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

So 2*C must be above freezing or over 32* in real temperature measurement right ? i am not on who thinks that man alone has caused global warming because that would be BS because the planet has cooled and warmed over the millennia ( no not the First lady).
Man did have some influence even tough your deniers do not agree. The symptoms of global warming is the instability as what you indicated that he temp was 43* F near Santa Claus's house yesterday in February. He and Mrs. Claus must have let loose some pent up demand ....

 

I would expect that any time the ambient causes the water temps to fall below -1C or so that ice formation happens. The thickness of the ice over also creates a sufficient blanket from which the pressure of the water also maintains a high enough temp not to freeze further, no? So, it's a conversation about diminishing returns. I would expect that sea ice also have a current component that may also be interacting with the formation process which also has to be overcome. no? I don't see that variable in your superficial calculation. Honestly, I would expect that at some temperature below zero that it doesn't matter any more how much colder it gets that the formation of ice may likely become uniform irrespective of the temperature. So, here's your experiment. Take the ocean, and subject it to both -40f and -30F and see if you can prove your hypothesis. I can wait...

 

So let's look at your list.

FIRST CLAIM
The first example cites a 1990 IPCC estimate that "the average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C – 0.5°C)".

The "reality check" says "Since 1990 the warming rate has been from 0.12 to 0.19°C per decade depending on the database used, outside the uncertainty range of 1990".

Okay, #1, they're ignoring that the IPCC number was the predicted mean FOR THE NEXT CENTURY. They're calling this a failed prediction DECADES before they can make that call.

#2, the observed warming is BARELY outside the uncertainty range of 1990.

#3, it was 1990. We have 30 years progress in understanding climate, 30 years of technological advancement, and have 30 years more data to draw on.

SECOND CLAIM

Cites the same 1990 report, estimating that by 2025 global mean temperature will have risen by 1 degree.

The reality check notes that the global mean temperature, as of the first half of 2017, had risen about half a degree.

So what we have is this: 77% of the way into a 35-year prediction, the temperature has risen 50% of the final predicted amount. Given the age of the prediction, and the fact that in general temperature increases are expected to accelerate, not be linear, this doesn't seem very far out of line.

THIRD CLAIM

The basic claim is that scientists have predicted both milder and colder winters as a result of global warming.

This is a pretty bullshit criticism.

The "milder winter" claim came in a 2001 IPCC report, and refers to this line: "Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms". This is a general reference regarding the entire planet.

The "colder winter" claim comes from 2014, when the "polar vortex" caused extreme cold in parts of the United States.

There is no contradiction in pointing out that overall winter temperatures will be milder, while some regions will occasionally experience extreme cold. The only conflict here is in the Watts Up writer's imagination.

----------

That's the first three claims. #1 is calling "failed" way too soon. #2 is calling "failed" a bit too soon, and #3 is complete bullshit. In none of the cases are the original predictions showing "huge discrepancies", particularly given that they were made in 1990, in the infancy of climate science.

Guess what? Those "failures" still show the globe warming at an accelerating rate, and the evidence still shows that it's because of human activity.

 

I never got a link to the source.....

 

It's a grad student who I think is Iammanonman. He's been spamming this re-analysis on this forum and all over the internet hoping media would bite. But he gives away who he really is by using pronouns like we and our rather than they and their. Pronouns do people in everytime.

We had a guy here years ago who was doing the same thing carbanog I think his handle was. He was a climate activist blogger using this forum and many others to pimp his own research. Got banned for it eventually.

 

Lol, that's convenient.... make a thousand predictions for the next 100 years, if 5 of them are accurate in the next 30 years - claim success, if other 995 predictions haven't even begun to come true - claim that they have 70 more years to work out

Sorry dude, it's the scam artists' technique, not science.

The bottom line is, as of this moment the overwhelming majority of these predictions haven't come true and in a number of cases the models show the exact opposite of what's actually happening.

