Jump to content


Photo

GLOBAL COOLING: Decade long ice age predicted as sun 'hibernates'


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#41 Hemisfears

Hemisfears

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,807 posts
  • LocationBetween Chicago & Milwaukee

Posted 01 December 2015 - 11:05 PM

So the Arctic is melting while Antarctica is growing.

 

What will this do to the ocean currents? 

I just heard today..that the ocean levels rise each year at the rate of 1.8 millimeters.

 

I also think that there is a LOT of money wrapped around all of this climate stuff and knowing our government's love for lying and corruption, there is something in it for them and that is the number one motivation behind all of this.

 

Obama makes up figures like 97%, then today it's 99.5% of "scientists" agree on Global Warming  Climate Change.

 

I think the whole thing stinks of a rotten scam.



#42 OldRUSHfan

OldRUSHfan

    Advanced Member

  • Hat Award Winner
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,729 posts
  • LocationSaline, MI, SSW of Ann Arbor

Posted 01 December 2015 - 11:55 PM

GLOBAL WARMING? NASA says Antarctic has been COOLING for past SIX years

 

 

An intensive scientific study of both Earth's poles has found that from 2009 to 2016 overall temperature has dropped in the southern polar region.

NASA’s Operation IceBridge is an airborne survey of polar ice and has finalised two overlapping research campaigns at both the poles. 

In the last few weeks NASA has revealed the overall amount of ice has increased at the Antarctic and the amount of sea ice has also extended.

Coupled with the latest announcement of slight cooling in the area, it has fuelled claims from climate change deniers that human industrialisation is not having the huge impact on global tenperature as often is claimed.

 

Christopher Shuman, a University of Maryland, Baltimore County glaciologist working at Goddard, said: "Field data suggests that there’s been a modest cooling in the area over the 2009–2015 time period, and images collected during that time by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer on the Terra and Aqua satellites show more persistent fast ice (sea ice that is attached to the shore) in the Larsen A and Larsen B embayments”

However, Mr Shuman warned that in some areas of the Antarctic, glaciers continued to melt at significant levels, despite  the slight temperature drop.

At the south polio, the mission observed a big drop in the height of two glaciers situated in the Antarctic Peninsula.

Mr Shuman added: "These IceBridge measurements show that once the ice shelves collapse, even some cooling and a good deal of persistent sea ice is not able to hold back these larger glaciers and they continue to lose mass overall.”

 

During one flight in the Peninsula that mapped the drainage area of several glaciers, a drop of more than 490 feet (150 meters) in the height of two glaciers since IceBridge last plotted them, in 2009, was measured. 

Both glaciers, called Green and Hektoria, were tributaries to the Larsen B ice shelf, which disintegrated in 2002. 

After the ice shelf collapsed, it stopped buttressing the glaciers that fed it, and glacier elevations have fallen dramatically since then.

A study published in 2012 showed average elevation losses of up to 82 feet (25 meters) per year for the lower Green and Hektoria glaciers from 2006 to 2011.

 

A NASA spokesman said:"So IceBridge’s discovery that both are still losing ice fast many years after the loss of the adjacent ice shelf is “not all that surprising given what we have observed with other sensors,” said Mr Shuman.

So, confusingly, the new details of further glacial melt have fuelled those who believe we are causing global warming and polar ice melt.

At the Arctic north pole, the project collected much needed measurements of the status of land and sea ice at the end of the Arctic summer melt season.

The results of these have yet to be published, but the whole issue is set to be debated in full at a clime change conference in Paris later this month.

 

http://www.express.c...-climate-change

 

 

 

 

Go talk to Barack Hussein Soetoro's folks over at NASA. Ask them what they told the 'president'.

 

So what you're depending on is that none of those NASA people LIED THROUGH THEIR TEETH?  That that is not a conceivable occurance?  C'mon, Hemi....


