Warming and worry go AWOL

Some stories this week that show global warming aka climate change is beginning to fade away as an issue.

From the 3C Headlines blog:

Global satellite temperatures confirm hiatus of global warming, while the general public and mainstream press are beginning to recognise what climate sceptics long ago identified…global temperatures are trending towards cooling, not accelerating higher.

(click on images to enlarge – data sources, image on right source)

RSS CO2 global cooling warming last 20 years climate change hiatus 033113The Economist global cooling warming climate change atmosphere CO2

Per The Economist magazine and other major mainstream media outlets, it’s now obvious the conventional, “consensus” global warming meme promulgated by taxpayer-funded researchers is no longer robust – even for the MSM press-release puppets it would appear.

The graph on the right is a depiction of global temperatures as reported by The Economist (pink CO2 curve superimposed by ‘C3′). And The Economist and their mainstream press brethern are not alone in challenging the failed AGW orthodoxy: here and here.

While the majority of “journalists” are still awakening from their intellectual slumber regarding climate science, the latest empirical global temperature measurements (RSS atmosphere temps and CO2 chart on the left) confirm what The Economist is essentially reporting – global warming has gone AWOL and a slight cooling trend has developed over the last 10 years (a minus 0.42 degrees by 2100 if the trend persists).

This warming hiatus happened despite the loud and hysterical shrieking by the climate scientists on the public dole that current CO2 emissions would cause rapid, unequivocal, irrefutable accelerated warming.

And not only are the falling temperatures invalidating the IPCC’s AGW hypothesis, a new Pew poll reports the public support of the global warming hysteria is dropping like a rock – down to only 33%.

Conclusions:

1. Global warming has gone AWOL over last 10 years, per the satellite record

2. Cumulating CO2 emissions in the atmosphere have had a minor impact on global temperatures over the last 20 years

3. The mainstream press, as represented by The Economist, and other proponents of convential climate orthodoxy are moving closer to the AGW skeptics’ (lukewarmers’) position

4. The publics (per Pew) belief in catastrophic AGW predictions is plummeting

Full story here

The End Of An Illusion

Robert Tracinski, Real Clear Politics

We’re reaching the point where climate predictions have been around long enough to allow for significant comparison against the actual data, and we are now able to say definitively that the predictions were horribly exaggerated.

Many years ago, I remember thinking that it would take many years to refute the panicked claims about global warming. Unlike most political movements, which content themselves with making promises about, say, what the unemployment rate will be in two years if we pass a giant stimulus bill—claims that are proven wrong (and how!) relatively quickly—the environmentalists had successfully managed to put their claims so far off into the future that it would take decades to test them against reality.

But guess what? The decades are finally here.

At Forbes, Harry Binswanger dates the beginning of the campaign to 1979 and puts it in an amusing perspective.

“Remember 1979? That was the year of ‘We Are Family’ by Sister Sledge, of ‘The Dukes of Hazard’ on TV, and of Kramer vs. Kramer on the silver screen. It was the year the Shah was forced out of Iran. It was before the web, before the personal computer, before the cell phone, before voicemail and answering machines. But not before the global warming campaign.

“In January of 1979, a New York Times article was headlined: ‘Experts Tell How Antarctic Ice Could Cause Widespread Floods.’…

“So where’s the warming? Where are the gondolas pulling up to the Capitol? Where are the encroaching seas in Florida? Or anywhere? Where is the climate change which, for 33 years, has been just around the corner?”

He concludes that “I’ve grown old waiting for the promised global warming.” Literally: “I was 35 when predictions of a looming ice age were supplanted by warmmongering. Now I’m 68, and there’s still no sign of warmer weather.”

He puts the issue in terms of common-sense observation. But it can also be measured in terms of hard data. We’re reaching the point where the predictions have been around long enough to allow for significant comparison against the actual data, and we are now able to say definitively that the predictions were horribly exaggerated.

