Global warming LOL

And yet, you have no other lens through which to view contrarians views on AGW than "right wing idiots" - who's playing into the left-right Animal Farm paradigm here, again?

 

That was less than a tenth of a percent of a percent difference.

 

If you review the charts... since the 70s there was a slow warming trend. However if you look back 16 -17 whether you look at mid trop or lower trop you see the same thing. no discernable warming.

So.. FC - whether spencer used mid trop or lower trop is irrelevant.

They both show no warming.
Your models failed.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/10/a-big-picture-look-at-earths-temperature-2nd-quarter-2012/


In summary, Earth’s Lower and Middle Troposphere appear to have warmed slowly, overlaid with the El Niño/La Niña Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle, including four comparatively large El Niño events, and tempered by the cooling effects of the eruption of El Chichon (1982) and Mt Pinatubo (1991). Lower and Middle Tropospheric temperatures appear to have flattened since the large El Niño in 1998 and offer no indication of rapid or extreme warming. Tropospheric / Stratospheric temperatures appear to have been influenced by at least three significant surface driven warming events, the 1997-98 El Niño, and the eruptions of El Chichon in 1982 and Mt Pinatubo in 1991, but have maintained a stable overall trajectory. Stratospheric temperatures appear to have experienced two “dramatic warming events caused by the eruptions of El Chichon (1982) and Mt Pinatubo (1991).”, and “unusual step-like behavior of global-mean stratospheric temperatures” which has resulted in a significant stratospheric cooling during the last 30 years. Lastly, “during deep solar minimum of 2008-2009″ “the biggest contraction of the thermosphere in at least 43 years” occurred and “The magnitude of the collapse was two to three times greater than low solar activity could explain.”

 

LOL

I guess that makes him about as qualified as Al Gore to preach the dangers of global warming.

FC, you just need to figure out how to figure out how to remove money from the simple minded's pockets like Al Gore, then no doubt you will be deemed an "expert"

 

From a former agw nutters scientist... showing the models are outside the acceptable confidence level of 2.5%

http://www.spiegel.de/international...lems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html



SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?

Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.


SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?

Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.

SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?

Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.


SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?

Storch: There are two conceivable explanations -- and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn't mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.

 

These "science" assholes have lost the debate pretty muchly. They are now running out the clock, backpedaling, dialing down the hysteria.. While they continue to teach it to the school kids! It's a lie that is repeated enough to have a political effect.

 

yes - that and the bilking the tax payers is exactly what irks me about these liars politicizing science and the drones that serve them.

 

Can't speak for those of you that are grouped in with me as a "right-wind idiot," i.e. not accepting the establishment consensus on GW at face value, as determined by FC, but it seems a good part of the basis for our contrarian attitude comes to a 'chicken or the egg' argument:

are totally objective, hard-science metrics and rational public demand (i.e. not motivated by fear, thanks in no small part to Al Gore's sterling logic) for reduction of CO2 emissions prompting the politicians and the 'banking-corporate' complex to initiate legislation for carbon tax/cap & trade, or...

...do the banks & corporations see dollar signs in the prospect, and are engineering public perception of the issue by providing tunnel-vision context?

Couple of articles from '09:

http://www.wallstreetandtech.com/tr...night-capital-is-charging-into-carb/222000305

http://www.advancedtrading.com/derivatives/knight-to-enter-global-carbon-markets-hi/222000381

 

I think we should pay attention to the experts and best minds working in meteorology and atmosphere physics. The latest information suggests that man's contribution to climate is negligible. The jumping to conclusions re anthropomorphic CO2, and man's affect on climate, seems to have been premature. That does not mean, however, that we can afford to be careless with our environment.

 

There's nothing wrong with being good stewards with our environment, to me that's just common sense.
But to structure taxes and carbon penalties based on what some guys say who can't even predict today's weather let alone the next decades climate. That's just stupid.