The world consensus about anthropogenic climate change

[CrusaderFrank]

And yet the Warmers cannot point to a single repeatable laboratory experiment, not a single one, that show temperature and climate change as a direct result of a 200PPM increase in CO2.

There is not one single experiment.

Not one.

Hmmm........ P-T extinction period, PETM period. Both cases, rapid increases in GHGs, resulting in rapid climate changes which resulted in periods of extinction.

Little research is neccessary to find this information. However, most politically driven idiots eschew research, and just repeat the words of an obese drug addict.

I highlighted the words you ignored.

Got anything besides pointing to places and times when it was warmer and claiming "SEE THAT? GLOBAL WARMING AHOY!"

 

[Si modo]

Google Copernicus........CASE CLOSED!!! Sorry, science is not about "Consensus".

Sorry, Zander old boy, science is indeed about consensus.
....

Bullshit. You are still playing at science and soiling it. Or, you are thick and dumber than a box of old rocks. Still, you soil science. You, and so many like you, are its enemy.

Don't believe me, though. Believe Karl Popper who established the logic of scientific discovery. No where is consensus any part of the logic of scientific discovery

 

[RollingThunder]

Here's the last two position statements, from 2003 and 2008, from one of the largest scientific societies in the world, the American Geophysical Union. A little info on them first.

American Geophysical Union

AGU Position Statement on Human Impacts on Climate

Human Impacts on Climate

Blunder take a look at my other posts....

I have looked at them, walleyed, and they are all pretty stupid and clueless, just like you, just like this latest post of yours.

nobody with half a brain believes this crap anymore. 25% belief and falling with no end in sight.

Actually nobody with more than half a brain believes your denier cult crap. That still leaves you all of 'tea baggers' and most Republicans who you can try to bamboozle with your intellectually bankrupt propaganda. The fossil fuel industry propaganda has been somewhat effective in confusing people but that triumph of lies over truth will not last very long as the world average temperatures hit new record highs, probably this year and certainly in the next few years and various climate disasters unfold.

The hypocrisy of you dimbulb deniers is hilarious. First you pretend that the strong consensus among the world scientific community is meaningless and then you trumpet some poll showing less public support as if that proved something.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 54% of voters still believe global warming is a serious problem

Monday, April 19, 2010

You AGW clowns keep lying about how warm it is and the people freezing their asses off are saying "what effing planet are they on?" Face it you lost...now go away.

I know you cultists like to tell each other these reassuring stories about how you've won and I'm sure the flat earth society folks tell each other the same kind of fables. Meanwhile in the real world, 2009 was the second warmest year on record and 2010 is on track to be the warmest year on record.

NOAA: Warmest April Global Temperature on Record

Also Warmest January-April

May 17, 2010

The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for both April and for the period from January-April, according to NOAA. Additionally, last month’s average ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for any April, and the global land surface temperature was the third warmest on record.

The monthly analysis from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, which is based on records going back to 1880...

 

[westwall]

Walleyes, every one has seen the drivel you present in your posts. Shit from the political sites with zero scientific revelance. Thunder presented abstracts from one of the premier peer reviewed scientific journals in existance.

And they cooked the books and got caught at it old fraud. I too post abstracts from many scientific sites and you propagandists choose to ignore those. You post garbage from all sorts of warmist sites and think that is OK? Just prooves what a absolute cultist you are.

 

[westwall]

Here's the last two position statements, from 2003 and 2008, from one of the largest scientific societies in the world, the American Geophysical Union. A little info on them first.

American Geophysical Union

AGU Position Statement on Human Impacts on Climate

Human Impacts on Climate

Blunder take a look at my other posts....

I have looked at them, walleyed, and they are all pretty stupid and clueless, just like you, just like this latest post of yours.

nobody with half a brain believes this crap anymore. 25% belief and falling with no end in sight.

Actually nobody with more than half a brain believes your denier cult crap. That still leaves you all of 'tea baggers' and most Republicans who you can try to bamboozle with your intellectually bankrupt propaganda. The fossil fuel industry propaganda has been somewhat effective in confusing people but that triumph of lies over truth will not last very long as the world average temperatures hit new record highs, probably this year and certainly in the next few years and various climate disasters unfold.

