Guardian Says They Could Have Predicted The Hiatus Which They Also Say Never Happened



ScreenHunter_10319 Sep. 05 08.10

About Tony Heller

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

23 Responses to Guardian Says They Could Have Predicted The Hiatus Which They Also Say Never Happened

  1. Moors710 says:

    in 4.5 billion years there will be a hiatus in global warming, after the sun goes nova and the crispy Earth grows cold around the white dwarf sun.

  2. LewSkannen says:

    I think that they were just about to predict it when the phone rang.

  3. gator69 says:

    They are right, the hiatus could have been forecast, but there was no monetary incentive to do so.

    • rah says:

      First they denied it was happening. Then they admitted it existed but denied it was significant. And then they went back to denying it ever has existed.
      The thing is that it’s looking like this current El Nino is going to end it for a short time and during that time we’re going to be bombarded with more claims of a cooking earth to come.

    • vorlath says:

      Exactly! Even if they had known (and many of them did), if they had published anything of the sort, they would have been called out as deniers.

  4. hskiprob says:

    My understanding is that all this temperate analysis is being done by mathematical models that I guess use a weighted average to get to the final conclusion. Is this true? One scientific study appears to conclude one thing and another the opposite. Quite honestly I can’t tell whose right or wrong. Here in Florida it’s hot this time a year and it’s been hot every year since I got here in 1955. We had a really cold winter a few years back that killed most of the iguanas, which by the way are an invasive species. Last winter was just about perfect to me and why so many snowbirds come south for the winner. That’s what we call the wealthy who own winter homes down here.

    Additionally I am concerned about how they can mathematically model something that is always changing for a multitude of reasons and get a meaningful. I don’t care how many spots you take measurements from, the temperature in each spot is changing, as each day goes through it’s cycle. Night time are generally cooler then day times. Many things like storm sizes, cloud cover, winds, rain and lighting play a factor that a weighted average could easily be higher or lower from each measurement taken. We don’t even really know all the variables that could be affecting temperatures. The earth appears to me to be self regulating like an island has with erosion and secretion of it’s shoreline. We’re even dealing with earth core temperatures which is only estimated to be a certain temperature. The core is even shifting and volcanic eruptions really changes things. One could present an argument that a series of volcanic eruptions during a period of times in which there are only a few, versus times when their are more could have an affect on temperatures.

    What we do know is that scientists have no greater grasp on integrity than do any other group of people and that the continuous spending by governmental agencies has always has a corruptive influence on the scientific community. If you do not factor in the right variables in your mathematical model, the results would become meaningless.

    If you read actually read the papers themselves, they use the results from other studies that may or may not be correct. We want to believe that we have the ability to do things like conclude a base world temperature, but this may not be possible. It reminds me of trying to determine where the matter or anti-matter came from for there to be a big bang. They last time I read something about explosions, various “things” had to be present for “something” to explode. Perhaps this is why it’s called the Big Bang “Theory” yet you ask the average atheist and they will tell you emphatically the earth was created by a Big Bang. Really? People have been told the theory so many times that every one now believes it. Sadly I think this is happening to the alarmist culture. A good friend who is an ecological biologist is totally convinced the world is getting warming and the oceans are rising. When I try to provide analysis to him, he points me to one of the socialist/progressive websites with various writing full of logical fallacies. This guy is in his sixties and the millenniums are being educated by his associates and contemporaries. They believe that since money and corporations have such a profound influence on society, they need to be stopped and government is the only one that can do this. The are not willing to except the fact that government has and always will be the mechanism of the wealthy to take you money for their benefit and that the only way to stop them is not to give them your money, as our founding fathers did.

    • Michael 2 says:

      hskiprob writes many things.

      I reply: You can argue for an eternity and your opponent will simply move the goalposts because they are not actually the goalposts; merely the fulcrum of the argument of the moment. It is probably important to have these arguments so that the goalposts don’t encroach more upon your choices than is already the case.

