RADIATIVE FORCING BY CO2 OBSERVED AT TOP OF ATMOSPHERE FROM 2002-2019
"The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report predicted 0.508±0.102 Wm−2RF resulting from this CO2 increase, 42% more forcing than actually observed. The lack of quantitative long-term global OLR studies may be permitting inaccu-racies to persist in general circulation model forecasts of the effects of rising CO2 or other greenhouse gasses."
metmike: The significance of this empirical data.............the actual measurement of the "greenhouse gas affect" from the addition of CO2 cannot be overstated. This data is akin to using a calibrated rain gauge to measure how much rain fell vs wild guessing from seeing how big the puddles/standing water was.
It proves, irrefutably/beyond a shadow of any scientific doubt, PART OF WHY the global climate models that we have been using have been too warm.
In the face of this compelling data/evidence, continuing to use the same flawed, too warm models based on, what we now know with certainty, is too much radiative forcing ......based on MEASURING IT is climate science malpractice. Any scientists refusing to acknowledge it, are clearly NOT using the scientific method and clearly are motivated by something else.
The total lack of response to this and in fact, an acceleration in the push of narratives that portray the complete opposite of this, is telling.
While the planet greens up during a scientifically/biologically defined climate optimum for life from beneficial warming and increasing beneficial CO2, featuring the best weather/climate in the last 1,000 years(since the Medieval Warm Period that was this warm 1,000 years ago).
But we are being sold on the FAKE climate crisis based entirely on ....politics.
Frustrating beyond description
Your positive contributions here are much appreciated!
2015 leading up to the fraudulent Paris Climate Accord was the most frustrating for many that care about authentic science.......reading all the bs, even from the pope based on politics.
President Obama making stuff up about climate change, making fun and attacking people with authentic science, that contradicted their "settled science". Calling us flat earthers/climate deniers(to connect us with a Holocaust Denier mentality-very offensive). That was frustrating.
Since then, it's increasingly clear that authentic climate science does not matter here. They hijacked climate science and even rewrote climate history(to wipe out the Medieval Warm Period) so they can impose their political agenda and it's going to happen no matter what.
The global socialism/Marxism train left the station years ago.
This is part of the cultural revolution and global/US socialism future that is marching forward.
Nothing that I can do about it but accept it and think of the potential positives, like socialized medicine, which I believe in.
We WILL see a widespread, massive increase in taxes, especially carbon taxes for gasoline and heating/cooling.
This country is filled with hate and intolerance right now and I can't do much to change that...........but can at least have a tiny influence by showing love and tolerance, along with truth and honestly in my tiny MarketForum world.
We all have choices everyday.
1. Do we want the world to move forward with us dragged along, having no influence?
2. Do we want to make it slightly worse(for those that we encounter) by contributing to the hate and divisiveness?
3. Do we want to make it slightly better(for those that we encounter) by demonstrating kindness, positivity, honesty and truth/enlightenment?
My wife tells me that when I die, they are going to have a huge problem at the funeral home. I've coached 3,500 students playing chess the past 25 years and made many good friends with their parents/families/teachers..............all while benefiting the minds and development of our youth(in my small pond)!
No, this is not frustrating at all any more. It's rewarding!!!!
‘The climate emergency isn’t about science, it’s about justice’
1 response |
Started by metmike - July 30, 2020, 1:55 p.m.
Here are 4 dozen discussions/threads and hundreds of posts with the truth.
Climate Reality discussions
15 responses |
Started by metmike - April 15, 2019, 4:10 p.m.
"Because a change in the frequency (number/year) of hurricanes could be a result of climate change, we analyzed the historical record of Atlantic basin and US landfalling hurricanes, as well as US continental accumulated cyclone energy to evaluate issues related to trend detection.
Hurricane and major hurricane landfall counts exhibited no significant overall trend over 167 years of available data, nor did accumulated cyclone energy over the continental USA over 119 years of available data, although shorter-term trends were evident in all three datasets."
