The MSM finally notices 'the pause'

Reuters_GW_slowdown

Theories for the pause include that deep oceans have taken up more heat with the result that the surface is cooler than expected, that industrial pollution in Asia or clouds are blocking the sun, or that greenhouse gases trap less heat than previously believed.

The change may be a result of an observed decline in heat-trapping water vapor in the high atmosphere, for unknown reasons. It could be a combination of factors or some as yet unknown natural variations, scientists say.

“The climate system is not quite so simple as people thought,” said Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish statistician and author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist” who estimates that moderate warming will be beneficial for crop growth and human health.

“My own confidence in the data has gone down in the past five years,” said Richard Tol, an expert in climate change and professor of economics at the University of Sussex in England.

Full article here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-climate-slowdown-idUSBRE93F0AJ20130416

See also: Fireworks in the EU Parliament over “the pause” in global warming

==========================================================

This article is a bit of a turnabout for Alister Doyle, who has run a series of mostly unquestioning articles promoting AGW in the past. Now if only Seth Borenstein at AP can begin to start questioning, we could see real journalism on display.

h/t to Joe D’Aleo

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

The first step is to realize you have a problem.

By the time various governments stop FUNDING ‘Global Warming research’ (You’ll have to imagine me saying that in a trance-like voice) the media will have come all the way around to raging over every penny spent, and probably blaming conservatives for the whole thing. *sigh*

Danj

“Theories for the pause include that deep oceans have taken up more heat with the result that the surface is cooler than expected, that industrial pollution in Asia or clouds are blocking the sun, or that greenhouse gases trap less heat than previously believed.”
Think they’d ‘fess up to their models being wrong? NAH…. impossible!

RobW
Pat

This is all wonderful to see. For many there is still time to back away gracefully before being caught in the inevitable stampede and being made to look foolish.
Of course, for those heavily invested in Mann-made Global Warming, there is no retreat. Only more frenzied attempts to justify the inverse of observed fact. For that cabal, there will never be any admission of failure, no mea culpa.
Should the Earth find itself in a mini-ice age in a decade or two there will still be insistence that it is being driven by a massive anthropogenic carbon heat-pump deep in the Marianas Trench and the persistent cold is just another example of extreme weather, not climate. They were right all along, see?

Jeff Alberts

It’s not a “slowdown in Climate Change”, it IS climate change (no capitals). It’s what climate does, goes up, then down, then up, then down, etc, ad infinitum. Nothing we’ve ever seen tells us it should be static, or only trend in one direction.

Dodgy Geezer

Stages sheep go through after following a bad leader:
1 – Every decision of this leader is perfect – anyone who doesn’t think so is insane, and should be locked away…
2 – Some of the leader’s decisions have been called into question – this is why they are right…
3 – Recent decisions by the leader have prompted some discussion..
4 – We always said that this leader was a failure…
Read Charles MacKay for more descriptions of the idiotic situations people humans get into by following the latest fashions in belief…

Here is the thing. I think most skeptics on this site would agree. AGW may be happening. However the relationship to CO2 is tenuous and has rather than been treated as a POSSIBLE link been focus of the transformation of increased heat readings. The thing that I hate is that there has been a reactionary and almost zealotry response to this information to the point of excluding thought and attempts to reconcile ambiguous data. I am called a denier and flat earther, simply because I question the dogma. Never denying the possible link between the two but rather suggesting that based on current evidence there is little reason to be come militant against CO2 especially when there are SO MANY benefits to an increase in CO2 so long as it does not cause catastrophe.
That is the other thing that bothers me a great deal. A warmed earth ( so long as it is not catastrophic ) is not a bad thing either. It means less energy consumption for a vast majority of the world and longer growing seasons and even a slightly elevated water cycle ( or at least it should though you never know with these things). All of which is beneficial to us as a human race.
I do not know why the media has become the drum major for the cause of Global Warming. But then I do not understand the vehemence that it has for several things. Politics among others. We do not know what is happening in the atmosphere very well, we have not been objectively studying it so we simply do not know. It may well take another 100 years to really understand the effects of industrialization and changed land use practices and the effect it has on the environment.
Could AGW be real? Of course it can. Should we shut down progress because of it? Absolutely not. The fastest way to wealth is energy production.

