Models Fail so badly NOAA now looking at reality......

[Rigby5]

For example, the reality is CO2 is missing. We know how much additional CO2 is added from fossil fuel consumption. But apparently volcanism that we normally associate with additional CO2 release, is also absorbing huge amounts of CO2 from the silicates turning into carbonates. So the models are being tweaked to account for that.

That is questionable as well. The published, peer reviewed literature calls into question whether we are having any real effect on the atmospheric CO2 content at all. The fact is that we don't produce enough CO2 to even overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery.

Here, have a look at some of the published literature on the topic.

For example, termites alone produce two times as much CO2 as we make...the soil produces 9 times more CO2 than we do and as the earth greens, the soil area is expanding producing even more CO2... Just considering those two sources which produce eleven times more CO2 than we do, it is clear that the claim that our relative wisp of CO2 is causing the globe to warm is pseudoscience of the foulest sort.

Here...have a look at the actual scientific literature rather than believe a "hollywood" scientist who is little more than a paid whore for the climate industry. His story doesn't jibe with the peer reviewed published literature on the topic..


https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

“A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming isthat there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … Results do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenicemissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

“The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”
“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

Conclusion:
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whetherrepresenting sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

“The warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

“With the short (5−15 year) RT residence time results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”



https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/011006/meta

“However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”

Error - Cookies Turned Off

“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”


There is plenty more actual evidence that our effect on the atmospheric CO2 concentration is negligible...how much more would you like to see?

That is just silly.
We clearly have increased CO2 content in the atmosphere by over 30% in less than 30 years.
There is no natural cause that could possibly be at fault, and we know it is us because we can calculate the amount of CO2 we release from the fossil fuel we burn, and the only thing is that we actually release far more than the increase. Not the other way around.

Talking about natural sources of CO2 is just silly because that not only has never changed, but we can calculate for sure that we have added over 5 trillion tons of CO2 per year into the atmosphere, and it is accumulative.

Your attempt to blame CO2 changes on El Nino are pathetic since it is clear there is ocean acidification from an increase in CO2 on a global scale. It is killing coral. It is unprecedented.

Sure volcanic events cause cooling, but that has nothing to do with the CO2 emissions, but with particulated that shade and reflect solar light.

It is clear humans are the ONLY source of CO2 change, as not only have all other causes always existed, but the ice age killed off most plant life and cause the largest natural increase of CO2 in the normal ice age/warming cycle. The speed of the current CO2 increase not only is unprecedented, but directly correlated with human CO2 production. For example, the years when gasoline prices increase and less is purchased, the CO2 increase is less.
It is preposterous to claim that it is ocean temperature change that is responsible for CO2 amounts when we clearly burn and release over 5 trillion tons of CO2 annually. And it is accumulative, since CO2 does not naturally decay.

There simply is not other cause of source of the CO2 increase, so it has to be from humans, but even if it were not, that does not mean we don't have to decrease our contribution. Regardless of the source, CO2 is dangerously high, and it has to be reduced by whatever means possible. The planet is retaining more heat, and that is not at all sustainable.

 

[Rigby5]

You have to be really weak minded, gullible, and naïve to believe that Man rules the Climate, and Nature (the Sun, etc) does not. Obama weaponized the DOJ, IRS, EPA, Interior and others, but also NOAA and NASA to push his agenda.

It is silly to think that when man burns fossil fuel and releases hundreds of millions of years of stored solar energy in an instant, that it won't have an effect on the planet.

Obama did nothing to the DOJ, IRS, EPA, Interior, NOAA and NASA.
Unlike most presidents,. Obama hardly made any changes at all, and the human global warming conclusions were also drawn by all these organizations when Bush was president.

Bush speech, 2002
{...
Today, I'm announcing a new environmental approach that will clean our skies, bring greater health to our citizens and encourage environmentally responsible development in America and around the world.

Particularly, it's an honour to address this topic at NOAA, whose research is providing us with the answers to critical questions about our environment.
...
In pursuit of this goal, my government has set two priorities: we must clean our air, and we must address the issue of global climate change. We must also act in a serious and responsible way, given the scientific uncertainties. While these uncertainties remain, we can begin now to address the human factors that contribute to climate change. Wise action now is an insurance policy against future risks.
...}
Bush a little later
{...
It's official, global warming does exist, says Bush

In an extraordinarily secretive manoeuvre, the Bush administration has subtly altered its position on global warming, officially admitting that there is a crisis while still declining to offer policies to combat it.

