Global Warming Pause Will Impact UN Climate Agreement

cold earthThe global temperature standstill will make it easier for governments to delay any painful decisions and will allow for a toothless UN climate agreement in Paris, says Dr Benny Peiser

The planet is currently in the midst of a so-called warming pause, with satellite measurements showing that the surface temperature may not have risen for just over 18 years.

Despite this apparent hiatus in temperature rising, leaders from around the world are due to meet in Paris later this year for the United Nations Climate Summit.

The leaders are expected to reaffirm their target of keeping the global average temperature within 2°C of pre-industrial levels.

Speaking ahead of the UN climate conference, Dr Peiser, the director of the Global Warming Policy Forum – a think tank set up to challenge the policies envisaged by governments to mitigate global warming – described this target as reasonable although he suggested that it should remain flexible to reflect the unpredictability of climate change.

However, he also claimed that with our current rates of carbon dioxide (Co2) emissions, we could be nowhere near to reaching that critical level.

Dr Peiser explained: “The CO2 we emit into the atmosphere might actually have a lower warming effect than the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] high estimates suggest.

“A continuation of the global warming pause for the next 10 years could bring down the estimates for a doubling of CO2 to 1.5°C.

“That could mean that even if we double our Co2 emissions, we might not reach our 2°C target.

The IPCC’s estimates for the equilibrium climate sensitivity – the global average warming expected if Co2 concentrations were sustained at double their pre-industrial values – range from 1.5°C and 4.5°C, Dr Peiser explained.

Meanwhile, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) have shown no global warming at all for 220 months, from December 1996 to March 2014.

Other research shows that the average surface temperature of the Earth is only 0.8°C warmer than that recorded in 1900 – something which some experts suggest may be down to natural variability.

While since the 1950s, of which beforehand there were practically no global warming studies, the warming trend has been equivalent to below 1.2°C per century.

Dr Peiser suggested that the current 18-year temperature pause will be a relief to government figures when they attend the summit.

He said that the apparent temperature standstill will make it “easier for governments to delay any painful decisions” and will most likely allow for a “very toothless agreement” in relation to tackling climate change.

He said: “This pause will have no direct effect on the talks [in Paris] other than that the agreement that is now in the making will not be legally binding.

“I think the pause will allow the governments around the world to come to a very toothless agreement that essentially kicks the hard decisions into the long grass.”

He added: “Most leaders are quite aware that the global temperatures haven’t risen for several years.

“They might not know the nitty gritty but they are aware that the temperatures haven’t risen and it takes the pressure off their governments.

“They are aware that no one really knows how long this pause is going to last. No one is able to tell them why there is this pause in the first place and how long this will go on for.

“As long as we have this pause there will almost be a political pause in the international renovations. You could almost say this temperature pause will cause a policy pause.”

Dr Peiser further noted that the Paris summit will be full of pledges known as ‘Intended Nationally Determined Contributions’.

The crucial benefit of them, he said, is that they are not legally binding – meaning they can be revised or watered down as necessary.

These pledges will be reassessed every few years and as long as there is a pause, Dr Peiser predicts that policies will become less aggressive.

He explained: “These pledges are completely non-binding. They are just ‘this is what we plan to do’. It doesn’t bind any government to actually fulfil these pledges in the next 15 years.

“They will be reviewed and reassessed every five years or so and you can imagine that if we still have a pause in 2020, then obviously these pledges will be watered down even further.

“The longer the pause lasts, the less aggressive the policies will be.”

However, Piers Forster, a Professor of Physical Climate Change at the University of Leeds, has argued that the planet is actually NOT in a state of global warming hiatus.

He also suggested that while there is uncertainty, it is likely we will go over the crucial 2°C between 2040 and 2060.

He argued: “Firstly, global warming has not paused – 2014 was the warmest year on record, sea-ice is continuing to melt and sea-level rise.

“Secondly, the IPCC’s estimate of warming due to CO2 is based on sound physics but it has an uncertainty. This means it might be lower than our best estimates as Benny suggests, but it might also be higher.

