The global warming thread. Is it for real?

[PMZ]

What if global warming isn't as severe as predicted?
By Rebecca Lindsey
August 3, 2010

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in their most recent report that global surface temperature at the end of this century will probably be between 1.8 and 4 degrees Celsius warmer than it was at the end of the last century.

It’s natural to question whether we and future generations will regret our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if it turns out global warming isn’t as bad as predicted. But the best science we have to guide us at this time indicates that the chance that warming will be much larger than the best estimate is greater than the Chan that it will be much smaller.

Climate scientists know that there is plenty they don’t know about the way the Earth system works. Some of the physical processes that models describe are thoroughly well-established—the melting point of ice, for example, and the law of gravity.

Other physical processes are less perfectly known: when the air temperature is not far below 0 Celsius, for example, will water vapor condense into liquid or ice? Either is possible, depending on atmospheric conditions.

To understand how uncertainty about the underlying physics of the climate system affects climate predictions, scientists have a common test: they have a model predict what the average surface temperature would be if carbon dioxide concentrations were to double pre-industrial levels.

They run this simulation thousands of times, each time changing the starting assumptions of one or more processes. When they put all the predictions from these thousands of simulations onto a single graph, what they get is a picture of the most likely outcomes and the least likely outcomes.

The pattern that emerges from these types of tests is interesting. Few of the simulations result in less than 2 degrees of warming—near the low end of the IPCC estimates—but some result in significantly more than the 4 degrees at the high end of the IPCC estimates.

This pattern (statisticians call it a “right-skewed distribution”) suggests that if carbon dioxide concentrations double, the probability of very large increases in temperature is greater than the probability of very small increases.

Our ability to predict the future climate is far from certain, but this type of research suggests that the question of whether global warming will turn out to be less severe than scientists think may be less relevant than whether it may be far worse.

Graph of results http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blo...-as-predicted/

Climate sensitivity estimates have been falling like a rock recently. The IPCC has already had to print a correction to the AR4 report on them. Many of the models still assume the larger estimates and it shows in their incorrect projections.

You must be way ahead of the Internet.

The only reported AR4 update that the Internet knows about says this.


"This report provides an update of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), focusing on the physical climate system that in the IPCC work is addressed by its Working Group I. The report considers progress in understanding of the human and natural drivers of climate change, climate observations, attribution, key climate feedback, as well as ocean acidification. Recent developments and near future prospects of climate modelling are also discussed in brief. Some of the key findings that the recent literature brings forth include:"

"Parts of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have shown rapid melt over recent years."

"Solar cycle effects on global temperatures are small compared to anthropogenic forcing"

"More emerging research on the "other CO2 problem", ocean acidification
Climate change may have significant effects on natural carbon sinks"

"The report is written by four leading Nordic climate scientists: Markku Rummukainen, Jouni Räisänen, Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen and Halldór Björnsson on behalf of the Nordic ad hoc Group on Global Climate Negotiations. The Nordic ad hoc Group on Global Climate Negotiations prepares reports and studies, conducts meetings and organises conferences to support the Nordic negotiators in the UN climate negotiations. The overall aim of the group is to contribute to a global and comprehensive agreement on climate change with ambitious emission reduction commitments."

As IPCC is working on AR5 due out next year, who is updating AR4?

 

[westwall]

Crop Loss Fears Lift Agricultural Insurance Take-Up: Swiss Re | PropertyCasualty360

LONDON (Reuters) - Farmers have spent 20 percent more on agricultural insurance in recent years to protect against crop losses from increasingly frequent bad weather events, according to reinsurer Swiss Re.


The rise in extreme weather disasters, such as the widespread drought in the United States last year, has reduced food output at a time when the world's population is expected to grow by a third by 2050, the world's second biggest reinsurer said in a report on Wednesday.

Global agricultural insurers took in $23.5 billion in annual premiums in 2011, up by a fifth from 2005, in a market dominated by emerging countries, Swiss Re said.

I notice the reports are not corrected for inflation. Why is that?

 

[PMZ]

Crop Loss Fears Lift Agricultural Insurance Take-Up: Swiss Re | PropertyCasualty360

And there you have it. An industry that lives on fear using pseudoscience to generate more fear to make more money...and you support them...you worship at their altar.

The irony drips rocks....it literally drips.

If only there was evidence to support what you wish to be true.

 

[IanC]

What if global warming isn't as severe as predicted?
By Rebecca Lindsey
August 3, 2010

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in their most recent report that global surface temperature at the end of this century will probably be between 1.8 and 4 degrees Celsius warmer than it was at the end of the last century.

It’s natural to question whether we and future generations will regret our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if it turns out global warming isn’t as bad as predicted. But the best science we have to guide us at this time indicates that the chance that warming will be much larger than the best estimate is greater than the Chan that it will be much smaller.

Climate scientists know that there is plenty they don’t know about the way the Earth system works. Some of the physical processes that models describe are thoroughly well-established—the melting point of ice, for example, and the law of gravity.

Other physical processes are less perfectly known: when the air temperature is not far below 0 Celsius, for example, will water vapor condense into liquid or ice? Either is possible, depending on atmospheric conditions.

