Global Warming Trend Is 'Only One-Half of the Climate Model Simulations,' Says New Paper
A new satellite global temperature data series bolsters the case that climate models are running way too hot.
The latest suite of climate models collectively projects that the average temperature of the global atmosphere should be increasing at the rate of about 0.28–0.29 degrees Celsius per decade. But how do these model projections compare to actual temperature data? It depends.
Let's first take a look at research using surface thermometer data assembled from weather stations, ocean-going ships, and buoys. The Berkeley Earth team reports that since 1980, the global average temperature is increasing at the rate of 0.19 degrees Celsius per decade. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) finds that the global average temperature has been increasing at the rate of 0.18 degrees Celsius per decade since 1981. NASA's GISTEMP data set reports an increase of 0.19 degrees Celsius per decade. The U.K.'s Hadley Centre finds the increase is about 0.20 degrees Celsius per decade.
The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts reports the global average temperature trend generated by its fifth-generation atmospheric reanalysis (ERA5). Reanalysis is a blend of observations with past short-range weather forecasts rerun with modern weather forecasting models. From 1979 on, the ERA5 calculates that the global average temperature has been increasing at a rate of 0.19 degrees Celsius per decade. The Japan Meteorological Agency's JRA-55 reanalysis finds the per-decade rate of increase is 0.18 degrees Celsius.
Climate researchers also have access to temperature data sets derived from satellite measurements that essentially measure temperature trends in the whole atmosphere (troposphere) beginning in 1978. The first satellite data set was devised by University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH) climate researchers John Christy and Roy Spencer. According to UAH measurements, the rate of global average temperature increase is running at 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade.
Researchers don't just read numbers off satellite feeds to discover temperature trends. They must take into account the orbital decay of satellites, the deterioration of instruments, and changes related to replacing satellites over time. Another team of researchers at Remote Sensing Systems has parsed the satellite data and derived a tropospheric temperature trend of 0.18 degrees Celsius per decade. Clearly, this more closely matches the surface thermometer trends.
In March, another team associated with NOAA's Center for Satellite Applications and Research (STAR) reported in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres its analysis of the satellite temperature data. Earlier, the STAR researchers had calculated that the temperature trend for the total troposphere (TTT) was about 0.16 degrees Celsius per decade. After making further adjustments, the STAR team in March lowered the trend to a bit over 0.14 degrees Celsius per decade.
"The total TTT trend found in this study was only one-half of the climate model simulations," the STAR researchers note. "Possible reasons for the observation-model differences in trends may include climate model biases in responding to external forcings, deficiencies in the post-millennium external forcings used in model simulations, phase mismatch in natural internal climate variability, and possible residual errors in satellite data sets." Translation: The models simply run too hot, the historical inputs like volcanic aerosols and ozone to the models may be wrong, a temporary natural cooling trend could be masking warming, and adjustments to the satellite data may be wrong.
The STAR researchers tellingly add that their findings are "consistent with conclusions in McKitrick and Christy (2020) for a slightly shorter period (1979–2014)." In that 2020 study, environmental economist Ross McKitrick and Christy compared the outputs of the latest suite of climate models to satellite, weather balloon, and reanalysis products. They found that every one of the 38 new generation "climate models exhibits an upward bias in the entire global troposphere as well as in the tropics." The models are predicting much more warming than appears to be occurring. Again, they are running too hot.
The new STAR study researchers do additionally observe, "A striking feature is that trends during the latest half period (around 0.21–0.22 K/decade) nearly doubled the trends during the first half period (around 0.10–0.12 K/decade) for the global and global ocean means. These large differences in TTT trends between the first and second half periods suggest that the tropospheric warming is accelerating." It is worth noting that this accelerated trend is still about a third lower than the average of the model projections.
However, McKitrick in a preliminary analysis over at Climate Etc. finds, "the new NOAA data do not support a claim that warming in the troposphere has undergone a statistically-significant change in trend."
Given that climate science is continually evolving, it's a good idea to heed University of Colorado climate policy researcher Roger Pielke Jr.'s admonition to "be careful celebrating the results of any one study too much, because science moves ahead and there is no guarantee that any single paper stands the test of time."
In his comparison of new STAR data with other temperature data sets, NASA climate modeler Gavin Schmidt gamely points out, "The upward trends differ slightly for sure, but they are all recognizably describing the same climate change." But, in fact, all of the surface and satellite temperature trends are considerably lower than the average of the projections made by the most recent set of climate models.
Average global temperature has increased by about 1.1 degrees Celsius since the late 19th century. If the rate of warming is not in fact accelerating, rough extrapolations of the lowest and highest rates of warming derived from the observational records suggest that unabated global warming would further boost average temperatures between 1 and 1.6 degrees Celsius by the end of this century. Such an increase is in line with recent research that finds that the average global temperature is likely to rise by 2100 to about 2.2 degrees Celsius above the 19th century baseline. That's not nothing, but such an increase is unlikely to be catastrophic for future generations.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Just like "proofs" never made anyone stop believing in God, actual data or logic or analysis will not persuade the climate change theology. Religionists gonna religion.
Follow the science, unless it's science you disagree with.
Just work online and earn money. He now makes over $500 a day by working from home. I made $19,517 last month just doing this online job 2 hours a day. so easy and no special skills required…(n25) You can run google and then make this work.
.
.
More information can be found here……… https://Www.Coins71.Com
Isn't that the way?
Climate change is the new faith.
Just announce you are "science' and then everyone will be forced to agree with you!
