Slashdot Mirror
California's Hot, Dry Winters Tied To Climate Change
mdsolar sends word that hot dry winters may be the norm in the future for California. "Climate change is one of the most prominent public health issues currently on the CDC's radar. The organization's Climate and Health Program attempts to help state and city health departments to prepare for the health impacts of climate change, which can come in the form of things like temperature extremes, air pollution, allergens, and changes in disease patterns; they can also be felt indirectly through issues like food security. Since 2012, California has been in the midst of a record-setting drought, with extremely warm and dry conditions characterizing the last three years in that state. A new paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concludes that warming caused by humans is responsible for the conditions that have led to this California drought. This study, published by scientists affiliated with the Department of Environmental Earth System Science and the Woods Institute for Environment at Stanford University, used historical statewide data for observed temperature, precipitation, and drought in California. The investigators used the Palmer Hydrological Drought Index (PHDI) and the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI), collected by the National Climatic Data Center, as measures of the severity of wet/dry anomalies. They also used global climate model simulations from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) to compare historical predictions for anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic historical climates."
Have they considered asking economists about the effects of price controls on water for agricultural uses?
Sometimes the obvious answer is the correct one... if you hold down the price of water, people (especially larger users) will use more of it, not less of it...
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Sympathies for the AGW folks.
Because I'm in California, and it's so goddamned terrible here that car washes are still operating at maximum efficiency.
And we're still farming where we have no business farming.
And we're still demanding people water their lawns.
And our water is still cheaper than other states I've lived in.
It's terrible, let me tell you.
The original paper http://www.pnas.org/content/ea... does not seem to make a big deal about Winter so TFA may be adding that owing to this Winter's weather which has had record warmth this Winter. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/...
Models compared with reality.
My real estate is inland on a mountain.
Just make it legal for me to shoot the beach heads when they start to sink and I'm a-ok with saying that there is no global warming.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Any two trending time series will be correlated. These links don't mean anything substantial has been detected. Predict something precise then it is worth paying attention.
http://www.tylervigen.com/
Some insights....I grew up in San Diego, droughts were fairly common.
I returned to southern California for school, and was there for the last half of the nineties, you know...those uber-hot years. Guess what, we were getting more rain those hot years. People were talking about the decades old drought finally coming to an end.
Than it began to get cooler again, and the droughts returned. For your info, droughts, deserts, etc are often tied to global cooling. Cooler global temperatures lock up moisture as ice. Resulting in increased ice caps, but also increased equatorial deserts.
Higher temperatures result in a much more humid global climate. Greener, greater moisture content. So when I see all the references to droughts. I think global cooling, not global warming.
While that is climate change. It's Earth, the climate is always changing - I'd be more afraid if it wasn't. The earth has experienced far cooler periods, and periods that were twenty degrees hotter than today. Life continued and thrived.
Here I am sitting in shorts and a t-shit while the rest of the country is shoveling snow off of their sidewalks.
It's been great for recreation but about once a week I ride up over the dam that contains the artificial Shasta Lake that is the source of Cali's main waterway, the Sacramento river. It's low. Really low. Worse, the snowpacks that feed it would not even be back to normal without five or six years of what's considered normal precipitation.
Stil, that's not the real problem. The real problem is almost entirely political.
We've been through more water scares than any other state in the nation. Back in the 70s and 80s the population centers have done the water rationing dance and per-person use is quite low compared to what it was. We can't squeeze any more water savings there.
Agriculture uses 75% of the water in california (Yes far more than municipal and industrial COMBINED), and the distribution of such is just plain fucked up. 100 year old water rights agreements let certain farmers suck the water dry in a manner that is neither fair nor efficient. We can grow plenty here with much less water that's currently being used. But we can't because of a fucked-up love triangle between rural farmers, rural politicians, and agreements that were signed more than a century ago - A time when you could drain a lake or divert a river and nobody would blink because water was plentiful and concern for the environment was everyone's last priority.
It gets weirder still.