“Thirdly, even if CO2 emissions remain as they are today, we will still go over the 2°C ‘target’. Uncertainty in our knowledge just means we can’t tell exactly when but it will likely occur between 2040 and 2060.

“The only way to prevent it is very large global reductions in CO2 emissions, alternatively our children will have to adapt to living with the consequences of a 2°C or even hotter world.”

Leaders from around the world will meet in Paris this December to achieve a universal and international agreement on climate for the first time in more than 20 years.

With the summit in sight, the United States officially pledged last month to reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions to 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.

At the same time, Russia pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25 to 30 per cent below 1990 levels by 2030, while the European Union agreed to reduce emissions to 40 per cent below 1990 levels by the same time.

Source

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (57)

  • Avatar

    DGSchroder

    |

    Piers Foster, claims to be a scientist, but can he read a graph? “2014 was the warmest year on record”. Look at the RSS graphs and 2014 is no different than any recent year, and 1998 and 2010 were much warmer.

  • Avatar

    Gus

    |

    It’s not a “pause,” it is the end. The end to “global warming,” to be followed by “global cooling.” It is a maximum.

    • Avatar

      Just Some Kid

      |

      But we can’t see the future, so we don’t know if it is a global or local maximum.

  • Avatar

    Dan Pangburn

    |

    Understand the existing data that no amount of spin can hide.

    This can:
    Prove Al Gore and the consensus are wrong.
    Prove AGW is a mistake.
    Prove the ‘war on coal’ is misguided.
    Prove CO2 has no significant effect on climate.
    Prove climate sensitivity (the increase in AGT due to doubling of CO2) is not significantly different from zero

    Right here. Right now.

    Only existing temperature and CO2 data are used. Fundamental understanding of math and its relation to the physical world are assumed.

    The CO2 level (or some math function thereof) has been suspected of being a forcing. The fundamental math is that temperature changes with the time-integral of a net forcing (not the instantaneous value of the net forcing itself). For example, a bloc of metal over a burner heats up slowly, responding to the time-integral of the net forcing (heat from the burner minus the heat loss from convection and radiation). Add a blanket over the block (a ‘step change’ to the loss) and the block temperature increases to a new steady state temperature but the temperature increases slowly (in response to the time-integral).

    Existing data includes temperature and CO2 determined from Vostok, Antarctica (or any other) ice cores for at least a full glacial or inter-glacial period. If CO2 is a forcing, the temperature should change as a transient following the start of CO2 level change instead of temperature and CO2 level going up and down in ‘lock step’ as has been determined from measurements and is widely reported.

    Existing temperature and CO2 (Berner, 2001) assessments for the entire Phanerozoic eon (about 542 million years) are graphed at http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

    Pick any two points separated in time that have the same average global temperature (AGT) anomaly. The cumulative forcing is the time-integral of the forcing (or a function thereof) times a scale factor. Because the AGT at the beginning and end of the time period are the same and the time-integral of the forcing is not zero, the scale factor must be zero. As a consequence, the effect of the forcing is zero.

    Granted that if the math function consists of an anomaly with respect to a ‘break-even’ CO2 level, a ‘break-even’ level could be determined to make the beginning and ending temperatures equal. Pick another time period with equal beginning and ending temperatures, but different from the first pick, and a different ‘break-even’ level might be calculated. Since the possibility of many different ‘break-even’ levels is ludicrous, the conclusion that CO2 has no significant effect on AGT prevails and something else is causing the temperature change.

    A somewhat different approach to the proof showing that CO2 has no significant effect on climate and also identification of the two main factors that do (95% correlation since before 1900) are disclosed at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com

    Identification of the two main factors that do cause climate change are also disclosed in a peer reviewed paper published in Energy and Environment, vol. 25, No. 8, 1455-1471

    • Avatar

      Just Some Kid

      |

      Something to note is the lag between CO2 and temperature, which data (ice cores, etc.) does suggest exists. Kinda like the connection between the stock exchange and the economy. If the stock market crashes, you can be sure that will affect the economy negatively, but not necessarily immediately.

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    The pause is precisely why Marxists are currently in a hyperdrive full-court press.

    [b]Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!!![/b]

    The clock is ticking to deliver the goods on this epic global scam.

    The data isn’t there…
    The models don’t work…
    Brave scientists are starting to speak up…
    People don’t see evidence of the predicted apocalypse…

    Expect [i]total[/i] left-wing insanity as this desperation reaches a fever pitch.

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    So some politicians and bureaucrats think they are going to be able to control the worlds temperature to within 2degree C by adjusting CO2 from humans .

    The vast majority of CO2 in the atmosphere comes from natural sources which the world leaders have zero control over and which have historically produced ,without human interference ,CO2 levels more than twice current levels .

    Let’s get this straight ,naturally occurring CO2 is fine because politicians have no chance to control or tax Mother
    Nature . However that small percentage of CO2 from humans now that is a different matter .

    How they have gotten away with this scam for so long can be explained in one word MONEY . $$Trillions .

    The way Obama is spouting pure fiction is it fair to say he is apprenticing to be Mini- Al as the torch gets handed off in a few years ?

    They sound a lot alike with the same interest in facts vs fiction .

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      [i]President Barack Obama is marking the 44th Earth Day with a carbon-emitting extravaganza, spending more than 15 hours on Air Force One and 15 minutes aboard the Marine One helicopter.

      Not including his motorcades in Oso, Washington, the site of a recent devastating mudslide, his trip will consume an estimated [b]35,565 gallons of fuel[/b].

      According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the statistics arm of the Department of Energy, burning each gallon emits 21.1 pounds of carbon dioxide, bringing the president’s Earth Day carbon footprint to more than 375.7 tons.[/i]

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2610431/Obama-burn-35-000-gallons-fuel-Earth-Day-emitting-375-TONS-carbon-dioxide.html#ixzz3Y5G4nOPO

      When I usd to commute to the ‘big city’ for work a couple of years ago, it was 80 miles round trip. Add in errands and I was averaging maybe 500 miles per week.

      Obama will burn more fuel today than I would in almost a year and a half, and again not including his motorcade.

      I guess he hasn’t heard about this thing called “TV”, or “Skype”. Maybe it hasn’t hit the papers yet.

      So much for practicing what you preach.

    • Avatar

      QB

      |

      The arrogance and unabashed audacity of these people is astounding . We are now in control of the earth’s climate by reducing by a tiny percentage a trace gas released into the atmosphere!
      Amazing.

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Susuki 5 kids multiple homes
    Al Gore mansions
    Obama …well you said it Gator

    They all shoot their mouths off about what other people should do yet if everyone adopted their Carbon Footprints the world would be in real trouble .

    They are preachy hypocrites looking to separate the gullible from their money .

    Global warming fear mongering has been the gift that keeps giving .

  • Avatar

    Brian Valentine

    |

    UN = cesspool,needs to be drained

  • Avatar

    riverp

    |

    I find it surprising to read that “no global warming at all for 220 months, from December 1996 to March 2014.” Where is this notion coming from? How can we ignore or simply negate that some of the hottest years on record have occurred since 2000 and that 2014 was the hottest year since global temperature record keeping began in 1880? The trend since 1880 is that temperatures of the globe have increased.

    • Avatar

      amirlach

      |

      The claim 2014 was the “hottest” year is not supported by the data.
      [img]https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-9-EqBi3gVAE/VC6pDRiNPUI/AAAAAAAArik/m1OBzYMXoaI/s800/monckton18years1month.png[/img]

      https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/09/uah-confirms-2014-was-not-hottest-year/

      We can look further back and see what temperatures were like.
      [img]http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png[/img]

      Might explain why we find the remains of forests and Viking farms under glaciers today.

      http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/quelcoro.htm

      http://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html

      http://climateaudit.org/2005/11/18/archaeological-finds-in-retreating-swiss-glacier/

      http://www.livescience.com/4702-melting-glacier-reveals-ancient-tree-stumps.html

      http://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/

      http://sciencenordic.com/vikings-grew-barley-greenland

      How can we ignore or simply negate that some of the hottest years on record have occurred long before man made Co2 was ever a factor?