So why is the Evangelical Climate Scientist of the Year award handed out by vaxxers rather than climate hypesters?
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2014/07/he-maketh-me-to-lie-down-in-green.html
Nobody is reading your retarded vv link stop trying
Mike, great work. I appreciate your work since I presently make more than $36,000 a month from one straightforward internet business! I am aware that you are now making a good living online starting sb-05 with merely $29,000, and they are simple internet operational chores.
.
.
Just click the link—————>>> http://Www.jobsrevenue.com
Quit pushing your vv scam site, Shrike. Nobody's falling for it.
Maybe it's just the way you worded that, but the burden of proof lies with those who would assert that there is a God (or some such thing(s)).
Yeah I did the analogy backwards because traditionally "proofs" have been of the existence of God, not of the lack of one. But the analogy I was trying to make goes the other way. Oh well I think the point stands.
The problem with this analogy is how do you test for the existence of God? Do you have 1000 atheist declare 'if God exists, have him strike me down' and a control group that doesn't? If no one dies, does this prove God exists, or that God doesn't play stupid games? Even in the Old Testament God didn't strike down people simply for not believing in him. He didn't strike down the Egyptians because they didn't believe in him, but because they didn't release the Israelites from bondage. He didn't strike down Sodom and Gomorrah because they didn't believe in him, but because they were exceedingly corrupt and not a single caring person could be found by his archangels. He didn't flood the Earth (although both of these are largely considered analogies as opposed to hard history by most Christians) because they didn't believe in him, but because they had grown exceedingly decadent and sinful. Climate change on the other hand is a measurable (or not) phenomenon. Is it warming and is that warming manmade? The first is a yes, albeit at a much lower rate than the models suggest. The second is debatable and largely based upon correlation.
As for those who say it's up to Christians to prove the existence of God, I ask, what test can we do? How do we test the hypothesis? The difference, the big difference, between theists and climate change nihilists, is that theists will admit to going on faith, while the nihilists deny any faith and insist it's 'the science', even as they often ignore the actual science.
>>how do you test for the existence of God?
there was a court case. George Burns was there
One big difference is that some kid taught that the earth is flat or 6000 years old harms no one but himself, and then only if he wants to be a long distance navigator or teach college geology. Whereas someone taught that it's his duty to mutilate kids or make them honorary KKK revivalists or foment a Marxian revolution is on the road to being a criminal.
I'd much rather have a flat young Earther dictator than a woke dictator.
And I'm areligious, a don't-give-a-shitist.
That's easy, the Bible explicitly lays out the experimental procedure in 1 Kings 18:20-40. Any god that fails it the way Baal did is exactly as false as Baal.
No, because that was a prophet, acting through the grace of God, to prove to the people of Israel. But, the birth of Christ fulfilled the prophecies, and the need for God to demonstrate to his chosen people was no longer paramount. Those who accepted Christ do so through faith. Jesus was the ultimate 'proof' in the Christian world, and the need for God to prove himself is no longer there, after Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. God also stated that no one should test him. Jesus said as much too. Ergo, the test given in 1 kings was a one time thing. A proof of concept for a select group under unique circumstances.
It helps if you read the Bible in it's entirety rather than pick and choose. If you only read 1 Kings, you would have missed subsequent chapters that commanded the Israelites not to test God, and also failed to understand that Jesus' resurrection was to be the ultimate 'proof' that God exists.
What about the billions that are not Christians. Why do you assume their god is not THE god or that their gods are wrong. Why would god allow other religions to confuse and mislead billions of people? Certainly not a loving thing to do. Poor child born in India that is never exposed to Christianity but otherwise leads what we would consider to be a virtuous life gets stomped by a cow and goes to hell because he didn't believe in the right god? Yeah right...
Begin now earning every month an extra amount of $17k or more just by doing very simple and easy online job from home. I have received $18953 in my last month direct in my bank acc by doing this easy home base job just in my part time for 2 hrs maximum a day online. Even a child can now do this job and earns money online. Everybody can get this home job right now and start earning dollars online by follow details here..........
SITE. —> usdtwork.com
The Bible actually doesn't say that. It says those who believe are automatically saved but that God is the ultimate judge and we shouldn't judge others. So, nice try. But the Bible actually doesn't say that. Also, in this day and age, how many people do you think haven't heard of Christ?
I don't assume anything of the sort. I believe Christ died for my sins, and believing in this means I am saved. I believe God is the only true God, but that I am not fit to pass judgement on others, nor to force them to comply with my wishes, as both of these contradicts God's commandments. I am a sinner, ergo, I am unsuited to judge others, but to love my neighbor as God teaches, regardless of their beliefs. This doesn't mean accepting their sins, but loving them despite their sins, as they should love me despite my sins. I won't debate who is and isn't saved, as God strictly forbids this. I will say I believe God is the one true God, that salvation through believing in Christ is promised in the Bible and the one sure path to salvation but the Bible says we will be surprised on Judgement Day by those who are and are not saved. For the billions who don't believe in Christ (Muslims actually believe Christ was a prophet, so they're a special case of belief) or God (Jews and Muslims believe in God) I believe are missing out, but that is as far as I will go. God is the ultimate judge, I will not attempt to usurp his authority.
I think that's a good interpretation. (I'm not a Christian, but I know a fair bit about it and great respect for people with beliefs like yours) But there have been Christian groups (Puritans for example) who did believe that unbaptized (including infant children who died before they could be baptized) went to hell.
