Slashdot Mirror
Reducing Climate Change Uncertainty By Figuring Out Clouds
Most climate scientists agree that the Earth's climate is getting warmer, but models predicting the severity of the temperature rise span a (relatively) broad range. One big reason for this is the difficulty in modeling things like cloud cover and how different air masses mix and move around each other.
"Specifically, they have differences in how water-rich air at the bottom of the atmosphere gets mixed with the layers immediately above it. In some cases, this mixing increases rapidly as the temperature rises, effectively drying out the lower atmosphere and suppressing cloud formation there. This in turn would enhance the warming effect. In others, the increase in mixing is more gradual, limiting the impact of warming on clouds. The former produces a higher climate sensitivity; the latter a lower one. ... So, the authors turned to the atmosphere, using data to determine the relative importance of these processes (abstract). In the end, they find that the models that dry out the lower atmosphere more quickly are likely to get the process right. And, in these models, the mixing increases the drying rate in the lower atmosphere by about five to seven percent for each Kelvin the Earth's temperature increases. In contrast, the rate of evaporation, which adds moisture to the lower atmosphere, only increases by two percent for each Kelvin. Thus, the lower atmosphere dries out, cloud formation there is suppressed, and the planet warms even further. How much more will it warm? Quite a bit."
As a physicist I do not take modeling of the atmosphere as we understood it now serious.
The atmosphere is too much a chaotic system with many (meta-) stable states.
Fucking Clouds, How Do They Work?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Last time, I checked the polar cap on the winter side of the planet was growing. As it does every year in winter. Otoh the polar cap on the summer side was shrinking, as it does every year in summer. ...
Total ice mass on the planet is shrinking each year. If you have other news than NASA and ESA please post it
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The study assumes that the models that show lower amounts of warming are the "less accurate" ones, and the models with higher warming are going to be "more accurate." Eventually, that is.
The problem is that all of the climate models that predict AGW have been wrong, and the ones that show the least amount of actual warming are the ones that are least wrong at this point. So their solution is to come up with yet another one-dimensional computer model that shifts the possible warming a few decades into the future.
The study also suggests that the water vapor in the lower atmosphere will more or less migrate up - which is not happening, according to actual observations by satellites.
It's like the old AGW models, which predicted a "tropical hot spot" a few miles up that would happen due to AGW - and which never appeared.
"the science is settled".
How can there be any uncertainty when "the science is settled"?
The science is settled: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9047642
Oh.
What makes you think they don't already do the calculations using the Kelvin scale and just convert to Celsius for reporting the results?
Is to change to using an absolute scale of temperature like Kelvin
Not really... they could have said "degrees" and it would have held true for all parts of the world using Celsius (including scientists in the US). The Kelvin bit is just silly, as Kelvin just sets 0 at a different point along the same scale as Celsius (0 being no energy vs 0 being freezing point of water). When you're measuring the temperature delta, Kelvin vs Celsius is meaningless (373.15 - 273.15 = 100 - 0).
They're reporting differences in temperatures, in this case "climate sensitivity", the amount of temperature change predicted for a given change in some other quantity (such as atmospheric concentrations of CO2). When discussing temperature intervals, Kelvin and degrees Celsius are used interchangeably, because 1 K = 1 degree C. They only differ (by a fixed offset) when discussing specific temperatures, since they set the zero point in a different place.
P.S. It's 2014 and I still can't type a degree symbol in a Slashdot comment. Here's the Unicode: . And here's the HTML entity: .
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
the abstract doesn't say they used data, it says they identified a math procedure that caused variation between the models
so, what you have are a lot of complex computer models that vary in output; the authors show that about half the variation is due to cloud mixing
however, we have no idea if the models are in fact accurate, other then Fig 1b of Fyfe etal, which suggests that the models are in fact NOT accurate, so it doesn't matter if you lower the variation between them.
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/over%20estimate.pdf
I would remind people of history: in the early 1800s, people realized that CO2 absorbs IR, and the late 1800s, they realized that humans were actually putting out enough CO2 to make a diff
Then, around 1900, someone pointed out that the atmosphere is optically thick in the IR (if you could see the color "IR" it would be pitch black all the time), so an increase in CO2 shouldn't matter
This *scientific consensus* lasted untill the 1950s, when people realized that it is emission from the outer atmosphere that matttrs....
so, for 50 years, there was a consensus that CO2 human warming was hooey
Graph shows 1990 IPCC predicitons with REALITY. There is a range of values predicted by the IPCC and the "settled consensus of climate scientitst" and then there is reality which isn't in the range they selected. They are WRONG, 100% WRONG. They made their predictions, gave a range, told everyone to stop debating, and were wrong, period.
