It is not warming and they are fools much like Dr Stadtler.
The only way they show the temps is with false data ,manipulated data . The temp stations placed on heat islands are well known. The 1998 hot planet coincided with an extremely active sun .
The sun is in the begining of a Grand Solar Minimum.
A new study blows the greenhouse theory out the window.
The paper argues that concentrations of CO2 and other supposed “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere have virtually no effect on the earth’s temperature.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/study-blow...

It is interesting how this is spun in the Nature Geoscience paper. The official model predicts 1.5 deg C increase with a 615 gigaton of carbon emitted since 1870. That level of carbon would be reached in just 7 years from now and we should have the warming of 2100. But the earth is not warming that much, now with their model rather than 70 more gigaton of carbon we need ~200 more to reach that 1.5C . In other words they went "Oh s**t the model is not working and in 7 years we'll look like fools, we better get a new one now!" But since the effect of carbon emission is lower, to lower the warming to less than 1.5C we need to cut carbon emissions even more, because the earth is still warming at the same rate! Finding the real responsible of warming would be a better choice.

Static parameters ('fudge factors') is not synonymous with a static physical process. I don't know what they are doing with what you refer to as vegetation response, but in principle the parameters they adjust could weight entire non-linear, dynamic processes.

A static model assumes that parameters will not change once the analysis process has begun. For example a static model of atmospheric CO2 does not take vegetation response of increase in atmospheric carbon into account so it leads to unrealistically high concentration predictions. A static model does not recognize vegetation response as providing a natural carbon sequestration mechanism.

Why do you call it "static" modeling?

Precisely! There are many factors involved all which influence the ecosphere behavior to one degree or another. Very difficult to understand much less model.

Yes and if you add the complexity of the Sun's dynamic cycles that are known and the correlation to weather here on Earth. The model would be much more accurate. The fluctuations in the number of Sun spots , the dark coronal holes and the encompassing solar wind, plasma filaments, solar flares and CME's (Coronal mass ejection's).

Cosmic rays entering the atmosphere assist in cloud formation at around 18,000 ft. More clouds means more rain and cooler from the albedo effect. Fewer clouds the opposite.

The Earth's electromagnetic sphere's fluctuation
also plays a role in how much cosmic rays enter.. When strong it deflects the cosmic rays better than when weakened.

The words of the former British PM Gladstone often echo in my mind: "There are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics!" I often wish that the abject failure of the polls that depicted a Hillary blowout victory would engender healthy skepticism, but I fear we'll continue to see polluted polls (skewed populations, small samples, biased questions) waved around madly by the propaganda mills that claim to be legitimate media.

This is one of the reasons static modeling is used so frequently. It's a lot easier and can sometimes provide a useful perspective. But the world is a very dynamic place and static models are of limited utility. The ecosphere is highly complex and modeling it with a tool that has only a tiny fraction of that complexity is bound to produce limited results.

There are many mechanisms that are not understood well enough, on their own and in conjunction with others, to make predictions. Whatever the relative importance of that one, a fundamental flaw in the modeling mentality is the belief that it doesn't matter, regardless of instabilities and the interactions at different scales. The result is a Rube Goldberg "model" with free parameters manipulated and 'tuned' with the claim to predict the future and which cannot even predict the past.

Hi DrZarkov99,
This is the mentality for the use of 97% consensus from the Skeptical Science a mouth piece for the statists.

"Expert consensus is a powerful thing. People know we don’t have the time or capacity to learn about everything, and so we frequently defer to the conclusions of experts. It’s why we visit doctors when we’re ill. The same is true of climate change: most people defer to the expert consensus of climate scientists. Crucially, as we note in our paper:

Public perception of the scientific consensus has been found to be a gateway belief, affecting other climate beliefs and attitudes including policy support."

It irritates me to continually hear about the "97%". That number of supposed scientific adherents is as bogus as the human-caused climate change fiction. The number came from a poll that was sent to roughly a thousand scientists who published peer reviewed papers about climate activity. Only 300 had published papers analyzing possible causes, and of those only 79 responded, with one not ready to blame it all on humans. So the authors of the poll extrapolated from the opinions of 79 to imply that 97% of all the 34,000 or so scientists with some form of connection with climate study support the notion that climate change is entirely due to human activity. BS!

very interesting article. I suppose given their theory, if the absolute weight of the atmosphere were modified to increase the atmospheric pressure at the surface, temperatures would rise. But the atmosphere weights so much, I just cant see what WE do making much of a difference. The atmosphere would be uninhabitable.

Hi Term2,
This was from OldUglyCarl http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/study-blow...

Actually you are right in many ways. I just have trouble thinking that with all the warmings and coolings that have gone on over thousands of years through natural causes that we can really do anything to cause or prevent them in the future

Thanks Carl an excellent addition to this post.
The science is sound and repeatable. I am thinking this is a paradigm shift.
Michael Mann and others ignore a request to review the paper,, no surprise and I wouldn't value their opinion anyway.

For some reason I'm now thinking of Robin William's Popeye, when some toughs are making fun of the way he speaks, saying, "I got a sinsk of humiligration."

Great word, pontificate. It ranks right up there with blather.

There's the shining bright stars and then there's the little people expected to hang on to every lib word their betters have to pontificate.
Pontificate? These days that word can be used to put down the blather of a socialist pope.

Seems it is atmospheric pressure that determines planet temperatures and not the make up of that atmosphere.
The moon gets just as much and maybe even more sunlight than earth, yet it's 90 degrees C cooler than that of earth...why?...no atmosphere.

http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/study-blow...

How can you expect the elite to follow the climate rules that the rest of are supposed to. Remember that some are more equal than others.

J Bieber flew 157,000 miles on a private jet.L DiCaprio flew 87,000 miles on a private jet and G Clooney 61,000 Miles on a private jet. Earth circumference 24900 miles just these three hypocrites circled the globe almost 13 times Carbon footprints of the Telethon stars: The Hand in Hand hurricane fund-raiser started with a lecture about global warming - then celebrities with multiple homes, cars and private jets starting soliciting much needed money. DiCaprio once flew 8000 miles to pick up a green award hah.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Thanks for the link! The cool temps this year have been noticed around the globe from your link...
"In recent months global temperatures have plummeted by more than 0.6 degrees: just as happened 17 years ago after a similarly strong El Niño." Not only that, but despite doom-and-gloom prognostications by global warming's biased, bought-and-paid for "scientist" forecasters, ice in the Arctic and Greenland both grew this year.

Recent revisions of climate data have all been in one direction: Older data have been revised to show cooler temperatures, more recent ones, warmer temperatures. Statistics would suggest that random errors would be not all in one direction.

So it looks suspiciously like scientist-statisticians who are getting big fat checks from governments that have every interest in selling the idea of inevitable and disastrous global warming are, if you will, cooking the books…."

GWPF Newsletter 27/09/17
Climate Change Predictions: What Went Wrong? http://mailchi.mp/thegwpf.org/climate...

Only people like Rush and Hannity.