Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


Climate Hustle

Not So Cool Predictions

Posted on 4 January 2011 by dana1981

Claims have recently surfaced in the blogosphere that an increasing number of scientists are warning of an imminent global cooling, some even going so far as to call it a "growing consensus".  There are two major flaws in these blog articles, (i) there is no scientific basis for claims that the planet will begin to cool in the near future, and (ii) many of the listed scientists are not predicting global cooling.

Global Cooling?  Seriously?

In the face of the immense amount of evidence that the anthropogenic warming signal is driving the long-term temperature trend, it's hard to believe that any scientists would be predicting that this trend will suddenly reverse despite ever-increasing human greenhouse gas emissions.  For example, according to NASA GISS, 2009 was tied for the second-hottest year on record, and 2010 will likely be the hottest in the past 130+ years.  The first decade of the 21st century was the hottest decade on record, the evidence is overwhelming that humans are the dominant cause of the warming trend, climate scientists have even quantified the anthropogenic warming, and heat continues to accumulate in the planetary system:

Figure 1: Build-up in total Earth Heat Content since 1950. The data comes from Figure 6b in Murphy 2009. The ocean data was taken from Domingues et al. 2008

With all of this evidence that humans are causing rapid global warming with no end in sight, one has to wonder how on Earth any scientists would suddenly predict imminent global cooling.

Who Are these Scientists Predicting Cooling?

Some of the names listed in the blog above have been predicting imminent cooling for years now, like Don Easterbrook, Syun Akasofu, Habibullo Abdussamatov, Joe D'Aleo, and Nicola Scafetta.  Many of these and other names on the list are not climate scientists, which is no doubt why the blogs claim that an increasing number of scientists as opposed to climate scientists are predicting imminent cooling. 

One also has to wonder how long the planet must continue to warm while these individuals predict imminent cooling before they lose credibility.  Don Easterbrook, for example, has predicted that we should see a global cooling of 2 to 5°F (1.1 to 2.8°C)  from 2000 to 2030 based on a shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.  We're now one-third of the way into this supposed cooling period and the planet has warmed approximately 0.1°C.  The accuracy of this prediction is not looking good.

Several other listed scientists have predicted that we should expect global cooling due to solar effects, like Scafetta, Abdussamatov,  Landscheidt, Archibald, and D'Aleo.  However, consider the fact that the longest solar cycle minimum in a nearly century just ended, and as mentioned above, the past two years have been among the hottest in the instrumental temperature record.  Solar activity has been flat for the past 50 years, and yet the planet warmed approximately 0.6°C during that period.  And now we're expected to believe that solar activity is not only going to significantly dampen the anthropogenic warming signal, but cause substantial cooling?  These claims strain credulity.

Perhaps the worst part of these blog articles is that they attribute global cooling predictions to numerous scientists who have not made such claims.  Let's look at some of the names on the list.

Mojib Latif 

Dr. Latif predicted that between 2010 and 2020, the planet would warm approximately 0.4°C, and has said we risk "an unprecedented warming in the history of mankind if no measures are taken to cut global carbon dioxide emissions."

Noel Keenlyside 

Dr. Keenlyside is the lead author on the Latif study referenced above which predicted 0.4°C warming from 2010 to 2020.

Anastasios Tsonis and Kyle Swanson 

Regarding the supposed global cooling prediction in their study, Swanson has written "If this hypothesis is correct, the era of consistent record-breaking global mean temperatures will not resume until roughly 2020....What do our results have to do with Global Warming, i.e., the century-scale response to greenhouse gas emissions? VERY LITTLE, contrary to claims that others have made on our behalf....humanity is poking a complex, nonlinear system with GHG forcing – and that there are no guarantees to how the climate may respond."

Mike Lockwood

The Lockwood quote supposedly about global cooling simply discusses that decreased solar activity may impact winter weather in Europe, and has nothing to do with global temperatures whatsoever.  Lockwood has performed numerous studies concluding that the Sun is not responsible for a significant amount of the recent global warming, and has not predicted global cooling.