To understand how uncertainty about the underlying physics of the climate system affects climate predictions, scientists have a common test: they have a model predict what the average surface temperature would be if carbon dioxide concentrations were to double pre-industrial levels.

They run this simulation thousands of times, each time changing the starting assumptions of one or more processes. When they put all the predictions from these thousands of simulations onto a single graph, what they get is a picture of the most likely outcomes and the least likely outcomes.

The pattern that emerges from these types of tests is interesting. Few of the simulations result in less than 2 degrees of warming—near the low end of the IPCC estimates—but some result in significantly more than the 4 degrees at the high end of the IPCC estimates.

This pattern (statisticians call it a “right-skewed distribution”) suggests that if carbon dioxide concentrations double, the probability of very large increases in temperature is greater than the probability of very small increases.

Our ability to predict the future climate is far from certain, but this type of research suggests that the question of whether global warming will turn out to be less severe than scientists think may be less relevant than whether it may be far worse.

Graph of results http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blo...-as-predicted/

Climate sensitivity estimates have been falling like a rock recently. The IPCC has already had to print a correction to the AR4 report on them. Many of the models still assume the larger estimates and it shows in their incorrect projections.

You must be way ahead of the Internet.

The only reported AR4 update that the Internet knows about says this.


"This report provides an update of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), focusing on the physical climate system that in the IPCC work is addressed by its Working Group I. The report considers progress in understanding of the human and natural drivers of climate change, climate observations, attribution, key climate feedback, as well as ocean acidification. Recent developments and near future prospects of climate modelling are also discussed in brief. Some of the key findings that the recent literature brings forth include:"

"Parts of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have shown rapid melt over recent years."

"Solar cycle effects on global temperatures are small compared to anthropogenic forcing"

"More emerging research on the "other CO2 problem", ocean acidification
Climate change may have significant effects on natural carbon sinks"

"The report is written by four leading Nordic climate scientists: Markku Rummukainen, Jouni Räisänen, Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen and Halldór Björnsson on behalf of the Nordic ad hoc Group on Global Climate Negotiations. The Nordic ad hoc Group on Global Climate Negotiations prepares reports and studies, conducts meetings and organises conferences to support the Nordic negotiators in the UN climate negotiations. The overall aim of the group is to contribute to a global and comprehensive agreement on climate change with ambitious emission reduction commitments."

As IPCC is working on AR5 due out next year, who is updating AR4?

A quick google has not turned up the link so I will recind my claim. I believe it was about the use of baysian priors or some such thing.

 

[PMZ]

Here's as good a detailed description of the findings of science that were sufficent evidence to launch the current development/investment cycle of sustainable energy solutions.

Attribution of recent climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In my business this is the handoff between research and development. As this will result in the largest project ever taken on by mankind, it will carry on concurrent with the engineering phase of many specific solutions for a few decades.

The transportation segment is making serious progress but will go through several phases before emerging fully evolved.

For instance in autos we are entering into the hybrid phase which is evolutionary and will significantly cut down on our oil addiction. That will buy time to create the infrastructure for full electric cars. Which will, eventually be supplemented with more mass transit, probably railed, eventually.

Just an example of many revolutionary things unavoidably down the road.

 

[gslack]

Here's as good a detailed description of the findings of science that were sufficent evidence to launch the current development/investment cycle of sustainable energy solutions.

Attribution of recent climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In my business this is the handoff between research and development. As this will result in the largest project ever taken on by mankind, it will carry on concurrent with the engineering phase of many specific solutions for a few decades.

The transportation segment is making serious progress but will go through several phases before emerging fully evolved.

For instance in autos we are entering into the hybrid phase which is evolutionary and will significantly cut down on our oil addiction. That will buy time to create the infrastructure for full electric cars. Which will, eventually be supplemented with more mass transit, probably railed, eventually.

Just an example of many revolutionary things unavoidably down the road.

It's another one of wikki's many fluff pieces. It simply regurgitates the IPCC claims.. Your business is forum trolling socko, and that's not a scientific or academic field...

 

[PMZ]

Here's as good a detailed description of the findings of science that were sufficent evidence to launch the current development/investment cycle of sustainable energy solutions.

Attribution of recent climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In my business this is the handoff between research and development. As this will result in the largest project ever taken on by mankind, it will carry on concurrent with the engineering phase of many specific solutions for a few decades.

The transportation segment is making serious progress but will go through several phases before emerging fully evolved.

For instance in autos we are entering into the hybrid phase which is evolutionary and will significantly cut down on our oil addiction. That will buy time to create the infrastructure for full electric cars. Which will, eventually be supplemented with more mass transit, probably railed, eventually.

Just an example of many revolutionary things unavoidably down the road.

It's another one of wikki's many fluff pieces. It simply regurgitates the IPCC claims.. Your business is forum trolling socko, and that's not a scientific or academic field...

I've read many Wikipedia articles and many of your posts. You are not even in the same zip code as their contributers in the fields of science. You are a political hack entertaining yourself with pretensions of relevance. The Homer Simpson of the blogosphere.

