whatever happened to global warming ?

[drobeski 3,061]

Good opinion piece
http://online.wsj.com/articles/matt-ridley-whatever-happened-to-global-warming-1409872855


Matt Ridley: Whatever Happened To Global Warming?

• Date: 05/09/14
• Matt Ridley, The Wall Street Journal

On Sept. 23 the United Nations will host a party for world leaders in New York to pledge urgent action against climate change. Yet leaders from China, India and Germany have already announced that they won’t attend the summit and others are likely to follow, leaving President Obama looking a bit lonely. Could it be that they no longer regard it as an urgent threat that some time later in this century the air may get a bit warmer?
In effect, this is all that’s left of the global-warming emergency the U.N. declared in its first report on the subject in 1990. The U.N. no longer claims that there will be dangerous or rapid climate change in the next two decades. Last September, between the second and final draft of its fifth assessment report, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change quietly downgraded the warming it expected in the 30 years following 1995, to about 0.5 degrees Celsius from 0.7 (or, in Fahrenheit, to about 0.9 degrees, from 1.3).
Even that is likely to be too high. The climate-research establishment has finally admitted openly what skeptic scientists have been saying for nearly a decade: Global warming has stopped since shortly before this century began.
First the climate-research establishment denied that a pause existed, noting that if there was a pause, it would invalidate their theories. Now they say there is a pause (or “hiatus”), but that it doesn’t after all invalidate their theories.

Alas, their explanations have made their predicament worse by implying that man-made climate change is so slow and tentative that it can be easily overwhelmed by natural variation in temperature—a possibility that they had previously all but ruled out.

When the climate scientist and geologist Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia wrote an article in 2006 saying that there had been no global warming since 1998 according to the most widely used measure of average global air temperatures, there was an outcry. A year later, when David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London made the same point, the environmentalist and journalist Mark Lynassaid in the New Statesman that Mr. Whitehouse was “wrong, completely wrong,” and was “deliberately, or otherwise, misleading the public.”

We know now that it was Mr. Lynas who was wrong. Two years before Mr. Whitehouse’s article, climate scientists were already admitting in emails among themselves that there had been no warming since the late 1990s. “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998,” wrote Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia in Britain in 2005. He went on: “Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

If the pause lasted 15 years, they conceded, then it would be so significant that it would invalidate the climate-change models upon which policy was being built. A report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) written in 2008 made this clear: “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more.”
Well, the pause has now lasted for 16, 19 or 26 years—depending on whether you choose the surface temperature record or one of two satellite records of the lower atmosphere. That’s according to a new statistical calculation by Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at the University of Guelph in Canada.
It has been roughly two decades since there was a trend in temperature significantly different from zero. The burst of warming that preceded the millennium lasted about 20 years and was preceded by 30 years of slight cooling after 1940.
This has taken me by surprise. I was among those who thought the pause was a blip. As a “lukewarmer,” I’ve long thought that man-made carbon-dioxide emissions will raise global temperatures, but that this effect will not be amplified much by feedbacks from extra water vapor and clouds, so the world will probably be only a bit more than one degree Celsius warmer in 2100 than today. By contrast, the assumption built into the average climate model is that water-vapor feedback will treble the effect of carbon dioxide.
But now I worry that I am exaggerating, rather than underplaying, the likely warming.
Most science journalists, who are strongly biased in favor of reporting alarming predictions, rather than neutral facts, chose to ignore the pause until very recently, when there were explanations available for it. Nearly 40 different excuses for the pause have been advanced, including Chinese economic growth that supposedly pushed cooling sulfate particles into the air, the removal of ozone-eating chemicals, an excess of volcanic emissions, and a slowdown in magnetic activity in the sun.
The favorite explanation earlier this year was that strong trade winds in the Pacific Ocean had been taking warmth from the air and sequestering it in the ocean. This was based on a few sketchy observations, suggesting a very tiny change in water temperature—a few hundredths of a degree—at depths of up to 200 meters.
Last month two scientists wrote in Science that they had instead found the explanation in natural fluctuations in currents in the Atlantic Ocean. For the last 30 years of the 20th century, Xianyao Chen and Ka-Kit Tung suggested, these currents had been boosting the warming by bringing heat to the surface, then for the past 15 years the currents had been counteracting it by taking heat down deep.
The warming in the last three decades of the 20th century, to quote the news release that accompanied their paper, “was roughly half due to global warming and half to the natural Atlantic Ocean cycle.” In other words, even the modest warming in the 1980s and 1990s—which never achieved the 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade necessary to satisfy the feedback-enhanced models that predict about three degrees of warming by the end of the century—had been exaggerated by natural causes. The man-made warming of the past 20 years has been so feeble that a shifting current in one ocean was enough to wipe it out altogether.
Putting the icing on the cake of good news, Xianyao Chen and Ka-Kit Tung think the Atlantic Ocean may continue to prevent any warming for the next two decades. So in their quest to explain the pause, scientists have made the future sound even less alarming than before. Let’s hope that the United Nations admits as much on day one of its coming jamboree and asks the delegates to pack up, go home and concentrate on more pressing global problems like war, terror, disease, poverty, habitat loss and the 1.3 billion people with no electricity.
Mr. Ridley is the author of “The Rational Optimist” (HarperCollins, 2010) and a member of the British House of Lords. He is a member of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council.
- See more at: http://www.thegwpf.com/matt-ridley-whatever-happened-to-global-warming/#sthash.0rO69Neh.dpuf

