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

The world is coming to an end, where will you ever park your Volvo?

 

If you are asserting that global warming is entirely caused by natural causes as being the null hypothesis then I agree especially for preindustrial time periods because that's the obvious or common knowledge reason. However, things aren't quite so obvious now that humans have a significant impact on the environment. And keep in mind that there is overwhelming evidence that has convincingly falsified every known natural climate forcing mechanism that might explain the current warming. We have no choice but to explorer alternative hypothesis. AGW is a good alternative hypothesis that has yet to be convincingly falsified. Remember, all-natural theories to explain the global mean temperature are horrible at predicting future trends right now. They're so bad that they can't even get the direction of the temperature change correct.

 

Can you post a link to a peer reviewed publication that claimed any specific region of the United States was going to get hit with a major hurricane (or any hurricane for that matter) ever single year from here on out?

 

I agree. A cooling planet would probably require more difficult adaptations. However, that doesn't mean humans aren't responsible for the warming we see today.

It's also really cold where I live too. But the rest of the northern hemisphere and Earth are well above average right now.

 

An area the size of England, Scotland and Wales is deforested every year. The answer is simple, put an end to that deforestation worldwide and stop the destruction of the carbon sinks.

 

Professor Wedhams predictions are ignored by his peers. In fact, he hasn't even officially submitted his predictions to his peers for review. It is therefore not known exactly how he arrives at his predictions or whether they are scientifically sound. Also, Masklowski (who is also mentioned in the article) did NOT predict that the Arctic would be ice free by 2016. That is a myth that Al Gore started and which Masklowski summarily repudiated Gore over. The consensus on the first ice free year in the Arctic is 2050. This prediction has remained unchanged since the late 90's.

 

It's a good start, but deforestation and other land use changes can only account for 10% of the imbalance in the carbon budget at most.

 

A complete waste of time, explaining these things to science-hating, history-hating Trumpsters.
They're a new breed.

 

There are no "natural cycles" explanations for the stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation, or the decrease in outgoing longwave radiation in the GHG absorption bands. All of that is directly observed, as opposed to being a model.

Hence, the "natural cycles" null hypothesis is disproved.

Your political cult clearly neglected to tell you that. Don't you wonder why?

 

The intense cold of our north states coupled with the heat you mention of Oklahoma is one excellent example of why it is wrong to call it global warming.

 

How many would you guess are truly masters of quantum mechanics?

 

Man has nothing to do with it. Demonstrate evidence to reject that null hypothesis.

 

What about quantum mechanics?

 

AGW doesn't have to be falsified.
It has to be verified
The null set has to be rejected.
It has not been

 

It's a branch science in which there are few if any absolutes and most predictions are statistical or probabilistic. The context of my statement was in relation to a claim that if something cannot be known for certain then it isn't science. Quantum Mechanics is the epitome of a counter example. We often see this principal at work in the atmospheric sciences as well albeit to a degree (no pun intended) that is orders of magnitude less than QM.

Side note...QM is required to fully explain CO2's greenhouse effect.

 

The null set (natural only theories) have been convincingly rejected. There are no natural mechanisms (or combination thereof) that can explain the warming we are currently seeing. Actually, they don't even come close. On the flip side there is overwhelming evidence that the net effect of all components such as solar, volcanic, greenhouse gases (both natural and anthroprogenic), aerosols (both natural and anthroprogenic), land use changes, etc. can convincingly explain the global mean temperature trends we observe today. Note that this net effect includes ALL natural and ALL anthroprogenic components. The more components you ignore the further from reality our predictions get. And remember, AGW does NOT say that natural mechanisms have no effect. In fact, it's quite the opposite. AGW embraces them with shame.

 

The net effect of all natural mechanisms predict that the Earth should be cooling right now. Actually, even taken individually most predict cooling. Obviously this doesn't match observation and hasn't for about 60 years. The null hypothesis simply doesn't work.

On the flip side CO2 has been known for over 150 years to be a greenhouse gas. And in the 1890's the first prediction of it's warming effect were published. This prediction using hand calculations and based on empirical data from laboratory experiments is surprisingly close to what we believe CO2's sensitivity is today using more modern techniques with our knowledge of quantum mechanics and the like which weren't known in the 1800's. Numerical simulations also overwhelmingly support these hand calculations.

Then when scientists consider anthroprogenic aerosols and land use changes and incorporate them in numerical simulations these model derived results get pretty close to reality. These models aren't perfect, but they are useful; far more useful than non-AGW theories.

 

What about Quantum mechanics brought that to your mind?

 

There was a post in this thread which claimed that if someone cannot predict something with absolute certainty then it's not science. QM is the quintessential counter example to that claim. Also, CO2's greenhouse gas effect can only be fully explained using QM.

 

Let me help you with your warming study.

https://judithcurry.com/2018/04/15/...-not-part-vii-u-s-coastal-impacts/#more-24043

 

I am not one bit concerned over the tiny part of CO2 added by humans. The temps are virtually stable within a degree or so. Nothing to worry over. Try not to lose sleep over that puny portion.

 

Every local news cast of that fateful 2005 season. 06 and 07 were loaded with, just wait for the big one, its coming. Be prepared. EVERY single ****ing day. Sorry, I didn't record every local news station citing it'll be the end of the world. You had to be living down here I guess. You can choose to think I made it all up for kicks as well.

 

I don't think you made it up. That is pretty typical of the media. Their reporting isn't really representative of the science. What the science actually says is that tropical cyclones will probably become less frequent as we approach 2100. However, when they do occur they will probably be slightly more intense on average.