Shock News : Climate Scientists Don’t Understand The Climate

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

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Shock News : Climate Scientists Don’t Understand The Climate

  1. Password protected says:

    Predictions are difficult, especially about the future.
    I forget who’s quote that is.

  2. Robertv says:

    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

  3. Gail Combs says:

    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”

    …He was introduced by Stephen Lewandowsky… The slides are available at Skepticalscience. Here are some notes on the talk, along with brief comments….

  4. tom0mason says:

    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

  5. geran says:

    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.

    • Truthseeker says:

      Since no-one has a perfect understanding of the universe, everyone is wrong.

      Some people are just more wrong than others …

    • KevinK says:

      Once I thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken….. har har har

    • Gail Combs says:

      +1

      Judith Curry hedged her bets but she is still a Warmist from reading her papers on the Arctic.

      • mjc says:

        She may be warm leaning, but she’s not an ‘alarmist’…at least from what I’ve seen.

        • Gail Combs says:

          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):

          Review of Science Issues, Deployment Strategy, and Status for the ARM North Slope of Alaska–Adjacent Arctic Ocean Climate Research Site

          ABSTRACT:
          Recent climate modeling results point to the Arctic as a region that is particularly sensitive to global climate change. The Arctic warming predicted by the models to result from the expected doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide is two to three times the predicted mean global warming, and considerably greater than the warming predicted for the Antarctic. The North Slope of Alaska–Adjacent Arctic Ocean (NSA–AAO) Cloud and Radiation Testbed (CART) site of the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Program is designed to collect data on temperature-ice-albedo and water vapor–cloud–radiation feedbacks, which are believed to be important to the predicted enhanced warming in the Arctic. The most important scientific issues of Arctic, as well as global, significance to be addressed at the NSA–AAO CART site are discussed, and a brief overview of the current approach toward, and status of, site development is provided…..
          http://www.curry.eas.gatech.edu/currydoc/Stamnes_JC12.pdf‎

          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.

          JC: My hypothesis is that the level of vitriol in the climate blogs [ Real Climate and Climate Progress ] reflects the last gasp of those who thought they could influence national and international energy policy through the power politics of climate science expertise. The politics of expertise is about how scientific information is used in the policy making process, including how diverging viewpoints are interpreted and how science is weighed relative to values and politics in the policy debate. The problem comes in when the “power” politics of expertise are played. Signals of the “power” play include: hiding uncertainties and never admitting a mistake; developing a consensus with a high level of confidence; demanding that the consensus receive extreme deference relative to other view points; insisting that that science demands a particular policy; discrediting scientists holding other view points by dismissing them as cranks, trivializing their credentials and say that they are not qualified to hold an opinion; and attacking the motives of anyone that challenges the consensus. Sound familiar? In the case of climate change, the authoritarianism of “science tells us we should . . . “ could not withstand the public perception of scientists engaging with pressure groups, lack of transparency that meant people were unable to evaluate the information themselves, and then the climategate affair that raised questions about the integrity of the scientists.

          Romm quickly honed in on the view that it was far more important to discredit me than Montford or McIntyre. Romm is “America’s fiercest” practitioner of the power politics of climate expertise, making brutal attacks on scientists and others that diverge from climate orthodoxy. My comments rankle so much with Romm because I used to be in the stable of experts that he cited. My putting the spotlight on uncertainties and too much confidence, plus listening to other view points and posting on rival blogs, and now calling people out on the power politics of science issue, has to be mighty uncomfortable for Romm….
          The point is this. I have gotten hundreds of emails from practicing scientists and engineers in a range of different fields and holding positions in academia, government, and the private sector. I have also had discussions with a number of climate researchers who are concerned about the politicization of the field and the overconfidence in the IPCC. They are encouraging me to continue standing up for the scientific method and against the politicization of science. I’m sure that there are some of my colleagues that don’t like it or wonder what the point is, but they are not talking to me about it. I am getting feedback from scientists that like what I’m doing….

        • Gail Combs says:

          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

  6. SMS says:

    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.

    • Gail Combs says:

      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.

      • rishrac says:

        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.

    • tom0mason says:

      Over at NoTricksZone, P. Gosselin has tried to get any scientist to bet with him over their prodictions/projections –

      About 10 days ago a press release by the Alfred Wegener Institute gave readers the impression that the Arctic sea ice would keep on melting. In response I sent e-mails to the two scientists cited in it, Marcel Nicolaus and Lars Kaleschke, and asked if they would advise a bet on it. I even posted my bet here…

      The following scientists/institutes were sent the e-mail:

      1. Marcel Nicolaus, AWI
      2. Lars Kaleschke, University of Hamburg
      3. Stefan Rahmstorf, PotsInstitute
      4. NSIDC
      5. Dirk Notz, Max Planck Institute
      6. Leif Riemenschneider, Max Planck Institute
      7. Rebecca Rolf, Max Planck Institute
      8. Frank Sienz, Max Planck Institute
      9. Peter Wadhams, University of Cambridge
      10. Dr. Andrey Proshutinsky, Woods Hole Institute
      11. Anders Levermann, Potsdam Institute
      12. Mojib Latif,

      …I’d like to thank them for taking the time to respond, particularly Dr. Dirk Notz and Dr. Andrey Proshutinsky. They both took the time to provide a real reply, see here and here…

      – 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/

  7. gregole says:

    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.

    • Gail Combs says:

      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.

    • thegriss says:

      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.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s