Science is not about consensus, it’s about testing hypothesis.
First a setup video — Professor Bob Carter has some lecture shorts on the subject if you are interested.
Prof Carter is one of the most interesting lectures on this subject, and knowledgeable as well. This is just part 1, there are four parts on youtube.
The global warming hoax is all but finished off with this new research. The mathematical computation computer models that pass for global warming research are just that, they are computer models, they make predictions and no one verifies they actually predicted what happens on Earth. They have been making these predictions for 20 years. Well yes some have verified the predictions, and no the computer models don’t match what happens in the real world, so that explains why you never hear about that fact.
In fact, nothing predicted by the computer models has been born out with empirical data. You would think after 20 years, that would bury the hoax.
This new paper establishes the computer modelers get the feedback effect precisely wrong. Feedback effects, in this case the models use positive feedback, are the computer modelers way of magnifying the trivial 20th century warming, less than one degree, into something threatening — the in-famous hockey stick and it’s friends. Without the positive feedback fudge factor, which is a rare and particularly destructive form of feedback not found very often in nature, the computer models would predict slight or no warming, depending on how you establish the ‘start points’. ‘Start points are another problem altogether, which I won’t talk about here, only say that time frames of years is not appropriate for geologic and climate time scales.
Why do the modelers do it, simple, ‘nothing’ is a whole lot less scary that what they are throwing around, is it not? The interesting point is even without the positive feedback fudge, the computer models do not predict the cooling trend that has happened over the last 10 years or so, which is further evidence of the models uselessness for real science — Real science does not do predictions that’s what astrologers do.
Paper Abstract …. Dr. Roy W. Spencer paper “Global Warming: Has the Climate Sensitivity Holy Grail Been Found?“
This article addresses new satellite and modeling evidence that previous satellite diagnoses of high climate sensitivity–which directly translate into predictions of dangerous levels of global warming–contain a large spurious bias. It is shown that those exaggerated estimates were the result of faulty assumptions regarding clouds when analyzing variations in average global temperature and average reflected sunlight off of the Earth.
Specifically, it has been assumed (explicitly or implicitly) that, for global averages on time scales of three months or more, temperature variations cause clouds to change, but that cloud variations do not cause temperature to change. But when properly filtered, the satellite data reveal evidence of cloud variations indeed causing temperature changes, and that this source of natural climate variability biases the estimate of climate sensitivity in the direction of a very sensitive climate system.
The new interpretation suggests a very low sensitivity. If the new sensitivity estimate is accurate, it would suggest only 0.5 deg. C of manmade warming by the year 2100. The new sensitivity estimate also suggests that warming over the last century can not be explained by human greenhouse gas emissions alone, but instead might require a mostly natural explanation.
Case closed, for normal people. You pols, carry on with the lies as long as you think you have any credibility left. Proceed at your own risk.
Maybe before we take the economies in the Western world into the toilet, we should have a little more real data and a whole lot less hype and unfounded speculation.