Satellite Data: No Global Warming For Past 18 Years
September 30, 2014 – 4:28 PM
CNSNews.com asked Christy why the United Nations’ climate models, which all predicted steeply rising temperatures over the past two decades, were all proven wrong.
“You’re going back to a fundamental question of science that when you understand a system, you are able to predict its behavior. The fact that no one predicted what’s happened in the past 18 years indicates we have a long way to go to understand the climate system,” Christy replied.
“Our ignorance is simply enormous when it comes to the climate system, and our understanding is certainly not strong and solid enough to make policy about climate because we don’t even know what it’s going to do, so how can we make a policy that says ‘I want to make the climate do something’ when we don’t know what makes the climate do what it does?” he asked.
Satellite Data: No Global Warming For Past 18 Years | CNS News
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- The World’s Worst Scientists
- “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- A Real Hockey Stick
- A Real Hockey Stick
- Doubling Energy Costs
- Doubling Energy Costs
- “You Can’t Hide Your Lying Eyes”
- Australia Permanent Drought Update
- Let Them Burn Wood
- “New computer modeling”
- Climate Destroying Shrimp
- What’s At Stake?
- Too Hot To Live
- What’s At Stake?
- “The world began to end on 12th May 2024”
- “Climate change is a myth”
- Racist Gas
- RFK Jr. Discusses The Green New Deal And Climate
- “world is on edge of climate abyss, UN warns”
- Ivy Echo Chamber
- Climate Homicide
- Much Ado About Nothing
- Homophobic Gas
- World Bank Expectations
- Trained Not To Learn
Recent Comments
- Bruce of Newcastle on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- Conrad Ziefle on The World’s Worst Scientists
- arn on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- Francis Barnett on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- arn on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- Steve Cooksey on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- spren on “You Can’t Hide Your Lying Eyes”
- Jack the Insider on Doubling Energy Costs
- Conrad Ziefle on Doubling Energy Costs
- Disillusioned on Doubling Energy Costs
Predictions are difficult, especially about the future.
I forget who’s quote that is.
Niels Bohr
Also sounds like one of Yogi’s—I thought it was.
But those exact words were from Niels Bohr and he was first in the general statement
Brainyquotes.com says
“Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future.”
Was said by Niels Bohr
The important takeaway is that he was speaking to the conundrum in quantum mechanics—perhaps to Heisenberg or Pauli
Niels Bohr was talking to Schrödinger’s cat.
Yes I believe so. He was address a particular issue, and not making a general comment.
Were they talking about excluding uncertainty?
Only about excluding uncertainty in Climate Science™.
Not to take anting away from Yogi, but he said “I didn’t say half the things I said.” Apparently that was one of them.
It should have been Yogi Berra.
Stykkisholmur (65.1 N,22.7 W)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=620040130000&dt=1&ds=14
It looks like the really big adjustments did not reach Stykkisholmur (iceland) yet. It still looks like the old Reykjavik data.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=620040300000&dt=1&ds=1
also used by the Islandic Met Office
http://en.vedur.is/about-imo/news/nr/2989
Tony, I thought you would enjoy the irony.
ManicBeancounter went to a John the Kook talk entitled: “ Dogma vs. consensus: Letting the evidence speak on climate change”
It must be a nightmare to have to lie for a living.
I could not do it. That is why I ‘retired’ early.
Gail, You indicated Trenberth conflated Kinetic and EM energy transfer somewhere. (I think you did)
Could you reference it please and thank you
Comments start around : https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/09/29/what-if-the-missing-heat-returned-to-the-surface/#comment-431949
Maybe above that.
Of cause they know – a minute change in a minor atmospheric gas(CO2) concentration causes it all, and not the slightly greater variation in solar radiation across a broad e/m spectrum.
It stands to reason, it’s got to be CO2.
/sarcoff
Admitting you have been wrong does not make you incompetent. It shows you have “character”. Spencer and Christy will survive the AGW collapse because they are scientists.