Steven Hayward points to signs that even advocates of the global warming hysteria are starting to backtrack.

“The new issue of The Economist has a long feature on the declining confidence in the high estimates of climate sensitivity. That this appears in The Economist is significant, because this august British news organ has been fully on board with climate alarmism for years now. A Washington-based Economist correspondent admitted to me privately several years ago that the senior editors in London had mandated consistent and regular alarmist climate coverage in its pages.

“The problem for the climateers is increasingly dire. As The Economist shows in its first chart (Figure 1 here), the recent temperature record is now falling distinctly to the very low end of its predicted range and may soon fall out of it, which means the models are wrong, or, at the very least, that there’s something going on that supposedly ‘settled’ science hasn’t been able to settle.”

See a better version of that graph here, which makes it clear that the actual predictions in the graph date only to about 2006—and they are already being proven wrong.

You know, you can really manipulate a graph to spin the data, for example, by manipulating the scale to “zoom in” and make something look bigger or “zoom out” to make it look smaller. We’re used to seeing the zoomed-in version of global temperature measurements, so it’s nice to see this zoomed-out version:

Rather than narrowing in to measure minor variations from the long-term average, which makes annual variations of a few tenths of a degree look enormous, this one zooms out to show us the data in terms of absolute temperature measurements, in which the annual variations over the past 15 years look as insignificant as they really are.

So basically, all that the global warming advocates really have, as the evidentiary basis for their theory, is that global temperatures were a little higher than usual in the late 1990s. That’s it. Which proves nothing. The climate varies, just as weather varies, and as far as we can tell, this is all well within the normal range.

That has been one of my complaints about the global warming scare since the very beginning. We only have systematic global temperature measurements going back about 150 years, which on the relevant timescale—a geological time-scale—is a blink of an eye. Moreover, the measurement methods for these global temperatures have been not been entirely consistent, making them susceptible to changes due to everything from a different paint used on the outside of the weather station to the “urban heat island” effect that happens when a weather station in the middle of a field is surrounded over the years by parking lots. And somehow, among all the billions spent on global warming research, not much money seems to have made its way to the enormous international effort that would be required to ensure the accurate and consistent measurement of global temperatures.

So we have not been able to establish what ought to be the starting point for any theory about global temperatures: a baseline for what is a normal global temperature and what is a natural variation in temperature.

In an effort to fill in this gap—without ever admitting what a fundamental problem it is—the alarmists have made several attempts to patch together a much longer record of global temperatures, going back thousands of years. Michael Mann set the tone for this with his infamous “hockey stick” graph purporting to show temperatures going back 1,000 years, with recent temperatures spiking up ominously like the blade on a hockey stick.

But Mann’s hockey stick came under withering fire for its dodgy statistical methods and selective use of data and has since been pretty much abandoned. But that hasn’t kept the warmists from trying again, this time with a new graph, named after lead study author Shaun Marcott, purporting to show global temperatures over the past 11,300 years, this time with a new, even bigger “blade” to the hockey stick showing the supposed upward thrust of temperatures in the past 100 years.

Except that the whole thing is dissolving in another fiasco.

Full comment here

From the POWERLINE blog:

CLIMATE CHANGE ENDGAME IN SIGHT? ‘The problem for the climateers is increasingly dire’

‘As The Economist shows in its first chart, the recent temperature record is now falling distinctly to the very low end of its predicted range and may soon fall out of it, which means the models are wrong, or, at the very least, that there’s something going on that supposedly “settled” science hasn’t been able to settle.  Equally problematic for the theory, one place where the warmth might be hiding—the oceans—is not cooperating with the story line.  Recent data show that ocean warming has noticeably slowed, too, as shown’

 