The hypocrisy of you dimbulb deniers is hilarious. First you pretend that the strong consensus among the world scientific community is meaningless and then you trumpet some poll showing less public support as if that proved something.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 54% of voters still believe global warming is a serious problem

Monday, April 19, 2010

You AGW clowns keep lying about how warm it is and the people freezing their asses off are saying "what effing planet are they on?" Face it you lost...now go away.

I know you cultists like to tell each other these reassuring stories about how you've won and I'm sure the flat earth society folks tell each other the same kind of fables. Meanwhile in the real world, 2009 was the second warmest year on record and 2010 is on track to be the warmest year on record.

NOAA: Warmest April Global Temperature on Record

Also Warmest January-April

May 17, 2010

The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for both April and for the period from January-April, according to NOAA. Additionally, last month’s average ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for any April, and the global land surface temperature was the third warmest on record.

The monthly analysis from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, which is based on records going back to 1880...

Blunder all I can say to you is you keep posting old BS that has been proven false on almost every level. All of these organisations are heavily invested in the fraud. All of these "scientists" are profiting greatly from the fraud. All of these laws are designed to enable them to profit more.

On the other hand the sceptics have NO VESTED INTEREST in the passage of all of these laws that will impoverish the west. In every case you can show me some bs study and I can show you how the big cheese is poised to make millions and in some cases billions of dollars from the laws when they pass.

So you are either a complete fool (they call folks like you 'useful idiots') or you are positioned to profit from the fraud as well. Either way as you can see by all of the posts I have been making...your religion, cult, global scam is FAILING IN A BIG WAY AND THE PERPETRATORS ARE GOING TO GO TO JAIL FOR THE THEFTS THEY HAVE ALLREADY COMMITED.

I hope you are one of them.

 

[Big Fitz]

I will now destroy "Consensus Science" with two words.

ahem.

"Spontaneous Generation"

Before Louis Pasteur proved conclusively with a scientific test that there was no such thing as spontaneous generation, people believed rotting meat generated flies. Eels grew from rivermud. Mold and algae generated from stagnant water.

The entire world and academia believed in this theory.

There's your consensus science for you.

Two words and done.

 

[westwall]

That's the kind of lamebrained, dead ignorant twaddle that is so typical of you denier cultists.

We're talking about the current scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. 'Science' as we know it is a very recent phenomenon in human history. There was no organized 'science' as such to have a consensus back in time when the accepted religious belief was that the sun revolved around the Earth.

Moreover, nitwit, no one is claiming that "consensus is science". Science is science and it uses evidence and data to reach conclusions about the world around us. Once there is sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion and most of the scientists accept that conclusion as an accurate reflection of reality, then you have a scientific consensus. The consensus rests on the science, not the other way around.

Try to find a real argument and not these silly straw-men and maybe you won't look like such an idiot.

No scientist of any caliber at all has ever succesfully predicted climate change. One would suppose that if it really were science, it might be useful for something beyond gaining funding.

It's not and it's not.

And when, in the period that we have had predictive science, have we had an adrupt climate change? No, we are not knowledgeable enough in this area at present to state that when we cross this clearly delineated threshold, we will see climate change.

But we do know from past geological history that the thresholds exist, and, that when crossed, the result has been very bad for life existing at that time.

What we are seeing the climatologists, atmospheric physicists, and geo-physicists engaged in today is real science. They are measuring the rapid changes in the atmospheric circulation, the changing wind patterns, and the changes in the ice in the alpine glaciers and ice caps. All the evidence points to the conclusion that we are near, or already past that threshold.

You who cackle with derision at the presentation of these scientists are the some type of people that put Galileo to torture. Luddites willfully ignorant and afraid of reality.

Now you are in my field bozo and nothing you say is factual. There is ZERO evidence that the Permian Triassic extinction was caused by runaway global warming. I've seen the bs theories that the AGW types have come up with to support their ideas and they are laughable.

