From 11/5/13 edition of INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY
Science: The global warming alarmists continue to go about their business — which is minding everyone else’s business — while their yarn keeps fraying. Their latest problem: a study that says nature, not man, drives climate.
Last week President Obama issued the executive order “Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change.”
It’s almost 3,000 words outlining a plan to help the country get through “prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures” and “more heavy downpours” as well as “an increase in wildfires, more severe droughts, permafrost thawing, ocean acidification and sea-level rise.”
The order even insists that these dire conditions “are already affecting communities, natural resources, ecosystems, economies, and public health across the nation.”
Clearly the White House missed the news — isn’t that where Obama has learned about various scandals that have suffused his administration? — that there has been no warming since 1997.
What’s more, it’s also missed the news about a peer-reviewed paper that recently appeared in the journal Climate Dynamics. According to the science, the pause in warming that began as temperatures leveled off in the late 1990s could extend into the 2030s.
Paper authors Judith Curry, head of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, and Marcia Wyatt, from the Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Colorado-Boulder, found — no surprise here — that the United Nations climate models that predict a scorched Earth are not reliable.
“The growing divergence between climate model simulations and observations raises the prospect that climate models are inadequate in fundamental ways,” says Curry.
What Curry and Wyatt see, and which the models could not project, given the junk that was fed into them, is a natural cycle of warming and cooling.
The summary of the paper describes a “‘stadium-wave’ signal that propagates like the cheer at sporting events” that covers “the Northern Hemisphere through a network of ocean, ice, and atmospheric circulation regimes that self-organize into a collective tempo.”
This “wave periodically enhances or dampens the trend of long-term rising temperatures, which may explain the recent hiatus in rising global surface temperatures,” the summary said.
The paper also explains that “declining sea ice extent over the last decade is consistent with the stadium wave signal.”
What’s more, “the wave’s continued evolution portends a reversal of this trend of declining sea ice.”
And the role of man’s greenhouse-gas emissions on sea ice decline? Apparently it’s not so significant.
While Wyatt says “the stadium wave signal does not support or refute anthropogenic global warming,” Curry promises that “this paper will change the way you think about natural internal variability,” a factor that the alarmists tend to deny.
Curry also says the paper “provides a very different view from” a study featured last month by the New York Times whose lead author says that by 2047, give or take five years, “the coldest year in the future will be warmer than the hottest year in the past.”
We don’t expect the alarmists to look into this “very different view.” They’ve decided that humans are warming the planet by burning fossil fuels and any evidence to the contrary is dismissed.
But they can’t really believe anything else, can they?
If they did, they would lose their justification for meddling in private affairs.
And that, not the environment, is what the global warming scare is really all about.
The advertisement that appears under the article for me is a Justin Trudeau political ad! Canada’s own aspiring version of Obama. Someone who has never had a real job but who aspires now to tell me how to run my life. Naturally he spouts the typical ignorant CAGW talking points. The only thing worse than the party in power in (name your country), is the ones trying to get in power!
Thanks, Anthony. Good reporting.
I think CAGW is roadkill. But the alarmists believe it is a zombie.
Off topic I know, but just listening to radio news, there was an item about a wind turbine costing £48,000 that was placed on Aberstwyth’s Town Council roof has generated an average of £5.20 worth of electricity a month!
Never vote for a politician.
Dave in Canmore says:
November 7, 2013 at 8:22 am
Thanks Dave. I don’t think Anthony or anyone else connected to the website knew who he was or what he represented. Yes – Justin is Canada’a Obama. Heaven help us if he does get elected as Prime Minister. I think the website took his ad for the well needed and deserved revenue but didn’t know his philosophy was contrary to everything this website stands for.
Re: Txomin says: November 6, 2013 at 11:57 pm —
— Yes, that was poorly stated. The more accurate statement would be that: the climate models ARE junk.
Put gas or ethanol-polluted fuel into a clunker with: a failed transmission, 5 out of 6 cylinders not firing, a bad steering linkage, 10% braking capacity, and windshield wipers that stop working on rainy days, and you are still going to end up in the computer simulation ditch. Kerrrr-whump!
And little Pippen Kool BOUGHT THAT CAR! He then hopped in behind the wheel and fired it up, grinning foolishly, barely able to peer over the dashboard, his brother Poppen sitting right beside him, Brother Nod asleep in the backseat…. .
Did Nod wake up when they hit the ditch, you ask? Ha! He opened one eye, looked out the window, and said drunkenly, “Thish loo lyguhgoo playshfor a pihnic … zzzzz,” — back to sleep. Pippen pulled out another joint and started to smoke…. Poppen hummed the theme from “The Flintstones.”
Now, P.K., to justify himself, is trying to convince all of US to jog down to Slick Al’s Used Cars and buy one of those pieces of junk, too!
As if.
@all the Pippens of the world — if you EVER get your heads on straight, we (seriously) here at WUWT will WELCOME you, try to help you learn, and stop mocking you. You are just TOO ridiculous at this point, however, to do otherwise.
To Pippen Kool:
You stated: “…But I am going to, this time, stick with the skeptic line of wuwt
and assume that BECAUSE the paper is in the mainstream literature that it
is bogus. After all, it’s the wuwt way.”
Not quite. You need to realize the purpose of this blog is to provide a place
to air hypotheses, results, etc., that are ignored or even actively suppressed
by both mainstream news publications and scientific journals. The viewpoint
of those who buy into CAGW is amply represented by the typical scientific
journals and mainstream news outlets. This blog provides the other side
of the story, which is essential to scientific integrity.
