"Shocked!!! Shocked, I Tell You!"

[polarbear]

Oh my, stinky facts from Silly Billy's ample asshole. Only outdone by the cherry picking posting from the poor little cretinous bitch, PC.

As has been pointed out in many places now, solar and wind are both cheaper than fossil fuels. And the advent of the grid scale batteries will make both 24/7. What is shocking is how much their lying has increased now that we have a pathological liar as President.

Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests

• 
  
  
  • Henry Bodkin

18 SEPTEMBER 2017 • 7:15PM


Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong, a new study has found. New research by British scientists reveals the world is being polluted and warming up less quickly than 10-year-old forecasts predicted, giving countries more time to get a grip on their carbon output.

An unexpected “revolution” in affordable renewable energy has also contributed to the more positive outlook.

Experts now say there is a two-in-three chance of keeping global temperatures within 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the ultimate goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests

Backstroking in bold lettering... Your models all fail empirical review, why should I believe anything you post?

Yeah it was only a question of time when, not if the alarmist would use this back door to save face as it becomes more and more obvious that their hyped predictions will not materialize.
Now we are supposed to believe that they deserve credit for less of a temperature rise due to the "green energy" they are advocating...while all the while CO2 has gone up and temperature did not follow.
I have seen it all before. These so called scientists, which are in reality political activists that get a quicky science diploma to masquerade as "scientists" made similar alarmist statements about the ozone hole, acid rain, Mercury and PCBs everywhere in the food chain and so on and on.
Each time they credited their regulations or policy even though the ozone whole went back to normal long before the outlawing of CFC's actually decreased them. Same thing with the PCB, Hg and the SO2 /acid rain.
So why not do it again with the CO2...there are enough idiots who will re-tweet it on social media which in turn will support the usual " a vast majority agrees" bullshit.
Aaah I'm as much bored with all of this crap as this bear who was in today's Manitoba news:

View attachment 152109

Most of the modeling community has moved their training point for their models to 2008-2010. This move conveniently erases the massive divergence of the models (from 1990) as they now hind cast them away to train the model. This, they hoped, would give them 30 or so more years before they were found out and called out for their deception. Worse still, they have used the same failed models and forcings now expecting a different result.. I believe this falls under the definition of insanity.

"Adjusting" with hind casts is another way to conceal just how exaggerated the CO2 "forcing" is without having to admit it. They will never back away from the forcing factor they plugged in because that would be the same as admitting it is total bullshit. So they use the same idiotic set of algorithms, bracket it and apply a hind cast correction factor to the whole thing. Which in effect is the same thing as drastically lowering this bogus CO2 forcing factor but they can keep on swindling part of the international community with Carbon tax credits and or fines while claiming they have this so called science down pat when one of their guesses they make now turns out to be a lucky hit in the future. After all if none are correct there will be an avalanche of law suits and the likes of Al Gore and M.Mann + most of the IPCC herd will have to find some country that has no extradition treaties.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Who ever could have guessed it!!!!

Well....not as shocked as Claude Rains....





This:

"Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests
Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong,....z'
Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests


The new fall-back position:
"Experts now say there is a two-in-three chance of keeping global temperatures within 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the ultimate goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement."

And...
"They also condemned the “overreaction” to the US’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord, announced by Donald Trump in June, saying it is unlikely to make a significant difference."
Ibid.






Know that old joke about a NYTimes headline, "World to end tomorrow- minorities hurt worst!!!"
When can we expect a retreat on that one, too?

Did you mean retreat or retract?

 

[Dr Grump]

Look who is calling the pot black...a black kettle..

show me one post that where I have cherry picked info?

 

[flacaltenn]

Oh my, stinky facts from Silly Billy's ample asshole. Only outdone by the cherry picking posting from the poor little cretinous bitch, PC.

As has been pointed out in many places now, solar and wind are both cheaper than fossil fuels. And the advent of the grid scale batteries will make both 24/7. What is shocking is how much their lying has increased now that we have a pathological liar as President.

Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests

• 
  
  
  • Henry Bodkin

18 SEPTEMBER 2017 • 7:15PM


Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong, a new study has found. New research by British scientists reveals the world is being polluted and warming up less quickly than 10-year-old forecasts predicted, giving countries more time to get a grip on their carbon output.