Go ahead back to your church of AGW and keep tithing and singing hymns or whatever else you do there. The rest of us used failed scientific predictions as PROOF they were wrong.
Spin away at those facts. Attack me, attack the graph, pretend I didn't post this, whatever. The fact remains the IPCC FAILED no matter how you want to try and look at it.
The Kelvin and Celsius temperature scales use the same sized degrees but Kelvin is an absolute temperature scale in that it's tied to absolute zero while Celsius is relative to the freezing and boiling points of water at standard atmospheric conditions. Since Kelvin is an absolute temperature scale it's more useful when comparing different temperatures. For instance a 1% increase in the average temperature of the Earth would be about 2.85 Kelvin. You couldn't use the Celsius scale to calculate that directly since it it only relative.
Stop Using Climate Change to disguise an argument about human based climate change.
Nobody needs to argue that the climate changes.
These globalists who want a revenue stream for world government employed on you, your kids via carbon taxes always use this stupid, really irritating title on this so called paid research of theirs on human climate change.
Besides, I thought human based climate change was now a fact, and there wasn't any uncertainty?
Meanwhile low temperature records world wide are in the lead 2 to 1 over heat record highs because the SUN has nothing to do with climate change.
Globalist Climate Change Research = CRAP SCIENCE.
-Hackus
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
we've just learned that there are huge reservoirs of unfrozen water under greenland ice sheet, and for the second year antarctic sea ice has reached a record high to the befuddlement of climate modelers (and a ship full of them is stuck in ice), and yet you make absurd statement as if we had completely accurate ice inventory.
The models are failing, they didn't even account for the dominant greenhouse gas on earth, which is water and which is far too complicated to model with current technology. And linking to the stupid assertion #18 on RealClimate.org about water vapor, based on a single event in the 90s, is not going to prove anything other than that only pseudo-scientific arguments from the "climatologists" exist on the subject.
Those "record breaking massive storms" were, overall, not much worse than average. A couple of large ones, but they got large mostly because there weren't that many medium-sized storms along their paths. Meanwhile, we didn't seeing much of anything in the Atlantic (record-breaking "dud"), and areas outside of that one patch of Pacific Ocean were pretty average.
On the "paid" issue:
You do realize that even the guy who wrote that study you mention says that the reporter who wrote the story pretty much lied their ass off, right?
The short form: The actual study took any group that published anything at all that might, maybe, sorta could question AGW. Even one article or study. Then they took the entire budget of each organization and added it up. That's how they got that $900 million plus.
The actual amount that could actually, sorta, maybe be tied to anti-AGW funded studies or articles? About enough to fund Greenpeace for week and a half. If you counted things like studies showing that people don't like paying extra taxes for green energy stuff that doesn't actually work.
On the other hand, the "green" businesses are funding all sorts of sketchy "science" to support their industries. Like the guy who makes money off of "carbon remediation," who funded the really stupid "expedition"/tourism group that's currently being evacuated from their ice-trapped Russian ship.
Actual climate says he was right.
The 1990 IPCC report was 100% inaccurate. That is the one we can compare their predictions to what has happened up to this point, not only were they wrong, they were completely wrong. Their new report you ask? Well they say that one is 95% accurate, despite never being correct at ANY time in the past, and they just ignored how they have been wrong every time in the past. Thats not science, that is religious belief.
The BIble is more provably accruate than any IPCC report.
Sorry, but the Sun has everything to do with climate change when combined with the variable orbit geometry of the Earth around the Sun.
We will reenter the next ice age and Canada will again get covered by a kilometer or two of ice and all existing shipping harbors will become dry land.
It will probably take another 50,000 years, but it will happen on the 110,000 year cycle that has repeated at least a couple dozen times now.
You're right, but this is slashdot. It matters not what reality you live in, and what logical sequential set of events you outline in order to make an educated and valuable point. No, here it only matters that you talk in a way that makes others feel right, based on their gut feeling. It's 2014, this is the middle-school playground.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
Sorry, but the Sun has everything to do with climate change when combined with the variable orbit geometry of the Earth around the Sun.
This is absolutely true -- over millions of years. It does not explain the warming trend in the past century. Your mode of argument is like saying "all will eventually die of old age, therefore automobile accidents don't kill people." There can be more than driver of climate change, and the timescale over which a driver of change operates is very important. Even if car accidents are less likely to kill you than old age, the fact that they kill you at 19 years old rather than 90 makes a big difference.
Four degrees C rise over 100,000 years is no bit deal for the human race. The same change over a century is a very big deal. Not species extinction for humanity by any means, but massive economic dislocation. Imagine the western US as much more arid than it is now; it could mean the end of agriculture on the Great Plains.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
"The models are failing, they didn't even account for the dominant greenhouse gas on earth, which is water and which is far too complicated to model with current technology. "
The shameless ignorance is strong with this one.
Do you really believe that climatologists have IGNORED water for 50 years? Oh, "oops we forgot it again"? WTF? It's like asserting that the entire profession of internal medicine forgetting that kidneys exist because they're "too complicated to model" and assume animals are all kidney and urine free.
The very paper from the original article, peer reviewed and published in the top journal on the planet, is exactly about this very problem of testing which of the many climate models best deal with the complex feedback and feedforwards with water and clouds by using experimental data.
Here's a hint. The people who do this for a living know much much much much more than you and I do about it. I have a modest idea how much more the pros know about it (I have a PhD in physics and am acquainted with the author) and I also have the feeling that in fact however much more I think they understand, they are probably even beyond that.
"If I should only be talking about climate and not weather, then why do all of the alarmists tout about extreme weather?"
To preserve my blood pressure, I will assume that you are actually well meaning, and honestly want to learn and you are just temporarily ignorant.
Weather is the consequence of climate. Weather in North Dakota in the winter is measurably different than summer in Miami because they have differing climates. The specific weather on any one day changes with timescales related to the atmospheric circulation, which is a few weeks. Weather modeling has different purposes than climate modeling---weather takes certain observations as inputs and assumptions and boundary conditions, whereas climate modeling attempts to predict the long-term evolution of underlying physical parameters.
The inability to predict weather more than 2 or 3 weeks in advance is a known phenomenon coming from positive Lyapunov exponents in the evolution of the physical fields representing weather. This doesn't mean that climate is unpredictable because what is intended to be predicted in climate is the basic boundary conditions and inputs to weather models. It is simple to predict that winter in North Dakota will on average be much colder than summer in Miami, because the physics of the Sun and Earth show that less electromagnetic radiation reaches the ground in one case than the other.
Global warming from human activity arises because human-induced changes in the atmosphere resultsin increased emission of electromagnetic energy from the atmosphere which hits the surface. (This is not only a hypothesis, it is an experimentally validated fact). Climate models deal with the complex consequences of this change in physics. Weather models take certain inputs directly from current observations and predict the short-term evolution. They are operationally and structurally distinct.
Honestly who modded this insightful. Of course the models take into account water vapour into account, and of the effect of water vapour is difficult to model which is a big part of the reason that the error bars given say in the IPCC are quite large.
As for the Antarctic sea ice. The very first article I looked at explains that although the ice extent is a record, the volume of ice is shrinking. It's almost like the somebody read just the headline and made assumptions. I am not sure what finding ice under greenland would prove at all.
Holy crap since when did /. get overrun by denialist trolls that just don't read articles, and obviously fail to even read the IPCC reports?
You are right that 4 degrees Centigrade over a hundred years might be bad for current citizens and that begs another question when it comes to food and water supplies.
Given the world's climate change and the chance that it is cataclysmically caused by humans results in the question as to whether we have exceeded the number of humans that the earth can support in a stable manner.
Try to get a resolution through the UN on that one to reduce population! Trying to reduce man made effects, like not enough water, is not going to cause nations to reduce their population and any such suggestion will be called genocide.
Eventually overpopulation in the animal world corrects itself with massive die-offs. I doubt humans are immune from this. Overpopulation, lack of food and water will probably cause wars in the near future. History is a good teacher.
Shaky grounds? Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases cause warming. We are emitting billions of tons of carbon dioxide each year into the atmosphere. The warming caused by these emissions was predicted over 100 years ago. We are now observing that predicted warming. Which one of these is the least bit shaky?
