Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out
By Gerald Traufetter
At least the weather in Copenhagen is likely to be cooperating. The Danish Meteorological Institute predicts that temperatures in December, when the city will host the United Nations Climate Change Conference, will be one degree above the long-term average.
Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth’s average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.
Ironically, climate change appears to have stalled in the run-up to the upcoming world summit in the Danish capital, where thousands of politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, business leaders and environmental activists plan to negotiate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Billions of euros are at stake in the negotiations.
Reached a Plateau
The planet’s temperature curve rose sharply for almost 30 years, as global temperatures increased by an average of 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.25 degrees Fahrenheit) from the 1970s to the late 1990s. “At present, however, the warming is taking a break,” confirms meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in the northern German city of Kiel. Latif, one of Germany’s best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. “There can be no argument about that,” he says. “We have to face that fact.”
Read the complete article here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
RR Kampen,
The first refuge of an AGW true believer, when confronted with data he does not like, is to pretend that it was never about an apocalypse.
Their next move is to ignore it all, hoping those wraskly denialists will just go away.
Perhaps you can be less predictable, but I doubt it.
How do you figure that? I see a recovery from the little ice age. I see quite a bit of warming before humans “pumped” tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. The last interglacial peaked at a higher temperature:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
and even in the last 2000 years, ice core data shows higher temperatures:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_2000_yrs.html
Interglacial periods come and go regardless of the influence of humans. I’m not about to predict when the next glacial advance will happen…but it will happen.
Its real confirmed on the BBC
“Hackers target world’s leading climate research unit”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8370282.stm
“A university spokesman confirmed the email system had been hacked and that information was taken and published without permission.
An investigation was underway and the police had been informed, he added.”
But the climate change believers preach that temperatures should be stable.
Why are they puzzled rather than cheering?
Icarus (04:46:23) :
[…]
Where would you like it to start? How about 1880? –
https://sites.google.com/site/europa62/climatechange/sngtaco21870
Why don’t we just start at 0 AD?
Moberg & UAH
A linear regression over the last 2,000 years shows no secular trend… Just a quasi-harmonic function.
“Perhaps we suggested too strongly in the past that the development will continue going up along a simple, straight line. In reality, phases of stagnation or even cooling are completely normal,” says Latif.”
To that I offer another quote from “V for Vendetta”
“I have not come for what you hoped to do. I’ve come for what you did.”
Mods…
Please fix my blockquote tag. I accidentally put a / in front of both tags.
Rudolf Kipp (00:40:45) :
Nice site Rudolf.
Some Skeptic Publications in the German Language won’t harm.
Keep up the good work.
Europe is at the brink of the introduction of Green Taxes based on this fraud!
Time to wake up and shake the BoBo tree don’t you think so?
RR Kampen (00:44:21) :
I guess it is forbidden to mention the dip in the solar cycle and the big Niña. I mean, those put 2007 and 2008 only just in the top ten warmest years instead of having them bust the record (without global warming they would have belonged to the 20% coldest, of course).
One more time,Kampen,let’s take a hypothetical 11 year span, from say 1998 to 2008. Let’s also assume that 1998 was the “warmest year ever.” Furthermore,assume that each subsequent year from 1999 to 2008, the temp DECREASED, but ALL 10 of them were still in the top 11!
We’d have the following CORRECT conclusions, based on observation ALONE:
1) “The years 1998 to 2008 were the 11 warmest years ever.”
2) “Every year after 1998 has BEEN COOLER.”
The questions is: Why do warmists focus on 1), whilst skeptics on 2)?
ANS: Because Al Gore and the warmists have also claimed that temps will continue to rise, and thus the title Global Warming!
When in fact, they’ve continued to fall.
Why is that so difficult to understand?
(And I’m even allowing you to call all 11 years the “top 11!!!!”)
This along with the WSJ article are clear signposts that the media are beginning to wake up to the fact that that they have been duped by unethical scientists that have blown out of all proportion CO2 as a climate driver and the predictive accuracy of their climate models (in realty the models do not work at all).