Yeah, there have been. Even the Catholic church taught they went to purgatory (which allowed the chance to go to heaven) but the Bible doesn't actually state that.
Actually, the Bible is fairly vague about who is going to Heaven other than saying those who believe are saved.
What about the billions that are not Christians. Why do you assume their god is not THE god or that their gods are wrong.
Mrs. ROTI is a former LDS. Apparently, you're given a pass on the whole "required to believe" thing if you're never told about Jesus, etc.
I pointed out that "spreading the word" messes up people who would have been better off if left alone. That's the very definition of a dick move.
Contrary to what was said, you do not get a "free pass" for knowing nothing about Jesus, you are merely not automatically sent to hell. The Christian belief is that all individuals receive a moral conscience and are expected to follow it to the best of their ability and ensure that conscience does not get corrupted. King Solomon once said to Shimei:
"Thou knowest all the wickedness which thine heart is privy to, that thou didst to David my father." - 1 Kings 2:44
John further states:
"Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God." - 1 John 3:21-22
Peter enlightens us with this passage:
"For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." - 1 Peter 4:6
Depending on how one follows that conscience plays a major part in his final judgement. But in any case, he will eventually have an opportunity to hear about Jesus, whether living or dead. You and your wife have a completely wrong grasp of Christian tenets.
I will also add that "spreading the word" does not make one worse off, let alone a "dick move", unless you want to believe that an aspiring engineer is better off not learning about and engaging in designing building, vehicle, computer, etc. architecture as well as participating in the actual construction and execution because it would protect him from the risks associated with it. It won't have him get any productivity done however, nor will it put him in a position to teach others those same engineering concepts.
The same is true with Christianity (see Luke 12:48)--preaching to an individual and the event that he accepts it can put him in a risk of a worse position if he proceeds to fall away and abandon his commitments. However, if the convert strives to do his best to follow the principles for his new religion, he will be much better off than if he never had that opportunity. This has been seen in millions of individuals, and also in me personally.
"If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full." - John 15:10-11
Ah, the usual rationalizations from the self-deluding unbeliever.
Yes, unbeliever. The fact is that you do not believe, you do not have any actual faith in Christ.
The prophets of Baal in that story, praying for their god to light the altar? They had faith. Misguided, sure, but they actually believed, which is why they expected Baal to light the fire. They asked, certain they’d receive. They didn’t imagine they were testing Baal, any more than when I show someone my car, I imagine I’m testing my car’s existence. They thought they were simply demonstrating Baal’s reality to the unbeliever.
You, however, know that no matter how sincerely and devoutly you ask, you will not receive. Your definition of “test”, accordingly, is any case of asking for something observable. You know that you cannot ever demonstrate your god’s existence, because, in your heart of hearts, you know he doesn’t.
Lacking even a mustard seed’s worth of faith, but taught from childhood that faith is a virtue, you then desperately hide your unbelief from yourself behind any excuse you can find.
There are a small number of people in this world who, astonishingly enough, actually believe in Christ. And if, by some weird chance, he actually exists, they’ll get the rewards promised them. But in that case, you’ll cry “Lord, Lord!” and he will answer “I never knew you; depart from me.”
But go on, unbeliever. Keep mouthing the words, keep repeating the excuses. Either Christ is false, and it will profit you nothing; or Christ is real, and you shall receive the greater damnation.
What a word salad to explain that you don't understand faith. All the proof I needed is when Mary visited the grave and the stone was rolled away and the angel appeared to her and said 'he is not here'. That was the ultimate and only test needed. Since you can't judge my faith, you imply I have none because I refute you simply test. And I refute it because of the very words that are written in the Bible. God commanded us not to test him. You say by following his commandment that proves I don't have faith. What a circular argument. If you truly believe in him, you will disobey him and test him despite him saying not to test him and if he is tested, without his consent, he won't participate. Elijah's test worked because the test was commanded by God, it wasn't because Elijah decided to make a test. It was because God chose to prove himself through Elijah. Furthermore, Jesus said that those who believe in him without needing to touch his wounds are more faithful than Thomas who needed to touch his wounds before he believed. You state that believing in the very things the Bible teaches is somehow proof of not having faith. That going against the Bible and demanding proof is the truth test of faith? That makes absolutely zero sense or logic. Faith is believing without the need for proof. That is the entire definition of faith. I am arguing that your test is a bogus test simply because it ignores that the test you propose was a special circumstance, and that God forbids us to test him, but that he will reveal himself when he wants not when we want him to. So, believing in the words of the Bible is lacking faith?
Also, I will not judge what Jesus will say, because he also teaches us not to judge or predict it, but to love him and worship him, and accept him. You say I have no faith.
I say to you, that your tests wouldn't change my faith, rather the bull was burned or not, as it proves nothing. I state even if the bull remains unburned, I know God exists, and that the test failed, not because God doesn't exist but because I am not Elijah chosen to perform the test and that by performing the test, against God's commandments, the failure isn't God's but my own, for disobeying him.
Remember what did Jesus say when the devil told him to jump from the highest tower and prove his divinity? Did he jump?
Dark matter. Dark energy. The golf ball before the Big Bang.
I’m agnostic. Agnostics should let good people believe or theorize how the golfball formed. Especially if they’re not hurting or manipulating anyone. Physicists have FAITH they will find answers to these questions. We all have faith in something.
Actual data isn’t faith.
The faith is that they'll find the data. It's like string theory. Physicists continue to work on it despite the math never working out.
If they can’t find proof they’ll be forgotten.
I think that’s an important distinction.
