I have no doubt Mr. Schneider did great work and contributed to scientists overall understanding of the climate.
And at the same time respected climate scientists say: “…reminds us of our limited understanding of the climate system”.
I think you need to call those climate scientists up and tell them they are wrong.
As pointed before, you only show that you do not know how to use Google, and the vomit searches keep piling up.
In reality the myth has appeared in many contrarian blogs but usually in passing, the failed point is used to claim that scientists failed before so they are failing again now, and it was used notoriously by Senator Inhofe (R-Denier), George Will, Michael Crichton and others, and yes, many contrarian cites commented approvingly.
Again, the point stands, the scientists consider the models a very good tool to use. And no, you can not cherry pick what Schneider reported. I do not think the ones you are citing will stop using models. And I prefer to see the big picture, sure there are problems with models, but it is really reckless to claim that there are no validations or observational experiments that showed that the models Schneider used were very good to use indeed.
Did I ever say not to use the models?
Did I ever say not to use observational and natural experiments to validate the models?
After all this time you still don’t even grasp the point I made.
nothing is being cherry picked. Predictions were made and they didn’t occur. Explanations followed.
In order for them to be accurate the explanations need to be made prior to the event.
Your faith is admirable but your predictions are based on the ability to model an extremely complex event. It requires full knowledge of the variables and how they interact with each other. It requires the honesty to admit the variability involved due to the sheer complexity of the model. It requires the honesty to include the natural progression of technology which is coming despite your incessant determination to ignore it. We will be switching away from fossil fuels on a massive scale because it’s going to be economically desirable to do so.
No.
No.
And I already said that before, what is important to me is still the following:
That does not counter what I said, there is a lot of perspective missed when one goes looking for quotes that omit the big picture where an specific scientist used as an example did verify and worked for a lifetime on that.
And Latif and others did so.
As Richard Alley, Barry Bickmore, Kerry Emmanuel and many other conservative scientists can tell you, it is not faith.
That is nice, not the issue we are dealing here, but even here you are wrong, I’m on the record for supporting the progress already seen in solar and wind technology, the problem is that Republican deniers use groups like ALEC to prevent the deployment of those technologies.
One more thing: What Latif reports is indeed an acknowledgment of the limitations, what is important though is that pauses were reported before and expected in the climate record; still, there is a lot of the general picture that they are getting right. Confronting the 70’s “apparent” cool down most scientists reported that warming was expected in the future.
Now even more experts agree that the current “pause” is not going to last.
If more than 97% of doctors told you to take medicine for a condition, you will get a lot of the blame when you get sick by betting that the quack ones will get it right.
It’s not actually a “pause” of course, it’s a slowdown in the rate of average temperature increase, but let’s look at why almost everyone agrees that we’ll soon be back to higher rates of increase.
One school of thought here – we’ll call it the “science” school of thought – is that observations show that there has been no corresponding change in external forcings to account for this “pause”, and indeed GHG forcings continue to increase, so energy budget considerations dictate that the extra thermal energy must be going somewhere.
The other school of thought – we’ll call it the “denialist” or the “lunatic” school of thought – is that the rapid warming of the 70’s to the mid-90’s was an anomaly, and that the present pattern is the new normal.
Here’s why actual scientists are going with the “science” viewpoint. Extensive studies of climate sensitivity from multiple sources – paleoclimate reconstructions, instrumental records, and climate models – all point to a range of climate sensitivity much higher than would be indicated by the record of the past 15 years or so. In fact the idea of trying to infer equilibrium climate sensitivity – a process that takes hundreds to thousands of years – from a 15-year record is ludicrous.
The temperature gradient for the overall 20th century would indeed have been even higher had it not been suppressed by sulphate aerosols and other particulates in the 50’s and 60’s. Moreover, the “missing heat” problem is likely accounted for by observations of increased warming in deep ocean layers below 700m in parts of the Pacific and Indian Ocean specifically, and accelerated warming in the Arctic. There is no magic going on here – the heat is still accumulating, and the forcings are still increasing. The result is pretty much inevitable.
Hey, I’ve seen far dumber and more dishonest tactics in debate. Like, say, asserting that you’re right, and when pressed for evidence, saying “your baiting is of a singular and lonely kind, and best ignored” and not presenting any evidence. :rolleyes: Look pal, you think there’s something to it? Then go the route actual scientists with a genuine interest in furthering our understanding go, and publish it. How many people here do you think seriously have the expertise to critique your analysis? 1? 2? Maybe 3? And that’s just it - without experts on hand to check you, you could get away with murder! (Of course, you haven’t gotten away with shit, because those people have chimed in and pointed out that it’s crap.)