EnjoyCCola.jpgmusicgif.gif

ninjaanim1.gif

 

panda.gif

Chris Hardwick is NERDIST GOD. Portrait-%20Chris%20Hardwick%20sm.jpg

 

oldman.gif

 

HugeGrin.gif

 

Here's the KITTY! kittyredX.gif

 

sfl_glbtsm.gif

"OH!"

:banana dance Original: "PEANUT BUTTAH JELLEH!" :banana dance Original:

 

"I'm DAMAGED...and I LIKE IT!"

 

"We are here to HELP each other, not to HARM each other.  Think about it..."


#43 A Rebel and a Runner

A Rebel and a Runner

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,656 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 02 December 2015 - 12:37 AM

No, there probably is cooling in the last half-decade in the antarctic. It happens. Not a surprise.
6 years does not a global trend make. When you're talking about climate change, you're talking scales of at least hundreds, sometimes more, years.


  • OldRUSHfan and Moving Target like this

#44 OldRUSHfan

OldRUSHfan

    Advanced Member

  • Hat Award Winner
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,729 posts
  • LocationSaline, MI, SSW of Ann Arbor

Posted 02 December 2015 - 02:11 AM

Eons, not decades...


EnjoyCCola.jpgmusicgif.gif

ninjaanim1.gif

 

panda.gif

Chris Hardwick is NERDIST GOD. Portrait-%20Chris%20Hardwick%20sm.jpg

 

oldman.gif

 

HugeGrin.gif

 

Here's the KITTY! kittyredX.gif

 

sfl_glbtsm.gif

"OH!"

:banana dance Original: "PEANUT BUTTAH JELLEH!" :banana dance Original:

 

"I'm DAMAGED...and I LIKE IT!"

 

"We are here to HELP each other, not to HARM each other.  Think about it..."


#45 Hemisfears

Hemisfears

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,807 posts
  • LocationBetween Chicago & Milwaukee

Posted 02 December 2015 - 11:39 AM

So what you're depending on is that none of those NASA people LIED THROUGH THEIR TEETH?  That that is not a conceivable occurance?  C'mon, Hemi....

I believe there is a huge money trail all over this.

 

How much do you think the "scientists' are getting paid to present their 'findings'??

 

 

Obama has lied to all of us on just about anything you can think of.

 

Obamacare anyone???

 

He is a bullshit salesman.

 

You are going to believe him when he tells you about global warming climate change?

 

If Obama is in on it, it's a scam.

 

C'mon ORF...

 

 

It's just wealth re-distribution to other countries.

 

Never let a good crisis go to waste..



#46 Moving Target

Moving Target

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,293 posts
  • LocationThe Duchy of Cornwall

Posted 04 December 2015 - 10:04 AM

I just heard today..that the ocean levels rise each year at the rate of 1.8 millimeters.

 

I also think that there is a LOT of money wrapped around all of this climate stuff and knowing our government's love for lying and corruption, there is something in it for them and that is the number one motivation behind all of this.

 

Obama makes up figures like 97%, then today it's 99.5% of "scientists" agree on Global Warming  Climate Change.

 

I think the whole thing stinks of a rotten scam.

 

There's more money in Big Oil - remember they will choose data to distort the picture too.

 

Best to do a lot of reading and make up your mind.

 

But I would caution that MMCC is accepted by and integral to policy of both the Left and Right in every developed nation except the USA.  



#47 Hemisfears

Hemisfears

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,807 posts
  • LocationBetween Chicago & Milwaukee

Posted 05 December 2015 - 02:26 AM

But I would caution that MMCC is accepted by and integral to policy of both the Left and Right in every developed nation except the USA.  

And they are waiting for the USA's MONEY.



#48 OldRUSHfan

OldRUSHfan

    Advanced Member

  • Hat Award Winner
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,729 posts
  • LocationSaline, MI, SSW of Ann Arbor

Posted 06 December 2015 - 11:01 PM

It's all BULLSHIT!!!!