Will they? I mean Lamarck still gets taught. And actually, some even are reconsidering if he didn't have a point, with the new field of epigenetics. The medical field has known for some time ulcers are caused by a bacteria, but doctors still tell you to modify you caffeine intake to avoid ulcers. Or for that matter, how wrong was Ehrlich? Yet, people still quote him.
For that matter, how many people still claim to be Marxists? Or say Krugman is an economic expert?
As a Christian, I'm quite happy and satisfied saying God and Jesus are articles of faith. I see them in everything in the world, but I cannot prove their existence nor do I care to do so.
Exactly. Also, one never proves the null hypothesis (i.e. God doesn't exist) you test against the null hypothesis and either reject of fail to reject the null hypothesis. The p-value can be 0.9999 but that doesn't prove the null hypothesis is true. This is what people who make the prove God exists argument miss. Yes, I can't prove God exists, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't exist. It simply means the test doesn't show he exists. You don't ever accept the null hypothesis. That isn't how science works. You simply test against the null hypothesis. A failure of to prove your hypothesis doesn't mean the null hypothesis by default is correct. It means either your hypothesis was incorrect, or needs refining, or that your tests parameters failed to support your hypothesis. Take an experimental design course and write on one of your papers when the p value is > 0.05 that your conclusion is 'to accept the null hypothesis' and see how your professor grades that paper. I'm betting (after taking several years of these courses as an undergrad and graduate student) that the professor won't be amused.
This is the biggest problem with the argument that the burden of proof is on those making the largest claim. Scientifically speaking, failure to prove a claim doesn't mean that the claim is automatically rejected and the null hypothesis proven. I remember I once did an experiment in physics using a torque wrench, at the University, we crunched the numbers multiple times, the professor crunched the numbers with us, but we all came up with 100+% efficiency in the system. Did we disprove the existence of friction in the system? Of course not, the experiment obviously was flawed for some reason. Another time, in O chem, using a vacuum distiller, we ended up with more product than reactant, did we prove the existence of spontaneous creation? In my masters project, I failed to show that my treatment had a significant impact on years microbial colony forming units. Does this mean my treatment didn't impact yeast growth, or that I failed to prove it did? When we wrote up the paper, we didn't claim that the results proved the treatment didn't impact yeast colony growth, but that the results failed to show an impact on yeast colony growth, this is a big difference. We failed to show a difference but that doesn't rule out that there might be a difference that we failed to detect.
Of course. That's why it's religion and not science or philosophy. Unless a god does manifest itself in some physically measurable way, there won't be any proof for or against its existence.
Exactly. You can't test it unless God agrees to be tested. It requires faith, that he exists despite not being able to prove it.
Earning extra $15,000 or more online while working part-time is a quick, simple way to make money. I made $17,000 last month from working in my spare time, and I’m now really content as a result of this job. You can do this right now by following. . Proper right here I started
———————————————— https://richsalaries5.blogspot.com
One step beyond that is the realization that the lies Christian National Socialists spread about reefer madness, LSD mutations, cocaine Negroes and similar drivel in every case demand initiating the violence of law to rob and murder the harmless. It's easy to imagine the anti-energy movement as unequal yet apposite reprisal force intended not to save baby seals or any such drool, but rather, as a way to make it possible for other, more dangerous enemies to murder the Christianofascists. Observe the schadenfreude with which each looter faction watches harm come to the other. Disaster befalling both seems kinda karmic.
Meanwhile, back in the ocean covering most of the planet, sea surface temperatures have been overtaken oceanographic models.
Double digit warming anomalies were recorded in March on the East Coast, and as can be seen:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2023/04/on-beach-double-digit-ocean-heat.html
are outrunning the latest El Nino
Omg, omg. The seafood is going to cook itself.
Ahhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!! We're all gonna die!!! Run for the hills!!!!!!!
At the rate sea levels are rising (or not), we won't have to run too fast.
Or too far - - - - - - - -
Even Trump has upped his sea level rise estimate— nothing concentrates the mind live living between a Mar & a Lago
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2023/04/climate-refugees-swamp-appalachia-as.html
Oh, goodie! A link to a bullshit site.
Eat shit and die.
For some reason Shrike thinks people won't notice the vv isn't a w.
When one claimed apocalypse fails, move on to the next. Wash, rinse, repeat.
I am making a real GOOD MONEY ($550 to $750 / hr) online from my laptop. Last month I GOT chek of nearly 85000$, this online work is simple and straightforward, don't have to go OFFICE, Its home online job. You become independent after joining this JOB. I really thanks to my FRIEND who refer me this SITE. I hope you also got what I...go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart......
SITE. —> ustdking
Comparing one year to 30 year average is bullshit. The average smooths out anomalies, and there is no proof that the March temperatures where anything but an anomaly brought up on but the third year in a row La Nina weather pattern and the subsequent high pressure trough in the Polar region. To compare you would have to find similar circumstances and compare them side by side. If they don't exist, you could argue that the very existence of these circumstances might be the result of climate change, but comparing a single high temperature to a 30+ year average is lying by statistics. Additionally, we should look at the curve of temperatures through that period, is it evenly distributed, or right or leftward biased? If it's rightward biased, this suggests March temperatures tend to run warm anyhow, with some cold seasons lowering the average, if leftward biased, than it would suggest the temperatures run cold, with some high temperatures increasing the average. Since we know the Gulf Stream exists and heavily moderated temperatures in coastal areas of both North America and Europe (especially Europe, which is largely further north than North America and thus should be much more polar or sub-polar than it is) I would venture the hypothesis that the curve is most likely rightward biased.
