Scientist says we're doomed; stop saving the world and retreat to climate-controlled cities

nextone

poet1b

I don't think global warming will doom us all.

What global warming? There hasn't been any significant global warming for 17 years 8 months. This length of time has exceeded the maximum allowed for the models to retain their integrity. The models failed.

Source

LOL. That's all I can say. LMFAO if you really think there isn't any global warming going on out there. I mean, really, what's up with that? I still haven't clicked through to this bogus site that you posted, or whenever the other guy posted it over and over again either. It was obvious you guys have an agenda.

Rezlooper

nextone

poet1b

I don't think global warming will doom us all.

What global warming? There hasn't been any significant global warming for 17 years 8 months. This length of time has exceeded the maximum allowed for the models to retain their integrity. The models failed.

Source

LOL. That's all I can say. LMFAO if you really think there isn't any global warming going on out there. I mean, really, what's up with that? I still haven't clicked through to this bogus site that you posted, or whenever the other guy posted it over and over again either. It was obvious you guys have an agenda.

It's been referred to as the world's most visited website on climate change receiving millions of visits every month. I'm sorry that you've never heard of it before.

Forbes Article on 17 plus year lack of global warming

reply to post by nextone

And Fox news is America's #1 cable news network.
And World of Warcraft is the most popular MMO.

What is popular is not necessarily good or correct.

I didn't get this done in time to add to my previous post. So, regarding '17 year + 8 month lull in warming' thing. Let me illustrate selective trends using the same data that was in the big fancy graphic chart at the top of that wattsupwiththat article linked just a bit ago:

This shows the global average temperature trending HIGHER over a period of 12 months.

This shows the global average temperature trending LOWER over a period of 12 months.

Notice the dates - one is offset just a few months from the other, and consequently, they show greatly different things.

You might suggest that showing the trend over a longer time frame would be better - the logical conclusion is to simply show all recorded months.

This shows the global average temperature trending HIGHER over all recorded months. By selecting a narrow period - even 17 2/3rd years worth - you can skew results.

Let me further illustrate this by pointing to the average temperature variation:
All months: +0.09749 C
L17 years: +0.23926 C
L 5 years: +0.24743 C
Last year: +0.20169 C

Notice the outlier?

I've already posted two sources. Here's another with climatologists remarking on no global warming for over 17 years. It has nothing to do with unfair presentation of data or skewing. And it's not just skeptical climatologists saying this. Climatologists who are convinced that significant anthropogenic global warming is a reality are also admitting that the data are showing no warming for over 17 years. And they have been making up excuse after excuse to explain why, and only recently did they apparently do a "group huddle" and decide to settle on an ocean retaining heat explanation. This is convincing science?

Climate Scientist: 73 UN Climate Models Wrong, No Global Warming in 17 Years


Climate Change: The Case of the Missing Heat
Quote: "Now, as the global-warming hiatus enters its sixteenth year, scientists are at last making headway in the case of the missing heat. Some have pointed to the Sun, volcanoes and even pollution from China as potential culprits, but recent studies suggest that the oceans are key to explaining the anomaly."

I'm glad they are looking into it and continuing to try to unravel the mysteries of climate variation. But the fact of the matter is that all of this suggests that climate science is not as advanced and reliable as we have been made to believe. All of their models have failed when their scientific validity depends on showing a trend within 17 years, and it didn't happen. Now after quite many hypotheses have been put forward to explain why, we should just accept that (after their group huddle), that retention of heat in parts of the Pacific must be the reason why, as they continue on with their mass panic strategies to scare the public.

CNSnews is a biased 'news' website that used to call itself 'Conservative News Service' before changing it to something more subtle. The scientist quoted in that article is obviously also biased, given his testimony to Congress. This isn't new. Consider this, from the article:

“I compared the models with observations in the key area – the tropics – where the climate models showed a real impact of greenhouse gases,” Christy explained. “I wanted to compare the real world temperatures with the models in a place where the impact would be very clear.”

This is stupid, especially coming from a doctorate-holding scientist who really does specialize in the weather. Why is it stupid?

Because the tropics aren't warming as quickly as the Arctic Circle, which is warming at around double the global average. This gentleman explains it well. You could just look at the data I posted immediately before then and see it too - those numbers are latitude ranges. Hence, -20 to 20 would be the tropical range. The trend is actually lower than the -70 to 82.5, too. Ask yourself, if the tropics are not heating up as fast as other latitudes, why would this scientist focus on them to see the real impact?

To illustrate the remark about that source being biased... I'm have no experience at all in meteorology or climate science other than what I have come across over the years, but if I can find things to debunk this guy so easily... why would this news website with actual reporters and editors not find this - unless they ignored it?

The Nature paper is another matter. While current study seems to be focused on oceans, the sun is another potential reason. Right now, the sun is currently at a solar minimum, and has been for awhile. This means has correlated with slightly less energy reaching Earth. This is probably a short cycle, and has happened many times before.

Consider this - if the solar output is less right now, and temperatures are staying roughly the same (this 'pause'), what does this mean for the Earth when the Sun returns to a maximum?

Greven
CNSnews is a biased 'news' website that used to call itself 'Conservative News Service' before changing it to something more subtle. The scientist quoted in that article is obviously also biased

Oh, of course. John Christy is just one of two scientists responsible maintaining and reporting the world's atmospheric temperature data taken from satellites every month. What could he possibly know? And BTW, the other person responsible for analyzing this data, climatologist and former NASA scientist Roy Spencer, also agrees there has been no warming during this time.

Nevermind the fact that even the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the liberal Met office have confirmed that there hasn't been any global warming for over 17 years. He admitted it because they had no choice. Now instead of 17 years being the maximum, they've just doubled that time frame, saying that maybe we have to wait 30 or 40 years to see the warming. This is convincing science?

'Nothing off-limits' in climate debate

reply to post by Greven


Great post, Greven. Just wanted to say that in case my star on your post doesn't stick. You nailed the issue with trends and selective data right on the head.

WhiteAlice
reply to post by Greven

 

Great post, Greven. Just wanted to say that in case my star on your post doesn't stick.

You nailed the issue with trends and selective data right on the head.

Oh, he sure did! Even the chariman of the IPCC has admitted that there hasn't been any measurable global warming for over 17 years, as well as the liberal MET climate department.

Rezlooper
LOL. That's all I can say. LMFAO if you really think there isn't any global warming going on out there.

Yes. Ha ha ha ha ha!

reply to post by nextone

Appeals to authority are not productive, especially when that authority is biased. Dr. Christy is not the only source of world temperature data. Recall what I said about Dr. Christy focusing on the tropics because according to him, that's where impact would be most easily discerned. Now watch the video at this NASA page. Again, warming is not nearly as strong in the tropics as it is elsewhere. You have not refuted this. Here are some other things by Dr. Christy, things that can be found in the link to his testimony provided earlier, in chronological order (old to new):

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Will CO2 increases affect climate significantly? Models suggest the answer is yes, though I have serious doubts.

That greenhouse gases are increasing in concentration is clearly true and therefore the radiation budget of the atmosphere will be altered. In response, the surface temperature should rise due to this additional forcing.

Energy demand will grow, as it should, to allow these people to experience the advances in health and prosperity that we in the U.S. have. They are far more vulnerable to the impacts of poverty and political strife than climate changes. I simply close with a plea, please remember the needs and aspirations of the poorest among us when energy policy is made.

We’ve also found that current popular surface temperature datasets indicate more warming than is actually happening in the atmosphere because they are contaminated by surface development.

The result of that study indicated the underlying trend for 1979-1993 was +0.09°C/decade
...
I have repeated that study for this testimony with data which now cover 32 years as shown above (1979-2010.) In an interesting result, the new underlying trend remains a modest +0.09 C/decade for the global tropospheric temperature

it is fairly well agreed that the surface temperature will rise about 1°C as a modest response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 if the rest of the component processes of the climate system remain independent of this response

Note that by this point, he supports a trend in warming (albeit lower) here in his 2011 testimony to Congress - a trend that hadn't abated at that point - and expects future warming due to more CO2. This flies in the face of his earlier skepticism about CO2 contributing to warming.

Oh, and another article from a biased website. The Australian is owned by none other than News Corp. They've been accused before of misrepresentation and bias.

This is not the first time Lloyd has been caught misrepresenting climate science in The Australian - in January of this 2013 he wrongly claimed that a study had found no link between global warming and sea level rise.

As to that specific article, there is an easy response. Dr Pachauri is the mentioned chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Again note that the story is paraphrasing Pachauri rather than quoting him directly. Had he said that global surface air temperatures have plateaued and that this doesn't disprove global warming, he would be 100% correct. Though it's also worth noting that over the past 17 years, the global surface temperature trend is approximately 0.10 ± 0.13°C per decade, which is most likely positive (warming).

Note the selective use of paraphrased remarks. A very narrow subset of data: 1) during a specific timeline, 2) on a very specific part of the data), 3) it's so tenuous that they aren't even claiming the opposite (cooling) but rather the neutral ('not' warming). This is then generalized to misinform people, like you, about what is going on. Additionally:

More importantly, over the past 17 years the planet has accumulated the equivalent energy to detonating 3.7 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second, every second. It takes a fundamental misundertanding of the global climate to deny that immense amount of global warming.

Please - critique articles you come across, and search for contradictory information before claiming them to support your position.

Greven
reply to post by nextone

 

Appeals to authority are not productive, especially when that authority is biased. Dr. Christy is not the only source of world temperature data.

You say that his information is biased, but that is your 'opinion'. Just because he has his own views as a scientist doesn't mean he inaccurately reports the temperature data, either. He's been doing it since 1989. I already mentioned the fact that the MET office issued a release admitting the lack of warming, and they have their own data set. I also posted a link to an article with the chairman of the IPCC stating there hasn't been any global warming for over 17 years (this person is a well-known climate alarmist). This is in addition to the fact that I mentioned that Dr. Roy Spencer, the climatologist and former NASA scientist who reviews the data with John Christy, also concurs that the satellite data has been showing no global warming going on two decades. And in addition to this, an article by well-known vocal critic of global warming, Lord Monckton. Also, an article in Forbes. And also a published paper from an editor of the Nature Journal who attempted to open an audience to explanations for potential reasons why. That's quite the variety from both sides and in between. The trend has either been zero or so slightly above it that it's not statistically significant.

One indisputable fact in all of this is that all of the climate models failed.

reply to post by nextone


I'd like to see the link to the Met Office stating these claims. I've posted several articles in some of my threads this winter where the MET office blamed global warming for their mild winter with extreme winds, rain and flooding. Now you claim they state the exact opposite.