Furthermore trying to tie the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum into a 'standard GW' event is a joke. The warming came first then came massive injections of CO2 and other gasses into the atmosphere and hydrosphere, and even with that there was only a 6 to 9 degree rise in temperatures. Also because of the lack of carbonate deposits they are thinking that the Warming and subsequent CO2 release may have occured long before the Thermal Maximum got properly started. So far the most extensive record they have is from the site 690 records. Sites 1262 and 1263 on the Walvis ridge are fairly well studied and they show some of the same problems with lack of carbonate deposits.

Additionally the PETM occurs soon after the beginning of the massive flood basalts and the breakup of the super continent. There is a formation called the Danish Ash-17 and another called the Skraenterne Formation Tuff that border the PETM in time so mass volcanism is the most likely cause of the PETM. The AGW foks want to blame CO2 and methane (and I can almost agree to a boost caused by the methane) for the warming but
having a global eruption I think is more likely. It was just bloody hot out there from all of the volcanic activity.

 

[RollingThunder]

Blunder take a look at my other posts....

I have looked at them, walleyed, and they are all pretty stupid and clueless, just like you, just like this latest post of yours.




Actually nobody with more than half a brain believes your denier cult crap. That still leaves you all of 'tea baggers' and most Republicans who you can try to bamboozle with your intellectually bankrupt propaganda. The fossil fuel industry propaganda has been somewhat effective in confusing people but that triumph of lies over truth will not last very long as the world average temperatures hit new record highs, probably this year and certainly in the next few years and various climate disasters unfold.

The hypocrisy of you dimbulb deniers is hilarious. First you pretend that the strong consensus among the world scientific community is meaningless and then you trumpet some poll showing less public support as if that proved something.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 54% of voters still believe global warming is a serious problem

Monday, April 19, 2010

You AGW clowns keep lying about how warm it is and the people freezing their asses off are saying "what effing planet are they on?" Face it you lost...now go away.

I know you cultists like to tell each other these reassuring stories about how you've won and I'm sure the flat earth society folks tell each other the same kind of fables. Meanwhile in the real world, 2009 was the second warmest year on record and 2010 is on track to be the warmest year on record.

NOAA: Warmest April Global Temperature on Record

Also Warmest January-April

May 17, 2010

The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for both April and for the period from January-April, according to NOAA. Additionally, last month’s average ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for any April, and the global land surface temperature was the third warmest on record.

The monthly analysis from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, which is based on records going back to 1880...

Blunder all I can say to you is you keep posting old BS that has been proven false on almost every level.

That's your denier cult myth but it is itself quite false. In the real world, the material I've been posting is solid science from peer reviewed science journals. The nonsense you post that you imagine 'disproves' the science is just more half-witted pseudo-science that you get off of oil corp sponsored blogs. But you're too ignorant about real science and way too stupid to understand that.

All of these organisations are heavily invested in the fraud. All of these "scientists" are profiting greatly from the fraud. All of these laws are designed to enable them to profit more.

Total bullshit, walleyed. Paranoid nonsense that only a complete idiot would fall for. These organizations are the premier science societies and professional organizations in the world. Your delusional, baseless slanders of good scientists are ridiculous to anyone who knows real scientists. You believe that crap because it suits your political agenda, not because you have any believable evidence for the charges.

On the other hand the sceptics have NO VESTED INTEREST in the passage of all of these laws that will impoverish the west.

Wow, you really are completely delusional, aren't you walleyed? Your fossil fuel industry propaganda puppet masters have a huge trillion dollar a year VESTED INTEREST in preventing or delaying the necessary severe limits on carbon emissions.

In every case you can show me some bs study and I can show you how the big cheese is poised to make millions and in some cases billions of dollars from the laws when they pass.

That's another one of your delusions that is stupidly wrong.

So you are either a complete fool (they call folks like you 'useful idiots') or you are positioned to profit from the fraud as well. Either way as you can see by all of the posts I have been making...your religion, cult, global scam is FAILING IN A BIG WAY AND THE PERPETRATORS ARE GOING TO GO TO JAIL FOR THE THEFTS THEY HAVE ALLREADY COMMITED. I hope you are one of them.

