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
Sunday, April 26. 2015
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Over the years, the IPPC has continually lowered its projected temperature rise. From Christopher Monckton:
... 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.