A government report to the UN says that global warming exists, that it is man-made, and that it will transform the environment - all points that the current US government, while never actually denying, has been reluctant to accept.

However, the report suggests that the country will have to accept the changes, rather than take any action to try to avert them.

"Adapting to a changing climate is inevitable," it says. "The question is whether we adapt poorly or well."
///|///}The new attitude was signalled in the US climate action report, which was published last week on the government's environmental protection administration website, <A HREF="US EPA."

No" TARGET="_NEW">www.epa.gov.

No press release was issued to highlight the report, and its existence only became widely known yesterday.

Countries are obliged to issue such reports at regular intervals under a UN convention which the US signed when George Bush Sr was president.

...}

 

[Rigby5]

And they keep extending the catastrophic scare tactics every twelve years. Watch Gore's fiction movie, An Inconvenient Truth. All of those prediction were supposed to come true several years ago. NONE HAVE. lol!

How about that NYC is not under water? Is that inconvenient Al?

Wrong.
Gore did not predict the there would be a huge rise on ocean levels by now.
What he predicted is that if carbon use was not reduced, then we could hit a point of no return in 10 years, which is about now.

And that is likely true.
It is probably true that the amount of carbon we have added to the atmosphere, (about a 40% increase), will accumulate additional heat until the acceleration of water vapor and methane will cause a runaway warming that will kill most life on the planet. That actual runaway heating may not happen for 100 years. The time frame is not relevant. The point is that we can not reverse the carbon we have already added, it may be too much for the ecosystem to bear, and we could eventually plunge into runaway heating. How long it takes is totally irrelevant, since our responsibility does not end without one lifetime.
The reality is not just the 20' rise Gore mentioned, but a total of as much as 250', if all ice melts.

 

[Rigby5]

It isn't surprising that NOAA climate models are way off. It would be interesting to

False.
Models have always been expected to not be accurate.
That is because they assume everything else is static other than the CO2 emissions increase.
And there are several obvious variables.
For example, the higher the CO2 concentrations, the more CO2 will be absorbed by expanded plant growth.
Another is that this also includes possible increase in carbonate shell production, like plankton.
Finally, it also depends on things like volcanoes and landslides, because fresh rock is known to absorb lots of CO2.
Another is that with warming air, you get more water vapor, and that can end up producing more clouds, which can then block more sunlight and cause cooling.
All of these variables had been considered ahead of time, and everyone expected the models to need works.
Models are never the basis for predictions or concerns.
All we need to do is extrapolate existing data graphs to get really worried.

Huh? Models have always been expected to be inaccurate? Al Gore made a fortune off of those models. He told us the polar ice caps were turning to slush and there would be beachfront property in Kansas cuz the models told him so. The Church of Climatology raked in billions based on the doom and gloom in those models.

Totally and completely wrong.

Gore had nothing at all to do with climate models.
The trends were already ACTUALLY happening, with polar and glacial ice melts, ocean rising, air temperatures increasing, hurricane increases, etc.

Climate models are ONLY about guessing when accelerators, like water vapor and methane are going to kick in. And no one ever said they could even remotely predict when or how that would likely happen. All we could do is suggest possibilities. For example, we don't know how more heat is going to cause more global warming from increased water vapor because more water vapor in the atmosphere could also create more reflective clouds. We don't know how much frozen methane hydrate in under the ocean or in tundra, so we can't know when or how much that will effect things. There is no way to model these things, and everyone always knew that. Models were only used to give a max/min range. Anyone who claims models were used for actual predictions is just lying.

Predictions made by climate models

Predictions of Future Global Climate

The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly

Climate Models & Predictions for the Future

Climate models are often used to predict the climate of an Earth in which the carbon dioxide concentration has doubled. This is a prospect very likely to occur within the next 50-100 years, given the current increasing rates of anthropogenic CO2.

Below are some results of climate models run under twice the current global carbon dioxide concentration. The model predictions for future climate are based on forward estimates of the rate of fossil fuel consumption, and thus the production of CO2 and its input to the atmosphere.
​

Oh, look. Climate models being used for actual predictions...you know, the exact opposite of what you claimed.

You should just stop now.

​

Predictions are only true if the measurements are accurate. What we have found out is that the AGW scammers have created false measurements to cover up reality. They get caught at it all the time. They even admitted it in the emails exposed by Climategate I&II. Obama even corrupted NASA and NOAA to create false data.

AGW is a big scam. We all know that as a fact. The stupid Moon Bats may not know it but they are as ignorant of Climate Science as they are of Economics, History, Biology, Ethics, The Constitution and just about everything else.