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Richard

Wow , this guy was on the nose.
In 2006 Chabibullo Abdussamatow of the Pulkovo Observatory and a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences said global warming had already reached its peak and that reduced solar activity would start the Earth on a cooling phase.
According to Ria Novosti here:
‘With respect to solar activity, the increase in energy emission was indeed the most important event of the 20th century,’ the scientist said.”
and:
The start of the temperature decline can be expected in 2012 or 2013 according to the scientist. By 2035 or 2045 the strength of the sun will again reach a minimum. A strong cold will then grip the Earth 15 to 20 years later.

eco-geek

I dispute the conclusion: Cumulating CO2 emissions in the atmosphere have had a minor impact on global temperatures over the last 20 years.
I do not think this can be concluded from what little evidence has been given. There is no evidence of any whatsoever!
If as the warmists claim some unspecified “natural variability” is now dominant it could also have been dominant 20 or more years ago. This earlier warming was predicted by many but denied by the warmists – who now try to deny their denial in support of their gravy train.
It seems to me the double deniers are wrong and will be frozen into oblivion as solar activity goes off a cliff hand in hand with the AMO and solar magnetic field in the coming years.
Stay Cool!
You have no choice.

michael hart

The Economist graph doesn’t even show the horribly wrong “really scary” predictions.
It only shows the non-scary predictions entering the region where they are so wrong they shouldn’t even be published.

JDN

Why is the Economist bailing out? They don’t need to do that. They could hang on for another 20 years. What has changed that would lead the Economist to bail? Is a little ice age returning to Europe?

NoAstronomer

“While the majority of “journalists” are still awakening from their intellectual slumber…”
They weren’t slumbering. They were milking it for every penny they could.
Mike.

marcvsbarcvs

It’s not a “slight” cooling trend in the UK.
Global warming has slammed hard into reverse.
Even the Met Office’s own HadCET series with a 10 year smoothing shows that temperatures in the UK have been declining for the last 10 years as fast as they were ever increasing at the height of the global warming scare in the 90’s:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
As recently as Wednesday this week – in APRIL – a 26 year old university graduate, who was staying in an unheated derelict house researching a documentary on homelessness, died of hypothermia:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/9974349/Film-maker-Lee-Halpin-may-have-frozen-to-death-while-researching-homelessness-documentary.html
Astonishing and rather terrifying; a young man dying indoors of hypothermia in April in 21st Century Britain.

knr

Yes but it always ‘could ‘ happen so we need to pray to the climate gods and their prophets like Mann,just in case .

Finally their eyes are coming open…even if its one blink at a time.

Mark Bofill

I hope so, but I doubt it. Already the disease has adapted via the ‘extreme weather’ mutation in an effort to survive. I suspect that politicians and propagandists will still be beating this drum for long decades after the observations have made it plain that CAGW was never anything more than a phantom.

Stephen Wilde

How do we know that increased CO2 has had any effect at all ?

But…but….the science is settled!!!!!
In my opinion “the science is settled” has to be one of the most stupid statements ever uttered. Science is never settled.
If truth was easy to grasp, honesty would be a lot easier than it is. In actual fact, eels are easier to grasp than the truth.
Attempting to put my ideas about this topic down in an essay, I wrote something called “Uninvented History.” http://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2013/04/05/uninvented-history/

Clovis Man

Looks like Marcott et al might have been the last straw as far a catastrophist credibililtiy goes. There will be people asking whose side he was on…
But we are not out of the woods yet. The FUD cannon is locked and loaded with Extreme Weather. A much fuzzier concept than global warming. The Henny Pennies have not run out of potential disasters with which to control and tax us yet.

It is interesting that C3 suggests a -0.42 anomaly by 2100. Compare that with the conclusions of my earlier recent post on this site 4/2/13 “Global Cooling- Methods and Testable Decadal Predictions ” see esp #5
1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 – 0.15
5 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 – 0.5
6 General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of the little ice age.
8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial – they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields .
9 Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder
Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.