Everyone is wrong at some time, but few can ever admit it, and learn from their mistakes.
Since no-one has a perfect understanding of the universe, everyone is wrong.
Some people are just more wrong than others …
Once I thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken….. har har har
+1
Judith Curry hedged her bets but she is still a Warmist from reading her papers on the Arctic.
She may be warm leaning, but she’s not an ‘alarmist’…at least from what I’ve seen.
As I said she has ‘hedged her bets’
The paper I read was a bit of an eye opener.
I can’t find it right now but here is another more recent one:
Arctic Sea Ice Decline May be Driving Snowy Winters Seen in Recent Years
Also: Local Warming: Consequences of Climate Change for Atlanta By Judith Curry
AHHhh found one of the papers (1999):
Perhaps her attitude is best explained by the title of this paper: Can scientists rebuild trust in Climate Science? Physics Today, 2/10/10
Unfortunately that paper is paywalled but this interview is not.
August 3, 2010 The Curry Agonistes
Curry has identified the fact that skeptics are:
#1. Not going to go away.
#2. Are not uneducated hicks but scientists and engineers
#3. That skeptics have enough facts and muscle, especially after Climategate, to do a great deal of damage to the publics view of science and scientists.
Her concern is to repair the damage done to the reputation of climate science. This does NOT mean she is a skeptic.
After reading what Judith Curry wrote, You might want to read what E.M. Smith (ChiefIO) wrote: http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/cheifio-e-m-smith-responds-to-bain-et-al/
And compare the two.
In re “not an ‘alarmist'” ….
Anyone who can look at the recent data, including Steven’s work, and not say that the Earth is presently cooling dramatically, is an alarmist by default.
I have patiently criticized/questioned this attitude at her blog about three times, but she did not respond. But when Steven exposes all the blatant fraud that is going on, she says he is wrong, then, ‘Oh I didn’t look carefully enouh, he’s right. But what he did is still bogus.”
Right but bogus?? That’s insane!
RTF
The certainty that people like Lewandowsky exhibit about the future would make them good visitors/victims in Las Vegas. Their hubris would empty their pockets as they make silly bets based on how they think the game(s) should be played.
It is not certainty it is a hidden agenda. Well not so hidden now that the Communists have come out in full force supporting CAGW.
Unfortunately Gail, you are right. It took 6 or 7 years for me to actually believe that the communists were/are behind this climate scam. More of a realization. It is a worse case scenario, if it continued to warm even slightly, they would have gained control, then if it gets cold, there is no planning at all. Actually there is no planning in a warming world either. The only plan that is out there is to put us back in the stone age.
Over at NoTricksZone, P. Gosselin has tried to get any scientist to bet with him over their prodictions/projections –
– See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/09/30/science-with-97-consensus-and-99-certainty-sees-0-of-its-scientists-willing-to-bet-on-it/
In the mood for bafflegab? Herein the mindless interview the clueless:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/climate-change/why-we-should-forget-the-2-degree-global-warming-goal-17266417??src=rss
“…Atmospheric temperature is just not a good proxy for planetary health.”
Guess the warmunists need to back-off on atmospheric temperature rise – since there hasn’t been any for a couple of decades.
How about this one:
…”That’s because most of the excess heat in the climate is taken up by the ocean, and it’s a much better indicator for the overall stress that we’re putting on the global climate system than atmospheric temperature.”
Yes, the overall stress the stress, that we, we humans, are “putting on the global climate system.” For. Shame.
Vague sophistry. All of it. Zero precision. Zero science.
AHHHhhh, Yes the absolute classic Warmist LIE of a back light water vapor column coming out of a smoke stack to make it look like it is full of soot. That alone tells you the piece is nothing but propaganda.
They pull that crap all the time.
The main stress on the planet for the last many thousands of years has been the very low CO2 levels.
Hopefully China, India, Gemany etc can continue to help ease this stress.
We are near starvation levels. I would like to see CO2 back up to ~1500 ppm.