[Recliner Pilot 61]

It is now "Climate disruption"

[NorthernVike 2,080]

There was an article out last week that claimed the 'polar vortex' was casued by global warming.

[Baker Boy 1,485]

Despite Al Gore's prediction seven years ago that the polar ice cap would be completely melted by now, it is actually larger than it was in 2012, Mail Online reports.

 

"The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff," Gore said in 2007 when he was accepting the Nobel Peace Prize for his climate change efforts. "It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now."

 

But, the Mail reports, the ice cap has actually expanded by between 43 and 63 percent. An area the size of Alaska that was navigable water two years ago now is covered by ice.

 

http://www.Newsmax.com/SciTech/north-pole-ice-cap/2014/08/31/id/591899/#ixzz3CSKRVSAu

 

 

Unfortunately we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars to fight this manufactured hoax. Thousands of people are making millions of dollars off this while their lemming followers cheer them on.

[posty 2,296]

IBTL

 

@ Newsmax...

[edjr 5,563]

IBTL

 

@ Newsmax...

 

are they are trustworthy as the onion?

[Baker Boy 1,485]

IBTL @ Newsmax...

are they are trustworthy as the onion?

And the Lemmings rush to the defense of their Billionaire leader.

 

@ Newsmax being more credible than your leader Al Gore.

[BunnysBastatrds 1,914]

An inconvenient truth is that a lot of somewhat inteligent believed in this bullsh!t made up science. The earth is seven billion years old. We've recorded weather and it's patterns for two hundred. It makes you wonder the inteligence in some.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Whose leader is Al Gore now?

[BunnysBastatrds 1,914]

Whose leader is Al Gore now?

 

 

The almighty dollar.

[Mungwater 588]

Al Roker was explaining how there is a sharknado hitting manhattan, hope those folks are OK

 

I was a bit tipsy so I don't remember the details, but it was Al Roker

[IGotWorms 3,311]

Good thread.

[Artista 460]

It is now "Climate disruption"

Looks like you got disrupted. What name are you posting under now?

[drobeski 3,061]

An inconvenient truth is that a lot of somewhat inteligent believed in this bullsh!t made up science. The earth is seven billion years old. We've recorded weather and it's patterns for two hundred. It makes you wonder the inteligence in some.

the is based on computer models, not actual data

 

nuff said

[drobeski 3,061]

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/07/Global-warming-jumps-the-shark-the-week-in-Climate-Stupid

 

This was the week when global warming jumped the shark. Just like it did last week. And the one before...

1. Soon children will have forgotten what outdoors looks like, claims HuffPo

Doctors at a Washington, D.C. paediatric clinic are increasingly prescribing sunshine and outdoors - "nature time" - for their young clients, reports Lynne Peeples for HuffPo.

But the story isn't as heartwarming as you might think from the first paragraphs. That's because stalking this charming scene like a ravening, blood-crazed, razor-fanged death creature with a sinister cowl kind of like a wicked evil monk's probably concealing a grinning death's head face and an evil as old as time, is climate change.

Yes, Peeples has managed to find at least two eco campaigners so shameless and utterly desperate that they have been prepared to put their names to quotes suggesting that "climate change" is threatening to make outdoors a no-go zone.

"Nature is critical to health," says Martha Berger, a children's health officer with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Climate change, she added, could "further alienate kids from nature."

"One of the things contributing to [kids not getting enough play outdoors], along with many societal factors, is that some of the conditions are becoming more difficult to deal with," said Collin O'Mara, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation, during a media call last month for the group's report, "Ticked Off: America's Outdoor Experience and Climate Change."

2. Climate Change will kill your fluffy bunnies

Speaking on Australian national radio climate campaigner Naomi Oreskes warns ABC presenter Robyn Williams of the terrible future the world can expect as a result of climate change. Quoting from her new book The Collapse of Western Civilisation, she prophesies:

“The loss of pet cats and dogs garnered particular attention among wealthy Westerners, but what was anomalous in 2023 soon became the new normal. A shadow of ignorance and denial had fallen over people who considered themselves children of the Enlightenment.”…

Williams, himself an ardent warmist, chips in with some deep insights of his own:

“Yes, not only because it’s an animal but it’s local. You see, one criticism of the scientists is they’re always talking about global things…And so if you are looking at your village, your animals, your fields, your park, your kids, and the scientists are talking about a small world that you know, than it makes a greater impact, doesn’t it…”

Note to future historians trying to write the definitive book on The Decline And Fall Of Western Civilization:

Robyn Williams is one of Australia's most prominent broadcasters.

Naomi Oreskes is Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University, where she writes books, teaches impressionable undergraduates, and gets taken seriously.

3. Australian academic argues: only communist-style revolution or death can save us from climate change

Peter Burdon - currently visiting professor at UC Berkeley - admiringly quotes environmentalists who argue that the authoritarian Chinese model offers our best hope in combating climate change.

For example, in an interview about her new book The Collapse of Western Civilization, Naomi Oreskes argued: "If anyone will weather this storm it seems likely that it will be the Chinese."

In the book, Oreskes and co-author Erik Conway imagine a future world in which the predictions of the International Panel on Climate Change have come to pass.

With respect to China, the authors predict: China's ability to weather disastrous climate change vindicated the necessity of centralised government ... inspiring similar structures in other, reformulated nations.

Warming to his authoritarian theme, Burdon concludes:

However, the conditions of survival (let alone flourishing) require rational social planning that takes seriously the needs of the entire community.At this period of history, either one of two things is possible. Either the general population will take back control of its own destiny and concern itself with community interests, guided by values such as community, solidarity and concern for others (both human and non human) or alternatively, there will be no destiny for anyone to control.

4. John Kerry says U.S. has Biblically-endorsed responsibility to protect Muslims from Climate Change

No, really. Kerry actually said this. We reported this at Breitbart earlier in the week but you may well have thought it a joke because John Kerry is really quite a senior member of the Obama administration and you probably thought that when people achieve that high a level of public office they'd have speech writers and researchers and flak-catchers and spin-doctors to prevent them ever saying something so egregiously stupid.

5. Ex-Marxist student agitator turned Nobel-Prizewinning President of the Royal Society Sir Paul Nurse channels Krushchev. Disbelievers in man-made climate change, he says, should be "crushed and buried."

"Today we have those who like to mix science up with ideology and politics, where opinion, rhetoric and tradition hold more sway than adherence to evidence and adherence to logical argument."

This is what he tells the Guardian newspaper (H/T Bishop Hill), apparently unaware that the person in the world to which this criticism more than anyone applies is the geneticist turned environmental activist who is currently President of the Royal Society.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Looks like you got disrupted. What name are you posting under now?

 

Well...some Eagles guy is back...see how that works?

[gocolts 300]

 

Remember when they said man made global warming killed those banded snails???

 

Guess what was found alive and well today???

 

That's right, those banded snails that were supposedly extinct due to man made global warming.

[SUXBNME 1,328]

Drobeski ate it ?

[mobb_deep 917]

An inconvenient truth is that a lot of somewhat inteligent believed in this bullsh!t made up science. The earth is seven billion years old. We've recorded weather and it's patterns for two hundred. It makes you wonder the inteligence in some.

But nobody can deny that intelligent people can at the very least spell intelligent.

[Artista 460]

Being we are in the worst drought in the history of CA, I would have to say climate change is real! WTF? I've never seen it so bad in my 20+ years I've lived here!

[Saint Elistan 106]

What's it up to now? A 97% consensus?

 

Google news links for the past week, here.

[NorthernVike 2,080]

Being we are in the worst drought in the history of CA, I would have to say climate change is real! WTF? I've never seen it so bad in my 20+ years I've lived here!

Such a long focking history we have about that shitstain of a state. Dumb ass.

[drobeski 3,061]

What did the computer models say the temp would be today ?

Reality was mid 70s

 

 

Equal to religious freaks

[Artista 460]

Such a long focking history we have about that shitstain of a state. Dumb ass.

Who pissed in your corn flakes? At least you acknowledge your shittyness in your sig.

[SUXBNME 1,328]

I still stand by my 'drobeski ate it' reasoning.

[drobeski 3,061]

I still stand by my 'drobeski ate it' reasoning.

I blame carbon dioxide from disgusting cat litter boxes.

Probably to blame for your 15 year pause in getting laid too

[SUXBNME 1,328]

I blame carbon dioxide from disgusting cat litter boxes.

Probably to blame for your 15 year pause in getting laid too

1: I don't have any focking litter boxes. My kats sh1t outside as man intended them to do.