Turns out much of the water in this state also comes from only recently understood vast underground aquifers.. And they're drying up. Turns our recent legal precedent lets management of underground aquifers trump water rights agreements if said aquifers are affected by water consumption.. So there's an end run around these ancient laws that are causing problems.
Over the short term something like that can happen. In the case of oil a lot of the buying was stockpiling with the expectation that prices would rise again.
CA has experienced droughts worse than this in the past.
News for ya, CA is mostly a desert.
Weather != Climate
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
South Florida is at dire risk. We already have rising sea issues that are substantial and actually could effect the nation wide food supply as we are about the only spot in the US that can raise crops in winter. But we have an even more pressing problem. Diseases from tropical islands near Florida are becoming more common. In addition to malaria we now have two more mosquito born illnesses that are causing little outbreaks here and there. Just about any disease that flourishes in South America can now take hold here and they have many tragic illnesses down there that we do not normally see within the US. These diseases can generate quite an expense for society in general. We even have instances of pest invasions such as white fly that were caused by hurricanes blowing white flies all the way from the islands into Florida. White fly destroys trees and is very expensive to treat and keep your property livable. Citrus greening is already killing the citrus industry here. We are having invasions caused by global warming already.
California drought: Past dry periods have lasted more than 200 years, scientists say....
http://www.mercurynews.com/sci...
Different scientists, different answers. There is something for everyone.
Watch how you word your summary of a scientific finding. In particular when the summary states:
A new paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concludes that warming caused by humans is responsible for the conditions that have led to this California drought.
You shouldn't go to read the linked article and find the conclusions of the study state:
Our results suggest that anthropogenic warming has increased the probability of the co-occurring temperature and precipitation conditions that have historically led to drought in California.
The header, California's Hot, Dry Winters Tied To Climate Change fit the study. The start of the summary mdsolar sends word that hot dry winters may be the norm in the future for California fit the study. Resist the urge to overreach with the extra statement trying to sound like scientists have claimed proof that the drought is definitively the end result of AGW and naught else. Why? Because the scientists didn't say it, and they most likely didn't say it because they don't want to say something so stupid. Obviously draught is a part of the natural cycle in California without the benefit of AGW, no scientist is gonna be eager to declare that only AGW is responsible. Instead you will see the conclusion they ACTUALLY USED in the article noting instead that AGW absolutely contributed to, rather than definitively caused, the drought.
The difference between contributing to and worsening droughts and being the sole or dominant cause MATTERS.
Did you even read the fucking article?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It has been clear skies for over a week. At this time of year, this is, I think, totally without precedent. I've only been here for 5 years but it feels completely unnatural. Even when I first moved here it rained basically without ceasing from November until almost June. There's been comparatively almost no rain this winter. The climate is fucked!
Climate is the 30 year average weather, both are subject to change.
Except there are articles stating that when the price of oil fell, SUV sales shot up.
https://www.google.com/search?...
Perhaps it simply takes a while.
Downwards pressure on fossil fuel usage is mostly from green policies govt or business.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
What was the *BOOM*, did your head explode?
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
1. California is always a semi-desert, with the exception of the northern fifth of the state, which is a rainforest. Adapt or die, b*tc*s. Yes, that means sustainable crop practices.
2. You're not getting any extra power from Oregon or Washington this year, cause our snowpack is around 8 percent of what it normally has been (which will be the norm in 2025 due to global warming, by the way, but is not directly caused by that). So we need our water to sell bottled water to you idiots who fail to realize the fancy water you drink in plastic bottles is just our usual drinking water in Seattle that we let settle a bit so it's "fresh". No cheap electricity for you. Grow a pair and build more solar and wind, cause it's just going to get much much much much worse.
3. As to crop practices, do what British Columbia learned in the 1970s and 1980s. You've had 50 years to adapt. Mix crops (no monoculture), grow crop cover between tree rows (less soil loss, less water loss) which also fixes nitrogen and can kill bad bugs. Cover your dam water canals (hint: try using solar panels, win win) to reduce water evaporation. It's been done in other places in North America for a long time, cheap water is over.
