The Case for Global Warming Stronger Than Ever

[konradv]

There's plenty more evidence in the Met Office report to support global warming. But the question from critics remains: how can we be sure this isn't just a natural phenomenon? Scientists haven't done a good enough job of communicating how they distinguish human versus natural influences, says Hegerl. The answer lies in climate models — massive computer simulations that allow the scientists to project climate effects in various scenarios, including those in which humans do not emit any greenhouses at all. "We go out of our way to check out other explanations — by assuming it's all explained by solar activity, or by solar activity plus volcanoes, or by combinations of any of the other natural forcings known to affect climate," says Hegerl.

According to the models, none of those combinations can produce the climate patterns currently being observed in the real world. Add the greenhouse gases that we know humans are generating (and which we've known since the 1800s tend to warm the Earth, all other things being equal), and the simulations finally come close to matching the real world. Its possible, albeit far-fetched, that the simulations are defective. It is even less possible that all of them (and there are many) are defective in the direction of overstating humanity's contribution to warming.

Report: The Case for Global Warming Stronger Than Ever - TIME

So much for the skeptic/denier meme that climate scientists aren't considering other sources of warming.

 

[driveby]

oh neat......

 

[wirebender]

More computer simulations being used as if they were data. Great. Never mind that computer simulations aren't, at present, worth the disk space it takes to write them.

 

[konradv]

More computer simulations being used as if they were data. Great. Never mind that computer simulations aren't, at present, worth the disk space it takes to write them.

That's merely your opinion. Considering that you don't have much knowledge of the matter, it isn't worth much. Your first sentence is a total lie, for example. The simulations aren't used AS data, but to TEST data.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy." Official policy of the EnviroMarxist IPCC

Read more: UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy' | NewsBusters.org

It's time for everyone favorite game of Peer reviewed Settled Science

Wheel

Of

Climate

Change!

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

There's plenty more evidence in the Met Office report to support global warming. But the question from critics remains: how can we be sure this isn't just a natural phenomenon? Scientists haven't done a good enough job of communicating how they distinguish human versus natural influences, says Hegerl. The answer lies in climate models — massive computer simulations that allow the scientists to project climate effects in various scenarios, including those in which humans do not emit any greenhouses at all. "We go out of our way to check out other explanations — by assuming it's all explained by solar activity, or by solar activity plus volcanoes, or by combinations of any of the other natural forcings known to affect climate," says Hegerl.

According to the models, none of those combinations can produce the climate patterns currently being observed in the real world. Add the greenhouse gases that we know humans are generating (and which we've known since the 1800s tend to warm the Earth, all other things being equal), and the simulations finally come close to matching the real world. Its possible, albeit far-fetched, that the simulations are defective. It is even less possible that all of them (and there are many) are defective in the direction of overstating humanity's contribution to warming.

Report: The Case for Global Warming Stronger Than Ever - TIME

So much for the skeptic/denier meme that climate scientists aren't considering other sources of warming.

Go eat a dick. I swear, you morons are worse than the Westboro Baptist Church with your "faith."

 

[Flopper]

Global warming denial seems to be centered in the US. I think this is probably due to the American obsession with conspiracy theories. In Europe as is in most of the world, the question is not whether the earth is warming but rather what are we going to do about it.

 

[driveby]

So what are the Europeans going to do about something that doesn't exist?......

 

[RollingThunder]

So what are the Europeans going to do about something that doesn't exist?......

The Europeans don't care about your brain, bozo, so they aren't going to try to do anything about your lack of one.

 

[wirebender]

That's merely your opinion. Considering that you don't have much knowledge of the matter, it isn't worth much. Your first sentence is a total lie, for example. The simulations aren't used AS data, but to TEST data.

Not opinion konradv. Observable, quantifiable, fact. Of course, if you believe there is a computer simulation out there that is actually capable of making accurate predictions, by all means name it. Even climate scientists acknowledge that the models have little, if any, predictive ability.

 

[manifold]

The Case for Global Warming Stronger Than Ever

Why would you be for Global Warming? You hate people or something?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Global warming denial seems to be centered in the US. I think this is probably due to the American obsession with conspiracy theories. In Europe as is in most of the world, the question is not whether the earth is warming but rather what are we going to do about it.

Is that so

Fewer Americans, Europeans View Global Warming as a Threat

 

[Flopper]

Global warming denial seems to be centered in the US. I think this is probably due to the American obsession with conspiracy theories. In Europe as is in most of the world, the question is not whether the earth is warming but rather what are we going to do about it.

Is that so

Fewer Americans, Europeans View Global Warming as a Threat

The question in the survey was how serious is the threat of global warming to you and your family. Global warming is a serious threat to future generations, not the current generation. Today, people are concerned more with current economic conditions and less concerned about the world at the end of this century. However, from this survey it's pretty clear that in spite of the current economic problems the developed nations are concerned.

 

[wirebender]

The question in the survey was how serious is the threat of global warming to you and your family. Global warming is a serious threat to future generations, not the current generation. Today, people are concerned more with current economic conditions and less concerned about the world at the end of this century. However, from this survey it's pretty clear that in spite of the current economic problems the developed nations are concerned.

It's for the children right? Its always for the children. When you can't rationally justify what you want to do, and the facts are stacked heavily against you, liberals always cry that it's for the children. How much more patheitc could you possibly be?

 

[Old Rocks]

That's merely your opinion. Considering that you don't have much knowledge of the matter, it isn't worth much. Your first sentence is a total lie, for example. The simulations aren't used AS data, but to TEST data.

Not opinion konradv. Observable, quantifiable, fact. Of course, if you believe there is a computer simulation out there that is actually capable of making accurate predictions, by all means name it. Even climate scientists acknowledge that the models have little, if any, predictive ability.

Total bullshit, Bent. You have never presented anything backing your assertation that CO2 does not cause warming. And the computer simulations certainly made far better predictions concerning the present weather patterns than have the sorry assed deniers.

 

[Old Rocks]

The question in the survey was how serious is the threat of global warming to you and your family. Global warming is a serious threat to future generations, not the current generation. Today, people are concerned more with current economic conditions and less concerned about the world at the end of this century. However, from this survey it's pretty clear that in spite of the current economic problems the developed nations are concerned.

It's for the children right? Its always for the children. When you can't rationally justify what you want to do, and the facts are stacked heavily against you, liberals always cry that it's for the children. How much more patheitc could you possibly be?

Not as pathetic as a fool like you that would throw away your children's future for your temporary luxury.

Yes, we do care for the future of our children and grandchildren. We realize that people like you do not.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The question in the survey was how serious is the threat of global warming to you and your family. Global warming is a serious threat to future generations, not the current generation. Today, people are concerned more with current economic conditions and less concerned about the world at the end of this century. However, from this survey it's pretty clear that in spite of the current economic problems the developed nations are concerned.

It's for the children right? Its always for the children. When you can't rationally justify what you want to do, and the facts are stacked heavily against you, liberals always cry that it's for the children. How much more patheitc could you possibly be?

Not as pathetic as a fool like you that would throw away your children's future for your temporary luxury.

Yes, we do care for the future of our children and grandchildren. We realize that people like you do not.

Lying cocksucking EnviroMarxist

 

[skookerasbil]

There's plenty more evidence in the Met Office report to support global warming. But the question from critics remains: how can we be sure this isn't just a natural phenomenon? Scientists haven't done a good enough job of communicating how they distinguish human versus natural influences, says Hegerl. The answer lies in climate models — massive computer simulations that allow the scientists to project climate effects in various scenarios, including those in which humans do not emit any greenhouses at all. "We go out of our way to check out other explanations — by assuming it's all explained by solar activity, or by solar activity plus volcanoes, or by combinations of any of the other natural forcings known to affect climate," says Hegerl.

According to the models, none of those combinations can produce the climate patterns currently being observed in the real world. Add the greenhouse gases that we know humans are generating (and which we've known since the 1800s tend to warm the Earth, all other things being equal), and the simulations finally come close to matching the real world. Its possible, albeit far-fetched, that the simulations are defective. It is even less possible that all of them (and there are many) are defective in the direction of overstating humanity's contribution to warming.

Report: The Case for Global Warming Stronger Than Ever - TIME

So much for the skeptic/denier meme that climate scientists aren't considering other sources of warming.

But so what s0n? How does it matter?

The plain fact is.......it doesnt. The skeptics are winning and the alarmists.......well..........they're not.

So perhaps you can enlighten us s0n and show us how "the evidence" matters. The only way it matters more than for the purpose of internet babble is to effect public policy. But its effect = dick.

Anyway.......nobody reads TIME magazine anymore anyway. Too....its always been a rag for hyper-progressive and its readership has declined by over 50% since 2009 = epic fAiL...........which makes this thread all the more hysterical.

 

[skookerasbil]

Published: Nov. 30, 2011 Updated: Dec. 1, 2011 6:48 a.m.

Global warming alarmism cooling
At U.N. climate conference, poorer nations still want to soak richer ones.


THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

Another frantic effort to redistribute wealth from developed nations to developing nations is under way, this time in Durban, South Africa. The excuse is the same old, tiresome claim that socialism writ large is necessary to save the planet from global warming.
Fewer people are fooled every year the United Nations brings together representatives of about 190 nations hoping to profit from the shakedown. Just as claims of climate doom are wearing thin, so are arguments for separating you from your money.
We like the way contrarian climate scientist S. Fred Singer describes the confab: "10,000 or so Durban attendees – official delegates, U.N. and government officials, journalists, NGO types and other hangers-on – will have a grand old time: two weeks of feasting, partying, living it up in luxury hotels, and greeting old friends at this 17th reunion – all at someone else's expense."
"At someone else's expense" could be the theme of the global warming movement.

Global warmism cooling | nations, global, warming - Opinion - The Orange County Register




People only care in the nether-regions of the internet s0n..............

 

[skookerasbil]

LMAO....from RealClearScience on Tuesday...............


The Sky Is Falling Less?
A new climate study suggests global warming may not be as dire as predicted.
Ronald Bailey | November 29, 2011

Last week, Science published a new study by Oregon State University researcher Andreas Schmittner and colleagues who found that an increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may result in less warming than predicted. The researchers declared that their results “imply less probability of extreme climatic change than previously thought.” Has the global warming apocalypse been called off?

The Sky Is Falling Less? - Reason Magazine





Ooooooops!!!!