It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
CMIP5 is meant to provide a framework for coordinated climate change experiments for the next five years and thus includes simulations for assessment in the AR5 as well as others that extend beyond the AR5. CMIP5 is not, however, meant to be comprehensive; it cannot possibly include all the different model intercomparison activities that might be of value, and it is expected that various groups and interested parties will develop additional experiments that might build on and augment the experiments described here.
CMIP5 promotes a standard set of model simulations in order to:
-evaluate how realistic the models are in simulating the recent past,
-provide projections of future climate change on two time scales, near term (out to about 2035) and long term (out to 2100 and beyond), and
-understand some of the factors responsible for differences in model projections, including quantifying some key feedbacks such as those involving clouds and the carbon cycle
John Christy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
John R. Christy is a climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) whose chief interests are satellite remote sensing of global climate and global climate change.
He is a distinguished professor of atmospheric science, and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. For his development of a global temperature data set from satellites he was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and the American Meteorological Society's "Special Award."
In 2002, Christy was elected Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.
From November 1978 through March 2011, Earth's atmosphere has warmed at an average rate of about 0.14 C per decade, according to the UAHuntsville satellite record.
Christy was a lead author of the 2001 report by the IPCC[6] and the U.S. CCSP report Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere – Understanding and Reconciling Differences.
Part of the cooling trend seen by the satellites can be attributed to several years of cooler than normal temperatures and cooling caused by the eruption of the Mount Pinatubo volcano. Part of the discrepancy between the surface and atmospheric trends was resolved over a period of several years as Christy, Spencer and others identified several factors, including orbital drift and decay, that caused a net cooling bias in the data collected by the satellite instruments. From November 1978 through March 2011, Earth's atmosphere has warmed at an average rate of about 0.14 C per decade, according to the UAHuntsville satellite record.
Affiliations
Heartland Institute — Listed as a "Global Warming Expert" by the Heartland Institute.
Cato Institute — Speaker at a Cato-sponsored event on global warming.
Competetive Enterprise Institute (CEI) — "Contributor."
Independent Institute — On Institute's "Panel on Global Warming."
Desmogblog (s.tt...)
They call it "Internal Radiative Forcing." We call it "weather."
In Spencer and Braswell (2008), and to an even greater extent in his blog article, Spencer tries to introduce the rather peculiar notion of "internal radiative forcing" as distinct from cloud or water vapor feedback. He goes so far as to say that the IPCC is biased against "internal radiative forcing," in favor of treating cloud effects as feedback. Just what does he mean by this notion? And what, if any, difference does it make to the way IPCC models are formulated? The answer to the latter question is easy: none, since the concept of feedbacks is just something used to try to make sense of what a model does, and does not actually enter into the formulation of the model itself.
Originally posted by unityemissions
Then the whole, "it's not warming", when we've clearly had more record highs in the last 10-20 years than in the previous 40-50.
that's due to a combination of revisionism
simple facts
there is more energy in the atmosphere, and more moisture.
Don't be a fool
AGW isn't a religion nor is it treated as such.
Science doesn't require faith but disbelieving it does.
Attacking the messenger isn't a failure when there's something to attack.
No one wants AGW to be true
Originally posted by Kali74
the only people denying pollution and excessive CO2 levels are those with a vested interest in the causes of such
Everything AGWers advocate is a boondoggle
Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Long Lance
Everything AGWers advocate is a boondoggle
No. You've just chosen to believe the propaganda.
Originally posted by Kali74
Yes I knew that natural gas is better for the environment than fossil fuels....
Green energy can work, but I'm aware it also isn't perfect but improving... we could get most of our energy from renewables now, but...
Controversy over the benefits of using corn-based ethanol in vehicles has been fueled by studies showing that converting corn into ethanol may use more fossil energy than the energy contained in the ethanol produced. Now a new MIT analysis shows that the energy balance is actually so close that several factors can easily change whether ethanol ends up a net energy winner or loser.
Now the drought of 2012, the worst in more than 50 years, is making clear the downside of a policy that leads the U.S. to devote 40 percent its corn harvest to fuel production. With this year’s crop expected to be the smallest in six years
Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Long Lance
Yes I knew that natural gas is better for the environment than fossil fuels
it would be great if it weren't for the process which tends to lead to poisoned water supplies
poisoned ground, poisoned animals, and yes tap water that you can light on fire (thought much rarer than the poisoning).
Fracking in EQ prone areas is also thought to contribute to tremors.
... we could get most of our energy from renewables now, but...