Additionally, what were the surface temperatures in February? January, December? Were the above or below average? This would be important because the polar high pressure system didn't kick in until March, pushing a cold front over the central US, but pushing warmer weather out of the Gulf to the Northeast. This has been well documented. Remember climate isn't weather. What you're reporting is weather, not climate until you show a long term trend. A single data point is useless in this discussion.
Another question is how many deviation points is this data from the mean? That would give a far better idea of how big this anomaly is from previous data. If it's one deviation, than it's not that big a difference, two still not huge. Three it's starting to verge on significant. If you are going to compare a single data to large average, you need to include how many deviations from the mean the data point is in order to judge it's significance. Without that, it's a meaningless comparison.
Per the God argument(s) above, even in the internal context of the its own belief system, a single weather/climate anomaly of any relative magnitude doesn't confirm a trend, definitively.
Yes.
As I've said, given the age of the Earth, worrying about warming over 130 years on a SIX BILLION YEAR OLD planet is like freaking out that your temperature increased by one degree on 5/5/2022 at 12:01:45A and stayed there until 12:01:46A.
Still pushing the fake website I see.
Pick up on the sockbot.
"Such an increase is in line with recent research that finds that the average global temperature is likely to rise by 2100 to about 2.2 degrees Celsius above the 19th century baseline. That's not nothing, but such an increase is unlikely to be catastrophic for future generations."
"HOW DARE YOU!!!"
The Swedish Potato is my font of every science!
So does this mean we have twice as long as we thought until we all shrivel up and die? I'm glad we have until 2010 before we're all dead. 2015 at the outside.
According to the Population Bomb, we only have till the year 2000. That's just 23 years away!
Nice!
*SNERK!*
Realclimatescience dotcom documents hundreds of doomcrier deadlines going back to before the Millerites' Great Disappointment. Mass hysteria converts superstition into coin with no Philosopher's Stone needed.
We knew these climate models were running way too hot in the late 90s, early 2000s. Why are we still having this discussion?
Because every year the trumpet how much worse it is then we know, and this is the very last chance to 'do something's and now they actually have enough power to do what they've always wanted? Just spitballing here.
I am making a real GOOD MONEY ($550 to $750 / hr) online from my laptop. Last month I GOT chek of nearly 85000$, this online work is simple and straightforward, don't have to go OFFICE, Its home online job. You become independent after joining this JOB. I really thanks to my FRIEND who refer me this SITE. I hope you also got what I...go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart......
SITE. —> ustdking
"Never let a crisis go to waster, because it gives you an opportunity to do something you otherwise could not."
And of course you create the "crisis" as necessary.
They have been lying for half a century.
Which is a miracle considering we all drowned a quarter century ago
There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo.
"This could increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit," he wrote. "This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter."
Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.
I don't see a downside. Too bad he was wrong.
Scuba diving the remains of DC and NYC would fucking rock.
DON'T TALK ABOUT GOOD NEWS ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE!!!
We'll add this new don't-talk-about-it topic to the list.
Poor mike
Yet another amazingly stupid take.
It was just a week ago Bailey was defending climate alarmism.
"Translation: The models simply run too hot, the historical inputs like volcanic aerosols and ozone to the models may be wrong, a temporary natural cooling trend could be masking warming, and adjustments to the satellite data may be wrong."
More accurate "translation:" There is absolutely no reason to disrupt the economies of the world's developed nations in a panic to "Save the Earth." (Not that there ever was...)
I think you may be on to something....
"...to disrupt the economies of the world’s developed nations"
Climate hysteria is just a means to that end.
"Climate hysteria is just a means to that end."
Yeah, and it would hurt developing nations even worse.
I had something for this... something about "you wanna make an omelette ..."
More testing needed!
I am making a real GOOD MONEY ($550 to $750 / hr) online from my laptop. Last month I GOT chek of nearly 85000$, this online work is simple and straightforward, don't have to go OFFICE, Its home online job. You become independent after joining this JOB. I really thanks to my FRIEND who refer me this SITE. I hope you also got what I...go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart......
SITE. —> ustdking
But we, and everything else, is supposed to die of climate change by 2035. Won’t some folks be disappointed if we don’t.
By 2000; see above
Fuck that, we were all supposed to have frozen to death before I was even born, way back in like 1974 or something, which predates me a smidge.
2035; Before social security runs out!
So that's why congress keeps kicking that can down the road; it's a dead end!
I read a study one time that the environmental movement uses the exact same tactics for recruiting and keeping recruits as cults do. And just like Apocalyptic cults, when the apocalypse doesn't happen, they just explain it away, and their cult members nod their head and ask for another cup of Kool aid.
Arguing about computer models is ALWAYS about encouraging fraud and delusion. Doesn't matter what side you are arguing. The model is not reality. Never has been. Never will be. But hey maybe we can completely undermine the others model and in so doing create whatever fucking reality we can invent as easily as we invented the model. This is pathetic.
How many trillion dollars have been spent and wasted based on models?
If I had trillions, I’d waste it on models.
...
Same.
Do I want to ask whether that's like Victoria Secret angels or little plastic scale airplanes?
Because I'm fine with either one. Hell, go for both. They're small. They don't take up too much space.
When you're basing policy that forces decisions on people, especially ones that will decrease their standard of living, decrease their financial well being, take away their employment, and lower the life expectancy, based on models you best fucking make sure your models are accurate. We told you the same fucking thing with COVID, when you used the same asinine argument. And we were right, maybe learn something from your mistakes. But I doubt you'll admit you made a mistake and deny it. Because, that's par for the course.