However you are useful as an example of denier ignorance and for that, I thank you.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hurricane Sandy was the most expensive event for the year both in terms of economic and insured losses. The Hurricane caused an estimated total of USD 70 billion in economic losses, making it the second most damaging hurricane on record after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Insured losses were approximately USD 35 billion, out of which USD 20 to 25 billion were covered by the private insurance market.

Hurricaine sandy was the hurricane that wasn't. You guys lose all your credibility calling sandy a superstorm when it barely even reached the level of tropical cyclone when it landed. The losses were due to a city that has been hit by storms before not being prepared for another one. Calling sandy a superstorm is nothing more than fear mongering to those who can't be bothered to take the time to actually look up the truth.

And your drought hysterics are no more than that as well. Actual science, as opposed to the insurance industry says that droughts in this "warmer" world are becoming less intense and shorter in duration...exactly the opposite of what your fear mongering masters have predicted with their failing models.

It is interesting how you have taken to consulting with the insurance companies regarding climate change...people who stand to make fortunes off threats of even minor bad weather. It is like asking the tobacco companies to make predictions on the future health of smokers.

11 Facts About Hurricane Sandy | Do Something

10 Harrowing Facts About Hurricane Sandy in New Jersey | The Philly Post

6: Number of schools completely destroyed by Sandy

7 million: Number of people left without power

346,000 homes: Damaged or destroyed

185,000: Number of businesses in New Jersey impacted

41,000: Number of families still displaced from their homes

100,000: Number of storm-related unemployment claims

$18 billion: Amount the federal government has kicked in for debris removal

8,000: Estimated number of jobs lost in November because of Sandy

1,400: Number of sunken vessels in the wake of the storm

800,000: Number of daily and public transit customers affected

Swiss Re is a re-insurance company. They insure the insurance companies. But then, I would not expect you to know that.

 

[Wyld Kard]

Any link to support your claim? so far, at least by the evidence provided in this thread global warming seems very real.

That such global waring is produced by man or that it can be controlled by changing our way of producing energy is still VERY debatable. The warming itself ... not really. But then again , feel free to post your links . I'm sure they will be very interesting.

You want to see a link to support my claim? How about three links?

Blog: Global warming 'scientific consensus' debunked

Global Warming Hoax Finally Falling Apart

Don’t believe the natural global warming stuff; it’s global elitesDon’t believe the natural global warming stuff; it’s global elites

The two main points of what Global Warming / Climate Change is really about is money and to de-industrialize the world. Like I said before, Global Warming is a Global Scam.

Tell us who wins what by de-industrializing the world. Whatever that means.

I'll tell you who wins by ignoring and denying the science that has proven AGW. Big oil. They bought your mind and you never felt a thing sitting there in the Lazy Boy with the brewski, did you.

Next life pay more attention in school and less to 24/7/365 political advertising. That way you'll be able to contribute to humanity rather than detract.

Here is the definition of the word de-industrialize, that you are obviously too stupid and/or too lazy to look up a word yourself?

de·in·dus·tri·al·ize/ˌdiɪnˈdʌstriəˌlaɪz/
Show Spelled [dee-in-duhs-tree-uh-lahyz]
Show IPA verb, de·in·dus·tri·al·ized, de·in·dus·tri·al·iz·ing.
verb (used with object)

1. to cause to lose industrial capability or strength; make less industrial in character or emphasis.
2. to deprive (a conquered nation) of the means or potential for industrial growth.
verb (used without object)
3. to lose industrial capability or character; become deindustrialized.
Also, de-in·dus·tri·al·ize;, especially British, de·in·dus·tri·al·ise.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1880–85; de- + industrialize


LMFAO. "ignoring and denying the science that has proven AGW" BULLSHIT. You and many like you are believing and accepting lies that have already been proven wrong.

"They bought your mind" Wrong again. I'm not a gullible sheep like you who bought into the whole Global Warming / Climate Change bullshit lies without questioning it, like you.

Next life why don't you pull your head out of your ass!

 

[flacaltenn]

Hurricane Sandy was the most expensive event for the year both in terms of economic and insured losses. The Hurricane caused an estimated total of USD 70 billion in economic losses, making it the second most damaging hurricane on record after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Insured losses were approximately USD 35 billion, out of which USD 20 to 25 billion were covered by the private insurance market.

Hurricaine sandy was the hurricane that wasn't. You guys lose all your credibility calling sandy a superstorm when it barely even reached the level of tropical cyclone when it landed. The losses were due to a city that has been hit by storms before not being prepared for another one. Calling sandy a superstorm is nothing more than fear mongering to those who can't be bothered to take the time to actually look up the truth.

And your drought hysterics are no more than that as well. Actual science, as opposed to the insurance industry says that droughts in this "warmer" world are becoming less intense and shorter in duration...exactly the opposite of what your fear mongering masters have predicted with their failing models.

It is interesting how you have taken to consulting with the insurance companies regarding climate change...people who stand to make fortunes off threats of even minor bad weather. It is like asking the tobacco companies to make predictions on the future health of smokers.

