Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Sunday, April 26. 2015

The bad news about climate


We are very much in favor of some global warming. We think it would be just swell. However, this just in: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are down to ‘natural variability’, says study - Duke University study looked at 1,000 years of temperature records.


So much for the terror tactics, which have never worked anyway except on the ignorant. We're in a mild inter-glacial, but not really. Technically, we are still in an ice age.

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 11:58 | Comments (16) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

This is not possibly true. The Science is Settled. Because its Science. And it's settled. And Bushdidit. We only have one month to Save The Planet. Hockey Sticks!
#1 Al Gore's Expanding Waistline (Link) on 2015-04-26 13:52 (Reply)
Daily Mail: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are down to ‘natural variability’, says study

Based on an analysis of the temperature data, the study finds that the IPCC middle-trend is more likely, and the worst-case scenario less likely. They also find that climate models are largely correct over the long term, but underestimate shorter term fluctuations.

See Brown et al., Comparing the model-simulated global warming signal to observations using empirical estimates of unforced noise, Scientific Reports 2015.
#2 Zachriel on 2015-04-26 15:05 (Reply)
I guess Duke is spreading lies because of all the money they get from energy companies or maybe they are part of the "far right loony fringe".

So can you enter climate data from 1900, or 1930, or even 1950 and get accurate current climate data? No....

Do those models take solar activity into account? No....

IPCC temperature predictions have been adjusted down pretty much since the were first made.
#2.1 mudbug on 2015-04-26 19:45 (Reply)
Don't be a Denier. What would have happened if we hadn't spent gabillions of dollars to save those 50,000,000 climate change refugees back in 2012? or was it 2013? I forgot, but it doesn't matter because the Ice Age promised back in the 1960s or '70s is here.

You people are worse than astrologers, cherry-picking facts to post-dict whatever you need to whine about.

See Ipse Dixit, et al., My First Book Of Real Weather, 2016.
#3 Brian Williams' Imagination on 2015-04-26 16:00 (Reply)
Not just the 'ignorant.' Sadly, many well-educated friends of mine (Ph.D's included!) believe in this man-made global warming nonsense.

And they are the hardest ones of all to convince that the facts are showing the environmentalist fears to be hogwash. They will cling to this narrative b/c doing otherwise makes them look like gullible fools.
#4 MissT on 2015-04-26 17:33 (Reply)
When you start by saying you analyzed 1000 years of temperature records you aren't cherry picking facts you are making them up. We have at best 100 years of actual records and 900 years of speculation. Even if we had a thousand years that would likely be statistically insignificant.
#5 b moe on 2015-04-26 19:04 (Reply)
Agree. I glanced at the Duke study summary a couple of days ago and thought it said nothing. And a thin nothing at that; neither for warming, cooling, neither, or both at the same time.
#5.1 KTWO on 2015-04-26 19:54 (Reply)
I checked wiki and the word thermometer - 1724 Fahrenheit put a scale on a thermometer. Before that it was rare, subjective and not even related. That leaves 700 years of "proxy" stuff thrown into the analysis. It's time for everyone to call "Bull Shit," on this whole scam to obtain money from and power over their fellow human beings.
#6 Guaman on 2015-04-27 06:33 (Reply)
mudbug: I guess Duke is spreading lies because of all the money they get from energy companies or maybe they are part of the "far right loony fringe".

They found that climate models are largely correct over the long term.
#7 Zachriel on 2015-04-27 08:27 (Reply)
Over the years, the IPPC has continually lowered its projected temperature rise. From Christopher Monckton:
QUOTE:
... Unnoticed, the IPCC has slashed its global-warming predictions, implicitly rejecting the models on which it once so heavily and imprudently relied. In the second draft of the Fifth Assessment Report it had broadly agreed with the models that the world will warm by 0.4 to 1.0 Cº from 2016-2035 against 1986-2005. But in the final draft it quietly cut the 30-year projection to 0.3-0.7 Cº, saying the warming is more likely to be at the lower end of the range [equivalent to about 0.4 Cº over 30 years]. If that rate continued till 2100, global warming this century could be as little as 1.3 Cº.

Official projections of global warming have plummeted since Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies told the U.S. Congress in June 1988 the world would warm by 1 Cº every 20 years till 2050 (Fig. 1), implying 6 Cº to 2100.
#7.1 mudbug on 2015-04-27 11:34 (Reply)
mudbug: In the second draft of the Fifth Assessment Report it had broadly agreed with the models that the world will warm by 0.4 to 1.0 Cº from 2016-2035 against 1986-2005.

IPCC4: For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios.

IPCC5: The global mean surface temperature change for the period 2016–2035 relative to 1986–2005 will likely be in the range of 0.3°C to 0.7°C (medium confidence).

mudbug: Official projections of global warming have plummeted since Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies told the U.S. Congress in June 1988 the world would warm by 1 Cº every 20 years till 2050 (Fig. 1), implying 6 Cº to 2100.

The amount of warming depends on emissions, which are not quite at the level of Hansen's scenario B, which predicted a 0.26 Cº/decade.
#7.1.1 Zachriel on 2015-04-27 17:35 (Reply)
Zach: The amount of warming depends on emissions, which are not quite at the level of Hansen's scenario B, which predicted a 0.26 Cº/decade.

So warming only depends on emissions? What about solar activty? Water vapor?

It was probably 15 years ago when the climatistas were going around with their hair on fire because it actually was warmer than usual, the ice caps on Mars were also much smaller. That point didn't seem to cause any wondering on their part.
#7.1.1.1 mudbug on 2015-04-27 18:02 (Reply)
mudbug: So warming only depends on emissions? What about solar activty? Water vapor?

Solar activity has decreased slightly. CO2 is the primary anthropogenic driver, which is amplified by atmospheric water vapor.

In any case, we directly quoted IPCC4 and IPCC5 to show that your statements on that subject were in error. We then noted the mistake in your other statement by pointing out that Hansen's scenarios depend on the level of greenhouse gas emission, and that emissions more closely match scenario B.
#7.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2015-04-27 18:41 (Reply)
Don’t you wonder why the name keeps changing? It started with “global warming”. Then I heard “climate change; then - climate disruption, climate devastation, climate chaos”. 46% of the states have snow on the ground. "Global Warming, not so much. "Climate Change", yep. It happens all the time. What’s next?
#8 oolioo on 2015-04-27 12:35 (Reply)
They found climate models to be accurate over "the long term "? Lmao!

So tell me about this time machine they have been keeping secret from us.
#9 b moe on 2015-04-27 22:00 (Reply)
I did some Internet research about 15 years ago . The first thermometer was created in 1833. Before that people used to look out the window. Nether method was very successful.
#10 KathK on 2015-04-28 01:20 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.