An unexpected “revolution” in affordable renewable energy has also contributed to the more positive outlook.

Experts now say there is a two-in-three chance of keeping global temperatures within 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the ultimate goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests

Backstroking in bold lettering... Your models all fail empirical review, why should I believe anything you post?

Yeah it was only a question of time when, not if the alarmist would use this back door to save face as it becomes more and more obvious that their hyped predictions will not materialize.
Now we are supposed to believe that they deserve credit for less of a temperature rise due to the "green energy" they are advocating...while all the while CO2 has gone up and temperature did not follow.
I have seen it all before. These so called scientists, which are in reality political activists that get a quicky science diploma to masquerade as "scientists" made similar alarmist statements about the ozone hole, acid rain, Mercury and PCBs everywhere in the food chain and so on and on.
Each time they credited their regulations or policy even though the ozone whole went back to normal long before the outlawing of CFC's actually decreased them. Same thing with the PCB, Hg and the SO2 /acid rain.
So why not do it again with the CO2...there are enough idiots who will re-tweet it on social media which in turn will support the usual " a vast majority agrees" bullshit.
Aaah I'm as much bored with all of this crap as this bear who was in today's Manitoba news:

View attachment 152109

Most of the modeling community has moved their training point for their models to 2008-2010. This move conveniently erases the massive divergence of the models (from 1990) as they now hind cast them away to train the model. This, they hoped, would give them 30 or so more years before they were found out and called out for their deception. Worse still, they have used the same failed models and forcings now expecting a different result.. I believe this falls under the definition of insanity.

"Adjusting" with hind casts is another way to conceal just how exaggerated the CO2 "forcing" is without having to admit it. They will never back away from the forcing factor they plugged in because that would be the same as admitting it is total bullshit. So they use the same idiotic set of algorithms, bracket it and apply a hind cast correction factor to the whole thing. Which in effect is the same thing as drastically lowering this bogus CO2 forcing factor but they can keep on swindling part of the international community with Carbon tax credits and or fines while claiming they have this so called science down pat when one of their guesses they make now turns out to be a lucky hit in the future. After all if none are correct there will be an avalanche of law suits and the likes of Al Gore and M.Mann + most of the IPCC herd will have to find some country that has no extradition treaties.

The whole concept that the "Climate Sensitity" could EVER be represented by ONE time-INvariant number is a crutch. The Earth does not HAVE just ONE "climate zone". And the science even ADMITS that wide variations are present in those zones. Some zones play a larger role than others in "heat distribution" and storage. In addition, the time variant parts of a climate sensitivity are complex.

YET -- if you've followed the literature, there's been so much time and discussion related this SINGLE constant, you'd think it was important or something.

 

[polarbear]

Oh my, stinky facts from Silly Billy's ample asshole. Only outdone by the cherry picking posting from the poor little cretinous bitch, PC.

As has been pointed out in many places now, solar and wind are both cheaper than fossil fuels. And the advent of the grid scale batteries will make both 24/7. What is shocking is how much their lying has increased now that we have a pathological liar as President.

Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests

• 
  
  
  • Henry Bodkin

18 SEPTEMBER 2017 • 7:15PM


Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong, a new study has found. New research by British scientists reveals the world is being polluted and warming up less quickly than 10-year-old forecasts predicted, giving countries more time to get a grip on their carbon output.

An unexpected “revolution” in affordable renewable energy has also contributed to the more positive outlook.

Experts now say there is a two-in-three chance of keeping global temperatures within 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the ultimate goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests

Backstroking in bold lettering... Your models all fail empirical review, why should I believe anything you post?

