The 18+ year pause in world temperatures continues to be a difficulty for the alarmists. Many of them have tried to explain it, after all – atmospheric CO2 continued to rise from approx 350ppm to 400ppm during this time.
A recent list of excuses for the pause has more than 60 reasons and counting. It really is a thorn in the side of the “settled science” believers. Maybe CO2 is not the driver of world temperatures as they hoped. Down the gurgler goes another theory.
At least the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming alarm is a change from the Global Cooling / another Ice-age alarm of the 1970’s.
Anyway, this link shows a list of reasons/excuses for the 18 year pause.
Note # 2 - Oceans ate the global warming [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
Enjoy the inter-glacial – S S
“There will come a time when people will laugh at the idea that instead of producing our own energy from free wind and sunshine, we used to pay someone else to do it; when they will be shocked that we used to send billions of pounds overseas every year to foreign governments just for the privilege of burning their natural resources and polluting our planet; when people will watch their carbon footprint like we watch our weight.”
I understand that climatologists consider periods less than 30 years as of little use in determining trends - so a 17 year 8 month period just screams 'data cherry-picked to show what I want it to show'.
"2014 ranks as Earth’s warmest since 1880" - NASA and NOAA.
"The 10 warmest years in the instrumental record, with the exception of 1998, have now occurred since 2000." http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2221/
Note that these relate to global land and ocean surface temperatures.
These seem to suggest strongly that there is a trend that cherry-picked data may be hiding. Of course, that may be the intent of selecting that data.
So peer reviewed scientific research is debunked by some guy on a blog site
I presume the world is also flat now and homeopathy works
One of the more high profile Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming alarmists was/is? Dr Phil Jones of the CRU of the University of East Anglia and was concerned about the flat-lining of temperatures. He reported slight cooling in 2005 and in 2009 said in the CRU emails:
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
Well, I guess Dr Phil is worried; I must say he has been a lot quieter in recent years.
Maybe he sees the end of the gravy train looming in the not too distant future.
Enjoy the inter-glacial – S S
Global Warming alarmists
ooo any chance you can give a blog post that dubunks the increased frequency to extreme weather events predicted by global warming model and observed over the last decade during your "flat-line".
Want to tell the families of the dead in the recent Australian weather events that their loss has been debunked.
Nah don't bother I'm sure there as many of those blogs as there are homeopaths in Auckland.
Still waiting for you to deny that you are a paid employee of big oil.
I want to make something clear here, because while all this silliness has been fun, there is a reality here.
If Stamper is correct a huge number of scientists have conspired to deceive the world by ignoring data and building false models all to get extra funding. If we listen to those scientists we will make changes to the world that will cost some very rich people a lot of money, which would be unfair to those rich people.
If Stamper is wrong, as all those scientists have firmly said again and again and we ignore those scientists - then the climate will change more and the death toll will not just be a few tragedies but 10s of thousands, or if you are really pessimistic billions. Not even mentioning the cost to wildlife and ecosystems already damaged by humans.
This is NOT some silly game played for fun on blogs and discussion groups. Decisions we make now will mean life or death OR (if Stamper is right) cost some rich people some money.
Frankly I find people like Stamper disgusting, They casually discard other peoples lives for money.
It might be fun to argue with them but in the end they are drawing us into a game of nonsense where the cost of wasting time arguing with him is the lives of the next generation.
Yeah I'm angry that we waste time here on him.
Well said, Bart.
Yeah I’m angry that we waste time here on him.
I would like to hear his excuses when the crops fail, though...
But I suspect he'd be out looting and otherwise looking out for 'Number One' at that point...
Yeah - what Bart said. I get very pissed off at this term 'alarmists' because looking at the impacts - and not computer models but real impacts - the scenario is pretty damn alarming. Yet scientists who present the facts around climate disruption do so in a totally non-alarming way, you could forgive them for being more strident but of course they must remain professional.
For an insight into the actual human feelings of these scientists read this. http://isthishowyoufeel.weebly.com/this-is-how-scientists-feel.html#maslin
For an insight into the very real dangers we face (delivered in a non-alarmist way) I recommend this radio ecoshock interview - it is an excellent discussion (only 500 listens - and yet Gangnam Style broke the internet, a further example of how hard it is to get traction with the message) https://soundcloud.com/radioecoshock/five-stories-seldom-told
Finally this is Robert Scribbler's blog mentioned in the interview - a great resource https://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/
you could forgive them for being more strident but of course they must remain professional
And Jim Salinger has more reason than most to be strident. Great to hear his voice again.
It won't be the greenies who'd block nuclear energy in NZ, it'd be the bean counters. I've said it before, but even a single nuclear reactor would make Think Big look like a sandcastle.
Stamper still won't tell us his disclosure of interest, so there's a good possibility he's shilling for Big Oil or Big Farming.
Tussock, do you have an ideological problem with nuclear power?
Steven, thanks for asking.
Nuclear power is a joke. The costs have never been competitive in the slightest, unless you consider the value of the accompanying nuclear weapons to be extremely high. We hold no such value in NZ, and most countries aren't allowed them anyway.
But even if the world did try to move above the tiny amounts of nuclear electric power the world uses now, to come even remotely close to replacing fossil fuels we would immediately run out of the necessary nuclear fuels.
With enough solar power, you could totally subsidise the recovery of low-concentration ores for nuclear fuel, to keep making more nuclear weapons, just in case killing all life seven times over isn't enough. Again, NZ won't bother, and most other countries won't be allowed to.
in the end they are drawing us into a game of nonsense where the cost of wasting time arguing with him is the lives of the next generation.
