Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[B-Man]

Profiteers of Climate Doom

 

The alarmists’ predictions of global warming resulting from increased CO2 in the atmosphere have failed to come true. In scientific terms, that is the end of the story. A theory that is refuted by observation is wrong.

 

But since billions of dollars in government money are flowing into the alarmists’ coffers, they endlessly try to make excuses for their theory’s failure, even as they cover up that failure by retroactively altering temperature records.

 

At Watts Up With That?, Christopher Monckton, Willie Soon and David Legates pose some questions to the profiteers.

 

A century or so from now, based on current trends, today’s concentration of carbon dioxide in the air will have doubled. How much warming will that cause? The official prediction, 1.5-4.5 degrees Celsius (2.7-8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) per doubling of CO2, is proving a substantial exaggeration.

Professor William Happer of Princeton, one of the world’s foremost physicists, says computer models of climate rely on the assumption that CO2’s direct warming effect is about a factor of two higher than what is actually happening in the real world. T

his is due to incorrect representations of the microphysical interactions of CO2 molecules with other infrared photons.

As if that were not bad enough, the official story is that feedbacks triggered by direct warming roughly triple the warming, causing not 1 but 3 degrees of warming per CO2 doubling. Here, too, the official story is a significant exaggeration, as demonstrated by Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, perhaps the world’s most knowledgeable climatologist.

The wild exaggerations of both the direct CO2 warming and the supposedly more serious add-on warming are rooted in an untruth: the falsehood that scientists know enough about how clouds form, how thunderstorms work, how air and ocean currents flow, how ice sheets behave, how soot in the air behaves.

In truth, we do not understand climate enough to make even an uneducated guess about how much global warming our adding CO2 to the air will cause.

 

 

 

The questions are all worth considering; for example:

 

Why, just two years ago, did every surface temperature dataset agree with the satellites that there had been no global warming so far in this century? And why was every surface dataset

altered

in the two years preceding the Paris climate conference – in a manner calculated to show significant warming – even though the satellite records continue to show little or no warming?

 

[OCinBuffalo]

 

Profiteers of Climate Doom

 

The alarmists’ predictions of global warming resulting from increased CO2 in the atmosphere have failed to come true. In scientific terms, that is the end of the story. A theory that is refuted by observation is wrong.

 

But since billions of dollars in government money are flowing into the alarmists’ coffers, they endlessly try to make excuses for their theory’s failure, even as they cover up that failure by retroactively altering temperature records.

 

At Watts Up With That?, Christopher Monckton, Willie Soon and David Legates pose some questions to the profiteers.

 

 

A century or so from now, based on current trends, today’s concentration of carbon dioxide in the air will have doubled. How much warming will that cause? The official prediction, 1.5-4.5 degrees Celsius (2.7-8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) per doubling of CO2, is proving a substantial exaggeration.

Professor William Happer of Princeton, one of the world’s foremost physicists, says computer models of climate rely on the assumption that CO2’s direct warming effect is about a factor of two higher than what is actually happening in the real world. This is due to incorrect representations of the microphysical interactions of CO2 molecules with other infrared photons.

As if that were not bad enough, the official story is that feedbacks triggered by direct warming roughly triple the warming, causing not 1 but 3 degrees of warming per CO2 doubling. Here, too, the official story is a significant exaggeration, as demonstrated by Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, perhaps the world’s most knowledgeable climatologist.

The wild exaggerations of both the direct CO2 warming and the supposedly more serious add-on warming are rooted in an untruth: the falsehood that scientists know enough about how clouds form, how thunderstorms work, how air and ocean currents flow, how ice sheets behave, how soot in the air behaves.

In truth, we do not understand climate enough to make even an uneducated guess about how much global warming our adding CO2 to the air will cause.

 

 

The questions are all worth considering; for example:

 

 

Why, just two years ago, did every surface temperature dataset agree with the satellites that there had been no global warming so far in this century? And why was every surface dataset altered in the two years preceding the Paris climate conference – in a manner calculated to show significant warming – even though the satellite records continue to show little or no warming?

 

Somewhere, 100 pages ago in this thread, or perhaps 100 pages ago in another, I said that "CO2 sensitivity" was exaggerated. I also said that without exaggerating CO2, there is no cause for alarm...and the ass falls out of the entire political/economic scam. EDIT: I also said there were caught sticking thermometers on blacktopped roofs and near heat vents.

 

I said it then, because in my study of the models vs. the raw data, it's the only way the raw data fits. It also explains why all of the models failed the same way, in the same places, in the same times. There were no outlier models(which I still says shows collusion) that had us cooling instead of warming, or showed an immediate catastrophe. No. Every model behaved the same way: because they were all based on the same variables, constants and factors.

 

Now, beyond proper data analysis, we have physical evidence of the CO2 sensitivity being exaggerated in 2 different ways, from 2 different, highly respected sources.

 

That's it. That's the ballgame. This is the last election where Global Warming will be attended. Now let's be real: the only thing left in the Global Warming Saga is the epilogue.

