New Board

For refugees from MyWay and Tek Board II, and for anyone else wishing to participate.

    Top Climate Alarmist: Computer Models Wrong, Skeptics Right on “Pause”


    Posts : 2777
    Join date : 2016-08-26
    Age : 65
    Location : Home

    Top Climate Alarmist: Computer Models Wrong, Skeptics Right on “Pause”

    Post  sinister_midget on Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:52 pm

    Top Climate Alarmist: Computer Models Wrong, Skeptics Right on “Pause”

    Count on the Fake News media to ignore a huge admission by a Climategate scientist that there has been no measurable global warming over the past 20 years — something he has previously vociferously denied. The admission by Dr. Benjamin Santer, a top global-warming alarmist, should have made headlines — but, of course it didn’t.

    Santer was a leading “pause denier,” a climate alarmist who refused to accept the growing scientific consensus — based in this case on solid, verifiable evidence — that global surface temperatures have remained essentially stable for the past two decades, since at least 1998. Yes, despite the non-stop activist screaming and media handwringing about alleged approaching doom from anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (or AGW), the global satellite datasets show that the gradual temperature rise during the 20th century stopped in the 1990s, right as the AGW bandwagon was kicking into high gear. This has been especially troubling for the alarmists, since they have been claiming that man-made CO2 is responsible for global warming (which isn’t happening), and the “pause” or “hiatus” has been ongoing, coincident with huge new inputs of human-generated CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

    Publicly confronted with the data, some of the top AGW propagandists — Michael Mann, Phil Jones, the British Met Office, and The Economist, for example (see here and here) — felt compelled to concede that, indeed, the pause is real. Nevertheless, they warned, the planetary fever would start again, so the fright-peddling and political pressure had to be maintained, in order to guarantee support for the UN’s Paris climate agreement.

    In other words, let's lie now even though we didn't think we were before just to make sure we don't lose momentum for when it starts up again.

    Except.....what if it doesn't start up again? What if the skeptics have been right all along and this is perfectly normal and may continue for decades? What if this "pause" goes on for 30 or 40 years? What if it starts cooling for 50 years and has another "pause" where it doesn't go up or down, followed by another warming period?

    After all, that's what the earth has been doing since forever. The lengths of heating and cooling may be longer or shorted, but the temperature changes have oscillated back and forth as far back as they can determine. It shows up in fossil records. It shows up in rocks and sediment. It shows up in every historical data point that can possibly be measured.

    But, no. We're smarter than the earth. Our man-made computer models made by people who have sometimes been shown to be idiots prove we're going to warm up forever even if we time out for a little while. Unless, of course, we can make the wealthy countries transfer trillions of dollars to less-wealthy countries. Which will solve the problem that no historical records anywhere (other than intentionally manipulated ones) agree even exists.

    So let's lie and claim things are still heating up even though they aren't. We don't want to have to start all over building up our lies if this "pause" doesn't last a century.

    But Santer had remained one of the “deniers” who refused to believe the satellite evidence, preferring instead to explain away the hiatus by using surface temperature data sets, weather station siting changes, temperature proxies, dodgy “adjustment” methodologies, and novel interpretations of the satellite data to make the evidence fit the politically desired global-warming scenarios. So it was that, in November of 2011, Santer, in a press release from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, insisted that a mere 10-12-year hiatus since 1998 was not a long enough period to judge the computer model predictions deficient; a longer period was needed.

    "Looking at a single, noisy 10-year period is cherry picking, and does not provide reliable information about the presence or absence of human effects on climate," Santer claimed. How long a period is needed? According to Santer, “tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.” Seventeen years was a rather arbitrary number with no peer review or consensus, but it served to kick the can down the road — until new excuses and models could be produced.

    However, once we had crossed the 17-year marker that Santer had set out, he determined it was time to change the argument; it was time to “adjust” the satellite data to fit the discredited computer models. That’s what he’s up to now. Nevertheless, his recently published works amount to a huge admission that vindicates the AGW skeptics whom Santer has previously vilified.

    In a recent paper published in Nature Geoscience on June 19, 2017, Santer led a team of activist authors (including Michael Mann and Al Gore of “Hockey Stick” infamy) who make the startling admission that alarmist computer model predictions (including many they had been pumping themselves for years) greatly overestimated the actual observed global temperatures. That’s what they are confessing, but they do so in a very convoluted manner designed to hide the confession. Here’s the opening sentence of the abstract of their article: “In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble.” They go on to write: “Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed.... We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.” Translation: “Oops! Our computer models were way off … but, no matter.”

    Where are the “watch dogs” of the media who should be all over this story? Why no curious reporters from NPR, CNN, the New York Times, or Huffington Post asking probing questions of the befuddled climate “experts”? It’s hardly surprising that they’re AWOL on this issue, especially since serving as lap dogs for the AGW consensus chorus for more than two decades.

    Here's some more "science" for you:

    Swimming in a chlorinated pool can turn sun cream ‘toxic’ – increasing risk of cancer, scientists warn

    Doctor who looks after Taylor Swift's skin warns we should wear SUNSCREEN when using phones and computers to avoid the same damage as sunbathing

    Not that they exactly conflict with each other directly. Other than the claims that using sunscreen and not using sunscreen are both healthy for you. One to the extreme, and in the other case it needs to be totally removed before getting into the water to have your skin age faster, to get sunburned and to suffer skin cancer because you aren't wearing it. But no toxins.

    Scientists are never wrong. Ask one. The reason why one claim is the opposite of a previous claim is because they have a "better understanding" now. If you or I said that, we'd be admitting we were wrong the first time. But we're not scientists.

    Few skills are so well rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims.
    -- Thomas Sowell

      Current date/time is Mon May 21, 2018 11:57 am