I don't understand what you mean about no uncertainty. There is always some uncertainty in science. No measurement is ever exact, and science never proves anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
No, you're a fucking idiot. 1000 samples is plenty for many purposes, if they are good and random.
I don't know where you're getting this information. I've seen more and more evidence for warming, and lots of stories indicating that the warming is happening even faster than predicted. In fact, this very story is about that our best guess for climate sensitivity is being adjusted upward, not downward as you claim. Additionally, more people believe that AGW is happening today than a few years ago. Could you post some information that backs up your claims?
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Interesting conundrum. The left wing environmentalists want us to scale back on energy use, which effectively means we cannot support as many people on the earth as we have now. The alternative, they claim, is that doing nothing means we'll have problems growing enough food (due to climate change side-effects) to support the number of people we now have on the earth.
So do something that condemns people to die of starvation NOW to prevent the possibility that people will die of starvation in the FUTURE, maybe.
Of course the latter course does mean that attempts at mitigation (of possible side effects) will be successful and nobody will die of starvation after all but that would not fit with their ideas of an ideal world that has far fewer people in it.
Absolutely, it's also not just about our proximity to the sun, it is also about cycles of sun activity....
http://www.universetoday.com/103803/solar-cycle-24-on-track-to-be-the-weakest-in-100-years/
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/images/solar_irradiance.jpg
One of the reasons why climate scientists are off in their predictions is that the sun has been behaving in an odd way and the whole planet for the last few years has been getting far less energy from the sun that it normally does. The fact that the planet has remained in a warming trend during this period only backs up climatologists claims that we're in deep sh*t.
Climate science should be studied, it's fundamentally important to everyone on the planet. Hackus = TROLL
The fact you're being modded up for this completely ignorant/delusional statement is quite sad.
you are the ignorant one, water vapor is too hard to model and the admission of that is readily available. nevertheless, it is by far the dominant greenhouse gas on this world. by the way, I've studied geophysics, have you?
No one is claiming that we should do something that kills people to combat warming. We should use energy more efficiently and get energy from sources other than burning fossil fuels (e.g. solar, wind, nuclear, biofuels) to cut carbon dioxide emissions. We can do that and also support more people on the planet.
I think misconceptions about what we plan to do to cut back on carbon dioxide emissions is the reason most people don't agree with cutting emissions... they think it means that they will have to do without or with less. We can have just as much energy or even more while still cutting carbon dioxide emissions.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
In my view using the 1990 First Assessment Report to compare to observations is just cherry picking. Use one of the last two reports (AR4 & AR5) if you want to compare the current state of the art science to observations. Or don't you believe in scientific progress?
Well, it isn't exactly a flat line. It's just warming more slowly than in the 1980's and 1990's. But if you knew anything about climate models you'd know that they aren't expected to predict anything on 10 or 15 year time scales.
Based on the trends in the various components of Milankovitch Cycles we should be cooling now as we were for the past 6,000+ years. But we're not.
Yeah, it's cherry picking to use the 1990 report, but when you use the 2001 report you'll just say that the models are not made for the "short term". When the "long term" is finally the present, you just revert to saying it's "cherry picking" or "the science is MUCH BETTER today" (but of course not verifiable because they are not made for "the short term").
Add to this expressions like "extreme weather events" that some climate shill found either in a fortune cookie or a horoscope.
All of this is the fallout from Al Gore's Orwellian "Campaign of Mass Persuation" that he launched publicly in 2006.
"Help with the mass persuasion campaign that will start this spring. We have to change the minds of the American people. Because presently the politicians do not have permission to do what needs to be done. And in our modern country, the role of logic and reason no longer includes mediating between wealth and power the way it once did. It's now repetition of short, hot-button, 30-second, 28-second television ads. We have to buy a lot of those ads. Let's rebrand global warming, as many of you have suggested. I like "climate crisis" instead of "climate collapse," but again, those of you who are good at branding, I need your help on this."
And what they came up with was "climate change" and "extreme weather events". Elusive words that any quack or astrologist would use to make what he says compelling and non-committal at the same time.
Predicting weather is different than predicting climate. Even if you take something completely random like rolling a die, I can;t predict what the next roll will be, but I can predict very accurately that if I roll the die millions of times that the expected value of all the rolls will be very close to 3.5.
