I'm not the one using images from GlobalWarmingART.com, moron. The climate models have blown up and if you would take the time to read what the IPCC has said and what is in the models you would know it. But you are such a fool, you don't even look at the information. My sources reference scientific data and papers. Yours are just a bunch of misstatements and lies like your 97% lie that you continue to repeat. If you took the time to read this link you would realize your thinking is absolutely wrong and you are being played for a fool by the global warming agenda. But, don't worry. It won't be but another couple years before your error will jump up and bite that big fat motorcycle ass of yours. http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot...d-amountnh.html And, did you read the title of this thread? Did you see that the OP is from NASA? Stop being the fool FC.
The author is a PhD. Geologist and has some excellent information. In another of his posts he says in the conclusion: Its the Sun stupid - The minor significance of CO2 IT IS NOW CLEAR THAT THE Ap/GCR/10BE DATA ARE THE BEST PROXY MEASURES OF THE EARTHS TEMPERATURE DRIVER OVER MILLENIAL CENTENNIAL AND DECADAL TIME SCALES. THE BEST WAY OF FORECASTING THE FUTURE IS TO PREDICT FUTURE SOLAR CYCLES AT THESE WAVELENGTHS KEEPING IN MIND THE EARTHS MAGNETIC FIELD STRENGTH AND OBLIQUITY TRENDS OVER LONGER TIME PERIODS. http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/02/its-sun-stupid-minor-significance-of-co2.html
so we just show you this... 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" and then you go a publish a projection based on the 2007 paper. == If you really wanted to learn you would go get the paper... and see if section... IPCC AR4 WG1 8.6 really says what pspr's link quoted it as saying.
Oh wow, one geologist, probably oil. Stop the presses. It's pathetic what you denier morons hang your hat on. Again. Who cares what one dude thinks who isn't even near being a climatologist? He's just another incompetent denier hack. These blogs funded by the FF industry denier machine trot out bullshit like this to dazzle the ignorant followers. "hey it's science!". What's sad is how you guys have let yourselves get manipulated by the corporate-fed denier machine. You've bought their propaganda hook line and sinker. This is what the IPCC says. It's what virtually all the world's climatologists and science organizations say. It will likely be at the high edge of predictions as the IPCC was very conservative about some assumptions. It will be interesting to see the new predictions this year. The sulfur dioxide levels will probably get more consideration in the models.
those models have failed they are bullshit. we have not had any statistical warming in 16 years. we just showed you even the people who made the models called them projections and new they were bullshit. You are the 70s biker women with the feathered hair and the blue eye shadow.
fc... your agw nutter charts... come attached with this disclaimer... from the IPCC website... which is climatologist speak for... we have no idea what relationshiop CO2 has to warming so these "projections" are essentially created out of thin air by vapor ware. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-4.html Based on the understanding of both the physical processes that control key climate feedbacks (see Section 8.6.3), and also the origin of inter-model differences in the simulation of feedbacks (see Section 8.6.2), the following climate characteristics appear to be particularly important: (i) for the water vapour and lapse rate feedbacks, the response of upper-tropospheric RH and lapse rate to interannual or decadal changes in climate; (ii) for cloud feedbacks, the response of boundary-layer clouds and anvil clouds to a change in surface or atmospheric conditions and the change in cloud radiative properties associated with a change in extratropical synoptic weather systems; (iii) for snow albedo feedbacks, the relationship between surface air temperature and snow melt over northern land areas during spring and (iv) for sea ice feedbacks, the simulation of sea ice thickness. A number of diagnostic tests have been proposed since the TAR (see Section 8.6.3), but few of them have been applied to a majority of the models currently in use. Moreover, it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining 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.
pspr... you have really delivered up some very strong research the last few days. this was fun. f/c seems to be the only leftist on this site still proclaiming himself to be an agw nutter.