The North Pole just surged above freezing in the dead of winter, stunning scientists

Ya gotta love it, the title of the thread is "The North Pole just surged above freezing in the dead of winter, stunning scientists". Yet, "While there are no direct measurements of temperature there", so they're guessing? This thread belongs in the conspiracy theory forum not in current events.

 

No there is no guessing here. It really did get above freezing at the North Pole. And as has been pointed out "direct" has a precise meaning in regards to atmospheric data collection. It does NOT mean that the temperature was not measured.

 

The IPCC isn't a credible source.......

Neither is carbon brief.

carbonbrief.org

Registrant Contact
Name: Identity Protection Service
Organization: Identity Protect Limited
Mailing Address: PO Box 786, Hayes Middlesex UB3 9TR GB

https://whois.icann.org/en/lookup?name=carbonbrief.org

The IPCC and anonymous kook blogs just aren't very credible.

 

If man introduced co2 will keep at bay the next cyclical ice age, given what the outcome of an ice age would be, devastating humanity, this is perhaps, no probably, a good thing?

Perhaps we can engineer out way out of the next ice age? Using plant food, co2.

 

Your argument is outta gas.

 

Ok.

 

The IPCC isn't the source of that claim. Did you even bother reading the link and cross checking the references?

Sigh...

DNS registrations often use a middle man to...ya know...prevent identity theft or harvesting of contact information. Since these records are public domain the questionable part of society can (and does) automatically harvest DNS registrations so that they can spam people. Go ahead...register a domain name and opt out of the contact masking service that your DNS registrar will almost certainly offer. Let me know how many hours it takes before you get your first spam call. Yes, that's hours...if you're lucky. Identity Protection Services is carbonbrief's middle man and contact masking service.

Oh, and same as above. CarbonBrief isn't the source of this claim. Did you even bother reading the link and cross checking the references?

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother posting on this forum...

 

Again, "direct" has a specific meaning. And "may have" is in relation to the GFS (Global Forecasting System) analysis. The GFS is subdivided into the GSM (Global Spectral Model) for numerical weather prediction and GDAS (Global Data Assimilation System) for doing the 3D field analysis of the Earth. The GFS is a realtime processor designed specifically for forecasting weather. It's GDAS must complete it's analysis within about 2 hours of the initialization time for the NWP outputs to be useful for forecasters. That means it is constrained on what inputs it can use because it must rush it's analysis. "may have soared as high as 2C" can also be interpreted as "very likely to have been greater than 0C" as the RMS error on the GFS analysis is less than 2C. Note that a 0C real life value is just as likely as a 4C value. So it actually could have been warmer than 2C from the GFS's perspective. It turns out the reanalysis datasets which do a more complete construction of the 3D fields (because they aren't time constrained) confirmed the above freezing conditions at the pole.

Why the article decide to use the GFS? I have no idea. Maybe it was because the article was written prior to the reanalysis datasets being available. But, it turns out that is moot for your argument because it turned out it was right. Which, honestly, isn't a surprise because it's analysis are usually really close.

 

No.

The next ice age was 20,000 - 50,000 years away. Was. We may have postponed it indefinitely.

Roasting the earth now to prevent the next ice age in 20,000 years is not logical. It's like turning on your furnace full blast starting in June because you know winter is eventually coming. If an ice age is arriving in around 20,000 years, start worrying about it in 19,000 years or so.

 

I have exactly as much need to do that as I have to falsify astrology.

You ever heard of an electron with a spin of .6? Or a bound electron that made half a quantum leap? Or of two electrons in the same orbital having the same spin?

You might as well face it: without plenty of absolutes, QM would be as useless as...well, climatology.

Natural mechanisms don't predict a damn thing. Of course if they did, they'd never get it wrong - which is presumably why you're unconsciously conflating them with models designed by fallible mortals.

 

AGW is the leading candidate which explains the global mean temperature trend we observe today. No other theory even comes close to matching AGW's track record on prediction. It is therefore the defining challenge of climate science to falsify AGW.

You're being obtuse and doggy. You know damn well I'm referring to a defining pillar of QM...the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal. And again, the claim was that if you cannot know something with absolute certainty then it's not science. I'm challenging that claim and I'm using QM as the quintessential counter example that highlights the absurdity of that claim. The fact is that there are many disciplines of science that make probabilistic predictions as opposed to absolute predictions. Sure, climate science has this element as well at least to some degree, but it pales in comparison to many other scientific disciplines in which probability and statistics reign supreme. In other words, climate science does not have a monopoly on this characteristic nor did it invent these techniques or utilize them to the same level as other scientific disciplines. Like, not even close.

Yes they do. Solar radiation is declining and has been in a secular decline for 60 years. A theory of the global mean temperature based entirely on the Sun and only the Sun (like what Easterbrook does) predicts that the Earth should be cooling. It is a bona-fide scientific theory because it makes a prediction and because it's testable and falsifiable. The Sun is a quintessential example of a natural mechanism that can and is used to predict the climate. In fact, several of Earth's past global mean temperature changes have been pinned primarily on the Sun. I'm reminded of this constantly by deniers who erroneously believe that because the Sun was the primary driver of climate change in the past it should be the only thing that should be considered today.

