Print
Oct
15

Oh That Settled Science

Stories like this are exactly the reason why my daily news reading includes several European or Asia/Pacific news sources.  They report things that you would NEVER see in a US media outlet.

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

Emphasis mine....gee you mean it's still being DEBATED?  So much for settled eh?  But maybe this is an anomaly?

This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.

Or maybe not.  The part that is frustrating about this new research is that because it didn't fit the "it's getting warmer" meme, the study was mostly buried by it's authors.

The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued  quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.

This stands in sharp contrast  to the release of the previous  figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.

Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.

Emphasis again mine. 

But at least this report is sparking some discussion.

Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.

Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.

Again emphasis mine.  That is something that climate change skeptics like myself have been saying FOR YEARS!

But the part that is most telling is this paragraph.

Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two.

So in spite of scientific evidence to the contrary, the left still bitterly clings to their theory of global warming.  Even knowing the facts that climate does indeed change, cyclically - up AND DOWN they insist that it is only going up.  And they call conservatives "anti-science"?

And what does their slavish devotion to a flawed theory get us?

Here are three not-so trivial questions you probably won’t find in your next pub quiz. First, how much warmer has the world become since a) 1880 and  b) the beginning of 1997? And what has this got to do with your ever-increasing energy bill?

You may find the answers to the first two surprising. Since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world has warmed by about 0.75 degrees Celsius.

From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer is zero: the trend, derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has been flat.

Not that there has been any  coverage in the media, which usually reports climate issues assiduously, since the figures were quietly release online with no accompanying press release – unlike six months ago when they showed a slight warming trend.

The answer to the third question is perhaps the most familiar. Your bills are going up, at least in part, because of the array of ‘green’ subsidies being provided to the renewable energy industry, chiefly wind.

Our energy rates are going up because of a myth.

They will cost the average household about £100 this year. This is set to rise steadily higher – yet it  is being imposed for only one  reason: the widespread conviction, which is shared by politicians of all stripes and drilled into children at primary schools, that, without drastic action to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, global warming is certain soon to accelerate, with truly catastrophic consequences by the end of the century – when temperatures could be up to five degrees higher.

Hence the significance of those first two answers. Global industrialisation over the past 130 years has made relatively little difference.

Emphasis again mine.  Talk about myth busting.

Climate scientists are admitting something that skeptics have long said, that their models are indeed flawed.

But according to increasing numbers of serious climate scientists, it does suggest that the computer models that have for years been predicting imminent doom, such as  those used by the Met Office and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are flawed, and that the climate is far more complex than the models assert.

‘The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,’ Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America’s Georgia Tech university, told me yesterday.

‘Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability  [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect.

‘It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.’

Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who found himself at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal over leaked emails three years ago, would not normally be expected to agree with her. Yet on two important points, he did.

The data does suggest a plateau, he admitted, and without a major El Nino event – the sudden, dramatic warming of the southern Pacific which takes place unpredictably and always has a huge effect on global weather – ‘it could go on for a while’.

Like Prof Curry, Prof Jones also admitted that the climate models were imperfect: ‘We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.’

Yet long term energy policy is being determined off of flawed and incomplete data!

Rather than follow Europe's lead off the fiscal cliff, the U.S. needs to jump off the climate change bandwagon and actually do a little long term research into the subject.  Let the real scientists do the real scientific research - without political interference and then see what happens.  No predetermined outcomes.  Let the research determine the outcome, not the other way around as we have done in the past 20 years with climate "research".

The left loves to tell us that science says that the earth is BILLIONS of years old and then tells us that a mere 20 years worth of climate study indicates that we are going to kill off the planet if we don't change our ways.  Over the span of billions of years, two decades is barely a fraction of a microsecond.  Do they really think that that miniscule of a sample size is going to be an accurate measurement? 

 

 

Written by LL.

Twitter Feed

LadyLogician

RT @stix1972: The EVIL Kochtopus spends money one elections. We do not want money in politics. So send us money now

by LadyLogician

Troopathon

troopathon.org

HAITIAN RELIEF

Graphics by dbrigham.com