"Arguing about computer models is ALWAYS about encouraging fraud and delusion..."
Yeah, you could always run around with a PANIC!!!! flag, and claim the world's gonna end from a bad head cold
For a good laugh at Artificial Idiocy, ask ChatGTP "By what standard is good distinguished from evil?"
It's not science based, it's religion.
No, it's a model of a religion.
It’s a particularly stupid religion.
And HOLY SHIT do they get pissed off when you call it one...
I honestly think it’s a replacement.
>>The latest suite of climate models
this could be a much better party than the reality portrays.
The key to the satellite data is that we are not seeing the proverbial blade to the hockey stick, the nonlinear increase in temperature with time that models have been predicting would happen due to positive feedback effects, that has been motivating the "30 years till the world ends" talk. The temperature rise, per satellite data, can be taken as roughly linear at 1.5 deg-C per century
This is important because society has more time to craft a logical, science-based transition to carbon-free energy sources, conduct research, and devise mitigation strategies. Why this does not include nuclear energy is beyond me, and makes me question the sincerity of the climate change alarmists.
This is important because society has more time to craft a logical, science-based transition to carbon-free energy sources, conduct research, and devise mitigation strategies.
This still presumes that CO2 is the primary driver of that temperature change.
Yeh, and multivariate regression shows that CO2 doesn’t make it into the top five drivers (solar energy, distance from sun, wobble, El Niño/La Niña, etc). That means that the effect of CO2 is in the noise of these primary drivers.
Not surprisingly, in the study that showed that 95% of Climate Scientists agreed that CO2 had some effect on the Earth’s temperature, physicists and astrophysicists were excluded from the survey, presumably because they knew better.
And note the wording, CO2 has some impact. Well, duh, any gas has some impact. The question is how much impact. That's the ticket and what they never address. I'm not a big proponent of AGW, but I'll say yes, CO2 adds to heating, and man made CO2 adds to that CO2, but is it the primary driver? Fuck if I know, my masters in biology.
Fuck if I know, my masters in biology.
Notice the global warming hysterics are not engineers or physicists. They're lawyers, political scientists, big government / anti-business activists, and social scientists.
the “30 years till the world ends” talk. The temperature rise, per satellite data, can be taken as roughly linear at 1.5 deg-C per century
The 30 years til the world ends talk has nothing to do with some temperature trend going non-linear. That talk is entirely about a goal of keeping the temp increase to a cap of 1.5C.
For whatever reason, a slew of people just can’t seem to comprehend that there was NEVER any possibility of keeping the temp increase capped at 1.5C. We are currently at 1.2C or 1.3C. By 2035 or 2040 or so, it will be 1.5C. And then it will keep increasing. The world is not going to end in 2035 or2040 or so. ‘Global warming’ will not be falsified if someone projects 2037 for that but it occurs in 2042.
These ‘conversations’ really are all complete bullshit. Nor do they have a damn thing to do with climate change – or anything other than political ranting. The only thing the conversations provide evidence of is that basic intelligence seems to be inversely related to earth temperature. Perhaps even non-linearly.
And there will be no logical science-based transition of anything occurring in the US. Other countries are already making energy transitions. We are simply becoming more addicted to our political power focused entirely on a fossil fuel status quo – which will ultimately result in our technological irrelevance re energy.
Did you bother to read the story? The temperatures will likely be far below 1.5 C increase at that time. That projection is based upon faulty models. But don't let actual data stop you from your fact free tirade.
"Did you bother to read the story?"
JFree? That's the asshole chicken little who claimed the world was gonna end from bad head colds if we didn't mask-up, the asshole.
The CURRENT temp increase in the Continental US from last year actual data not projections – is 1.1C. And that’s after 3 years of a La Nina. Some countries are already at 1.5C. The poles are well over 1.5C NOW
Temperatures ain’t gonna be going DOWN. They are going to be going UP. And those temps ain’t gonna be stabilizing until we hit 3C or so. So what will a 3C world look like? That is what the models should be trying figure out. Not this utter horseshit of trying to play Nostradamus.
Fuck your models and fuck you too. You people are deliberately distorting what is happening NOW because you are obsessed with arguments about misbegotten models.
"...Fuck your models and fuck you too. You people are deliberately distorting what is happening NOW because you are obsessed with arguments about misbegotten models..."
Fuck you with turd's dick, you pathetic piece of statist shit. I don't care about your 1.5*, I care about results and so far climate change is not a wolf, regardless of shits like you constantly making that that claim. Seems to be a small dog whose worst effect is barking at odd hours.
Eat shit and die, asshole.
BTW, asshole, I do care about 'models'; they are the predictions which prove or falsify climate change theory.
In science, you observe, find some condition or change, think on why that might be, form a theory as to why it is and how it will change, and then make predictions based on that.
If your predictions prove to be true, you have a valid theory (at least for a while).
The catastrophist climate change theorists have >30 years worth of predictions and not one specific prediction has yet proven true. Not a single one.
Whatever this is (it has the smell of a religion, or a political agenda), it ain't science and you can stuff your PANIC flag up your ass.
Another dupe has never even seen thermometer readings, but brays like the blind man who feels with a hand then swears the elephant is exactly like a plop of warm oatmeal.
It's a cult
And it believes in human sacrifice.
Yours, at least.
It's not picky.
people! people! Rosemary's Baby was a work of fiction.