11 Facts About Hurricane Sandy | Do Something

10 Harrowing Facts About Hurricane Sandy in New Jersey | The Philly Post

6: Number of schools completely destroyed by Sandy

7 million: Number of people left without power

346,000 homes: Damaged or destroyed

185,000: Number of businesses in New Jersey impacted

41,000: Number of families still displaced from their homes

100,000: Number of storm-related unemployment claims

$18 billion: Amount the federal government has kicked in for debris removal

8,000: Estimated number of jobs lost in November because of Sandy

1,400: Number of sunken vessels in the wake of the storm

800,000: Number of daily and public transit customers affected

Swiss Re is a re-insurance company. They insure the insurance companies. But then, I would not expect you to know that.

Doesn't change the fact that this storm WASN'T Super Anything. A storm like that impacting Florida wouldn't reach the NY Times front page. You're confusing population density and preparedness with meterology and climate. Storm intensity with it's unique path and target. Just like you did during tornado season -- inventing smarter tornadoes that can zero in on city centers..

When you live on a couple islands with 14 Million other folks, you really SHOULD be able to deflect a storm surge like that one.. Might still have lost the boardwalk, but folks wouldn't have been panicked on Staten Island, Long Island or Manhattan Island. Note the predominant feature ISLAND.

 

[flacaltenn]

You want to see a link to support my claim? How about three links?

Blog: Global warming 'scientific consensus' debunked

Global Warming Hoax Finally Falling Apart

Don’t believe the natural global warming stuff; it’s global elitesDon’t believe the natural global warming stuff; it’s global elites

The two main points of what Global Warming / Climate Change is really about is money and to de-industrialize the world. Like I said before, Global Warming is a Global Scam.

Tell us who wins what by de-industrializing the world. Whatever that means.

I'll tell you who wins by ignoring and denying the science that has proven AGW. Big oil. They bought your mind and you never felt a thing sitting there in the Lazy Boy with the brewski, did you.

Next life pay more attention in school and less to 24/7/365 political advertising. That way you'll be able to contribute to humanity rather than detract.

Here is the definition of the word de-industrialize, that you are obviously too stupid and/or too lazy to look up a word yourself?

de·in·dus·tri·al·ize/ˌdiɪnˈdʌstriəˌlaɪz/
Show Spelled [dee-in-duhs-tree-uh-lahyz]
Show IPA verb, de·in·dus·tri·al·ized, de·in·dus·tri·al·iz·ing.
verb (used with object)

1. to cause to lose industrial capability or strength; make less industrial in character or emphasis.
2. to deprive (a conquered nation) of the means or potential for industrial growth.
verb (used without object)
3. to lose industrial capability or character; become deindustrialized.
Also, de-in·dus·tri·al·ize;, especially British, de·in·dus·tri·al·ise.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1880–85; de- + industrialize


LMFAO. "ignoring and denying the science that has proven AGW" BULLSHIT. You and many like you are believing and accepting lies that have already been proven wrong.

"They bought your mind" Wrong again. I'm not a gullible sheep like you who bought into the whole Global Warming / Climate Change bullshit lies without questioning it, like you.

Next life why don't you pull your head out of your ass!

The sheer arrogance of this little troll is his only charming quality..

We the STRONG.. We the WISE.. We the saviours of humanity.. Who is WE?

Is it the enlightened readers of the NY Times? Folks born before 1940? Any Democrat with a pulse? The Class Warriors of the Revolution?

Or are we witnessing the workings of a deep multiple personality delusion..

 

[IanC]

What if global warming isn't as severe as predicted?
By Rebecca Lindsey
August 3, 2010

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in their most recent report that global surface temperature at the end of this century will probably be between 1.8 and 4 degrees Celsius warmer than it was at the end of the last century.

It’s natural to question whether we and future generations will regret our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if it turns out global warming isn’t as bad as predicted. But the best science we have to guide us at this time indicates that the chance that warming will be much larger than the best estimate is greater than the Chan that it will be much smaller.

Climate scientists know that there is plenty they don’t know about the way the Earth system works. Some of the physical processes that models describe are thoroughly well-established—the melting point of ice, for example, and the law of gravity.

Other physical processes are less perfectly known: when the air temperature is not far below 0 Celsius, for example, will water vapor condense into liquid or ice? Either is possible, depending on atmospheric conditions.

To understand how uncertainty about the underlying physics of the climate system affects climate predictions, scientists have a common test: they have a model predict what the average surface temperature would be if carbon dioxide concentrations were to double pre-industrial levels.

They run this simulation thousands of times, each time changing the starting assumptions of one or more processes. When they put all the predictions from these thousands of simulations onto a single graph, what they get is a picture of the most likely outcomes and the least likely outcomes.

The pattern that emerges from these types of tests is interesting. Few of the simulations result in less than 2 degrees of warming—near the low end of the IPCC estimates—but some result in significantly more than the 4 degrees at the high end of the IPCC estimates.

This pattern (statisticians call it a “right-skewed distribution”) suggests that if carbon dioxide concentrations double, the probability of very large increases in temperature is greater than the probability of very small increases.