EnjoyCCola.jpgmusicgif.gif

ninjaanim1.gif

 

panda.gif

Chris Hardwick is NERDIST GOD. Portrait-%20Chris%20Hardwick%20sm.jpg

 

oldman.gif

 

HugeGrin.gif

 

Here's the KITTY! kittyredX.gif

 

sfl_glbtsm.gif

"OH!"

:banana dance Original: "PEANUT BUTTAH JELLEH!" :banana dance Original:

 

"I'm DAMAGED...and I LIKE IT!"

 

"We are here to HELP each other, not to HARM each other.  Think about it..."


#49 Moving Target

Moving Target

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,293 posts
  • LocationThe Duchy of Cornwall

Posted 16 December 2015 - 06:11 AM

And they are waiting for the USA's MONEY.

 

No we're not - we are all self-sufficient and in any case you haven't got any money!  You owe about $15 trillion :P

 

Why can't you American conservatives understand that a green tech can make economic sense?  That if you plaster your office block with solar panels, and collect rain water to flush the toilets, you save money on utility bills? 

 

When green energy become more efficient than petrochemicals, the market will switch to it.


  • Slim, Greg and A Rebel and a Runner like this

#50 A Rebel and a Runner

A Rebel and a Runner

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,656 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 16 December 2015 - 06:26 AM

No we're not - we are all self-sufficient and in any case you haven't got any money!  You owe about $15 trillion :P

 

Why can't you American conservatives understand that a green tech can make economic sense?  That if you plaster your office block with solar panels, and collect rain water to flush the toilets, you save money on utility bills? 

 

When green energy become more efficient than petrochemicals, the market will switch to it.

Yeah, I don't get this. My dad got a hybrid car and installed a small solar array on the house, not because he's some hippy-dippy liberal type. He listens to Rush Limbaugh daily and is about the most conservative person I've ever met in the flesh.
He did those things because he saw long-term savings in them, economic sense in them. It's pragmatism.

The idea that you should spite yourself and the people around you just to make a political point is so absurd to me.


  • Moving Target likes this

#51 Moving Target

Moving Target

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,293 posts
  • LocationThe Duchy of Cornwall

Posted 16 December 2015 - 12:24 PM

Yeah, I don't get this. My dad got a hybrid car and installed a small solar array on the house, not because he's some hippy-dippy liberal type. He listens to Rush Limbaugh daily and is about the most conservative person I've ever met in the flesh.
He did those things because he saw long-term savings in them, economic sense in them. It's pragmatism.

The idea that you should spite yourself and the people around you just to make a political point is so absurd to me.

 

It's the closing of the American mind.  Binary thinking writ large.  Lib-rulls do that, so I don't.  Stupidity.  :(



#52 Hemisfears

Hemisfears

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,807 posts
  • LocationBetween Chicago & Milwaukee

Posted 26 December 2015 - 02:34 PM

Three Global Warming Stories The Media Don't Want You To See
 
 
Want to know the latest global warming news?

 

Don't bother looking in U.S. media. They can't be bothered with stories that contradict the man-made climate change narrative. But the truth is out there.


Let's start with a new paper from NASA — a distinctly American organization — that was covered by the British Express.
The newspaper tells us that our space program has "found the Earth has cooled in areas of heavy industrialization where more trees have been lost and more fossil fuel burning takes place."
This is, of course, the opposite of what we've been told for decades.
The Express reports that the findings confirm that the aerosols from fossil-fuel combustion "actually cool the local environment, at least temporarily," as they reflect "solar radiation away from the planet."
A NASA official said solar radiation is similarly bounced away from Earth when "deforestation in northern latitudes" results in bare land that "increases reflected sunlight."
The Express further reports that the NASA paper's lead author said the findings show the "complexity" involved in estimating future global temperatures.