4. Most of your water use and water waste is farming. Most of that is because you insist on growing artificially subsidized water intensive crops that aren't suited for your climate. Stop subsidizing those and let the market self correct that very very bad choice. Adapt.
5. There is no all or nothing artificial choice. Half measures are better than no measures. Small and moderate adaptations now, or even to partial removal of subsidies and misuse have major impacts. Try changing 1/10th of your crops to better methods. I drove thru almost all of Cali this past winter, you really haven't done much, and you could easily adapt without much of a problem, but you have to stop sticking your heads in the sands.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
part of the drop in fossil fuels is places like the West and Northeast switching to renewable fuels. we also are using transit more and walking and biking to work more.
Adapt or die. We already are. Your old fossil fuel subsidized ways are over.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
When was the coldest February on record? Oh, you mean coldest for a small group of cities, not any particular state, region, country or the planet....However you have to also realize it was the hottest February on record for about the same number of cities on the west coast. So again, it is weather, not climate, you illiterate.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Go ahead, return to sender, but sticking fingers in your ears whilst singing LALALA doesn't make it a good idea to keep using the atmosphere as dumping ground.
Meanwhile, Central Europe had only about 7 days total this winter when mid-day temperature would stay below 0 degrees Celsius. That's in places where there used to be 10 inches of snow from early December to mid-March some 20 years ago and temperature wouldn't rise above -10 degrees Celsius until March.
Actually it was conservatives who coined the phrase climate change, particularly Frank Luntz.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Ignoring your rather simplistic (and wrong) view of science and weather, I'll just say this: California is an easier case to investigate.
Other states are much more dependent on rainfall for their water, and those rain patterns come from many sources. Such as plains states getting systems out of the Rockies, up from the Gulf, down from the Arctic, and even occasionally from the eastern seaboard if a big hurricane or nor'easter rolls in.
But California is different. It's not reliant on multiple sources and patterns for its water supply, and it isn't actually very reliant on rain fall throughout the year.
Rather, the majority of California's water supply comes from one predictable source, the Sierra snowpack, in a predictable yearly cycle.
In Cali the snowpack is refreshed every Winter between (roughly) mid-December and April 1st by moisture laden air coming in off the ocean. That snow then melts through the rest of the year, supplying the state with the overwhelming majority of its water.
So while droughts in general are increasing and that is in general attributed to warming, the variability of the weather patterns that supply various areas of the country make pinpointing the source of particular droughts difficult. But because California's cycle is much simpler the backtracking of causes and effects becomes much easier.
And while the winter weather patterns have been there, the air has been dry, unusually dry, leading to almost no snowfall, leading to this horrible drought. So while the state is a very dry state in terms of rainfall and precipitation, the abundance of the snowpack meant they could overcome that and still be able to sustain much agriculture because people are good at engineering and building irrigation canals.
California is rightly proud of the efficacy of its statewide irrigation system (we can debate the pros and cons of the system and its impact on nature and people all day long, but as far getting water to crops, it does its job very well). But that system is still ultimately dependent on the snowpack.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I think the oceans will need to get considerably warmer before the next ice age happens, unless a chain of volcanos lets off (as the deccan trapps once did).
FWIW, as the temperature difference between the poles and the equator decreased the jet streams slowed. This makes it more likely of a weather patten to squat in one place and not move. This gives either hot and dry or cold and dry or hot and really wet or cold and icy...but a decrease in weather that rapidly changes from one variety to another...which means the percieved weather becomes more extreme.
That paragraph was in the simple past because it's describing what has been happening in the last several years. Predictions are that this will continue and the jet stream will get even slower as the Arctic continues to warm faster than the equator. So global warming causes both increased hot spells and increased cold spells and increased flooding and increased drought...just not all in the same place. And only the average temperature increases, and that not enough to be quickly measureable.
Sorry, complex systems defy simple analysis.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
suvs are not what they used to be. many have over 30 MPG now a days. while you are correct. fuel use is still down
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
the main cause of the drop is the middle east trying to push the shale oil companies out of business
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Well, so far three people did, including yourself. But none offered the link-pairs... Could it be, because they just do not exist?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Show where this is the case. Anywhere- where a climate scientist referred to a local cold snap as proof of climate change.
