Global warming LOL part 2

do you have any idea that if you use the best statistics on current temps you can discern no warming outside of natural variability since the Industrial Revolution.

You can not discern any signal for man made affect.
Do you know what that means you ignorant tool.

Plus if you look back on long term charts we are only in the middle of the temp range.

 

10 things science got wrong:

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php

LOL

 

So where the list of things non-scientists got wrong? Clue: most of human history up until the arrival of... science.

 

The new IPCC paper will be released shortly.
It has been leaked....



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/15/the-state-of-climate-science-fluxed-up/

As for the state of climate science, this summary by Rose of the IPCC situation is worth sharing:

‘A REFLECTION OF EVIDENCE FROM NEW STUDIES’… THE IPCC CHANGES ITS STORY

What they say: ‘The rate of warming since 1951 [has been] 0.12C per decade.’

What this means: In their last hugely influential report in 2007, the IPCC claimed the world was warming at 0.2C per decade. Here they admit there has been a massive cut in the speed of global warming – although it’s buried in a section on the recent warming ‘pause’. The true figure, it now turns out, is not only just over half what they thought – it’s below their lowest previous estimate.

What they say: ‘Surface temperature reconstructions show multi-decadal intervals during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950-1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th Century.’

What this means: As recently as October 2012, in an earlier draft of this report, the IPCC was adamant that the world is warmer than at any time for at least 1,300 years. Their new inclusion of the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ – long before the Industrial Revolution and its associated fossil fuel burning – is a concession that its earlier statement is highly questionable.

What they say: ‘Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 – 15 years.’

What this means: The ‘models’ are computer forecasts, which the IPCC admits failed to ‘see… a reduction in the warming trend’. In fact, there has been no statistically significant warming at all for almost 17 years – as first reported by this newspaper last October, when the Met Office tried to deny this ‘pause’ existed.In its 2012 draft, the IPCC didn’t mention it either. Now it not only accepts it is real, it admits that its climate models totally failed to predict it.

What they say: ‘There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is to a substantial degree caused by unpredictable climate variability, with possible contributions from inadequacies in the solar, volcanic, and aerosol forcings used by the models and, in some models, from too strong a response to increasing greenhouse-gas forcing.’

What this means: The IPCC knows the pause is real, but has no idea what is causing it. It could be natural climate variability, the sun, volcanoes – and crucially, that the computers have been allowed to give too much weight to the effect carbon dioxide emissions (greenhouse gases) have on temperature change.

What they say: ‘Climate models now include more cloud and aerosol processes, but there remains low confidence in the representation and quantification of these processes in models.’

What this means: Its models don’t accurately forecast the impact of fundamental aspects of the atmosphere – clouds, smoke and dust.

What they say: ‘Most models simulate a small decreasing trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, in contrast to the small increasing trend in observations… There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent.’

What this means: The models said Antarctic ice would decrease. It’s actually increased, and the IPCC doesn’t know why.

What they say: ‘ECS is likely in the range 1.5C to 4.5C… The lower limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2C in the [2007 report], reflecting the evidence from new studies.’

What this means: ECS – ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ – is an estimate of how much the world will warm every time carbon dioxide levels double. A high value means we’re heading for disaster. Many recent studies say that previous IPCC claims, derived from the computer models, have been way too high. It looks as if they’re starting to take notice, and so are scaling down their estimate for the first time.

Rose also mentions the new paper from Nic Lewis taking the Met office climate model to task for having an ECS of 4.6C, which is greater than even the IPCC is claiming:

Lewis’s paper is scathing about the ‘future warming’ document issued by the Met Office in July, which purported to explain why the current 16-year global warming ‘pause’ is unimportant, and does not mean the ECS is lower than previously thought.

Lewis says the document made misleading claims about other scientists’ work – for example, misrepresenting important details of a study by a team that included Lewis and 14 other IPCC experts. The team’s paper, published in the prestigious journal Nature Geoscience in May, said the best estimate of the ECS was 2C or less – well under half the Met Office estimate.

He also gives evidence that another key Met Office model is inherently skewed. The result is that it will always produce high values for CO2-induced warming, no matter how its control knobs are tweaked, because its computation of the cooling effect of smoke and dust pollution – what scientists call ‘aerosol forcing’ – is simply incompatible with the real world.

This has serious implications, because the Met Office’s HadCM3 model is used to determine the Government’s climate projections, which influence policy.

Mr Lewis concludes that the Met Office modelling is ‘fundamentally unsatisfactory, because it effectively rules out from the start the possibility that both aerosol forcing and climate sensitivity are modest’. Yet this, he writes, ‘is the combination that recent observations support’.

We live in interesting times.
Read Rose’s article here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cts-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html#ixzz2exAZ99b9

 

Maslowski is 1 of the 77 scientists who believe global warming is true you so often cite.

 

It is both amusing and sad that FC does not know who Wieslaw Maslowski is. Obviously Wieslaw Maslowski is one of the leading scientists who have promoted 'global warming' while involved as a research scientist/professor focused on Arctic research.

Anyone who has paying attention to 'climate change' should know immediately who Wieslaw Maslowski is.

 

Time for alamists everywhere to set their hair on fire and run in circles yelling "I hate humans, they cause global warming!" then they can fix the problem by joining a conga line off a high cliff... 'bye bye alarmist suckas', see 'ya wouldn't wanna be 'ya motherf^*@s

I know one, he's an absolute failure as a human, very muchly clueless about manners, conversations, clothing, how to walk/run, etc.. but he's much, much more expert and alarmed about GW than us common folk and loves to bother people with it when they are dining.. he represents "science" at it's best! He has a license to do name calling issued by his University shithole...

The Earth is very, very good at self correction else it wouldn't last long at all. "Scientific alarmism" with it's computer models that don't do much of anything really sucks. Drill baby drill! Time for the ME and all the "scientists" to go frack themselves!

 

The funny thing about your reply, itself "run in circles", is that most oil and gas industry execs accept Man is contributing to global warming, and that carbon capture technology is already being adopted worldwide, and that drilling and fracking is ongoing as well and never was going to stop because of CO2 emissions. Your agenda and the heroes and villains battling over it are imaginary.

 

What the fuck are you babbling about now?

Tell it to the world's climatologists, 97% of whom agree that most the world's warming over the last fifty years is due to man. Only by including CO2 effects can the temp record be explained.

 

So John. Given that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it has gone up some 40% over the last hundred years....how could that NOT raise temps?