It's official, the global warming hysteria movement is dead.

One team, using computer models of climate and ice, found that by about 2100, average temperatures could be 4 degrees warmer than today and that over the coming centuries, the world's oceans could rise 13 to 20 feet . . .

Many experts say there are still uncertainties about timing, extent and causes.

But Jonathan T. Overpeck of the University of Arizona, a lead author of one of the studies, said the new findings made a strong case for the danger of failing to curb emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

These brain dead pronouncements are very strong evidence that global warming, and the author of this nonsense - Andrew Revkin, are dead.

One team, using a model, could be 4 degrees, by about 2100, over the coming centuries . . . What a collection of wheezes assembled solely for instrumental purposes, to advocate CO2 regulation. They're all dead, Jim.

Here's a dose of reality. All over the world smart people are developing better energy systems that don't rely on burning things or that don't spew their wastes into the open, and/or that actually reduce atmospheric concentrations of carbon gasses. They hope to become rich, famous and have beautiful lovers. Model that!

Update:

Model this too.

Climate scientists from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory found that models that included recent changes in agricultural practices, such as more irrigation, higher yielding crops, and less tillage, predicted lower temperatures than models that ignored these factors.

"Nearly all models used to predict climate changes either ignore agriculture altogether or assume that farmers behave the same way through time," said David Lobell, the lead author on a paper appearing in the March 23 issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters. "In reality, farmers are changing rapidly in response to new technologies, growth in demand and other factors. This study suggests that these changes may have important cooling effects, especially at local scales."

Human activities are widely recognized as contributing to climate change through the burning of fossil fuel and land use activities.

Previous studies had considered the effects of converting natural ecosystems such as forests into croplands. Croplands generally reflect more sunlight than other land covers, and therefore tend to cool local temperatures.

"In our earlier study, we found that historical conversion of forests to croplands had cooled the planet by 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit, and locally by as much as 4 degrees Fahrenheit" said Govindasamy Bala, co-author of the study.

But past work had neglected changes occurring within existing croplands.

According to the Food and Agricultural Organization, the net increase in global cropland during the last 50 years has been about 10 percent. But in existing cropland, over the same period, farmers have doubled irrigation areas, have more than doubled the crop yields, and have increased the number of crops grown in a field per year. As crops become more productive, more sunlight is reflected. A recent trend toward less frequent plowing of fields also has raised the reflectivity, or albedo, of the surface. Each of these factors can cool local temperatures in the climate model by more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit.

Whenever you hear someone make a prediction or even just shout fire based on "model evidence" you should either ignore them completely or do the grubby work of figuring out all the things they screwed up. Usually their model maps no known physical reality in this or any imagined universe. They map political realities but not physical realities.

In theory a model can be useful. In practice this is seldom so because they are misused by people too naive to grasp that they are utterly clueless, that their knowledge is so shallow and sparse that they don't know how bad their models truly are. Though the politicized MSM, from once admirable journals like Science that have succumbed to political manipulation to gutter rags like the NYT, selects model results that confirm their biases for publication and promotion, a careful observer can still find lots of evidence of how flawed those models really are. In theory this is what those journals and the MSM should be doing, but they have gone over to the dark side.

Update

Different Strokes

Consider that among much of the environmental and scientific communities it is appropriate for James Hansen to state: “Climate models suggest that doubled CO2 would cause 3ºC global warming, with an uncertainty of at least 50%” (PDF). But among many of the same people, the following statement by George Bush is inappropriate, "We do not know how much our climate could, or will change in the future. We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our actions could impact it." Both statements seem to me to be obviously scientifically consistent the knowledge represented by IPCC. The difference is that James Hansen has openly advocated one political agenda and George Bush another. The defining characteristic of a “climate skeptic” does not seem to be only how one views climate science, but how one orients climate science in political context. This explains why it will be extremely unlikely to see Ted Nordhaus and Michael Schellenberger labelled climate skeptics, even though they wrote in Saturday’s New York Times a statement entirely consistent with Rahmstorf’s “attribution skeptics”:

Environmentalists and their opponents have spent far too much time debating whether global warming is caused by humans, and whether the transition to cleaner energy sources will be good or bad for the economy. Whatever the causes, warming is a genuine risk.

They won’t be called skeptics because they also advocate a “Global Warming Preparedness Act.” Politics manifests itself in how various people choose to interpret the notion of “consensus” and use it in politically convenient ways.