That is already implied in the report from the Australian, that is famous already for misstating climate change reports, just like FOX news.
But that also implies that you do not understand what cycles are, or that scientists also reported them in the past and that they were correct about where the temperature was more likely to go after them also. Considering that better tools are available and scientists still continue to report that it will get warmer in the next cycle, we still have to curb our emissions as the most worrisome bit is that temperature increases are not instantaneous, there is a lag on how many years the effect of an increase in CO2 shows up as increased temperatures in the global record.
Not playing your game, it is clear what is the straw you are grasping, I already pointed out that in context it will be a very misleading point to make if we just leave it as a yes or no question, clearly he said something similar but not all of what he said was reported, and indeed the message is still the same, we have to control our emissions as it is very likely that the cycle will eventually end and a warmer one is coming.
The point stands, acknowledging cycles does not deny that they are getting warmer, nor it means that Pachairi is dropping what the IPCC continues to report.
Incidentally, one should not forget the current discussion, the linked article in the OP shows that, once again, the IPCC is very conservative on the harmful effects that we can expect, the folly is to claim that the IPCC is also alarmist when there are very good examples of what real alarmists are, a water rise that will swallow our cities will take centuries to come, it is really silly to claim that we are among the last people that will walk the earth.
It is just that considering the prevailing jerkiness of the human race, we can expect that adaptation to the changes will not be done with the effort that is needed, and we can expect **unnecessary **human disasters, not enough to end civilization, but bad enough to declare that the idea that the expense needed to deal with the problem now is so much that we should not do anything, is really penny foolish, compared to the pound of expense that humans will have to use to cope in the future.
Indeed, the “Pope” is getting into James Lovelock alarmist territory:
That was shot down by most of the sources I rely on; however, it seems that Lovelock eventually learned how wrong he was… only to jump to the other extreme and claim now that even the IPCC is alarmist and so he got it wrong there also.
That is because looking at the original article from the Australian, Pahcauri did not say that, it was the writer of the article, I would not be surprised that Pahcauri said something similar, but surrounded by context as he for sure had a contrarian interviewer looking for a “prize” quote that he did not quite get, so it had to be made.
Incidentally the “17 year pause” (16 years, as it is based on the same 1998 year) source allegedly coming from the from the Met office in England was a fabrication.
So, as pointed before by science writer Peter Hadfield, one just needs to do a simple Google search of the keywords to find that the usual has happened, the contrarian blogosphere just repeats the misleading spin and the usual suspects copy paste it and some people that still can never learn to dismiss rotten sources repeats it in a forum.
Simply that if the head of the IPCC finally admits temperature standstill, we should be careful of predicting doomsdays so easily.
(Mr. Pachauri fully believes the warming to pick up and confirm models)
As it is clear you only demonstrate others that you are truly clueless. Your “if the head of the IPCC finally admits temperature standstill” is, so far a fabrication or a twist of his words.
So, then the answer so far is: There is no evidence that he said it, it was close, but likely to be once again an answer surrounded by context that reports that once again, we have to do something about out emissions as the cycles are getting warmer.
The take home lesson: dismiss the Australian on this subject and any sites that did spin this for you to then post here.
Perfect, you still cannot commit to a Yes/No but I’ll take your “There is no evidence that he said it, it was close”…i don’t care much for the editorializing.
That’s your point?! But that’s completely stupid! Like, I’m not sure if I believe you’re being truthful stupid.
He didn’t “admit” to anything. As Gigo has been explaining, what he said is completely compatible–in fact, in context, supports–dire views about the future in terms of global temperature.
You completely cannot get the point you made out of what he said. If you’re posting in good faith, then it’s clear you’re not thinking clearly about this.
And you still don’t seem to understand the effects of a raise in average temperature, judging by your first post here. Maybe it was simply bad phrasing on your part.
There seems to be some confusion. I am not the author of the referenced article. I’m just a message board poster who’s very tired of people misunderstanding the consequences of changes in the world’s average temperature. “Hur. Hur. If there’s global warmings, howz come we got so much snow?” That sort of thing.