Our ability to predict the future climate is far from certain, but this type of research suggests that the question of whether global warming will turn out to be less severe than scientists think may be less relevant than whether it may be far worse.

Graph of results http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blo...-as-predicted/

Climate sensitivity estimates have been falling like a rock recently. The IPCC has already had to print a correction to the AR4 report on them. Many of the models still assume the larger estimates and it shows in their incorrect projections.

Edit- I retract my claim, at least temporarily, until I can find s link to support it.

I looked through old threads that I started and found this-

A recap for those unfamiliar with the story. My complaint about the alteration of the Forster & Gregory 2006 results was rejected on the grounds that it was done to put all the climate sensitivity probability density graphs on the same, uniform prior in sensitivity, basis. Justifying changing a result from a correct to an incorrect basis on the grounds that all the other results were given on that basis seems very dubious to me. But I knew that at least one of the other studies, Gregory 2002, actually had its results shown on the same basis as the original Forster & Gregory 2006 results, being a uniform prior in the climate feedback parameter - that is, a prior inversely proportional to the square of sensitivity. So my letter to Gabi Hegerl complained that the statement that the Gregory 2002 results were stated on a uniform prior in sensitivity basis was incorrect.

Gabi Hegerl, quite properly, brought my letter to the attention of the IPCC WG1 Co-Chairs, and it was dealt with under the new formal "IPCC protocol for addressing possible errors". The result was the issue of a formal Erratum by the IPCC, stating that Gregory et al "implicitly use a uniform prior on transient climate response". I knew that this was also wrong, but Gabi insisted that the WG1 authors were sure it was right. In fact, Gabi was relying on Myles Allen, who I think was primarily responsible for the use of a uniform prior in sensitivity basis in Chapter 9 of AR4 WG1.

It took me several months, with the help of another climate scientist, to find out why Myles Allen thought that Gregory et al "implicitly use a uniform prior on transient climate response" and then ultimately to persuade him, and thus Gabi Hegerl, that this statement also was incorrect - and that I had been right all along in saying that in fact this study implicitly used a nearly uniform prior in the climate feedback parameter. Gabi and Myles were not keen to get the IPCC to issue a further Erratum, which would obviously be embarrassing, so I agreed not to pursue the matter further.

- Bishop Hill blog - An error too embarrassing to*correct

this was one entry in a number of blog posts done at the time to try and publicize the shoddy work done by some of the AR4 lead authors on climate sensitivity. while I could find the actual erratum, I did find the definition-

This protocol is intended to be used only to correct errors that could have been avoided in the context of the information available at the time the report was written. Its use should be reserved for errors of fact or accuracy. The protocol cannot be used to make changes that reflect new knowledge or scientific information that became available only after the literature cut-off date for the report in question. It cannot be used to propose the consideration of additional sources not cited in the existing assessment, unless directly relevant to an error of fact or accuracy. It must also not be invoked to reflect a difference in opinion compared with an author team or a new interpretation of knowledge or scientific information.

incorrect methodology, presented in AR4, acknowledged in a half-assed way by the IPCC working group. Lewis is a published statistician who has come over to climate science on occasion to correct some of the more blatant errors if you consider uniform priors obvious that is . hahahahaha

 

[Wyld Kard]

You want to see a link to support my claim? How about three links?

Blog: Global warming 'scientific consensus' debunked

Global Warming Hoax Finally Falling Apart

Don’t believe the natural global warming stuff; it’s global elitesDon’t believe the natural global warming stuff; it’s global elites

The two main points of what Global Warming / Climate Change is really about is money and to de-industrialize the world. Like I said before, Global Warming is a Global Scam.

Thanks.

The first link is just a comment on a survey among scientist about their opinion on global warming. Not very usefull . Particularly, because it is on "anthropogenic global warming" . For the purpose of this thread I am just discussing "global warming" . Finding out if such warming is caused by man or not is too polemic.

In the second link the author of the article claims
"Often focused on century-long trends, most climate models failed to predict that the temperature rise would slow, starting around 2000. Scientists are now intent on figuring out the causes and determining whether the respite will be brief or a more lasting phenomenon."

That's really an interesting statement , though , he did not provide a single reference to proove his claim , so I had to do my own research .

First I found this article to support his statement:
Global Warming? Temperature Up 'Very Close to Zero' Over 15 Years | CNS News

Then I found this other article which states the temperature rise is hidden below the sea surface.
Warming over the last decade hidden below ocean surface

Your third article... oh , give me a break . Chemtrails ? really ? I can't really take this article seriously.

Your second article, I can't take seriously. Now the so-called source for all the build-up of heat around the world (Global Warming) is coming from below the ocean surface. Give me a break. This is more bullshit that is put out there to try and reinforce the lies, and gullible people around the world will believe and accept it as truth without question.

I found this article that says the Earth has been cooling since 2002.
Forget global warming!? Earth undergoing global COOLING since 2002! Climate Scientist Dr. Judith Curry: ?Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 year ?pause? to the cooling since 2002? | Climate Depot

 

[PMZ]

You want to see a link to support my claim? How about three links?