You can't. The *BOOM* only happened in the vacuum between your ears.
Exactly. There's 'inertia' to consider as well.
IE if gasoline is high enough, long enough, lots of people buy fuel efficient vehicles. They don't instantly dispose of them just because oil(and gasoline) prices subsequently drop.
If you 'suddenly' increase the price of water for one year, the farmers will grumble and pay for it. Some will go out of business, but that happens whenever you increase the price of something, or even don't decrease it fast enough. Some farmers just aren't good businessmen.
If you go, okay, now it's $1 per 100k liters(1/2 the price British Columbia recently started charging), while telling them that the price is going to double each year for the next 10 years, they'll start adjusting how they do business.
We know that there are wasteful watering methods that lose over half the water used to evaporation before it hits the plants. We also know there are systems where the only water lost is pretty much confined to the food products you take out of the specialized recycling greenhouses.
The trick is to get the farmers to use a sustainable amount of water. Even just burying seep lines can drop usage by over 75% over daytime spray irrigation.
I don't read AC A human right
No significant average temperature change in 15 years
Look at the trend, and don't stare too much at the 2-sigma outlier in 1998.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2...
The trend is still as robust as it was. And before you complain that I'm linking to a wordpress blog, you can download the data here, and draw your own graph: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist...
2010 Toyota V6 RAV4 here. Rated 19 city / 27 Hwy. (4 cylinder is rated for 22 city / 28 Hwy). At best, if I remain under 60Mph, I can hold 32 MPG with cruise control. Though for be past year driving, my average MPG driving around Houston has been 24 MPG. That 30 MPG while doable, is under the best of conditions with no stop-and-go traffic and flat terrain. And while a hybrid will make that figure more reasonable, the ROI for paying the extra delta coast for the feature is most likely longer than 10 years anyways; which may not be worth it unless you either plan on keeping the car that long, or gas prices more than double.
Life is not for the lazy.
Also, supply is up. The US has been stockpiling oil. Now our reserves are full so our output is hitting the open market, causing a glut.
It's all the hot air coming out of Sacramento. Ironically, they keep yammering on about climate change so they really only have themselves to blame.
You know what else is caused by global warming? Nearly everything.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html
I don't get how even on slashdot you get so many fucking unbelievably insane ass-wipes who believe in the scientific method *except* when it applies to global warming. However, every time it's mentioned they come out in the crazy droves to drop their dumb-ness on the rest of us, so, by all means crazy morons - have at it.
30mpg is not good fuel economy, 60+mpg is ok.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Yep. Hopefully they will learn from this mistake, and not jack prices up after they do that. Jacking the prices up artificially, creates room for alternate supplies.
If the US government didn't WANT low oil prices they would buy up the surplus oil and stick it in the Emergency reserve stockpile they keep. And next year they can sell the oil back at $120 a barrel and make a proffit on the whole deal.
Wrong . . . Prices dropped because SUPPLY rose. And why did supply rise? Because prices rose enough to make hard-to-get oil worth investing in. So, don't expect prices to stay low when fracking investments, etc. decline.
when only 10 years ago SUVs were doing 10-15 MPG, yes. it is a huge improvement. Ive never even owned a car that got better than 27
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
No, the US and the Saudis are trying to put ISIL out of business. Most of ISIL's income comes from illegal oil sales. Flooding the market with cheap crude has pulled the rug out from under them.
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
What is truly said is how all of these topics are from actual "scientists".
i use that term loosely considering you can make bad assumptions anytime and not be a scientist, but go figure..
California has a long record of occasional severe and long-lasting (up to 40 years long) (one of many links)
droughts (all of which pre-date the car, and even the coal-fired power plant).
Sadly, "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it" applies in more than way ... think about it.
California's problems have been made artificially far worse by politics - We have MILLIONS of illegal aliens adding to the already-too-large civilian population that needs water AND we have big agribusiness planting lots of water-hungry crops that are totally inappropriate for the region and only work with imported water (which was ok when neighboring states had few people and needed little water). And then, on top of all that, we have politicians pandering to all the "greenies" and demanding that large volumes of potable water get flushed into the sea to protect certain species, oppose desalinization plants, etc...
