« | »

Ass’t Prof: Models Predict Global Warming

From the relentless fear-mongers at the Associated Press:

Study: Think you’re hot now? Just wait a few years

By Randolph E. Schmid, AP Science Writer

Thu Jul 8, 2010

WASHINGTON – Folks sweating out the heat wave battering parts of the country may just have to get used to it.

As global warming continues such heat waves will be increasingly common in the future, a Stanford University study concludes.

Like our President, the Associated Press and the rest of the Warmers never lets a ‘crisis’ go to waste. After all, what could be more proof of  ‘global warming’ than that it is hot in July?

"In the next 30 years, we could see an increase in heat waves like the one now occurring in the eastern United States or the kind that swept across Europe in 2003 that caused tens of thousands of fatalities," Noah Diffenbaugh, an assistant professor of environmental Earth system science at Stanford, said in a statement.

For the rest of your life you will probably remember just where you were and what you were doing when you heard this pronouncement from that plucky assistant professor of environmental Earth system science, Noah Diffenbaugh.

Diffenbaugh and Moetasim Ashfaq [sic], a former Stanford postdoctoral fellow [aka ‘student’] now at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, used a series of computer models of climate to calculate changes in the future with increased levels of carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere. Their findings are reported in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

They used a series computer models? This surely will put an end to any further discussion on the matter.

They calculate that within 30 years average temperature could be 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, or 2 Celsius, higher than in the mid-1800s.

That level of increase has been reported by others and most atmospheric scientists expect it to lead to warming and a change in a variety of weather and climate conditions.

Such as extremely cold and snowy winters.

Diffenbaugh and Ashfaq focus specifically on heat waves over the United States.

They reported that an intense heat wave equal to the longest on record from 1951 to 1999 is likely to occur as many as five times between 2020 and 2029 over areas of the western and central United States.

In addition, they said the 2030s are projected to be even hotter.

"Occurrence of the longest historical heat wave further intensifies in the 2030-2039 period, including greater than five occurrences per decade over much of the western U.S. and greater than three exceedences per decade over much of the eastern U.S.," the researchers reported.

It is so convincing when they throw around scientific technical jargon like “exceedences.”

"I did not expect to see anything this large within the next three decades. This was definitely a surprise," Diffenbaugh said.

The research was funded by the Energy Department and the National Science Foundation. The climate model simulations were generated and analyzed at Purdue University.

Well, we certainly can trust the Energy Department and the National Science Foundation to fund highly scientific and unquestionably objective research on ‘global warming.’

And, gosh, even assistant professor Diffenbaugh was surprised by his results.

This article was posted by Steve on Friday, July 9th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

11 Responses to “Ass’t Prof: Models Predict Global Warming”

  1. P. Aaron says:

    quote: “We could see an increase in heat waves”. What if we don’t?

  2. Laree says:

    Russian Climate Scientist Predicts New Ice Age Part 1


    Study: Think you’re hot now? Just wait a few years

    By Randolph E. Schmid, AP Science Writer – DYI for Mr Schmid “Sun Heats Earth”

  3. Right of the People says:

    I just ran a model on my laptop and discovered its going to be dark at night and light during the day. It will get very dark early in the afternoon in December and very light in the morning in late June. We must do something about this!

    I propose we need to burn more fossil fuels ward off the darkness. I’d show you the data I used to come to these conclusions but I deleted it by mistake. You’ll just have to trust me on this.

  4. proreason says:

    I’m always surprised (about 10 times a year, on average), when I discover a ‘flaw’ in one of the records generated by computer that I receive.

    Even though I know that computers are infallible, somehow my bills regularly contain errors. So far in my life these little ‘flaws’ have ranged from a few cents up to $10,000 (not a misprint). And the number of errors in the thousands are plural, not singular.

    I’m no assistant professor, but one of the things I’ve noticed is that when a human being punches in a number that is wrong, the computer never seems to catch it. No chance, of course, that Mr. Diffenbaugh could have entered any data into his models that would slant the results. He’s a scientist.

  5. Rusty Shackleford says:

    For my models, I use clay. I have noted that when I put the clay in the freezer, it comes out cold. In the oven, it comes out hot.

    My climate models are indicative of something but I will have to submit the test results to someone smarter than me (I?) in order to get the conclusions I need.

