Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Jim Hansen, IPCC, MET Face False “Global Warming” Predictions,” Try to "Hide the Decline"

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


How about some links for those charts? I'm not sure the first graph is what you think it is. As for the CMIP5 it's not exactly a prediction model, it is a tool for running different experiments.


CMIP5 is meant to provide a framework for coordinated climate change experiments for the next five years and thus includes simulations for assessment in the AR5 as well as others that extend beyond the AR5. CMIP5 is not, however, meant to be comprehensive; it cannot possibly include all the different model intercomparison activities that might be of value, and it is expected that various groups and interested parties will develop additional experiments that might build on and augment the experiments described here.



CMIP5 promotes a standard set of model simulations in order to:
-evaluate how realistic the models are in simulating the recent past,
-provide projections of future climate change on two time scales, near term (out to about 2035) and long term (out to 2100 and beyond), and
-understand some of the factors responsible for differences in model projections, including quantifying some key feedbacks such as those involving clouds and the carbon cycle


cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov...


ETA: I found your source and am reading through it now judithcurry.com...

ETA: So really the source is John H Christy.


John Christy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John R. Christy is a climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) whose chief interests are satellite remote sensing of global climate and global climate change.

He is a distinguished professor of atmospheric science, and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. For his development of a global temperature data set from satellites he was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and the American Meteorological Society's "Special Award."

In 2002, Christy was elected Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.
From November 1978 through March 2011, Earth's atmosphere has warmed at an average rate of about 0.14 C per decade, according to the UAHuntsville satellite record.

Christy was a lead author of the 2001 report by the IPCC[6] and the U.S. CCSP report Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere – Understanding and Reconciling Differences.



Part of the cooling trend seen by the satellites can be attributed to several years of cooler than normal temperatures and cooling caused by the eruption of the Mount Pinatubo volcano. Part of the discrepancy between the surface and atmospheric trends was resolved over a period of several years as Christy, Spencer and others identified several factors, including orbital drift and decay, that caused a net cooling bias in the data collected by the satellite instruments. From November 1978 through March 2011, Earth's atmosphere has warmed at an average rate of about 0.14 C per decade, according to the UAHuntsville satellite record.


Wiki summarized with tldr


I think it's important to note that Dr. Christy DOES NOT deny AGW, he claims it's just not as catastrophic as his peers state. Also:



Affiliations

Heartland Institute — Listed as a "Global Warming Expert" by the Heartland Institute.

Cato Institute — Speaker at a Cato-sponsored event on global warming.

Competetive Enterprise Institute (CEI) — "Contributor."

Independent Institute — On Institute's "Panel on Global Warming."


Desmogblog (s.tt...)


I think it would be prudent to know exactly what from IPCC report he used for his chart, I can't seem to find that anywhere. He definitely seems to engage in some obfuscation.

Continued next post...
edit on 19-1-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 07:01 AM
link   
Dr. Christy's buddy and co-developer of the UAH satelite system... Roy Spencer infamously cooks graphs and neither we're too forthcoming about the mistaken cooling trend their system observed. In fact both continued to publish papers and books and go on the denial lecture circuit even after 'they had resolved errors with the cooling and did in fact note a .14C increase." They of course didn't deny it in the MSM but did downplay it severely.


They call it "Internal Radiative Forcing." We call it "weather."

In Spencer and Braswell (2008), and to an even greater extent in his blog article, Spencer tries to introduce the rather peculiar notion of "internal radiative forcing" as distinct from cloud or water vapor feedback. He goes so far as to say that the IPCC is biased against "internal radiative forcing," in favor of treating cloud effects as feedback. Just what does he mean by this notion? And what, if any, difference does it make to the way IPCC models are formulated? The answer to the latter question is easy: none, since the concept of feedbacks is just something used to try to make sense of what a model does, and does not actually enter into the formulation of the model itself.

realclimate.org

It's pretty easy to see what's going on here and among the entire denial community.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   
"denial community"- that makes you part of the "climate fundamentalists" if you believe in this nostradamus like computer modelling



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions

Then the whole, "it's not warming", when we've clearly had more record highs in the last 10-20 years than in the previous 40-50.



that's due to a combination of revisionism

wattsupwiththat.com...

ie. cooling the past by 'adjusting' actual data and replacing it with 'corrected' sets, while deleting the raw, unadulterated one, AND a tendency to emphasize hot spells. Thinking of Australia, how would they have known 60 years ago whether temperatures reach 54°C in the outback? Thought so.

