those articles were pure rubbish as I have blogged.

Most everyone agrees that CO2 has risen and CO2 is a greenhouse gas that slows the loss if infrared radiation. But other than that, the "consensus" is all over the board. What I understand that Scott is trying to say is simply the literature is so vast and so diverse, few people have the time or training to sift through it all. He is not arguing for reduced knowledge but a better way to access and synthesize it all. Models are one form of synthesizing what is known, and the testing the predictions of those models is one way of determine the skillfulness of that synthesis. These failed models suggest there is much more to learn.

I have also argued that one way to present the science to the public is to promote more respectful debates. But climate scientists have circled the wagons and refuse to debate skeptics because it gives credence to alternative explanations.
That's provably true. During the making of IPCC reports, the scientists garnering the most prestige had the priority set, of not allowing in anything to detract from a tidy picture they wanted to present - that of a steady downward sloping temperature for a thousand years, with a sudden spike in the 20th century, and claims of hottest decade due to CO2.
There was initially strong internal dissent, but eventually pressure brought a defeat, and the tidy picture was presented.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby SweetPea » Sun Feb 22, 2015 9:49 pm

Lausten wrote:
JIm Steele wrote:Anyonone over 10 years old can remember when climate scientists warned that global warming would cause less snow?

No matter what age you are, you have access to recorded information. So, show me these "climate scientist" warning about less snow due to global warming.


http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 24017.html

"Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past " :lol:

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.


There's many more. Scientists advising to not invest in the ski industry, and so on.
Last edited by SweetPea on Sun Feb 22, 2015 9:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9546
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby TJrandom » Sun Feb 22, 2015 9:52 pm

JIm Steele wrote:... Waters delivered northward by the Gulf Stream are heated in the tropics and due to evaporation are much saltier and denser and thus sink below the surface. Thus in the winter warmer waters of the Gulf Stream are always lurking below cooler surface waters.


JIm - please clarify this portion. As an ocean diver in the winter off of the coast of Japan, where southern warmer waters come up from the South China Sea, I have never found cooler water on top.

Cold, salty water is dense and sinks to the bottom of the ocean while warm water is less dense and remains on the surface. Cold water has a higher density than warm water.


http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coldocean.html

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby Scott Mayers » Sun Feb 22, 2015 9:57 pm

Don't mean to burden others from catching up here, but you also have to add to this discussion that even if nature should confirm what the 'consensus' supports, regardless of the difference between 'scientific' or 'political', even such confirmation in one contingent example is unable to assure the science was correct on a logical basis. So, until we can do things like accurately predict the weather ten years from now precisely, we have no reason to be sure that such confirmation = proof. Climate researchers may use science as tools in parts but the nature of it is fallibility lies in presuming their expertise with using science means they are qualified to also be skilled with general logic beyond their microscopic way of seeing things. It remains in the realm of politics which explains why many there (scientific lobbies) are also using political means to behave.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby SweetPea » Sun Feb 22, 2015 10:05 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:Don't mean to burden others from catching up here, but you also have to add to this discussion that even if nature should confirm what the 'consensus' supports, regardless of the difference between 'scientific' or 'political', even such confirmation in one contingent example is unable to assure the science was correct on a logical basis. So, until we can do things like accurately predict the weather ten years from now precisely, we have no reason to be sure that such confirmation = proof. Climate researchers may use science as tools in parts but the nature of it is fallibility lies in presuming their expertise with using science means they are qualified to also be skilled with general logic beyond their microscopic way of seeing things. It remains in the realm of politics which explains why many there (scientific lobbies) are also using political means to behave.
Mostly they don't use trained statisticians and so it's a dog's breakfast of really bad output. Recently the journal Science added a necessity of review by statisticians as a requisite for acceptance. The journal Nature has devolved into a political machine for pouring out junk science and restricting adverse commentary.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby Scott Mayers » Sun Feb 22, 2015 10:10 pm

SweetPea wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:Don't mean to burden others from catching up here, but you also have to add to this discussion that even if nature should confirm what the 'consensus' supports, regardless of the difference between 'scientific' or 'political', even such confirmation in one contingent example is unable to assure the science was correct on a logical basis. So, until we can do things like accurately predict the weather ten years from now precisely, we have no reason to be sure that such confirmation = proof. Climate researchers may use science as tools in parts but the nature of it is fallibility lies in presuming their expertise with using science means they are qualified to also be skilled with general logic beyond their microscopic way of seeing things. It remains in the realm of politics which explains why many there (scientific lobbies) are also using political means to behave.
Mostly they don't use trained statisticians and so it's a dog's breakfast of really bad output. Recently the journal Science added a necessity of review by statisticians in order for accepance. The journal Nature has devolved into a political machine for pouring out junk science.