It's a religion. Religions get money from somewhere.
As does every organization in the world. You're not in a position to talk, kiddo.
"The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change."
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y..
Submit or Die.
And if the world doesn't end on its own due to climate change, they'll make damn sure it does some other way (WW3 anyone?).
It is a real possibility that nuclear war will break out, but it is also a real possibility that it will be concentrated on North America and Europe. Which means South Americans, Africans, even Asians may survive to carry on humanity.
Begin now earning every month an extra amount of $17k or more just by doing very simple and easy online job from home. I have received $18953 in my last month direct in my bank acc by doing this easy home base job just in my part time for 2 hrs maximum a day online. Even a child can now do this job and earns money online. Everybody can get this home job right now and start earning dollars online by follow details here..........
SITE. —> usdtwork.com
"It is a real possibility that nuclear war will break out."
That would definitely register as "warmer" to the sensing devices.
I'm glad you brought this up Mike, because this topic is only 90% bullshit and something was needed to tip it over.
Sure, Schwartz. Any time.
Which sensing devices? When? One Freeze and Surrender fantasy had it that nuclear fire smoke and carbon soot "would" block sunlight and deep freeze the credulous in a "Nucular Winner." Depending on which dupe is quacking, carbon temperatures are "predicted" about a hundred degrees apart. I'd be willing to fade bets on these outcomes.
Yeah mike, nuclear fallout definitely respects national borders.
Ah yes. Farnham's Freehold, by Robert A Heinlein. Also The Outward Urge, by John Wyndham. The angry auroras should be clearly visible from where I'm sitting. Icing on the cake is the Brewer-Dodson circulation study showing almost all nuclear fallout stays on its own side of the Equator. Unlike fake climate sharknados, fallout can be scooped up and examined very closely.
And even this omits mention of the dirty little secret of global warming that the alarmists don't like to talk about:
It's not the highs coming up, it's the lows. Winter getting less cold, not summer hotter. Night warming, not day. High latitudes, not the equator. It's an averaging up process, as the greenhouse effect doesn't do anything to increase incoming energy, it just impedes it's escape, slowing the rate at which things cool down after the sun sets, and in the fall.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-seasonal-temperature
And, honestly, the surface station data is pretty unreliable these days, with most of the stations that use to be rural no longer meeting original siting criteria.
https://heartland.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/2022_Surface_Station_Report.pdf
The ones that do still meet the original criteria don't show very much warming.
with most of the stations that use to be rural no longer meeting original siting criteria.
Yup. They used to be just out of town in a field or a stand of trees and now after fifty years they're right on the edge of a parking lot or an industrial park.
Nineteen hundredths of a degree per decade.
Not even one fifth of a degree per decade. Per year? What is it per year?
2 hundredths. .02.
What's the margin of error?
Does anyone think that .02 degrees is not dwarfed by the margin of error?
How about when considering that .19 per decade means that we get a degree every 50 years. Since 1900.
But THEIR chart shows that since 1900 we've gotten 1. Just barely one.
Here's the thing about models: models aren't a scientific result, they are hypotheses. It's ridiculous that they are being used as if they are actually a valid scientific theory. If the models fail to make useful predictions then they are just wrong, no matter how fine tuned they are to model the past.
Pretty much all science is testing models. Something very few people seem to understand is that even if your data is great, if the model you base your experiment on is wrong, then you will get a garbage output.
Here's the funny part. These whack-jobs are not only obsessed about 1-degree over 100-years they actually believe they can measure such a finely tuned number globally over a 100-years...
Welcome to the Weather-Changes Indian-Dance religion of Power-Mad freak-jobs. I love how they think pointing Gov-Guns at it's citizens is going to change the weather.... It just doesn't get much stupider than this.
These reports are all so similar because they are all based on the same flawed data set and can be easily manipulated by favoring bouy data, or ship data to fit their temp change goals. Then there is the whole time of bias manipulations that fit their data to the their hypothesis.
And they all cherry-pick their time frame.
The fastest drop in "supposedly" average temperature was during WWII when more CO2 was being dumped than any other time in history.
I love how they measure warming with the start of the industrial revolution, which happened to coincide with the end of the Little Ice Age which most likely was a result of a shift in the Icelandic vortex, making all of the Northern Hemisphere far colder than it had been, really suddenly. Like, from one year to the next. It wasn't gradual, but Medieval Europe woke up one day and crops were failing due to the sudden onset of a colder climate. The surviving written journals make it abundantly clear that it was a drastic, sudden drop in temperatures that persisted from the 14th century until the 19th. I would hope temperatures have warmed since then. The chronicles don't exactly paint that time period as one of plenty. The Great Famine wiped out 20% of England's population. Which then got nailed a generation later by Bubonic plague, which was probably worsened because rodents were moving indoors to escape the cold and wet weather. Twenty percent one generation, fifty percent the next. It's no wonder that apocalyptic prophecy was so prevalent at the time. Oh and The Great Famine was induced by several summers of almost constant precipitation and cold summers, which led to massive crop failures across Europe. And the cycle repeated. Every decade or so massive crop failures leading to famine followed shortly by another round of plague. Most European countries populations didn't return to 13th century levels until the end of the 18th century. Sounds like swell times doesn't it?
And it wasn't just Europe, the Olmecs, Anasazi and Mississippian cultures all failed during this time. China saw population declines and massive famine and flooding. The Europeans just kept records were most familiar with, but it was bad across all of the Northern Hemisphere.
I've got Disco Inferno running through my head.