This is something we've been saying for years. While the mainstream American press can't get off its carbon-dioxide fixation, we've noted that far too many variables affect global climate to focus on a single influence.
The British Daily Mail also wrote about this NASA paper, which clearly has high news value.
But the U.S. press couldn't get out of bed to cover the story. As far as we can tell, the legacy media in this country ignored it entirely.
The same can be said about a study conducted by the Norwegian Polar Institute, which found "that there are probably more polar bears than the last time the bears were counted in this area in 2004, in spite of the fact that there have been many years with poor ice cover during this period." The American press doesn't want the public to know this because it throws into doubt the story it's been feeding us since the 1980s.
Remember, we have been told over and again that man-made global warming was a grave threat to polar bears, which are an endangered species.
Yet here's this study telling us that "scientists now estimate that there are around 975 polar bears in the Norwegian region, whereas they estimated a number of 685 in 2004," while another has found them to be in "excellent" condition, with some being "as fat as pigs."
 
Indeed, polar bears are making "a surprise comeback."
Finally, in an effort to deliver a public service that the mainstream media refuse to provide, we point out that the temperature data that supposedly show warming have been corrupted by poor positioning.
"The majority of weather stations used by (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) to detect climate change temperature signal have been compromised by encroachment of artificial surfaces like concrete, asphalt and heat sources like air conditioner exhausts," says Anthony Watts, a former meteorologist who is the lead author of a study of temperature station locations.
Watts believes his work "demonstrates conclusively that this issue affects temperature trends and that NOAA's methods are not correcting for this problem, resulting in an inflated temperature trend."
As a result of this systematic error, Watt believes the U.S. temperature record needs to be revised.
Nor is this problem limited to America.
Watts says there's also "evidence of this same sort of siting problem around the world at many other official weather stations, suggesting that the same upward bias on trend also manifests itself in the global temperature record."
All three of these are significant stories. But instead of doing its due journalistic diligence, the press would rather muse about the role climate change might be playing in the warm Christmas weather in the Eastern part of the country.
It's all part of the liberal narrative. Science that doesn't agree with the media's agenda is treated as if it's myth.
 
http://news.investor...m#ixzz3vRAC05aC

 

Of course, I would have to guess that the Brit Trolls here will discount the story as rubbish due to the fact that the sources cited in the article are not to their liking.

 

BFD



#53 nickslikk2112

nickslikk2112

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,444 posts

Posted 27 December 2015 - 12:04 AM

It's been bloody warm in Englandland this Christmas, please world, stop burning fossil fuels.


  • Slim likes this

645df0a0-f61a-4f15-a847-b0bdbfe31afb_zps

 

Old Rush Good, New Rush Bad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


#54 fenderjazz

fenderjazz

    Insert witty title here

  • Administrators
  • 5,462 posts
  • LocationNYC Area Suburbs

Posted 27 December 2015 - 12:37 AM

It's hot as fuck here. 74 degrees on Christmas Eve!

#55 A Rebel and a Runner

A Rebel and a Runner

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,656 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 28 December 2015 - 07:20 PM

I'mma just leave this here.

Not Just Exxon: The Entire Oil and Gas Industry Knew The Truth About Climate Change 35 Years Ago.

 
Unless "climate change" becomes a non-issue, meaning that the Kyoto proposal is defeated and there are no further initiatives to thwart the threat of climate change, there may be no moment when we can declare victory for our efforts.
 
American Petroleum Institute, “Global Climate Science Communications Action Plan”, 1998.
A recent investigative series by Inside Climate News  documented Exxon Corporation’s extensive knowledge--as early as 1977-- of the reality of man-made climate change, and of its own role in creating increased greenhouse gas (CO2) emissions all but certain to result in a future of catastrophic warming to the planet.  ICN’s investigation also documented the abrupt and deliberate policy decision made by Exxon to become the industry  leader in financing and fostering the denial of climate science, a decision that ensured that the rest of the human race would be fed a stream of disinformation until it was effectively too late, while Exxon profited to the maximum extent possible before the truth became overwhelming and, in essence, un-deniable.
 