James Overland 

As with Mike Lockwood, the James Overland quote in question refers to winter weather, in Europe and the USA.  Dr. Overland has neither predicted global cooling, nor disputes anthropogenic global warming.  In fact, in the article linked above, Overland discusses how rapidly the Arctic is warming due to anthropogenic global warming, and that this will cause shifting weather patterns, leading to the snowy and cold winters in Europe and the USA.  Not only is Overland not predicting global cooling in this article, he is explicitly talking about global warming.

There are likely other examples of supposed global cooling predictions being misattributed to climate scientists, but the examples listed above alone represent 20% of the list.  Most of the other 'scientists' listed are not climate scientists, but rather meteorologists, engineers, astronomers, etc.  And many of the other quotes refer to local weather rather than global temperatures.


There appear to be very few examples of climate scientists predicting imminent global cooling on this list.  Perhaps that's because climate scientists understand that humans are and will continue to be causing rapid global warming for the foreseeable future.  The few scientists who are predicting cooling have generally been doing so for several years, and are going against a very large body of scientific evidence that the planet will continue to warm rapidly.

This post is the Intermediate rebuttal (written by Dana Nuccitelli [dana1981]) of the skeptic argument "We're headed into cooling".

0 0

Bookmark and Share Printable Version  |  Link to this page


1  2  Next

Comments 1 to 50 out of 77:

  1. Dang. I took a sip of coffee right before I read "so far as to call it a 'growing concensus.'"
    0 0
  2. Poor Dr. Latif. They will never get enough of misrepresenting his speech.

    The good side of all this is that this time they're risking to predict something. At least this is falsifiable.
    0 0
  3. Rob #1 - yes it's a consensus of a whopping 31 "scientists"...except that a lot of the scientists on the list don't belong there, and most of the rest don't know what they're talking about.
    0 0
  4. Dana... This sounds like the same technique that that guy PopTech (Mr. 800-peer-reviewed-papers-against-AGW) uses to justify his position. It doesn't matter to them if the authors of the quoted material actually agree with their position, the only thing that matters is their own interpretation of those author's works.
    0 0
  5. Many, many thanks for looking into this Dana. As I suspected the contrarians misrepresented the science of several climate scientists to fit their own ideology, and you have very nicely shown that they have.

    "Many of these and other names on the list are not climate scientists"

    Heck, several of them they are not even scientists, and others are emeritus (and those in the know are aware what often tends to happen when a prof. goes emeritus). Is D'Aleo a real, practicing scientist? Or Corbyn, or Bastardi for that matter? I would argue that the the aforementioned are not scientists.

    Have any of them published their claims in a in a reputable peer-reviewed journal?

    When one excludes the wanna be scientists, the non-climate scientists and the emeriti-- just who is one left with?
    0 0
  6. I just got this paper off Steve Goddard's site.
    While many of his postings are totally meaningless or worse, this seems to clearly say that there is no heat buildup in the oceans, for the last 8-10 years of so. Of course that is not a very long time period, but it makes sense to me that there there would be amore consistent rise in temps in the oceans than on land.
    Maybe John someone here can comment of the accuracy/meaning of these results
    0 0
  7. Tony @6,

    A big clue here is the author "Douglass". I would not place too much weight on the paper.

    IMHO, a far more objective and credible paper on the state of the OHC is a paper by Lyman et al. (2010), which is discussed here.

    There is also a good overview here, in the 2009 State of the Climate report. Here is a link to the relevant chapter.
    0 0
  8. Rob #4 - yes it seems pretty much every skeptic 'list of scientists' follows this same pattern. Pad the list with non-experts, and find a few experts whose quotes you can misconstrue to incorrectly add them to your list, to give it the perception of validity.