Blog: Global warming 'scientific consensus' debunked

Global Warming Hoax Finally Falling Apart

Don’t believe the natural global warming stuff; it’s global elitesDon’t believe the natural global warming stuff; it’s global elites

The two main points of what Global Warming / Climate Change is really about is money and to de-industrialize the world. Like I said before, Global Warming is a Global Scam.

Tell us who wins what by de-industrializing the world. Whatever that means.

I'll tell you who wins by ignoring and denying the science that has proven AGW. Big oil. They bought your mind and you never felt a thing sitting there in the Lazy Boy with the brewski, did you.

Next life pay more attention in school and less to 24/7/365 political advertising. That way you'll be able to contribute to humanity rather than detract.

Here is the definition of the word de-industrialize, that you are obviously too stupid and/or too lazy to look up a word yourself?

de·in·dus·tri·al·ize/ˌdiɪnˈdʌstriəˌlaɪz/
Show Spelled [dee-in-duhs-tree-uh-lahyz]
Show IPA verb, de·in·dus·tri·al·ized, de·in·dus·tri·al·iz·ing.
verb (used with object)

1. to cause to lose industrial capability or strength; make less industrial in character or emphasis.
2. to deprive (a conquered nation) of the means or potential for industrial growth.
verb (used without object)
3. to lose industrial capability or character; become deindustrialized.
Also, de-in·dus·tri·al·ize;, especially British, de·in·dus·tri·al·ise.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1880–85; de- + industrialize


LMFAO. "ignoring and denying the science that has proven AGW" BULLSHIT. You and many like you are believing and accepting lies that have already been proven wrong.

"They bought your mind" Wrong again. I'm not a gullible sheep like you who bought into the whole Global Warming / Climate Change bullshit lies without questioning it, like you.

Next life why don't you pull your head out of your ass!

Does this post contain all of the evidence that what you wish to be true, is?

 

[PMZ]

Hurricaine sandy was the hurricane that wasn't. You guys lose all your credibility calling sandy a superstorm when it barely even reached the level of tropical cyclone when it landed. The losses were due to a city that has been hit by storms before not being prepared for another one. Calling sandy a superstorm is nothing more than fear mongering to those who can't be bothered to take the time to actually look up the truth.

And your drought hysterics are no more than that as well. Actual science, as opposed to the insurance industry says that droughts in this "warmer" world are becoming less intense and shorter in duration...exactly the opposite of what your fear mongering masters have predicted with their failing models.

It is interesting how you have taken to consulting with the insurance companies regarding climate change...people who stand to make fortunes off threats of even minor bad weather. It is like asking the tobacco companies to make predictions on the future health of smokers.

11 Facts About Hurricane Sandy | Do Something

10 Harrowing Facts About Hurricane Sandy in New Jersey | The Philly Post

6: Number of schools completely destroyed by Sandy

7 million: Number of people left without power

346,000 homes: Damaged or destroyed

185,000: Number of businesses in New Jersey impacted

41,000: Number of families still displaced from their homes

100,000: Number of storm-related unemployment claims

$18 billion: Amount the federal government has kicked in for debris removal

8,000: Estimated number of jobs lost in November because of Sandy

1,400: Number of sunken vessels in the wake of the storm

800,000: Number of daily and public transit customers affected

Swiss Re is a re-insurance company. They insure the insurance companies. But then, I would not expect you to know that.

Doesn't change the fact that this storm WASN'T Super Anything. A storm like that impacting Florida wouldn't reach the NY Times front page. You're confusing population density and preparedness with meterology and climate. Storm intensity with it's unique path and target. Just like you did during tornado season -- inventing smarter tornadoes that can zero in on city centers..

When you live on a couple islands with 14 Million other folks, you really SHOULD be able to deflect a storm surge like that one.. Might still have lost the boardwalk, but folks wouldn't have been panicked on Staten Island, Long Island or Manhattan Island. Note the predominant feature ISLAND.

You are apparently under the mis-impression that windspeed is the only measure of storm threat.

GHGs = AGW.

AGW = elevated sea level, unstable climate, severe weather.

That combination destroys ocean port cities and communities.

This is all part of the consequences of GHGs that you've been denying.

To say nothing of the need to either relocate agriculture to where the water will be or relocate the water to where our old climate farms were established.

 

[PMZ]

You want to see a link to support my claim? How about three links?

Blog: Global warming 'scientific consensus' debunked

Global Warming Hoax Finally Falling Apart

Don’t believe the natural global warming stuff; it’s global elitesDon’t believe the natural global warming stuff; it’s global elites

The two main points of what Global Warming / Climate Change is really about is money and to de-industrialize the world. Like I said before, Global Warming is a Global Scam.

Thanks.

The first link is just a comment on a survey among scientist about their opinion on global warming. Not very usefull . Particularly, because it is on "anthropogenic global warming" . For the purpose of this thread I am just discussing "global warming" . Finding out if such warming is caused by man or not is too polemic.

