Absolute latest findings: Dialing back the alarm on Climate Change...!

O.K. I know we just had a rather large thread about the artic ice sheet but this is the latest from the U.N. report on climate change... Usually IMO anything that can push their agenda 21, is front and center.... These latest studies must have a bunch of them scratching their heads?

Since the last IPCC report in 2007, much has changed. It is now more than 15 years since global average temperature rose significantly. Indeed, the IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri has conceded that the "pause" already may have lasted for 17 years, depending on which data set you look at. A recent study in Nature Climate Change by Francis Zwiers and colleagues of the University of Victoria, British Columbia, found that models have overestimated warming by 100% over the past 20 years.

The 100% error in the models is something I posted in the Artic Ice sheet thread and is reposted or referenced in this new WSJ article.

Explaining this failure is now a cottage industry in climate science. At first, it was hoped that an underestimate of sulfate pollution from industry (which can cool the air by reflecting heat back into space) might explain the pause, but the science has gone the other way—reducing its estimate of sulfate cooling. Now a favorite explanation is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean. Yet the data to support this thesis come from ocean buoys and deal in hundredths of a degree of temperature change, with a measurement error far larger than that. Moreover, ocean heat uptake has been slowing over the past eight years.

The most plausible explanation of the pause is simply that climate sensitivity was overestimated in the models because of faulty assumptions about net amplification through water-vapor feedback. This will be a topic of heated debate at the political session to rewrite the report in Stockholm, starting on Sept. 23, at which issues other than the actual science of climate change will be at stake.

online.wsj.com...

This is posted because it is the latest official report.. Kali74 and I have had some good back and forth over the months about Climate change... My position has always been the science is not complete as far as cause and effect; The biggest contention I have ever had with the global warming/climate change people is how they think by taxing everyone back to a third world living standard (agenda 21 type) will accomplish anything with regards to our climate. The studies will continue for a cause and effect out come, no doubt... As they (studies) should be....The whole natural or man made debate will continue but for now they are finally admitting the models that were used to try and scare everyone were way off.

Three words .... HIDE THE DECLINE.
These people have been trying to pull a fast one on the world.
What is shocking, is that some still believe them.

Forbes ... 'hide the decline' Michael Mann .... legal woes

Funnily enough I've just been reading This Article

This is a graph showing how wrong the predictions were

'Global warming is just HALF what we said': Top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong

Interesting stuff, hope it contributes well to your thread Sky

Cody

reply to post by 727Sky


stevengoddard.wordpress.com...

Earth has gained 19,000 Manhattans of sea ice since this date last year, the largest increase on record. There is more sea ice now than there was on this date in 2002.

www.climatedepot.com...

'Arctic ice area is increasing, as new ice is forming rapidly north of 80N. Ice area is the highest since 2006. The year over year change in Arctic sea ice area has blown away the record for ice growth, by more than a factor of two.'

reply to post by 727Sky


the real joke is that this has been a year of record breaking...

cold

the extreme weather phenomena is solar system wide

and yet,
They want to blame you.


more info at:
Agenda 21 Counterstrike www.suspicious0bservers.org...

[CLIMATE CHANGE] Physicists claim further evidence of link between cosmic rays and cloud formation

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm just looking forward to the minions of the Pope of Global Warming, Al Gore, coming in here to challenge the findings of this study.

That ought to be entertaining.

This whole Global Warming cult, in my opinion, is pretty close to being on par with that of Jim Jones and his 'People's Temple' at Jonestown as far as facts are concerned.

He controlled every aspect of how his followers lived their lives, and Al Gore and his cult are trying to, and succeeding in a lot of ways, to do the same thing to the rest of the world.

As time passes and they are proved wrong again and again, hopefully most of them will realize that they've been had, but who knows, Kool-Aid tastes pretty good.

reply to post by 727Sky


My issue with the Anti Climate changers is this,

Climate change due to more methane, CO2, and sunlight being reflected back into space plus more all together have effects as a whole, now our earth is not a game or pc model it's our earth, it will go one way an then another by affect.

So if we got warmer for a period, we will in affect get cooler as well, Global warming should of been called global extremes since the climate isn't ust going to get warmer, it's going to get chaotic, as the warming and cooling that we speak of isn't the problem it's the reaction, the problem is that the excess variables an also lack there of have caused the earth's Climate regulator ( I.E. A/c / Heater Unit ) to malfunction enough that it cannot properly self regulate.

We are wittness to such cause and effect now, it will get worse, since this really is an issue of too much moisture in the enviroment not being regulated properly causing more storms, flooding, and extreme tempertures in places that already dealt with extreme temps but before had a limit to those extremes, now not so sure.

We live in a newly evolving world now. One that is either going to learn how to handle us on it, or go back to what it could handle and ridding itself of excess.

reply to post by TheMagus


I had not seen that video before so thank you for posting. Those who want to argue with the results of the studies used by the U.N. to come to their conclusions need to go back and read the reports.

Climate change is a fact and none of us who live on the planet can argue that swings in temperature, drought, rain, (what ever) is all part of the process.. Extreme swings have happened before and will happen again but in the old days people excepted the weather to change as part of life. You only have to know a little history and look at some of the ancient cultures that disappeared due to some local weather change. At least now we do not sacrifice virgins and prisoners for a weather outcome...Money is so much easier and cleaner.... It seems every time there is an excuse to scream "climate change and give us your money" they come out of the wood work. The very same weird things that have happened in the past are happening today and will happen next week or for the foreseeable future regardless.

There are many things such a methane that are serious globe warmers and as some of our more knowledgeable posters in the past have pointed out they are finding methane leaks from various parts of the earth all the time.... Methane is a much bigger deal..... CO2 the more we learn the less effect it seems to have on temperature as demonstrated buy the video and other studies. Since this whole thing started with Al Gore and his traveling slide show it has been one misstep after another.... That is part of the reason so many have doubts in the Climate Change Debate. To many doom porn studies have been proven wrong and were based on emotional (trash in trash out) computer models or some agenda; not real science.

If we are truly heading back to an ice age like last time where there was a mile high stack of ice where N.Y. sets today then maybe we will off set some of the more harmful effects......that is if any of the global warming people are correct; but so far they have been wrong so many times with the cause and effect to place a bet with them being right at this stage IMO would be a losing proposition.

I am all for Solar, wind, and clean burning coal plants. We keep our house clean and we need to keep our planet clean and use resources wisely; most would not argue with that. I figure in another couple of years we will have more data on whether we really are going back into another Ice age, as some believe, or we will all fry in some runaway global warming process at some future date.. I do not trust the Agenda 21 crowd that has already used models off as much as 100% to claim our demise is just around the corner.. You have to wonder if the U.N. is admitting they were wrong (being the weasels they are) then how much of the data are they still trying to cover-up?

reply to post by 727Sky


So the WSJ finally acknowledges that man made global warming induced climate change is a reality? Thread worthy in it's own right (teehee).

I'm not sure where to begin with this so I'm going to start where you did.

Usually IMO anything that can push their agenda 21

I don't want to detract from the subject of your thread which is the WSJ's take on 1 item in the AR5 but, this is a significant portion of the CT'r climate contrarian puzzle so I can't just let it hang there all willy-nilly. Maybe you could even do a thread and give your perspective on how climate change is part of the agenda 21 conspiracy. I warn you though, I've dug into it and come away with the opinion that it is entirely baseless and akin to Queen Elizabeth being reptilian. You're a nice guy so I don't mean to offend I just can't see it.

The 100% error in the models is something I posted in the Artic Ice sheet thread and is reposted or referenced in this new WSJ article.

*Warning about the next link, I got the link from google scholar and I did get a pop up warning about it but proceeded anyway, nothing bad happened to my pc but people with not so great virus and malware protection may want to think twice*

That paper the WSJ and iceagenow site reference in no way states that there is 100% error in the models. Firstly they are saying the models need serious updating, which is true but they are also critiquing what the models leave out like volcanic activity from the recent past and the cooling effect of such. What is critical to understand here is that the authors of the paper are pointing out an error within the CMIP5 model which is specifically to do with climate sensitivity... not the overall model. Updating models costs money and despite what you (plural) might think, money is not that easily available to climate research or observation.

I suggest always reading a paper cited in an article or blog for yourself, don't trust anyone else to interpret it for you... it's rare that they get it right.

Now to the WSJ article itself... it's more crap. There is only one tiny bit (below) from the actual AR5 in there and the entire rest of the article is supposition, wishful thinking and intentional misleading.

"equilibrium climate sensitivity"
"extremely likely" to be above 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit)
"likely" to be above 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.4 degrees Fahrenheit)
"very likely" to be below 6 degrees Celsius (10.8 Fahrenheit).

compared to 2007

"likely" to be above 2 degrees Celsius
"very likely" to be above 1.5 degrees

For context for anyone that doesn't understand... this has to do with the equation used to estimate how much warming we get from an atmospheric CO2 level of 560ppm, so the big dialing back on the alarm is this... at 560ppm instead of expecting a rise of 1.5 or 2 degree Celsius in global temperature we can expect 1 to 1.5 degrees Celsius rise in global temperature.

WSJ gambled hard on this one and lost. They wagered being able to point out that the IPCC admits they overestimated ECS (a whole .5C) against admitting AGW was legit.

Side note... this news (if proved to be true) is great, it means we have more time to stop this train.

reply to post by Kali74


i always hope your info gets through to someone but i haven't seen it happen yet. i'm glad you still keep on posting though!!! thanks for the info. i knew something was fishy about the article in the OP.

reply to post by cody599


I'm curious.

Do you get all your science info from gossip sites?

Please review this article for some perspective: No, The world isn't cooling

Or this is even better:

reply to post by Kali74


Hey Kali74 thanks for popping in and posting. Your response was thoughtful and well written and usual. The .8 temp rise with an additional 1.2 possible increase by the year 2083 was not lost on me either. Those numbers are based on trends, projected trends, as all the numbers were before them; it just appears these new data points (numbers/observations) are being said (this revised report) to be more accurate.

As far as the Agenda 21 stuff it all depends on who is defining sustainable development... As most things when dealing with humans there is disagreement on what defines good or bad for the earth... many disparaging remarks and definitions on the internet about the meaning and consequences of the agenda 21 paper.

The pro-global warming video I posted in the other thread had some very good points with regards to the jet stream and Artic ice sheet thickness demise.... I would assume in the next 10 years or sooner with all the current studies/observations going on we will have a better handle on what is going on with climate change.

Again thanks for the post and if my thinking is wrong I will buy you a cup of coffee or drink of your choice and ask for your forgiveness..... that is, If I live another 10 years ?

reply to post by 727Sky


You link doesn't lead to an official report, it leads to an opinion piece, supposedly backed by some unnamed climate scientist.

There are no facts cited in the article that back up the articles claims. It is the same nonsense constantly repeated by the people who get paid to deny global warming.

Numerous links have been provided in this thread that prove the opinion piece to be wrong.

The cycles of warm and cold happen about every 10,000 years . Underwater volcanos are one possile cause of the oceans lower levels increase in temp. For those who can listen to the video you might learn something about earths natural cycles... disagree or agree but listen to the possible reasons for what we are, and will experience..... Some believe we will be in a full blown ice age by 2030 if the cycle prediction is correct

reply to post by poet1b


wattsupwiththat.com...-93987

(NIPCC), it is now much easier for media to adopt the second more balanced approached,” continued Harris. “Co-authored and co-edited by Dr. Craig Idso, Professor Robert Carter, and Professor S. Fred Singer who worked with a team of 44 other climate experts, this document cites more than 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers to show that the IPCC has ignored or misinterpreted much of the research that challenges the need for carbon dioxide (CO2) controls. In other words, the NIPCC report demonstrates that the science being relied upon by governments to create multi-billion dollar policies is almost certainly wrong.”

www.drroyspencer.com...

But now, with the IPCC unable to convincingly explain the recent stall in warming (some say a change to weak cooling), the fact that they are forced to actually recognize reality and make changes in their report — possibly reducing the lower bound for future warming, thus reducing the range of climate sensitivity — is quite momentous

I’m sure the politicians believed we would have had new energy policies in place by now, in which case they could have (disingenuously) claimed their policies were responsible for global warming “ending”. Not likely, since atmospheric CO2 continues to increase, and even by the most optimistic estimates renewable energy won’t amount to more than 15% of global energy generation in the coming decades.

But, I digress. My main point is that nothing stands in the way of a popular theory (e.g. global warming) better than failed forecasts. We are now at the point in the age of global warming hysteria where the IPCC global warming theory has crashed into the hard reality of observations. A few of us are not that surprised, as we always distrusted the level of faith that climate modelers had in their understanding of the causes of climate change

opinion.financialpost.com...

The IPCC must take everybody for fools. Its own graph shows that observed temperatures are not within the uncertainty range of projections; they have fallen below the bottom of the entire span. Nor do models simulate surface warming trends accurately; instead they grossly exaggerate them. (Nor do they match them on regional scales, where the fit is typically no better than random numbers.)

hockeyschtick.blogspot.com...

Climatologist Dr. Eduardo Zorita, one of the authors of the recent paper rejecting the climate models at a confidence level >98% over the past 15 years, has a new post in which he states that the model vs. real-world discrepancy is even greater during the winter months [Dec-Feb], with only 0.2% of 6,104 climate model runs projecting the observed negative trend in winter temperatures [-0.10 C/decade] over the past 15 years. Climate models instead predicted that the most warming would occur during the winter months, the opposite of observations.