It's climate change caused by global warming. Both expressions highlight different aspects of the issue, but both are equally valid.
Also, both terms were already in use long before it became a well known public issue.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
And people wonder why we have global warming doubters. With all the acronyms and techspeak, it might as well be written in Swahili.
Or maybe people are tired of leading a horse to water and have the horse deny the water even exists, while it does all it can to ensure future horses don't even get the chance.
You honestly can't sit their and with all seriousness deny that something so easy to find exists, and expect people to take you seriously. You don't want to learn, otherwise you'd not be on slashdot complaining about your ignorance - you'd be out there fixing it, like a rational human being.
Either you've already made your mind up, or you are doing the best impression of such a person I've seen in a while. You use all the right words to sound like a sceptic, but when you don't bother to accept evidence, you become a cynic.
"Everyone" was not talking about global cooling, just journalists. That one titbit shows you get your scientific knowledge from the press, which isn't exactly doing you a great favour. Luckily there is more than 10-50-100 years of climate data, so your initial point is worthless, not the data itself. The Earth is ~4.7 billion years old, by the way. It's pollution which is causing this, so I don't know why you think more pollution is going to help. There is so much wrong with your post I don't even.
... frackin' change. What the hell isn't these days?
And all predictions made with 50% certainty.
Oh, and this has all happened before climate change.
Someone is making money off the 'climate change' mantra, which means pronouncements in that regard are no longer credible. Too much noise in the message. Don't care.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
No they exist, I'm just tired of repeating myself to you.
You want the links?
Check your post history or mine or dave420's or I kan reed's, or any of a number of other people who've taken the time to fix your ignorance in the past.
But we both know you wont do that, cause you're just a troll.
you pretend to want information, while using that as a cover to spread your misinformation.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Bingo.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Well, you can sit here loudly proclaiming your ignorance as if it's something to be proud of, or you can educate yourself, answering your question and preventing more unfortunate outbursts which tarnish your reputation further.
You might also want to learn that Arizona started the year unusually dry, but it should leave its drought conditions in April. But whatever - don't let facts get in the way of an insane rant against Maoists! They're simply everywhere, didn't you know? Scary! Boo!
Actually the first big storm of the year started onNew Year's Eve, and was in progress as the new year dawned. Can't get any earlier than that
The people claiming that 'weather is not climate, unless it's on our side' are not the climate scientists, but the apocalyptics who have been pulling for the extinction of mankind since the early Seventies. We were all gonna die of running out of food, then because of the coming ice age, then running out of industrial metals, then because of nuclear anything, then acid rain, then the disappearing ozone layer. Climate is just the latest hope the Luddite lobby has for wiping out the hated human species.
Nope. All of you tried to come up with a list, but none succeeded.
And right here you are doing it — failing — again. Posting angry accusations (mixed with "me toos") instead of simply offering the requested link-pairs...
Proving me wrong would've been much easier for you, if you could just offer the links requested — instead of impotently claiming they exist — somewhere... As is typical for losers, who can not, you are faking a case of would not.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
So you really don't care about learning, just complaining. Gotcha. Good jerb. You are a credit to your family.
You didn't read the Real Climate post did you. Regarding Hansen's model it said (my bold):
Finally, we update the Hansen et al (1988) (doi) comparisons. Note that the old GISS model had a climate sensitivity that was a little higher (4.2C for a doubling of CO2) than the best estimate (~3C) and as stated in previous years, the actual forcings that occurred are not the same as those used in the different scenarios. We noted in 2007, that Scenario B was running a little high compared with the forcings growth (by about 10%) using estimated forcings up to 2003 (Scenario A was significantly higher, and Scenario C was lower), and we see no need to amend that conclusion now. - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
So scenario C wouldn't match observations if the Hansen model had a sensitivity closer to current estimates.
