Top scientists admit no warming in 20 years

[WVPATX]

So if top global warming scientists are now admitting the 20 year pause exists and that the models were all wrong and as you can read below, all 28 contributing authors made startling admissions. They admit "We do not know" when the true causes of any warming will be know. And these scientists were not the skeptical scientists we have all read about. These 28 scientists worked with climate alarmists Ben Santer and Michael Mann.



Delingpole then asks the crucial question: “But was this line actually true? Was this really a fair summary — the kind of summary the IPCC purports rigorously and definitively to give of us — of the general state of scientific understanding at that particular moment? Er, well not according to some of the scientists who’d contributed to that chapter of the report, no.” Delingpole reminds us of the fantastic deception that went into confecting this false IPCC “consensus” which has been used as a battering ram to demolish opposition to the AGW agenda. He writes:

The original version of the chapter — as agreed on and signed off by all 28 contributing authors — expressed considerably more doubt about AGW than was indicated in Santer’s summary. It included these passages:

“None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”

“No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the climate change observed) to (man-made) causes.”

“Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”

“When will an anthropogenic climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to the question is ‘We do not know.’”

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech...computer-models-wrong-skeptics-right-on-pause

 

[moe]

So if top global warming scientists are now admitting the 20 year pause exists and that the models were all wrong and as you can read below, all 28 contributing authors made startling admissions. They admit "We do not know" when the true causes of any warming will be know. And these scientists were not the skeptical scientists we have all read about. These 28 scientists worked with climate alarmists Ben Santer and Michael Mann.



Delingpole then asks the crucial question: “But was this line actually true? Was this really a fair summary — the kind of summary the IPCC purports rigorously and definitively to give of us — of the general state of scientific understanding at that particular moment? Er, well not according to some of the scientists who’d contributed to that chapter of the report, no.” Delingpole reminds us of the fantastic deception that went into confecting this false IPCC “consensus” which has been used as a battering ram to demolish opposition to the AGW agenda. He writes:

The original version of the chapter — as agreed on and signed off by all 28 contributing authors — expressed considerably more doubt about AGW than was indicated in Santer’s summary. It included these passages:

“None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”

“No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the climate change observed) to (man-made) causes.”

“Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”

“When will an anthropogenic climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to the question is ‘We do not know.’”

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech...computer-models-wrong-skeptics-right-on-pause

Keep the far right wing blogs coming, good stuff.

 

[WVPATX]

Keep the far right wing blogs coming, good stuff.

Do you even read? This is an article that summarizes a study posted last week. Top climate alarmists scientists Ben Santer and Michael Mann (of the famous and now debunked hockey stick) were instrumental in this study. 28 contributing scientists made the startling admission posted above. This is not a right wing study and those are not made up results.

What part of this do you not understand:

The original version of the chapter — as agreed on and signed off by all 28 contributing authors — expressed considerably more doubt about AGW than was indicated in Santer’s summary. It included these passages:

“None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”

“No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the climate change observed) to (man-made) causes.”

“Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”

“When will an anthropogenic climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to the question is ‘We do not know.’”

 

[moe]

Do you even read? This is an article that summarizes a study posted last week. Top climate alarmists scientists Ben Santer and Michael Mann (of the famous and now debunked hockey stick) were instrumental in this study. 28 contributing scientists made the startling admission posted above. This is not a right wing study and those are not made up results.

What part of this do you not understand:

The original version of the chapter — as agreed on and signed off by all 28 contributing authors — expressed considerably more doubt about AGW than was indicated in Santer’s summary. It included these passages:

“None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”

“No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the climate change observed) to (man-made) causes.”

“Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”

“When will an anthropogenic climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to the question is ‘We do not know.’”

lol

 

[WVPATX]

lol

I take that as a NO, you do not read. Do you have someone interpret posts for you on this board?

