Global Warming Models Are Just Flat Out Wrong

The global warming models, as we have said repeatedly, are hopelessly flawed. Earth is not going to heat up as they have projected. Scientific research out of Norway confirms this.

The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, maybe the most hysterical organization ever established, has predicted temperatures to rise by 3 degrees Celsius by 2050 if by then, carbon dioxide levels double from their preindustrialized levels of 1750. Such a projection has prompted much hair-pulling and routine public hand-wringing.

But never mind.

The Research Council of Norway plugged in real temperature data from 2000 to 2010 and from its calculations, determined that an increase in temperature due to a doubling of CO2 would be 1.9 degrees Celsius.

That number, of course, is really no more than a midpoint. The researchers say the increase could actually be as high as 2.9 degrees or as little as 1.2.

But even the 2.9-degree increase "is substantially lower than many previous calculations have estimated," the council noted.

"Thus, when the researchers factor in the observations of temperature trends from 2000 to 2010, they significantly reduce the probability of our experiencing the most dramatic climate change forecast up to now."

Project manager Terje Berntsen said the climate's sensitivity to CO2 was likely overestimated due to the inclusion of the 1990s' high temperatures in projections.

Don't assume, though, that the hot '90s were caused by man-made global warming.

Berntsen said, "We are most likely witnessing natural fluctuations in the climate system — changes that can occur over several decades — and which are coming on top of a long-term warming. The natural changes resulted in a rapid global temperature rise in the 1990s, whereas the natural variations between 2000 and 2010 may have resulted in the leveling off we are observing now."

Despite the council's findings, it still supports "implementing substantial climate measures within the next few years."

To do so, though, would be a huge waste of resources.

Predictions of doom have turned out to be nothing more than madness and there is no reason, none, to think that the fate we have allegedly determined for ourselves will ever happen. As we've learned over the last 20 years, there are too many unknowns, too many variables. If there come adverse effects of climate, humanity will adapt as needed, as it has for many millennia.

And nothing ever proposed would have any impact anyway. China and India, growing economies that are going through the "dirty" period that all economies must endure before they mature and get cleaner, are always exempted from the regulations.

(Which should be a clear tipoff that the global warming panic is not about saving the planet, but is instead an effort to punish developed nations in the West that the political left believes are too rich relative to the rest of the world, and to increase the ruling class' power.)

The flawed models have, of course, given rise to a generation of frightmongers. How many times have we heard that we have only a few years or even months to do something about global warming just to have those deadlines come and go without disaster following?

Almost four years ago, Prince Charles, speaking from Brazil, claimed that we had "less than 100 months" to save the planet. He told a group of business leaders that we are "at a defining moment in the world's history."

Charles' comments came not quite a year after NASA scientist and political activist James Hansen told Congress, on the 20-year anniversary of his first apocalyptic warning before that body, that "this is the last chance" for man to act.

"We're toast," he said, "if we don't get on a very different path."

And of course there was Al Gore's science fiction movie of 2006, "An Inconvenient Truth," which spilled over with exaggerations. As well there is his 2006 statement in which he said that "within as little as 10 years" it could be "impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet's habitability for human civilization."

Despite the warnings, our eyes tell us that life on Earth is much as it was before the CO2 alarms were sounded.

Our models say that in 10, 20, even 50 years, the world, if left alone, will still be about the same as it is today.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...ns-overstate-degree-global-warming.htm?p=full

 

The models are right, it's just the earth that's wrong.

 

IPCC projections about global warming proving to be inaccurate
Across two decades and thousands of pages of reports, the world's most authoritative voice on climate science has consistently understated the rate and intensity of climate change and the danger those impacts represent, say a growing number of studies on the topic.


Underplaying the intensity
A comparison of past IPCC predictions against 22 years of weather data and the latest climate science find that the IPCC has consistently underplayed the intensity of global warming in each of its four major reports released since 1990.

The drastic decline of summer Arctic sea ice is one recent example: In the 2007 report, the IPCC concluded the Arctic would not lose its summer ice before 2070 at the earliest. But the ice pack has shrunk far faster than any scenario scientists felt policymakers should consider; now researchers say the region could see ice-free summers within 20 years.

Sea-level rise is another. In its 2001 report, the IPCC predicted an annual sea-level rise of less than 2 millimeters per year. But from 1993 through 2006, the oceans actually rose 3.3 millimeters per year, more than 50 percent above that projection.

Some climate researchers also worry that recent institutional changes could accentuate the organization's conservative bias in the fifth IPCC assessment, to be released in parts starting in September 2013.

The tendency to underplay climate impacts needs to be recognized, conclude the authors of a recent paper exploring this bias. Failure to do so, they wrote in theirstudy published last month in the journal Global Environmental Change, "could prevent the full recognition, articulation and acknowledgement of dramatic natural phenomena that may in fact be occurring."

