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

That was not the "hockey stick model", which makes you either ignorant or a liar. It's why no one trusts you Liberals on global warming. You just keep forwarding lies and doctored data.

You also failed to address the fraud that is Kyoto which would do nothing but seize trillions of dollars.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

 

I never said it was "the" hockey stick model. I said models have been largely accurate. I then posted an example.

Why would I address your paranoid delusions about the Kyoto protocol? The Kyoto Protocol should be scraped and start from scratch into something that could actually be effective in curbing emissions.

Ah, there we have it. The scientific research is not valid because of redistribution. Or something.

Dude, you don't even know what you're talking about. The hockey stick "controversy" didn't mean anything. It's just been wildly blown up by people looking for any excuse to pretend that climate change isn't real. The "hockey stick" is a general shape of a graph. This shape has been recreated many, many times using different models and different methods.

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

As for your rambling Kyoto paranoia, I don't even know what to say. It's just on another planet.

 

You made the claim, now back it up.

The list talks about water in many different respects, I am not sure which one you are referring to. So post it.

 

Apparently you don't know the difference between a climate model and a temperature reconstruction.

The US met Kyoto targets without spending a dime simply because natural gas produces less CO2 than coal. Imagine what we could accomplish if we actually tried.

 

It's in your warmie blog. They are the ones who aren't "backing" it up.

They are suggesting that as it gets warmer that we will have less water, as if the increase in temperature will evaporate water faster than it is being released from the polar caps and glaciers. What they can't wrap their pea-brains around is that if it gets warmer, more water will get released from the ice caps and glaciers. Water that is currently trapped and not being used. This is a planetary fail-safe.

They see the earth warming and becoming a desert. Archaeological fact proves that the warmer and more CO2 dense the world becomes, the more tropical and lush it becomes. It has for eons.

The Earth's water is a finite resource that doesn't disappear due to global temperatures. It takes on various forms dependent on the surface temperature. Colder temperatures, it freezes. Warmer temperatures it thaws and becomes available.

Your warmie blog is nothing more than scare-science with less real thought than what I can expect from a 4th grader.

 

Again, where are they claiming it? Still waiting. So far it's just YOU making that claim with nothing to back it up. It looks like you can contest anything on that list so you have to just make (*)(*)(*)(*) up.

So put up or sit the (*)(*)(*)(*) down.

 

Except temperature won't increase slightly everywhere. It will increase rapidly in some places and possibly even cool slightly in others. Whether trees and other plants that we depend on can migrate fast enough to keep up is doubtful.

Arrogance is thinking that 7 billion humans can do as they please without having any effect on their environment. Humans cannot keep climate from changing, but until we learn what effect we do have, we cannot debate which actions may be in our best interests.

 

Arrogance is believing that man can control the temperatures on the planet. Arrogance is believing that assessing fines and stealing money from the citizenry can somehow alleviate natural planetary cycles.

- - - Updated - - -

You haven't read your warmie blog, have you? Definition of troll.

 

While the idea that the earth will suddenly become lush and tropical, it's a fantasy at best. What you're not seeming to understand is that the CO2 changes in history that led to lush global tropics happened over thousands of years. The current change is happening at a geologically breakneck pace.


Here is a little information on Hadley Cell expansion and the effects on the tropical biomes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_cell#Hadley_cell_expansion

- - - Updated - - -

The irony is amazing. You are unable to back up your claims, because they don't exist, so naturally I become the troll.

Take a seat.

- - - Updated - - -

So where do you think the CO2 is coming from if not from humans? You must know something the scientists don't

 

We're not going at any breakneck pace. That has been debunked here and in the academic world over and over again. We haven't been warming.

 

How silly. Of course we are going a a geologically breakneck speed. The climate is changing at a far faster pace than anytime in the last 65 million years.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...faster-than-changes-in-past-65-million-years/

We have indeed been warming. The 10 hottest years have all been since 1998. The 2000s were the hottest decade. The 1990s the hottest before that. The 1980s the hottest before that. Cherry picking points on a graph doesn't mean the world isn't warming.

Studies show that a majority of warming is actually occurring in our oceans. That's where the alleged "missing heat" is.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/860.summary?rss=1


http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Comment_on_DK12.pdf

Before you (*)(*)(*)(*)(*), that's a link to an actual scientific study, skepticalscience is just hosting the page.

