Comments on: Climate of extremes

By: DocBud

DocBud — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:31:54 +0000

Jarrah, you are quite right, the models are far from useless, they are next to useless.

Where is all this radiative forcing going to holiday for thirty years? Swanson is taking a wild punt, hoping to keep the AGW pot boiling despite 30 years of apparent contradiction. When will these clowns just give it up and except that the AGW hypothesis has failed the test of real world validation? They could always move onto Bertrand Russell’s Infraredioscope to scare the crap out of people and gain world power.

By: jc

jc — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 01:46:57 +0000

Thanks for making my point.

So we have a set of models telling us that we’re going to have .17degs of warming every decade and another set telling us that the warming has taken a holiday for the next 30 years.

And we’re using this swill to formulate a pretty aggressive taxing/mitigation scheme?

Is this a comedy skit your proposing?

By: Jarrah

Jarrah — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 01:16:15 +0000

“the models they have been using are basically useless for prediction”

But he’s making his own prediction, presumably using a model. You can’t say models are bad based on another model!

Besides, the models have done quite well in some respects. They are certainly far from useless.

By: jc

jc — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 01:07:43 +0000

Fatty:

What this lunatic is basically saying is that the models they have been using are basically useless for prediction. The models never predicted this amount of Co2 with no warming this decade.

In other words they know little how the climate system works, which is why they’re pushing warming after another 30 years hiatus.

It’s like the financial equivalent of removing the mark to market rule when things get ugly.

By: Jarrah

Jarrah — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 00:31:15 +0000

From JC’s link:

Swanson thinks the trend could continue for up to 30 years. But he warned that it’s just a hiccup, and that humans’ penchant for spewing greenhouse gases will certainly come back to haunt us.

“When the climate kicks back out of this state, we’ll have explosive warming,” Swanson said. “Thirty years of greenhouse gas radiative forcing will still be there and then bang, the warming will return and be very aggressive.”

By: nicholas gray

nicholas gray — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 23:20:57 +0000

And did everyone have a quiet chuckle at the Global Warming Activists who were snowed in, in Washington? God has a cool sense of humour!

By: jc

jc — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 14:23:17 +0000

AGW takes on hiatus for the next 30 years says climate scientist.

interesting.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29469287/#storyContinued

By: Jarrah

Jarrah — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 13:36:59 +0000

Despite some basic errors, inflation of the relative importance of some pieces of evidence but not others, and references to US temperatures when all we are really concerned about is global ones, not too bad for Cato. I especially like the last paragraph – too often deep greens forget the massive benefits of capitalism and industrialisation, and only consider the costs.

Nicky, you’re developing an unhealthy concern about what I think. Time to build a bridge, and get over it.

By: Yobbo

Yobbo — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 09:06:02 +0000

Aesop’s Fables – you can get an illustrated version for kids.

Not all of the stories can be described as libertarian but they all make more sense than your usual leftist children’s books.

By: nicholas gray

nicholas gray — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 06:13:13 +0000

This book seems disgustingly even-handed! Watch out, or someone with the initials JJ will smite you with something called Climate-Audit! You have been warned!