Posted on 09/05/2014 8:40:34 AM PDT by Signalman
Now come climate scientists’ implausible explanations for why the ‘hiatus’ has passed the 15-year mark.By MATT RIDLEY
On Sept. 23 the United Nations will host a party for world leaders in New York to pledge urgent action against climate change. Yet leaders from China, India and Germany have already announced that they won’t attend the summit and others are likely to follow, leaving President Obama looking a bit lonely. Could it be that they no longer regard it as an urgent threat that some time later in this century the air may get a bit warmer?
In effect, this is all that’s left of the global-warming emergency the U.N. declared in its first report on the subject in 1990. The U.N. no longer claims that there will be dangerous or rapid climate change in the next two decades. Last September, between the second and final draft of its fifth assessment report, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change quietly downgraded the warming it expected in the 30 years following 1995, to about 0.5 degrees Celsius from 0.7 (or, in Fahrenheit, to about 0.9 degrees, from 1.3).
Even that is likely to be too high. The climate-research establishment has finally admitted openly what skeptic scientists have been saying for nearly a decade: Global warming has stopped since shortly before this century began.
First the climate-research establishment denied that a pause existed, noting that if there was a pause, it would invalidate their theories. Now they say there is a pause (or “hiatus”), but that it doesn’t after all invalidate their theories.
Alas, their explanations have made their predicament worse by implying that man-made climate change is so slow and tentative that it can be easily overwhelmed by natural variation in temperature—a possibility that they had previously all but ruled out.
When the climate scientist and geologist Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia wrote an article in 2006 saying that there had been no global warming since 1998 according to the most widely used measure of average global air temperatures, there was an outcry. A year later, when David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London made the same point, the environmentalist and journalist Mark Lynas said in the New Statesman that Mr. Whitehouse was “wrong, completely wrong,” and was “deliberately, or otherwise, misleading the public.”
We know now that it was Mr. Lynas who was wrong. Two years before Mr. Whitehouse’s article, climate scientists were already admitting in emails among themselves that there had been no warming since the late 1990s. “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998,” wrote Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia in Britain in 2005. He went on: “Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”
If the pause lasted 15 years, they conceded, then it would be so significant that it would invalidate the climate-change models upon which policy was being built. A report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) written in 2008 made this clear: “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more.”
Well, the pause has now lasted for 16, 19 or 26 years—depending on whether you choose the surface temperature record or one of two satellite records of the lower atmosphere. That’s according to a new statisticalcalculation by Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at the University of Guelph in Canada.
It has been roughly two decades since there was a trend in temperature significantly different from zero. The burst of warming that preceded the millennium lasted about 20 years and was preceded by 30 years of slight cooling after 1940.
This has taken me by surprise. I was among those who thought the pause was a blip. As a “lukewarmer,” I’ve long thought that man-made carbon-dioxide emissions will raise global temperatures, but that this effect will not be amplified much by feedbacks from extra water vapor and clouds, so the world will probably be only a bit more than one degree Celsius warmer in 2100 than today. By contrast, the assumption built into the average climate model is that water-vapor feedback will treble the effect of carbon dioxide.
But now I worry that I am exaggerating, rather than underplaying, the likely warming.
Full story here:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/matt-ridley-whatever-happened-to-global-warming-1409872855?mod=rss_opinion_main
they are still pushing it as more dangerous than terrorism .....plus if you disagree then you are a denier as bad as Hitler and his minions
Looking more and more like the guys who keep announcing the end of the world, and when it doesn’t end on schedule, coming up with rationales to move it back a year or two, over and over.
Environmentalists are habitual liars.
Political rather than scientific agenda.
Lousy politically correct computer models.
Fudged data.
Real life and real weather that doesn't fit the PC models.
Ha...if the Sun doesn't start making a good crop of sunspots you might have to wait 4 centuries
Last time the 400 year long mini ice age lasted from 1350 to 1750
Remember...Obama lies about everything...so he also lied about global warming.
Any guess as to how many will perish in the new Dalton Minimum...to be called the Obama Minimum.
“Settled science.”
How long has it been since we heard about the hole in the ozone?
unchanging change ping
Beijing altitude is listed as 144 feet above sea level.
These “warmers” are insufferable. Their thinking is obviously affected by the corrosion of their brain cells.
“Beijing altitude is listed as 144 feet above sea level.” Yet, according to Al Gore, Beijing is now only seven years away form being underwater.
The link is to an excerpt of the article in the WSJ. However, if you go to Google News, and then search for Matt Ridley, you can get a link to the entire article.
I kid you not. People with impressive degrees are pedaling this crap.
I was watching a youtube documentary on the Neanderthals. They died out 40,000 years ago, instead of 30,000 years ago as previously believed. Being fairly slow compared to us, they were ambush hunters who required dense undergrowth to sneak up on their prey. About 40,000 years ago the Earth was in an ice age and it quickly slipped out and then, in just a few dozen years, slipped back into one. This killed the undergrowth they needed for hunting. That combined with the pressure of invading Cro-Magnons probably did them in.
So, in maybe 50-100 years the ice age ended and then started again. (There was no possibility of man-made anything at this time.) If the Earth can drop out of and into an ice age what impact will man have on it now? Probably not as much as volcanoes, meteor strikes and sudden changes in the Gulfstream.
In Bill Bryson’s book, “A Short History of Nearly Everything” about weather he makes the point, “it’s a slightly arresting notion to realize that all of modern civilization (10,000 years) has taken place in an atypical patch of good weather.”
If the temperature suddenly went up or down 10 degrees we’d all adapt to it. It would not be the utter disaster that the alarmists are shouting about.
So now the muddle heads will go with climate change. Duh, the climate is always changing so where is the brilliance in that belief.
Our condo is about 155 feet, so at least well know when Beijing sinks we have to move out.
And beyond the sea level rise projected for the next hundred years. Somebody doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Al Gore sounds more and more like Alex Jones or David Icke with his rambling...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.