These unethical scientists and those who preach the AGW alarmist propaganda have (pick one)
1) knowingly perpetrated fraud on a grand scale (to secure funding and notoriety).
2) unwittingly allowed their beliefs and groupthink to blind them and their better judgment
3) are just plain incompetent and actually have no idea what they are doing but have become totally dependent on making wild assumptions in order to appear competent or knowledgeable (it requires rigor, discipline, confidence and integrity to simply admit that “we don’t know” while it requires no effort to make spurious alarmist statements)
RR Kampen (00:49:21) :
“Re: “Natural climate variations cause warming. ” – ah, so warming has no causes at all. Just happens.”
Your spin here is ludicrous and dishonest.
You obviously know full well that when someone refers to natural climate variations they are talking about natural causes.
Various natural forces causing natural and historically routine climate variations.
That leaves your smarmy remark “ah, so warming has no causes at all. Just happens” a deliberate and manipulative distortion.
Your approach meshes well with conduct revealed in the e-mails between Team members. Their corrupting and suppressing of data while working to silence skeptisism and rig the peer review process, among other despicable behavior, disqualifies aything you bring which they produced.
Anyone continuing to submit the work of the scoundrels as reliable is peddling an exposed swindle.
jh (01:32:40) :
Someone appears to have broken a hockey stick!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6606227/Antarctic-temperatures-between-ice-ages-6C-warmer-than-today.html
This seems more to the point. A peer-reviewed study in Nature indicating that past warming could well be greater than previously thought. This puts more data on the natural variation side and matches other paleoclimate studies suggesting higher levels of CO2.
Let’s also keep in mind that 90% of all ice on Earth is in the Antarctic. And according to NASA and the satellite record – it has been increasing in size about 4% since early 1970s.
Now this is something to write an email about!
>> Icarus (04:46:23) : Where would you like it to start? How about 1880? – <<
How about 1979, since there was never anything close to global coverage before the satellites.
Steve S., of course there are natural variations. My remark alludes to the fact that these natural variations tend to be not pointed out. E.g. the hypothesis ‘it’s warming just because we’re coming out of the LIA’ is hollow. WHY are we coming out of the LIA? What causes this?
There is also a system of belief with many skeptics that there can only be ‘natural variations’ and no anthropogenic cause at all.
I would guest there is anthropogenic factor superposed on natural variations, and that the CO2-effect has clearly come to dominate the natural variations. How do we know this? We know this because there no significant change in natural variables, whereas there is a very significant change in atmospheric chemistry; physics finishes the story.
Re: hunter (06:32:23) :
“RR Kampen,
The first refuge of an AGW true believer, when confronted with data he does not like, is to pretend that it was never about an apocalypse.”
And what is this supposed to do with the subject? What kind of strange spin is this anyway?
Actually, the word ‘alarmist’ is a skeptics’ invention. As is the idea that AGW-proponents necessarily predict apocalypse. A bit paranoid, methinks.
As is the idea that AGW-proponents necessarily predict apocalypse.
I take it you are unfamiliar with a gentleman named Albert Gore, or the publications of the IPCC, then?
rrKampen: 07:43:29 said;
“And what is this supposed to do with the subject? What kind of strange spin is this anyway?
Actually, the word ‘alarmist’ is a skeptics’ invention. As is the idea that AGW-proponents necessarily predict apocalypse. A bit paranoid, methinks.”
Paranoid, you mean like accusing “non-believing” scientists as being funded and/or controlled by Energy companies perhaps?
It is interesting to read the other articles on climate change in Der Spiegel. Their crusade to eliminate CO2 is unabated. It is going to take a lot of time for that crusade to be forgotten.
In other news, there are reports of a gigantic flaming ball of gas in the sky which, it is rumored, heats the entire planet. Scientists are urging citizens to ignore it while they figure out the problem with the Earth’s temperatures…
RR Kampen,
Please stop predictably misleading people. You may fool yourself, but no one else.
Gore made a fortune selling the idea of climate catastrophe.
Hansen has been saying for decades that we only have a few years left before an irreversible catastrophic tipping point is reached.
Gordon Brown said, about 50 days ago, that we have 50 days to save the planet.