Andrew

“Theories for the pause include that deep oceans have taken up more heat”
So, heat from a cooler atmosphere is causing heating in another object which was already warmer than the atmosphere … righttttt.
Has the heat hiding in the oceans got its eyes shut while it counts to 1,000,000? Did you see the big white rabbit? Purleeeeeeeze. I claim my Nobel prize (they started it).

The media/Hollywood has never understood science – these folks are all liberal arts majors. To these yokels a scientist wears a white lab coat and is in a science lab eternally looking into a microscope. And always telling the absolute truth as in “Yes, that radiation has caused these giant mutant spiders.”

Doug

“Global warming advocates, who claim to be scientists, struggle to explain warming slowdown”. There, fixed that for them.

Steve Hill from Ky

Does Al have to give it all back now? LOL

TeeWee

The Alarmists just can come to the realisation that their hypothaesis was wrong.

Somewhere some investigative reporter is thinking: If I could get the goods on climate scientist fraud I would be rich and famous. Once they really start looking there will be an tsunimi [sp] of articles debunking AGW. When it starts it will bury Mikey Mann. Probably more then one is thinking the same way. I can’t wait.

William Abbott

The facts are what they are. You can’t ignore them forever… or explain them away. WUWT has cataloged a mountain of evidence and the evidence forces honest men to re-evaluate the conclusions they drew. But it does take a lot of evidence to push a man into admitting he was wrong. We all look for evidence to support and reinforce our conclusions – we see what we expect to see – its always an uphill push to persuade someone they are mistaken.

All of the certainty about global warming rests on the simple concept of carbon dioxide as an
all-powerful greenhouse gas that controls Earth’s temps. Show that concept as faulty and the
whole AGW house of cards comes tumbling down.

DonS

Seth Borenstein and “real journalism” in the same sentence? Shirley you jest.

Agree with Jeff Alberts.
Climate change is happening, because global warming is over. We have started to cool globally. All major data sets measuring the average global air- and sea temperatures, including my own, now show that we have started cooling down for the past 11 years (which is the equivalent time of one full solar cycle).
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2013/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2013/trend
My results show that earth is most likely on an 88 year A-C wave, the so-called Gleissberg solar/weather cycle, with 44 years of warming followed by 44 years of cooling. My own data set, where I have been monitoring global maximum temperatures, proves that all warming in the past was almost entirely due to natural reasons and that global cooling will now accelerate further. I expect more La Nina’s occurring due to less energy going in the oceans. In my opinion, it will only be 4-5 years before this cooling effect will be felt by just about everyone in the whole world.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
Indeed it is this global cooling that is generally causing more rain, more snow and cooler weather, globally, on average, whilst some places might get less precipitation.
(Namely, assuming equal amounts of water vapour in the air, remember that when water vapour in the atmosphere cools more, you get more clouds and more precipitation, at lower latitudes and less at the higher latitudes).
As the farmers in Anchorage (Alaska) have noted,
http://www.adn.com/2012/07/13/2541345/its-the-coldest-july-on-record.html
the cold weather is so bad there that they do not get much of any harvests. And it seems NOBODY is telling them there that it is not going to get any better. Kimberley (in South Africa) is another example where cooling has been quite significant in the past decade.
The results of my investigations suggest that this global cooling will last until ca. 2038. Also, it looks to me that earth’s energy stores are depleted now and that means that average temperatures will probably fall by as much as what the maxima are falling now. I estimate this is about -0.3K in the next 8 years and a further -0.2 or -0.3K from 2020 until 2036. By that time we will be back to where we were in 1950 or 1951, more or less, when global warming started, roughly…
Those that point to melting ice and glaciers, as “proof” that it is (still) warming, and not cooling, should remember that there is a lag from energy-in (maxima) and energy-out. Counting back 88 years i.e. 2012-88= we are in 1924. Now look at some eye witness reports of the ice back then?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/
Sounds familiar? Back then, they had seen that the arctic ice melt was due to the warmer Gulf Stream waters. But by 1945 all that ‘lost” ice had frozen back.
I therefore predict that all lost arctic ice will come back, from 2015-2035 as also happened from 1925-1945.
There are now many results from skeptical scientists that support my position and results, e.g.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/19/cooling-in-the-near-future/
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html
http://www.landscheidt.info/
The sad story is, that where the world should prepare itself for climate change due to (natural) global cooling, for example, by initiating more agricultural schemes at lower latitudes (FOOD!), and providing more protection against more precipitation at certain places (FLOODS!), the media and the powers-that-be are twiddling with their thumbs, not listening to the real scientists, i.e. those not making any money and nice journeys out of the gravy train that “global warming” has become.
So here we are, it is 2013, and nobody is addressing the real problems that we face due to the change in climate and the coming cold.
Henry

