In article ,
Ignoramus1161 wrote:
On 2016-03-09, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On Mar 9, 2016, Ignoramus1161 wrote
(in ):
I have a question.
If global warming is fake, how come those glaciers are shrinking? And
so does the Arctic ice?
Do you recall when the name went from Global Warming to Climate Change? The
reason for the new name is that the predicted rise in temperature is not
happening. Instead, the rate of rise flattened out, and the deviation from
prediction keeps increasing. There are many articles in the scientific
press
(here meaning Nature and Science, which I subscribe to) trying to explain
the
anomaly, without much success so far.
The now common statement that current year is the warmest ever, while
literally true, is misleading in that it does not address the fact that the
rate of rise is not following the current models. The google search term
for
this is ???climate hiatus???.
Here is a graph showing the climate hiatus that people are trying to
explain.
The East Anglica folk were trying to obscure the toe of this failure to
follow the models, and said if the hiatus continued for fifteen years, it
would be a big problem. This was in 2009, but they were referring to the
start of the divergence in 1995 or so.
.http://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/cl...ersus-climate-
reality/#more-20667
Also lots of comparisons of various models with observation.
Judith Curry is an apostate in that she objected to the APS becoming an
advocacy organization:
.http://judithcurry.com/2013/03/24/american-physical-society/
Joe Gwinn
Joe, I am far from a believer in global warming. I have not yet made
up my mind on it. I look for anything that I can find to confirm or
disconfirm it. So far the best evidence for me was melting of
glaciers.
The argument is no longer if the Earth is warming - it is, a bit, but
it's hard to measure it with great precision, because of natural
variation.
The argument is how much and how fast, and more importantly, if humans
are the cause, and if humans can do anything about it.
The arguments for taking drastic (expensive) action NOW ultimately rest
on how good the current models are. Things were going well until 1995
or so, when measured temperature started to diverge from predicted
temperature, and so far the divergence has become greater by the year.
This failure of the best current models undermines the case for doing
big things NOW, versus waiting until the various issues are sorted out.
Nor is it obvious that it's cheaper to eliminate fossil fuels (if this
is even possible) than to remedy the various consequences directly.
For this issue, Bjorn Lomberg (the Skeptical Environmentalist) is a
good place to start.
..https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist
This all reminds me of the kerfuffle decades ago where in the article
and later book "Currents of Death", Brodeur claimed that the electric
and magnetic fields from the 60 Hz AC power system in the US caused
cancer.
..http://www.paulbrodeur.net/currents_of_death_119779.htm
He was quite wrong, having confused correlation with causation: Who
lives near high-tension power lines? Not the Rich for sure. It is
well known that the Rich enjoy better health by all measures than the
Poor. Oops.
But even if Brodeur were correct, replacing the entire US power grid
with a well-shielded power grid (which is technically feasible) is
orders of magnitude more expensive than doubling the health care system
(which is far more likely to improve health of the Poor than fiddling
with power wires).
Joe Gwinn