      Ultimately it is Malthusian. Herd vs predator vs solitary animal. Humans are all three but mostly herd. The way in which your herd (or your self) is marginalized, made harmless and ultimately made dead is a mere detail. The goal of the herd is more stuff for the herd. The goal of the predator is also more stuff for the herd (which is his stuff). The goal of the solitary animal may be a bit difficult to predict or describe, that is the kind that seems to live life — the Laysan Albatross that roams the world for four years before returning to its home island.

      Sheep are afraid of wolves. The wolf puts on sheep’s clothing and appears not to be a wolf, but a sheep. To complete the distraction, the wolf must choose a target, personify it (Alinsky rule), call the target a “denier”. Then when the sheep are focused on harmless deniers, the wolf creates a carbon credit trading exchange worth billions of dollars creating and trading credits on the air you breathe.

      Gosh I wish I had the foresight and whatever else it takes to do such a blatant thing.

      So what do you do? Out-do the wolf. Choose another target. Of course the sheep will expect you to do that but it doesn’t matter who does it; sheep-memes travel invisibly throughout the entire herd. If you find a sheep with a shred of cognition, identify the characteristics of a true wolf and then point to one (maybe still in sheeps clothing). “Look: There is your wolf!” and it will typically be the one most loudly denouncing “deniers”.

  5. hskiprob says:

    Good analogy. There are people whom have a bit of integrity, knowing that there is a cause and affect for every action. These people aren’t likely to get into positions of power though because they can’t be trusted to put on the sheep’s clothing. It is the basic principle behind why authoritarian governments maintain their power for as long as they do. The all eventual fail and those individuals in the real positions of power, economically play the rise and fall. Shorting a stock vs being in a long position. When you control the shifts, as the central bankers do, you know exactly when to short or long the position. When Karl Marx was writing his manifesto, he was laying out the methods in which the ruling class could again take back their economic power that had been lost in the various major revolutions. A central bank is his 5th platform and the central bankers now control all means of production in most of the industrialized world. Some of Asia, Russia and parts of the middle east and Africa are the holdouts and of course are demonized by western media.

    Granting monopoly power over the banking system to a group of very rich bankers was a very bad idea. They use the Citizens tax money to provide grants to academia to keep them happy. And of course academia must sometimes put on the sheep’s clothing to get the grant.

    • darrylb says:

      That of which you write is what Ike warned about in his farewell speech.
      Most of us of a certain age knew of his warnings of the military-industrial complex.
      It was less known that he continued to warn of science being controlled by elected politicians.
      He also was ready to warn of the media being controlled in the same manner, but his advisers stopped him short of that.
      Sounds kind of like a totalitarian state, Huh?

  6. Scarface says:

    Reassesment of historical data… Is that another way to say torturing the data?

  7. darrylb says:

    hski and M2
    A little bit on the science.
    The modeling is something akin to an Engineer trying to build a model from the atoms on up.———– a composite of a huge number of locations on the earth. Much of the physics/math input is correct, but a huge fault is made in making assumptions about unknowns and not knowing unknown unknowns.
    Climate science is in a state of negative discovery, that is they keep discovering more things of which they know very little. The concept of Atmospheric radiative transfer is somewhat correct but with in my opinion a single glaring error.
    Ocean circulations and cloud feedbacks have much undertainty. It would take only a one or two per cent change in the amount of water in clouds to change from a positive feedback (warming) to a negative feedback (cooling)
    Also at certain altitudes clouds would cause warming and at a different altitude cooling.
    An assumption is made regarding cloud feedbacks that warm air causes less cloulds, allowing more sunlight–a positive feedback. The fact that it may be the opposite is primarily true, that is it may be true that less clouds will cause the air to warm. Surprisingly that scenario is rarely considered in the climate science world.

    But the huge radiative transfer to which I referred seems to be completely overlooked.
    A fact which Gail Combs has mentioned more than once on this blog

    First, a hundred years a it was known that the CO2 in the atmosphere was saturated with respect to the frequencies In the infrared region it could absorb. So it was believed that adding CO2 would make no difference.

