Warmists really just can’t help themselves. Years ago they told Climate Realists that weather was not climate. Now, every storm is proof of “climate change”, even snow storms and long cold periods. I personally love their insane argument about snow, where they say a warmer climate creates more water vapor creating more snow. I guess it was super warm during the last ice age. DERP face. And the Warmists are back attempting to say that storms will be worse and it will get super duper hot
Except for the fact that the current world temperature is the same as it was 16 years ago.
Climate scientists agree the Earth will be hotter by the end of the century, but their simulations don’t agree on how much. Now a study suggests the gloomier predictions may be closer to the mark.
“Warming is likely to be on the high side of the projections,” said John Fasullo of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., a co-author of the report, which was based on satellite measurements of the atmosphere.
That means the world could be in for a devastating increase of about eight degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, resulting in drastically higher seas, disappearing coastlines and more severe droughts, floods and other destructive weather.
And withing 3 paragraphs we’ve already degenerated into soothsaying: “could”. Not will. No statistical predictive number is provided to asses the likelyhood of a rise of 8 degrees in the future when everyone will have forgotten the prediction. It’s not like their predictions have failed in the past, ya know.
Climate scientists around the world use supercomputers to simulate the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans. Sophisticated programs attempt to predict how climate will change as society continues burning coal, oil and gas, the main sources of heat-trapping gases such as carbon dioxide.
Garbage in, garbage out, especially when they quite often discount/under utilize/don’t included the effects of the sun and water vapor.
No supercomputer is powerful enough to predict cloud cover decades into the future, so Fasullo and colleague Kevin Trenberth struck on another method to test which of the many climate simulations most accurately predicted clouds: They looked at relative humidity. When humidity rises, clouds form; drier air produces fewer clouds. That makes humidity a good proxy for cloud cover.
Really? I live in North Carolina. There are many, many, many days in which the humidity is horrendous, yet, the sky is relatively clear most of the day. I bet many of you can say the same. It’s the upper level atmospheric water content that matters. If you aren’t specifically including cloud cover in your models, they’re worthless.
Scientists not involved in the research said the report, funded by NASA and scheduled for publication Friday in the journal Science, could improve the predictions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its next comprehensive report, due in 2013. The panel is a world body organized by the United Nations to guide policymakers as they struggle to curb and adapt to climate change. The world has warmed by about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880, a rise scientists nearly uniformly attribute to carbon pollution from fossil fuels.
1.4 F? That’s it since the end of the little ice age? This is not, as Joe Biden would say, a “big f*cking deal.” It is less than one would expect during a warm period. The previous warm periods were up several degrees F higher. This is not science, it’s politics. Particularly since so few Warmists practice what they preach.
Oh, and it’s neither carbon nor pollution. Science!
Double oh, don’t these super computers use one heck of a lot of energy? That would mean, by Warmist doctrine, that they are bad for hotcoldwetdry. So these researchers are part of the problem.