    Albatross #5 - personally I don't think you're left with any, but I took that statement out of the post, because it's rather subjective who you consider a real 'climate scientist'. Scafetta for example - personally I think he does rather shoddy work, and technically he's a solar physicist, but you could make an argument for calling him a climate scientist, because he has published in peer-reviewed journals on solar effects on the climate.

    tonydunc #6 - I think the abstract of the paper tells you all you need to know - "Using only 2003–2008 data from Argo floats..." So basically they're looking at only *upper* ocean heat content data, only over a 5 year period, and only from Argo floats. Cherrypicking at its finest.
    0 0
  9. Has anyone attempted to let these scientists know how they are being portrayed on P Gosselin's blog?
    0 0
  10. A lot of the names above (and more) are in this table: Some of the Russians in particular (e.g. Oleg Sorokhtin) have been written up in press releases, etc as having made cooling predictions.
    0 0
  11. Rob Honeycut (#4) - I saw the list of 800 scientists. When I checked what they were saying, they were proposing several contradictory ideas ( sun , no warming , thermodynamics). I'm surprised there isn't a simple analysis of this list showing that it represents (for example )20 inconsistent ideas.
    0 0
  12. I guess I have another footnote (hyperlink) for my "Global Cooling since..." post. :-)
    0 0

  13. A lot of the names above (and more) are in this table:

    Every "skeptic" list that I've ever seen has been padded with cranks and incompetent hacks. The above list is no exception.

    A couple of quick examples:

    John Coleman? He's with KUSI here in San Diego, and he's cartoonishly clueless. I've seen him in action on TV several times. His current knowledge of climate-science wouldn't get him a passing grade in a middle-school science class.

    Timothy Ball? A complete, over the top, tinfoil-hat crank. Strong words, admittedly, but fully supported by the evidence. See this link for some of that evidence:


    Scientific Reaction To Velikovsky Symptomatic Of Climate Science Debacle
    By Dr. Tim Ball Thursday, December 16, 2010
    Science Is The Ability To Predict

    In the end Velikovsky succeeded because he passed the ultimate test of science; the ability to predict. More important, they were in contradiction to prevailing views. He made many and apparently none are incorrect to date. The interesting one was the temperature of Venus, which was almost double what the textbooks said. The same textbooks that incorrectly use Venus as an example of runaway CO2 induced Greenhouse Effect.

    Failure of the University President to approve a conference on Velikovsky was symptomatic of the dogmatic, closed minds that pervade modern science. The few scientists involved with the AGW debacle deliberately exploited and practiced that condition. Their actions indicate they saw this as a battle, but it was against the truth and as Aeschylus said, “In war, truth is the first casualty.”
    0 0
  14. PeteM, Rob Honeycutt and others, some have looked rather extensively at PopTech's list.
    0 0
  15. caerbannog, I agree. The reason I posted the link was not to promote cranks, but to give a list of people, some subset of which may have cooling predictions and some subset of that may be backed up with journal papers.
    0 0
  16. @6 - Tonydunc - although I wouldn't go so far as call Argo floats cherry-picking, some of these scientists that are still in denial (Roger Pielke Snr springs to mind) have to make the most of the Argo data before revisions are made to account for the pressure sensor faults which have induced a cooling bias. The process is still ongoing as far as I'm aware.

    Roy Spencer & John Christy did the same thing for about a decade with the MSU satellites when it was obvious there was a spurious cooling signal in their datasets.

    And of course we still have no way of measuring the deep ocean in it's entirety. With many politicians willing to bury their heads in the sand over global warming, funding for a deep ocean monitoring network may be a bit hard to come by.
    0 0
  17. What an inconsistency. If Oreskes is incorrect in describing how the vast, overwhelming majority of climate scientists is a consensus, how can Gosselin turn around a few months later and describe a list of ~30 individuals as any consensus, "growing" or otherwise?