 

Don't need to even though the IPCC and all associated with it are joke.

Sigh......Curing global warming by curbing emissions is like treating a bleeding axe wound with a spritz of Unguintine and a band-aid

Would you buy a car from a dealership where all the employees wear rubber masks?

If the warmies are serious about warming why a carbon tax instead of a deforestation tax? For them it's all about the Benjamin's. By all means post an article on how much forest has been saved since the Copenhagen Agreement in December 2009. Making money from thin air has been a con mans dream throughout the ages, if you can't show serious progress in halting deforestation, then it's all a con.

Because ever one of your arguments have been posted at least a dozen times since I joined in 2008.

 

What do you make of this?

 

So, you assert AGW is the leading candidate which explains the global mean temp trend. Ok, so if it is, differentiate the trend increase caused naturally. I would expect that you should then be able to tell us exactly then which percentage of the .8C increase in the mean was then attributable to only the AGW component. Clearly, you cannot, and frankly no one can.

I would also point out that the predictive aspect of the theory at least as expressed by the models built to predict it have been essentially useless in their accuracy as they have vastly, and continue to vastly overstate the predicted increase in the mean temp.

Which just simply translates into the models themselves are faulty, and unrepresentative of the actual dynamic atmosphere and it's abundance of climate types.

 

Better question.... why are there so many new coldest maximum temperature records this year around the globe?

 

We only have about 60 years of temperature data there and a spike this year is meaningless and cannot be attributed to anything other than normal occurrences, especially since there was a similar spike in 72 and 76 when CO2 was lower. Of course the hysterical latch onto this as proof of something out of their imaginations.

 

So help me understand something. Your sources claim deforestation accounts for 2 gt/yr of carbon emission. That's a figure I'm more than willing to accept. The sum total of all human carbon emissions is 30+ gt/yr. No matter what source I use it's always 30 gt/yr or higher. So how are these sources claiming that deforestation accounts for 15-25% of the total emissions? The problem is that your links is that they don't provide the citations so that I cross check the claims. So I have no way to verify the claims nor see how they arrived at their figure.

No I wouldn't. But, this is a false equivalence. I think you may be confused as to how DNS registrations work. It's not uncommon at all to have a middle man do the registration for you and it's their name that will show up on the public record. In fact, this is the recommended approach. The contact information on the ICANN record is for inquiries regarding the DNS entry only. It's not meant to be a phone book that people use to contact the owner of the site to establish a conversation about the content of the site. And besides, CarbonBrief has their contact information posted on their website.

I don't know. Let's assume for a moment that deforestation represents a significant percentage of the total carbon emissions as you claim. Is a deforestation tax what you are proposing to curb those emissions?

 

I think they should lay all of their cards on the table. I've said this repeatedly. I don't like the shifty and doggy behavior of those involved in ClimateGate.

By the way and for what it's worth, all of their work did (eventually) get released to the public.

 

The anthroprogenic component to the warming over the last 60 years is 100-170%. That means of the 0.9C of warming that has occurred since 1960 humans have cause 0.9 to1.5C of it. That leaves nature at -0.6 to 0.0C. https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=57

It's true that they did overestimate the warming some especially in the early 2000's during "the pause", but that seems to be more of an anomaly than a systematic problem. As of 2017 the global mean temperature is once again right smack dab in the middle of the model envelope.

 

So, your assertion is that the "little ice age" should never have stopped, or that we would expect that absolutely no modification in the global mean temp could have ever happened absent AGW contributions? Laughable.

 

I didn't say that.

 

Of course you did. You cited the natural mean to be between -0.6 -0. Which tells me that either the mean should have dropped naturally, or that it couldn't be moderated in any way. Meaning zero potential. You said this, right? I did quote you directly, from your post.

Or do you disagree with the skeptical science blog that you cited?

 

Because temperature variability is still a thing. Perhaps an even better question than that is...why do record max-lows and max-highs outpace record min-lows and min-highs by a factor of at least 2-to-1 and in some metrics of high/low comparisons it is actually 10-to-1?

 

The natural influence since 1960 is estimated to be -0.6C to 0.0C. That does NOT mean that same estimate is valid for the Little Ice Age. In fact, human activity was barely perceptible during the LIA so natural influences were near 100% and humans influences were near 0% during this time. Another way to think about the post 1960 global mean temperature is that if you removed the human influences then the GMT would have dropped between 0.0 and 0.6C instead of increasing by 0.9C. That does NOT mean that natural influences had no effect. Remember, it's the net effect of everything that drives the GMT and not just one thing. Individual influences have either a positive or negative pressure on the GMT, but they must be added together to get the net effect. Does that make sense?

 

Oh, and by the way, why are you even bringing this up? You don't believe any of the temperature data that's presented to you. So, like, how do you know that there are "so many new coldest maximum temperature records this year" anyway?