New reporting by Neela Banerjee for ICN now reveals that it wasn’t just Exxon, but the entire oil and gas industry through its mouthpiece, the American Petroleum Institute, that collaborated to perpetuate the denial and “uncertainty” charade, to soak in as much money for themselves as possible at the expense of the rest of us and all future generations who would have to live through the consequences of their deception:
 
The American Petroleum Institute together with the nation's largest oil companies ran a task force to monitor and share climate research between 1979 and 1983, indicating that the oil industry, not just Exxon alone, was aware of its possible impact on the world's climate far earlier than previously known.
The API’s task force was made up of the senior scientists and engineers from Amoco, Mobil, Phillips, Texaco, Shell, Sunoco, Gulf Oil and Standard Oil of California, probably the highest paid and sought-after senior scientists and engineers on the planet.  They came from companies that, just like Exxon, ran their own research units and did climate modeling to understand the impact of climate change and how it would impact their company’s bottom line.  The leader of the task force, James Nelson, in probably one of the most ironic admissions in corporate history, acknowledged to ICN that the multi-company effort was initially called the CO2 and Climate Task Force, but changed its name to the Climate and Energy Task Force in 1980. 
 
In the heady days of the late 1970’s, before the Reagan era officially sanctioned corporate greed as an American value, there was actually some consideration by these companies of reducing emissions in order to spare the rest of the world the consequences of unchecked global warming:
 
API task force members appeared open to the idea that the oil industry might have to shoulder some responsibility for reducing CO2 emissions by changing refining processes and developing fuels that emitted less carbon dioxide.
 
Bruce S. Bailey of Texaco offered "for consideration" the idea that "an overall goal of the Task Force should be to help develop ground rules for energy release of fuels and the cleanup of fuels as they relate to CO2 creation," according to the minutes of a meeting on Feb. 29, 1980.
In the same 1980 meeting the task force also heard from Professor John Laurmann of Stanford University on possible conversion to alternate energy sources. Laurmann advised the task force of the potentially catastrophic consequences with continued global warming if fossil fuel consumption continued unabated. From the meeting minutes of Laurmann’s presentation to the API task force:
 
LIKELY IMPACTS:
 
1 C Rise (2005): BARELY NOTICEABLE
 
2.5 C Rise (2038): MAJOR ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES, STRONG REGIONAL DEPENDENCE
 
5 C Rise (2067): GLOBALLY CATASTROPHIC EFFECTS
But this fleeting moment of concern and human conscience—just as it had it Exxon’s case—soon yielded to the enticing reality of seven and eight-figure executive salaries:
 
[B]y the 1990s, it was clear that API had opted for a markedly different approach to the threat of climate change. It joined Exxon, other fossil fuel companies and major manufacturers in the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), a lobbying group whose objective was to derail international efforts to curb heat-trapping emissions. In 1998, a year after the Kyoto Protocol was adopted by countries to cut fossil fuel emissions, API crafted a campaign to convince the American public and lawmakers that climate science was too tenuous for the United States to ratify the treaty.
Nelson acknowledges that in the 1980’s API moved abruptly away from science-based analysis of the climatic impact of the fossil fuel industry and began taking a more “political” view towards protecting its interests:
 
“They took the environmental unit and put it into the political department, which was primarily lobbyists,” he said. “They weren’t focused on doing research or on improving the oil industry’s impact on pollution. They were less interested in pushing the envelope of science and more interested in how to make it more advantageous politically or economically for the oil industry. That’s not meant as a criticism. It’s just a fact of life.”
Nelson excuses this shift by blaming it on the growing influence of the Environmental Protection Agency, which is something akin to the Tobacco industry blaming its misleading propaganda on the efforts of the FDA to regulate tobacco. The campaign of manufactured disinformation and doubt that ensued was deliberate, well-planned, and well-financed, and continues to this day. The following is an excerpt from the API’s Action Plan memorandum of the API, 1998, setting forth the industry’s goals to sow public doubt in American media about something they had been well aware of for nearly twenty years:
 
PROJECT GOAL
 
A majority of the American public, including industry leadership, recognizes that significant uncertainties exist in climate science, and therefore raises questions among those (e.g. Congress) who chart the future U.S. course on global climate change.
 