In the second link the author of the article claims
"Often focused on century-long trends, most climate models failed to predict that the temperature rise would slow, starting around 2000. Scientists are now intent on figuring out the causes and determining whether the respite will be brief or a more lasting phenomenon."

That's really an interesting statement , though , he did not provide a single reference to proove his claim , so I had to do my own research .

First I found this article to support his statement:
Global Warming? Temperature Up 'Very Close to Zero' Over 15 Years | CNS News

Then I found this other article which states the temperature rise is hidden below the sea surface.
Warming over the last decade hidden below ocean surface

Your third article... oh , give me a break . Chemtrails ? really ? I can't really take this article seriously.

Your second article, I can't take seriously. Now the so-called source for all the build-up of heat around the world (Global Warming) is coming from below the ocean surface. Give me a break. This is more bullshit that is put out there to try and reinforce the lies, and gullible people around the world will believe and accept it as truth without question.

I found this article that says the Earth has been cooling since 2002.
Forget global warming!? Earth undergoing global COOLING since 2002! Climate Scientist Dr. Judith Curry: ?Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 year ?pause? to the cooling since 2002? | Climate Depot

That's what happens when the trapped energy goes to the heat of fusion for melting ice. Just wait. When that's over we'll see some real warming.

 

[PMZ]

What if global warming isn't as severe as predicted?
By Rebecca Lindsey
August 3, 2010

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in their most recent report that global surface temperature at the end of this century will probably be between 1.8 and 4 degrees Celsius warmer than it was at the end of the last century.

It’s natural to question whether we and future generations will regret our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if it turns out global warming isn’t as bad as predicted. But the best science we have to guide us at this time indicates that the chance that warming will be much larger than the best estimate is greater than the Chan that it will be much smaller.

Climate scientists know that there is plenty they don’t know about the way the Earth system works. Some of the physical processes that models describe are thoroughly well-established—the melting point of ice, for example, and the law of gravity.

Other physical processes are less perfectly known: when the air temperature is not far below 0 Celsius, for example, will water vapor condense into liquid or ice? Either is possible, depending on atmospheric conditions.

To understand how uncertainty about the underlying physics of the climate system affects climate predictions, scientists have a common test: they have a model predict what the average surface temperature would be if carbon dioxide concentrations were to double pre-industrial levels.

They run this simulation thousands of times, each time changing the starting assumptions of one or more processes. When they put all the predictions from these thousands of simulations onto a single graph, what they get is a picture of the most likely outcomes and the least likely outcomes.

The pattern that emerges from these types of tests is interesting. Few of the simulations result in less than 2 degrees of warming—near the low end of the IPCC estimates—but some result in significantly more than the 4 degrees at the high end of the IPCC estimates.

This pattern (statisticians call it a “right-skewed distribution”) suggests that if carbon dioxide concentrations double, the probability of very large increases in temperature is greater than the probability of very small increases.

Our ability to predict the future climate is far from certain, but this type of research suggests that the question of whether global warming will turn out to be less severe than scientists think may be less relevant than whether it may be far worse.

Graph of results http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blo...-as-predicted/

Climate sensitivity estimates have been falling like a rock recently. The IPCC has already had to print a correction to the AR4 report on them. Many of the models still assume the larger estimates and it shows in their incorrect projections.

Edit- I retract my claim, at least temporarily, until I can find s link to support it.

I looked through old threads that I started and found this-

A recap for those unfamiliar with the story. My complaint about the alteration of the Forster & Gregory 2006 results was rejected on the grounds that it was done to put all the climate sensitivity probability density graphs on the same, uniform prior in sensitivity, basis. Justifying changing a result from a correct to an incorrect basis on the grounds that all the other results were given on that basis seems very dubious to me. But I knew that at least one of the other studies, Gregory 2002, actually had its results shown on the same basis as the original Forster & Gregory 2006 results, being a uniform prior in the climate feedback parameter - that is, a prior inversely proportional to the square of sensitivity. So my letter to Gabi Hegerl complained that the statement that the Gregory 2002 results were stated on a uniform prior in sensitivity basis was incorrect.

Gabi Hegerl, quite properly, brought my letter to the attention of the IPCC WG1 Co-Chairs, and it was dealt with under the new formal "IPCC protocol for addressing possible errors". The result was the issue of a formal Erratum by the IPCC, stating that Gregory et al "implicitly use a uniform prior on transient climate response". I knew that this was also wrong, but Gabi insisted that the WG1 authors were sure it was right. In fact, Gabi was relying on Myles Allen, who I think was primarily responsible for the use of a uniform prior in sensitivity basis in Chapter 9 of AR4 WG1.

It took me several months, with the help of another climate scientist, to find out why Myles Allen thought that Gregory et al "implicitly use a uniform prior on transient climate response" and then ultimately to persuade him, and thus Gabi Hegerl, that this statement also was incorrect - and that I had been right all along in saying that in fact this study implicitly used a nearly uniform prior in the climate feedback parameter. Gabi and Myles were not keen to get the IPCC to issue a further Erratum, which would obviously be embarrassing, so I agreed not to pursue the matter further.