Anything can be shown with appropriate 'tweaks' especially in the tenth of degree range, therefore arguing about these issues is a waste of time,goalposts are shifted as needed. The only real way out of this church's stranglehold would be a drop of CO2, down to 280ppm, otherwise these peeps will have 87 years to fake the temperature record so that a 2C warming since 1900 will appear, at which point they'd tell, look at us, we achieved our goal, now give us another 500 Tn bucks...

None of the alledged cures for AGW are even remotely effective at what they claim to do, it's just warfare by biofuels, taxation and regulation, it's totalitarianism and as always, a sizable and aggressive minority loves it. People thought they could curb the spread of such idiocy through awareness of now defunct regimes like the USSR and the Nazis, turns out it doesn't work, when people warned, they were ridiculed, when it became too dangerous, it was again too late.

Don't believe for one second that these artificial, destructive industries will back off anytime soon, imho, the best thing to happen to the world as a whole at this point would be 100k+ dying in Germany during a prolonged winter power outage, within a week or so, to avoid statistical tweaking efforts which would invariably be used to obscure such a desaster. Simply as a glimpse of what is certain to come under the 'green' rule.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


"Attack the messenger" is the last gasp of failed ideology.

The MWT doesn't deny their new pojections show a decline in warming.
Jim Hansen readilt admits at least 10 years' standstill of warming.
Everyone agrees that CO2 has risen more quicklt than ever during the relevant time period.

The "models" fail. Yhe "predictions" are worthless.

Regardless of who opens your eyes to the obvious, the truth is the truth.
AGW has been a thieving hoax; none of its proponents even try to address mitigation or adaptation. No; they all want to commit 100S of $Billion to "cure" an imaginary illness!

Who is to say that the average temperature for 1800-200 is the "right" or "normal" temperature of the Earth?
What if our natural average is -10C or +10c from where we came about?

What gives you, or any of the AGW faithful, the right to dictate YOUR preferences over those of nature?

Pathetic AGW gospel.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   
simple facts

there is more energy in the atmosphere, and more moisture.

ask anyone living in the northeast US

what could cause that ?

don't be a fool





posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Long Lance
 




that's due to a combination of revisionism


Funny, that.
Mann, et al, must adjust their "proxies" to fit observations, or it (AGW) all falls apart.
Poor Phil Jones had the audacity to go on the record that "climate scientists" default to AGW when they can't make up any other self-seving explanation.
Frozen tree rings and ice cores have been proven to be affected by extremophiles and other externalities, but the AGW priests ignore anything that interferes with their result-driven "research."

Face it; AGW is entirely dependent upon "corrections," "adjustments," and "revisions" soley tailored to fit their pre-drawn conclusions.

Why the fear of re-confirmation?
Why the refusal of data-sharing?
Why the protectionism of conclusions that cannot be replicated and that fail on their face against real-time observation?

AGW is a HOAX.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 



simple facts


Quite right!
Take a random slice of any 1,000 year period of the last 100 million years, and see how the "Anthropocene" fits in. It is an aberration!

What make you think ours is the optimum climate for Earth?


there is more energy in the atmosphere, and more moisture.

Compared to what? This is an inter-glacial period, in which warming is the norm. Ask any paleologist or geologist who isn't bought-into the "people did this" fantasy.


Don't be a fool


Only a fool would believe that the last 1000 years represent "Normal confitions for the Earth.
Only a fool would believe that a biomass less significant than plankton, moss, insects, and bacteria can have lasting or significant impact on Earth's climate.

Don't be a fool.

deny ignorance

Given your avatar, there's little wonder about why you are so gullible:

"We've taken care of everything
The words you hear, the songs you sing
The pictures that give pleasure to your eyes
It's one for all, all for one
We work together, common sons
Never need to wonder how or why

We are the priests
Of the temples of syrinx
Our great computers
Fill the hollowed halls
We are the priests
Of the temples of syrinx
All the gifts of life
Are held within our walls

Look around this world we made
Equality our stock in trade
Come and join the brotherhood of man
Oh what a wide contented world
Let the banners be unfurled
Hold the red star proudly high in hand "
Rush, 2012

Get a life or get real.


jw
edit on 19-1-2013 by jdub297 because: sp
edit on 19-1-2013 by jdub297 because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-1-2013 by jdub297 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   
It's called denial because there is something to deny.
AGW isn't a religion nor is it treated as such.
Science doesn't require faith but disbelieving it does.
Attacking the messenger isn't a failure when there's something to attack.
No one wants AGW to be true, but it is, the only people denying pollution and excessive CO2 levels are those with a vested interest in the causes of such and the sheeple they have leash trained.
edit on 19-1-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Originally posted by Kali74
It's called denial because there is something to deny
It's called "denial" because that word carries connotations of Holocaust denial and yhe nefative connotations flowing threrfrom.
True "science" welcomes inquiry and skepticism. "Reproducibilty" and "falsifiability" are hallmarks of true scientific inquiry. AGW "faithful" abhor any questioning of their dogma.


AGW isn't a religion nor is it treated as such.

Yet, when its basic tenents are discreditied, you revert to the "consensus" and "97%" mythology, instead of a straightforward re-examination and "proofs"of the credo.


Science doesn't require faith but disbelieving it does.


This makes absolutely no sense. Since when is credulity associated with "science?" All of our progress has been built upon individual's challenging the "conventional wisdom." What are you so afraid of?


Attacking the messenger isn't a failure when there's something to attack.

It is always a failure to presume that any questioning or doubt is unreasonable.
If the models and predictions are invulnerable to scrutiny, they can stand on theitr own.
Given that the MET and Hansen themselves acknowledge that they have failed, it really doesn't matter who brought those facts to light; they stand for themselves.


No one wants AGW to be true


Tell that to the beneficiaries of the $100 Billion annual fund that developed nations are being asked to pay as "penance" for an imaginary future injury. Tell that to the hundreds of federally and privately funded "studies" that profess more funding as the only "solution" to this AGW mythology.

CO2 is rising without limits and despite the sanctimonious pledges of Kyoto.
Temperature and global conditions have NOT followed the preditions of the AGW priests.

Your god is dead.

deny ignorance

jw
edit on 19-1-2013 by jdub297 because: sp



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
the only people denying pollution and excessive CO2 levels are those with a vested interest in the causes of such


pollution is something the New environmentalists don't care about? mercury spills from CFLs? don't care as long as they're supposedly more efficient (they aren't, as dim as a wet candle and lifespan issues any way you put it - let it burn and they will last maybe a year, turn them off frequently and incandescent is more consistent and lasts just as long), solar panels made from Cadmium Telluride? So toxic it boggles the mind and a clear case of deep disposal, you know the type that is super horrible when it's done to spent nuclear fuel. hardly a whisper, though, because these don't seem to e politically toxic (yet).

Everything AGWers advocate is a boondoggle that is perversely damaging and revolves primarily around restricting peoples' lives, nature be damned, no-one in the movement has any picture of the real engineering limitations and issues but that doesn't stop them from having an opinion and never changing the subject, does it? as i said, ignorance will run its course, the net result will certainly be sobering enough to deter such folly for a long time to come, but i'd rather have it happen sooner rather than later while there's still enough people around who can help rebuild.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 09:06 AM
link   
why do homes have CO2 detectors?....reason, CO2 builds up when a home is sealed up to the point where there is not enough oxygen in the air to support humans, humans have died in these homes from too high of a concentration of carbon dioxide. carbon dioxide increases due to the burning of fossil fuels around the world.
in our atmosphere all around the globe, this is the buildup of CO2 taking place:
www.esrl.noaa.gov...
so i ask you...how much more carbon dioxide do all of you want in the air, regardless of how cold or hot it gets?



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 09:16 AM
link   
i suggest that all the executives of companies along with their families, that engage in burning fossil fuels, live next to the plants that burn these fossil fuels....this will truly show that they believe what they are telling the rest of us..



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


They're CO detectors, also known as carbon monoxide. Completely different. I tried to u2u you so that you could change the facepalm without bringing this to public awareness. You still got time to edit the post.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Long Lance
 




Everything AGWers advocate is a boondoggle


No. You've just chosen to believe the propaganda.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Long Lance
 




Everything AGWers advocate is a boondoggle


No. You've just chosen to believe the propaganda.


really comprehensive answer.. Pray tell me what exactly have AGW related policies achieved besides food shortages and the waste of billions of dollars in taxes? Didi you know that the USA's eeevil carbon disoxide emissions have fallen through the increased use of natgas? yes?

Unfortunately, if it works it can't be green, which is why fracking is violently opposed by the usual supspects, so the movie 'Gasland' was made, complete with fouling gas out of somebody's ill-maintained house well lit on camera for shock value. Always deceptive, aren't we? Problem is, the laws of physics remain and every single measure that was put into actual use has proven horrendous so far. But hey, go ahead, destroy this society for your 'conscience' and 'for the children' they'll be the first who will raise their hands, not through conviction but out of desperation. I understand very well that there's no talking to certain groups, i'll just write these things down so people won't pony up the usual excuse

But i never knew !

Who cares, really, if you're allowed to vote you're also allowed to suffer the consequences of your decisions.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Long Lance
 


Yes I knew that natural gas is better for the environment than fossil fuels, it would be great if it weren't for the process which tends to lead to poisoned water supplies, poisoned ground, poisoned animals, and yes tap water that you can light on fire (thought much rarer than the poisoning). Fracking in EQ prone areas is also thought to contribute to tremors.

Green energy can work, but I'm aware it also isn't perfect but improving... we could get most of our energy from renewables now, but...



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74

Yes I knew that natural gas is better for the environment than fossil fuels....



Natgas is a fossil fuel.




Green energy can work, but I'm aware it also isn't perfect but improving... we could get most of our energy from renewables now, but...


where? on which scale at what cost to the environment? which use would you consider a success so far? what would you hypothetically do if you had a couple of billions to spare?

what about the following paragraph (from an article with one of the most misleading headlines ever)

web.mit.edu...


Controversy over the benefits of using corn-based ethanol in vehicles has been fueled by studies showing that converting corn into ethanol may use more fossil energy than the energy contained in the ethanol produced. Now a new MIT analysis shows that the energy balance is actually so close that several factors can easily change whether ethanol ends up a net energy winner or loser.


if it's close run, guess what you're applying roughly the same amount of energy in fertilizer - typically from natgas - before we look into failed crops, soil depletion and price hikes.

next:
www.bloomberg.com...



Now the drought of 2012, the worst in more than 50 years, is making clear the downside of a policy that leads the U.S. to devote 40 percent its corn harvest to fuel production. With this year’s crop expected to be the smallest in six years


Just to establish the ballpark, close to a half of the corn harvest, which is already inflated due to the use of HFCS... this enormous amount of crops yields enough for an average 10% blend, you do the math, 400%. This ain't banking, so you can go look for another three Americas in your backyard, good luck with that.

i could go on to electric power, but i'm afraid few AGW proponents will care much for the concepts of frequency and voltage stability or the cost structures of generation and distribution or how astronomically inefficient intermittent sources become above 10 or 15 percent rated power, as opposed to the amount of delivered energy....

fear not , though it'll never happen, since wind turbines only lasts only slightly longer than a decade

Wind turbines ‘only lasting for half as long as previously thought’ as study shows they show signs of wearing out after just 12 years

Wind turbines 'only lasting for half as long as previously thought' as study shows they show signs of wearing out after just 12 years


Next on: Solar power, wonder where all of these 25 year lifespans came from, don't you? probably a PR office, right? probably the very same PR office in both cases.
edit on 2013.1.23 by Long Lance because: links&tags corrected



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Long Lance
 


Yes I knew that natural gas is better for the environment than fossil fuels


Sorry, methane is both a fossil fuel and a by=product of :renewables" and "biofuels."


it would be great if it weren't for the process which tends to lead to poisoned water supplies


There are no legitimate studies proving that hydraulic fracturing has poisoned natural, private or municipal water supplies. Several studies have established that pooly located and designed water wells have leached poisons and gas from their surroundings.
Dissolved Gasses in Private Water Wells
www.cdc.gov...
A Case of Poor Casing and Other Well Problems



poisoned ground, poisoned animals, and yes tap water that you can light on fire (thought much rarer than the poisoning).


Poisoning is the result of careless, indifferent or criminal conduct by individuals and businesses in general; oit is not tied to legitoimate fracking operators, who are permitted and supervised by federal and state environmental agencies. The antifracking hype and hysteria are nothing more than misinformation, disinformation propaganda.


Fracking in EQ prone areas is also thought to contribute to tremors.


"Is thought?" By whom? Mere speculation and and anecdotal correlation do not prove causation.
Beaking a mirror "is thought" to lead to bad luck. In some places, a solar eclipse "is thought" to be the result of evil spirits.

Since when do "is thought," "may cause" and "could lead to" constitute anything other than ignorance or faith?


... we could get most of our energy from renewables now, but...


But, that is a myth and wishful thinking. When you lkook into the underlying processes and costs of production, "renewables" are anything but, and are prohibitively expensive and destructive.


jw





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join