 

Excuse me? I explained WHY it was crap and gave you a link. Give me a break.

You are either ignorant or deliberately spreading bullshit. Plus, you apparently think scientists are so dumb they didn't notice the sun.

Yes, the sun is one of the biggest factors in the Earth' temperature. But it's effect has been measured and accounted for. The recent increases in global warming have no relationship to solar activity.

AGW is called "forcing" for a reason: it's an artificial thumb on the scale that is pushing our current temperature equilibrium out of whack. In absolute terms, the human contribution to warming is small compared to the sun. But it's the straw that broke the camel's back.

This is all well understood and has been repeatedly and clearly explained by actual climate scientists for years. If you are ignorant of this fact, then I don't know why you feel qualified to talk about AGW; learn something about it first. If you are aware of it but spreading a lie, shame on you.

That's because it's not actually a fact.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm

#1, we know that the sun's heat output has FALLEN, not increased. So even if the other planets were warming, it would be for some cause other than increased solar radiation.
#2, we don't actually have weather stations on other planets, nor do we have comprehensive satellite coverage. So our records of conditions on other planets range from spotty to non-existent. Most reports of warming are based on a very small number of observations of changes in the relative brightness of the planets. Which is pretty crappy data.

Interestingly, you seem to take as fact the VERY thinly sourced information we have about temperatures on other planets, but seem inclined to disregard the BILLIONS of pieces of data we have on temperature on this planet, and it's cause. Why is that?

 

I demolish the first few claims with specificity, and you respond with hand-waving.

Guess I win.

 

You admitted that as of this moment those first few predictions have utterly failed to come true. Your "it might still happen in the next 70 years" excuse is laughable.... but if that's your idea of winning, it certainly speaks for itself.

 

and this has never happened before because we have always had temperature measuring stations scattered all about the North Pole for centuries

 

Oh I see its a decorative glass.

 

You seem to have a hard time understanding the meaning of both "prediction length" and "utterly failed."

 

We dont have measurements there. Iammanonman has been running around the internet pimping this grad project computer model, he is probably the grad student, and some media org bit thinking it was real.

 

Do you have any scientific degrees? I notice that you keep declaring things are "not science," so I am curious.

 

You seem to unable to grasp the fact that as of right now the empirical data completely contradicts the predictions and models.

The Gore's Armageddon should have already happened, it didn't, the Arctic ice cap should have melted, it increased, the Antarctic ice sheets should have shrunk, they instead grew....

And all you have is "maybe in the next 70 years". Duh

 

Why do you bother to ask this question?

 

Lol jeez, you claim to be a lawyer, what are YOU doing in this thread? But yes, i do have a scientific degree.

 

The data does not contradict the models or the predictions. Not even remotely close. The only way you can make that claim is if you decide to completely misrepresent the models. All of them come with margins of error because they are predicting the future. If you actually remember to include the margins of error, the models and predictions are quite accurate.

The Earth is warming. Humans are the most significant cause.

 

Climate Change is a topic of interest (and I am the OP) and I have devoted hundreds of hours to studying the topic.

A science degree in what?

 

Has anyone checked the changing magnetic fields of the earth to understand whether or how they might be affecting the wind direction?

 

I think the first is true, but I have trouble believing the second. Something is going on and we don't understand it.

 

Does the margin of error cover Gore's Armageddon not happening and ice caps growing, not melting?

You do need to understand that when predictions are 50 - 500% off (never mind opposite to the reality), these are no longer a margins of error, these are errors and incorrect theories based on false assumptions. Duh

 

So absolutely no scientific background or formal education, just some amateurish opinions. I thought so.

 

And now you appear to not understand the meaning of the word "contradicts", much less "completely contradicts".

 

Ice caps were supposed to shrink and grow instead - "completely contradicts"

The end of the world before 2016 was promised by Gore - that we are alive and well "completely contradicts" lol