Global warming stopped 16 years ago

[Imawhosure]

Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace, testified in front of a Senate committee Tuesday that there is no scientific evidence of man-made global warming.

 

LINK

And so, with reason like this..........not about WHAT is happening, but WHAT if IT is happening; we need to ask ourselves why they are all in a tizzy. I am not going to sit here and type while proclaiming they are bunch of "transfer of wealth" crooks, but one has to wonder, doesn't one?

 

To most of us, it is plainly obvious that eco terrorists feeble attempts to blame everything from more hurricanes that they predicted, (their frequency has actually fallen since they jumped on this prediction) or more tornadoes, (which have also fallen after their brilliant prediction) to the illustrious both coasts being swallowed up.

 

I think it is time we ALL put this topic to bed by our side no longer debating if it is happening, and instead taking the tact for them to prove that if it IS happening, then PROVE it is a crisis. Nothing they have predicted has come to fruition, so ask them what they predict what will happen next so we can monitor their accuracy. If it heads towards bad, we revisit the situation. From everything I read, the temperature can get much warmer than even they predict, and most of the increase would be an upside for us.

 

That gives us time, and plenty of it, so you carbon tax supporters can go back into your cave. Not gonna happen!

[cal50]

 

Wow. That is an excellent summary of exactly what many of us have been pointing out.

 

The facts don't lie.

 

 

Liars change facts and that is often the problem.

Think Al Gore & similar......

[the_spaniard]

Umm incorrect models indicate they don't fully understand what they're modeling. They even admit that in the last IPCC report. Therefore I don't accept their conclusion as bring 95% sure. Does that mean I will never accept it? No. I just haven't seen anything yet that has convinced me.

 

Ummm if you are waiting for predictive modeling to be 100% accurate for you to accept it, you will never accept it. That is not the way modeling works. Even with the errors in their models temps still fell into prior projected ranges.

 

That's fine if you don't accept it, just don't knock people that do as the scientific evidence is on their side.

[TomServo92]

 

Ummm if you are waiting for predictive modeling to be 100% accurate for you to accept it, you will never accept it. That is not the way modeling works. Even with the errors in their models temps still fell into prior projected ranges.

 

That's fine if you don't accept it, just don't knock people that do as the scientific evidence is on their side.

 

Why do you keep ignoring that IPCC admitted the models are flawed?

[the_spaniard]

Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace, testified in front of a Senate committee Tuesday that there is no scientific evidence of man-made global warming.

 

LINK

 

Well, I'm sold. He destroyed the mountains of scientific evidence in one fell swoop. Oh wait, no he didn't.

 

He just doesn't believe in using computer models for predicting future events, despite the fact they are currently the best and most accurate means of doing so across any given discipline and are used by large numbers of scientists across many fields. But he did manage to plug his book.

 

The James Schlesinger argument (what he used here) was addressed a while ago. The last warming trend was believed to be caused by higher levels of solar activity (which have since stabilized) combined with lower levels of volcanic activity. There has never been a subsequent "pause" in global temperatures. It has always been increasing.

[the_spaniard]

 

Why do you keep ignoring that IPCC admitted the models are flawed?

 

I'm not. There was an error in the models. What you don't get is that the resulting data was still within projected results, and those same models have accurately predicted weather since the 1900s.

 

I'll say it again, every computational modeling system has errors. That does not mean they are useless.They are still the most accurate method for the prediction of future events and have been used across multiple scientific disciplines to do so for years now.

 

Why don't you see that?

[TomServo92]

 

Well, I'm sold. He destroyed the mountains of scientific evidence in one fell swoop. Oh wait, no he didn't.

 

He just doesn't believe in using computer models for predicting future events, despite the fact they are currently the best and most accurate means of doing so across any given discipline and are used by large numbers of scientists across many fields. But he did manage to plug his book.

 

The James Schlesinger argument (what he used here) was addressed a while ago. The last warming trend was believed to be caused by higher levels of solar activity (which have since stabilized) combined with lower levels of volcanic activity. There has never been a subsequent "pause" in global temperatures. It has always been increasing.

 

Uh yeah. Keep drinking the Kool-aid there buddy....

[TomServo92]

 

I'm not. There was an error in the models. What you don't get is that the resulting data was still within projected results, and those same models have accurately predicted weather since the 1900s.

