Claims that climate models overestimate warming are "unfounded", study shows

Our Chillen won't know what snow is. LOL

 

Good.

Snow is abnormal.

Having huge chunks of land covered in ice is abnormal.

The Earth is slowing getting back to full operation again. Sorry if the dumb humans may have to move some of their cities but nature really doesn't care.

 

Something that I recently found out that is directly related to this is the rise in ocean acidification?!

http://www.politicalforum.com/science/394228-ocean-acidification.html


Ocean acidification...



This trend of the oceans becoming more acidic could in fact be more dangerous even than global warming.

A number of breeds of snails now have very weak shells.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

 

Taking Fears of Acid Oceans With a Grain of Salt

 

Read the 'study'. It's a joke, looking to fit a statistical fraud to 'bad' climate data of the last 15 years.

There will be plenty more of this as climate 'science' fails to model actual climate.

Remember, if you can't model it you can't make any single economic prediction worth a crap. You are shilling for a belief, not science.

 

As the NASA scientist said, if we cut co2 production by 80 percent today, the climate will continue to warm for the next 500 years. Now given that, and given we are not talking about very much of an increase in average temps, the time for the hysteria needs to end today. All that man made co2 does is to increase the rate in which the earth warms, since we are still basically in the last ice age. When the north pole melts, and the glaciers in Greenland, we will finally be out of the ice age. The earth will warm up regardless if man is here or not. This is natural for the earth, the cycles.

We will be weaned off fossil fuels by the next century, as we deplete them, and population grows. So why make a problem where there really isn't much of a problem? Humanity has always prospered when the earth has warmed historically, and the earth greens up. Why do you guys want to keep the earth from greening up? What you got against plants, and crops being grown farther north than today? We will need this as the population grows.

 

You are ignoring the fact that when the earth warms, crops can be grown farther north and historically man has prospered from greater food production. What devastates populations is not warming, but cooling.

 

Just forget it. Pragmatic economic analysis is NOT part of the Carbonist religion.

 

And you're ignoring the fact that all that land farther north is currently occupied by other plants, mostly trees which are also crucial to the environment. Besides, warmer temperatures are not the only thing threatening our crops.

How Global Warming Will Hurt Crops

Crops face toxic timebomb in warmer world: study

 

On the Marotzke, J. and Forster, P. (2015) Forcing, feedback and internal variability in global temperature trends. that the OP is based on.

“The statistical methods used in the [Marotzke] paper are so bad as to merit use in a class on how not to do applied statistics. All this paper demonstrates is that climate scientists should take some basic courses in statistics and Nature should get some competent referees.” ~ Professor Gordon Hughes

Marotzke and Forster’s circular attribution of CMIP5 intermodel warming differences

 

Marotzke & Forster response

 

These "climate" scientists cannot even project a snow storm out 24 hours in advance. Why should I listen to their climate models of the future?

 

Indeed. Until the recent Little Ice Age, the best wines in Europe were being made in southern England and northern France and Germany. After 1400, English wine production became virtually nonexistent. In France, wine production migrated ever southward, while German wine production declined by 53%.

 

Sweet baby jesus I hope this is sarcasm.

 

We don't really need another "study" from pro-redistribution leftists do we?

We can simply look at what was the "most credible model" from a few years back... the "hockey stick"... and know these leftists were full of crap with the goal of taking money to "fix" it. What was their "fix"? Kyoto. Would it have made any difference even if they took hundreds of billions or trillions to enact Kyoto? No, by their own admission.

 

Rabble rabble rabble science bad

 

Oh please. As temperatures increase slightly, the areas of trees migrate further north into lands that are bereft of trees, while the former areas of trees thin out and open up land for more agriculture. That's the natural adaptability of the planet.

Man will need to adapt as well. The arrogance of man to think he knows better than the warming and cooling trends of the planet.

 

Ah, the troll has arisen.

 

This "trend" is not a natural one. Plants and animals can adapt, but over thousands of years.

Increased growing ranges for some crops and plants does not outweigh the far more negative impacts from climate change.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm

- - - Updated - - -

Someone doesn't know what a troll is.

 

You had nothing to dispute my post...so you troll.

 

Rabble rabble troll baby, rabble science + politics = politics.

- - - Updated - - -

Lunchboxxy is a troll. Your Warmie Blogs are hilarious, however.

 

Ok, no fraud was ever found with the "hockey stick". Nor was it found to be "full of crap". Whew. Glad we cleared that up.

Climate models have been largely accurate.



If anything, some of the models have underestimated the impacts of climate change, like in the case of arctic sea ice.



http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

- - - Updated - - -

So I see you cannot dispute anything I posted. Look who is a troll now.

That "warmie blog" has direct links to scientific studies backing up every bullet point of negative and positive impacts. Which you would know if you bothered looking.

- - - Updated - - -

This silly argument never did make sense to me. Climate change research has been ongoing for decades across the planet. Through conservative administrations even. Now it is suddenly American politics, despite being a global consensus.

 

That warmie blog makes the suggestion that with the earth warming we will have less water. The morons who suggest that can't even be brought to the realization that with a slight increase of temperature, more water is freed from the arctic and antarctic regions. If they can't get this basic scientific fact right, why would I believe anything from them?

Science + politics [or anything + politics] equals politics.

I'm not limiting it to American politics.

That's you.

 

Feel free to quote the exact claim you are denying and your evidence to deny it.

Oh so it's a decades long international conspiracy. That's much more reasonable.

 

It's in your warmie blog. Certainly you can find it.