That is silly because those warning of global warming do not make any money off it. They are mostly salaried government employees who would get paid the same no matter what they wrote.

 

[Rigby5]

How about that NYC is not under water? Is that inconvenient Al?

No such prediction was made. that's another fraud deniers push. I understand you don't know that, because you only know what your cult masters tell you, and they feed you pure bullshit.

Thanks for confirming my point, that every single thing ever denier says should always initially be assumed to be fraudulent, because that's almost always the case.

No such prediction was made?

You really ought to stop, too.

Hansen, dubbed the “godfather” of global warming, was interviewed about a study he co-authored last month, which claimed future global warming would be worse than predicted. The study found global warming would cause massive sea level rise, flooding of major cities such as New York and enormous super storms. But that’s not the first time Hansen made dire sea level rise predictions.

In 1988, a Washington Post reporter asked Hansen what a warming Earth would look like in 20 or 40 years in the future. Hansen reportedly looked out a window and said New York City’s “West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water.”​

Oceans are rising at an accerating rate, and 40 years from 1988 would be 2028, which has not arrived yet.
And that is not including the fact that we have reduced our carbon emissions.
If not for these predictions by people like Hansen, then we would have increased carbon emissions instead, and then water would be even higher.
We have not seen the result of the carbon we have already added to the atmosphere yet. It takes time to slowly accumulate solar heat. But it is happening,

 

[Rigby5]

How about that NYC is not under water? Is that inconvenient Al?

No such prediction was made. that's another fraud deniers push. I understand you don't know that, because you only know what your cult masters tell you, and they feed you pure bullshit.

Of course the prediction was made...gore didn’t make it though...the prediction was made by no less than Hansen himself....what a liar you are hairball...

Is it 2028 already?
My my, how time does fly.

And how many electric, hybrid, or other lower emissions cars have we switched to because of these predictions?
How much hotter would it be if the predictions had not been made and we had not reduced emissions?

 

[Rigby5]

Of course NYC has never experinced flooding.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And the CO2 at that layer traps most radiant heat from escaping.

Incorrect;

The sparse amount of CO2 at that altitude will stop nearly nothing in the LWIR band.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You cant make this stuff up. Now NOAA is admitting their climate modeling programs run 5+ degrees C hotter than reality. And they DON'T KNOW WHY...

The Warming Meme is collapsing and cooling in all records is now evident by empirical observations. They can no longer hide their AGW failure. There is panic in the AGW political gamer's and they are now desperate to explain it away.

Climate Modellers Waiting for Observations to Catch Up with Their Predictions

Here's some empirical observations for you..dumbass:

Poor little dupe...

Here Have some real data...

 

[SSDD]

No one is altering the real life data to fit the model.
No one cares if the model is right or not, because if it is wrong it gives them more work to get paid to do.

The reason some people have claimed the data is being manipulated is that urban weather stations are sometimes being corrected for the fact cities now have dust domes and inversion layers that deflect actually weather values.

You really are out of the loop, aren't you? But I have to hand it to you...you have all the talking points down pat. Unfortunately you don't seem to have any data to go with them. I don't think I have seen you post the first piece of actual science, and you are quick to discount the actual science being presented to you which flies in the face of your talking points. Of course the data have been manipulated.

Tell me, can you offer up any rational, scientifically valid reason to alter temperatures from 20, 50, or even 100 years ago or more? Would you care to hazard a guess as to how altering temperatures from half a century or more ago might make the present record more accurate?

 

[SSDD]

You said it yourself, that "clouds" or water vapor can't get above 32000'.

Do you even keep track of what you say? You claimed that water vapor "can't get anywhere near the top of the troposphere in any quantity"...cumulonimbus clouds prove that statement wrong.

That means there is almost no water vapor at the crossover layer to space.

Maybe you are unaware that the stratosphere, and the mesosphere lie between the top of the troposphere and space...and that fact is really irrelevant...no one is arguing that radiation isn't the dominant mode of energy movement above the troposphere...the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science is all about the troposphere...not the stratosphere and above.

There is more CO2 than anything else.

Are you kidding? CO2 is a bare wisp in the atmosphere at any layer...it exists at around 400 parts per million...water vapor, on the other hand, even at low humidity is something like 10,000 parts per million....

And the CO2 at that layer traps most radiant heat from escaping.

Care to explain the mechanism by which you believe that happens? The actual measurements of radiation escaping into space say that your "factoid" is wrong. In fact, as CO2 has increased, the amount of energy escaping into space has increased right along with it.