Progress will be measured toward the goal...[.]
 
Victory Will Be Achieved When
Average citizens "understand" (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the "conventional wisdom"
Media "understands" (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science
Media coverage reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge the current "conventional wisdom"
Industry senior leadership understands uncertainties in climate science, making them stronger ambassadors to those who shape climate policy
Those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extent science appears to be out of touch with reality.
Interestingly, the American Legislative Exchange Counsel (ALEC) was identified as a “potential fund allocator” for the API’s initiative, which illustrates how long ALEC has been a willing tool of corporate malfeasance.  In 2000 the group found a natural ally in George W. Bush, whose campaign professions of sincere interest in reducing global carbon emissions were swiftly reversed once he obtained access to the Oval Office.  Bush’s rejection of the Kyoto treaty, well documented and attested to by then-Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill in Ron Suskind’s, “The Price of Loyalty,” was a classic corporate-inspired betrayal of the environment:
 
API and GCC were victorious when George W. Bush pulled the U.S. out of the Kyoto agreement. A June 2001 briefing memorandum records a top State Department official thanking the GCC because Bush "rejected the Kyoto Protocol in part, based on input from you."
Lobbyists for API found a cozy sinecure in the Bush/Cheney Administration. The article describes API lobbyist Philip Cooney, chief of staff on Bush’s Council for Environmental Quality, who  was discovered in 2005 to have rewritten federal research papers to sow doubts about climate change. Cooney resigned that year and went to work for Exxon/Mobil. The ICN investigation also documents the efforts of one Robert Campion, a senior scientist at Exxon and a member of the API task force, who was highly influential (and effective) early on in tamping down API’s emphasis on the effects and impact of continued, increasing CO2 emissions. An example of his efforts to dissuade a more aggressive agenda on CO2 by API is grimly ironic, in a black comedic sense:
 
Campion [urged a more limited agenda on CO2 emissions] because the Energy Department and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) were expected to issue a report "momentarily" based on an April 1979 climate symposium that "concluded no catastrophic hazards would be associated with the CO2 buildup over the next 100 years and that society can cope readily with whatever problems ensue."
 
(Eventually published in October 1980, the AAAS report offered more sobering forecasts than Campion had expected, describing risks to nearly every facet of life on Earth and concluding catastrophes could be avoided only if timely steps were taken to address climate change.)
Other writings by Campion from 1979 unearthed by the ICN investigation document him predicting that real-world effects of climate change would begin to manifest themselves after the year 2000:
 
He estimated that the effects would be felt after 2000, after a cyclical cooling period had passed. Because a cyclical warming trend was then expected post 2000, it would intensify climate change, "worsening the effect," he wrote.
Of course we know  the end result of Exxon’s and the API’s efforts, begun all those 35 years ago.  We’re seeing them on the East Coast as we watch in benumbed silence while the warmest Christmas season in recorded memory unfolds around us, closing out the hottest year in recorded history, and brought on by the most severe EL Nino ever observed.  Meanwhile, their efforts to delay action on reduction of C02 emissions continue to find support in a Republican Party thoroughly beholden to the industry for its very existence. The few oil and gas company scientists who were willing to talk to ICN about their participation in the API’s task force ( including API’s President who now claims he doesn’t even remember it) continue to insist that there is still doubt about the “consensus” of the scientific community:
 
Charles DiBona served as president of API from 1979 to 1997, when the organization shifted its approach on climate change from following the science to intense lobbying to discredit it. DiBona said in a phone interview that he did not remember the climate task force. Like Nelson, he does not accept the prevailing scientific consensus that climate change is being driven by fossil fuel combustion. "I think there is some question about the broader scientific community. There's not much evidence that there is real consensus," DiBona said.
DiBona, Nelson and the American Petroleum Institute only have to live with themselves and whatever passes for their sense of conscience. The rest of us, unfortunately, will have to live with the results of their decisions for the remainder of our lives. 