    Also, Easterbrook! I hadn't paid him much attention before, but late last night somebody used his arguments about modern temps/the Holocene on me and I had reason to look into him. His claims of "cooling" periods over the 20th century remind me of this so much it's almost not funny. Turns out I'm not the only person who thinks his graphs smell funny:
    He seems unusually weaselly. I hadn't really heard about him until last night, so maybe I'm just being unduly influenced by hasty Googling. Anybody have the story on Dr. Easterbrook?
    0 0
  18. Wheels @17,

    The short story is that Easterbrook is bad news-- no doubt about it. Gareth Renowden has thoroughly debunked Easterbrook's latest nonsense in his latest post here.

    It seems that at least one "skeptic" did not resolve to absolve from distorting in 2011. In fact, they are starting right where they left off.

    Wheels, these antics are all a desperate attempt to keep people distracted from the reality that the the climate system is accumulating heat, and to trying and sow the seed that the planet is in fact not heading for 2-4.5 C warming, but instead "cooling". Easterbrook and the microWatts crowd are clearly in denial about AGW. The psychology of all this is fascinating, if not utterly depressing.
    0 0
  19. It might be worth your mentioning that there are predictions the gulf stream "the heat conveyor" will slow down and in fact has slowed down, which will mean that Europe and America will experience winter cooling, - most folk who know anything about climate change know of this so I guess you don't feel it necessary to mention it but the article is not only directed at the already informed.
    Geoff Thomas.
    0 0
  20. NickD... What's great about PopTech is that, when he gets a mention he usually lives up to his name and pops in to argue his points, thus driving more traffic to the site where he's posting. And he's a vociferous commenter.
    0 0
  21. Geoff,

    That is the theory, I've not seen any evidence to back it up though, can you point me in the direction of any articles relating to this? There is evidence to suggest a slowing of the meridional overturning circulation of about 30% but no change to the Gulf Stream, as far as I'm aware.
    0 0
  22. GeoffThomas #19 - this post and rebuttal is about *global* cooling, as I specifically noted in the sections on Lockwood and Overland. However, either myself or another Skeptical Science author will likely have a post on weather vs. climate in the near future. It's next on my list of priorities unless somebody else gets to it first.

    Cooling temps in Europe and North America are more likely to come from changes in Arctic air circulation (due to the rapid warming there) than a slowdown of the thermohaline.
    0 0
  23. Whoops I meant to say cooling *winter* temps in Europe and North America, and only when Arctic air is pushed southwards, not during the entire winter. The overall temperatures in these regions will continue to rise, of course.
    0 0
  24. wow this is a super paper ... and I think there is no doubt on the effect of CO2 causing AGW

    On the other hand IPCC 2007 (AR4) admits some big uncertainties in the aerosol/cloud issue (see the diagramm in chapter 2 of AR4 on radiativ forcing) which could exactly counteract the influence of CO2 and other GHG's ... There seems to be some further research activity underway at CERN with project CLOUD ... Anybody has heard of the outcome of this project??
    0 0
  25. jorgepeine... AR4 does not, as far as I am aware, suggest that aerosol/cloud issues would "exactly counteract" the influence of CO2 and other GHG's. In fact, they say that the lower bounds for climate sensitivity is 2C with 3C-4.5C being more likely. The latest paper (Dessler 2010) on cloud effects suggest positive feedback and very unlikely that there is any negative feedback. See here for a recent SkS article related to this.
    0 0
  26. Actually, Dana, I have seen some scientists speculating that-were a sufficient quantity of fresh water (primarily from Glacier melting) to enter the Northern Atlantic, that this would be sufficient to cause the Gulf Stream to slow-or even stop. The resulting cooling would still be Anthropogenic in nature, & would still have to be preceded by a *very* significant amount of warming. Even then, other scientists are not sure if there is sufficient glacial mass-this time around-for such a thing to occur. Just thought you might be interested.
    0 0
  27. Marcus #26 - yes, a shutdown of the thermohaline is certainly a possibility. However, from my understanding, recent measurements show that it's quite unlikely to happen in the next century. That's why I said European cooling is more likely to come from shifting Arctic weather patterns. Much more likely in fact.
    0 0
  28. Albatross @18. Thanks, I hadn't checked back at his site before you posted the link. Another thing to add to the list of egregious mistakes Easterbrook refuses to acknowledge. I posted a politely-worded and relatively inoffensive critique of the entry at WUWT. Let's see if it goes through moderation.
    0 0
  29. Scientists should not make any predictions about the climate. No cool predictions, no warm predictions, because the climate is unpredictable. It is a chaotic system with many unknown and ununderstood factors. The illusion that the climate can be predicted is an example of Kelvin's fallacy: the assumption that there are no unknown unknowns.
    For the time beeing the warming by greenhouse gasses seems to have been compensated by other factors. The El Niño of 2010 has not been able to break the record temperatures of 1998 (according to the HadCrut data set, which seems to be the least unrealiable). This could have been caused by the very long solar minimum, but nobody knows for sure. If the next solar maximum will be very low - as many solar scientists expect - the climate of the next 10 years could bring new surprises.
    0 0
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Ummm, not so much. Despite a moderate El Niño lasting a surprisingly few months followed by one of the strongest La Niña's of all time, with a still-somewhat quiescent sun, the only remaining surprise will be if 2010 is not the warmest year in the instrumental record. All very predictable (climate, not weather). Despite what climate ostriches may wish to say.
  30. @29 I don't know the IPCC ensemble models seem to be doing a pretty good job thus far. Also how are we expected to make informed decisions about things such as water resource management and flood control without future prediction to base them on. As long as the models are based on known physical processes and quantify the uncertainties there is no reason to ignore them. As our knowledge of the atmospheric system and computing power increases so will the accuracy of the models.
    0 0
  31. @29
    “Scientists should not make any predictions about the climate”