Why are you even beginning to argue this, since if not for normal global warming, the whole world would be about 40 degree colder, and almost no life could survive.

Because of the claimed cause of the warming...there is not a single piece of observed measured evidence which supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability...no one would be asking for money to try and control the climate if it were acknowledged that what we are seeing is simple natural variability...if it is claimed that we are causing the change, then people start asking for trillions of dollars to help combat the change...I am still waiting for any sort of empirical evidence which suggests that we are causing the global climate to change rather than simple natural variability.

Obviously global warming has always been essential to the survival of plants and animals.

So why ask for trillions of dollars to try and stop it?

And it should also be obvious that too much increase in CO2 will cause huge hardships as oceans can rise as much as 250' if it gets warm enough to melt all polar and glacial ice.

Guess you didn't look at the graphs and temperature reconstructions I provided above...the fact is that today, there is more ice in the arctic than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years....your 250 feet of sea level rise is nothing more than hysterical handwaving not supported by the first piece of actual science.

 

[SSDD]

Yes there have been changes in laws to reduce global warming, but they have NOT been due to any modeling.

What do you think they have been due to? Do you really think a degree of change is visible on a planet which the daily maximum and minimum temperatures cover a range of 200 degrees? Really? What has happened in the climate at present that you think is in any way unusual or unprecedented?

You don't need modeling to see millions of gallons of Greenland melt off pouring into the ocean, the opening of the Northwest Passage for the first time in 10,000 years, the great loss of Antarctic ice shelf, etc.

So what? There is more ice there at present than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years...again, here is the gold standard CIMP2 temperature reconstruction derived from ice cores taken in Greenland, above the arctic circle...as you can see, it is cooler there today than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years. Far cooler.

Which part of the present climate do you find so frightening when compared to what has already happened without catastrophic consequences?

 

[Flash]

Totally and completely wrong.

Gore had nothing at all to do with climate models.
The trends were already ACTUALLY happening, with polar and glacial ice melts, ocean rising, air temperatures increasing, hurricane increases, etc.

Climate models are ONLY about guessing when accelerators, like water vapor and methane are going to kick in. And no one ever said they could even remotely predict when or how that would likely happen. All we could do is suggest possibilities. For example, we don't know how more heat is going to cause more global warming from increased water vapor because more water vapor in the atmosphere could also create more reflective clouds. We don't know how much frozen methane hydrate in under the ocean or in tundra, so we can't know when or how much that will effect things. There is no way to model these things, and everyone always knew that. Models were only used to give a max/min range. Anyone who claims models were used for actual predictions is just lying.

Predictions made by climate models

Predictions of Future Global Climate

The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly

Climate Models & Predictions for the Future

Climate models are often used to predict the climate of an Earth in which the carbon dioxide concentration has doubled. This is a prospect very likely to occur within the next 50-100 years, given the current increasing rates of anthropogenic CO2.

Below are some results of climate models run under twice the current global carbon dioxide concentration. The model predictions for future climate are based on forward estimates of the rate of fossil fuel consumption, and thus the production of CO2 and its input to the atmosphere.
​

Oh, look. Climate models being used for actual predictions...you know, the exact opposite of what you claimed.

You should just stop now.

​

Predictions are only true if the measurements are accurate. What we have found out is that the AGW scammers have created false measurements to cover up reality. They get caught at it all the time. That even admitted it in the emails exposed by Climategate I&II. Obama even corrupted NASA abd NOAA to create false data.

AGW is a big scam. We all know that as a fact. The stupid Moon Bats may not know it but they are as ignorant of Climate Science as they are of Economics, History, Biology, Ethics, The Constitution and just about everything else.

Quoted for TRUTH!

"All the altered data", you mean

As it is with any cultist, your cult anti-reality bubble can't be penetrated. You've cut yourself off from reality.

Did someone present inconvenient data that contradicts sacred cult scripture? Just scream it's fraudulent! Problem solved!

At this stage, you're only interesting as an example of abnormal cult psychology.

Go on, keep calling me a heretic if it makes you feel better. That will gain you major brownie points with the cult. After all, I have insulted your sacred religious scripture with hard facts and data, and your cult can never forgive such crimes.

James Hansen, High Priest of the Church of the Warming Globe, predicted in 1988 that New York City would be underwater in 20-40 years.

You said no one made such a prediction.

You were undeniable wrong. Period. End of story.

Pretending the proof of your heresy isn't there doesn't mean it is, cultist. You're going to burn in Socialist Hell.