Can you offer a list of pairs of links: with the first link pointing at a quantifiable prediction and the second — at evidence of it materializing within, say, 80% of the predicted figure(s)?
At this point I think you need to provide us with an example where it failed with paired links so we have a better idea of what you're looking for. Good luck.
This study is interesting in light of the fact that a recent NOAA study found that the current California drought is not caused by climate change. In fact, under climate change California winters are supposed to get wetter, if also hotter. See http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/s... .
You know don't you that if your globes are too hot it makes you infertile.
Actually it was conservatives who coined the phrase climate change, particularly Frank Luntz.
Not really. I know that Luntz pushed using it as a less threatening phrase than global warming but in 1958 Gilbert Plass published a paper titled "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change" so it has a long history.
Even though you're not prepared to argue the validity of your claims I'm going to comment on them and let you know how I look at it.
Re Dr. David Viner. The source for that wasn't a peer reviewed published paper but an interview with a journalist. I take any journalists interpretation of what a scientist said with a grain of salt. Also, the article quotes Viner as saying snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event." So he wasn't saying it would never snow, just that snowfalls would become rarer. Someone could dig through the records to determine if that were true.
Re Skiing in Scotland. Again, not peer reviewed science but a story by a journalist. The full quote of what you excerpted is:
With the pace of global warming increasing, some climate change experts predict that the Scottish ski industry will cease to exist within 20 years.
Note they aren't saying all climate change experts.
To really know you'd have to go through the data to see what the trends are in the Scottish Ski industry.
When I see stuff like that in stories I say "Yea, ok, maybe but show me the science."
The ice free prediction by Maslowski was peer reviewed science but it was at odds with a lot of other predictions at the time. The IPCC reports of the time estimated the Arctic Ocean would be ice free (defined as less than 1 million km^2 of sea ice) sometime after 2040. Another scientist in the story, Peter Wadhams of Cambridge is quoted as saying:
"In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040."
So while Maslowski's projection may not be correct it was far from the only scientific opinion about it at the time.
I guess I would say you need to take a more nuanced view of these things instead of leaping on the worst case scenarios they envision.
I'll see if I can rustle up some predictions for you but it might take a while and have to wait for the next time we engage.
Ok, here's a twofer in one paper that compares observations to IPCC projections for temperatures and sea level rise. The temperature projection turns out to be pretty good and observed sea level rise is at the top end of the projections.
Comparing climate projections to observations up to 2011
Gore said the could be gone by 2013. not that it would be gone. What is settled about Arctic sea ice is that it's disappearing. You won't find cryologists arguing that it isn't. The exact rate it's going to disappear is subject to some discussion.
Did you even bother to read the iop paper I sent you? It compares observations to IPCC projections. In other words it give you the example of projections that the IPCC made in 2001 and 2007 regarding temperature and sea level rise then compared them to actual observations. Isn't that what you want? What difference does it make that it's all in one link? Is that really so hard to understand?
Frankly if your scientific knowledge is so poor you can't parse out what they are saying in the iop paper then I'm wasting my time engaging you. They presented graphs that compared IPCC projections of temperatures and sea level rise from 2001 and 2007 to observations through 2011. It doesn't get much simpler than that. I could link to the relevant sections of the IPCC AR3 and AR4 reports then to papers on observations separately but you would have a harder time parsing them than you do with the paper I cited. I don't have the time to hand everything to you on a silver platter.
They succeeded, but you have already made your mind up and simply will not accept them. You shift your goalposts or claim to find some flaw which the peer-review process did not, and sit back and exultantly throw your arms up in the air proclaiming "see! see! I'm still right!" even when it's plainly obvious to anyone who did remotely well in science classes at school that you are not only wrong, but not interested in learning. It's quite easy to illustrate this - you spend a large amount of time on Slashdot complaining about how AGW isn't real and how the models haven't predicted anything, when there is lots of evidence a mere click or two away to quench any thirst for knowledge you might have.
I'm sure you've found this link but found some errors with it that the rest of the scientific community magically didn't notice. It will show that your faux outrage against the scientific method is based on a toxic mix of hubris and ignorance, fuelled by relying on getting your scientific information from the daily press instead of the scientific journals you should be reading.