    If the existence of unknown factors would stop scientists from studying a subject and making predictions, no science could ever be developed. Chaotic systems can be studied, just like any other system. It is true that it is much harder (or sometimes even impossible) to make accurate detailed predictions for a chaotic system, nevertheless it is often possible to draw general conclusions. Climate scientists have predicted global warming, and thus far, they seem to be right.

    Regarding climate change we have to do what we do with all risks: assess the risk, based upon the incomplete knowledge we have, and act accordingly.

    Ignoring the knowledge we have and conclude: “we don’t know and we will never know” is perhaps a comforting thought for some people, but it is not a very scientific attitude. I don’t think this attitude can be classified as “skeptic”. I therefore propose to use the term: “climate ostrich” henceforth.
    0 0
  32. @29, fydijkstra: ""No cool predictions, no warm predictions, because the climate is unpredictable. It is a chaotic system with many unknown and ununderstood factors."

    *Most* (all?) real systems are chaotic in some degree or fashion. That something is chaotic and hence unpredictable *in detail* is not the same thing as being unpredictable *in broad*.

    If you turn on the cold and hot taps to your bathtub and begin filling it, the detailed water motions in the tub are quite chaotic and impossible to predict making the precise motion and temperature of a specific location in the tub unpredictable over more than a few seconds at a time. That doesn't mean that (if the stopper is in) the tub isn't going to fill up at a quite predictable rate and with a quite predictable average temperature at any given moment.

    You should read an old essay by Isaac Asimov for the Skeptical Inquirer titled "The Relativity of Wrong".
    0 0
  33. Weather might be hard to predict sometimes. Climate is easier to predict. So far the predictions of the way the climate is likely to change here in Australia are spot on. It's going to have more wet up north and more droughts and hotter down south. When it does rain it's likely to be heavier downpours. And this is just what has been happening.

    The world-wide pattern of warming is fairly close to predictions as well, except the changes seem to be happening just a tad faster than some people expected, mainly because we've chosen the higher emissions path while many people thought we'd act sooner to cut emissions.

    It would be nice if it were more like economic predictions where people take action when there are dire economic predictions so that they don't eventuate as often. If we all took enough action quickly enough, we might avert the worst case scenarios. At the moment the worst case seems to be the one we're choosing to follow, given that predictions are based on assumptions about emissions.
    0 0
  34. #29 (fydijkstra): How on earth has the CRU dataset all of a sudden become more reliable than the much beloved UAH dataset (that is even run by a skeptic).
    I thought brave skeptics proved the CRU data to be fraudulent in the Climategate scandal?