I am not saying that climate can be predicted very accurately. What I am saying is that we don't necessarily need to predict weather accurately in order to predict climate accurately.
I use to get a channel when I had cable PCN, Pennsylvania News Channel, they would have a 15 minute segment from Penn States weather center, they use computer models, but they also use there own knowledge of weather and often times go with what they believe would happen, and 90% of the time if they went with the computer model it would be wrong.
Computers do what humans tell them to. If you have some special knowledge that's more accurate than computer models, then you could just put that knowledge into the computer model to make it better. The advantage to using computer models is that a computer can do billions of computations a second and a human can't. If humans are right more often than the computer models, it just means that people are terrible at representing their own models within a computer.
All "computer models" are created by people and simply calculated on a computer. When you give the anecdotal evidence that people do a better job than computers. All you are saying is that some people do a better job than other people. This has nothing to do with the fact that computers are doing the calculations.
Why do people just jump at computers never being wrong, or the fact that despite science being around for thousands of years man has yet to fully understand how the planet works? Again programmed by man, and of course man is never wrong...
Computers are very rarely wrong (an example of this would be the floating point error in early pentium chips). They calculate what they are told to calculate. If a computer produces a wrong result it is because a human made a mistake. A computer is a tool. No one ever says "Why do people always us hammers to drive nails? My uncle can hit a nail into a piece of wood with his hand better than with a hammer.", because it's nonsensical. Either your uncle has a very shitty hammer, or he is using it wrong.
Computers are *the* tool to use for computing results from mathematical models. Yes humans make mistakes. They make far less mistakes using computers than doing arithmetic manually.
It probably warmed during the 20th century, yes. But then it warmed during the 19th as well, and the 18th. In fact it's been gently warming since the end of the LIA. It was warmer during the Roman Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period too. It's actually relatively cold at the moment.
Obviously climate scientists failed their Philosophy of Science class, as they seem to regularly mistake a trend for a law. Worse, they actually think their models have skill, despite the fact that in order to have any skill they would need a resolution of at least 1mm or less; something it would take 10^20 years to compute a 10 year prediction for.
Finally, as you might know, around 97 of 100 computer models are running far too hot. But don't fear, scientists think the 3 that aren't have errors and are wrong. This is notwithstanding the fact that the other 97 look nothing like actual measured temperatures.
Isn't this "science" stuff brilliant?
That's a big IF, isn't it. Worse, it makes no difference to the skill of their model. This is obvious to anyone who has any knowledge of discrete mathematics.
Its a lot more complicated then that.
And really... there have been so many scandals and breaches of the trust that your faction is having something of a credibility crisis.
Even the Japanese have woken up:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/
Why did you think they backed out of the climate commitments? And they were the first to buy into it.
Are they just ignorant right wing head in the sand Luddites?... Tell me more.
Fact is you're going to have to start over with this climate change campaign. From the beginning... this time with humility.
Short of that... your credibility account is overdrawn and all checks cashed against it will bounce.
You think that's unfair? I thought you were a believer in emperical reality? The reality is that is overdrawn. The reality is that you don't have the clout to sustain this arrogance any longer. The reality is that you are now in a position where you have to be nice and respectful merely to warrant common courtesy. This is something the AGW crowd has believed themselves above for some time. Well... its had a cost every time. A cost they didn't pay attention to but the accounting of the politics has led to a sustained erosion in their ability to command respect.
Are all these political arguments? Oh yes... but this stopped being a scientific argument when you brought the likes of Al Gore and the UN into it. Then it became political.
We didn't do that. The AGW people did it. Enjoy.
What do I want? Common courtesy and rigorous thorough audit of all the information from source material to methodology to the conclusion with ACTUAL open review.
Short of that... I feel not only justified but honor bound to obstruct.
Choose. We can waste more time with the delusions of grandeur of the climate lobby or we can actually have this debate for the first time
My grandfather (a geologist fwiw), warned during the oil crisis of the 70s that the next major war was actually going to be over water in the 2100s.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
It hasn't though, has it. The trend is flat for the last 17 years. Also, you're discounting the positive effects of warming and increased Co2, which are substantial. They're not included because they hurt the "crisis" narrative and the crisis narrative feeds huge sums of government money to academic institutions, NGOs and "green economy" start-ups.
Then why are you linking to a political organization?
Yes, and if anyone were presenting their results in percentages, that would be implicitly deceptive. But that would at worst be a reporting problem, and have nothing to do with the science.
And here we have exactly what's wrong with this debate. An utter ignoramus declaring that very intelligent, specifically informed people who have spent decades refining a process to get useful data are "clowns" on the basis that another process that was designed to yield better results on a different variable doesn't yield results quite as accurate on the primary variable.
Congratulations on being everything wrong with science discussion.
"Discrete mathematics" -- I don't think that word means what you think it means.
(I know a whole lot more about discrete mathematics than I do about statistics or climatology.
Look it up on wikipedia, see if you see very much at all about sampling theory or statistics.
Yes, they DO mention discrete probability, but it is a tiny corner of the whole.)
Come on, re-read the summary. If they selected based on cloud accuracy, that makes cloud coverage the primary variable and temperature a secondary one. The ones that try to predict clouds do worse at temperature.
That is to say, I have no idea what you're even trying to say, other than going for a chance to misuse the word "cretin"
I think I actually hear crickets chirping.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Your label "global warmers" puts non-scientist activists (e.g. McKibben, who really does push for what can reasonably be called decivilization) and the actual scientists (e.g.. Hansen, who doesn't) in the same category. I am not a close observer of the debate, so I cannot say what, if anything, other real scientists, such as Mann, propose, but a meaningful debate requires the two controversies--is there a problem vs. what to do about it if there is--be separated.
Look at the weather, local in particular, and tell me how many days ahead can they get right? They use computer models to predict weather and there predictions are worse then the days of then doing it by hand.
You can't model the flow of individual electrons through semiconductor but that didn't stop electrical engineers from designing your computer and making it work.
nevertheless, it is by far the dominant greenhouse gas on this world.
Dominant in the sense that it has the biggest total impact. However, because water stays in vapor form only for a few days (9 days on average), that huge impact serves as nothing more than a mere amplifier of other influences. CO2 on the other hand stays in the atmosphere for centuries before it gets removed through natural processes.
This is a common misconception. Celsius degrees can be used relatively. 20 degrees Celsius is 10 degrees Celsius colder than 30 degrees Celsius. Kelvin (note no plural and no degrees) is an absolute measurement. 1 Kelvin is 1 degree Celsius above absolute zero. 1 Kelvin cannot be a difference between two temperatures, as it's always one specific temperature.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
"Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15C and 0.3C per decade" (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html). We have seen 0.23C per decade since the report was published: http://woodfortrees.org/data/gistemp-dts/from:1990/to:2010/trend.
Are you the Comic Book Guy on the Simpsons? Because when I read your posts I always hear his voice intoning them.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
That was@pinogrigio, btw.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
I hereby postulate a new variant of Godwin's law:
As the length of any discussion of AGW increases, the odds of the right wing participant invoking the name of Al Gore approach 1:1.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
That's going to be the next denialist argument; how can it possibly make any difference if the absolute temperature only rises by the order of 1%?
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
A lot of the problem with the stories on global warming is that they respond immediately when warming indicators occur but rarely when cooling indicators do, they also rarely if ever publish the later corrections when mistakes are made.
The image that got me thinking the most is this comparison of climate models to reality; the dots and squares are reality: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/cmip5-73-models-vs-obs-20n-20s-mt-5-yr-means11.png?w=640&h=480
Another good example is page 102 of: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter11.pdf where recent observations are less than the majority of the models that are predicting extreme rise in temperature. That document is from the IPCC.
There are quotes from a climate scientist (sorry I'm not sure which) specifically stating that 17 years without a change in global temperature anomaly would indicate that the models are wrong. We've had 17 years of no change: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/plot/gistemp/from:1997
Ah; now I get why Kelvin doesn't use the 'degree' prefix -- they don't want to be educationally biased in the eyes of science deniers :D
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/15/the-met-office-responds-to-global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago/
The real truth is that there are enough people on this planet with the power and money to deny the undeniable, who think they can lead a full long happy life without having to worry about the consequences of global warming, as it will not be a problem for their generation, but the generations to follow. If you're not rich and in your mid to late 60's you're unwittingly allowing an older generation to completely hoodwink you.
that has been the false claim which new evidence is destroying
If by "new evidence" you mean TFA, then you're wrong. The new evidence from TFA is about getting a lot more accurate amplification rate estimates than scientists use right now in their climate calculations and models.