2: I didn't get laid for the first time until I as 19 or 20, but I guarandamntee you that I've made up for it in numbers a hell of of lot more than you have

How does it feel focking the same one over and over again? Aside from your mom, I wouldn't know

3: I own more expensive / cooler tools than you do.

[GobbleDog 816]

I still believe in global warming.

[SUXBNME 1,328]

Such a long focking history we have about that shitstain of a state. Dumb ass.

Believe it or not, our 'drought' is not nearly as bad as some would think. It's sure being used as such for political gains, tho

[SUXBNME 1,328]

I still believe in global warming.

You mean 'climate change', right?

 

Or do you believe in MMGW? Please elaborate.

[drobeski 3,061]

How's that warming treating Denver today ?

[NorthernVike 2,080]

It's 36 degrees out right now. I want my MTV....I mean my global warming!

[GobbleDog 816]

You mean 'climate change', right?

 

Or do you believe in MMGW? Please elaborate.

Yes, I believe the scientists who say "man-made global warming" is real and serious.

 

I don't believe Rush Limbaugh types who call it a hoax.

[crackattack 513]

Yes, I believe the scientists who say "man-made global warming" is real and serious.

 

I don't believe Rush Limbaugh types who call it a hoax.

This. If scientists come out and say they're wrong, then great. I'm not a mmgw freak, but I think something is going on. Why would many, many scientists lie purposely about it

[GobbleDog 816]

If scientists come out and say they're wrong, then great. :

Yeah, I'm fine with whatever they conclude. It's not a political issue for me, like it is with many conservatives. To them, it's personal (probably because they don't want to look foolish for being misled by Limbaugh types).

 

I'm no scientist, but many scholars I respect in the scientific community believe it, so I do too... People like Robert Krulwich, Bill Nye, Stephen Hawking, etc. along with all international scientific academies. That's good enough for me.

[posty 2,296]

[drobeski 3,061]

this article has nothing to do with rush linbaugh....fox news, rush limbaugh. Great arguments for useful idiots. I dont think I have ever seen rush linked here ?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

 

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

Comment Now

Follow Comments

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.

Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.

Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.

Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.

Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”

When Popular Technology asked physicist Nicola Scafetta whether Cook and his colleagues accurately classified one of his peer-reviewed papers as supporting the ‘consensus’ position, Scafetta similarly criticized the Skeptical Science classification.

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [united Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”

“What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. … They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006,” Scafetta added.

Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly objected to Cook and colleagues claiming he explicitly supported the ‘consensus’ position about human-induced global warming. Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, “Nope… it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).”

“I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper,” Shaviv added.

To manufacture their misleading asserted consensus, Cook and his colleagues also misclassified various papers as taking “no position” on human-caused global warming. When Cook and his colleagues determined a paper took no position on the issue, they simply pretended, for the purpose of their 97-percent claim, that the paper did not exist.

Morner, a sea level scientist, told Popular Technology that Cook classifying one of his papers as “no position” was “Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.”

Soon, an astrophysicist, similarly objected to Cook classifying his paper as “no position.”

 

“I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct,” said Soon.

“I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works,” Soon emphasized.

Viewing the Cook paper in the best possible light, Cook and colleagues can perhaps claim a small amount of wiggle room in their classifications because the explicit wording of the question they analyzed is simply whether humans have caused some global warming. By restricting the question to such a minimalist, largely irrelevant question in the global warming debate and then demanding an explicit, unsolicited refutation of the assertion in order to classify a paper as a ‘consensus’ contrarian, Cook and colleagues misleadingly induce people to believe 97 percent of publishing scientists believe in a global warming crisis when that is simply not the case.

Misleading the public about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish. This is a tried and true ruse perfected by global warming alarmists. Global warming alarmists use their own biased, subjective judgment to misclassify published papers according to criteria that is largely irrelevant to the central issues in the global warming debate. Then, by carefully parsing the language of their survey questions and their published results, the alarmists encourage the media and fellow global warming alarmists to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant surveys as conclusive evidence for the lie that nearly all scientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis.

These biased, misleading, and totally irrelevant “surveys” form the best “evidence” global warming alarmists can muster in the global warming debate. And this truly shows how embarrassingly feeble their alarmist theory really is

[OldMaid 1,838]

Other things Drobs doesn't believe in:

 

Washing his hands after going to the bathroom. He's not scared of germs. Scientists made up germs to sell more hand soap.

[drobeski 3,061]

Other things Drobs doesn't believe in:

 

Washing his hands after going to the bathroom. He's not scared of germs. Scientists made up germs to sell more hand soap.

link proof ?

[posty 2,296]

Other things Drobs doesn't believe in:

 

Washing his hands after going to the bathroom. He's not scared of germs. Scientists made up germs to sell more hand soap.

Maybe he knows how not to piss on his hands...