In 2004 Florida got hit by four hurricanes and the AGW scammers said that it was just the beginning. Global warming was going to devastate Florida with hurricanes. However, it was 12 years before another hurricane hit Florida. We had 10-12 years of quiet hurricane seasons.

Nothing they ever say comes true.

They lost their credibility a long time ago.

Wrong.
First of all, there were 2 hurricanes in 2005 as well.

{...
Storm Saffir-Simpson
Category Date of landfall Year Landfall Intensity
(in knots) Landfall Location
Great Middle Florida 3 August 23 1851 100 Panama City
Unnamed 3 August 17 1871 100 Jupiter Island
Unnamed 3 October 7 1873 100 Captiva Island
Unnamed 3 October 3 1877 100 Panama City
Unnamed 3 September 10 1882 110 Navarre
Unnamed 3 August 16 1888 110 Miami Beach
Unnamed 3 October 9 1894 105 Panama City
Unnamed 3 September 29 1896 110 Cedar Key
Unnamed 3 October 18 1906 105 Marathon
Unnamed 3 October 11 1909 100 Marathon
Unnamed 3 September 29 1917 100 Fort Walton Beach
Unnamed 4 September 10 1919 130 Dry Tortugas
Great Miami 4 September 18–20 1926 125 Palmetto Bay
Okeechobee 4 September 17 1928 125 Palm Beach
Unnamed 3 September 4 1933 110 Jupiter
Labor Day 5 September 3 1935 160 Craig Key
Unnamed 3 October 18 1944 105 Dry Tortugas
Unnamed 4 September 15 1945 115 North Key Largo
Unnamed 4 September 17 1947 115 Fort Lauderdale
Unnamed 4 September 21–22 1948 115 Near Chokoloskee
Unnamed 4 August 26 1949 115 Lake Worth
Easy 3 September 5 1950 105 Near Cedar Key
King 4 October 18 1950 115 Coconut Grove, Miami
Donna 4 September 10 1960 125 Conch Key
Betsy 3 September 8 1965 110 Tavernier
Eloise 3 September 23 1975 110 Near Destin
Elena 3 September 2 1985 100 Gulfport, MS*
Andrew 5 August 24 1992 145 Near Homestead
Opal 3 October 4 1995 100 Pensacola Beach
Charley 4 August 13 2004 130 Cayo Costa
Ivan 3 September 16 2004 105 Near Gulf Shores, AL*
Jeanne 3 September 26 2004 105 Hutchinson Island
Dennis 3 July 10 2005 105 Santa Rosa Island
Wilma 3 October 24 2005 105 Cape Romano
Irma 4 September 10 2017 115 Cudjoe Key
Michael 5 October 10 2018 140 Mexico Beach
...}

Second is that when hurricanes have more power from the greater heat, they tend to move faster and that simply causes them to miss Florida.
So Florida not getting hit does not mean that weather is not more extreme.

You are confused Moon Bat. Those were minor hurricane years not only for Florida but for the US.

We had about 10-12 years of minimal hurricane events.

Much to the chagrin of you stupid Environmental Wackos driving around in my gas guzzling Trundra truck doesn't produce hurricanes.

 

[Flash]

We had 10-12 years of quiet hurricane seasons.

And the rest of the world? You don't seem to understand the term "global".

By the way, AGW theory doesn't predict more numbers of hurricanes. It predicts more powerful hurricanes, which is being seen.

There was a big billboard put up by you stupid Moon Bat on I-4 in Orlando after the four hurricanes in 2004 blaming Bush for the hurricanes so you stupid Environmental Wackos thought there was a connection between this silly AGW theory and hurricanes..

You Moon Bats are as ignorant of Climate Science as you are of Economics, Biology, History, Ethics and the Constitution.

 

[Rigby5]

And the CO2 at that layer traps most radiant heat from escaping.

Incorrect;

The sparse amount of CO2 at that altitude will stop nearly nothing in the LWIR band.

And nearly nothing is EXACTLY the amount needed to increase the temperature of the whole planet by 3 degrees. Remember that the energy from the sun is enormous, and once you start a feedback loop of accumulating heat, it builds up incredibly fast.

We are talking about installing a one way valve on a huge incoming radiation source.over the entire planet. And clearly no where but the upper troposphere matters at all because every where else in side the atmosphere, energy moves mostly by conduction or convection. It is ONLY at the edge of space where radiation is the only means of energy movement. And it is only CO2 that can work at those cold temperatures. And the fear is that if it gets hot enough, frozen methane hydrate on the ocean floor and arctic tundra will melt and release enough methane to make this boundary to space even more impervious to outgoing energy.

