Obama to address Climate Change in speech - It's About Damn Time.

[bshole]

5 year averages for the tropical tropospheric temperature, climate models and observation.

As one can see, most climate models predictions are way higher than the data collected from the real earth.

It is weird that EVERY single one of estimated high. Where they screwed up was in using decades instead of centuries. The amount of error in their predictions is ridiculous. From 50% high to over 500% high and they are just as convinced now that they are right? Random fucking guessing is what it is, with an undeniable bias towards global warming. What bothers me is that they one action RIGHT NOW. They do no want to wait.

GAIA, that is the most damning graph I have ever seen. It is undeniable. Why doesn't it change anything?

‘Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect.

‘It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.’

Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who found himself at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal over leaked emails three years ago, would not normally be expected to agree with her. Yet on two important points, he did.

The data does suggest a plateau, he admitted, and without a major El Nino event – the sudden, dramatic warming of the southern Pacific which takes place unpredictably and always has a huge effect on global weather – ‘it could go on for a while’.

Like Prof Curry, Prof Jones also admitted that the climate models were imperfect: ‘We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.’

Yet he insisted that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period: pauses of such length had always been expected, he said.

Yet in 2009, when the plateau was already becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, he told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: ‘Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

But although that point has now been passed, he said that he hadn’t changed his mind about the models’ gloomy predictions: ‘I still think that the current decade which began in 2010 will be warmer by about 0.17 degrees than the previous one, which was warmer than the Nineties.’

The key quote in that is: Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’ Why in the hell would anybody be worried if the global warming didn't occur? Why do global warming theorists want global warming to run amok? Is this all about a political agenda with no relationship to science? Frigging hacks.

 

[Paratus]

What can we do about it? I don't think there is anything meaningful that can be done at this point.

Short term I agree, not much. Ideally we reduce demand for power, by reducing population. The only moral way to do that is get the entire worlds population living like the US/Western Europe/Japan to reduce birth rates. Population may actually peak later this century so encouraging that by taking the environmental hit to provide more power, clean water, and education to the third world would be good.

Prioritize nuclear, solar, wind and then natural gas over coal and oil. Could be good for the US selling natural gas, GE turbines, and Westinghouse advanced reactors.

Increasing efficiency means markets wouldn't necessarily have to decrease as population decreases.

All this would take at least a century.

 

[bshole]

Paratus,

Like I give a damn what happens after I die....

 

[GaiaHunter]

Short term I agree, not much. Ideally we reduce demand for power, by reducing population. The only moral way to do that is get the entire worlds population living like the US/Western Europe/Japan to reduce birth rates. Population may actually peak later this century so encouraging that by taking the environmental hit to provide more power, clean water, and education to the third world would be good.

Prioritize nuclear, solar, wind and then natural gas over coal and oil. Could be good for the US selling natural gas, GE turbines, and Westinghouse advanced reactors.

Increasing efficiency means markets wouldn't necessarily have to decrease as population decreases.

All this would take at least a century.

The main problem is how to store the electric energy.

Batteries simply aren't good enough.

Would be a lot better to invest in battery research.

 

[GaiaHunter]

So all those climate models trying to model the tropical tropospheric 20S-20N temperature?...

Seriously you are going to keep using that and keep on editing your post?

How about you know what those words you posted mean and what that graph you posted shows. Then compare it to what the models are supposed to predict, the error confidence levels, and what they are predicting for, along with where the problems in the models can arise based on "short term" events.

Considering the troposphere has 80% of the mass of the atmosphere and pretty much all the water vapour and aerosols and considering that the troposphere is much deeper over the tropics, it seems a reasonable place.

I'm sure in 100 years or maybe a 1000 years we can look back and see if the models were right or not for what the temperature would be in 100 years from now.

But I guess that is not the reason there are hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on them.

Anyway, what "short term" events have occurred to explain the failure of the models?

 

[Paul98]

Considering the troposphere has 80% of the mass of the atmosphere and pretty much all the water vapour and aerosols and considering that the troposphere is much deeper over the tropics, it seems a reasonable place.

So are you saying that that graph represents 80% of the mass of the atmosphere?

 

[BlueWolf47]

For some reason GaiaHunters graph seems completely made up.

 

[Paul98]

For some reason GaiaHunters graph seems completely made up.

Because it isn't a graph of global temperature, which I was trying to point out without any luck.

 

[BlueWolf47]

Because it isn't a graph of global temperature, which I was trying to point out without any luck.

O. well then what in the hell is the point of it lol.

 

[bshole]

BlueWolf,

If there hasn't been in lull in global warming, why are global warming "scientists" seeking to explain the lull? Why would they be seeking to explain something that is not happening?

The absence of a temperature rise over that decade is often used by "climate sceptics" as grounds for denying the existence of man-made global warming.

But the new study, in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, concludes that smog from the extra coal acted to mask greenhouse warming.

China's coal use doubled 2002-2007, according to US government figures.

Although burning the coal produced more warming carbon dioxide, it also put more tiny sulphate aerosol particles into the atmosphere which cool the planet by reflecting solar energy back into space.

Damn my brothers, instead of imposing a multi-trillion dollar expense on the world economy, all we had to do was have China burn some coal. LMFAO. These guys utterly kill me. I don't know what it is but it sure the hell ain't science. Tea leaves and wild conjecture.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14002264

 

[GaiaHunter]

Because it isn't a graph of global temperature, which I was trying to point out without any luck.

Do you know what the CMIP-5 stands for?

Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5

Those models over there will be the basis for the IPCC 5th AR.

But, hey, they are not valid models.

 

[GaiaHunter]

For some reason GaiaHunters graph seems completely made up.

The red line in your graph is GISTEMP.

Interesting you chose to use the 1981 Hansen instead of more recent Hansen papers.

But let me get that image again.

And lets add these.

Interesting, isn't it.

 

[BlueWolf47]

I was merely pointing out that the models haven't been as wrong others have been stating.

 

[Paul98]

Do you know what the CMIP-5 stands for?

Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5

Those models over there will be the basis for the IPCC 5th AR.

But, hey, they are not valid models.

I am not talking about the models I am talking about your actual temperature graph. And it shows you just grab random graphs without knowing what they even are for or from.

 

[monovillage]

I was merely pointing out that the models haven't been as wrong others have been stating.

Yes, they've only been very, very, very wrong. ..............and a LOL at Skeptical Science.

 

[GaiaHunter]

I am not talking about the models I am talking about your actual temperature graph. And it shows you just grab random graphs without knowing what they even are for or from.

You think global models don't have troposphere projections based on latitude?

 

[bshole]

Well I think the global warming theorists slipped one by us.....

All the charts and evidence in the past was based on land only measurements. Well since that wasn't getting 'er done, went to this new bastardized methodology and lo and behold we have a crisis again!

These guys play dirty...

The first decade of the 21st century was the world's warmest in 160 years and was marked by a number of extreme climate events, a United Nations agency has found.
A new report by the World Meteorological Organization says that in the period between 2001 and 2010, global warming accelerated since the 1970s and broke more countries' temperature records than ever before.

The report, released on Wednesday, says the period was the "warmest decade on record since modern meteorological records began around the year 1850."
Average land and ocean surface temperatures from 2001 to 2010 rose above the previous decade and were almost a half-degree above the 1961-90 global average

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...me-weather-climate-change-united-nations.html