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Please don't pretend to have anything to do with WVU. You are a f'ucking embarrassment.

https://climate.nasa.gov/

"Sixteen of the 17 warmest years in the 136-year record all have occurred since 2001, with the exception of 1998. The year 2016 ranks as the warmest on record."

 

[WVPATX]

Please don't pretend to have anything to do with WVU. You are a f'ucking embarrassment.

https://climate.nasa.gov/
https://climate.nasa.gov/
"Sixteen of the 17 warmest years in the 136-year record all have occurred since 2001, with the exception of 1998. The year 2016 ranks as the warmest on record."

You clearly did not read the article either. Top global warming alarmists, Ben Santer and Michael Mann agree that pause is real and is based on satellite measurements of temperatures which are much more accurate and reliable than ground based measurements. 28 contributing scientists agreed the pause exists but went even further in their summary:

The original version of the chapter — as agreed on and signed off by all 28 contributing authors — expressed considerably more doubt about AGW than was indicated in Santer’s summary. It included these passages:

“None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”

“No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the climate change observed) to (man-made) causes.”

“Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”

“When will an anthropogenic climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to the question is ‘We do not know.’”

 

[Boomboom521]

https://pcmdi.llnl.gov/research/Dan...s/2017/Nature_Geoscience/NG_Fact_sheet_v3.pdf

PLEASE READ THIS!!!!!!

 

[WVPATX]

https://pcmdi.llnl.gov/research/DandA/Synthetic Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) temperatures/2017/Nature_Geoscience/NG_Fact_sheet_v3.pdf

PLEASE READ THIS!!!!!!

Original study by Santer, Mann, etal.

https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2973.html

The 28 scientists that participated in this study went much further than Santer in their conclusions.

 

[Boomboom521]

Original study by Santer, Mann, etal.

https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2973.html

The 28 scientists that participated in this study went much further than Santer in their conclusions.

So....did you read the interview or not?

 

[WVPATX]

So....did you read the interview or not?

Did you read the actual report or not?

BTW, who was interviewed? It does not say. If it was Santer or Mann, the other 28 scientists went much further in their conclusions of the study.

 

[Boomboom521]

Question 6: In a recent paper in Scientific Reports, you find that satellite measurements do not show any signs of “leveling off” of tropospheric warming over the past two decades. Aren’t those findings at odds with the findings of the Nature Geoscience paper?


Answer: No. The findings of the two papers are entirely consistent. The Scientific Reports paper compares the satellite tropospheric temperature trend over the past 20 years with many samples of 20-year trends obtained from model simulations of natural internal climate variability.4 Even though the most recent 20-year warming trend is smaller than in earlier parts of the satellite record,5 it is still significantly larger than the range of 20-year trends caused by internal climate variability alone. From our Scientific Reports study, there is no evidence that satellite data show “leveling off” of tropospheric warming in the last two decades.

 

[WVPATX]

The original version of the chapter — as agreed on and signed off by all 28 contributing authors — expressed considerably more doubt about AGW than was indicated in Santer’s summary. It included these passages:

“None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”

“No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the climate change observed) to (man-made) causes.”

“Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”

“When will an anthropogenic climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to the question is ‘We do not know.’”

 

[WVPATX]

Question 6: In a recent paper in Scientific Reports, you find that satellite measurements do not show any signs of “leveling off” of tropospheric warming over the past two decades. Aren’t those findings at odds with the findings of the Nature Geoscience paper?


Answer: No. The findings of the two papers are entirely consistent. The Scientific Reports paper compares the satellite tropospheric temperature trend over the past 20 years with many samples of 20-year trends obtained from model simulations of natural internal climate variability.4 Even though the most recent 20-year warming trend is smaller than in earlier parts of the satellite record,5 it is still significantly larger than the range of 20-year trends caused by internal climate variability alone. From our Scientific Reports study, there is no evidence that satellite data show “leveling off” of tropospheric warming in the last two decades.