    That was before the concept of quantum mechanics was understood. The CO2 will become saturated closer to the earth and the bundles of energy will be re-emitted and absorbed until more downward bundles of energy are again absorbed by the earth.
    Also, the absorption spectra of H2O and CO2 over lap and so the water could be absorbing the CO2 emitted energy and the process enhanced. Thus a prediction of higher humidity and an observable warm spot above the middle latitudes where there is more surface water. But that did not happen! Why?

    Because CO2 is only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, and in the high pressure, lower atmosphere, the time between collisions is many orders of magnitude less than the time for a CO2 molecule to emit its absorbed photon. Therefore, the energy is given off through the collision, rather than by photon emission. It is simply a little kinetic energy a little closer to the earth. Hence, no warming.

    When I speak to the so called purveyors of climate knowledge, they are most often involved in some ancillary subfield (perhaps 97% of them) and have no concept or expertise in radiative transfer. Also, most often they really do not even want to consider the possibility of the aforementioned from a retired high school teacher.

    • Just wondering:

      “A little kinetic energy a little closer to the earth, hence no warming”

      I think the kinetic energy of molecules IS warming. Tell me I’m wrong.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Once its kinetic, convection takes over, controlled by the pressure/density gradient.

        It just become another conduit for cooling.. all neatly balanced out by the gas laws.

      • Michael 2 says:

        Morgan Wright commented “I think the kinetic energy of molecules IS warming.”

        Maybe. It is heat. Warming usually refers to temperature which is heat per unit volume or something like that. Squeeze it without adding heat and it becomes warmer.

        In the movie “Day After Tomorrow” a bit scientific flaw is zubzero temperature stratospheric air comes down and freezes helicopters and they crash; also comes down and freezes seawater in minutes to a depth of tens or hundreds of feet. In truth, compression of the air would produce warming such that on arrival at sea level it would be about 70 degrees F. Furthermore, it would take an enormous amount of cold air to freeze seawater.

        The movie bothered me for about an hour.

        But sometimes warm is heat in common language.

        Averaging temperatures isn’t very useful. What is more useful is a long period of measurement where you live.

  8. emsnews says:

    Very simple: if the sun is having lots of sun spots and spitting out a lot of extra heat, all the planets (like Mars!) heat up, too. When there is no sun spot activity, all the planets get colder.

    The polar caps on Mars grow bigger during cold cycles of the sun and get very small even nearly disappearing when the sun is warmer. I suppose during our Ice Ages the caps on Mars were quite visible.

  9. emsnews says:

    And this in a nutshell is what ails the global warming stupidity: NO ONE mentions Mars. My grandaddy, Edison Pettit, studied Mars for many years, patiently photographing it and drawing what he saw from 1895-1950. He tracked the growth and shrinkage of the ice caps of Mars and it was very clear that his 1930 series of photographs, the ice caps nearly disappeared.

    The entire science of solar information and how the planets interact with the sun has been vandalized by these creeps today. I despise them greatly now.

  10. omanuel says:

    The Guardian is continuing Stalin’s policy of using FEAR to control people in the old USSR. Stalin then converted physics into a tool of FEAR to control the rest of the globe after nations were united on 24 Oct 1945. See:


    [ResearchGate allows you to see and respond to empirical evidence:

    _ a) The Sun’s internal composition
    _ b) The definition of nuclear stability

    were FALSIFIED after WWII.]



  11. darrylb says:

    Yes, I have read of studies by Russian Scientists (and somewhere else which I forget) that conclude that warming and cooling patterns on the earth have been paralleled on mars and a moon of Jupiter.
    Those same Russian scientists have been predicting that the earth may be entering a cooling phase.
    At the moment, I can’t remember the source of the information or many details.

    • Byron says:

      That would be prof. Habibullo Abdussamatov , head of space research at St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia who says :

      “There is simultaneous warming of the Earth, Mars and the whole Solar System which has a natural solar origin and confirms the action of “solar summer” throughout the Solar system and alternation of climate conditions in it.”

      Paper is here

Leave a Reply