 

[Rigby5]

No one is altering the real life data to fit the model.
No one cares if the model is right or not, because if it is wrong it gives them more work to get paid to do.

The reason some people have claimed the data is being manipulated is that urban weather stations are sometimes being corrected for the fact cities now have dust domes and inversion layers that deflect actually weather values.

You really are out of the loop, aren't you? But I have to hand it to you...you have all the talking points down pat. Unfortunately you don't seem to have any data to go with them. I don't think I have seen you post the first piece of actual science, and you are quick to discount the actual science being presented to you which flies in the face of your talking points. Of course the data have been manipulated.

Tell me, can you offer up any rational, scientifically valid reason to alter temperatures from 20, 50, or even 100 years ago or more? Would you care to hazard a guess as to how altering temperatures from half a century or more ago might make the present record more accurate?

No, I know the loop and all the scientific data is coming from scientists who ALL say that human caused global warming is real, and dangerous.
And no one is altering data from the past.
Not only is that impossible because the sources of past data can't be altered, but there would be no point in doing so. The original global warming warnings came from the British Admiralty when the noticed an increase of ocean water temperatures way back in the 1880s,
And the data you provided showed global warming.
According to you, all the scientists, since they all agree on global warming, are corrupt somehow and for some reason, even though there is no one who benefits from global warming? That makes no sense. Why would NOAA want to lie about global warming? Why is it no ship could traverse the Arctic even in the summer, until after 2008? Why are all the glaciers and ice packs slowly disappearing?

 

[Rigby5]

Predictions made by climate models

Predictions of Future Global Climate

The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly

Climate Models & Predictions for the Future

Climate models are often used to predict the climate of an Earth in which the carbon dioxide concentration has doubled. This is a prospect very likely to occur within the next 50-100 years, given the current increasing rates of anthropogenic CO2.

Below are some results of climate models run under twice the current global carbon dioxide concentration. The model predictions for future climate are based on forward estimates of the rate of fossil fuel consumption, and thus the production of CO2 and its input to the atmosphere.
​

Oh, look. Climate models being used for actual predictions...you know, the exact opposite of what you claimed.

You should just stop now.

​

Predictions are only true if the measurements are accurate. What we have found out is that the AGW scammers have created false measurements to cover up reality. They get caught at it all the time. That even admitted it in the emails exposed by Climategate I&II. Obama even corrupted NASA abd NOAA to create false data.

AGW is a big scam. We all know that as a fact. The stupid Moon Bats may not know it but they are as ignorant of Climate Science as they are of Economics, History, Biology, Ethics, The Constitution and just about everything else.

Quoted for TRUTH!

"All the altered data", you mean

As it is with any cultist, your cult anti-reality bubble can't be penetrated. You've cut yourself off from reality.

Did someone present inconvenient data that contradicts sacred cult scripture? Just scream it's fraudulent! Problem solved!

At this stage, you're only interesting as an example of abnormal cult psychology.

Go on, keep calling me a heretic if it makes you feel better. That will gain you major brownie points with the cult. After all, I have insulted your sacred religious scripture with hard facts and data, and your cult can never forgive such crimes.

James Hansen, High Priest of the Church of the Warming Globe, predicted in 1988 that New York City would be underwater in 20-40 years.

You said no one made such a prediction.

You were undeniable wrong. Period. End of story.

Pretending the proof of your heresy isn't there doesn't mean it is, cultist. You're going to burn in Socialist Hell.

In 2004 Florida got hit by four hurricanes and the AGW scammers said that it was just the beginning. Global warming was going to devastate Florida with hurricanes. However, it was 12 years before another hurricane hit Florida. We had 10-12 years of quiet hurricane seasons.

Nothing they ever say comes true.

They lost their credibility a long time ago.

Wrong.
First of all, there were 2 hurricanes in 2005 as well.

