LOL global warming ART dot com. Here's your lesson for the day. Don't flub it this time. <img src=http://www.hyscience.com/BoltGlobalCooling.jpg>
I.... I'm struggling here... need to get an image out of my mind.... can't get image to go away.... nnnnnnnnnoooooooooooooo!!!!!!
LOL Yes, it's bad bad bad. But you guys live in the world and you need to be able see some revolting images without freaking out. But, could you imagine after a night of heavy drinking waking up with something like this in YOUR bed? That WOULD be something to freak out about!
Well, back to the topic if anyone is still brave enough to open this thread again. This is an excellent article. I've just re-printed the Conclusion here because it is somewhat long but it is worth reading for the analysis of the failure of the climate models that exist. Global Cooling - Timing and Amount (NH) Conclusions: 1) It seems reasonably probable - say 60-40 that the Northern Hemisphere (NH) will cool by about .35 degrees by 2035. 2) We should be able to check the accuracy of this forecast by 2018 -20. 3) The forecast of a 1.2 degree drop by 2100 is little more than a mildly interesting suggestion at this time. 4) The idea of a Maunder Minimum equivalent at 2600 - 2700 is highly speculative. 5) Contrary to the forecasts made here, the Livingston and Penn solar data are suggesting a possible Maunder type Minimum in the near future. Given our ignorance of solar physics this is entirely possible. In this case a much more rapid cooling would occur with very serious consequences to the global food supply and the world economy. 6) Global cooling will take place concurrently with that of the NH but because of the great extent of the southern oceans the global cooling will be significantly less - maybe +/- 50 % and there will also be considerable regional variability in both hemispheres. 7) There is no reason to expect damaging global warming.Cooling is more likely. To prepare for it, all ethanol and biofuel subsidies and mandates should be abolished. Renewable energy and electric car subsidies are economically wasteful and accomplish nothing.There is no reason to control CO2 emissions, indeed some extra CO2, while having little effect on temperature, might aid farm productivity . 25% of the increased crop yields in the 20th century was due to the CO2 increase. http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/01/global-cooling-timing-and-amountnh.html
fc click that pspr's link.. You are a bigger muppet than I thought. Your own muppet masters know their climate models are just guesses and have no real forecasting merit. http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/01/global-cooling-timing-and-amountnh.html Science section IPCC AR4 WG1 8.6 deals with forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity. The conclusions are in section 8.6.4 which deals with the reliability of the projections.It concludes: "Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections,consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed" What could be clearer. The IPCC in 2007 said that we dont even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- ie we don't know what future temperatures will be and we can't calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2.This also begs a further question of what mere assumptions went into the "plausible" models to be tested anyway. This quoted statement was ignored by the editors who produced the Summary for Policymakers. Here predictions of disaster were illegitimately given âwith high confidence.â in complete contradiction to several sections of the WG1 science section where uncertainties and error bars were discussed. Almost all the worlds politicians, media and eco-activist organisations uncritically accepted and used these predictions as infallible guides to the futrure and acted on these delusions of certainty. A glance at this Figure 2-20 From AR4 WGI shows immediately that the IPCC models are structurally obviously highly implausible. The only natural forcing is TSI and everything else is anthropogenic. For example under natural should come such things as eg Milankovitch orbital cycles,Lunar related tidal effects on ocean currents and all the Solar activity data time series - eg Solar and Earth magnetic field strength, TSI ,SSNs ,GCRs ,( effect on aerosols,clouds and albedo) CHs, MCEs, EUV variations, and associated ozone variations and Forbush events. Unless the range and causes of natural variation are known within reasonably narrow limits it is simply not possible to calculate the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on climate.
^ And still we have yet to a single thing from you that is from an authoritative reliable source like NOAA. Why do you always have to go to bullshit tabloid AGW denier sites and blogs funded by the FF industry denial machine? Hmmmm? This is what NOAA and virtually every climatologist and science organzation in the world says......who cares what one guy says? Only crazed denier morons do that.