Conservative bias
The conservative bias stems from several sources, scientists say. Part can be attributed to science's aversion to drama and dramatic conclusions: So-called outlier events – results at far ends of the spectrum – are often pruned. Such controversial findings require years of painstaking, independent verification.

IPCC Vice-Chair Jean-Pascal van Ypersele countered that "the mandate of IPCC is to assess where there is consensus, and to reflect the full diversity of views that are scientifically valid where there is not."* He conceded that by requiring teams of authors to agree upon a report’s text, the IPCC process is inherently conservative. Getting the balance right, he said in an e-mail, is "not always easy."

Oreskes, Oppenheimer and their co-authors argue the conservative bias pervades all of climate science.

But the underestimation by the IPCC is particularly worrisome, scientists say, because the organization is charged specifically with advising policy makers on the most relevant, accurate climate science.

Pattern of under-projection

The pattern, said Oreskes in an interview, is under- rather than over-projection. "These data simply do not support the allegations by skeptics that scientists have been alarmists," she said.

One example: In November, scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., took a closer look at the computer models underpinning most climate predictions and concluded future warming is likely to be on the high side of climate projections.

Another example: This summer, NASA climatologist James Hansen co-authored an analysis of recent extreme weather across the globe. Hansen's team arrived at a strikingly different conclusion from an IPCC special assessment on the topic released just months earlier.

The Hansen study, published in August in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, concluded that rapid climate change over the past 30 years has loaded the dice in favor of extreme weather. The chance of extreme summer heat is now 13 percent higher than in 1980, the report found. Record heat waves seen by Europe in 2003, Russia in 2010, and Texas in 2011 would not have happened without human-caused global warming, it concluded.

Hansen's conclusion contrasted sharply with the hedging in the IPCC special assessment on extreme weather, published in March, 2012: "Confidence in projecting changes in the direction and magnitude of climate extremes depends on many factors," the report's summary for policymakers began. "Even the sign of projected changes in some climate extremes over this time frame is uncertain."

The melting Arctic ice pack may offer such an example.

Scientists suspect that a diminished Arctic ice pack has the power to shift weather patterns across the Northern Hemisphere. Less ice, the hypothesis goes, would weaken and shift the jet stream, causing it to block normal weather patterns and hold storms, dry spells and heat waves in place so that they pound a single location for days, weeks or months.

But with the ice supposed to stay intact until 2070 or later, this was largely a theoretical problem for the future.

No longer: Summer ice in the Arctic hit a new low in 2012, and now some scientists say there is likely a link between that meltdown and the record-breaking drought that caused an estimated $28 billion in damage across the United States, as well as the soggy summer that left Britain drenched.

Even Hurricane Sandy has a potential Arctic tie-in, with researchers suggesting that the anomalous strong high pressure weather system over Greenland, forcing Sandy ashore in October, was influenced by the ice cap's decline.

These events – and especially the rapidity with which they are occurring – were not foreseen by IPCC models.

Input from contrarians

Penn State's Mann also feels that IPCC higher-ups, fearful of being attacked by climate skeptics, have "bent over backwards" to allow greater input from contrarians. "There's no problem in soliciting wide views that fairly represent … a peer group community," he said. "My worry is that they are stacking the deck, giving greater weight to contrarian views than is warranted by peer-reviewed literature."

There are indeed more authors for next year’s assessment – 831 as compared to about 500 for the 2007 report, said IPCC’s van Ypersele, “But there are many more chapters as well, because the scope of the fifth assessment is larger.” The resulting document, he said, will be “based on real science and not ideology.”

"Overall, the IPCC reports represent the best source of quality information on climate change," van Ypersele said.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...nce-predictions-prove-too-conservative&page=4

 

OMG that's ASTOUNDING, 1 whole meter in just over 300 years.
yep I'm pissing my pants about the thought of it right now.

 

Makes you want to run right out and buy some flood insurance!

 

But it's accelerating and a three foot rise by the end of this century is probable.

 

Are you shitting me?
Have you fuck wads actually calculated the volume of water that would take or are you basing that on extrapolation of data?

 

I know you're intellectually challenged but here's a little factoid you may grasp. As water heats it expands.

 

OMG
Well this redneck knows how stupid YOU are:
1) when water freezes it expands.
2) Prey tell me where all this "new water volume is supposed to be coming from".
3) Are you sure you dipshits have done the volume calculations vs the lazy
extrapolation of data out many years into the future?


JFC if this is an example of your scientific knowledge, fucking grade schoolers are more competent than you.

 

During the inter-glacial periods sea levels were 20 to 30 feet higher than todays. And that was with just natural cycles involved.

I found a picture of you