- Bishop Hill blog - An error too embarrassing to*correct

this was one entry in a number of blog posts done at the time to try and publicize the shoddy work done by some of the AR4 lead authors on climate sensitivity. while I could find the actual erratum, I did find the definition-

This protocol is intended to be used only to correct errors that could have been avoided in the context of the information available at the time the report was written. Its use should be reserved for errors of fact or accuracy. The protocol cannot be used to make changes that reflect new knowledge or scientific information that became available only after the literature cut-off date for the report in question. It cannot be used to propose the consideration of additional sources not cited in the existing assessment, unless directly relevant to an error of fact or accuracy. It must also not be invoked to reflect a difference in opinion compared with an author team or a new interpretation of knowledge or scientific information.

incorrect methodology, presented in AR4, acknowledged in a half-assed way by the IPCC working group. Lewis is a published statistician who has come over to climate science on occasion to correct some of the more blatant errors if you consider uniform priors obvious that is . hahahahaha

That all seems very reasonable to me considering AR5 will be published next year. It should contain all that's been learned since AR4.

 

[PMZ]

Tell us who wins what by de-industrializing the world. Whatever that means.

I'll tell you who wins by ignoring and denying the science that has proven AGW. Big oil. They bought your mind and you never felt a thing sitting there in the Lazy Boy with the brewski, did you.

Next life pay more attention in school and less to 24/7/365 political advertising. That way you'll be able to contribute to humanity rather than detract.

Here is the definition of the word de-industrialize, that you are obviously too stupid and/or too lazy to look up a word yourself?

de·in·dus·tri·al·ize/ˌdiɪnˈdʌstriəˌlaɪz/
Show Spelled [dee-in-duhs-tree-uh-lahyz]
Show IPA verb, de·in·dus·tri·al·ized, de·in·dus·tri·al·iz·ing.
verb (used with object)

1. to cause to lose industrial capability or strength; make less industrial in character or emphasis.
2. to deprive (a conquered nation) of the means or potential for industrial growth.
verb (used without object)
3. to lose industrial capability or character; become deindustrialized.
Also, de-in·dus·tri·al·ize;, especially British, de·in·dus·tri·al·ise.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1880–85; de- + industrialize


LMFAO. "ignoring and denying the science that has proven AGW" BULLSHIT. You and many like you are believing and accepting lies that have already been proven wrong.

"They bought your mind" Wrong again. I'm not a gullible sheep like you who bought into the whole Global Warming / Climate Change bullshit lies without questioning it, like you.

Next life why don't you pull your head out of your ass!

The sheer arrogance of this little troll is his only charming quality..

We the STRONG.. We the WISE.. We the saviours of humanity.. Who is WE?

Is it the enlightened readers of the NY Times? Folks born before 1940? Any Democrat with a pulse? The Class Warriors of the Revolution?

Or are we witnessing the workings of a deep multiple personality delusion..

We are witnessing the workings of science by scientists. I suppose that people who know more, and claim it, are being honest, not arrogant. Those that know less and claim more are arrogant.

 

[PMZ]

You want to see a link to support my claim? How about three links?

Blog: Global warming 'scientific consensus' debunked

Global Warming Hoax Finally Falling Apart

Don’t believe the natural global warming stuff; it’s global elitesDon’t believe the natural global warming stuff; it’s global elites

The two main points of what Global Warming / Climate Change is really about is money and to de-industrialize the world. Like I said before, Global Warming is a Global Scam.

Tell us who wins what by de-industrializing the world. Whatever that means.

I'll tell you who wins by ignoring and denying the science that has proven AGW. Big oil. They bought your mind and you never felt a thing sitting there in the Lazy Boy with the brewski, did you.

Next life pay more attention in school and less to 24/7/365 political advertising. That way you'll be able to contribute to humanity rather than detract.

Here is the definition of the word de-industrialize, that you are obviously too stupid and/or too lazy to look up a word yourself?

de·in·dus·tri·al·ize/ˌdiɪnˈdʌstriəˌlaɪz/
Show Spelled [dee-in-duhs-tree-uh-lahyz]
Show IPA verb, de·in·dus·tri·al·ized, de·in·dus·tri·al·iz·ing.
verb (used with object)

1. to cause to lose industrial capability or strength; make less industrial in character or emphasis.
2. to deprive (a conquered nation) of the means or potential for industrial growth.
verb (used without object)
3. to lose industrial capability or character; become deindustrialized.
Also, de-in·dus·tri·al·ize;, especially British, de·in·dus·tri·al·ise.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1880–85; de- + industrialize


LMFAO. "ignoring and denying the science that has proven AGW" BULLSHIT. You and many like you are believing and accepting lies that have already been proven wrong.

"They bought your mind" Wrong again. I'm not a gullible sheep like you who bought into the whole Global Warming / Climate Change bullshit lies without questioning it, like you.

Next life why don't you pull your head out of your ass!

You are most definitely a gullible sheep. All cultests are. You get opinions from Rush and Rupert and treat them like news.

 

[IanC]

Did you fail to read the definition? They only correct what should have been known at the time of publishing. It was a mistake not new science