    Why is it that "skeptics" now all hail the CRU data to be the most accurate? This seems odd, what has changed?

    Could it have something to do with the fact that CRU don't cover the high Arctic, thus omitting the region that has warmed the fastest, by far, causing a rather large cold bias in the data?
    0 0
  35. Esop @34,

    "How on earth has the CRU dataset all of a sudden become more reliable than the much beloved UAH dataset (that is even run by a skeptic). I thought brave skeptics proved the CRU data to be fraudulent in the Climategate scandal?"

    A most excellent point. Northing new though-- cherry-picking, contradiction and internal consistency appear to be the bread and butter of wannabe skeptics.
    0 0
  36. @fydijkstra #29

    Let me analyze your comment:

    You are using an extended list of buzzwords in a density that is not very common to see (chaotic system, Kelvin's fallacy, El Niño, unreliable datasets, solar minimum) along with your favorite epistemological horse "nobody knows" in a context of add campaigning ("the climate of the next 10 years could bring new surprises" Wow! How deep and precise! And you'll be the most surprised among us)

    Daniel Baley already set straight your idea of El Niño playing tag as the pursuer and 365-day-long 2010 becoming a warm-to-be year but no. I don't share Daniel's opinion about 2010 being the warmest during the instrumental record. In fact, what I think is worse, it's probably going to be the second many things, not only warmer.

    You used the buzzwords 'chaotic system' to "extrapolate" the laymen-level meaning of 'chaotic' and substantiate your argument. Your innuendo is that being the flush of a toilet a chaotic system the water can jump and smash all the s*** in your head as 'nobody knows' and the water flowing by the drainage is not an option for this chaotic system. It looks like 'nobody knows' unless you authorize them to know. I don't think so.

    About the buzzword use of a buzzword concept -the portmanteau 'Kelvin's fallacy'-, you twisted its basic render "rejection in the lack of an explanatory theory" with your see-how-ironic-i-look "assumption that there are no unknown unknowns". Don't agree? Provide then proper links to Kelvin's fallacy. Links with academical value.

    I will leave aside -by the moment- all the straw you gather to set a fire.
    0 0
  37. fydijkstra #29

    Scientists should not make any predictions about the climate. No cool predictions, no warm predictions, because the climate is unpredictable. It is a chaotic system with many unknown and ununderstood factors.

    Or to put it another way, climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted. Been there, done that.

    Please do us all a favor and search this site for your pet "skeptical" arguments before posting them. If you must post despite the rebuttals, please do it on the correct thread.
    0 0
  38. Part of a pattern that I've seen repeated over and over through the years. Always seems to be a large flurry of this sort of nonsense every time the GOP is gearing up to steer the U.S. away from concrete action on climate change. Brace for a lot more of this type of garbage in the ensuing days as the battle between the GOP and Obama heats up.
    0 0
  39. Someone earlier suggested that the Gulf Stream was slowing. I've not seen anything in press that supports this. However there may have been some changes to the Labrador Current since the 1970's that requires further studies in order to deduce the implications. More on this: Atlantic currents have seen 'drastic' changes.
    0 0
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] the Gulf Stream slowing/stopping was a fake story. See here.

  40. Scientists should not make any predictions about the climate. No cool predictions, no warm predictions, because the climate is unpredictable. It is a chaotic system with many unknown and ununderstood factors. The illusion that the climate can be predicted is an example of Kelvin's fallacy: the assumption that there are no unknown unknowns.