 

Epilogue:

People/posters like baskin, and the legion of others, who used to post about Global Warming here daily, but have run away and hid since ~2009, will always refuse to admit they were wrong and will be bitter about it. They are going to spend their golden years on park benches muttering "cap and trade" and "global warming is real"...just like the aging and broken Communists did after the Berlin Wall fell. 10 years from now, you'll be walking through your local park, and you'll see them. For my part, I will always hold a special place in my heart for a fellow patron of the local "political bar", who saw fit to print out 200 pages propaganda for me to read.

 

Yeah, that guy? He will be muttering on a park bench for sure. Say hi to him and his kind. It's all you can do for these pathetic people.

Edited February 16, 2016 by OCinBuffalo

[jr1]

Blizzard in Rochester today

[OCinBuffalo]

Blizzard in Rochester today

Climate is not weather. Weather is not climate.

 

Wait...which is it? I've stolen DC_Tom's autoresponse, but I'll be damned if I know how the thing works.

[B-Man]

How Not to Measure Temperature

 

Global warming alarmists purport to compute the average annual temperature over the entire surface of the Earth (most of which, of course, is ocean) to within one one-hundredth of a degree. That is, on its face, an unbelievable claim, but it becomes even more preposterous when you look at how temperatures are actually measured. A case in point comes from Anthony Watts.

 

Watts got a communication from Dr. Mark Albright, of the University of Washington:

Here is a great example of how NOT to measure the climate! On our way back to Tucson from Phoenix on Monday we stopped by to see the Picacho 8 SE coop site at Picacho Peak State Park. Note the white MMTS temperature monitor 1/3 of the way in from the left. The building is surrounded by the natural terrain of the Sonoran Desert, but instead the worst possible site adjacent to the paved road and SW facing brick wall was chosen in 2009 as the location to monitor temperature.

 

 

 

The wall and the road both radiate heat, artificially raising the temperature as recorded. That’s not all: air conditioning heat exchangers are located just a few feet away, constantly pumping out hot air:

 

I’m not saying the people who site temperature monitors locate them badly on purpose, but if you wanted to inflate temperatures artificially, this is one way you would do it. Nor is this station much of an anomaly: a majority of U.S. stations are poorly sited, which is just one of a number of issues with accurate and consistent temperature measurement. See, e.g., this study.

 

The more one learns about the surface temperature record, the more one concludes that satellite measurements are the only reliable, uncorrupted data set that we possess. Unfortunately, they go back only to 1979.

 

 

 

 

 

Plus:

 

Pentagon orders commanders to prioritize climate change in all military actions

The Washington Times

[B-Man]

The future of energy looks beautiful in these New Deal-style posters http://gizmo.do/hjdMjMe pic.twitter.com/FmmgHcSsTE

Progressive causes realize the value of propaganda..........

 

[....lybob]

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

[DC Tom]

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

 

The lowest in a whole 40 years?

[Chef Jim]

 

The lowest in a whole 40 years?

 

But it's a NEW RECORD LOW for gosh sakes.

[DC Tom]

 

But it's a NEW RECORD LOW for gosh sakes.

 

A year after the NEW RECORD HIGH.

 

Gotta be carbon. Couldn't possibly be natural variation.

[IDBillzFan]

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

 

This is only going to make ISIS stronger.

[Chef Jim]

 

A year after the NEW RECORD HIGH.

 

Gotta be carbon. Couldn't possibly be natural variation.

 

Which means it melting at an even greater rate!! Yeah, that's it.

[DC Tom]

 

This is only going to make ISIS stronger.

 

That's good. She could use it. Maybe stand up to Horus, Set, or Shesmetet for once.

[4merper4mer]

This is only going to make ISIS stronger.

If we give them jobs measuring the temperature and adding 2 degrees we could eliminate ISIS and global warming in one fall swoop.

[....lybob]

 

A year after the NEW RECORD HIGH.

 

Gotta be carbon. Couldn't possibly be natural variation.

Are you talking about yourself, I'll grant you, you seem pretty high most of the time because you know their hasn't been any record high ice cover in the arctic last year.

[3rdnlng]

And I thought this was about Climate Change or ISIS or maybe something else?

[Tiberius]

Putin!

 

http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/putin-global-warming-a-fraud/

[....lybob]

Putin!

 

http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/putin-global-warming-a-fraud/

and it's obvious that conservative climate deniers are traitors who support Russia, Iran and Venezuela

[IDBillzFan]

and it's obvious that conservative climate deniers are traitors who support Russia, Iran and Venezuela

 

You could have just stayed logged in as gatorman to post this.

[B-Man]

Unreliable climate simulations overestimate attributable risk of extreme weather and climate events

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/22/finally-a-study-that-shows-unreliable-models-are-the-root-of-overwrought-extreme-weather-events/

 

 

 

 

 

DMI disappears an inconvenient sea ice graph

 

 

 

 

 

Icy Arctic Mid February

 

https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/02/18/icy-arctic-mid-february/