denniswingo says: “The first step is to realize you have a problem.”
Unfortunately, many in the climate science community still argue that there has been no slowdown, so they do not accept that they have a problem.

DesertYote

“… said Richard Tol, an expert in climate change and professor of economics …”
Oy!

A novice gambler tosses a coin and gets three heads in a row – confident they can predict the toss of the coin, they get tails on the next throw. So they:
a) Deny that it was tails because their model must be right
b) Try to work out why their model failed to predict the tails.
c) have a bit of common sense?
The simple fact is like the example above, the vast majority of change in temperature is clearly natural in origin. It is called random variation, because it is random and it cannot (easily) be predicted by their models.
But their logic is like the gambler … NO IT IS WORSE THAN THE GAMBLER ABOVE the gambler above was examining the evidence as it came in and when the reality did not match their expectation … they were forced to face this fact.
Global warming “scientists”, not only didn’t follow the evidence, the evidence proved they were incapable of predicting the climate in the 1970s yet despite the clear evidence to the contrary they deluded themselves using HINDCASTS of the data until these deluded individuals convinced themselves there was meaning in what everyone must now realise is nothing but natural variation WITH CLIMATE SCIENTISTS HAVE TWICE PROVEN INCAPABLE OF EITHER UNDERSTANDING OR PREDICTING.
But like the hopeless gamblers they are, they carry on with the delusion that they can somehow find a way to predict natural random climate variation.

RMB

The answer to their problem is dead simple, surface tension blocks heat transfer. Try heating water from above. Thats why there is no backup heat to save their bacon, only radiation enters the ocean.

Richard

If they would have followed the scientific method this embarrassment of the scientific community would not have occurred.

Silly Reuters. Everybody knows that all the heat has gone to the earth’s core to make it a million degrees. Nobel Prize winner Al Gore says so, and Dave Letterman believes him. The silliest thing, however, is that Reuters is allowing comments.

RHS

Begin Sarc – But last year was the Hottest Eveh on less than two percent of the earth’s surface (the US) – End sarc

pottereaton

Took ’em ten years, give or take, but I guess late is better than never.

ralfellis

“Theories for the pause include the fact that the entire theory is based on shoddy science and even shoddier computer simulations.”
There, fixed that…..

John F. Hultquist

I think there is supposed to be a trademark symbol &#0153 on the ‘Climate scientists’ phrase just below the word Reuters.

John F. Hultquist

TM did not work. Back to school!

denniswingo says: The first step is to realize you have a problem.
Their problem is that they have a total inability to grasp the concept that some things cannot be predicted. We engineers formalise this in the concept of “noise” and e.g. we talk about concepts such as “signal to noise”. So, we can lump all the things we don’t know into this concept of “noise”
In contrast science is so totally arrogant that it doesn’t have a concept of “not knowing” – there is no formal way in science to say “we don’t know” .
And how many times have we heard the phrase “something must have caused the rise in global temperatures”. But because they have no concept of “we don’t know”, they have no way to answer the question without grasping as scientific straws.
So, we get this absurd charade of them saying:
“because we don’t know anything else that caused the temperature rise … it must be CO2”.
Their single biggest failing is that they lack a formal concept of “not knowing” so they are forced to make ridiculous assertions when engineers have a much superior way of answer the question:
“what caused the rise” … “We don’t know” … or using formal terminology “natural variation”.
If you still don’t understand this … thing about “not knowing” as the scientific equivalent of “zero” in maths. It is as if Scientists are still in the dark ages with a system of knowledge that cannot recognise “nothingness”.