 

The irony is that you used a warmie blog as your position. I used their own admissions against them. You either are too lazy or never read what you linked to. Here is where they are wrong:

Under negatives of Agriculture:

That's them, in your warmie blog, suggesting that an increase in temperature, will bring about a decrease in human water supplies. It's pure fiction.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/wherewater.html

Therefore, when the temperature increases, more freshwater is released and available for human consumption. It will eventually be turned into precipitation.

Where the bulk of it has always come from. Oceans.

 

Well, actually that was based off of his scientific study, which was clearly linked. It talks about precipitation changes and the potential of dust bowls. Which would indeed reduce the availability of fresh water to humans.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.full.pdf+html

The science seems to disagree with you, as seen in the above linked article and here at the EPA

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/water.html

I think you think that glacier and ice cap ice magically becomes fresh water. Most of it goes into the oceans. While glacial runoff may increase some river output in the short term, as glaciers retreat the long term water availability will decrease. Since many rivers, like in the Himalayas, rely on seasonal summer melt to sustain their levels. The more glaciers retreat, the less water in he long run.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch3s3-4.html

Ok. Not an unreasonable theory. What data do you have to back it up?

 

The water doesn't magically disappear and turn into saltwater. It tends to evaporate and turn into fresh water resources. More surface water, more evaporation, more precipitation.

http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/...es-from-natural-sources/#sthash.LMW1P3nb.dpbs

We're cooling from the 30 year cycle of warmth. Just like we warmed after the prior 30 year cycle of cooling. It's cyclical and man's footprint, negligible.

 

Feel free to back that assertion up with scientific evidence.

Oh some random guy's blog? That seems totally legit. The science once again says "not so much"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_vs_emissions.gif[/quote]
[url]http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm[/url]

More on natural CO2, human CO2 and carbon sinks.

[url]http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html#.VNgLBfnF9Tc[/url]

As for the "30 year cycle of warmth" I have no idea where you invented that silly (*)(*)(*)(*) from. And we certainly aren't cooling.

 

The IPCC is a report writing organization created by government to report to government that does no actual science. With the amount of expenditures and careers advanced because of it, government gets the reports they want.

 

Right. The IPCC isn't credible, but some random dude's blog is totes legit.

Again, my sources are both full of links to scientific studies.

- - - Updated - - -

Lol. Seriously? The IPCC is composed from thousands and thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies.

 

The IPCC is still simply a report writing organization. The process they use to come to their conclusions are not recorded or public.

 

IPCC says if nothing is done to stop GHG emissions, temps in North America and Europe will rise 8 degrees by 2100.

since 1880, temps have risen .6 degrees.

the IPCC is full of (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

We were told that Miami would be uninhabitable by now and that the midwest would be turned into another dustbowl.

The sky hasn't fallen and the guy who told us most of this bought beachfront property.

 

Well you're being a bit disingenuous. The 8 degree would be in Fahrenheit and the .8 (it's .8, not .6) would be in Celsius. It's 1.4 in Fahrenheit. Also 8 degrees is on the high end. But I digress.

The IPCC projections are of different scenarios and have largely been accurate.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

- - - Updated - - -

Really? Who told you that? Your own delusions?

 

Facts and logic showing ISIS to be not as it is portrayed will serve you.

http://opinion.inquirer.net/79462/isis-a-cia-mossad-mi5-creation

Facts and logic will support that our economic problems were created by our own government. Deregulation of savings and loans in the 1980's then Enron, then the banks and mortgages in 2008 show this.

Facts of law show that the American people become "the rightful masters of the congree and courts" by their unity and use of Article V through their states.

The only problem is, people are having that free speech has such a purpose ultimately.

Some people actually care about future generations, as odd as that may seem to you.

I looked at the link, at carbonbrief.org and it makes sense with the fact we've been cycling our atmosphere through internal combustion engines at a profound rate; so mixing it with carbon from petroleum at that rate, logically IS going to have an effect.

BTW, a few years back I calculated what volume of air 80k cars with 350 Ci engines running at 3,000 Rpm, 24/7 in the Los Angeles air basin processed with petroleum and it worked to 1 mile deep over the entire area every day.

Have you used any facts and logic lately?

 

[video=youtube;u1XyTbPwhlw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1XyTbPwhlw[/video]

Completely Ice free! What a tool.