 

I'll say it again, every computational modeling system has errors. That does not mean they are useless.They are still the most accurate method for the prediction of future events and have been used across multiple scientific disciplines to do so for years now.

 

Why don't you see that?

 

Because you're wrong. Climate change scientists were baffled the models were so off. That tells me it wasn't within expected ranges. That's just spin to save face that they were so incredibly wrong.

[FiredMotorCompany]

How are they in hindsight?

 

Take the models and apply them to known weather and environment data. Do the predictions reach 95% accuracy then? Can they even be called predictions?

The Farmer's Almanac has a greater accuracy and they've been around almost 200 years.

 

Farmers' Almanac More Reliable Than Warming Climate Models

Bad Science: It turns out that a 200-year-old publication for farmers beats climate-change scientists in predicting this year's harsh winter as the lowly caterpillar beats supercomputers that can't even predict the past.

Last fall, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Climate Prediction Center (CPC) predicted above-normal temperatures from November through January across much of the continental U.S. The Farmers' Almanac, first published in 1818, predicted a bitterly cold, snowy winter.

The Maine-based Farmers' Almanac's still-secret methodology includes variables such as planetary positions, sunspots, lunar cycles and tidal action. It claims an 80% accuracy rate, surely better than those who obsess over fossil fuels and CO2.

The winter has stayed cold in 2014, and snowfall and snow cover are way above average. USA Today reported on Feb. 14 that there was snow on the ground in part of every state except Florida. That includes Hawaii.

"Sometimes trying to figure out why something happened is as hard as making the forecast of what will happen," CPC Acting Director Mike Halpert said in a Feb. 14 interview. Such uncertainty is what we are supposed to be basing our industrial and economic policy on.

As Bloomberg notes, the CPC underestimated the "mammoth December cold wave, which brought snow to Dallas and chilled partiers in Times Square on New Year's Eve." The Almanac didn't, though Caleb Weatherbee, its prognosticator, apologized for being a few days off on two of the season's biggest storms.

The CPC seems to have completely missed the "polar vortex" that swept down and caused every state except Florida to experience snowfall and brought about 4,406 record low temperatures across the U.S. in January, along with 1,073 record snowfalls.

As John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has noted, global temperatures collected in five official databases confirm that there's been no statistically significant global warming for the past 17 years — contradicting the predictions made by 73 computer models cited in the United Nations' latest (wrong) global warming report.

 

Edited February 27, 2014 by FiredMotorCompany

[the_spaniard]

There is not much support for this idea primarily because it does not require lifestyle changes of the population. It doesn't fit the agenda. It also poses a very real risk to the CO2 as driver of the climate folks. If the CO2 levels do drop, and the climate doesn't cool as predicted, then the whole theory is proved wrong. And the problem with that is that the scientific elite cannot afford to be wrong.

 

Yes planting more trees would help address the problem though it would take a lot of trees. It is an issue the IPCC addressed 14 years ago, and funding for it was allocated in the Kyoto Protocol, which the US refused to ratify under both Bush and Clinton.

[the_spaniard]

 

Uh yeah. Keep drinking the Kool-aid there buddy....

 

Well you sure showed me.

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

Yes planting more trees would help address the problem though it would take a lot of trees. It is an issue the IPCC addressed 14 years ago, and funding for it was allocated in the Kyoto Protocol, which the US refused to ratify under both Bush and Clinton.

Why do we have to sign an international treaty to plant trees?

 

Oh, possibly because no one else will so our efforts would be wasted, perhaps?

 

The ideas are laudable. But, making them Treaty or National LAW is too extreme. For now.

 

Promote the changes without the threat of the weight of the federal government or international law.

 

And let's see the government LEAD by example. Have Air Force One operate on corn oil.

 

Install solar collectors in the Mall in DC to power and heat federal buildings. Because the cause is so important, and scenic grass lawns are not.

Edited February 27, 2014 by FiredMotorCompany

[the_spaniard]

 

Because you're wrong. Climate change scientists were baffled the models were so off. That tells me it wasn't within expected ranges. That's just spin to save face that they were so incredibly wrong.

 

And that's why you don't see it. You don't understand margins of error, results within projections, or basic statistics that X described in his post above. You don't understand that errors are expected in statistics and nothing is perfect.

 

For you, statistical error in predictions means scientists are "baffled". Not how science (or statistics) work.

[the_spaniard]

Why do we have to sign an international treaty to plant trees?

 

Oh, possibly because no one else will so our efforts would be wasted, perhaps?

 

The ideas are laudable. But, making them Treaty or National LAW is too extreme. For now.

 

Promote the changes without the threat of the weight of the federal government or international law.

 

And let's see the government LEAD by example. Have Air Force One operate on corn oil.

 

Install solar collectors in the Mall in DC to power and heat federal buildings. Because the cause is so important, and scenic grass lawns are not.

 

I am all for a gradual acceptance of ideas without having a catastrophic impact on our economy. Perhaps you should look at opposition from conservative politicians (oddly enough with ties to big oil) and how big oil spends money through them. Everyone looks at how much it will cost, but no one looks at how much money big oil spends to oppose it. Like they couldn't be using some of that money to plant trees? Or come up with their own solutions to mitigate their own environmental impact, instead of fighting every change tooth and nail?

 

And yep, the government should lead on it. Here is the problem:

 

Since 1999, big oil spent over two billion dollars combating clean-energy policies. To put that into perspective, the last IPCC report cost under $5 million dollars to produce, and conservative republicans have attacked it as a waste of money.

Edited February 27, 2014 by the_spaniard

[TomServo92]

 

And that's why you don't see it. You don't understand margins of error, results within projections, or basic statistics that X described in his post above. You don't understand that errors are expected in statistics and nothing is perfect.

 

For you, statistical error in predictions means scientists are "baffled". Not how science (or statistics) work.

 

Keep spinning...

[the_spaniard]

How are they in hindsight?

 

Take the models and apply them to known weather and environment data. Do the predictions reach 95% accuracy then? Can they even be called predictions?

The Farmer's Almanac has a greater accuracy and they've been around almost 200 years.

 

Farmers' Almanac More Reliable Than Warming Climate Models

 

You do know that climate models work through hindcasting?

 

So they took a 3-month prediction where the Farmers Almanac predicted more accurately than NOAA models, and declare the models inferior? Cherry picking data AND managing to mention the the pseudo-science of John Christy? Double-fail.

 

Gotcha.

[the_spaniard]

 

Keep spinning...

 

Like I said, you really showed me.

Edited February 27, 2014 by the_spaniard

[xr7g428]

Spaniard, maybe you missed this, but the actual temperatures measured fell outside the confidence interval for the models. That means that the probability that the model was accurate was less than 5% and that is was wrong about 95%. None of the models predicted what actually occurred, or even came close to predicting it. Most likely if some one had produced a model that indicated that we would have 16 years of essentially flat temperatures, it would have been discarded since it did not support the preferred hypothesis.

 

Intelligence is the ability to change your opinion in the face of new data... You might want to update the data you are using to form your opinion, but it is really up to you.

[the_spaniard]

Spaniard, maybe you missed this, but the actual temperatures measured fell outside the confidence interval for the models. That means that the probability that the model was accurate was less than 5% and that is was wrong about 95%. None of the models predicted what actually occurred, or even came close to predicting it. Most likely if some one had produced a model that indicated that we would have 16 years of essentially flat temperatures, it would have been discarded since it did not support the preferred hypothesis.

 

Intelligence is the ability to change your opinion in the face of new data... You might want to update the data you are using to form your opinion, but it is really up to you.

 

Straight from the FINAL IPCC report:

 

"The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-meansurface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend(very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years"

Climate models perform better over long term periods, and dismissing the accuracy of predictions based only on surface temperature is not the whole picture. Particularly when you cherry pic them from a short period like the last 15 years.

 

It is well-known that the climate models used by the IPCC are not good for predicting these short periods. That is not in dispute. Again, straight from the latest FINAL IPCC report:

 

The 1990–2012 data have been shown to be consistent with the [1990 IPCC report] projections, and not consistent with zero trend from 1990 ... the trend in globally-averaged surface temperatures falls within the range of the previous IPCC projections."

 

"It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.

The DRAFT IPCC report version released last year was misinterpreted to show that the surface temperatures were warming less slowly than model projections....that is not even what the draft data shows, but it didn't stop Spencer et al. from making outlandish claims that were picked up by every conservative blog on the planet.

 

Intelligence is also the ability to look at the data....all of it, not only the portion that agrees with your argument taken from incorrect interpretations of unfinished research before coming to a conclusion.

Edited February 27, 2014 by the_spaniard

[Langston Hughes]

 

And the Sierra club is suing to stop the project. I did not realize they were a right wing group.

 

I didn't suggest that THEY were. Thank you for distorting what i said.

 

I guess that's what you have to do when you suggest that liberals don't want to invest in things they are investing in.

[Langston Hughes]

 

Wow. That is an excellent summary of exactly what many of us have been pointing out.

 

The facts don't lie.

 

You mean his opinions.

 

And we should just give up now, because he doesn't want us to end up on Nuclear power. Everyone knows his bias and why he is saying what he is.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Langston Hughes

[the_spaniard]

I would sum up my participation on this thread by stating again I would love to see independent (of the IPCC) research on climate change from a reputable scientific source NOT connected to big oil) that states that MMGW is not happening. I would love to see to whole thing proven wrong as much as I would to see it proven right. The point is not to be right or wrong, but to get as close to the facts as possible - or maybe in this case, who can provide the best method for modeling global climate trends.

 

When you do a google search for views against MMGW, how much of those results come back to these three names: Roy Spencer, John Christy, (the origin of the 73 climate models are wrong nonsense) and David Rose (the Springeresque contributor to the DailyMail currently being sued by scientists for misrepresenting their work and by claiming there has been no global warming since 1995). Two of the three used to be respected scientists and one was always a recognized charlatan. MMGW may be eventually be proven to be a myth even if the current research does not support that. The problem is these three people will never be the ones recognized with providing a serious challenge to it, even if they are media darlings. Yet their word is considered by many to instantly override mountains of scientific research conducted by hundreds of scientists and independent researchers around the world.

Spencer and Christy have produced interesting research in the past, though some of it was proven to be flat out incorrect. Incorrect research is not the problem provided you do not have a history of it. Leaving academics and dedicating yourself to political and religious agendas destroys your credibility in modern science, particularly when you have a reputation for promoting mythology over credible science. The instant you show up as a commentator on Fox (or MSNBC/CNN etc) you have conceded you are no longer a scientist. These are not my rules. It is a question of ethics.

 

While people attack climate models used by the IPCC, they provide no alternatives for them. Why? Because there are no alternative models presented by anyone that comes close to the accuracy of the predictive modeling conducted by the IPCC. So while I welcome criticism of the IPCC models, they have been shown time and time again to be the most accurate method of modeling future climate trends we have right now.

 

David (denial folks) is not going to slay Goliath (the IPCC pro MMGW crowd) with obviously biased cherry-picking, misinformation, misinterpretation (Spencer, Christy) and flat out falsehoods (Rose). They are going to slay him with accurate, meticulous research that clearly demonstrates how and why the IPCC is wrong, by publishing scientists with no professional ties to oil, politics, or religion.

Edited February 27, 2014 by the_spaniard

[TomServo92]

You mean his opinions.

 

And we should just give up now, because he doesn't want us to end up on Nuclear power. Everyone knows his bias and why he is saying what he is.

 

He has a PhD in Ecology and has been a leader in the green movement for a very long time. His "opinion" has credibility and carries weight.

 

I have decided this will be my last post in this thread. My stance on this subject and the basis for it have been repeated many times. I don't feel the need to continue doing it.

[the_spaniard]

I have decided this will be my last post in this thread. My stance on this subject and the basis for it have been repeated many times. I don't feel the need to continue doing it.

 

I think I agree with Tom from my own perspective as well, and there is a certain level of futility to the discussion here. Everyone knows where everyone stands on the subject. I feel like the WOPR in War Games, and that reference alone is evidence I should have gotten out of this thread a while ago. Cheers.

[akirby]

While people attack climate models used by the IPCC, they provide no alternatives for them. Why? Because there are no alternative models presented by anyone that comes close to the accuracy of the predictive modeling conducted by the IPCC.

 

And there probably never will be. The earth's climate system is far too complicated and far too large to be accurately predicted by any mathematical model.

 

In my mind it still goes back to.......so what if the temps rise a little? Where is the carnage, the superstorms, the islands disappearing? Would anybody north of Florida and Eest of California complain if temps rose a little? Is a foot of sea level rise really that terrible? Anybody within a foot of sea level already gets flooding from storms.

 

And with that, I'm out too.