RHS

I like how the article attributes the start of Climate Change theory to Svante Arrhenius. From his wiki page – Arrhenius clearly believed that a warmer world would be a positive change.
What is missing from his page is that eventually, he changed his mind.
I guess with enough study, the MSM will change, wait, never mind, they will always be spoon fed…

George Steiner

Isn’t it nice how easy it is to become a real journalist. From hack to real journalist in one article. Mr. Watts you forgot the word kudos.

RMB you are a trip. You keep banging away, ignored by all as simply mistaken, but now it is something else. You have some sort of compulsion, maybe you should look into this. I told you what was happening, the warmed water on the surface immediately evaporates. Run your hair dryer for 20 minutes, you may notice that the water level has gone down!
Tell you what, put a few drops of laundry soap (“surfactant”) in there first, eliminate almost all surface tension, it will make you feel better…

Theo Goodwin

“Now if only Seth Borenstein at AP can begin to start questioning, we could see real journalism on display.”
An oracular comment. Could mean that Borenstein senses the herd turning and adjusts to stay with the herd.

David L. Hagen

Lawrence Solomon finds Climate changing for global warming journalists
He listsNewly skeptical AGW media

Telegraph Blogs ‏ @TelegraphBlogs
Rolling comment from Telegraph blogs.
The Economist The Economist ‏ Verified account @TheEconomist
Official site for The Economist. Follow for article updates, events and news from The Economist. To subscribe go to: http://econ.st/ddIkQq
Oliver Morton Oliver Morton ‏ @Eaterofsun
editor and writer who’s mostly concentrated on sci/tech change and its impacts, now spreading his remit rather further at The Economist
The Economist The Economist ‏ @EconSciTech
Official Economist account for news and analysis on Science and Technology issues

Please email him additions as journalists begin the migration from lemmings to conscientious citizens.

jc

@RobW says:
April 16, 2013 at 7:47 am
All good. When such levels of absurdity are reached and made public, people, no matter how keen to believe, are forced to a point where they have to ask of themselves: can I accept this as making sense and still be a functional human?
Since this and other “considered adjudications” whether by court or government department are the direct result of acceptance of a particular viewpoint being established as a truth, they cannot be separated out from it.
So even those who would equivocate and talk of misinterpretation, misapplication, or just mistake, have a big hole opened up in their heads.
Anyone who can “ride through this” after knowing about it, removes themselves from normal human expectations and will increasingly be seen as an outlier, a pariah.
Of course those negatively effected by this event will suffer in the manner normal to the exercise of the tyranny of the inadequate.

Phil's Dad

As far as I can tell the CAGW have not changed their minds about anything. All they are now doing is looking for reasons why their models are still right, despite the evidence to the contrary.

John R Walker

European Union politicians rejected a plan to prop up the world’s biggest carbon market on Tuesday, sending it plunging to a new record low and raising questions about its survival.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-eu-ets-vote-idUKBRE93F0NT20130416
I can’t believe Godfrey Bloom MEP did this all by himself… Now some journalists are going to have to eat some more humble pie…

pottereaton

denniswingo says:
April 16, 2013 at 7:36 am
The first step is to realize you have a problem.
———————————–
It appears that most of the scientists intimately involved don’t realize the problem is scientific. Most look at the problem as potentially derailing the gravy train although the personal humiliation of having their theories and models refuted will obviously play a part. The politicians look at it as a threat to their power, which is another kind of gravy train. It’s beginning to appear that an enormous shift is required in research methods and assumptions. Paleocliimatology needs to be reined in. As McIntyre has said for years, an engineering grade study by the most trusted observers and participants in the field and related fields needs to be conducted by the US government and indeed all capable nation-states on behalf of their citizens. People are beginning to understand that they are possibly being screwed by their governments. If a period of cooling sets in, the incompetence and rashness of the principal scientists will be confirmed. They will be left standing naked and helpless in the cold.

