Cloud mystery solved: Global temperatures to rise at least 4C by 2100

[orogenicman]

Oh, you mean where the slope is ALWAyS positive? Yeah, we get that. Do you?

 

[polarbear]

"It doesn't matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true."

- Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace



Funny the irony in the statement above.......the AGW nutters have shot themselves in the face with bomb throwing overreach over the past dozen years.



losing

Did you know that this was Hitler`s Propaganda Minister`s Herr Dr. Josef Goebbels favorite motto ?

And it worked:

And still works today

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oh, you mean where the slope is ALWAyS positive? Yeah, we get that. Do you?

Tell it to the Chinese

 

[Kosh]

The Martian atmosphere is about 96% carbon dioxide.

So based on the AGW "science" it should be almost 90% higher than the temperature of Earth.

 

[mamooth]

while the models produce something entirely different, based on the fact that radiative heat transfer is not linear and complies with q = ε σ (Th^4 - Tc^4) Ac

First, the models are based on a lot of things, not just radiative heat transfer.

Second, it's quite possible for non-linear terms to give linear outputs.

Third, the models don't give linear outputs. They more or less give plots. The decadal temperature rise estimations are essentially linear regressions of the plots from many, many different model runs.

And fourth, you can't argue with success. Contrary to the wild fabrications of the denialists, the models have been spot-on correct for decades now. That means they're doing something right.

 

[mamooth]

The Martian atmosphere is about 96% carbon dioxide.

So based on the AGW "science" it should be almost 90% higher than the temperature of Earth.

Only according to your 'tard science would such a stupid thing be true.

Pretty much every single thing you say is the complete opposite of reality. It's a knack you have, being wrong all the time. Is that skill inborn, or did it come from years of practice?

 

[mamooth]

Did you know that this was Hitler`s Propaganda Minister`s Herr Dr. Josef Goebbels favorite motto ?

Godwin invoked. PolarBear, by bringing up Hitler, automatically forfeits the argument for his side. End of thread.

 

[Abraham3]

So these Matthew Abraham elite liberal academia types saying this 40 years ago, have been proven utterly absurd.

1."Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." — Harvard biologist George Wald


2."We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation." — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner


3."Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction." — New York Times editorial

4."Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years." — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich

5. "Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s." — Paul Ehrlich


6. "It is already too late to avoid mass starvation," — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day

7. "Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine." — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter

8. "In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." — Life magazine


9. "At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it's only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable." — Ecologist Kenneth Watt

10. "Air pollution...is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone." — Paul Ehrlich


11. "By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won't be any more crude oil. You'll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill 'er up, buddy,' and he'll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn't any.'" — Ecologist Kenneth Watt


12. "[One] theory assumes that the earth's cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun's heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born." — Newsweek magazine


13. "The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." — Kenneth Watt



That was when it was global cooling.


They are funny aren't they?

I hope you're not laboring under the misapprehension that nothing was DONE to respond to these issues.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Martian atmosphere is about 96% carbon dioxide.

So based on the AGW "science" it should be almost 90% higher than the temperature of Earth.

Yes, you are that stupid. What is the density of the Martian atmosphere? Pretty damned close to a vacuum.

 

[skookerasbil]

Climate "models" are a joke. They have zero value in predicting future climate.


October 14, 2012 at 10:14 PM

The models are wrong


Today one mainstream newspaper finally caught up with the global warming skeptic community and recognized that a recent release of data from the United Kingdom’s Met Office shows that since 1996 the temperature of the climate has stalled. For the past sixteen years there has been no global warming, at all.

Three takeaways from this story.

•This period of no-warming has now been as long as the previous period of warming. In other words, the stall in warming is getting long enough now to be statistically significant.
•The Met Office revealed its biases by how it unveiled this fact. Previously, when their data suggested the climate was warming, they heralded that fact loudly with bold predictions of catastrophes to come. But when their data suggested their predictions were wrong and the climate wasn’t warming, they released the data with as little fanfare as possible.
•Finally, and most important, this data demonstrates clearly that all the computer models used by climate scientists to predict the future climate are patently wrong. They don’t understand what is happening, even if some of them refuse to admit it.

