Posted on 02/10/2014 4:17:31 PM PST by Vince Ferrer
I’m seeing a lot of wrangling over the recent (15+ year) pause in global average warming…when did it start, is it a full pause, shouldn’t we be taking the longer view, etc.
These are all interesting exercises, but they miss the most important point: the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.
I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH):
Whether humans are the cause of 100% of the observed warming or not, the conclusion is that global warming isn’t as bad as was predicted. That should have major policy implications…assuming policy is still informed by facts more than emotions and political aspirations.
And if humans are the cause of only, say, 50% of the warming (e.g. our published paper), then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats.
I am growing weary of the variety of emotional, misleading, and policy-useless statements like “most warming since the 1950s is human caused” or “97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming”, neither of which leads to the conclusion we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good.
Yet, that is the direction we are heading.
And even if the extra energy is being stored in the deep ocean (if you have faith in long-term measured warming trends of thousandths or hundredths of a degree), I say “great!”. Because that extra heat is in the form of a tiny temperature change spread throughout an unimaginably large heat sink, which can never have an appreciable effect on future surface climate.
If the deep ocean ends up averaging 4.1 deg. C, rather than 4.0 deg. C, it won’t really matter.
.
A lot of people don’t realy understand opportunity costs when it comes to the federal budget. In any given year, congress can only spend a dollar on one thing. If it spends a billion dollars on a satellite, for example, that’s a billion it can’t spend on maintaining the interstate highway. So yes it does make a big difference as to whether or not climate change is happening, or if it is as big of a threat climate scientists claim. Because every dollar we spend “saving the world” from a climate scenario that will not happen, is money we could spend on something that will have a positive effect on the world.
Moonbat control freaks are never wrong, just ask them.
Think about it this way:
You’re a climatologist whose income is based on government grants. You have two different models:
Model A shows a relatively stable climate - changing but not radical. No danger. No action required.
Model B shows gloom and doom - a temperature spike leading to massive flooding, species extinction etc...massive danger, immediate action required.
Which model do you suppose is more likely to continue the flow of government money?
Now you understand why 95%+ of these “models” ALL err on the same side of the equation.
They started LYING about the climate in the late 70s because that is when the communist left had fully penatrated academia and the upper echelons of the US government.
own corn farms?....you push global warming so you sell ethanol to meet govt mandates...
own open hills?...you push global warming so the govt will force energy companies to invest in wind farms...
maybe you own railroads?....no way do you want pipelines taking natural gas long distances...you want that business....
$$$$$$$$$....the elites have won again...
I want to ping that sun guy, cannot remember his name.
Sun is very big.
Earth is small.
Solar flare at all time low.
Thus we are cold.
I am waiting on the Al Gore we must feed the Sun scam.
With out the Sun, we are ice.
But maybe, if we rocket Ethanol to the Sun we will be just right....
Now they’re saying the warming is there, but it’s hiding deep in the ocean. If this were a TV show, everyone would say they’ve jumped the shark. But, this being politics the libs take this nonsense seriously. What do expect from a bunch who thinks Obamacare killing jobs is a good thing?
How about not spending it at all? How about not taking it away from taxpayers to begin with, and let them decide for themselves what "positive effect" they want to have?
Gee, there's a concept.
And therefore diverting money that should have been spent on something more useful straight to them, for their own gain.
Women and Minorities hardest hit!
And my knees and hip!
“Moonbat control freaks are never wrong...”
Right or wrong are such subjective ideas. You have to ask, how does it make you feel?
I've been reading the same thing. Of course, they can't explain why the oceans are hiding heating rather than cooling.
I see three big problems with the global warming theory:
(1) It is a theory for which every piece of evidence is proof, so it cannot be disproved.
(2) The theory and its models fail to account for the sun and the oceans.
(3) The models don't correctly predict the actual recorded data.
Fick Principle?
Hummm. They all say we are headed toward a Permian extinction like event. Perhaps the model builders should take a look at just how extreme the conditions were that brought that event about over a million year time period.
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.