Posted on 09/22/2017 10:18:53 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Climate computer model projections of future man-made warming due to human emissions of carbon dioxide are running too hot, says a fascinating new study in Nature Geoscience. Consequently, researchers reckon that humanity has more time to prevent dangerous future climate change than had been suggested earlier by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
This is really good news. This new article shows that climate science is not yet "settled science."
Of course, this is just one article among many thousands addressing aspects of man-made climate change. While its authors are members in good standing in the climate science establishment, they could be wrong.
The Met Office attributes the temperature slowdown in the early 21st century to natural climate variations. Specifically, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation had flipped to its cool phase, thus masking ongoing man-made global warming between 1999 and 2014. If true, this would suggest that the climate models are right after all about the long-term temperature trends and that the carbon budget is smaller than the new study calculates.
These rough temperature increase calculations imply an even larger carbon budget. That might mean that humanity could burn significantly more carbon dioxide-emitting fossil fuels without necessarily crossing the 2 C above preindustrial average temperature threshold set out in the Paris Agreement.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Goebbels Warming is a scam.
There is nothing dangerous about CO2.
Computer modeling is not science.
It’s a video game................
Thank goodness they were wrong. That was a close one! Wait a minute. The sky is still falling and we are all going to die, just not as soon as they originally predicted?
They should change the name again and re-brand the religion. That seemed to help their cause the first time they weren’t seeing the predictions come to fruiting.
Fixed it.
It can be argued that these politically correct global warming models that are predicting wrong higher temperatures are masking global cooling.
The scenario attributes of “if”, “possibly”, “might”, “maybe”, “could” alone or even collectively are insufficient EMPIRICAL evidence to very materially affect public policy.
They are no better than “if not”, “possibly not”, “might not”, and “maybe not”.
Thanks Oldeconomybuyer.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/us/skeptic-of-climate-change-john-christy-finds-himself-a-target-of-suspicion.html
Take a look at these charts from John Christy at Alabama.
He has done some excellent research in the failure of the IPPC climate models.
He has also been scorned, ostracized, laughed at, etc....
If the “models” were any good, they could be initialized to the conditions of 1917, run to generate a 100-year forecast, and that forecast would match the actual historical record of the last century.
If the Warmists could do that, they would already have done it and be shouting the results from the rooftops.
The fact that they haven’t done it proves they can’t do that, and that their models are all bunk.
Faked too hot numbers and models for the present and future.
Fake, changed numbers too cold for the past.
The science is re-settled, to the current truth.
They needed a re-set, because their results kept getting further from the actuals.
More importantly, drop dead dates that are used to drive political policy, were no longer in the effective time horizon to best manipulate policy. That is main thing.
Thank you, interesting charts. I see the temps have been rising, but much more slowly than many have predicted. I would like the see more of the figures after 2010. I know that China has made major efforts to convert away from coal and toward solar as have other countries. Might be making a difference?? See my Comments 75 and 76 in the link below. Apparently the final updated IPCC report won’t be out until Sept. 2018.
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3587210/posts?q=1&;page=51
Models are models, and not facts. Other influences, such as volcanoes in recent decades can influence things. For example in the charts posted by FYC, you can see a drop in temps after 1980 and 1990. I believe there were several very ashy volcanoes shortly after 1980, and Pinatubo in 1991 was definitely followed by severe winter weather for several years in the NE US. I particularly remember a severe ice storm that was breaking off trees and telephone poles in NY state and Canada. My brother who was living in Syracuse was very impressed by that and he had lived there since the mid 1960’s. Should we have a monster like Toba, or even Tambora, our risk of temp rise would be nil for a century or a decade. The climate models simply cannot include that kind of conjecture.
Thank you, interesting charts. I see the temps have been rising, but much more slowly than many have predicted.
...
And probably due to natural variation for the most part.
Below is a link for more charts to mull over. I found the chart about warmest to coldest years on or near line 25 very interesting:
On the subject of old economy, my sweetheart has been urging me to do my banking and bill paying on line. I have resisted and prefer the old way. Now he has been bitten by the Equifax disaster. Someone hacked his Bank of American account and moved it to New York. I am wondering if I should cancel my BOA credit card which I don’t use on line. Also wonder how much danger my savings and checking accounts are in, for which I use debit cards but no internet.
The computer models are/were running *exactly* as they were designed and programmed to run.
From start to finish, every part and piece of the AGW cult was a conscious and purposely constructed scam. There were no scientists involved in this. They were all, every one of them, con artists.
And all those who fell for it are idiots.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