The last point is the most important. The early IPCC reports in the 1990s went into great detail about the many uncertainties that exist in the field. They didn’t know what the influence of pollution would be on future climate. They didn’t know what the influence of clouds would be on future climate. They didn’t know what the influence of the atmosphere’s water vapor would be on future climate. They didn’t know what the influence of variations of the Sun’s brightness would be on future climate.

And they didn’t know what the effect of the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be on future climate. Compared to the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, which is probably the atmosphere’s most significant global warming component, carbon dioxide is merely a trace gas. Making this trace gas important enough to cause global warming remains a difficult and overly complex theory, and a theory that has not yet been proven.

Those early IPCC reports were very honest about these uncertainties. Later IPCC reports however have dismissed these uncertainties, even though subsequent research has done practically nothing to eliminate them. Instead, the last two IPCC reports have trumpeted the climate models as if these models were the same as actual data. The models, based on theory, said that the increase in carbon dioxide was going to cause the climate to warm, and that was that. Turn off those heaters. Shut down those coal factories. Stop making cars. Learn to freeze in the winter and sweat in the summer. We can’t have technology any more because it is going to kill us!

The fact is that these models were garbage. They are useful for trying to understand how the atmosphere functioned, but as predictors they were less than worthless. None of them have ever been able to predict anything, and to rely on them to make policies that will squelch human freedom and creativity is beyond foolish.

Skeptics have been pointing out this obvious fact now for the better part of two decades. We now have proof that they were right.


The models are wrong | Behind The Black





All this climate science stuff is rigged. Always has been........always will be.


There are people in this world who simply cannot accept this, a handful of whom post here in this forum. They will go in their box trumpeting the established narrative no matter what information is produced to refute the established narrative.

 

[Abraham3]

Notice in your text that it tells us that the IPCC climatologists were very honest about their problems. They TOLD us when they were uncertain or ignorant or confused. They never failed to rate the certainty of the points they made.

What do we get from their opponents? Statements claiming absolute and perfect knowledge, including knowledge of other people's motivations.

What does it mean to say the models are wrong? Every model ever made? The more well-known models? Some of them? Each model may have forecast millions of data points. Is every single one of them in error? Were they ever expected to ALL be spot on? How far do the trends have to be off before it qualifies as "wrong"? And do ALL predicted trends have to be off or just some of them? And is that ANY 'some' of them or some SPECIFIC 'some' of them?

Your headline is more worthless, meaningless gobbledy-gook whose only function seems to be to quantify your ignorance.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

http://vortex.plymouth.edu/uschill.gif

 

[ScienceRocks]

How about the effects of clouds on global temperature?
How about the likelihood of 4c??

 

[orogenicman]

The Martian atmosphere is about 96% carbon dioxide.

So based on the AGW "science" it should be almost 90% higher than the temperature of Earth.

Yes, you are that stupid. What is the density of the Martian atmosphere? Pretty damned close to a vacuum.

Not to mention the far that it is farther away from the sun than is the Earth.

 

[Abraham3]

I can certainly believe this. Cloud formation has always been a weak spot in the big picture. It will be good to see if this improves model accuracy.

As far as the debate here goes, the only thing that will move things along would be if it were to explain the hiatus (supported by God appearing in Times Square and saying its so).

 

[Theowl32]

So, it is a foregone conclusion.

The know it alls (left wing hacks) are utterly brainwashed, and they will never admit it.

 

[Abraham3]

Tell us something Mr Owl,

Where do you get information on scientific research?

 

[Rozman]

The sky is falling the sky is falling,we are all gonna die!

 

[Abraham3]

I've got a trimmer if you'd care to use it.

We are all going to die. We're just trying to make everyone's trip there as long and as pleasant as possible. Got a problem with that?

 

[Kosh]

The Martian atmosphere is about 96% carbon dioxide.

So based on the AGW "science" it should be almost 90% higher than the temperature of Earth.

Yes, you are that stupid. What is the density of the Martian atmosphere? Pretty damned close to a vacuum.

Well here it is the AGW cultists being shown that their CO2 drives climate dogma goes right out the window when faced with the facts.

CO2 does NOT drive climate on this planet or any other.