Global Warming? Not a snowball's chance in hell

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ ^ | December 19 2012 | By James Delingpole

[Para-Ord.45]

So why all the fuss? Because the part scientists disagree on is not the "forcing" effects of CO2-induced warming – but the "positive" or "negative" feedbacks which might arise from it. The alarmists, whose views have dominated the debate these last few decades, have long insisted that these feedbacks – mainly created by additional clouds and water vapour – have a "positive", amplifying effect.

It goes like this: A little warming (from whatever cause) heats up the sea, which makes the air more ­humid—and water vapor itself is a greenhouse gas. The resulting model-simulated changes in clouds generally increase warming further, so the warming is doubled, trebled or more.

But what all the observational data now tells us is that this alarmist theory (which was only given credence in the first place as a result of some ropey computer models) is bunk.

That's the good news.

The bad news is that it's not going to make the blindest bit of difference. As I show in Watermelons, this was never really a debate about science but is, and always has been, about ideology.

[Para-Ord.45]

The conclusion—taking the best observational estimates of the change in decadal-average global temperature between 1871-80 and 2002-11, and of the corresponding changes in forcing and ocean heat uptake—is this: A doubling of CO2 will lead to a warming of 1.6°-1.7°C (2.9°-3.1°F). This is much lower than the IPCC’s current best estimate, 3°C (5.4°F). Ridley says it's "dynamite." Well, possibly. It's definitely one in the eye for climate catastrophist establishment.

To understand why, let's remind ourselves of what constitutes the disputed territory in the great global warming debate. For many years, scientists on both sides of the argument have agreed that if atmospheric CO2 doubles from pre-industrial levels – as it will before the end of the century – its "forcing" effects will result in between 1.1 degrees C and 1.2 degrees C of global warming.

This gentle rise in temperature, as the IPCC's scientists have acknowledged, will be largely beneficial: rainfall will increase slightly, growing seasons will lengthen, etc.

[DManA]

the part scientists disagree on is not the "forcing" effects of CO2-induced warming –

That is incorrect too. Objective data on this is showing the initial estimates, the ones being used in the models, are double what they actually are.

[upchuck]

These bastards will never give up. They couldn’t survive without a government teat to suck and slobber on.

[longfellow]

Upchuck, I vomited a little thinking of the slobbering part. thanks for the image.

Arrest al gore the snake oil global warming salesman. Ok that’s a better image.

[upchuck]

:)