Go on - shift those goalposts. We're still waiting. You're not a troll, but you do seem to be some poor human being caught up trying to maintain a cognitive dissonance which threatens to make you realise you're being incredibly selfish and stubborn at the expense of everyone else to follow you. If you're not, you are indistinguishable from one. I feel sorry for you, I really do.
So you get the vast, vast majority of your understanding of climate change from the daily press. If you're not embarrassed by that, I think we found the root of the problem.
He's a cynic in sceptic's clothing. He might use all the right words to sound like he's engaged in a noble quest for knowledge, but using newspaper articles as an argument against AGW shows he's already made his mind up and is clutching at any straws he can in order to defend his position, and the only straws left are in newspapers. I guess there could be other explanations, but that is the most polite explanation there is... I mean, seriously - he uses quotes from tourist boards and Al Gore as evidence, and expects to be taken seriously. Baffling.
I realize that. Part of the reason I respond to folks like mi is simply so their assertions don't go unchallenged. Lurkers reading the exchange may benefit from it.
Wow... All these posts, all this indignation — instead of simply posting the expected links...
They did? Well, if so, where are the links to those projections? Post them and be done instead of, indeed, wasting time yours and mine.
Thank you. Maybe, those papers really aren't suitable for the general public, that you want to convince. Or, maybe, they simply do not really contain the concrete and refutable (falsifiable) projections. Either way, you failed my challenge (for the second time)...
Because this would've been your sole example (valid or otherwise), and you'd need more than one in order to do better, than a broken clock...
Ah, the "lack of time" excuse — sure...
You keep claiming "science is settled" — but, when asked for falsifiable conclusions of this science, you are unable to come up with any. (The statement like "Arctic Ocean will be ice-free" is not falsifiable, for example, and therefor is not scientific.) And not just you — other believers cheering you on (and modding me down) are just as helpless as you are...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
You keep claiming "science is settled" — but, when asked for falsifiable conclusions of this science, you are unable to come up with any.
That's exactly what the paper "Comparing climate projections to observations up to 2011" has. Projections from two different IPCC reports about 1) temperatures and 2) Arctic sea ice extent compared to observations of each. What's not falsifiable about either of those? The links are in 30 different references at the bottom that the paper cites with enough information for you to look them up.
The fact that it's not exactly in the format you want or dumbed down enough for you to understand is not my problem. It's not that I lack the time, it's that you refuse to meet me half way and address what the paper says, instead arguing about the format of what I gave you. You're arguing like a lawyer, not a scientist.
It is your problem — you answered my challenge (for the second time in a month) and failed.
If it were this easy, you would've done it yourself long ago instead of extending this silly thread well beyond the point, where your inability to meet my challenge became painfully obvious.
I don't want to argue with somebody else's words — history of this very thread shows, how easy it is for you to throw other people statements under the proverbial bus:
— whatever. Like I said already, I don't want to think through an argument only to find myself attacking something you consider inconsequential...
When you asked for an example, I gave you some — summarizing both the failed predictions and their disproofs in my own words instead of simply referring you to other people's articles (of which there are plenty). Because to do otherwise — as seems your wont — is to appeal to authority.
You knew, what the "format" needs to be from the beginning. That you could not meet it is not my fault — it is your failure. Or, more likely, it is the failure of this belief, which you continue to call "science".
I'm not a scientist — nor do I need to be in order to be convinced (rather than compelled ) to do something about "the dangers of humanity's contribution to global warming". I am just a somewhat educated man, who knows of humanity's long history of fads and beliefs, and is aware of some of the scientific and philosophical mechanisms invented to help prevent our falling into the same holes and stepping on the same rakes again...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
You started the tread by claiming "For a while now I've been asking adherents of the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory to provide examples of just such predictions and so far nobody could manage... There are plenty of predictions that failed to materialize...". I gave you a link to a scientific paper that shows two predictions that have materialized, global temperatures and Arctic sea ice. Will you at least acknowledge that?