Again, I suspect this interview was with Santer. The other 28 scientists wrote their own summary part of which is posted above.

 

[Boomboom521]

Did you read the actual report or not?

BTW, who was interviewed? It does not say. If it was Santer or Mann, the other 28 scientists went much further in their conclusions of the study.

Santer.

Where did the other authors go in their findings then?

 

[Boomboom521]

The original version of the chapter — as agreed on and signed off by all 28 contributing authors — expressed considerably more doubt about AGW than was indicated in Santer’s summary. It included these passages:

“None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”

“No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the climate change observed) to (man-made) causes.”

“Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”

“When will an anthropogenic climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to the question is ‘We do not know.’”

You are cherry picking out of the study that seeks to understand the differences in models versus real time temperature measurements. None of the authors believe that long term evaluations of warming are incorrect. None believe that CO2 admissions are not the cause of an observed warming, THAT HAS NOT LEVELED OFF IN THE PAST 20 years.

 

[WVPATX]

Santer.

Where did the other authors go in their findings then?

Santer wrote a summary of the study and the other 28 authors wrote their own probably because they disagreed with Santer's summary. These scientists admit they don't know what causes the slight warming we have had. Further, any claims of the causes of warming will be challenged until natural variability is more fully understood.

“No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the climate change observed) to (man-made) causes.”

“Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”

“When will an anthropogenic climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to the question is ‘We do not know.’”

 

[WVPATX]

You are cherry picking out of the study that seeks to understand the differences in models versus real time temperature measurements. None of the authors believe that long term evaluations of warming are incorrect. None believe that CO2 admissions are not the cause of an observed warming, THAT HAS NOT LEVELED OFF IN THE PAST 20 years.

You can read their summary for yourself. I have posted some key conclusions. Their summary is in direct contrast to your post. How can you cherry pick the fact that they admit they don't know what is causing the slight warming?

Santer is trying to save his reputation in the alarmists community with that interview.

 

[WVPATX]

Global temperatures have dropped 0.5° Celsius in April, 2017, according to Dr. Ryan Maue. In the Northern Hemisphere they plunged a massive 1°C . As the record 2015/16 El Nino levels off, the global warming hiatus aka “the pause” is back with a vengeance. He writes:

Some good news to end April, global temperature anomaly has fallen to only +0.1°C today (snapshot) … graphic is like stock market trace





Global Ocean Temperatures Drop To Pre-El Nino Levels



Despite NOAA’s Denial, A Growing Number Of Studies Confirm the Global Warming Hiatus

Despite widespread denial among climate activists, a growing number of scientific research papers in recent months have confirmed the global warming hiatus, trying to explain its possible reasons (for the latest studies see here, here and here). The latest study claims that the Southern Ocean played a critical role in the global warming slowdown.



h/t to the GWPF

Dr. Roy Spencer says while there was a plunge at the surface, the lower troposphere is still holding warmth, but what is clear is that the effects of the El Niño are over:

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for April, 2017 was +0.27 deg. C, up from the March, 2017 value of +0.19 deg. C (click for full size version):


Global area-averaged lower tropospheric temperature anomalies (departures from 30-year calendar monthly means, 1981-2010). The 13-month centered average is meant to give an indication of the lower frequency variations in the data; the choice of 13 months is somewhat arbitrary… an odd number of months allows centered plotting on months with no time lag between the two plotted time series. The inclusion of two of the same calendar months on the ends of the 13 month averaging period causes no issues with interpretation because the seasonal temperature cycle has been removed as has the distinction between calendar months.