Yeah it was only a question of time when, not if the alarmist would use this back door to save face as it becomes more and more obvious that their hyped predictions will not materialize.
Now we are supposed to believe that they deserve credit for less of a temperature rise due to the "green energy" they are advocating...while all the while CO2 has gone up and temperature did not follow.
I have seen it all before. These so called scientists, which are in reality political activists that get a quicky science diploma to masquerade as "scientists" made similar alarmist statements about the ozone hole, acid rain, Mercury and PCBs everywhere in the food chain and so on and on.
Each time they credited their regulations or policy even though the ozone whole went back to normal long before the outlawing of CFC's actually decreased them. Same thing with the PCB, Hg and the SO2 /acid rain.
So why not do it again with the CO2...there are enough idiots who will re-tweet it on social media which in turn will support the usual " a vast majority agrees" bullshit.
Aaah I'm as much bored with all of this crap as this bear who was in today's Manitoba news:

View attachment 152109

Most of the modeling community has moved their training point for their models to 2008-2010. This move conveniently erases the massive divergence of the models (from 1990) as they now hind cast them away to train the model. This, they hoped, would give them 30 or so more years before they were found out and called out for their deception. Worse still, they have used the same failed models and forcings now expecting a different result.. I believe this falls under the definition of insanity.

"Adjusting" with hind casts is another way to conceal just how exaggerated the CO2 "forcing" is without having to admit it. They will never back away from the forcing factor they plugged in because that would be the same as admitting it is total bullshit. So they use the same idiotic set of algorithms, bracket it and apply a hind cast correction factor to the whole thing. Which in effect is the same thing as drastically lowering this bogus CO2 forcing factor but they can keep on swindling part of the international community with Carbon tax credits and or fines while claiming they have this so called science down pat when one of their guesses they make now turns out to be a lucky hit in the future. After all if none are correct there will be an avalanche of law suits and the likes of Al Gore and M.Mann + most of the IPCC herd will have to find some country that has no extradition treaties.

The whole concept that the "Climate Sensitity" could EVER be represented by ONE time-INvariant number is a crutch. The Earth does not HAVE just ONE "climate zone". And the science even ADMITS that wide variations are present in those zones. Some zones play a larger role than others in "heat distribution" and storage. In addition, the time variant parts of a climate sensitivity are complex.

YET -- if you've followed the literature, there's been so much time and discussion related this SINGLE constant, you'd think it was important or something.

Yeah but making a single climate zone out of the whole globe is the only way to "average" all these wild variations in the raw data and pretend there is enough of a precision to allow for these idiotic fractional degree "anomalies" statements and dismissing all the data which does not support the narrative.
Its a method used in politics and has no place in science but then again this is all about politics and not science

 

[PoliticalChic]

You left out the parts in your link that explain why the threat has been reduced. You know, the part about solar and wind use being increased far more than what had been expected or predicted. You also left out the parts that pointed out the threat was only being delayed, not resolved.

No, you dunce....I provided the real point.

It represents a retreat from the bogus fear mongering of the Left.....the scam that utter imbeciles accept as the reason for global governance.

No, you did what you usually do. You cherry picked the article and cut and pasted it to distort it. The proof is in the OP. All anyone needs to do is read your OP and read the link you got it from. The distortion via cut and pasting is obvious and inescapable.

You do realise PC is a political hack, right? All she ever does is cherry pick and cut and paste links that fit her warped world view?

And yet you are never able to refute anything I post.....effectively verifying same.

Makes you appear quite the dunce with this post, huh?

 

[Dr Grump]

Didn't we just agree that you're a dunce.....you have no info.

No.

 

[Old Rocks]

You left out the parts in your link that explain why the threat has been reduced. You know, the part about solar and wind use being increased far more than what had been expected or predicted. You also left out the parts that pointed out the threat was only being delayed, not resolved.

The actual powers of CO2 to warm the Atmos, as described the basic and accepted Atmos Physic/Chemistry/GHouse Theory were NEVER enough to cause the political/media/social panic necessary to float this CC thingy as a movement. THOSE estimates are on the order of 1.1DegC per doubling of CO2 concentration in the Atmos. The PANIC was instilled by theories giving CO2 super powers in idealized "climate sensitivity numbers" based on speculation about "feedbacks".

At the 1.1DegC per CO2 doubling, GW would NEVER have been the major enviro issue for 2 or 3 decades. Because we haven't even reached the first doubling since the Industrial Age began. And the NEXT doubling, for the NEXT 1.1DegC requires TWICE the amount of the CO2 than the first one did. Because the REAL warming power of CO2 in the GHouse is exponentially retarded.