You are the complete fool who has been duped by the fossil fuel industry into being their 'useful idiot' and spreading their propaganda for free. Unless you are one of their paid agents of disinformation and are posting these lies for money, which seems quite possible given your persistence in repeating the lies over and over. Your posts are inevitably moronic mishmashes of lies and spin from phony sources. It is quite probable that those organizing this propaganda campaign will eventually be brought to trial for crimes against humanity. I hope you are up there on the dock with them.

 

[pans trogladyta]

Blunder all I can say to you is you keep posting old BS that has been proven false on almost every level. All of these organisations are heavily invested in the fraud. All of these "scientists" are profiting greatly from the fraud. All of these laws are designed to enable them to profit more.

So your answer is, "it's all a conspiracy"? Had several long talks with the man on the grassy knoll huh?

On the other hand the sceptics have NO VESTED INTEREST in the passage of all of these laws that will impoverish the west.

Yeah big oil and big coal don't have a dog in this race.

In every case you can show me some bs study and I can show you how the big cheese is poised to make millions and in some cases billions of dollars from the laws when they pass.

Prove it.

So you are either a complete fool (they call folks like you 'useful idiots') or you are positioned to profit from the fraud as well.

While we are on the subject of useful idiots....

Either way as you can see by all of the posts I have been making...your religion, cult, global scam is FAILING IN A BIG WAY AND THE PERPETRATORS ARE GOING TO GO TO JAIL FOR THE THEFTS THEY HAVE ALLREADY COMMITED.

I hope you are one of them.

What a load of manure, you sound like a creationist venting at an evolutionist.

 

[pans trogladyta]

Hey rolling thunder, have you noticed how much the opposition here sounds like a bunch of creationists? Right down to the tactics and language. Including the bit about calling global warming a cult or religion.

 

[gslack]

Hey rolling thunder, have you noticed how much the opposition here sounds like a bunch of creationists? Right down to the tactics and language. Including the bit about calling global warming a cult or religion.

Stop talking to yourself troll....

 

[gslack]

Here's the last two position statements, from 2003 and 2008, from one of the largest scientific societies in the world, the American Geophysical Union. A little info on them first.

American Geophysical Union

AGU Position Statement on Human Impacts on Climate

Human Impacts on Climate

Blunder take a look at my other posts....

I have looked at them, walleyed, and they are all pretty stupid and clueless, just like you, just like this latest post of yours.

nobody with half a brain believes this crap anymore. 25% belief and falling with no end in sight.

Actually nobody with more than half a brain believes your denier cult crap. That still leaves you all of 'tea baggers' and most Republicans who you can try to bamboozle with your intellectually bankrupt propaganda. The fossil fuel industry propaganda has been somewhat effective in confusing people but that triumph of lies over truth will not last very long as the world average temperatures hit new record highs, probably this year and certainly in the next few years and various climate disasters unfold.

The hypocrisy of you dimbulb deniers is hilarious. First you pretend that the strong consensus among the world scientific community is meaningless and then you trumpet some poll showing less public support as if that proved something.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 54% of voters still believe global warming is a serious problem

Monday, April 19, 2010

You AGW clowns keep lying about how warm it is and the people freezing their asses off are saying "what effing planet are they on?" Face it you lost...now go away.

I know you cultists like to tell each other these reassuring stories about how you've won and I'm sure the flat earth society folks tell each other the same kind of fables. Meanwhile in the real world, 2009 was the second warmest year on record and 2010 is on track to be the warmest year on record.

NOAA: Warmest April Global Temperature on Record

Also Warmest January-April

May 17, 2010

The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for both April and for the period from January-April, according to NOAA. Additionally, last month’s average ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for any April, and the global land surface temperature was the third warmest on record.

The monthly analysis from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, which is based on records going back to 1880...

Trollingblunder you just went past troll to full on spammer.... You just posted virtually the same post in another thread.. Same links, same nonsense...

Lets do to that post What I did to it in the other thread shall we? Your link: NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: NOAA: Warmest April Global Temperature on Record

The article says this in the headline.... "NOAA: Warmest April Global Temperature on Record"

But the article among other things says the following things....

The warmth was most pronounced in the equatorial portions of the major oceans, especially the Atlantic.

THen a bit later it says this....

