Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

“Whatever Happened to Global Warming?” [Darleen Click]

From an admitted “lukewarmist” ….

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. […]

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 statistical calculation 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. […]

The warming in the last three decades of the 20th century, to quote the news release that accompanied their paper, “was roughly half due to global warming and half to the natural Atlantic Ocean cycle.” In other words, even the modest warming in the 1980s and 1990s—which never achieved the 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade necessary to satisfy the feedback-enhanced models that predict about three degrees of warming by the end of the century—had been exaggerated by natural causes. The man-made warming of the past 20 years has been so feeble that a shifting current in one ocean was enough to wipe it out altogether.

Putting the icing on the cake of good news, Xianyao Chen and Ka-Kit Tung think the Atlantic Ocean may continue to prevent any warming for the next two decades. So in their quest to explain the pause, scientists have made the future sound even less alarming than before. Let’s hope that the United Nations admits as much on day one of its coming jamboree and asks the delegates to pack up, go home and concentrate on more pressing global problems like war, terror, disease, poverty, habitat loss and the 1.3 billion people with no electricity.

While I find myself gleeful that actual facts are now undercutting the Leftwing authoritarians who have used Global Cooling, Global Warming, Climate Change Climate Disruption as just another tool in their political arsenal — or for personal enrichment — I’m disturbed that it has been actual scientists who have been right in the middle of the Something.Must.Be.Done.Immediately movement. And that “something” always involved the curtailing of individual rights and an expansion of State bureaucracies and their unaccountable power to run the lives and control the livelihoods of the hoi polloi.

For their own good, of course.

The retreat on AGW goes along with the on going revisions to the grave advice on what is proper to eat.

I understand that scientists are human, and humans tend to crave the fame and attention that something like a screaming headline “You’re all gonna die!” will engender; but when the lives of individuals are turned over, jobs lost, businesses threatened or destroyed cuz Science!! an “Oops, sorry, my bad” isn’t going to help. Indeed, scientists are going to end up with as much credibility as journalists or ::::gasp:::: politicians!

Doctors, heal thyselves.

15 Replies to ““Whatever Happened to Global Warming?” [Darleen Click]”

  1. serr8d says:

    SCIENCE! did itself no favors by allowing failed politician Al Gore to be lead spokesnut for the movement. The minute that fat bastard took over, the science became slaved to the politics of the Left: just another tool in their arsenal of CONTROL.

  2. Drumwaster says:

    Science is the process of crash testing ideas: a scientist does not coddle an idea, or design tests to make it work. The scientist rams the idea into a brick wall head-on at 60mph, and knowledge is gained by examining the pieces. If the theory is solid, the pieces are from the wall.

  3. dicentra says:

    Science is boring, actually.

    Most of your tries will fail to show you anything interesting. Most of the steps in the REAL scientific method involve trying to reproduce someone else’s results, and often you’ll get bupkis.

    Try getting grant money with “we’re just going to see if these other results [that you, the granting foundation already re-upped for producing significant results] are actually valid. Most of them won’t be.”

    “OMG we just upended 100 years of assumptions” gets the grant money. “Nothing to see here, move along,” does not.

    Even I can do the math on that one.

  4. sdferr says:

    Whatever happened to that unicorn they promised?

  5. McGehee says:

    “OMG we just upended 100 years of assumptions” gets the grant money. “Nothing to see here, move along,” does not.

    Unless the Deep State’s narrative favors “Nothing to see here, move along.”

  6. newrouter says:

    >Whatever happened to that unicorn they promised?<

    oh part of a gm recall i think.

  7. LBascom says:

    So, when the earthy was supposedly warming, the “cure” was to curtail burning fossil fuels through government mandate. So now that the earth is cooling, the answer is for government to step back and allow the unrestrained burning of fossil fuels, right?

    What? The “cure” in both cases is the same you say? Control of burning fossil fuels by government mandate? OOOOO K then…

  8. happyfeet says:

    once the chinesers took the carbon trophy the whole scam was on thin ice

  9. BigBangHunter says:

    – The Democratic dog whistles are in full swing:

    “Obama held a news conference Friday at the conclusion of the NATO Summit in Wales, touching on the crises in both Ukraine and Iraq. Obama echoed the words of Secretary of State John Kerry, who said Friday that the U.S. was committed to “destroying” the extremist group within three years as he announced a plan for an international coalition to confront the group in the Middle East.”

    – Like amnesty, the Marxo-bastards are pleeding with their base, particularly the Hispanic coalition to “just vote for us and we’ll get it done once we’re safely back in office”. The three year reference is so obvious even Poodle-head Shultz gets it.

  10. Mueller says:

    The sun ain’t havin none of it.

  11. McGehee says:

    I always pronounce the “global” in “global warming” with three syllables: “guh-luh-bull.”

  12. David Block says:

    Good way to pronounce it, McGehee.

  13. happyfeet says:

    McGehee is a very excellent pronouncer

  14. Ernst Schreiber says:

    I’d say that the real problem is that folks with an agenda took the descriptive for the prescriptive, and set off on making a revolution.

    As they are wont to do.

Comments are closed.