GlynnMhor

A sixty year cycle in global temperature is evident, and may be linked to solar cycle lengths. And we’re at a peak in that cycle.
If natural variability is to be blamed for nullifying the effects of CO2 during the downswing, being thus equal in magnitude and opposite, natural variability would probably have represented half or more of the temperature increases of the 1970-2000 time period, also equal to CO2 effects but with the same direction.
Making the assumptions of climate sensitivity twice as large as they should have been.

Look for nutty fringe alarmists to threaten lawsuits against those media who say the alarmist climate illusion is ebbing, e.g. Hansen the former GISS (of NASA) head who aims to revive the alarmist movement through suits.
Nutty till the end.
John

Theo Goodwin

I enjoyed this summary of signs of the sea change. Thanks, Anthony.

marcvsbarcvs says April 5, 2013 at 7:42 am

As recently as Wednesday this week – in APRIL – a 26 year old university graduate, who was staying in an unheated derelict house researching a documentary on homelessness, died of hypothermia:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/9974349/Film-maker-Lee-Halpin-may-have-frozen-to-death-while-researching-homelessness-documentary.html

Film-maker Lee Halpin may have ‘frozen to death’
while researching homelessness documentary

In the category of “Unbelievable”*; as in “one cannot make this stuff up” …
.

Frank K.

Well, now that Hansen has more free time to pursue his litigation and anti-establishment protesting with his rich Hollywood eco-followers, I predict you will see a star-studded “Concert for the Climate” (aka Climate-stock) featuring Paul McCartney, Bruce Springsteen, and 10 dancing Polar Bears…this, in an attempt to gain more public attention. Maybe they can do it in Vostok, Antarctica…

Vince Causey

Yes, some MSM outlets are beginning to question – question! – the meme of rapid, accelerating man made warming. But the upper echelons – those august scientific bodies, government scientists and others in positions of influence – are not.
I have yet to see even one step taken back by the likes of Mann, Schmidt, Santer, Hansen, Gore or the chief scientists who advise governments, or the policy makers themselves. To them, nothing has changed – or can change. Expect an exceedingly long, drawn out end game.

pottereaton

If the present trend continues into the next century, admittedly a big “if”, we will have a ridiculously stable climate. You’d think that would be something the consensualists would celebrate. But NOOOOOO! They are all walking around with their tails between their legs.
Big letdown. They thought they could save the world and now it appears that the world is saving itself. Or was it that there really was nothing to worry about in the first place?
Forgive me for getting ahead of future climate changes here (as 20 years of data proves, no one knows what the hell is going on with climate) but the scenario was just to appealing to pass up.

Master_Of_Puppets

Earth’s atmosphere is not a ‘greenhouse’ and CO2 concentration has fleetingly little to contribute to the heat content or make influence on the energy balance. The current hiatus of ‘global’ temperature increase and the increasing concentration of CO2 give a simple refutation, by example, to the so-called Climate ‘Science’ and AGW to the dismay and horror of the devoutly faithful flock.

Baa Humbug

So it’s taken 33 yrs for some of the “we’re concerned for the planet” alarmists to rethink the climates sensitivity to CO2.
In another 33 yrs the rest of us will realise that CO2 causes NO warming whatsoever, that CO2 is a refrigerant, and that ours would be an overheated unlivable planet were it not for (so called) GHGs such as H2O and CO2.
Too bad I won’t be around to gloat.

Andrew Harding

People are not as stupid as the scientists believe. We have had so many scare stories from “scientists” concerning their pet projects, that in my view the public have become immune.
We have had scare story after scare story (passive smoking, AGW, AIDS, alcohol, bird flu etc )
Every scare story always goes through the following process
1) Initial publicity
2) Outrageous claims
3) Various studies which only show evidence supporting the scare (studies showing that tobacco slows the onset of Parkinsons Disease and Alzheimers disease were suppressed).
4) A whole raft of “Experts” emerges who predict catastrophic loss of life, usually in nice round figures ending in at least five zeroes
5) These same “experts” always say it is worse than we thought and something must be done with much self righteous hand wringing
6) Government policy is changed as a result
7) The “experts” shut up
AGW is probably the most blatant of these scares, because we are all aware of the weather (I do know that weather and climate are not the same thing, but when you suffer from 3 months of well below average temperatures it is only human to question whether the world is warming!).
Hopefully we are seeing the end of the AGW scare that is costing us all a great deal of money and sadly costing some of our elderly, their lives.