#56 Hemisfears

Hemisfears

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,807 posts
  • LocationBetween Chicago & Milwaukee

Posted 30 December 2015 - 02:17 PM

^^^^
 
Yeah, well, I'mma just leave this here....
 
Climate Models Have Been Wrong About Global Warming For Six Decades

 

Climate models used by scientists to predict how much human activities will warm the planet have been over-predicting global warming for the last six decades, according to a recent working paper by climate scientists.

 

“Everyone by now is familiar with the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in the rate of global warming that has taken place over the past 20 years of so, but few realize is that the observed warming rate has been beneath the model mean expectation for periods extending back to the mid-20th century—60+ years,” Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger, climate scientists at the libertarian Cato Institute, write in a working paper released in December.

Michaels and Knappenberger compared observed global surface temperature warming rates since 1950 to what was predicted by 108 climate models used by government climate scientists to predict how much carbon dioxide emissions will warm the planet.

 

What they found was the models projected much higher warming rates than actually occurred.

 

"During all periods from 10 years (2006-2015) to 65 (1951-2015) years in length, the observed temperature trend lies in the lower half of the collection of climate model simulations,” Michaels and Knappenberger write, “and for several periods it lies very close (or even below) the 2.5th percentile of all the model runs.”
 
To further bolster their case that climate models are over-predicting warming rates, Michaels and Knappenberger looked at how climate models fared against satellite and weather balloon data from the mid-troposphere. The result is the same, and climate models predicted way more warming than actually occurred.
 
“This is a devastating indictment of climate model performance,” Michaels and Knappenberger write. “For periods of time longer than about 20 years, the observed trends from all data sources fall beneath the lower bound which contains 95 percent of all model trends and in the majority of cases, falls beneath even the absolute smallest trend found in any of the 102 climate model runs.”
 
“The amount of that over-prediction comports well with a growing body of scientific findings and growing understanding that the sensitivity of the earth’s surface temperature to rising atmospheric greenhouse gas levels… lies towards (and yet within) the low end of the mainstream assessed likely range.”

Satellite temperatures, which measure the lowest few miles of the Earth’s atmosphere, show there’s been no significant global warming for the last two decades despite rapidly rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.


The so-called “hiatus” in warming has sparked an intense debate among climate scientists over what’s caused warming to disappear. Dozens of theories have been put forward as to why global warming has stalled, but no one has cracked the case.


Michaels and Knappenberger, however, suggest the “hiatus” and the previous decades of overblown temperature predictions point to a huge flaw in climate science: the climate isn’t as sensitive to CO2 as previously thought.


The Cato scientists argue “climate sensitivity” estimates are too high and are causing climate models to over-predict how much warming will happen with increases in greenhouse gas emissions. Climate sensitivity refers to how much warming would occur with a doubling of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.


Climate scientists typically put climate sensitivity at 3 degrees Celsius, but a slew of new studies suggest that’s way too high an estimate based on how much warming has been observed in recent decades. One estimate put together by the U.K.-based Global Warming Policy Foundation last year found climate sensitivity may be as low as 1.75 degrees Celsius — almost half what mainstream climate models use.

 

http://dailycaller.c.../#ixzz3voSco41g

 

al-gore-center-for-american-progress-get



#57 nickslikk2112

nickslikk2112

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,444 posts

Posted 30 December 2015 - 11:15 PM

Of course all climate change models are wrong. The very fact that they are models gives a bit of a clue. Heck, a lot of a clue.


645df0a0-f61a-4f15-a847-b0bdbfe31afb_zps

 

Old Rush Good, New Rush Bad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


#58 Hemisfears

Hemisfears

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,807 posts
  • LocationBetween Chicago & Milwaukee

Posted 01 January 2016 - 01:20 PM

Of course all climate change models are wrong. The very fact that they are models gives a bit of a clue. Heck, a lot of a clue.

And not a lot of glue.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users