Hark back to the publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist by
Bjorn Lomborg in 2001. Maybe you recall that the popular science magazine
Scientific American published a poisonous editorial, and had a special
piece entitled “Science Defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist”.
As I recall, this was 11 pages worth, written by 4 different environmentalists.
Bjorn Lomborg was not afforded the courtesy of being allowed to respond at
length. The key point is that “science” doesn’t NEED to “defend itself”
against ANYONE. The scientific method, practiced rigorously, will eventually
discount and discredit false views. If Bjorn Lomborg’s views were incorrect,
then neither Scientific American, nor any other publication, needed
to provide some exclusive platform for environmental activists to air their
views.
That, my friend, is exactly what has been lacking in mainstream news outlets
and, sadly, an enormous number of scientific publications–a sense of
skepticism and respect for practicing the scientific method rigorously.
What we can say rigorously about the influence of humanity on the Earth’s
climate is shaded by much uncertainty. That uncertainty is completely
ignored by a group of activists, both journalists and scientists. This blog
exists to put those uncertainties out out there in view, which is the way
science should be practiced.
Theo Goodwin says:
November 7, 2013 at 7:18 am
But Arrhenius’ work is limited to the laboratory and has never been confirmed in the atmosphere. Confirming it in the atmosphere requires solving the “Forcings and Feedbacks” puzzle. But solving that puzzle in a scientific way requires well confirmed physical hypotheses that describe the behavior of water vapor and clouds, among other things, in the atmosphere. No such well confirmed physical hypotheses exist. To the best of my knowledge, no climate scientist has proposed hypotheses and experiments which might lead to confirmation of such hypotheses.
Not quite true. There has been an attempt to verify the GHE. It was done over 14 years and found very little changed over that time.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2011JCLI4210.1?journalCode=clim
The global-warming alarmists need to shut up and find a new hobby or something. I do believe men contribute to destroying the Earth but by design via the wicked US government and other such powers but primarily the head of the beast America.
I would love to be wrong about this, but for 5 years now President Obama and his administration have proved to be extraordinarily resilient to changing their minds or adopting ideas that contradict their ideology even when the weight of evidence is against them. Same of course is true for the AGW lobby. Sort of a sticking of fingers into ears and shouting “la la la LA LA, I CAN’T HEAR YOU!” mentality. Well, if you can’t change their minds, thank heaven for living in a representative republic where we can try to beat them in the next election.
@ur momisugly Chris R. — Applause! Applause! Hear, hear. WELL said.
iow — You go, Mr. or Ms. R.!
(I just may come applaud you again a time or two in order to put this on the “Recent Posts” list…” — it should be read by all, trolls and Truth in Science types alike, to the former, enlightening (if that’s possible), to the latter, INSPIRING.)
GREAT POST AT 12:58pm TODAY (by Chris R.)
#(:))
********************
@ur momisugly Lauren R. (relation to Chris? ;)) — thankfully, the BIG DOPE et. al. are done in 2016 (lame dope until Jan. ?, 2017). We can’t stand him and he can’t stand for another election. So, there’s that. In the meantime….. we fight on!
Richard M – are you sure you have the correct link for your above assertion ? The paper was published in 2011, rather than 14 years ago . Or, perhaps I am missing something ?
Re: CodeTech on November 7, 2013 at 2:32 am
The whole AGW thing reminds me of the Pink Floyd song “Have a Cigar”…
Absolutely. What a wonderful analogy
Government as “production company” pushing the climate scientist “band” to give the public sheep “fans” what they want – regardless of the frivolity (at best) or damage (at worst) it imposes on society.
“Have A Cigar” – the official theme song of CAGW. “Shine On You Crazy Diamond” could be the theme song for Michael Mann. And with the lack of warming, the whole sorry lot better get on with building “The Wall”.
We have a LOT of conviction politicians in Illinois.
One prisoner to another: “The food was a lot better when you were governor.”
Message from site: “Couldn’t post” ????
The point is that some of us are pro-life
I am too. On a personal level. But I would not lift a finger against the industry. It is the left reducing their own future.
Never stop an enemy when he is making a mistake. – Napoleon B.
Patrick Moore is so right. The watermelons have infected the true environmental movement. If real environmentalists would realize how the warmist cause is detrimental to true environmental problems such as water and actual air pollution; how the Gore and Suzuki snake oil salesmen are using environmental good intentions to line their personal pockets; how the gov’t uses them to direct funds to their cronies and eventually back to themselves, true enviromentalists might start to expel the watermelons from their circles. They have to realize hydrocarbons, when well managed, are at this time the best way to a much cleaner, environment. The energy bang for the buck is unmatched with no substitutions on the horizon. (I’ll confess, I don’t know nuclear well enough to know if the excessive cost is due to over regulations or not). It makes me sad.
Environmentalists, not enviromentalists. Why do I notice the red, doted underline immediately after I hit the submit button?!?!?
May I point out for the umpteenth time that no one, including all Alarmists and Skeptics, is using Chaos Theory at this time?
Well the modelers admit to using it in practice: models are subject to the initial conditions problem. And the truncation problem.
Steve in Seattle says:
November 8, 2013 at 12:06 am
Richard M – are you sure you have the correct link for your above assertion ? The paper was published in 2011, rather than 14 years ago . Or, perhaps I am missing something ?
Steve, the study was done across a 14 year period (1997-2011). Sorry for the confusion.