So the "skeptical view" in the science community was that the projections would be more like 1.5DegC by 2100, while the ENHANCED SUPERPOWER model of GW CO2 warming was initially guessing 4 to 6DegC by 2100.

Turns out -- 40 years later, we much closer to the skeptical concept than the catastrophic modeling that was done.

No, those numbers are still low. No, all of your squawking does not undermine accepted scientific theories. No, you have not outsmarted any scientist. no, you are not publishing any science to support your nonsense, nor could you ever. No, all scientists are not incompetent or liars, and, no, you have not thought of a single thing about this topic, ever, that every scientist in the world didn't think of before breakfast in their first year of grad school. Yes, you are embarrassing yourself.

Here you are again, attacking me personally, and not participating in a discussion. Do you understand where the 1.1DegC/doubling comes from? James Hansen in his FIRST PAPER on AGW in the 80s derived it.. I didn't make this up. It's in every Atmospheric Physic textbook ever written as a derived estimate of surface warming from CO2.

Your brand of low knowledge trolling is what's embarrassing. I never kid or lie about any of this. Not my fault you haven't made the investment.

OK, let us look at that paper;

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf

The link is to the complete paper.

Now Dr. Hansen did make some predictive mistakes in that paper. Most of the predictions were for the end of the 21st Century. In 2007, the Northwest Passage opened fully for the first time, and has opened in other years since. To the point that in 2016, they transited the Passage with a 1000 passenger luxury liner. The droughts have already happened, and will be an ongoing event, off and on, for the rest of the century, and we see now that the breakup of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has already started, and looks to be irreversible. So, if the doubling of CO2 only raises the temperature by one degree C, that looks to be enough to cause us major problems. However, since last year we nearly reached that mark, and we are still shy of the doubling by 150 ppm, looks to me as if we will exceed that by a large margin.

 

[Old Rocks]

Who ever could have guessed it!!!!

Well....not as shocked as Claude Rains....





This:

"Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests
Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong,....z'
Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests


The new fall-back position:
"Experts now say there is a two-in-three chance of keeping global temperatures within 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the ultimate goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement."

And...
"They also condemned the “overreaction” to the US’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord, announced by Donald Trump in June, saying it is unlikely to make a significant difference."
Ibid.






Know that old joke about a NYTimes headline, "World to end tomorrow- minorities hurt worst!!!"
When can we expect a retreat on that one, too?

Wow, another person who knows less than nothing about this topic, posting an article he never read and doesn't understand.... Shocked, shocked I tell you!

And yet another gullible dunce who bought the Global Governance Scam like it was on sale.

Soooo.....who ties your shoelaces for you?

haha, yep, all those scientists are all liars. And you figgered 'em all out, with nothing but a GED and google. Okay!

Are you hinting that we should compare educational resumes?

If so.....you'll be sorry.

LOL And you could claim to be Napoleon on the net. LOL If you have obtained a higher education, then whomever paid for it wasted their money.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_August_2017_v6.jpg

So, Dr. Hanson states that we saw a warming of 0.4 C by 1980. And, by Dr. Spencer's graph, we see, using the centered monthly average, a warming of about O.7 C since that time. Looks like we have already achieved 1 C at only 400 ppm of CO2. Of course, we have also gone from about 800 ppb of CH4 to over 1800 ppb at the same time. But that would be admitting to a feedback, now, wouldn't it. Cannot have any of that. LOL

 

[Billy_Bob]

You left out the parts in your link that explain why the threat has been reduced. You know, the part about solar and wind use being increased far more than what had been expected or predicted. You also left out the parts that pointed out the threat was only being delayed, not resolved.

The actual powers of CO2 to warm the Atmos, as described the basic and accepted Atmos Physic/Chemistry/GHouse Theory were NEVER enough to cause the political/media/social panic necessary to float this CC thingy as a movement. THOSE estimates are on the order of 1.1DegC per doubling of CO2 concentration in the Atmos. The PANIC was instilled by theories giving CO2 super powers in idealized "climate sensitivity numbers" based on speculation about "feedbacks".