    Casino managers should not make any predictions about revenue. No loss predictions, no profit predictions, because any particular gambler's winnings/losses are unpredictable. A casino is a chaotic system with many unknown and ununderstood factors. The illusion that the a casino's earnings can be predicted is an example of Kelvin's fallacy: the assumption that there are no unknown unknowns.
    0 0
  41. Phila's suggestion is a very good one. I've replied to fdijkstra's claim over in the thread Chaos theory and global warming: can climate be predicted?.
    0 0
  42. Casino managers may not be able to predict actual profit and loss margins, and they don't need to. I'm afraid that the gambling that takes place in a casino has a lot less unknowns or not understood factors as is submitted. The odds are always stacked in the casino's favour. Therefore a casino manager can always predict with confidence that the casino will make a profit.

    I have found that the majority of those seriously studying climate science are much more cautious about such claims. That's why most climate scientists talk about "range of possibilities". While a climate scientist may not be able to specify the exact nature of what the future ramifications of climate change might be, he/she can certainly predict with confidence based upon the preponderance of evidence that change can be expected. And I've never run across a serious scientist who would dispute that there are unknown unknowns.

    I can use a weather forecast as an example. A forecast is nothing more than a prediction based upon certain knowns that are subject to the influences of unknowns. So if a forecast calls for a high of 30C and the actual temperature at that location for that day registers at 32C, does this mean that we should have no confidence in the forecasts being produced? Certainly not. Therefore I submit that Kelvin's fallacy does not apply here.
    0 0
  43. "Scientists should not make any predictions about the climate. No cool predictions, no warm predictions, because the climate is unpredictable. It is a chaotic system with many unknown and ununderstood factors."

    Tell that to all those Europeans who schedule month-long vacations each and every July or August ...
    0 0
  44. Snowhare -- fist-bump on the Asimov essay. His non-fiction is badly neglected.
    0 0
  45. To follow up on dhogaza... Or maybe scientists should not make any predictions about anything. All systems at their core are chaotic. That means it's impossible to know anything to a level of certainty that we could ever act upon anything, ever.

    Okay, I'm going back to bed now. No point in doing anything because I can not have certainty about anything I'm going to do today.

    //Sarcasm off//

    I can hardly count the places I've read about uncertainties or lectures I've listened to on uncertainties related to climate change. Some here will remember that I did a count of the number of times the word "uncertainty" was used in the WG1 report of AR4 (the number was larger than the number of pages in the report). All of life is a game of how we act upon uncertainties. The uncertainties related to climate are low enough that we should, as a broader society, be making concerted efforts to avoid the potential outcomes that we face.

    From the standpoint of uncertainties, this is a no-brainer.
    0 0
  46. Potholer54 also has a nice video on the "Gulf stream has stoppe, a new Ice Age is imminent" media story.
    0 0
  47. I can't keep up with those in denial about AGW, the latest hypocrisy being a made-up consensus...from the same people who have always railed against consensus because it allows them to favour the individuals whom they can then compare to Galileo, etc. Or, rather, because they had to dismiss the views of the majority of science and scientists because they didn't agree with what they were saying. Now, their made-up consensus is, apparently, the true sign of scientific thinking !

    And what are they basing their made-up consensus on, if it's not temperature readings - those same temperature readings that were previously so unbelievable that they had to come up with all sorts of strange criticisms, ranging from urban heat, to fraud, to conspiracy. Now, though, those temperature readings are being abused to try to give them what they want to see.

    But which temperature readings do they trust these days ? It used to be Spencer and Christy's satellites but now, because they are showing too much heat for the so-called skeptics' liking, they are falling back on CRU's figures - the ones that were previously accused of fraud, etc - because they don't include the warm regions of the Arctic...and are therefore more likely to show lower temperatures. Possibly.

    Can anyone actually keep up with these people anymore ?
    0 0
  48. JMurphy

    The mind boggles.
    0 0
  49. its funny, this site is called skeptical science yet the only thing you people seem to be 'skeptical' about is anything and everything that disagree's with anthropomorphic global warming.

    we've actually just had the coldest night recorded -27 degree's, and actually i dare say cooling is the thing we should worry about, it poses a far greater danger.
    0 0
  50. Transjasmine,

    Do you understand the difference between local weather and global average temperature?
    0 0

1  2  Next

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2019 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us