Global Warming

[IQS.RLOW]

You're a panic merchant who doesn't bother educating yourself SN.

Oh noes. Scientists have discovered that the heat build up is hiding in hand wringing and wet beds.

[Rorschach]

http://joannenova.com.au/

Global Wind excuse — monkey-modeling shows global warming theory is Still Not Wrong.

The backdown continues. Faced with the ongoing failure of their models, the search rolls on for any factor that helps “explain” why the official climate scientists are still right even though they got it so wrong. The new England et al paper endorses skeptics in so many ways.

1. The world might warm by only 2.1 degrees this century, not 4c. (Skeptics were right — the models exaggerate).
2. There has been and is a pause in warming which the 95%-certain-models didn’t predict. (The science wasn’t settled.)
3. What the trade-winds giveth, they can also taketh away. If they “cause cooling” after 2000, then they probably “caused warming” before that. How much less important is CO2?
4. Ultimately, newer models are less wrong if they include changes in wind speed, but they don’t know what drives the wind. It’s curve fitting with one more variable.

As usual, the models still can’t predict the climate, but they can be adjusted post hoc with new factors to trim their overestimates back to within the errors bars of some observations.

The Trade-wind excuse in a nutshell:

1. It is almost as if climate modelers finally discover the PDO cycle. Akasofu (and many many other skeptics) have been pointing out the obvious, and making predictions on it, for years.

2. Perhaps the trade-winds are affecting the climate. But what drives the trade-winds? The models can’t predict the trade-winds until they understand what drives them. If it turns out to be cloud cover changes, or lunar orbits, or solar magnetic effects, cosmic ray effects, or all of the above… that means there is another whole factor or lots of them that the models did not include. Every warming factor added to the models reduces the power of CO2 as a driver.

3. Internal Variability means “we have no idea what is going on”.

[DaS Energy]

Moving from the pole to the equator the climate changes. Apparently this has nothing to do with it being hotter. Making the planet hotter apparently has no effect on the climate, great news to keep on burning Coal!

[Super Nova]

You're a panic merchant who doesn't bother educating yourself SN.

Oh noes. Scientists have discovered that the heat build up is hiding in hand wringing and wet beds.

The more we learn the more I will be right. We will need to take action at some point.

I expect we will do SFA and only the cost of extracting the limited fossil fuel we can find will set the timeline for when our greenhouse emissions will go down. Then we will be turning to alternate energy. We will act because we have no alterative and that will be the natural consequence forced on us because we have no fossil alternatives (for the masses).

Let's do nothing and wait and see.

In 20 years time when I come here and tell you I told you so...... I will enjoy that.

[Rorschach]

You're a panic merchant who doesn't bother educating yourself SN.

Oh noes. Scientists have discovered that the heat build up is hiding in hand wringing and wet beds.

The more we learn the more I will be right. You keep telling yourself that if it makes you happy... We will need to take action at some point.

I expect we will do SFA and only the cost of extracting the limited fossil fuel we can find will set the timeline for when our greenhouse emissions will go down. Then we will be turning to alternate energy. We will act because we have no alterative and that will be the natural consequence forced on us because we have no fossil alternatives (for the masses). That is how many in charge of bug business and governments act... myopia abounds, but there doesn't seem to be much most people can do about that. IMO the last several years and probably the next several is seeing a global lowpoint in political talent.

Let's do nothing and wait and see.

In 20 years time when I come here and tell you I told you so...... I will enjoy that. I can't wait... I think you are overconfident and misled.

I liked the chicken little movie... thing is, in this case the alarmists are traditional chicken little.
Pretty obvious... I post... you no read.

[Super Nova]

I read, i dont agree

[IQS.RLOW]

In 20 years time when I come here and tell you I told you so...... I will enjoy that.

You could have said that 17 years ago and you would have been wrong then just as you are wrong now. When the facts change, what do you do sir?

Can you not see that the 'scientists' are working completely backwards to the way science is supposed to work? They have their conclusion and when the facts gazump them time and time again, they try to massage statistics to fit their conclusion and it is still wrong.

That little hypothesis by Englund goes directly against his hypothesis he spat out in 2006.

I am surprised that you have been taken in and your bullshit meter is so badly broken SN.

[Rorschach]

I read, i dont agree

Fine... no one said you have to be right all the time

[Super Nova]

I read, i dont agree

Fine... no one said you have to be right all the time

And.... I am not.... all the time

IQ, I thought you would like this article since it is the sort that must inform your opinion. So I can see how you form your view. It is sad that the reputation of science has been sullied by incorrect models. However in the long run the models will prove to be correct, in the short term that are high inaccurate to predict short term variations of a chaotic system like climate and climate change.

However I do find these points interesting and sometime funny. See article below.



“Sea ice is disappearing due to climate change, but here ice is building up,” Turney’s expedition wailed. - Pisser, he looks like a fool
But warmists are being tripped up by stubborn facts, not corrupt sceptics. Where’s my warming, dude? - pretty much your position
How about a sorry from chief science presenter Robyn Williams, who once likened sceptics to people who “told you paedophilia is good for children”. - what a stupid analogy to make.

I provide this just to show I don't just read the alarmists views. I still think this is a real issue and risk to the world and humanity.

Confusion should give alarmists pause for thought

This story was published: 3 hours ago February 12, 2014 8:00PM

YOU would think scientists of the NSW Climate Change Research Centre had done enough damage to their warmist crusade.

A month ago, its Professor Chris Turney got his ship of researchers stuck in Antarctic sea ice he had claimed was melting away.

“Sea ice is disappearing due to climate change, but here ice is building up,” Turney’s expedition wailed.

In fact Turney’s team — planning to examine parts of the Antarctic “highly susceptible to melting and collapse from ocean warming” — apparently hadn’t realised sea ice there had grown over three decades to record levels.

How we laughed.

Turney’s climate centre, at the University of NSW, sponsored this disaster, which ended with two icebreakers rescuing the mortified professor and his warming crusaders.

It’s farce like that which helps explain why the CSIRO reported last week only 47 per cent of Australians buy its spin that the climate is changing and we’re to blame.

Australians now rate global warming of “low importance”, the CSIRO sighed, and warmists faced “the challenge of finding the right language” to gee them up. But up bobs another Climate Change Research Centre scientist to show the warmists’ problem isn’t the “right language” but the false hype.

Two years ago, Professor Matthew England appeared on the ABC’s Q&A to attack Nick Minchin, the former Howard government industry minister and a sceptic. Minchin had raised a puzzling fact: the planet had not warmed further since 1998.

“Basically we’ve had a plateauing of temperature rise,” he said. CO2 emissions had soared, but “we haven’t had the commensurate rise in temperature that the IPCC predicted”.

England’s response?

“What Nick just said is actually not true. The IPCC projections from 1990 have borne out very accurately.”

England later even accused sceptics of “lying that the IPCC projections are overstatements”.

So imagine my surprise when England admitted last week there had been a “hiatus” and “plateau in global average temperatures” after all. Startled readers asked England to explain how he could call sceptics liars two years ago for mentioning a “plateau” he now agreed was real.

England was defiant: “In terms of my comments on Q&A, I stand by them. Back then, the observations had not departed from the model projection range. In the past year or two, 2012 average and also 2013, that’s no longer the case.”

What bull. In fact, five years ago the pause was already so obvious that Family First senator Steve Fielding confronted Penny Wong, Labor’s climate change minister.

“Global warming quite clearly over the last decade hasn’t been actually occurring,” Fielding said, and showed Wong the temperature charts. Wong and her advisers — chief scientist Penny Sackett and climate scientist Will Steffen — said he was wrong. Journalists mocked him. Except, of course, the warming pause is now so obvious even England now admits it.

True, the warmists always have excuses and the ABC reports each without noting how the latest contradicts the last. Last week it reported England’s new paper explaining the warming pause: “Stronger than normal trade winds in the central Pacific are the main cause of a 13-year halt in global surface temperature increases ...”

England now claims those stronger winds somehow drove the missing warming into the deep ocean.

But only eight years ago the ABC reported the opposite: “The vast looping system of air currents that fuels Pacific trade winds ... has weakened by 3.5 per cent over the past 140 years and the culprit is probably human-induced climate change.”

Eh?

Will the ABC at least apologise now to sceptics who warned of the warming pause it now reports? How about a sorry from chief science presenter Robyn Williams, who once likened sceptics to people who “told you paedophilia is good for children”.

The Climate Change Research Centre might apologise, too. Another of its scientists, Professor Andy Pitman, once complained “climate scientists are losing the fight” because sceptics are “so well funded”, “don’t have day jobs” and “can put all of their efforts into misinforming”.

But warmists are being tripped up by stubborn facts, not corrupt sceptics. Where’s my warming, dude?

Emeritus professor Garth Paltridge, a former CSIRO chief research scientist, warns climate scientists hungry for power, fame and funding could have utterly trashed the reputation of science. They may have “been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problem ... to promote the cause”.

“It risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis of society’s respect for scientific endeavour.”

What a tragedy. Or is it? At least we won’t all die of heat.
http://www.news.com.au/national/confusi ... 6825036298

[Super Nova]