At the 1.1DegC per CO2 doubling, GW would NEVER have been the major enviro issue for 2 or 3 decades. Because we haven't even reached the first doubling since the Industrial Age began. And the NEXT doubling, for the NEXT 1.1DegC requires TWICE the amount of the CO2 than the first one did. Because the REAL warming power of CO2 in the GHouse is exponentially retarded.

So the "skeptical view" in the science community was that the projections would be more like 1.5DegC by 2100, while the ENHANCED SUPERPOWER model of GW CO2 warming was initially guessing 4 to 6DegC by 2100.

Turns out -- 40 years later, we much closer to the skeptical concept than the catastrophic modeling that was done.

No, those numbers are still low. No, all of your squawking does not undermine accepted scientific theories. No, you have not outsmarted any scientist. no, you are not publishing any science to support your nonsense, nor could you ever. No, all scientists are not incompetent or liars, and, no, you have not thought of a single thing about this topic, ever, that every scientist in the world didn't think of before breakfast in their first year of grad school. Yes, you are embarrassing yourself.

Here you are again, attacking me personally, and not participating in a discussion. Do you understand where the 1.1DegC/doubling comes from? James Hansen in his FIRST PAPER on AGW in the 80s derived it.. I didn't make this up. It's in every Atmospheric Physic textbook ever written as a derived estimate of surface warming from CO2.

Your brand of low knowledge trolling is what's embarrassing. I never kid or lie about any of this. Not my fault you haven't made the investment.

OK, let us look at that paper;

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf

The link is to the complete paper.

Now Dr. Hansen did make some predictive mistakes in that paper. Most of the predictions were for the end of the 21st Century. In 2007, the Northwest Passage opened fully for the first time, and has opened in other years since. To the point that in 2016, they transited the Passage with a 1000 passenger luxury liner. The droughts have already happened, and will be an ongoing event, off and on, for the rest of the century, and we see now that the breakup of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has already started, and looks to be irreversible. So, if the doubling of CO2 only raises the temperature by one degree C, that looks to be enough to cause us major problems. However, since last year we nearly reached that mark, and we are still shy of the doubling by 150 ppm, looks to me as if we will exceed that by a large margin.

How do we discuss a topic with you when this paper has been thoroughly discredited and its premise, along with its models, shown false? Hansen made spuriously wild assumptions which have, to date, all failed. EVERY ONE OF THEM!

The current rise from 280ppm to 400ppm has seen just 0.02 deg C that can be attributed to CO2 through empirical experiment. The MEWP and other warm periods are real, confirmed and were global events contrary to Hansen's BS. Natural Variation can be shown to be in control. The LOG derived warming from CO2 that is theoretically achieved by CO2's properties has been reduced to zero by water vapor. this shows us that water vapor does not react as a positive forcing, it reacts negatively.

Hansen's paper has been demolished by real scientists and empirical observation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Who ever could have guessed it!!!!

Well....not as shocked as Claude Rains....





This:

"Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests
Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong,....z'
Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests


The new fall-back position:
"Experts now say there is a two-in-three chance of keeping global temperatures within 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the ultimate goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement."

And...
"They also condemned the “overreaction” to the US’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord, announced by Donald Trump in June, saying it is unlikely to make a significant difference."
Ibid.






Know that old joke about a NYTimes headline, "World to end tomorrow- minorities hurt worst!!!"
When can we expect a retreat on that one, too?

Wow, another person who knows less than nothing about this topic, posting an article he never read and doesn't understand.... Shocked, shocked I tell you!

And yet another gullible dunce who bought the Global Governance Scam like it was on sale.

Soooo.....who ties your shoelaces for you?

haha, yep, all those scientists are all liars. And you figgered 'em all out, with nothing but a GED and google. Okay!

Are you hinting that we should compare educational resumes?

If so.....you'll be sorry.

LOL And you could claim to be Napoleon on the net. LOL If you have obtained a higher education, then whomever paid for it wasted their money.

I'm certainly copacetic with allowing the readers to decide which of us has an education.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Oh my, stinky facts from Silly Billy's ample asshole. Only outdone by the cherry picking posting from the poor little cretinous bitch, PC.

As has been pointed out in many places now, solar and wind are both cheaper than fossil fuels. And the advent of the grid scale batteries will make both 24/7. What is shocking is how much their lying has increased now that we have a pathological liar as President.

Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests

• 
  
  
  • Henry Bodkin

18 SEPTEMBER 2017 • 7:15PM


Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong, a new study has found. New research by British scientists reveals the world is being polluted and warming up less quickly than 10-year-old forecasts predicted, giving countries more time to get a grip on their carbon output.

An unexpected “revolution” in affordable renewable energy has also contributed to the more positive outlook.

Experts now say there is a two-in-three chance of keeping global temperatures within 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the ultimate goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests

Backstroking in bold lettering... Your models all fail empirical review, why should I believe anything you post?

Yeah it was only a question of time when, not if the alarmist would use this back door to save face as it becomes more and more obvious that their hyped predictions will not materialize.
Now we are supposed to believe that they deserve credit for less of a temperature rise due to the "green energy" they are advocating...while all the while CO2 has gone up and temperature did not follow.
I have seen it all before. These so called scientists, which are in reality political activists that get a quicky science diploma to masquerade as "scientists" made similar alarmist statements about the ozone hole, acid rain, Mercury and PCBs everywhere in the food chain and so on and on.
Each time they credited their regulations or policy even though the ozone whole went back to normal long before the outlawing of CFC's actually decreased them. Same thing with the PCB, Hg and the SO2 /acid rain.
So why not do it again with the CO2...there are enough idiots who will re-tweet it on social media which in turn will support the usual " a vast majority agrees" bullshit.
Aaah I'm as much bored with all of this crap as this bear who was in today's Manitoba news:

View attachment 152109

Most of the modeling community has moved their training point for their models to 2008-2010. This move conveniently erases the massive divergence of the models (from 1990) as they now hind cast them away to train the model. This, they hoped, would give them 30 or so more years before they were found out and called out for their deception. Worse still, they have used the same failed models and forcings now expecting a different result.. I believe this falls under the definition of insanity.

"Adjusting" with hind casts is another way to conceal just how exaggerated the CO2 "forcing" is without having to admit it. They will never back away from the forcing factor they plugged in because that would be the same as admitting it is total bullshit. So they use the same idiotic set of algorithms, bracket it and apply a hind cast correction factor to the whole thing. Which in effect is the same thing as drastically lowering this bogus CO2 forcing factor but they can keep on swindling part of the international community with Carbon tax credits and or fines while claiming they have this so called science down pat when one of their guesses they make now turns out to be a lucky hit in the future. After all if none are correct there will be an avalanche of law suits and the likes of Al Gore and M.Mann + most of the IPCC herd will have to find some country that has no extradition treaties.

The whole concept that the "Climate Sensitity" could EVER be represented by ONE time-INvariant number is a crutch. The Earth does not HAVE just ONE "climate zone". And the science even ADMITS that wide variations are present in those zones. Some zones play a larger role than others in "heat distribution" and storage. In addition, the time variant parts of a climate sensitivity are complex.

YET -- if you've followed the literature, there's been so much time and discussion related this SINGLE constant, you'd think it was important or something.

Heck, grid squares are 100 x 100 miles are used in almost all of the GCM's to date. Thunder storms happen in less than 20 X 20 miles and can change the whole trajectory of the jet stream above it. We are not even close to understanding the totality of the systems dynamics. We can not model it with enough precision to generate forecasts that are correct, with consistency, just 72 hours out.

Trying to apply a single constant to such massive variation is shear lunacy.. But here we are...

 

[flacaltenn]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_August_2017_v6.jpg

So, Dr. Hanson states that we saw a warming of 0.4 C by 1980. And, by Dr. Spencer's graph, we see, using the centered monthly average, a warming of about O.7 C since that time. Looks like we have already achieved 1 C at only 400 ppm of CO2. Of course, we have also gone from about 800 ppb of CH4 to over 1800 ppb at the same time. But that would be admitting to a feedback, now, wouldn't it. Cannot have any of that. LOL

Your estimates are kinda off. With a decadal filter applied, the rate of rise is 0.14DegC throughout the satellite period. So that's only 0.5DegC since 1980. And a percentage of that is natural variation. Hansen himself admitted that the GW "signature" would not rise above natural variation and noise until about 2000.