FX, do you understand the reason we go to the experts on this issue? Because we, as laymen, do not understand it quite as well. We’re not studied in the field, we’re not experts, and our statements aren’t reviewed by experts. If you have a legitimate complaint, here’s my advice: publish it in a peer-reviewed journal so that people who know what they’re talking about can examine it.
That’s from the very first page of google when I google “global cooling 1970”. I decided to see if ClimateAudit had it, and these popped up:
Never mind that I’ve seen the argument trumpeted countless times on forums as a dismissive response to global warming. It’s on virtually every denialist blog. What did you even look for to not find anything? What was your search term? 
ENOUGH!
The rule in this forum is to refrain from accusing one’s opponent (or even one’s associate) of lying.
The next accusation or implication that another poster is lying will get a Warning rather than a Mod Note.
[ /Moderating ]
Isn’t global warming ALWAYS progressing faster than expected? I mean, we get these threads every year. Climatoloists should be able to predict global warming well by now.
Are we ever going to get a “global warming going as fast we expected?” 
P.S: I won’t mention the lull, because it makes people sad.
I think you’re missing some key points here, starting with the point being made in the OP.
What climatologists have been able to do well and consistently is assess the net climate forcing due to human activity, which tells us the net energy balance of the earth and specifically the amount of additional heat energy being constantly added. Translating this heat energy into predictions of temperature rise is much more complicated because it has to account for many positive and negative feedbacks which are numerous and non-linear, like carbon cycles feedbacks, feedbacks from melting polar ice, and many others.
And some of this thermal energy can be hidden and not immediately reflected in measured land-atmosphere temperature – as the OP suggests, some of it can lead to undetected accelerated warming in the high arctic, or circulation changes can lead to more or less ocean warming than usual. Since the oceans are responsible for on the order of 95% of the earth’s total heat uptake, even small changes in this balance can lead to significant temporary changes in the rate of land temperature increase. There are unique phenomena involved in deep-ocean warming and this is harder to measure than sea surface temperatures.
So yes, we have a pretty good idea of the earth’s net increased heat uptake, but – flippant comments aside – predicting year-to-year temperature increase is much more difficult, especially in the short term where chaotic variabilities in the above factors can be significant.
Thank you for that Budget Player Cadet, I did mention that many blogs pressed that issue for awhile and it is clear that many of those sources are a reason why people like senator Inhofe repeat those whoppers. The point to get here is that we should not forget how the contrarian media is also seeding the conditions for false equivalencies that then are repeated by the politicians or worse, even media outlets like FOX.
As for FX, claiming that I was pushing a lie when that item was so easy to check takes the cake, will see if it is taken back.
It’s just as I said, none of the pages linked to contain the claim , they don’t even contain the phrase “All climate scientists”. The claim “All climate scientists believed an ice age was coming” is actually a warmist claim, a straw man they trot out, and then try to defeat in battle.
None of those pages contain the claim “All climate scientists believed an ice age was coming”, they don’t even contain the phrase “All climate scientists”, which is what I pointed out.
They do contain things like
“Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next glacial age…. NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD, 1972″ –National Geographic, November 1976, p.595.
They contain a lot of facts, and abundant evidence concerning the situation during the extreme global cooling. The 1970's Global Cooling Compilation – looks much like today – Watts Up With That?
But not a single page, beside the warmist ones, contains the claim “All climate scientists believed an ice age was coming”. Saying they do is a myth.
A straw dog.
You might think it would make the people scared to death over Global Warming happy. You would think it is GOOD NEWS EVERYBODY!, rather than something to despair over.
Why is that, do you think? Why are the alarmists so angry we are not seeing catastrophic global warming?
Cheer up alarmists! It’s not as bad as was predicted!
:rolleyes:
Yep, doubling down on claiming that me and others are liars.
If the current sidetrack from the topic was that some doubters/skeptics/deniers/politicians are using “Forty years ago, the same scientists that are predicting the end of the world now from global warming were predicting the end of the world from global cooling,” to dismiss the current predictions, that is certainly true.
It has nothing to do with the topic, but it’s certainly true.
You still need to take it back, if you had check the video you would had seen that Michael Crichton used the line of “in the 1970′s all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming” and he even had an MIT scientist claiming that, and instead of leaving that in the fiction section, Crichton stood by that and more when speaking at denier conventions.
And so it goes for Inhofe, and Will. And it is really grasping at straws to claim that that was not the gist that deniers were making when talking about the “consensus” of then.
That may be true, but it doesn’t appear in the links above, nor on any of the “denier” blogs, which is also off topic.
It has nothing to do with the topic at hand.