Another smoking gun!
Two new peer-reviewed papers from independent teams confirm that climate models overstate atmospheric warming and the problem has gotten worse over time, not better.
Overall their findings are:
In this Figure the box/whiskers are model-predicted warming trends in the tropics (20S to 20N) (horizontal axis) versus altitude (vertical axis). Where the trend magnitudes cross the zero line is about where the stratosphere begins. Red= models that internally simulate both ocean and atmosphere. Blue: models that take observed sea surface warming as given and only simulate the air temperature trends. Black lines: observed trends. The blue boxes are still high compared to the observations, especially in the 100-200hPa level (upper-mid troposphere).
Dr. Spencer: "These are all interesting exercises, but they miss the most important point: the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.
Whether humans are the cause of 100% of the observed warming or not, the conclusion is that global warming isn’t as bad as was predicted. That should have major policy implications…assuming policy is still informed by facts more than emotions and political aspirations.
And if humans are the cause of only, say, 50% of the warming (e.g. our published paper), then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats.
I am growing weary of the variety of emotional, misleading, and policy-useless statements like “most warming since the 1950s is human caused” or “97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming”, neither of which leads to the conclusion we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good. "
This is proof to me that global climate models and climate science based on them is completely F-ed up.
For the past year, some of the most up-to-date computer models from the world’s top climate modeling groups have been “running hot” – projecting that global warming may be even more extreme than earlier thought. Data from some of the model runs has been confounding scientists because it challenges decades of consistent projections.
“It is concerning, as it increases the risk of more severe climate change impacts,” explains Dr. Andrew Gettelman, a cloud microphysics scientist from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Boulder, Colorado.
“We have a saying at NOAA: It isn’t rocket science – it’s much, much harder than that,” quips Dr. Chris Fairall, ATOMIC’s lead investigator. “One of the major problems for modeling is there is not clean separation of scales.” The photo below is one that Fairall took from the NOAA P-3 aircraft.
“Think about trying to code up a model that can produce this,” Fairall muses. “Huge cloud systems are made up of a spectrum of clouds from the size of Kansas to ones that fit in the trunk of your Volkswagen.”
In the real world and the simulated model world, cloud formation depends partially on how moisture interacts with aerosols, tiny floating particles in the air. Aerosols are fine particles like smoke, sea spray, and pollutants. These tiny dust-like particles act as condensation nuclei, allowing gaseous water vapor to turn into cloud droplets.
The interplay between clouds, aerosols, and a warming climate in a model affects how much of a cooling or warming influence that model calculates.
Recently a new international dataset of emissions – including changes in the concentrations of aerosols – has been introduced into some climate models with improved cloud physics. As a result, some scientists conclude, the changes have affected cloud dynamics in these models, leading to additional warming.
But despite the increased confidence that a subset of the CMIP6 models are likely overdoing warming projections, Gettelman believes there is at least some merit to the warmer projections because this generation of models has more sophisticated cloud physics.
So in order to get to the bottom of cloud complexity and improve these vital model projections, the international community is collaborating on a massive research project.
To address the urgent question about the dynamics and role of clouds in a warming world, NOAA and European partners launched their ongoing research effort unprecedented in scale. The U.S. contribution, ATOMIC – short for Atlantic Tradewind Ocean-Atmosphere Mesoscale Interaction Campaign – is an international science mission that was featured recently on “CBS This Morning: Saturday.”
“The research that originally motivated this project was an analysis that showed that the single biggest factor that separated the CMIP models into big warming and not so big warming was treatment of shallow convective clouds,” Fairall explains.
The best places to find shallow convective clouds are tropical waters. So in February, a group of scientists from more than 40 partner institutions from countries including the U.S., Germany, France, and the U.K. painstakingly probed hundreds of miles of tropical air and sea near the island of Barbados. They used every tool in their arsenals: five research aircraft, four large fact-finding vessels, buoys, radar and futuristic air and ocean drones to examine the makeup of these complicated and crucial clouds.