El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) weakened in April, as sea-surface temperature anomalies decreased across the equatorial Pacific Ocean. The weakening contributed significantly to the warmth observed in the tropical belt and the warmth of the overall ocean temperature for April. According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, El Niño is expected to continue through June.

They tell us the warming is mostly due to the El Nino Southern oscillation weakening in april. And that weakening contributed greatly to the warmth observed in the tropical belt and overall ocean warmth.... So its wasn't AGW as you and the title would lead us to beleive, it was because of EL Nino cycles....... Do you fucking read anything beyond the headlines? Shameful truly shameful.... You are a liar sir...

Reading that article you linked to we actually find a great disparity regional temps and weather. It was dry here, wet there. it was hot here cold there.. Yeah kind of like a climate should work normally huh.....

You are fucking done in by your own links again.... Nice work blunder....

 

[westwall]

Hey rolling thunder, have you noticed how much the opposition here sounds like a bunch of creationists? Right down to the tactics and language. Including the bit about calling global warming a cult or religion.

I will let an M.I.T. professor answer for me. I particularly like his comment that we should stop using the term skeptic because that would imply that the GW theory is plausible and it isn't. I quite like that. And mr. trogladyte I suggest you return to the cave from whence you came. I love how you try and slander me with the term creationist when I am nothing of the sort. I am a solid Darwinist and just like the finches had to adapt to survive on the Galapagos so too will the scientists who wish to survive the fraud of global warming.




By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
5/19/2010 9:43:57 AM



If you listened to Barack Obama back during the 2008 presidential campaign, you may recall him explaining that words matter. According to leading climate scientist and M.I.T. professor Richard Lindzen, there is a good bit of wisdom in that, as it pertains to the debate about global warming.



Lindzen, speaking at the Heartland Institute’s International Conference on Climate Change on May 17 in Chicago, explained that by assuming the “skeptic” label, the anti-global warming alarmist movement implies the theory is plausible. And according to the M.I.T. professor, it isn’t.



“One suggestion I’d make is we stop accepting the term ‘skeptic,’” Lindzen said. “As far as I can tell, skepticism involves doubts about a plausible proposition. I think current global warming alarm does not represent a plausible proposition.”



Lindzen told the audience the alarmists have simply failed to prove their case.



“For 20 years –more than 20 years unfortunately, 22 by now, since ’88 – of repetition, escalation of claims does not make it more plausible. “Quite the contrary,” he continued. “I would suggest the failure to prove the case of 20 years makes the case even less plausible, as does the evidence of ClimateGate and other instances.”



And Lindzen ruled out the possibility the imminent destruction as a result of any potential climate catastrophe.



“In the meantime, while I avoid making forecasts for tenths of a degree change in global average temperature model, I’m quite willing to state that unprecedented climate catastrophes are not on the horizon, though in several thousand years, we may return to an ice age.”

 

[Old Rocks]

Lindzen's primary hypothesis failed the evidential tests.

Richard S. Lindzen - SourceWatch

Lindzen's Discarded Global Warming Arguments
An internal document (pdf) of the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) -- an industry front group that disbanded in 2002 -- reviewed some of the "contrarian" arguments used by Lindzen and other climate change skeptics that they later discarded. The document, which was obtained as part of a court action against the automobile industry[13].

In a section on the "Role of Water Vapor", the GCC's Science and Technical Advisory Committee wrote that "In 1990, Prof Richard Lindzen of MIT argued that the models which were being used to predict greenhouse warming were incorrect because they predicted an increase in water vapor at all levels of the troposphere. Since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the models predict warming at all levels of the troposphere. However, warming should create convective turbulence, which would lead to more condensation of water vapor (i.e. more rain) and both drying and cooling of the troposphere above 5 km. This negative feedback would act as, a "thermostat" keeping temperatures from rising significantly."