  6. untrainable says:

    My climate model is a rock hanging on a string from the lowest branch of a tree in my back yard. When it is wet on top, it’s raining. When there is white buildup on top, it’s snowing. When it swings back and forth, the wind is blowing. (pretty good huh?) And I’m sure it didn’t cost nearly as much as the floods of grant money these “scientists” work for.

    When a climate scientist can tell me what the weather is going to be like next week with any accuracy, maybe I’ll start looking at the data that predicts what 2029 is going to look like. Until then, I’ll listen to the weatherman, take what he says with between 2 and 100 grains of salt, and always keep an umbrella in my car.

  7. hushpuppy says:

    Has anyone listened to ‘The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming’? It’s funny as well as accurate in nailing all those eggheads who are absolutely certain of a particular outcome depending upon who is providing the research funds.

    Scientists have now been forecasting an imminent ice age _and_ a global warming! How that kind of thing happens simultaneously is beyond me but there it is.

    In Canada, a renowned fruit-fly scientist known as David Suzuki took massive research grants some 30 years ago and ta-dahh! Informed us of an impending ice age – get yer woolies on pronto, folks. But David whored himself out and wouldn’t ya know it? Gravely predicted global warming. Went on to do interviews, ads, and made a pile of cold cash. Or is that hot cash. Dunno…

    But whores will always be whores, and they’ll always do what you want them to – for the right price of course.

    It never ceases to amaze me how liberals (doesn’t matter in which country they are), can lie through their teeth and have absolutely zero shame!

    Gore whore himself out for hundreds of millions and got a shiny prize from the Nobel Crackerjack Company.

  8. Chuckk says:

    Why don’t they take their computers and predict where the stock market will be next Wednesday? If they are successful, I’ll sign on to their climate predictions.

    • proreason says:

      The reality Chuckk is that they don’t need to predict. Manipulation works better and faster.

      Goldman Sachs, for example, has profited in each of the last 14 bubbles. The odds against that in a 50-50 world….about 16 million to one. And did you notice that the major investment banks all had “up” days every day of the first quarter this year. The odds against that in a 50-50 world….light years to one.

      Rubes are Wall Streets golden goose.

    • tranquil.night says:

      It’s actually a realistic comparison since in both situations you have entities that at critically volatile points of uncertaintly try to smooth standard human market behavior over with a false sense of security.

      In fact, in a broader sense there are a lot of parallels between current market patterns and political trends. If you chart Liberalism vs Conservatism the same as you would supply vs demand, you’d notice many similarities. One is that Global warming would now probably be damn near the worst performing stock on their exchange. Another thing is that on a 1yr-5yr chart Liberals are fighting a moderate to severe downward trend in demand for their ideas, which have been grossly overpriced since hitting an all-time high in 08-09. As their bubble started to rapidly deflate around the ObamaCare debate, they’ve been in triage ever since just trying to stay afloat while Bam continues scaring everyone out of the building.

      The conditions are similar in the actual market too. It is broadly understood now that there is no recovery, no growth. The flash crash exposed the very real market fears that just below the surface an ’08 repeat looms at the front of everyone’s head everyday. But even though trend patterns are repeating the 1928-30 era, we’re still seeing very flat to mild declines. There’s been a lot of NEAR runs on the market, but the difference now is that the market movers and other powers that be like the Fed will take large position sizes at critical junctures. Many, many times now I’ve seen -150 to -200 in the first hour of trading hit a very calculated wall at or near (they like to tinker) the 10 or 10:30 reversals. The market then ends the day even or at a small loss.

      Where I’m going with all this is that were not going to see any major economic meltdown or market event until January; it’s been carefully structured that way. Nevertheless the bleeding will still be immense.

      UPDATE: Just read Doctor Zero. He really hits it out of the park again.

    • proreason says:

      “not going to see any major economic meltdown or market event until January”

      Probably so, for the reasons you state.

      But there is something even more interesting going on. Anybody watching the price of gasoline?

      Wouldn’t a rational person say that the the price of gasoline should be “skyrocketing”. After all, the BP accident has caused the biggest consumer of oil on the planet to shut down offshore drilling….and the law of supply and demand is as close as you can get to an absolute in economics.

      Yet, the per gallon price is actually LOWER than it was just before the BP accident.

      Passing strange I’d say….all the more so because of the unprecedented drop in oil prices just before the 2008 election….which just happened to take McLame’s biggest issue completely off the table….even though there was nothing in the oil industry itself that could have impacted the price.

      Somehow, I have the feeling that gas prices are going to be real stable through November, probably even lower than now. After that, buy a bicycle.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »