Anthropogenic global warming is a myth

chicken littleEveryone remembers reading about Chicken Little and how the little guy panicked when an acorn fell on his head. He had not had any experience with acorns — how they fall in the autumn — so he reached into his ignorance and warned the world that the sky was falling.

He flashed his warning to several other barnyard fowl, and though they had not felt any “sky” falling, they took alarm at the tone of Chicken Little’s warning, and sought shelter with him. Ready to give them shelter was the friendly fox, who had heard the commotion and lured all the feathered refugees into his den on the pretense of saving them from the disaster.

This centuries-old fable reflects human nature to conjure up scenarios of disaster when things look too good, no matter how improbable and no matter that they are devoid of any rational scientific inquiry.

The March 30 edition of the Athens Banner-Herald included a commentary from the Los Angeles Times written by self-described young voter John Cubelic of New York. Cubelic wrote that his vote in the next election will go only to the candidate who admits that human burning of hydrocarbon fuels is warming up the planet, that “climate change” — by which he means anthropogenic global warming — is already a fact. The author warns that the uncontrolled use of coal, oil and natural gas is provoking an apocalypse, and that the issue of how to control this impending calamity is the principal issue in the coming elections. Nowhere in his polemic does the author furnish one weather fact or engage in any kind of scientific analysis. He provides only the Chicken Little scream that “the sky is falling.”

Contrary to Cubelic’s emotional jumble, the issue of anthropogenic global warming has no basis in fact. It has become a superstition, and also a useful political device for draining money for “research” to “prove” it. It is encouraged not only by climate alarmists but also by those who want the government to control everything. It is belied by well-documented facts, and by tons of weather science.

Anthropogenic global warming is on a par with several other Chicken Little admonishments, not limited to weather, of the recent and more distant past. Those admonishments include the supposed danger of harmful radioactivity from nuclear electric power, the “peak oil” view that we’re running out of oil, and the view that Japan’s recent tsunami was a “nuclear” calamity.

Some simple facts emphasize the reality that anthropogenic global warming is no more than an acorn on Chicken Little’s head:

• Earth’s temperature has warmed and cooled over the millenia. In the last 150 years it has warmed 1 degree Celsius.

• Carbon dioxide, a trace gas absolutely essential for human and other life, is currently four one-hundredths of 1 percent of the atmosphere.

• There is no “trend” in the Earth’s temperature. Over the last 18 years, Earth’s average temperature has been flat constant.

• The most scientific studies of Earth’s temperature have shown that solar activity — variations of radiation due to sun spots — are the most likely cause of temperature variations over the millenia.

• More than 31,000 scientists in physics, chemistry and medicine have signed a petition stating that antropogenic global warming is a myth.

So let’s not be Chicken Littles, even though we might feel guilty for living such a good life. Let’s blame that on the free-market system that encourages human endeavors through scientific inquiry, and the incentives that reward an individual enterprise in a free constitutional system.

Richard Timberlake is a retired University of Georgia economics professor. His most recent book is titled “Constitutional Money: A Review of the Supreme Court’s Monetary Decisions.”

Source

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (31)

  • Avatar

    Alice Suszynski

    |

    Chickens are female.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      Chicken is gender neutral, ‘hens’ are female and ‘cocks’ or ‘roosters’ are male.

      [i]In the UK and Ireland adult male chickens over the age of one year are primarily known as cocks, whereas in America, Australia and Canada they are more commonly called roosters. Males less than a year old are cockerels.[8] Castrated roosters are called capons (surgical and chemical castration are now illegal in some parts of the world). Females over a year old are known as hens and younger females as pullets.[/i]

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Al Shelton

      |

      Alice S
      What is that supposed to imply??

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Alice Suszynski

        |

        nothing. I just wanted to alert the author. But I now see that I was wrong.

        It looks like Judith did a fine job yesterday. I wonder if it will make any difference.

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    In the real life, the fox is actually a wolf in sheep’s clothing…

    [img]http://www.americanthinker.com/legacy_assets/articles/assets/fabian_society.jpg[/img]

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Dan Pangburn

    |

    Proof has been hiding in plain sight that change to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) does not cause climate change. Only existing data and the relation between physics and math are needed or used.

    The proof and identification of the two factors that do cause climate change are at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Just Some Kid

      |

      Well, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, much like water, and they DO trap heat (a simple high school-level experiment can be done to show that), very well I might add. I very much doubt your source. Either way, even if all the evidence it supplies is accurate, it is far from proof.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        JayPee

        |

        Kid, your side has had more than forty years to come up with actual scientific proof of GHE. You’ve failed at every attempt, yet you want to declare it an eternal truth !

        Any idiot can probably correlate temperature variations or any other infatuation to even the GNP if necessary.

        So go look for scientific proof like a good little boy. You can come back when you have proof. I do not appreciate your lying.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Just Some Kid

          |

          First of all, scientific proof is impossible. science recognizes that nothing is ever set in stone and can be proven. Second, I really do wish that 40 years was all it took to “do science.” Where’s my flying car? its been more than forty years since they’ve been thought up, right?

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Occam’s Razor dictates that the simplest answer is usually the right answer. We have a 4,500,000,000 precednt for natural climate change on this planet, so the burden of proof falls to the Climate Change Industry to disprove that this latest change is not natural.

            So just two simple tasks…

            1- List [i]all[/i] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then [i]quantify[/i] them.

            2- Please provide [i]even one[/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            Take your time kid, you obviously have little background on the subject.

  • Avatar

    Just Some Kid

    |

    Oooo, let’s see here…

    18 years does not constitute a trend in the average global temperature. I imagine it’s like looking at a sine curve and saying the function is flat based on that first 2 degrees.

    The average global temperature changes gradually. the reason that 1 degree in 150 years is troublesome is that it is far steeper than anything it has done in the past two thousand years or more (probably 400,000 years but that’s hard to tell).

    That .04% of our atmosphere that is CO2… that is worrisome because that is higher than it has ever been (in the last 400,000 years). The only time there was more CO2 was before life existed anywhere outside the ocean–because it was too hot (go figure), and the UV radiation was not blocked by ozone in the atmosphere.

    Sun spots? You think that did ALL of it? Have there been any major changes in the sun in the last 150 years that didn’t happened before? Sounds very far-fetched.

    I can sign a petition that says this article is crazy. I can also get 30,999 people to do the same. So what?

    The author is by no means an expert in this field. An economics professor? In a science debate? I’d take the information in this article with a grain of salt; there is overwhelming bias from someone who knows as much about this topic as he does dentistry.

    To the reader: Go verify the information from a reliable source. this article contributes nothing to the debate on climate change.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      JayPee

      |

      Kid, how wonderful of you to say consensus means nothing. When’s your side going to stop that B.S.?

      Go find proof kid. A debate can start when your side submits it.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      How about straight from the horse’s mouth kid?

      According to the NOAA State of the Climate 2008 report, climate computer model simulations show that if observations find that the [b]globe has not warmed for periods of 15 years or more, the climate models predicting man-made warming from CO2 will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%: [/b]

      [i]“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. [b]The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more[/b], suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”[/i]

      http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

      Page 24, Middle column

      According to Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 [16 years, 3 months ago]. Ergo, [b]the climate models have already been falsified at the 95% confidence level[/b] and it’s time to revert to the null hypothesis that man made CO2 is not causing global warming.

      [i]He further admitted that [b]in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming,[/b] although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.[/i]

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

      We are now past 18 years and counting.

      Got anything else other than models?

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Just Some Kid

        |

        I think I saw you post this in a different article comment section. Once is enough; I saw it the first time. Anyway, so what if global warming is halted? where its halted, the icecaps are melting, and at this point, we can’t stop it anymore. That isn’t a victory for anyone.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          I think I have heard claims that man made CO2 is warming the planet. In fact I [i]know[/i] I have, for [i]decades[/i] now, so that should be enough. [i]Right[/i]? 😆

          Come back when you have something useful to say kid.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Or these guys…
            __________________
            [i]Dr. Hans von Storch – Spiegel – 20 June 2013
            “… the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero….If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models….”
            __________________
            Professor Masahiro Watanabe – Geophysical Research Letters – 28 June 2013
            “The weakening of k commonly found in GCMs seems to be an inevitable response of the climate system to global warming, suggesting the recovery from hiatus in coming decades.”
            __________________
            Met Office – July 2013
            “ The recent pause in global warming, part 3: What are the implications for projections of future warming?
            ………..
            Executive summary
            The recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century.”
            Source: metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/3/r/Paper3_Implications_for_projections.pdf
            __________________
            Professor Rowan Sutton – Independent – 22 July 2013
            “Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some people call it a pause. The global average surface temperature has not increased substantially over the last 10 to 15 years,”
            __________________
            Dr. Kevin Trenberth – NPR – 23 August 2013
            “ They probably can’t go on much for much longer than maybe 20 years, and what happens at the end of these hiatus periods, is suddenly there’s a big jump [in temperature] up to a whole new level and you never go back to that previous level again,”
            __________________
            Dr. Yu Kosaka et. al. – Nature – 28 August 2013
            “ Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling
            Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century…”
            __________________
            Professor Anastasios Tsonis – Daily Telegraph – 8 September 2013
            “We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.”
            __________________
            Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth – Nature News Feature – 15 January 2014
            “The 1997 to ’98 El Niño event was a trigger for the changes in the Pacific, and I think that’s very probably the beginning of the hiatus,” says Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist…
            __________________
            Dr. Gabriel Vecchi – Nature News Feature – 15 January 2014
            “A few years ago you saw the hiatus , but it could be dismissed because it was well within the noise,” says Gabriel Vecchi, a climate scientist…“Now it’s something to explain.”…..
            __________________
            Professor Matthew England – ABC Science – 10 February 2014
            “Even though there is this hiatus in this surface average temperature, we’re still getting record heat waves, we’re still getting harsh bush fires…..it shows we shouldn’t take any comfort from this plateau in global average temperatures.”
            __________________
            Dr. Jana Sillmann et al – IopScience – 18 June 2014
            Observed and simulated temperature extremes during the recent warming hiatus
            “This regional inconsistency between models and observations might be a key to understanding the recent hiatus in global mean temperature warming.”
            __________________
            Dr. Young-Heon Jo et al – American Meteorological Society – October 2014
            “…..Furthermore, the low-frequency variability in the SPG relates to the propagation of Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) variations from the deep-water formation region to mid-latitudes in the North Atlantic, which might have the implications for recent global surface warming hiatus.”
            __________________
            Dr. Hans Gleisner – Geophysical Research Letters – 2015
            Recent global warming hiatus dominated by low latitude temperature trends in surface and troposphere data
            Over the last 15 years, global mean surface temperatures exhibit only weak trends…..Omission of successively larger polar regions from the global-mean temperature calculations, in both tropospheric and surface data sets, shows that data gaps at high latitudes can not explain the observed differences between the hiatus and the pre-hiatus period….
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL062596/abstract%5B/i%5D

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Or these guys…

            [i]Shuai-Lei Yao et al – Theoretical and Applied Climatology – 9 January 2015
            The global warming hiatus—a natural product of interactions of a secular warming trend and a multi-decadal oscillation
            ….We provide compelling evidence that the global warming hiatus is a natural product of the interplays between a secular warming tendency…..
            http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-014-1358-x
            __________________
            H. Douville et al – 2015
            The recent global-warming hiatus: What is the role of Pacific variability?
            The observed global mean surface air temperature (GMST) has not risen over the last 15 years, spurring outbreaks of skepticism regarding the nature of global warming and challenging the upper-range transient response of the current-generation global climate models….
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL062775/abstract
            __________________
            Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth 11 July 2014
            Seasonal aspects of the recent pause in surface warming
            Factors involved in the recent pause in the rise of global mean temperatures are examined seasonally. For 1999 to 2012, the hiatus in surface warming is mainly evident in the central and eastern Pacific…….atmospheric circulation anomalies observed globally during the hiatus.
            http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n10/full/nclimate2341.html%5B/i%5D

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            No one ever said by how much. CO2 is “only” .04% of the atmosphere. That probably means that there will be a steady, but small, temperature increase for a LONG time to come. (Even if it’s being counterbalanced by other factors now)

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [img]http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif[/img]

            No worries kid, it has been much higher, and no tipping point.

            Come back when you have something worth telling us kid.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            This graph is faulty, at least in the Cambrian era. The average global temperature likely exceeded 120 degrees F. If it is wrong there, it is safe to assume that it is faulty elsewhere too. Disregard it completely.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            You cannot be serious. 😆

            The most ignorant party on this site is questioning a peer reviewed chart?

            Prove the chart wrong with a peer reviewed paper, or shut your mouth child.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            Sorry, but I can’t take your word for it that it is peer reviewed. Can you give me a link to show it?

            I doubt it’s validity because it seems too convenient that the earth stayed at 25C for most of the last 600 million years.

            Just remember, being able to cite your sources does not mean you’ve been peer reviewed.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            I will provide you with any information you want, just as soon as you answer my questions. I am through with your childish tantrums. You have provided nothing of value here and wasted my time child.

            1- List [i]all[/i] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then [i]quantify[/i] them.

            2- Please provide [i]even one[/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            You have nothing. Zip. Zero.

            Move on.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]Sorry, but I can’t take your word for it that it is peer reviewed. Can you give me a link to show it?[/quote]

            At the bottom of the Graph it details the PEER REVIEWED Paper the graph is sourced from.

            R. A. Bemer 2001.

            [quote]Just remember, being able to cite your sources does not mean you’ve been peer reviewed.[/quote]

            Tell that to these guys… 😀

            Assigned Readings

            Veizer, J., Y. Godderis, and L. M. Francois. “Evidence for Decoupling of Atmospheric CO2 and Global Climate during the Phanerozoic Eon.” Nature 408 (2000): 698-701.
            Questions CO2-climate link b/c Phanerozoic tropical SST record doesn’t agree with simple energy balance model results driven by paleo-CO2 proxy data.

            Kump, L. R. “What Drives Climate?” Nature 408 (2000): 651-652.
            Skeptical of Veizer results; questions SST proxy record and paleo-CO2 proxy record.

            Rothman, D. H. “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels for the Last 500 million Years.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99, no. 7 (2002): 4167-4171.

            Berner, R. A. “The Rise of Plants and their Effect on Weathering and Atmospheric CO2.” Science 276 (1997): 544-547.
            Suggests evolution of rooted vascular plants caused Devonian (~400 Ma) CO2 draw down by enhancing chemical weathering rates. Supports CO2-climate link through Phanerozoic. Exception is Late Ordovician glaciation, explained by “unique paleogeographic circumstances.”

            Royer, D. L., R. A. Bemer, and D. J. Beerling. “Phanerozoic Atmospheric CO2 Change: Evaluating Geocheimcal and Paleobiological Approaches.” Earth-Science Reviews 54 (2001): 349-392.
            Excellent review of paleo-CO2 proxies.

            Crowley, T. J. “Carbon Dioxide and Phanerozoic Climate.” In Warm Climates in Earth History. Edited by B. T. Huber, K. G. MacLeod, and S. L. Wing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000, pp. 425-444.

            Recommended Readings

            Retallack, G. J. “A 300-million-year Record of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide from Fossil Plant Cuticles.” Nature 411 (2001): 287-290.
            Stomatal indices on fossil leaves during last 300 Myr indicate that the only two periods of low CO2 were associated with known ice ages, in support of the CO2-climate link.

            Royer, D. L., S. L. Wing, D. J. Beerling, D. W. Jolley, P. L. Koch, L. J. Hickey, and R. A. Berner. “Paleobotanical Evidence for Near Present-day Levels of Atmospheric CO2 during Part of the Tertiary.” Science 292 (2001): 2310-2313.
            Leaf stomatal indices through “known” warm intervals (Miocene 15-17 Ma, and Paleocene/Eocene boundary (53-59 Ma) indicate low CO2, refuting CO2-climate link.

            Tarner, L. H., J. F. Hubert, B. P. Coffey, and D. P. McInerney. “Stability of Atmospheric CO2 Levels across the Triassic/Jurassic Boundary.” Nature 411 (2001): 675-677.
            Paleosol δ13C data across Triassic/Jurassic boundary (208 Ma) suggests only small CO2 increase associated w/ that mass extinction. Argue therefore that deposition of larger flood basalts at that time (volcanic events) did not cause high CO2 and runaway greenhouse, as previously hypothesized.

            Pagani, M., M. A. Arthur, and K. H. Freeman. “Miocene Evolution of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.” Paleoceanography 14 (1999): 273-292.
            Phytoplankton δ13C indicates low CO2 through Miocene warm interval (~14-18 Ma) and no sharp drop associated with the expansion of the East Antarctic Sheet, refuting strong CO2-climate link.

            Berner, R. A. “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels over Phanerozoic Time.” Science 249 (1990): 1382-1386.
            ———. “Paleo-CO2 and Climate.” Nature 358, no. 6382 (1992): 114.
            Freeman, K. H., and J. M. Hayes. “Fractionation of Carbon Isotopes by Ancient Phytoplankton and Estimates of Ancient CO2 Levels.” Glob Biogeochem Cycles 6, no. 2 (1992): 185-198.

            Hayes, J. M., H. Strauss, and A. J. Kaufman. “The Abundance of 13C in Marine Organic Matter and Isotopic Fractionation in the Global Biogeochemical Cycle of Carbon during the Past 800 Ma.” Chem Geol 161 (1999): 103-125.

            Popp, B. N., R. Takigiku, J. M. Hayes, J. W. Louda, and E. W. Baker. ” The Post-Paleozoic Chronology and Mechanisms of 13C Depletion in Primary Marine Organic Matter.” Am J Sci 289 (1989): 436-454.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote][b]Not a lot is known about the global climate during the Cambrian period[/b], but the unusually high atmospheric carbon dioxide levels (about 15 times those of the present day) [b]imply[/b] that the average temperature [b]may have[/b] exceeded 120 degrees Fahrenheit.[/quote]

            http://blogs.nobl.k12.in.us/hurstes/category/geotime/paleozoic-era/cambrian/

            Gee, do you think they used those same failed models to “[i]imply[/i]” that temperatures were higher? 😆

            Kid, I have been studying the Earth’s climate for nearly 40 years. I started right after the ice age scare of the 1970’s, and graduated before the great global warming swindle.

            If you want to learn, which I doubt, then listen more and comment less.

            Prove me wrong.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Kid

            It is laughably you who are faulty.Keep talking, I’ll laughg.

          • Avatar

            Steve

            |

            DO NOT LOOK AT THE MAN BEHIND THE CUTAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          [quote]where its halted[/quote]

          Ask these guys…

          [i]Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
          “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”
          Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
          ‘Bottom line: the ‘ no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
          __________________
          Dr. Judith L. Lean – Geophysical Research Letters – 15 Aug 2009
          “… This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming…”
          __________________
          Dr. Kevin Trenberth – CRU emails – 12 Oct. 2009
          “Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming…..The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
          __________________
          Dr. Mojib Latif – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
          “At present, however, the warming is taking a break,”…….”There can be no argument about that,”
          __________________
          Dr. Jochem Marotzke – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
          “It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community,”….” We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.”
          __________________
          Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
          “I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I’d say so. But it hasn’t until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.”
          __________________
          Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
          [Q] B – “ Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”
          [A] “ Yes, but only just”.
          __________________
          Prof. Shaowu Wang et al – Advances in Climate Change Research – 2010
          “…The decade of 1999-2008 is still the warmest of the last 30 years, though the global temperature increment is near zero;…”
          __________________
          Dr. B. G. Hunt – Climate Dynamics – February 2011
          “Controversy continues to prevail concerning the reality of anthropogenically-induced climatic warming. One of the principal issues is the cause of the hiatus in the current global warming trend.”
          __________________
          Dr. Robert K. Kaufmann – PNAS – 2nd June 2011
          “…..it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008…..”
          __________________
          Dr. Gerald A. Meehl – Nature Climate Change – 18th September 2011
          “There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend1 (a hiatus period)….”
          __________________
          Met Office Blog – Dave Britton (10:48:21) – 14 October 2012
          “We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century. As stated in our response, this is 0.05 degrees Celsius since 1997 equivalent to 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.”
          Source: metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012
          __________________
          Dr. James Hansen – NASA GISS – 15 January 2013
          “The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.”
          __________________
          Dr Doug Smith – Met Office – 18 January 2013
          “The exact causes of the temperature standstill are not yet understood,” says climate researcher Doug Smith from the Met Office.
          [Translated by Philipp Mueller from Spiegel Online]

          Dr. Virginie Guemas – Nature Climate Change – 7 April 2013
          “…Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period…”
          __________________
          Dr. Judith Curry – House of Representatives Subcommittee on Environment – 25 April 2013
          ” If the climate shifts hypothesis is correct, then the current flat trend in global surface temperatures may continue for another decade or two,…” [/i]
          __________________

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            So, now that we have established the pause. What else do you want to know kid?

  • Avatar

    Dan Pangburn

    |

    If CO2 is a forcing, its effect on average global temperature must be a scale factor times the time-integral of some math function of CO2. . The only way that this consistently works during previous glaciations and interglacial periods (as so dramatically displayed in An Inconvenient Truth) and/or during the entire Phanerozoic eon (about 542 million years, graphed at http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html ) is for the scale factor to be zero.

    This means that CO2 (which includes the CO2 from burning of fossil fuels) has not had, cannot have and will never have a significant effect on climate.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    All of us face it.
    Kid is just another incarnation
    of the collective idiots

    Davey wavy Appell
    Drewski On-gee-ess-key
    Harry duh Hammer
    and Danny boy as well

    They are all the same
    they all sound alike
    no doubt look alike ( hardly desirable )
    and even smell alike

    Remember the 60’s and early 70’s
    when that was smellingly fashionable ?

    It’s them again with their pretended intellectuality

    And just as PHONY

    Reply

Leave a comment

No Trackbacks.