However, the GCC's science advisers noted that this argument had been disproven to the point that Lindzen himself had ceased to use it. "Lindzen's 1990 theory predicted that warmer conditions at.the surface would lead to cooler, drier conditions at the top ofthe troposphere. Studies of the behavior of the troposphere in the tropics fail to find the cooling and drying Lindzen predicted. More recent publications have indicated the possibility that Lindzen's hypothesis may be correct, but the evidence is still weak. While Lindzen remains a critic of climate modeling efforts, his latest publications do not include the convective turbulence argument."[14]

In conclusion the GCC's science advisers was that "Lindzen's hypothesis that any warming would create more rain which would cool and dry the upper troposphere did offer a mechanism for balancing the effect of increased greenhouse gases. However, the data supporting this hypothesis is weak, and even Lindzen has stopped presenting it as an alternative to the conventional model of climate change."[15]


Linzden's Betting Challenge on Global Warming
In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he'd be willing to bet that the earth's climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout. Subsequent offers of a wager were also refused by Pat Michaels, Chip Knappenberger, Piers Corbyn, Myron Ebell, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Sherwood Idso and William Kininmonth. At long last, however, Annan has persuaded Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev to take a $10,000 bet. "There isn't much money in climate science and I'm still looking for that gold watch at retirement," Annan says. "A pay-off would be a nice top-up to my pension."[16]


On Tobacco
In a 2001 profile in Newsweek, journalist Fred Guterl wrote that Lindzen "clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking."[17]

 

[Old Rocks]

Lindzen does not speak for MIT. Here are the real researchers from MIT.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html

The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

 

[Si modo]

Rolling Thunder actually believes that his links are peer-reviewed pieces?????????


Then, we have OldRocks posting his blogs.







PEER-REVIEVEWED science. Post that. Evaluate THAT. All you are doing is allowing others to think for you. I understand why, too.

 

[Si modo]

Lindzen does not speak for MIT. Here are the real researchers from MIT.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html

The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

That model is on its face, non-scientific because it is not falsifiable.
1. It assumes climate sensitivity (If a model must assume its conclusion, duh.)
2. The data set of possible output all indicate warming irrespective of the dataset input. On its face, that is also non-falsifiable.





Non-scientific.


So basic.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Lindzen does not speak for MIT. Here are the real researchers from MIT.

Climate change odds much worse than thought

The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

Here's how real Climate Scientists predict Global Warming, you fool

Wheel of Climate Change!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Lindzen does not speak for MIT. Here are the real researchers from MIT.

Climate change odds much worse than thought

The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

That model is on its face, non-scientific because it is not falsifiable.
1. It assumes climate sensitivity (If a model must assume its conclusion, duh.)
2. The data set of possible output all indicate warming irrespective of the dataset input. On its face, that is alos non-falsifiable.





Non-scientific.


So basic.

They spun the wheel 400 times and it came out warmer almost every time

 

[Old Rocks]

Rolling Thunder actually believes that his links are peer-reviewed pieces?????????


Then, we have OldRocks posting his blogs.







PEER-REVIEVEWED science. Post that. Evaluate THAT. All you are doing is allowing others to think for you. I understand why, too.

Climate response to increasing levels of greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols


Climate response to increasing levels of greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols


J. F. B. Mitchell, T. C. Johns, J. M. Gregory & S. F. B. Tett


Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, Meteorological Office, Bracknell RG12 2SY, UK


CLIMATE models suggest that increases in greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere should have produced a larger global mean warming than has been observed in recent decades, unless the climate is less sensitive than is predicted by the present generation of coupled general circulation models1,2. After greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols probably exert the next largest anthropogenic radiative forcing of the atmosphere3, but their influence on global mean warming has not been assessed using such models. Here we use a coupled oceaná¤-atmosphere general circulation model to simulate past and future climate since the beginning of the near-global instrumental surface-temperature record4, and include the effects of the scattering of radiation by sulphate aerosols. The inclusion of sulphate aerosols significantly improves the agreement with observed global mean and large-scale patterns of temperature in recent decades, although the improvement in simulations of specific regions is equivocal. We predict a future global mean warming of 0.3 K per decade for greenhouse gases alone, or 0.2 K per decade with sulphate aerosol forcing included. By 2050, all land areas have warmed in our simulations, despite strong negative radiative forcing in some regions. These model results suggest that global warming could accelerate as greenhouse-gas forcing begins to dominate over sulphate aerosol forcing.