John Bell

I am really going to enjoy the next few years as all the warmists backpedal to their escape hatches, yes watch them all scramble to duck and hide as they make references to their use of the words ‘could’ and ‘may’ and ‘might’. Have some popcorn and enjoy the show, folks!

Joe Public

The illustrations of Temperature Graphs / Time lack impact by not showing CO2 emissions as well.
Can anyone provide a link to combination graphs please?

Australis

There has been no “hiatus” in global warming. A hiatus is a gap in an otherwise continuous trend. There is no evidence that the post-1996 standstill is a gap or a hole or a hiatus or a lull. The 1990s warming episode simple stopped – and has remained stopped for almost as long as the original trending period.
That particular temp episode is now history and is most unlikely to simply reappear.
Next time the world warms (which might be soon or far in the future) will likely be a whole new episode.

Peter Miller

I just saw a great quote relevant to this post.
“The more I research climate science, the less I find.”
Shakespeare summed up the subject of climate science brilliantly: “Much ado about nothing.”

Tom J

I hate to pop anybody’s bubble on this sunny, bright Friday but now is not yet the time to put those sunglasses on and head for the golf course (unless, of course, you’re the President). Hate to say it, but there are oodles and oodles of thoroughly mediocre scientists who conflate fame and proficiency as being one and the same thing. They’re not going to willingly jump head first into the sharp, whirling blades of a wind turbine like they expect the rest of us to do. And they, sure as hell, have no desire to join the rest of us schlubs in line at the unemployment compensation office. (Yeah, I know that the unemployment rate is magically going down despite the fact that food stamp applications have mysteriously gone up.)
More to the point: Carbon taxes are coming. Just like the income tax, they’re the goose that laid the golden egg. And it’s an unfortunate fact that that’s how The One originally hoped to pay for his ObamaCare. In the original cap & trade proposal The One wanted to auction off the initial carbon credits as they entered the market place. That was the stealth tax for “free” national health. Now, they’ve got a problem, the deficit is (to use a popular environmental word) unsustainable and the health plan, judiciously delayed until after the election, is starting kick in. I suspect the deficits were deliberately intended to create a crisis so as to force through whopper tax increases. And, what the heck, we’ll all blame the utility companies and fossil fuel industry anyway.
For the time being, enjoy the good news and the weekend. But keep your eyes open come Monday.

“Its not nice to try to fool or fake out Mother Nature!”
For sure with wimpey, fake, home made, grant seeking, ego boosting, weak tree ring wood Hockey Sticks.
As all should know science and hockey are real and if you enter either rink and try to play in the big leagues with fake abilities, fake data, fake scoreing ability, you just might get a mean old hip check by Mother Nature and her earth bound assistants.

Liberal Skeptic

The only way it seems to get the attention of Catastrophic climate change believers is to raise questions about CO2 sensitivity. Simply because the last 15-20 years depending on the data set puts the current favoured calculation into doubt. It doesn’t matter whether what we are seeing now is only “masking the global warming signal” it’s still over riding it and that is enough for me, they also have no idea why it’s masking it. Whatever it is that is masking it. It may be settled that CO2 can effect temperature, and I don’t think any reasonable skeptic would doubt that. It’s certainly not settled how much CO2 affects temperature.