If you want to quibble with the author over their alarmist assertions, you’ll have to look elsewhere.
After several years of telling us that temperature rise hadn’t stopped, now they admit it has.
That’s it.
A flat temperature does not support GW, it simply doesn’t contradict it.
I completele get the GW case, I even said “Mr. Pachauri fully believes the warming to pick up and confirm models”. How more clear can I be about Mr. Pachauri’s position vis a vis flat temps?
You have to admit that, as improbable as it may seem, after certain time (30 years?) of either flat or falling temperatures the theoretical assumptions behind the models would have to be revised
Clueless still, the 16 year pause is based on a falsehood, as it is clear that you need to go to an extreme to dismiss what the IPCC and others still report, this is very silly.
A pause in temperature was reported by scientists like Latiff in 2010 (himself also the victim of virtually the same twisting of his words) again, with him and the scientists reporting that the warming has not stopped.
Again, you are only grasping a straw that:
Is based on a falsehood, the Met office did not admit to what the Australian reporter said.
There is no quote from Pachauri saying this, once again the context of the overall message is that the warming continues and cycles of nature also do, they make the temperature record look like a step down, in an overall upwards escalator.
You still are not coming forward with a good explanation on why the years that flatten the rise in temperature (la nina years) in a cycle are themselves getting **warmer **in every cycle (as are the other years in the cycle themselves)
And 4) the biggest fallacy here is claiming that scientists are saying that the temperature record would show a constant upward trend, this is indeed false as scientists reported even in the 70’s that a downward trend was not enough to dismiss the predicted rise in temperature, they were indeed correct.
According to the latest research on Greenland reported in Danish news (Google: Dorthe Dahl-Jensen) the Greenlandic ice was surprisingly stable during the last inter-ice age warming period (100,000 years ago) when the temperature was up to 8 °C warmer than today. The melting mostly happened from Antarctica. The oceans during this warming period were around 4-8 meters above today’s level. Even the four metres would of course be fantastically expensive, but hardly a humanity’s end scenario. All the building required may even finally be able to lift us out of the recession.
This remark has no relevance to anything. I could make one up right now, for sure. But that is irrelevant to the question of whether dire predictions are supported by the very evidence the scientist was giving when he mentioned a “pause.” The answer is, yes, dire predictions are supported by that evidence. Not just that he was making them–the point is, he was supporting them.
This is the central locus of the stupid. You surely understand the difference between a statistical sense and a more every day sense of the phrase “rise in temperature,” and you surely know which applies here. So though I apply the term “stupid” to each thought you’re expressing here, I leave the question of why you’re being this foolish up to others to determine.
This is not true. If a model predicts a period of flat temperatures, and also predicts a rise on average, and those flat temperatures do in fact occur with the frequency and length predicted by that model, then depending on the details etc those flat temperatures can indeed support GW.
I don’t know enough about this model to know how directly the above describes what’s happening, but the point is you are wrong to think a flat temperature must fail to support GW. It can be not only compatible with it, but downright supporting of it, again, depending on the model and other details.
I don’t “admit it,” I simply state it since it’s an obvious fact. How long that certain time is I have no idea. And neither do you I’d bet. But in any case the point is completely irrelevant to the GW question. We haven’t seen any data for a flat temperature timespan of a length and type that supports any non-GW scenario.
I agree with some of what you are saying, but not this. This is the broken window fallacy. If it was true that building seawalls will lift us out of the recession, why not lift us out of the recession by requiring all non-electric cars to be scrapped? That would cost even more money, and so, by your theory, shouldn’t it lift us even higher?
What I’d say is that global warming should be treated as a practical problem needing to be addressed at the lowest cost.
Interesting. But the temperature graphs I find with Google mostly show the unusual warm spell 130,000 years ago as only about 2°C warmer than the present, not 8°C.
Perhaps someone can point us to the best consensus table or graph of past temperatures.