Yep. Shun them.
Wastes of breath.
You asked if I could quote “a blog post that dubunks the increased frequency to extreme weather events predicted by global warming model and observed over the last decade during your “flat-line” “.
Well happened upon this information from the USA’s House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. This comment pertains to President Obama:
Quote: “Even the U.N. doesn’t agree with him [Obama] on that one: In its 2012 Special Report on Extreme Events, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there is “high agreement” among leading experts that long-term trends in weather disasters are not attributable to human-caused climate change. Why do the president and others in his administration keep repeating this untrue claim?”
I hope this is of some help.
Enjoy the inter-glacial – S S
Sadly Nature is a paid journal but the abstract is still free and provides a good summary.
We show that at the present-day warming of 0.85 °C about 18% of the moderate daily precipitation extremes over land are attributable to the observed temperature increase since pre-industrial times, which in turn primarily results from human influence6. For 2 °C of warming the fraction of precipitation extremes attributable to human influence rises to about 40%. Likewise, today about 75% of the moderate daily hot extremes over land are attributable to warming. It is the most rare and extreme events for which the largest fraction is anthropogenic, and that contribution increases nonlinearly with further warming.
But you missed the point, I knew you could drag something up from somewhere.
The difference is always that you are motivated by greed and a casual dismissal of the lives that will be lost by your actions. You are happy to kill people so long as you get your paycheck.
Ian! Much as I love your witty comments...
Please don't link to Anthony Watts.
Please don’t link to...
...what's up with Watts?
Over volting amp-bitchin?
I'll be more circuitous in future...
Bart, you are wrong that rich people will suffer if the policies recommended in the name of climate change are enacted. Rich people will always be okay, they have the resources to look after themselves don't they? It is the poor people in developing countries that will suffer, and they will suffer. Climate change policies will deny them the economic growth that will enable them to have better lives with improving food, shelter, healthcare and education. All the things that we in the developed world take for granted. And that is grossly immoral. Why do you think India and other developing nations are so hostile to global climate change treaty the UN is trying to foist on them?
Additionally the less well off in the developed world will also see their quality of life reduced as people in England and Germany are discovering with dramatically rising electricity prices over recent years, with more increases due in the coming years all to support questionable renewable energy mandates.
All in the name of a policy that is more of a world view and a belief system than a scientifically based policy, as the original article this thread shows. Now icky neo-liberalism is part of the evil mix that is going to ruin us all!!
You can argue until you are blue in the face, but the fact is that over the life of the AGW models, their projections have been significantly higher than the actual temperatures recorded. That is incontrovertible (see attached chart). If you are trying to project 100 years into the future, and your projections are off in the first 15 years of your projection period, what do you think that says about the likelihood that the remaining 85 years of predictions will be accurate? In the real world that says that the theory supporting the models has been falsified. Go back to square one and try again. But as AGW is a belief system and the most epic gravy train in history, shamefully that doesn't happen.
An excellent summary of the reality.
The truth behind the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming alarmism is being exposed bit by bit.
E.g. - UN Climate Change Chief Christiana Figueres:
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history“, Ms Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 – you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.”
Enjoy the inter-glacial – S S
Interesting how you only plot that graph from 1975.
Perhaps because by showing only that portion of the graph you can pretend the models always fail.
Interesting to note your source http://www.skepticalscience.com/examining-christys-skepticism.html is yet another shill for big oil, although not directly he does serve on some interesting think tanks, wonder what his fee is?
Same lies, same source, same motivation. The desire to maintain wealth at the cost of peoples lives.
And perhaps you might read the original post again because your thesis that continuing the current global economic model will benefit the developing nations is simply not borne up by evidence.
Your assertion that India and the like are hostile to the CC treaties because they want that economic model is also wrong. Their opposition is based on the fact that the USA in particular is refusing to reduce it’s own fossil fuel use while insisting that poor countries stop burning coal which is patently unfair.
Ha ha people like Stamper and James Bremner with fingers in their ears "la la la it's not happening, it's not happening!"
Today I can sit outside in a T-Shirt, it's a nice 20 degrees with a little rain filling up the water tanks, which I am thankful for. When I was a kid around 30 years ago I would be in a jersey and jacket and there would be a frost more often than not. I went to Dawn Parade a couple of weeks ago in just a shirt, my memories of freezing my nuts at the Parade are getting distant. I don't need a computer model I just have to look around.
Every article on Climate Disruption has comments that decend into a fight over whether it is happening. I no longer care - I'm getting my ducks in a row to sort myself out. There will be no consensus on it - the Summit in Paris will do nothing. Politicians will do nothing. Idiots like Stamper et al. will do nothing. The cat's out of the bag folks - deal with it best you can or ignore it and hope for the "best" - your choice. Either way we ain't going to stuff the genie back in - she's out and mad as Hell!
Some will think - oh look at the loony prepper! Well prepping is mainstream now and like fashion - when it's mainstream, "It's over baby!". I don't mind, the deniers can form an orderly queue at my gate (like they used to do for iphones).
Here's the Daily Mail (the Daily Mail FFS! Hardly a climate change advocate) on the Arctic - which is our global air con by the way - without it we are screwed. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2968225/Will-Arctic-ice-free-40-years-Expert-claims-temperatures-polar-regions-rising-four-times-faster-rest-planet.html
And here is why Auckland house prices will continue to go up. Hell - we should market ourselves as a climate lifeboat - may as well make some cash out of this shit. Must be plenty of Cali millionaires needing to get outta there. It's the NY Times and they're trying to be positive but we all know the writing is on the wall - or do we? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-california.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0