{...
Storm Saffir-Simpson
Category Date of landfall Year Landfall Intensity
(in knots) Landfall Location
Great Middle Florida 3 August 23 1851 100 Panama City
Unnamed 3 August 17 1871 100 Jupiter Island
Unnamed 3 October 7 1873 100 Captiva Island
Unnamed 3 October 3 1877 100 Panama City
Unnamed 3 September 10 1882 110 Navarre
Unnamed 3 August 16 1888 110 Miami Beach
Unnamed 3 October 9 1894 105 Panama City
Unnamed 3 September 29 1896 110 Cedar Key
Unnamed 3 October 18 1906 105 Marathon
Unnamed 3 October 11 1909 100 Marathon
Unnamed 3 September 29 1917 100 Fort Walton Beach
Unnamed 4 September 10 1919 130 Dry Tortugas
Great Miami 4 September 18–20 1926 125 Palmetto Bay
Okeechobee 4 September 17 1928 125 Palm Beach
Unnamed 3 September 4 1933 110 Jupiter
Labor Day 5 September 3 1935 160 Craig Key
Unnamed 3 October 18 1944 105 Dry Tortugas
Unnamed 4 September 15 1945 115 North Key Largo
Unnamed 4 September 17 1947 115 Fort Lauderdale
Unnamed 4 September 21–22 1948 115 Near Chokoloskee
Unnamed 4 August 26 1949 115 Lake Worth
Easy 3 September 5 1950 105 Near Cedar Key
King 4 October 18 1950 115 Coconut Grove, Miami
Donna 4 September 10 1960 125 Conch Key
Betsy 3 September 8 1965 110 Tavernier
Eloise 3 September 23 1975 110 Near Destin
Elena 3 September 2 1985 100 Gulfport, MS*
Andrew 5 August 24 1992 145 Near Homestead
Opal 3 October 4 1995 100 Pensacola Beach
Charley 4 August 13 2004 130 Cayo Costa
Ivan 3 September 16 2004 105 Near Gulf Shores, AL*
Jeanne 3 September 26 2004 105 Hutchinson Island
Dennis 3 July 10 2005 105 Santa Rosa Island
Wilma 3 October 24 2005 105 Cape Romano
Irma 4 September 10 2017 115 Cudjoe Key
Michael 5 October 10 2018 140 Mexico Beach
...}

Second is that when hurricanes have more power from the greater heat, they tend to move faster and that simply causes them to miss Florida.
So Florida not getting hit does not mean that weather is not more extreme.

You are confused Moon Bat. Those were minor hurricane years not only for Florida but for the US.

We had about 10-12 years of minimal hurricane events.

Much to the chagrin of you stupid Environmental Wackos driving around in my gas guzzling Trundra truck doesn't produce hurricanes.

Wrong. If you look at Texas for example, you see increasing numbers of hurricanes. And no one suggested that global warming would increase the number of hurricanes necessarily, but that with more heat, the hurricanes would have more energy, so have higher winds, move faster and further, carry more water, etc. All of which is true.

And by the way, even the lull Florida had has been over for years.

 

[Rigby5]

We had 10-12 years of quiet hurricane seasons.

And the rest of the world? You don't seem to understand the term "global".

By the way, AGW theory doesn't predict more numbers of hurricanes. It predicts more powerful hurricanes, which is being seen.

There was a big billboard put up by you stupid Moon Bat on I-4 in Orlando after the four hurricanes in 2004 blaming Bush for the hurricanes so you stupid Environmental Wackos thought there was a connection between this silly AGW theory and hurricanes..

You Moon Bats are as ignorant of Climate Science as you are of Economics, Biology, History, Ethics and the Constitution.

You make air and water hotter, which is easy to prove happened, and you will get worse storms, which is also easy to prove happened. The fact stronger storms tend to fly on past Florida and hit Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, is not at all comforting.

 

[Rigby5]

You said it yourself, that "clouds" or water vapor can't get above 32000'.

Do you even keep track of what you say? You claimed that water vapor "can't get anywhere near the top of the troposphere in any quantity"...cumulonimbus clouds prove that statement wrong.

That means there is almost no water vapor at the crossover layer to space.

Maybe you are unaware that the stratosphere, and the mesosphere lie between the top of the troposphere and space...and that fact is really irrelevant...no one is arguing that radiation isn't the dominant mode of energy movement above the troposphere...the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science is all about the troposphere...not the stratosphere and above.

There is more CO2 than anything else.

Are you kidding? CO2 is a bare wisp in the atmosphere at any layer...it exists at around 400 parts per million...water vapor, on the other hand, even at low humidity is something like 10,000 parts per million....

And the CO2 at that layer traps most radiant heat from escaping.

Care to explain the mechanism by which you believe that happens? The actual measurements of radiation escaping into space say that your "factoid" is wrong. In fact, as CO2 has increased, the amount of energy escaping into space has increased right along with it.

Why are you even beginning to argue this, since if not for normal global warming, the whole world would be about 40 degree colder, and almost no life could survive.

