Notice: All forums will be retired as of May 31st, 2016 and will not be archived. Thank you for your participation in this community, and we hope you continue to enjoy other content at

"Greenhouse gases" ^ temperatures plateau over last 15 years. Scientist admit "we do not know why".

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts


    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:


    How many times does it need to be explained to yoru ideology-soaked pinbrain that the people working in the field are well aware of pre-existing and ongoing warming/cooling cycles.

    How do you not understand that man having an effect on the environment is not mutually exclusive with existing environmental cycles?

    Why does this need to be explained to you every time you start one of these threads?


    It was the scientist NOT ME that admitted they have no idea how the greenhouse gases can increase in great amounts without causing and warmer temperatures!

    Are you denying that climate scientist 30+ years ago stated that we would lose our seaboards and the ice caps would be melted or close to it by now?

    Im betting they are as wrong today as they have been the last generation!

    As i have stated many many times; I do believe in global warming and I do believe we need cleaner fuels.

    I do not buy into the theory that warming is absolutley man made or that our little spec of life can control it.

    This planet has been alot hotter and alot cooler before our all knowing theories were in the picture.

    25 years ago all knowing "climate scientist" that supported "man made global warming" predicted that our coasts would be gone now and that the ice caps would be 70% gone by now!!

    How'd that work out?

  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts


    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    "Follow the money" is only a piece of advice on how to launch an investigation.

    Governments want people to buy into "man made global warming" so they can institute a carbon tax and transfer trillions around the globe!

  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts


    NYTimes: The Dog Ate My Global Warming.

    Climate scientists blame the oceans, or something, for 35 billion kilotons-equivalent of missing energy.

    Normally, in the scientific method, you make a prediction based on a hypothesis, then observe to see if your prediction comes true. If not, you discard the hypothesis and get a new one.

    In the arena of climate science, apparently, different rules apply. If your prediction is wrong, you redouble your search for mechanisms to explain the “variance”. There is no chance the underlying theory is wrong, or even flawed.

    How bad did the climate establishment miss their projections? Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer has collected 73 model forecasts, and compared them to observations

    The discrepancy between models and observations is not a new issue…just one that is becoming more glaring over time.

    It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out in the coming years. I frankly don’t see how the IPCC can keep claiming that the models are “not inconsistent with” the observations. Any sane person can see otherwise.

    But the New York Times is not any sane person. In an article called What to Make of a Warming Plateau they attempt to explain the variance away. This article is worth a read as it has a howler in just about every paragraph. A few examples:

    The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists. True, the basic theory that predicts a warming of the planet in response to human emissions does not suggest that warming should be smooth and continuous. To the contrary, in a climate system still dominated by natural variability, there is every reason to think the warming will proceed in fits and starts.

    “A bit of a mystery” indeed. As in, none of the models were accurate. And while there may be some “fits and starts” in individual models, the average increases every single year after 1995.  The Times continues:

    But given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on.They admit that they do not, even though some potential mechanisms of the slowdown have been suggested. The situation highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system, some of which cannot be closed until we get better measurements from high in space and from deep in the ocean.

    The scientists may not understand what’s going on, but it is a 100% certainty that any prescription for the planet’s supposed malady is going to cost prosperity in the developed nations, but it will cost lives in the developing world. If you’re proposing heart surgery, you sure as hell better know what you’re talking about. This talk of “potential mechanisms” and “important gaps in knowledge” gives me a cold chill.

    In fact, scientists can calculate how much extra heat should be accumulating from the human-caused increases in greenhouse gases, and the energies involved are staggering. By a conservative estimate, current concentrations are trapping an extra amount of energy equivalent to 400,000 Hiroshima bombs exploding across the face of the earth every day. 

    My first instinct upon reading this was that somebody dropped a decimal place or five in their calculation. Taking the factoid at face value, though, they’re saying that the energy equivalent of 2.2 billion “Little Boys“, or over 35 trillion tons of TNT energy-equivalent that has just gone missing over the last 15 years. Pooof, just like that.

    Climate scientists, according to the Times, suspect the ocean is the culprit:

    Exactly why the ocean would have started to draw down extra heat in recent years is a mystery, and one we badly need to understand. But the main ideas have to do with possible shifts in winds and currents that are causing surface heat to be pulled down faster than before.

    The deep-ocean theory is one of a half-dozen explanations that have been proffered for the warming plateau. Perhaps the answer will turn out to be some mix. And in any event, computer forecasts of climate change suggest that pauses in warming lasting a couple of decades should not surprise us.

    Emphasis added throughout.

    Well, I can pick out one of the 73 models in the Shepard graph that looks like it may have a 15-20 year flat spot. The rest of them more-or-less uniformly predicted year to year warming. The rest of that paragraph is scientist-speak for “if we fling a handful of spaghetti against the wall, some of it may stick!”

    The problem is that the climate community cranked up all these computer models without really understanding all the mechanisms which influence climate. In modeling, history matching is the easy part. It is awfully easy to convince yourself that you are working with the most robust possible mathematical model based on the “goodness” of the history match. Put it in forecast mode, however, and it blows up.

    It’s referred to as the “uniqueness” problem. In other words, no matter how good a history match a model gives, there are other possible explanations that match history just as well. If you don’t have a good grasp of all the mechanisms (which climate modellers clearly don’t), you cannot possibly have a true, unique match. You have a bad model.

    This is a common pitfall with oil and gas reservoir simulation, with a lot fewer variables and reasonably well understood physical mechanisms and a scope that is many orders of magnitude smaller than “global”.

    The admission of the degree of uncertainty and the lack of knowledge of controlling mechanisms is vindication for all of us skeptics who have been resisting the calls from James Hansen, Michael Mann, Al Gore and the Nobel Prize-winning IPCC to impose massive penalties on our economy.

  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts


    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:


    Conventional wisdom says that most retractions of papers in scientific journals are triggered by unintentional errors. Not so, according to one of the largest-ever studies of retractions. A survey1 published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has found that two-thirds of retracted life-sciences papers were stricken from the scientific record because of misconduct such as fraud or suspected fraud — and that journals sometimes soft-pedal the reason.


    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.



    You realize, of course, that your survey is a double-edged sword. That any of the denier funded studies are just as apt to be politically motivated and innaccurate.



    So if you apply your theory equally and in a non-partisan way, you still end up with an overwhelming majority of the science in support of global warming that can't be discredited.


    "Cant be discredited" ? Not even by new data which is contrary to their computer models?
    Science is not a democracy, you dont take a poll and then say, that is the scientific infallible truth. True scientists are willing to accept when they were wrong, based on new data. They are human and subject to outside influences, like getting grants if you support man-made global warming, and being called a "kook" if you do not.


  5. This post has been removed.

  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts


    Its another debate that will not be solved here and GWers will die holding onto their religion that the planet is dying due to mankinds abuse and others will say jobs and the economy are more imnportant than a therory that changes every decade when it's conclusions dont pan out.

    Global warming, climate change, coasts and ice caps erroding in X amount of time, 15 years is too small a snap shot, the overall premise is still sound...yada yada yada!!