Innocent Innocent says: Here is the thing. I think most skeptics on this site would agree. AGW may be happening. However the relationship to CO2 is tenuous
Agree with all you said. But suddenly had this idea of “intellectual gearing”. In finance, the gearing ratio of a company is the ratio of debt equity to assets. The higher the gearing ratio … the further their “reach” but more likely the company will go under.
Likewise intellectual “gearing” could be defined as the ratio of speculative inference to the evidence. And just as the high gearing of banks … looked good at the time … but caused a worldwide collapse in the financial markets, so the intellectual gearing seen in climate “science” … way have looked good when it was providing the answers and attention they wanted … but now it has all gone peared shaped their high gearing makes it almost inevitable that this subject is in for a monstrous fall like the banks.
I suppose the only real question (if the banking analogy holds) is how many other institutions are going to be exposed to have taken the same high risks an massively overgeared their subjects and will now be taken down by climate “science”

james griffin

That so called scientists who are running the AGW nonsense don’t know the basics is unbelievable…all they ever do is waffle on about “our models etc”…
It’s simple enough…if we were suffering AGW then we would be trapping the heat…specifically in the Tropical Troposphere…but no evidence. The modellers over-allow for positive feedback loops and apparently disregard the negatives which cause cooling. And if that is not bad enough they are unaware that CO2’s ability to create heat is logarithmic. Thus whatever temp fig you come up with for a doubling it will not double again…you will get a diminishing return. Pretty basic stuff.

Lloyd Martin Hendaye

This after a full quarter-century of terminally obnoxious, strident gloom-and-doom (recall Warmists’ “No Pressure” video, an eco-terrorist’s delight). As what point does common sense begin to re-assert itself, and more especially– at what point do death-eating Luddite sociopaths begin to realize that their Cargo Cult will be held accountable?

jc

@stan stendera says:
April 16, 2013 at 8:10 am
I agree. Or at lest I HOPE that there is, somewhere, a number of individuals who have a minimum of inquisitiveness in their nature, and they can get backing from editors and administrators. There is scant evidence that such people actually exist in the MSM even though it is the primary requirement, with it being almost exclusively the domain of The Regurgitater and The Opinionator.
Even if there are none, there must be significant numbers who want to project a false dignity of purpose, and most reliably, those who can smell the possibility of fame and fortune.

pat

The hockey stick is not hitting goals now.

RockyRoad

Based on some of their past arguments, I’m waiting to hear the excuse that CO2 is just getting lazy–or that it became fearful of the sequester and decided not to perform properly.
(Maybe I shouldn’t give them excuses.)

jorgekafkazar

RMB says: “The answer to their problem is dead simple, surface tension blocks heat transfer.”
I’ve asked you before to provide a relevant equation or a link to a journal article that establishes the truth of this. But no. You continue to assert this non-fact here and other places without a shred of proof. There must be more productive ways to expend your effort.

RMB

The answer to the question of proof is very simple, try heating water from above. The agw theory says that we emit co2 and the sun’s rays heat the co2 and the heat from the co2 comes in contact with the ocean. The heat then causes increased evaporation and according to Trenberth is absorbed by the ocean and stored. I decided to try and heat water from above. I applied heat from a heat gun 450degsC fan forced to the surface of water. After 5mins there appeared to be no sign of the water heating so I stopped and checked. The water remained stone cold. The heat was being totally rejected by something and my conclusion was that the most likely explanation was surface tension. Remember that surface tension is demonstrated by placing a paper clip on water and observing that despite not being shaped like a vessel and having measurable weight it is supported by the surface tension. Heat has no weight.
The irony of the situation is that if you want to heat water from above the only way to do it is to float a vessel on the surface and apply the heat source to the vessel, the vessel cancels the surface tension underneath and allows heat to flow.
What thismeans is that the oceans only accepts energy via the sun’s rays, physical heat is blocked by surface tension and therefore there is no backup heat in the ocean so when the sun’s activity drops as it is doing now this planet gets cold.

OldWeirdHarold

Shorter version : “fiddlesticks”.

I guess that is why they are now trying to get the indoctrination taught in school: http://blogs.kqed.org/mindshift/2013/04/some-ask-whats-the-value-of-common-core-state-standards/

jc

@Theo Goodwin says:
April 16, 2013 at 8:40 am
It is most certainly a herd. As anyone who has worked with herds knows, when there is a breakaway, with the rest of the herd constrained, unless very quickly stymied, the rest follow. It cannot be stopped.
The constraints are there; with the Mail, Economist, and this, the breakaway has happened. There is nothing anyone can do about it now.

jorgekafkazar

james griffin says: “The modellers…are unaware that CO2′s ability to create heat is logarithmic.”
Utterly false. The models are all based on essentially the same logarithmic forcing equation.