Because of the claimed cause of the warming...there is not a single piece of observed measured evidence which supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability...no one would be asking for money to try and control the climate if it were acknowledged that what we are seeing is simple natural variability...if it is claimed that we are causing the change, then people start asking for trillions of dollars to help combat the change...I am still waiting for any sort of empirical evidence which suggests that we are causing the global climate to change rather than simple natural variability.

Obviously global warming has always been essential to the survival of plants and animals.

So why ask for trillions of dollars to try and stop it?

And it should also be obvious that too much increase in CO2 will cause huge hardships as oceans can rise as much as 250' if it gets warm enough to melt all polar and glacial ice.

Guess you didn't look at the graphs and temperature reconstructions I provided above...the fact is that today, there is more ice in the arctic than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years....your 250 feet of sea level rise is nothing more than hysterical handwaving not supported by the first piece of actual science.

You just admitted again that clouds can't get to the top of the troposphere. And clouds are not just water vapor, but the death of water vapor, as it condenses back to falling water.

There is almost no water vapor at the top of the troposphere. The main cause of global warming now is from additional CO2 at that delicate layer to space. Water vapor at those cold temperatures is essentially ZERO.

And your graph from Bob Tilsdale is less than worthless because Tilsdale has been proven to be a fraud decades ago. He makes millions selling books that are worthless and contain no science at all. Anyone who thinks about it for a second would realize that even if the data were real and the earth were radiation more energy now than before, that would be perfectly natural since the earth is warming. Anything getting hotter has to radiate more heat. The point is that that is old accumulated heat and the planet is accumulating more and more heat. If not prevented, that can turn into a runaway positive feedback like Venus, where the planet become the temperature of molten lead, with all the oceans vaporized into the atmosphere.

The evidence humans are causing global warming is obvious. Natural climate cycles like ice ages are over 110 thousand years long. We are now causing a similar cycle in only a few hundred years. We are adding over 5 trillion tons of carbon to the atmosphere every single year, in an accumulative form of CO2. That can be easily measured and verified. The other possible causes are things like solar increases, orbit changes, etc., and we can measure and tell these things are definitely NOT the cause.

But your biggest problem is that you try to explain this as a fraud by claiming someone is making trillions from it, and that is easily disproved. There is not a single person profiting from global warming. Even when people talked about things like carbon credits, that was for symbolic trade purposes only, and no cash was ever involved. No one could ever make money from global warming except maybe from selling cleaner products, but things like electric and hybrid cars were inevitable anyway, since fossil fuel is limited and impossible to replenish. The people paid to study global warming are the same people paid the same when there was no global warming, because we are more interested in short term weather than we are in long term trends. Except for selling books, no one is making money off global warming, and there are as many like Tisdale selling against global warming as for. But it is government agencies like NOAA that you can trust more than an author trying to make a buck.

 

[Rigby5]

Yes there have been changes in laws to reduce global warming, but they have NOT been due to any modeling.

What do you think they have been due to? Do you really think a degree of change is visible on a planet which the daily maximum and minimum temperatures cover a range of 200 degrees? Really? What has happened in the climate at present that you think is in any way unusual or unprecedented?

You don't need modeling to see millions of gallons of Greenland melt off pouring into the ocean, the opening of the Northwest Passage for the first time in 10,000 years, the great loss of Antarctic ice shelf, etc.

So what? There is more ice there at present than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years...again, here is the gold standard CIMP2 temperature reconstruction derived from ice cores taken in Greenland, above the arctic circle...as you can see, it is cooler there today than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years. Far cooler.

Which part of the present climate do you find so frightening when compared to what has already happened without catastrophic consequences?

Of course it is easy to detect changes in global temperature. In general, you do not try to measure air temperatures because air is too mobile. Instead it is far easier and reliable to simply measure denser and slower material like oceans or ice.

And NO, there is not more Greenland ice now than in the past. There is far LESS than ever in the last 100 thousand years. You are reading the graph totally wrong. The graph is about the annual increase or decrease, and not at all the total. And the modern area in red is totally squashed. It is off the scale of being able to read or see. The reality is that it is so steep in comparison to the rest, that it can only be considered absolutely vertical.
You just don't understand the graph at all. The over all green is supposed to be declining because the warming that ended the last ice ages is supposed to be over. It is supposed to be cooling now. But it is warming instead. So you are not supposed to just consider the current warm temperature, but contrast it with the even cooler temperature is really is supposed to be now.

You clearly have been lied to with deliberate and false interpretations of data that clearly indicates a serious global warming problem to anyone who really understands the data.