robert barclay

This is no surprise. All through this silly debate the thing that has been missing is an appreciation of the fact that the physical heat that is alleged to pass from heated co2 into the ocean to be stored and provide backup heat, cannot in fact do so because of surface tension. There is a world of difference between applying heat to the bottom of a pot and applying it to the top. Now that the sun has gone quiet the backup that the warmists thought was there is in fact not there. The ocean only accepts “heat” via radiation thats it.

u

Folks, you’re celebrating too early. Climate alarmists are only backing down for the time being because the Machine is busy moving hard on gay rights, taking guns away, and making sure illegals get into the country. As soon as they get their wins on those issues, and they will, they’ll be right back to climate change, cap and trade, carbon taxes, and whatever else it takes to grind us all into the ground while increasing their wealth and power.
Remember, in America there are about 3000 of them running 320 million of us. We should be marching.

troe

“Baker has worn many hats — including Senate Majority Leader, White House Chief of Staff (for President Reagan), and Ambassador to Japan. Baker was a close friend of the late Alvin Weinberg, who directed ORNL for 18 years, and he frequently was a champion for Oak Ridge’s federally funded programs.”
time and nature are clearly erroding the foundations of AGW fear mongering but…. those piles were driven incredibly deep. The politicians behind the corruption of climate science as evidenced in Marcott contnue to tend their garden to their last days. They do not wear sandals, have shaggy hair, or listen to Bob Marley but they have been orchestrating the AGW scare since it’s inception.

Joe Public says:
“The illustrations of Temperature Graphs / Time lack impact by not showing CO2 emissions as well. Can anyone provide a link to combination graphs please?”
You mean like this?

Mark Bofill

pottereaton says:
April 5, 2013 at 8:06 am
If the present trend continues into the next century, admittedly a big “if”, we will have a ridiculously stable climate. …
—-
Possibly that will be one of the future memes. I can just see the headlines now. CO2 Emissions Causing Climate Stagnation and several bleeding edge papers showing how we will all suffer and die as a result sometime off in the future unless emissions are cut immediately.

Mike Mann,
Try this,
“Its to cold to snow, the lack of snow will force the climate to over heat.”
Should be good for a Govt. grant from Pres. Obama.

mpaul

dbstealey, the graph you link to is great. Someone with some graphical skills should turn that into a icon for skepticism. The Team has their hockey stick — skeptics should have a simple powerful graphical representation of our argument. The graphics that the Economist use are too complicated and don’t rise to the level of being iconic.

Steve Keohane

Joe Public says: April 5, 2013 at 8:17 am
The illustrations of Temperature Graphs / Time lack impact by not showing CO2 emissions as well.
Can anyone provide a link to combination graphs please?

Try looking at the graphs that came with this article.

troe

“Thank you, Ambassador Baker for that warm introduction and for all the good work you and the University of Tennessee are sponsoring through the Baker Center for Public Policy. I also want to thank Representative Hamilton and the Wilson Center for hosting this event on such an important topic.
I’d like to talk with you this afternoon about the role nuclear power plays in our efforts to make America and the world more energy secure.” and “And it is central to my efforts as Secretary of Energy to help develop and bring to market safe, clean, reliable sources of energy that can serve as alternatives to the imported fossil fuels on which America must currently rely. This is one of the reasons we have put so much emphasis on bringing about a nuclear renaissance here in the United States.” Bodman, Former Sec Energy
Baker has represented nuclear interests domestically and around the globe since his earliest days. He brokered and tends the coalition between Environmental groups like the NRDC and nuclear interests. That is why the hocky stick emerged after the useful tools Marcott and Shakun had their work run through ORNL’s supercomputer. If one can be judged by “the strenght of their enemies” you are powerful indeed.

