It’s like they aren’t even aware of the 17 year pause or something, but this gives The Atlantic’s John Metcalfe a thrilling up his leg
Weather geeks, say goodbye to your morning productivity. The data conjurers at NOAA have rolled their latest environmental visualization out of the hanger, and it is bursting with every possible thing you’d want to know about the planet’s health, from past to present to worrisome future.
Want to know what the clouds like looked during your city’s last nasty storm? The “NOAA View” portal has crisp satellite images stretching 5 years back. Curious where snow and ice have accumulated this year? The frozen stuff is splashed about the globe like splattered white frosting. How hot will the weather soon be if humanity doesn’t rein in its emissions? One of the several simulations crammed into this Swiss Army climate tool has this prediction: It will be blastedly warm, despite our best attempts to stop burning fossil fuels.
Here’s two visualizations Metcalfe took from NOAA
The top one is them looking into a scrying pool to forecast the global temp in 2100 under a “low emissions” scenario. For the bottom one, Matcalfe writes “And the world is positively choking in torrid air by 2100 under a “very-high emissions scenario”. Huh. Torrid air. But don’t say Warmists aren’t hysterical fools who used to be the crazies standing on street corners hold apocalypse signs.
And the doom keeps going on and on. From the NOAA website
The NOAA View imagery portal provides a single point for experiencing NOAA data from satellites, models, and in-situ analyses. The site allows for seamless browse, animate, and download capability of high resolution images and Google Earth formatted files. With over 60 datasets (and growing) that go as far back as 1880 and out to 2100, NOAA View provides the ability to see our dynamic planet and how it changes over weeks, months, years and even decades.
These are the same people who wouldn’t be able to predict the weather with 100% accuracy out to 10 days, and they’re going to tell us the climate in 2100? Good grief. They’re simply making up data, which is not science.
Mr.Teach- Somewhat off topic, but many times clicking on say, “3 comments”, there will be no comments. As an example, this post shows “3 comments”, but when clicking it on there are none. Am I missing something? Thanks
wt,
But why are you concerned about the crazies? You’ve won the argument. The US, and thus the world, are doing nothing about CO2 emissions. You have nothing to worry about. Since you’re a young man you should live long enough to see the warmists censured in shame in a decade or two and your writings extolled as the acme of common sense.
Of course, your hypothesis – sometimes global surface temperature goes up, sometimes goes down, and importantly, by mechanisms that defy human understanding – is untestable. It’s all natural!
What is easily testable is the theory that CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere results in the retention of increased solar energy in the Earth’s air, land and seas. Skeptic Dr. Judith Curry even recently offered a hypothesis for how the retained heat redistributes through the atmosphere, land masses, ice fields and oceans in the Northern hemisphere.
No, not missing anything. The numbers can look off because the comments/pingbacks in the spam cue are counted. I’ve tried using different code to avoid this, but can’t find the proper WordPress code. Could be the way it’s set up on that line to give a popup box.
[…] at Pirate’s Cove is blogging about “NOAA Provides Visuals Of Climate […]
Another lie from Jeffery.
[…] Pirates Cove […]
gittyup typed: “other lie from Jeffery.”
Another lie from gittyup.
“Your hypothesis-sometimes temps go up, sometimes they,go down- is untestable.” Really? That “test” has been going on for over 4 billion years. “Skeptic Dr. Judith Curry….” Otherwise known here on earth as ” Dr. Judith Curry, who has a different opinion…” Lame Jeffery, lame.
Really Jeffy?
Are you really trying to defend the statement “we are doing nothing about CO2 emmissions?”
You are either lying or woefully ignorant.
Most likely both.
J1,
You left out that I qualified wt’s hypothesis that temps move up and down by magic. The current rapid warming is almost certainly caused by man’s burning of fossil fuels. See the difference? wt believes that large changes in the heat content of the Earth can ONLY occur “naturally”. The evidence is overwhelming that the current warming signal results from increased atmospheric CO2.
Dr. Curry is clearly a “climate skeptic”, yet just admitted that AGW is real.
Lame Ji, lame.