The EPIC failure of climate models is getting pretty embarrassing by now, don't you think? Nature, a reliable spin shill for the climate lobby, is doing their best to put lipstick on dozens of model oinkers. It's increasingly clear that alarmist flim-flams are reality's new roadkill.
The discrepancy between models and actual surface temperatures in 2014 was the fourth highest in “recorded” history and that the 5 largest warm discrepancies have occurred in the past 6 years. The repeated and growing discrepancy between models and observations is beyond precedent - for both surface and satellite comparisons.
For example, the figure below compares CMIP4.5 RCP4.5 models to updated surface observations, with a lower panel showing the discrepancy between observations and CMIP5 RCP4.5 model mean. The red and blue dotted lines show what the current vs. required future trends that are necessary for the model to 'catch up' to it predictions by 2030.
And a graphic plot for satellite temperature shows the discrepancy between model and observed data is even larger, and is increasingly dramatic.
Piltdown Man...Lysenkoism...steady state theory...climate models...the history of fraud and flim-flam continues...
A more important question, which is seldom addressed, is what is the likely climate outcome given a particular set of policy actions on CO2 (etc...) emissions. How does bending the emissions curve bend the temperature curve? How does it bend the economy curve?
Forget the reasons why, increasing global temperature will have a profoundly negative effect on the economy. So too will scarcity of fossil fuels. Restrictions and efficiency mandates will also have a negative effect on the economy. However, they will also offset some of the negative effects of climate change AND resource scarcity. So the real question is what should we do now to put us in the best shape economically for the future?
"Education is the only thing you can do that will change society. Everything else is just a band-aid." - Jacqueline de Chollet
"Anytime anyone has waged a war on human science, science has won." - David Rothkopf
And that's typical of conservatives--they're simply too dumb to understand any scientific words. So if you want a meaningful debate, then conservative posters either have to be ignored or removed.
Now add in the uncertainty of just "how bad" the economics effect will be, as well as whether or not it is worth a penalty on the world economic to address? And if so, then there is the uncertainty of what strategy will actually work and is "best" (e.g. adaptation to change vs. geo-engineering vs. attempts to slow or stop change via heavy carbon taxes and/or regulation of greenhouse emissions).
To say nothing of the political reality that any serious, verifiable, and coordinated plan will almost certainly never arise in the next 20 years.
My own view is simple: the next generations will be far richer than today, and their technology far more advanced. Let them fix it - after all, they will be the one's inheriting the standard of living and capital built by their fore-fathers.
In the model you described earlier, there was no comparison between the model and measured values. All you were doing (insofar as it was described in that post) was testing the hypothesis that any fluctuations in climate are entirely due to random processes with no real change in climate over time.
How so ? Longer growing seasons and greater crop yields will potentially benefit millions. The extra CO2 in the atmosphere will help compound that added growth too.Forget the reasons why, increasing global temperature will have a profoundly negative effect on the economy.
The new gas fracking technologies coming online in the US and elsewhere have rather pushed that gloomy scenario further away than ever. With the potential for much cheaper plentiful energy in the future we could in fact be looking at a new economic boomtime much like the one we enjoyed in the 25 years after WW2So too will scarcity of fossil fuels.
So don't introduce themRestrictions and efficiency mandates will also have a negative effect on the economy
Not necessarily as previously outlined. Indeed the very opposite might well be the caseHowever, they will also offset some of the negative effects of climate change AND resource scarcity.
I'd say invest in cheaper cleaner gas fracking technologies with all haste. This also has the added bonus of negating the need for the costly replacement of energy generation infrastructure tooSo the real question is what should we do now to put us in the best shape economically for the future?
I don't like regulations, but France may be on to something requiring new construction to have ether solar or green roofs.
France decrees new rooftops must be covered in plants or solar panels | World news | The Guardian
We should revamp the home solar rules to smooth the path for surplus energy purchase,
and perhaps provide some tax incentives to older refineries that switch to man made hydrocarbon fuels.
The surplus energy from the solar roofs would be stored as hydrocarbon fuels, and sold through
existing distribution chains.
Once the petrochemical Engineers get working on the processes, they will likely be able to improve the efficiency.
It could also be possible to look at some sort of energy credit to solar homeowners, where they could use the credit
to pay off season utility bills, or purchase fuel.
If thats what you want why do you post here ? Go to the Democrat Underground. They don't let Conservative posters in there.
You can slap each other on the back and gush over how smart you think you are and there's no one to correct you.
Pretty cowardly if you ask me, but hey I don't post there.