Latitude

…and that’s what I hate about this “science”…….trends
Sea levels…trends……if it doesn’t stop you end up with huge mountains of water out there…and huge holes
Global warming…..trends…..if it doesn’t stop we end up a huge ball of fire
…at some point it has to stop

Doug Proctor

The trouble with the “Falling Off the Scale” graph is the appearance that CO2 NEVER rose as per IPCC models. It is a scaling problem that the other, “Hiatus”, graph handles better but still not well. The first Falling Off exaggerates the non-fit while the Hiatus one exaggerates the fit.
The temperature rise is supposed to be roughly linear (in the short-term) to the rise of CO2. The rise of CO2 could be rescaled so that the rates of rise are equal for the 70s & 80s. With that alleged causitive correlation, we would see how the post 80s temperatures – the time when CO2 was supposed to start its terrible crimes – fared compared to projections.
A better one, however, is total CO2 emissions. Although I believe that Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and now even the governments of the world purposely exaggerate their CO2 emissions (allow the benefit of doubt to always favour higher numbers, for the NGOs can shriek about CO2 danger and governments can impose taxes based on the threat), CO2 total emissions vs temperature rise is THE graph. The ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere is reasonably thought to have a linear relationship to emissions and hence temperatures; if emissions are rising faster than ppmv rise, the world is “adapting” (or the numbers are exaggerated). So the problem, again, is not in keeping with the narrative.

To: skeptics who are considering some celebration based on the lead post

These aren’t the droids singing fat ladies you’re looking for. Move along.***

A balanced, open and independent scientific dialog on climate is just beginning. Buckle your seatbelts . . .
*** My apologies to George Lucas.
John

John R T

The graph I want to see:
Annual Max T, Min T, for both the most and least energetic {Hottest and Coldest} inhabited Earthly sites and Global ‘Avg’ T. Reliable 0200 hrs Siberia and 1400 hrs Sahara information, for the past century.
John

Brian S

mpaul (on dbstealy’s link) – I second that. IMHO it should have a permannent spot in the right-hand column with all the other weather data graphs. Some nice quotes on the WoodforTrees site too.

mpaul

Australis says:
April 5, 2013 at 8:18 am
There has been no “hiatus” in global warming. A hiatus is a gap in an otherwise continuous trend. There is no evidence that the post-1996 standstill is a gap or a hole or a hiatus or a lull. The 1990s warming episode simple stopped – and has remained stopped for almost as long as the original trending period.

I agree that we need to be very careful of the language. Many of us argue that the climate exhibits both long term and short term variability that is simply being underrepresented in the GCMs. This is typical of the failure of modern science. Step 1 — we develop a capability to measure something. Step 2 — we measure it. Step 3 — we observe variability of the thing we are measuring and leap to a conclusion that its a statistically significant trend. You can’t make such a conclusion without being able to characterize system variability.
If we can’t characterize climate variability at a 100 year resolution, than we can’t say that the warming that we saw in the late 20th century was due to anything other than natural system variability. Similarly, we can conclude nothing from the recent lack of a trend (except that the GCMs are wrong). The recent lack of a trend could also to be natural variability. How do we know? We don’t.
So we should resist language like “hiatus” and instead note that the climate is exhibiting natural variation greater than that recognized by the consensus models.

Steve

marcvsbarcvs says April 5, 2013 at 7:42 am

As recently as Wednesday this week – in APRIL – a 26 year old university graduate, who was staying in an unheated derelict house researching a documentary on homelessness, died of hypothermia:
…..http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-22042626

Reg Nelson

Well, if it is actually cooling, and CO2 causes warming (settled science and all), then logically we need to burn more fossils fuels, not less, to save the planet. We also need to pass a carbon-less tax on those who are building wind farms, solar farms, driving electric cars, using ethanol, etc.

Aldous

The Marcott incident is a microcosm of what will happen with the whole field of study:
“We never *said* our results were robust”

regardless of how many times it is stated, people still equate weather with climate. The drop in polls is probably more due to the cool spring the eastern US and Europe has had than with any actual quantitative data. But perhaps the data will bleed through the screen of the MSM to the people as the climate “malaise” continues.