Scientists expect that the vast, concurrent and diverse types of observations captured in ATOMIC will allow them to improve how clouds are represented in climate models, enabling them to make more precise predictions of future climate and impacts.
Fairall says the data from ATOMIC is ideal for such assessments, and he expects the findings will inform the upcoming 2021 comprehensive IPCC report. With the data from ATOMIC still being analyzed, scientists have not yet reached conclusions.
On the whole, however, these unprecedented research efforts to troubleshoot discrepancies in the latest models have already borne critical fruit. They are providing scientists with more insights, illustrating the crucial value of the scientific method, lending credibility to the capability of climate models, and helping build more confidence within the climate science community."
metmike: The quote in bold is total bs. If they were truly using the scientific method, the model projections would have been adjusted much lower (based on the empirical data/observations) a long time ago.
The models have indisputably been PROVEN too warm.........and the latest models just got hotter, going in the exact opposite/wrong direction. How on earth does this "lend credibility to the capability of climate models"?
It proves that they are crap.
Anybody still believing the latest global climate model projections falls into 1 of 3 categories. There is no 4th.
1. Have a cognitive bias that causes them to be blind to the authentic science/observations/empirical data and to only believe models.
2. Are ignorant of or don't have access to the authentic science.
3. Are dishonest and/or don't want this field to represent the authentic science.
4. See choices #1, #2 or #3.
Like Trump said
They can't keep the lights on in California
Precision research by physicists William Happer and William van Wijngaarden has determined that the present levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and water vapor are almost completely saturated. In radiation physics the technical term “saturated” implies that adding more molecules will not cause more warming.
In plain language this means that from now on our emissions from burning fossil fuels could have little or no further impact on global warming. There would be no climate emergency. No threat at all. We could emit as much CO2 as we like; with no effect.
This astounding finding resolves a huge uncertainty that has plagued climate science for over a century. How should saturation be measured and what is its extent with regard to the primary greenhouse gases?
In this thread, there are 3 separate, completely independent from each other, powerful pieces of evidence that explain why the planet is NOT warming at the rate that our models/computer simulations have been projecting.
It is wonderful news because it tells us that things are not going to be nearly as bad as the worst case future scenarios, supposed apocalypse.
And its not just speculated wonderful news, to offset the speculated apocalypse. It's empirical data and authentic science that proves the apocalyptic theories are wrong.
Yet none of the MSM sources have anything about any of these powerful science news items!
Just goes to show that, manufactured/simulated apocolypses are headline news but authentic science telling us there will be no catastrophe and we don't have to be scared anymore...............are completely ignored.
These are just words that came from me above.
Scroll up and look at the data and the studies. Data, authentic science and facts are always our reliable friends. They will never let you down.............even when silver tongued humans using convinvincing sounding words tell you one thing........and they can twist the meaning of data or cherry pick certain numbers and even manipulate data but they can't change the authentic data.
This is just the same story but the short video is a good one.
CO2 is Not a Pollutant!
This is the same study that I posted about a month ago that the MSM is ignoring because it contradicts the fake climate crisis narrative...just like the other studies that show the warming projections are too warm are being ignored.
CO2 is good says authetic science
Started by metmike - Nov. 29, 2020, 8:03 p.m.
Yet another study showing that newer climate models are too warm........it will get ZERO coverage by the MSM and governments.... so you will NEVER read or hear about this truth:
The climate crisis that never existed continues to live on using busted simulations of the atmosphere going out 100 years that are extremely unlikely to be anyway close to correct.
We have 40+ years of empirical data that conclusively proves this from numerous irrefutable sources, and many independent metrics/measures of our world that tell us this loud and clear..............all of which are being intentionally censored by the MSM and governments, so they can sell you on the lie.