The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 16 months are:

YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPICS
2016 01 +0.54 +0.69 +0.39 +0.84
2016 02 +0.83 +1.16 +0.50 +0.98
2016 03 +0.73 +0.94 +0.52 +1.08
2016 04 +0.71 +0.85 +0.58 +0.93
2016 05 +0.54 +0.64 +0.44 +0.71
2016 06 +0.33 +0.50 +0.17 +0.37
2016 07 +0.39 +0.48 +0.29 +0.47
2016 08 +0.43 +0.55 +0.31 +0.49
2016 09 +0.44 +0.49 +0.38 +0.37
2016 10 +0.40 +0.42 +0.39 +0.46
2016 11 +0.45 +0.40 +0.50 +0.37
2016 12 +0.24 +0.18 +0.30 +0.21
2017 01 +0.30 +0.26 +0.33 +0.07
2017 02 +0.35 +0.54 +0.15 +0.05
2017 03 +0.19 +0.30 +0.07 +0.03
2017 04 +0.27 +0.27 +0.26 +0.21

The UAH LT global anomaly image for April, 2017 should be available in the next few days here.

The new Version 6 files should also be updated soon, and are located here:

Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere:http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause:http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt

Advertisements

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Original study by Santer, Mann, etal.

https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2973.html

The 28 scientists that participated in this study went much further than Santer in their conclusions.

The reference that YOU posted refutes your thread title "no warming in 20 years."

You are an idiot. You truly don't understand how stupid you actually are. [laughing]

 

[WVPATX]

The reference that YOU posted refutes your thread title "no warming in 20 years."

You are an idiot. You truly don't understand how stupid you actually are. [laughing]

“No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the climate change observed) to (man-made) causes.”

“Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”

“When will an anthropogenic climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to the question is ‘We do not know.’”

The planet has been slightly warming since we exited the little ice age around 1850. This study does not conclusively demonstrate abnormal warming outside of natural variability as identified by the summary above. The 28 scientists that participated in the study admit that. The 20 year pause recognizes that very, very slight warming is occurring but at much lower rates than climate model forecasts.

 

[Boomboom521]

Santer wrote a summary of the study and the other 28 authors wrote their own probably because they disagreed with Santer's summary. These scientists admit they don't know what causes the slight warming we have had. Further, any claims of the causes of warming will be challenged until natural variability is more fully understood.

“No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the climate change observed) to (man-made) causes.”

“Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”

“When will an anthropogenic climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to the question is ‘We do not know.’”

That's simple rightwing propaganda distortion of the study, the authors, the findings, and the consensus of the authors views on manmade climate change.

 

[WVPATX]

That's simple rightwing propaganda distortion of the study, the authors, the findings, and the consensus of the authors views on manmade climate change.

The summary by the 28 scientists is in plain sight. Easy to read.

 

[Boomboom521]

The summary by the 28 scientists is in plain sight. Easy to read.

Really? Where? Not edited by a rightwing website?

 

[WVPATX]

Really? Where? Not edited by a rightwing website?

Give me a break. This summary was in the original draft of the study. Santer excised it from the final version.

Strangely,” notes Delingpole, “none of these passages made it to the final draft.” Down the Orwellian memory hole they went, victims of Santer’s quest for “consensus.” His Summary for Policy Makers not only did not represent anything close to the oft claimed “scientific consensus,” it egregiously, intentionally misrepresented the widespread non-consensus among the participating scientists on this important question. When challenged on this obvious fraud and censorship, Santer and his allies have defended this indefensible malefaction as the completely innocent and normal process of “peer review.”

So because only 28 of the 30 agreed with this summary, it was excised. That does not change the fact that 28 contributing scientists wrote that summary. Santer and Mann may not agree with it but obviously the 28 scientists did.

 

[Boomboom521]

Give me a break. This summary was in the original draft of the study. Santer excised it from the final version.

Strangely,” notes Delingpole, “none of these passages made it to the final draft.” Down the Orwellian memory hole they went, victims of Santer’s quest for “consensus.” His Summary for Policy Makers not only did not represent anything close to the oft claimed “scientific consensus,” it egregiously, intentionally misrepresented the widespread non-consensus among the participating scientists on this important question. When challenged on this obvious fraud and censorship, Santer and his allies have defended this indefensible malefaction as the completely innocent and normal process of “peer review.”