As for your increased emissions of CO2/CH4 -- It is was it is. You HAVE the Mauna Loa and other readings. And the shape and INCREASE of that curve does not yet SHOW any contributions not accounted for by primary human emissions. When it does, IF it does, you'll have evidence of "feedback". Several reasons might exist WHY they don't show. You're smart enough to figure out what those MIGHT be.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Who ever could have guessed it!!!!

Well....not as shocked as Claude Rains....





This:

"Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests
Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong,....z'
Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests


The new fall-back position:
"Experts now say there is a two-in-three chance of keeping global temperatures within 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the ultimate goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement."

And...
"They also condemned the “overreaction” to the US’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord, announced by Donald Trump in June, saying it is unlikely to make a significant difference."
Ibid.






Know that old joke about a NYTimes headline, "World to end tomorrow- minorities hurt worst!!!"
When can we expect a retreat on that one, too?

Wow, another person who knows less than nothing about this topic, posting an article he never read and doesn't understand.... Shocked, shocked I tell you!

And yet another gullible dunce who bought the Global Governance Scam like it was on sale.

Soooo.....who ties your shoelaces for you?

haha, yep, all those scientists are all liars. And you figgered 'em all out, with nothing but a GED and google. Okay!

All those 'scientists' know how to keep putting food on their tables.


Sooooo.....when do you vie for the new avi: "DUNCE"????

 

[mamooth]

I didn't even offer a THEORY -- I just stated facts.

Your conspiracy theory claimed that feedbacks were deliberate dishonestly by scientists who were faking data to induce panic.

You've never provided any evidence for that conspiracy theory. Evidence would not be you repeating "Because I say it's a fact, that's why!" over and over, which is all you've done so far. Evidence would be more like showing some grand announcement in the infancy of climate science that said senstivity was 1.1C.

I showed that in the infancy of the science, they were saying 3.0C. Thus, I conclusively debunked your conspiracy theory. And it won't matter. You weren't reasoned into your beliefs, so you can't be reasoned out of them.

 

[mamooth]

And a percentage of that is natural variation.

The natural variation has gone the other way, so it's more like 110% of the observed warming is human-induced.

We've seen about 1.0C of warming for half a doubling. That makes the observed transient climate response 2.0C. Total climate response has to be bigger than transient response, hence it's significantly bigger than 2.0C. That's not really arguable.

Several reasons might exist WHY they don't show.

The feedbacks do show. That's kind of the point. That's why observed response is well over 2.0C, instead of sitting around 1.0C.

 

[flacaltenn]

And a percentage of that is natural variation.

The natural variation has gone the other way, so it's more like 110% of the observed warming is human-induced.

We've seen about 1.0C of warming for half a doubling. That makes the observed transient climate response 2.0C. Total climate response has to be bigger than transient response, hence it's significantly bigger than 2.0C. That's not really arguable.

Several reasons might exist WHY they don't show.

The feedbacks do show. That's kind of the point. That's why observed response is well over 2.0C, instead of sitting around 1.0C.

If you'd ever be following along, the temperature rise is NOT THE SAME as the climate sensitivity constant. No conversation to be had here.

 

[mamooth]

If you'd ever be following along, the temperature rise is NOT THE SAME as the climate sensitivity constant. No conversation to be had here.

No, the transient climate sensitivity is the same. That's kind of the definition of it, how the climate has responded up to the present time. Total climate sensitivity would be how much the climate responds if we let the clock run to infinity. We don't know what total will be, based on present data, but we know it will be bigger than transient.

So, the observed value of the transient climate sensitivity is around 2.0C, and the total climate sensitivity is larger.

 

[flacaltenn]

If you'd ever be following along, the temperature rise is NOT THE SAME as the climate sensitivity constant. No conversation to be had here.

No, the transient climate sensitivity is the same. That's kind of the definition of it, how the climate has responded up to the present time. Total climate sensitivity would be how much the climate responds if we let the clock run to infinity. We don't know what total will be, based on present data, but we know it will be bigger than transient.

So, the observed value of the transient climate sensitivity is around 2.0C, and the total climate sensitivity is larger.

What units do "climate sensitivity" numbers have?