A quick google of of the phrase ‘warming worse than we thought’ brings up millions of hits.
Skeptics are not to be blamed for pointing out that you AGW true believers have been selling apocalypse from day one.
And we are not alarmists when we not only point out that you are wrong, but that apoclyptic junk like AGW has a .000 success rate.
And now, with the Hadley e-mail archive, I believe it is ssafe to say that when skeptics point out that AGW is a contrived pile of bs, we are correct.
AGW: The greatest scientific achievement since eugenics.
AGW: Does for climate science what Bernie Madoff did for investing.
From: gjjenkins@meto.gov.uk
To: p.jones@uea.ac.uk, deparker@meadow.meto.govt.uk
Subject: 1996 global temperatures
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 11:23 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: llivingston@meadow.meto.govt.uk, djcarson@meadow.meto.govt.uk, ckfolland@meadow.meto.govt.uk
Phil
Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures,
with early release of information (via Oz), “inventing” the December
monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc?
I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year,
simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.
I have been discussing with David P and suggest the following:
1. By 20 Dec we will have land and sea data up to Nov
2. David (?) computes the December land anomaly based on 500hPa
heights up to 20 Dec.
3. We assume that Dec SST anomaly is the same as Nov
4. We can therefore give a good estimate of 1996 global temps by 20
Dec
5. We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (who has had this in the
past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write
an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville
Nicholls??
6. We explain that data is provisional and how the data has been
created so early (ie the estimate for Dec) and also
7. We explain why the globe is 0.23k (or whatever the final figure is)
cooler than 95 (NAO reversal, slight La Nina). Also that global annual
avg is only accuirate to a few hundredths of a degree (we said this
last year – can we be more exact, eg PS/MS 0.05K or is this to big??)
8. FROM NOW ON WE ANSWER NO MORE ENQUIRIES ABOUT 1996 GLOBAL TEMPS BUT
EXPLAIN THAT IT WILL BE RELEASED IN JANUARY.
9. We relesae the final estimate on 20 Jan, with a joint UEA/MetO
press release. It may not evoke any interest by then.
10. For questions after the release to Nuttall, (I late Dec, early
Jan) we give the same answer as we gave him.
Are you happy with this, or can you suggest something better (ie
simpler)? I know it sound a bit cloak-and-dagger but its just meant to
save time in the long run.
Im copying this to DEP and CKF also for comments.
Cheers
Geoff
Re: dcardno (08:01:47) :
“As is the idea that AGW-proponents necessarily predict apocalypse.
I take it you are unfamiliar with a gentleman named Albert Gore, or the publications of the IPCC, then?”
I am familiar with both. You can take from me, in case you are not familiar with Gore/IPCC, that neither predict apocalypse or the end of the world. Both do warn for consequences of global warming and sane people call that sane.
Re: Michael Jennings (08:02:22) :
“Paranoid, you mean like accusing “non-believing” scientists as being funded and/or controlled by Energy companies perhaps?”
Some of them are, of course. You can suss them out as well as I can.
Also, it is the energy companies’ right to campaign like they do.
Other ‘skeptics’ are just ignorant.
Then there is a group of people who will move against consensus on any subject, from habit. Like me 1990-2004.
hunter, I agree I abhor THAT kind of alarmism too.
Did I ever mention on this forum that as to measures against global warming I side entirely with Lomborg?
Could you please find for me the ten? Fifteen? How many? times I mentioned that here?
I think the AGW-hypothesis is correct and it is my right to defend the thesis.
But I am no ‘alarmist’, simply because I do believe apocalyptically about global warming.
It is just a change, and it is a change that may get important consequences. Or would you even disagree on that?
Please correct this *oops*: my last post should contain: “…simply because I do NOT believe apocalyptically about global warming.”
I am a little shocked by the scale of the revelations but not surprised. To any really objective observer and analyser the AGW concept is bogus – stop.
Why is this a puzzle? It’s only puzzling to those who are stuck in their dogma.
Those we remember the scientific method aren’t puzzled — they know this means the AGW hypothesis is wrong and it’s time to do more science.