I am even skeptical of statisticians with the best of skills. I like most maths including statistics. But that is too easily abused even with best intentions. Statistics are the gateway to religion of the maths.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 21822
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sun Feb 22, 2015 10:20 pm

Martin Brock wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Do better posts, get better replies.

You don't present evidence of a scientific consensus, in favor of climatic catastrophe in the next century without drastic action to lower CO2 emissions, here either.

No, I don't. Millions of scientists are doing that for me.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby Jim Steele » Sun Feb 22, 2015 10:28 pm

TJrandom wrote:Cold, salty water is dense and sinks to the bottom of the ocean while warm water is less dense and remains on the surface. Cold water has a higher density than warm water.


TJ again you expose a lack of knowledge that explains your eager acceptance of alarmists' predictions.

Of course cold water is more dense than warm. However density is also dependent on salinity. Warm salty water can be denser than cool less salty water. The Arctic Ocean has warm Atlantic water lurking at depths between 100 and 900 meters that could completely melt Arctic sea ice. That is a well observed and well accepted by the "consensus". Most of the melting of Arctic sea ice comes from below. I was a a lobster fisherman's "coolie" in the 60s and they were all well aware of the greater warmth at different depths. Perhaps Japan's waters that you were diving in were further south or the configuration of the currents did not allow you to feel that warmth. I'll dig into my files of peer reviewed article that show a vertical profile for the New England area, but for now here is a vertical profile for the Arctic Ocean with waters up to 5C above freezing lurking below the colder surface.

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby SweetPea » Sun Feb 22, 2015 10:41 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
Martin Brock wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Do better posts, get better replies.

You don't present evidence of a scientific consensus, in favor of climatic catastrophe in the next century without drastic action to lower CO2 emissions, here either.

No, I don't. Millions of scientists are doing that for me.


Millions Haw haw. That shows where Gawdzilla is at. Crazytown.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby Jim Steele » Sun Feb 22, 2015 11:06 pm

SweetPea wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote: No, I don't. Millions of scientists are doing that for me.


Millions Haw haw. That shows where Gawdzilla is at. Crazytown.
[/quote]

Agreed. I too busted out chuckling when I read Gawdzilla's reply. But it was so ridiculously exaggerated I decided not to reply and let it speak for itself. I bet Gawdzilla can't name 100 scientists claiming catastrophic climate change (that's .01% of his claim ROTFLMAO), and a thorough review of the literature would certainly not provide a thousand names who advocate catastrophic climate change. Clearly Gawdzilla has a perverted lust for catastrophes but with no knowledge of the science.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9546
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby TJrandom » Sun Feb 22, 2015 11:14 pm

JIm Steele wrote:
TJrandom wrote:Cold, salty water is dense and sinks to the bottom of the ocean while warm water is less dense and remains on the surface. Cold water has a higher density than warm water.


TJ again you expose a lack of knowledge that explains your eager acceptance of alarmists' predictions.

Of course cold water is more dense than warm. However density is also dependent on salinity. Warm salty water can be denser than cool less salty water. The Arctic Ocean has warm Atlantic water lurking at depths between 100 and 900 meters that could completely melt Arctic sea ice. That is a well observed and well accepted by the "consensus". Most of the melting of Arctic sea ice comes from below. I was a a lobster fisherman's "coolie" in the 60s and they were all well aware of the greater warmth at different depths. Perhaps Japan's waters that you were diving in were further south or the configuration of the currents did not allow you to feel that warmth. I'll dig into my files of peer reviewed article that show a vertical profile for the New England area, but for now here is a vertical profile for the Arctic Ocean with waters up to 5C above freezing lurking below the colder surface.



JIm - that was from NOAA, not me. Even your chart shows that the water temperature is cooler with depth, beyond say 200m, and near the surface. It was warmer below a certain depth. As a thick wet suit diver, I may not have been able to detect a warmer surface, nor reach the warmer `bump` in your chart, since my max depth is 40m.

Looking forward to your peer reviewed article, and would appreciate a link for the chart...

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Postby Jim Steele » Sun Feb 22, 2015 11:21 pm

TJrandom wrote:
JIm Steele wrote:
TJrandom wrote:Cold, salty water is dense and sinks to the bottom of the ocean while warm water is less dense and remains on the surface. Cold water has a higher density than warm water.
Of course cold water is more dense than warm.


JIm - that was from NOAA, not me. .


I understoodd you were quoting from NOAA. But it was you who mis-applied their simple concept.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo


Return to “Climate Change”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests