Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I am sure there must already be a thread somewhere about how the planet has not, on balance, warmed over the past 16 years. But there is a set of paragraphs in the article at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ve-it.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; that really captures the crux of the problem with the idea of following, with I think naive faith, the advice of climate scientists who propose imposing draconian changes in population behavior based on climate model projections. Here it is:

Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.

Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.

Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two.

Whatever you take from that "both sides" discussion, one thing is clear: What has happened over the past 16 years is not consistent with what the climate models projected.

I think a lot of people talk about scenarios projected by climate models as though there is reason to think there should be a lot of certainty associated with them. There isn't. They are not validated models nor can they ever BE validated models. That is why the IPCC Physical Science Basis report uses the term "projection" rather than "prediction" (see http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... /ch10.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). It's a bit of semantics to keep them from violating the rules by making "predictions" with unvalidated models.

Kind of like they pay lip service to the rule about having to have experiments to infer cause and effect by saying that unequivocal "attribution"of climate change to particular causes (such as human activity) would require experiments that are not possible. That's where they spend a few words saying they can't really say what's causing whatever they talk about then launch into tens of thousands of words used essentially to do what they just said they can't do.

JohnStOnge wrote:I am sure there must already be a thread somewhere about how the planet has not, on balance, warmed over the past 16 years. But there is a set of paragraphs in the article at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ve-it.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; that really captures the crux of the problem with the idea of following, with I think naive faith, the advice of climate scientists who propose imposing draconian changes in population behavior based on climate model projections. Here it is:

Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.

Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.

Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two.

Whatever you take from that "both sides" discussion, one thing is clear: What has happened over the past 16 years is not consistent with what the climate models projected.

I think a lot of people talk about scenarios projected by climate models as though there is reason to think there should be a lot of certainty associated with them. There isn't. They are not validated models nor can they ever BE validated models. That is why the IPCC Physical Science Basis report uses the term "projection" rather than "prediction" (see http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... /ch10.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). It's a bit of semantics to keep them from violating the rules by making "predictions" with unvalidated models.

Kind of like they pay lip service to the rule about having to have experiments to infer cause and effect by saying that unequivocal "attribution"of climate change to particular causes (such as human activity) would require experiments that are not possible. That's where they spend a few words saying they can't really say what's causing whatever they talk about then launch into tens of thousands of words used essentially to do what they just said they can't do.

So has it warmed or not? Zzzzeeeeeesh.

So has it warmed or not? Zzzzeeeeeesh.

Apparently not in the past 16 years. Not in terms of a trend. Doesn't mean the global warmists are wrong in their beliefs. They could be right. Could be next year we could surge into a rapid warming trend so that 10 years from now the guy who still thinks this decade will be warmer than the last will be able to say "I was right!"

But what it does say is that the climate models were wrong in terms of what they projected with respect global temperatures over the 16 years. And, apparently, even the guy who thinks it's going to warm this decade when all is said and done concedes that by referring to things they didn't understand the effects of.

Of course I'm betting he'd say that NOW, of course, they DO understand everything well enough so that we should put a WHOLE lot of stock in those unvalidated models to the effect of causing severe economic disturbance through doing things like destroying the United States coal industry.

Well I don't know about all that...but I do know that August was the 330th consecutive month where global temperatures were above the 20th century average. So it's definitely been hotter lately.

kalm wrote:Well I don't know about all that...but I do know that August was the 330th consecutive month where global temperatures were above the 20th century average. So it's definitely been hotter lately.

Don't know if that's true but if it is it's not inconsistent with what the article says. The idea is that global temperatures reached a plateau around 1996 after trending upwards during 1980 until around 1996 and have not increased further. If you go above the average then stop rising you are still above the average.

The point is that, according to the models, we should not have reached a plateau.

This is what it comes down to.........

People that live in low lying coastal areas are f****d.

mainejeff wrote:This is what it comes down to.........

People that live in low lying coastal areas are f****d.

Like Staten Island.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ[/youtube]

expandspanos wrote:[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ[/youtube]

Where in the video does it explain who is hiding the glaciers?

BlueHen86 wrote:

expandspanos wrote:[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ[/youtube]

Where in the video does it explain who is hiding the glaciers?

Have you personally been to the Arctic to evaluate the glaciers yourself? Or are you just taking other people's word for it?

Did you realize that at one point in time in the not so distant past they were able to grow grapes in Northern England (something they can't do now, because it's too cold)?

Were you aware the other planets are supposedly warming at the same rate ours is? (Which would indicate solar fluctuations causing any warming?)

Were you aware THE PLANET HAS NEVER STAYED THE SAME TEMPERATURE EVER?

Were you aware during periods of much higher CO2 in the atmosphere, the planet was much cooler?

expandspanos wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
Where in the video does it explain who is hiding the glaciers?

Have you personally been to the Arctic to evaluate the glaciers yourself? Or are you just taking other people's word for it?
Did you realize that at one point in time in the not so distant past they were able to grow grapes in Northern England (something they can't do now, because it's too cold)?

Were you aware the other planets are supposedly warming at the same rate ours is? (Which would indicate solar fluctuations causing any warming?)

Were you aware THE PLANET HAS NEVER STAYED THE SAME TEMPERATURE EVER?

Were you aware during periods of much higher CO2 in the atmosphere, the planet was much cooler?

Isn't that what you are asking us to do when you post these videos? Have you personally verfied all of the claims that are being made? Or are you taking other people's word for it - and asking us to take their word for it?

Have you personally been to the other planets to evaluate the warming for yourself? Or are you just taking peoples word for it.

The temperature readings during the Holocene period? I'm guessing you think that was all a hoax, right?

You believe a guy who says jets and excess cause global warming, who owns 7 houses, and flies his personal corporate jet everywhere he goes?



What about the "Medieval Warm Period".. a hoax, right? Are you a "conspiracy theorist?"

You're the one freaking out over "man made global warming".. the burden of proof rests on you.

expandspanos wrote:The temperature readings during the Holocene period? I'm guessing you think that was all a hoax, right?

You believe a guy who says jets and excess cause global warming, who owns 7 houses, and flies his personal corporate jet everywhere he goes?

Did you travel to the Holocene period yourself? Or are you just taking someone else's word for it?

See how easy that is? No actual thought required, just ask questions when questioned.

The funny thing is, all I did was ask a question about glaciers. I haven't expressed a point of view. Your response was to ask if I verified anything myself.

If you're going to post off-the-wall stuff, don't get you panties in a wad when questioned.

The burden isn't on me to verify the propaganda you post, it's on you to explain it.

BlueHen86 wrote:

expandspanos wrote:The temperature readings during the Holocene period? I'm guessing you think that was all a hoax, right?

You believe a guy who says jets and excess cause global warming, who owns 7 houses, and flies his personal corporate jet everywhere he goes?

Did you travel to the Holocene period yourself? Or are you just taking someone else's word for it?

See how easy that is? No actual thought required, just ask questions when questioned.

The funny thing is, all I did was ask a question about glaciers. I haven't expressed a point of view. Your response was to ask if I verified anything myself.

If you're going to post off-the-wall stuff, don't get you panties in a wad when questioned.

The burden isn't on me to verify the propaganda you post, it's on you to explain it.

Look up the Holecene Maxium, look up the Medieval Warm Period and quit pissing your pants.

expandspanos wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
Did you travel to the Holocene period yourself? Or are you just taking someone else's word for it?

See how easy that is? No actual thought required, just ask questions when questioned.

The funny thing is, all I did was ask a question about glaciers. I haven't expressed a point of view. Your response was to ask if I verified anything myself.

If you're going to post off-the-wall stuff, don't get you panties in a wad when questioned.

The burden isn't on me to verify the propaganda you post, it's on you to explain it.

Look up the Holecene Maxium, look up the Medieval Warm Period and quit pissing your pants.

How does the Holecene Maxium (or Holocene Maximum as it is known by people who don't wear foil hats) disprove the modern theories of global warming? Please explain using your own research, don't take anyone else's word for it.

expandspanos wrote: Were you aware the other planets are supposedly warming at the same rate ours is? (Which would indicate solar fluctuations causing any warming?)

I dunno if we can believe that, weren't all the space exploration trips faked?