So because only 28 of the 30 agreed with this summary, it was excised. That does not change the fact that 28 contributing scientists wrote that summary. Santer and Mann may not agree with it but obviously the 28 scientists did.

Link me to these scientists claims please

 

[WVPATX]

Link me to these scientists claims please

Go find the original draft yourself.

 

[Boomboom521]

https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2017/zonal-mean-temperature-change/#more-5213

Two of the authors of the work (not Santer or Mann)

 

[dave]

Please don't pretend to have anything to do with WVU. You are a f'ucking embarrassment.

https://climate.nasa.gov/
https://climate.nasa.gov/
"Sixteen of the 17 warmest years in the 136-year record all have occurred since 2001, with the exception of 1998. The year 2016 ranks as the warmest on record."

Interesting comment cuntrywrong. See you in court?

 

[WVPATX]

https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2017/zonal-mean-temperature-change/#more-5213

Two of the authors of the work (not Santer or Mann)

That tells me nothing. It is warmer in some areas and not in others? That is a revelation?

 

[Boomboom521]

That tells me nothing. It is warmer in some areas and not in others? That is a revelation?

The point was that two authors (not Mann or Santer) are still very much on board with manmade climate change being a serious threat. These were among the 28 that you insist found that their study confirmed the "fraud" of global warming predictions.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

The point was that two authors (not Mann or Santer) are still very much on board with manmade climate change being a serious threat. These were among the 28 that you insist found that their study confirmed the "fraud" of global warming predictions.

What would it take for you to begin to question the validity of the growing skepticism? I see you consistently discount PATX and his "rightist misinformation propaganda"

 

[WVPATX]

The point was that two authors (not Mann or Santer) are still very much on board with manmade climate change being a serious threat. These were among the 28 that you insist found that their study confirmed the "fraud" of global warming predictions.

They wrote that summary, you have to deal with it. They simply said there is too much that we do not know.

 

[WVPATX]

What would it take for you to begin to question the validity of the growing skepticism? I see you consistently discount PATX and his "rightist misinformation propaganda"

It is a religion to them. The funny thing is, science is all about skepticism. So I guess you could say they are anti-science.

 

[WVPATX]

The point was that two authors (not Mann or Santer) are still very much on board with manmade climate change being a serious threat. These were among the 28 that you insist found that their study confirmed the "fraud" of global warming predictions.

I may have missed it in the article, but where does the author say that the warming is man-made?

 

[79eer]

Hope you guys don't mind me pointing out a flaw in both of your points, I'm betting 99.9% of Americans don't care one way or another.

 

[WVPATX]

Hope you guys don't mind me pointing out a flaw in both of your points, I'm betting 99.9% of Americans don't care one way or another.

I would disagree. I think many more people care if laws and regulations are enacted that impact their lives. On the global warming alarmists side, they care because they think the planet is being destroyed.

I agree with you that it is not among the top five issues facing our nation, but it is in the top 10.

 

[79eer]

Just kidding, just started following the site and enjoy reading the various comments, continue on.

 

[Boomboom521]

What would it take for you to begin to question the validity of the growing skepticism? I see you consistently discount PATX and his "rightist misinformation propaganda"

That's what it is, misinformation. And I'm sick of people trying to run down the work that many have done. The information in this thread is a perfect example. The study was a group of climatologists attempting to understand the discrepancies in climate models. Quotes are taken from the work in an attempt to create the illusion that these scientists do not believe in man made climate change, global warming, or something as literal as no hiatus in warming temperatures.

It's a fvcking lie, posing as the "truth" trying to destroy a hoax or a scam.

 

[PriddyBoy]

It's a fvcking lie, posing as the "truth" trying to destroy a hoax or a scam.

You can't handle the truth. Got the message? No more with the climate change, capiche?