Courtesy of John Christy, and based upon data from the KNMI Climate Explorer, below is a comparison of 44 climate models versus the UAH and RSS satellite observations for global lower tropospheric temperature variations, for the period 1979-2012 from the satellites, and for 1975 – 2025 for the models:
Clearly, there is increasing divergence over the years between the satellite observations (UAH, RSS) and the models. The reasons for the disagreement are not obvious, since there are at least a few possibilities:
1) the real climate system is not as sensitive to increasing CO2 as the models are programmed to be (my preferred explanation)
2) the extra surface heating from more CO2 has been diluted more than expected by increased mixing with cooler, deeper ocean waters (Trenberth’s explanation)
3) increased manmade aerosol pollution is causing a cooling influence, partly mitigating the manmade CO2 warming
If I am correct (explanation #1), then we will continue to see little warming into the future. Additional evidence for lower climate sensitivity in the above plot is the observed response to the 1991 Pinatubo eruption: the temporary temperature dip in 1992-93, and subsequent recovery, is weaker in the observations than in the models. This is exactly what would be predicted with lower climate sensitivity.
I don't want to be a broken record on this but it's becoming increasingly clear that whatever is happening with the climate, scientists are real bad at predicting the future and their models are hopelessly inadequate.
Ironicwarcriminal posted:I don't want to be a broken record on this but it's becoming increasingly clear that whatever is happening with the climate, scientists are real bad at predicting the future and their models are hopelessly inadequate.
hmm if only being real bad at predicting the future consequences of a certain course of action was a good argument against irreversibly accelerating oneself along that course of action
although personally i prefer the "many worlds" interpretation of global warming
Lessons posted:http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/roy-spencers-latest-silver-bullet/
Let’s restate that in English. On the left side of the equation, we multiply the heat capacity of a 700 m column of water that is 1 m^2 on top (700 m * 4180000 J/m^3/K) by the rate of change of the average temperature of the 0-700 m layer (units = K/s)
Yeah um, no, this is gibberish.
The median house size in Classical Greece was 230 sq m, compared to ~120 in the modern capitalist US. Marxism proven.
Lessons posted:i almost like this troll because it pretty accurately mirrors the left's views on everything else. i mean if you're living in a world where bashar al-assad is a hero and the situation in north korea is a result of imperialist warmongering why not throw global warming denial into the mix? seems like pure acceptance of american liberal values to me.
What’s “accepting of liberal values” is supposed leftist climate change cultist like you listening to the fools of science (the most establishment aligned of all institutions), nodding your head sagely and saying ‘oh my this is a problem let’s rapidly eviscerate what’s left of our manufacturing industries – fuck those coalmining hicks they can work in a call centre”
Thatcher was the first political leader to really push the idea of climate change, she also had an interest in making mining look redundant and non-viable to push through a massive transfer of wealth to the finance industry.
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
littlegreenpills posted:why would capital's interests lie in a contraction of resource use
Capitals interests definitely lies in removing the last vestiges of manufacturing in the industrialized west with it’s pesky union movements and high wages. It’s not a contraction: it’s an excuse to accelerate the abandonment of industry and communities in the first world.
littlegreenpills posted:why would capital's interests lie in a contraction of resource use
Because liberal environmentalists run the global socialist government from the UN building in New York and the secret UN basement annexes in Washington and Northern Virginia suburbs.
littlegreenpills posted:why would they need to cook up a global warming myth to accomplish that. "Chinese workers will build a car for a tenth of the price/it's far cheaper to ship Chinese coal to Newcastle" ought to be rationale enough surely
Because the influential urban left petit bougiouse who work in media or services or ‘creative’ shit may show some solidarity with workers in manufacturing, may argue against offshoring as being unnecessary and destructive. You tell ‘em though that those industries are destroying the planet and are morally indefensible (you should see the hate campaigns against coal in Australia) and they won’t hesitate to throw their erstwhile comrades under the bus.
littlegreenpills posted:have there been forcible mine closures in australia. was there resistance on the scale approaching the UK miners' strike. did your brothers in the chattering classes literally read the reports and shrug saying "oh well, at least it'll cut carbon emissions"
The Greens party literally want to ban coal exports
THE carbon tax is contributing to a record number of firms going to the wall with thousands of employees being laid off and companies forced to close factories that have stood for generations.
Soaring energy bills caused by the Government's climate change scheme have been called the "straw that broke the camel's back" by company executives and corporate rescue doctors who are trying to save ailing firms.
New data from the corporate regulator reveals insolvencies have hit a record high over the past 12 months, led by widespread failures in manufacturing and construction, which accounted for almost one-fifth of collapse
Building vegan bicycles ain’t gonna replace those jobs.
Ironicwarcriminal posted:Basically it’s this: With communism and fascism gone, liberalism needed a new enemy: however this is a complicated age and it’s hard to get just one that satisfies the conditions, that’s how we ended up with the twin boogiemen of militant Islam and Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. They both are designed to further the neoliberal project, erode freedoms, distract people and project visions of impending doom unless people are willing to ‘fight’ them. It is vested interests peddling fear, nothing more.
This, also false western ideas such as communism, democracy, ecology and women's "rights" have always been at the forefront of the liberal agenda.
That was easy you fucking idiots.
Edited by mustang19 ()
littlegreenpills posted:
Because environmental concerns provide a positive narrative to the cause of offshoring for people who think "naked profit" isn't good enough.
Can we at least agree on this: In the absence of
a) serious efforts at retraining manual workers in developed countries
b) matching environmental regulations in developing countries
any call by western environmentalists to stop or close or hinder 'polluting' industry in the west is something that will hurt workers and should not be supported by them.
