That is, the rash of scientific puzzlement over the 15-year absence of global warming. Well, I guess that makes it a non-heat rash. Also, scientific should have been written as “scientific”.
The warming standstill of the global surface temperature shows that the uncertainties of climate predictions are surprisingly large.
Really? That’s only surprising to anyone stupid enough to have believed “the science is settled”. As a virtually superhuman intellect has pointed out, these “scientists” don’t know the first thing about solving a problem in the first place.
How many variables contribute to the global surface temperature? Nobody knows, yet somehow these geniuses are surprised by their failure. Now, that phenomenon is explained by a single variable. It’s called…hubris.
It’s not hubristic to expect the temperature to go up if greenhouse gases increase. In fact…everything else being equal…it would be insane to expect anything else. But you know what else is insane? So-called scientists assuming that everything else would remain equal. Bonus crazy points to any of them who’ve ever heard the butterfly/hurricane story.
(That would be every last one of them, BTW.)
These guys are so stupid and hubristic that they increase my temperature, yet I never burst into flames. Why? Because, inevitably, I begin to vent steam first. So let me complete this cooldown with a geekspeak riff:
An increase in CO2 increases the air temperature thus increasing water vapor thus increasing clouds thus increasing albedo thus increasing solar radiation reflection thus
increasingoops decreasing the air temperature.
Wait. Was that…was that a negative feedback loop? Why, I do believe it was! Gee, if only that concept had been available to science back in the primitive era of 1998, Anno Domini.
Okay, this discharge of steam and sarcasm is now complete.
We had snow into April. So yeah.
Also, a greenhouse gas increase would have to be massive. Like really massive. In the past 50 years we’re talking about not even 100 PPM increase (which anyone can see easily when looking at, for example, the Mauna Loa data, which is available to the public.) That’s just not enough to cause anything. 100 parts per million more CO2 would cause such a massive warming? There is absolutely no evidence for that idea. None whatsoever. If that was true, then Mars would have to be a burning hellhole, given how much CO2 that atmosphere has (Venus doesn’t work as example, because of how close she is to the sun, no matter how much or little CO2 Venus would have, it would always be hot there.)
And it doesn’t explain why it was significantly warmer, globally, in the Roman and Medieval warming periods (which, “strangely” enough, don’t appear in the hockey stick, despite massive historic evidence, I mean, there’s no way that supporters of the AGW theory would ever falsify and forge data, right?)