Top 10 Global Warming Lies That May Shock You

Not sure how financing for weather forcasting and financing for AGW are synonymous.

 

They aren't. Except that the scientific principals are the same. And public perception of one effects perception of the other because they both still fall under the umbrella of atmospheric science. One just happens to be focused on weather forecasting (the prediction of precise values at specific locations and specific times) whereas the other is focused on climate forecasting (the prediction of average values over large areas spanning long time periods). Neither are ever going to perfect and I think the problem of impossible expectations is in play as well. Politicians are expecting perfection and not getting it so in return they withhold funding until NOAA can demonstrate perfection or the next billion dollar disaster occurs. Catch-22. Of course, the unsubstantiated claims of fraud that occur on an almost daily basis against NOAA isn't helping things as well because politicians don't want to give money to someone who their constituents believe are frauds. In the meantime, the rest of the world presses forward seemingly unimpeded while we get bogged down in bureaucratic grid-lock.

 

And the rest of the world that signed the Paris accord goes on dumping C02 into the atmosphere like they signed nothing. Meanwhile the US which didn't sign up leads the way in reducing C02 output. Maybe they are the ones bogged down in bureaucratic grid-lock. I only mention this because I get tired of the left always dumping on the US and acting like the rest of the world is superior to us in every way. In reality we lead the world in most every way.
I would also take issue with your assertion that climate science and weather prediction are peas in a pod. As true believers constantly remind us weather and climate are two entirely different issues

 

No NASA doesn't do weather forecasting, they are involved with taking pictures of glaciers etc.
I don't think we needed to stay in the Paris Accord but I am irritated with Trump for him dismissing that we as
humans aren't playing a role in the deterioration of our planet.

 

Trump's job is to do what's best for America on the world's stage. It's up to us the people to push good environmental policies. Government is not our mama.

 

Yep because we are real good at looking after our environment by ourselves

 

Yet another bumper sticker response from you. America has cleaned up it's act since the dirty beginnings of the industrial revolution and this was accomplished by people pushing government not visa versa.

 

And, as we constantly point out, weather forecasting sucks. As in, likely to be wrong most of the time.

 

http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/gmb/STATS_vsdb/

500mb height forecasts at 5 days have anomaly correlation coefficients (ACC) scores of > 0.9. At 8 days they still exhibit useful skill with ACC scores > 0.6. Note that 1.0 is an absolutely perfect forecast of the field over the entire Earth. 500mb heights are a standard reference field for quantifying skill because that layer of the atmosphere is most influential in determining what happens at the surface. You can pick and choose which field and which layer at the above link though. Note that "skill" is the quantification of how much better a forecast is using a dynamical model relative to using a climatological average. So scientists are actually making it harder on themselves by measuring skill relative to something that already has a decent amount of skill on its own as opposed to random guesses which have no skill at all.

I've said this time and time again. Weather forecasts (like climate forecasts) aren't perfect. But, they are very useful and highly skillful. And while I do agree that weather forecasts should be better they are the exact opposite of sucky. Remember, you only hear about the cases when a forecast at a particular location and time is badly wrong. You never hear about the vast majority of cases where the forecast is spot on, which is most of the time. Think about it, when the last time you saw a news article praising the NWS for forecasting the temperature in your city to within 1 or 2 degrees? Never right? Yet, these successes outnumber botched temperature forecasts by several orders of magnitude and they far exceed random guesses based off of climatology. Even in the midwest where the standard deviation of daily highs are lows are the most extreme the NWS "nails" the forecast for more than they "botch" it. But, you never hear about that do you?

The thing people don't realize is that a modern weather forecast (which is almost entirely the result of numerical weather prediction these days) makes a forecast of upwards of 100 fields over 64 layers of the atmosphere at 50,000,000 points on Earth at every hour. That comes out to 7,680,000,000,000 forecasts per day. Even if the model had 5σ accuracy (99.999942%) at getting a field "reasonably" correct at each location and layer that would mean there would still be 440 million "unreasonable" forecasts per day. Yet the error rate is only on the order of 1-in-20,000. The problem...when you make so many forecasts it's pretty easy to find one that's wrong even though the vast majority are, in fact, correct. Note that I'm intentionally leaving "reasonable" and "unreasonable" loosely defined. They can mean whatever you want them to mean as long as "unreasonable" is the exact opposite of "reasonable" and that they both add up to 100% of the sample size.

My point...your claim that weather forecasting is "wrong" most of the time is patently false.

 

Thank for another demonstration of total ignorance.

Those horrible fumes coming out of lower and thicker stacks are pure 100% water .

I would say educate yourself:



But I know that you will posting the same pics as a proof of air pollution by right wing uneducated conservative racist christian white males.

Those horrible fumes coming out of higher and thinner stacks are pure 2 molecules of water shown on the pic and one molecule of invisible CO2

https://www.thoughtco.com/combustion-reactions-604030

In reality right wing uneducated conservative racist christian white males love you from the first sight.

In the meaning of Christian love.

 

Meh!

I wanted a visual

There are plenty more about how we are screwing the planet

 

I'm totally not trying to single you out or beat a dead horse. But, I thought the following graphic was interesting. So the various NOAA arms (NWS, WPC, NHC, etc.) made forecasts on 4 variables that are known to discriminate between high impact and low impact tropical cyclone events. They are 1) maximum wind speed 2) total kinetic energy 3) track and 4) precipitation. Of those 4 NOAA basically nailed 3 of them. The one they botched was maximum wind speed. They were off by 5 miles from a 5 day forecast. They were off by only a few TJs on the final landfalling energy of 63 TJ. And I think the following graphic (largely derived from computer models 5 days in advance) speaks for itself in precipitation category. And right now damage estimates are over 20 billion dollars (which may still go higher) which would make Florence the second most costly category 1 hurricane on record behind Superstorm Sandy (which wasn't technically even a hurricane). I just want people to realize that despite forecasters imperfections they might...just might...have a better grasp on reality than any of us.

 

Ok. Our local braintrust, working with the same models and projects forecast several inches of rain in our area as a byproduct of the storm path as it came close to us. Days and days and days of, here it comes... Actual event? a couple of stray light rain events, and some drizzle. Estimated rainfall amounts of 1.5-2.5 inches. Actual, barely a trace. And from 90% coverage to less than 5% coverage.

So beat the horse. It doesn't make the forecasts any better, or worse. Here's a better question. Why is the Atlantic so much cooler than projected forecasts for the year?

 

Fact.

None of that supports your claim.

No, that cannot be true. If CO2 had been an important contributor to interglacial warming at the very modest levels of increase shown in the ice cores, the earth should now be several degrees hotter than it is.

No, it is a fabrication, as proved above.

Post hoc fallacy based on ignoring solar variation.

That does not support your claim that CO2 is the principal driver of temperature.

 

How do you figure? CO2 was oscillating between 180 and 290 ppm. This represents a radiative forcing difference of about 5.35 * ln(290/180) = 2.5 W/m^2. But other elements were in play including volcanic aerosols, albedo, incoming radiation changes (due to Milankovich cycles), other GHGs, etc. These other factors add in another 3.5 W/m^2 to the range for a total of about 6.0 W/m^2. The CO2 RF today relative to pre-industrial levels is 5.35 * ln(410/280) = 2.0 W/m^2. Plus there is about -1.0 W/m^2 of RF from anthroprogenic aerosols that is offsetting the positive CO2 forcing for a net of 1.0 W/m^2. Other GHGs and land use changes add in another 1.0 W/m^2 for a total net forcing of 2.0 W/m^2 today. But the net effect has been slowly ramping up so the average since 1950 is lower than 2.0 at about 0.5 W/m^2 (though this value is 1.0 and 2.0 since 1980 and 2010 respectively so it is increasing). So since 1950 with the average forcing of 0.5 W/m^2 that represents about 1/10th the glacial/interglacial forcing range and we've warmed by about 0.8C. That means the sensitivity we observe today of 0.8K / 0.5 W/m^2 = 1.60C per W/m^2 is on par with the glacial/interglacial pattern of 10K / 6.0 W/m^2 = 1.65C per W/m^2. The numbers aren't a perfect match, but for the most part things add up pretty well as long as you don't ignore the CO2 forcing. If you ignore the CO2 factor (which means usually requires you to ignore the other GHGs as well) then your radiative forcing budget does not balance as well.

Neither scientists nor I am ignoring solar variation.

I never said CO2 was the principal driver of temperature. My claim is that the principal driver is the net effect of all forcing elements. It just so happens that CO2 is a significant contributor to the net effect we observe today, but I in no way mean to imply that it's the only contributor. The HITRAN database represents 150 years of laboratory experiments (and explained and supported by quantum electrodynamics) theory which confirms that CO2 absolutely and undeniably gets it's bending and stretching modes activated by photons with wave numbers 667, 1388, and 2349 resulting in the molecule converting photon energy into thermal energy. The magnitude of this energy conversion based on the cross sectional area, absorption spectrum, and luminosity of the outgoing longwave radiation is a close match to what is required to get the radiative forcing budget to balance. CO2 and other GHGs also happen to have the added bonus of explaining the cooling stratosphere which is considered the smoking gun signal because no other physical process can explain it.

 

You seem to disagree with the scientist you always defend in here on the main thrust of the AGW hypothesis.


"Climate change is primarily a problem of too much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. This carbon overload is caused mainly when we burn fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas or cut down and burn forests"

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi.../CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html#.W6ZGM99lCf0

 

Today yes. But, that's not always the case. For example, the MWP and LIA climate changes had very little CO2 influence because CO2 concentrations did not change significantly. What is always the case is that the climate is driven by the net effect of all physical processes. That's why I'm careful to avoid saying CO2 is the primary driver unless the context is specifically about the post industrial era.

 

So now you say C02 is the principle driver of climate change in the post industrial era. You kind of left those last three words out last time when you said it "wasn't the principle driver in temperature change." So to be clear in past climate events where climate changed fast and drastically C02 wasn't the primary driver but whatever little climate change has happened since the industrial revolution is mans doing IYO. Remember one thing here. The LIA ended about the same time the industrial revolution began so much of the talk of a changing climate since the industrial revolution is merely that transition from LIA temperature to temperature today.

 

Correct. That's because the post industrial era wasn't the context. I'm not claiming that CO2 is always the principal driver. It can be the principal driver like it is in the post industrial era, but that's not always the case. I don't know how to make that any clearer.

I didn't say that either.

Correct. Without anthroprogenic behaviors the radiative forcing would be close to or even less than 0 W/^2. But, because man is influencing the climate today the radiative forcing is significantly positive.

Partially yes. A reduction in volcanic activity and a solar grand maximum explains most of the warming after the LIA up until about WWII. After WWII the Earth should have stopped warming and even began cooling if it weren't for man's activities.

 

And what crystal ball tells you that?

 

The abundance of evidence tells us that.

 

So you and your "abundance of evidence" knows exactly what our climate would be without man's influence but you can't tell me with equal certainty what the weather will be next week. Do you ever listen to yourself and how absurd you sound?

 

We have not had a real cooling cycle in 100 years, we have had warming cycles followed by a flat cycles.

 

What's 100 years have to do with anything and remember 100 years ago we were just coming out of the LIA. Did you have a point?

 

Why the incredulity? As I've said before weather forecasting and climate and two different beasts in respect to scales. The former is focused on exact properties at exact locations at exact times. The later is focused on average properties over large areas spanning long periods of time. This is a ubiquitous principal in many disciplines of science. That is chaos and uncertainty often dominate the small scale but mean reversion and attractors often drive the large scale in a very predictable manner. The best example of this is perhaps that in physics where it is nearly impossible to predict the exact properties of individual molecules in Brownian motion, but it's quite easy to predict what all of the molecules taken in aggregate will do.

Let's get back to the specific issue though. We've quantified the magnitude of the physical process that are influencing the climate today. When you subtract off the magnitude of those that are anthroprogenically modulated from the total effect you are left with the natural modulation. That calculation yields a radiative forcing that is close to 0 W/m^2 and is even negative over the last at least 30 years when the total solar irradiation is declined dramatically.