If you want to put climate “change” in an actual scientific context, search on “Pleistocene Temperature Graph”. You will see just how changey the earth’s climate and temperatures have been for the past 2 million years (and even before that). For the past million years, temps have risen and fallen in a somewhat regular pattern with a cycle time of about 100,000 years. And the rises have been sudden, followed by a more gradual decline.
If you really want to fret about the future of mankind, and puppies and sunflowers, consider that we are more likely due for a coming 50,000 years or more of deep freeze.
Anyway, IMO people who make a big deal out of a century of data are complete idiots.
We could accurately call it "climate cycling."
Why not? God's Own Prohibitionists use "business cycle" as a phylactery they shake to make cretins believe laws against trade and production DON'T bring market crashes, liquidity crunches, banking panics, high unemployment, financial depression and the election of "FDR the Librl" and "Black Satan" Obama for consecutive terms. Anyone who believes "free" means the same as "at gunpoint" is a sucker for mystical cyclic predictions of the hereafter and hypnotic rewriting of the past.
People have revealed their preferences, by moving to warmer climates in the US for decades (since air conditioning was invented.)
And wealthy progressives have revealed how much they really fear global warming, by buying up seaside homes.
Many years ago, I spoke with a Jehovah's Witness adherent and asked her what the poobahs do when the world doesn't end. "They move the date back", she said with a shrug.
"They", OTOH, didn't ask me to give up control of what I buy and when, like a gas furnace and a IC-powered vehicle some years hence.
A1 says the state shall favor no religion; that needs to be enforced.
Took a stats course in 1999. I emailed some U.N.climate change muckety muck asking for data on global average temps. He replied that such data doesn't tell us anything.
Sun to experience solar activity similar to that of 'Little Ice Age' hundreds of years ago
There will be another Little Ice Age in 2030, according to solar scientists – the last one was 300 years ago. - Sunday 12 July 2015
We only have 6 and a half years to heat the Earth up as much as possible so we all don't freeze to death!
Literally cooking the books to get the answer they want.
Tony Heller gives away software and datasets so you can plot temperature readings this past century. Load one such dataset into your Google Drive and mob hysteria promptly beats a path to your PC demanding you delete it or be cast down into Satanic damnation with pitchforks. Go ahead. This is a testable hypothesis and falsifiable claim perfect for betting money on the outcome. Download UNHIDING THE DECLINE for Mac, Win or Freaks at realclimatescience dotcom.
Best to download this data and code to an external drive...
Starting the temperature data series a few hundred years ago is fudging the data. Temperatures have been rising for 12,000 years or so, since the end of the last glacial maximum. Look instead at 500,000 years or more, and you’ll see that climate cycles are about 120,000 years, and we’re right about where we were 120,000 years ago. We’re not even the 3rd hottest of the last 5 cycles.
"Given that climate science is continually evolving"
Wait a second, the climate science experts (AKA Democrat politicians) keep telling me that the science is settled. How can it be settled and still evolving?
Aeronautics gets its right or planes fall out of the sky. Mechanical engineering gets it right or cars don’t run. Medicine and biochemistry get it right or people die. Architecture gets it right or buildings collapse. Electronics gets it right or the hunks of metal and glass and plastic just sit there, doing nothing. Science is all around us. “Climate change” isn’t remotely like any of that. There is no requirement or test to “get it right.” Most of the predictions fail. There is also, apparently, no negative incentive for getting it wrong. The “predictions” and “requirements” just keep coming. Maybe if we all walk on our knees to Fatima, or face Mecca when we pray, we won’t all die in a hurricane in 2030.
Bailey imagines "papers" project, talk and shriek, with never an identifiable individual showing its face. At petitionproject.org volunteers on campuses nationwide collected tens of thousands of signatures from actual scientists with real degrees and convinced the Senate the fraud was hogwash. Observe also that the Southern Hemisphere, which measurements indicate is cooling, escapes mention. The upward trend on the chart begins with the Soviet storyboard about capitalist Second Amendment causing Sharknados. 2A (http://bit.ly/3kKw26q)
California just had the coldest, wettest winter since I moved here 17 years ago.
And my recent business trip to Minnesota was interrupted by a 10-inch snowstorm, in late April.
Exactly as I predicted, after that humongous volcano blew up last year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021%E2%80%9322_Hunga_Tonga%E2%80%93Hunga_Ha%CA%BBapai_eruption_and_tsunami
Preliminary observations showed that the eruption column ejected a large amount of volcanic material into the stratosphere, leading to speculation that it would cause a temporary climate cooling effect. Later calculations showed it injected an estimated 400,000 tonnes of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere and was unlikely to have any global cooling effect...
Uh-huh...
I dunno. Seems like “religion” drives the extremes of both sides. I see a trend and perhaps the lesson is we have more time, but not infinite time. As such, perhaps we could all agree on a rationale transition balancing long term issues and immediate impacts to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Alas, no, the extremes gonna extreme.
First, you need to establish:
1) That harm will result from the issue.
And
2) That the proposed solutions will have an effect.
Neither has yet been shown, and you're bullshitting regarding "religion" on both sides; telling people they do not have the right to direct my life it not a religion.
Both looter altruist mobs call for a ruined civilization trapped as savages on a depleted planet with no chance of rebuilding the capacity for migration through space. The irony is both Teedy Rosenfeld race-suicide Nazis and ban-all-energy econazis plot a curve that leads to this same outcome. Anti-Life USED to be a chapter in Atlas Shrugged, not a how-to manual.
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.RICHEPAY.COM