      No wonder the Mannian Tree Ring cabal tried to “Get rid of the MWP”.

      • Avatar

        Gator

        |

        You forgot to mention the “adjustments”, and “confidence” levels. 😉

      • Avatar

        riverp

        |

        Your claim that the earth has experienced much higher temperatures in the past (even long before mankind and man-made CO2 existed) is valid, however, your data regarding “no global warming for 18 years 1 month” is not. It takes at least 30 years to determine a change in climate so to see the bigger picture, or trend, one must look back farther than 18 years which I see you have done with your second graph, however, I think you may have ignored the red portion of the trend line which actually illustrates the more recent increase in temperature:

        [url]http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/global/2014/ann/timeseries/land-ocean-combined.png[/url].

        The above figure (via http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-4) is the magnified portion of that red portion of the line where you can clearly see the recent change in temperature which is not to negate or ignore that some of the hottest years were before mankind but to show that the recent warming is due to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. The relationship between CO2 and temperature can be seen going back as far as 400 million years ago when temperatures where higher and CO2 was more abundant, which encouraged plant growth and as those plants absorbed the CO2, temperature began to fall and ice sheets began to form until the temperature warmed again and the cycle began over again. As CO2 increases, temperature increases, and as CO2 decreases temperature decreases because any kind of greenhouse gas will act as amplifiers.

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          [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 ‘ [b]no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried[/b].[/i]

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            Don’t you know those e-mails were taken out of context by now? I mean, really. Give us at least the full emails, or don’t bother posting that hype. (taken and filtered, mind you, by hackers)

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            I am supposed to take [i]you[/i] seriously? 😀

            I have tried for over a week to get you to debate, and instead this is what I get…

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-23 23:17
            I enjoy wasting your time. but that isn’t much of a loss, really. you’re on here more than I am.[/quote]

            And…

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-24 00:07
            I never denied being a troll, in fact I claimed that title before you brought it up.[/quote]

            Grow up child.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Not a “hack”, it was a leak.
            https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2010/12/17/why-climategate-was-not-a-computer-hack/ Not surprising our resident Just some Script Kiddie would try saying so. He is mentioned in the story!

            http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/02/manns-hockey-stick-climategate-and-foi-in-a-nutshell/

            http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/01/dirty-laundry/

            http://www.davidpratt.info/climategate.htm#c4

            I have no expectations Script Kiddie will actually read anything linked above. It’s really for the silent majority.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            “At every point during the run, they will never have used an IP address that can be traced back to them and they will never ever use any of those IP addresses again.”

            Sounds strangely familiar… :-*

          • Avatar

            riverp

            |

            I am not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean that the temperature increase needs to continue for another 15 years before we get worried and are inclined to do something about it?

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            That is not a quote from me. Phil Jones said that 6 years ago, and their has been no rise in over 18 years now.

            [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/clip_image002.png[/img]

            So Phil should be worried.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            The emails were damning enough, but the source code that went out with the emails is utterly devastating. “If you’re going to cheat on the computer side, you have to programme it explicitly to cheat, you can’t fudge it.” Take that out of context, don’t cha know! 😀
            [quote]Most commentary on Climategate discusses the emails. What’s commonly forgotten is that the zip file also contained program source code and a lot of it. Emails are written in plain English, programs are written in a programming language. The difference is that while the former can be ambiguous, the latter is totally unambiguous.Take my word for it or take the time to check out some of the analysis done, the code is ten times more damning then the emails. That’s why Unus added it to the payload. He’s comfortable reading computer code.[/quote]
            https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/profile-of-the-climategate-whistleblower/

        • Avatar

          amirlach

          |

          Have you subtracted the fake “adjustments” NOAA added to the record?
          [img]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif[/img]
          http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif

          Because the Raw Data in no way supports the AGW “hypothesis”.
          [quote]It would appear that the temperature rise profile claimed by the adjusted data is largely if not entirely an artefact arising from the adjustments applied (as shown in Figure 3), not from the experimental data record. In fact, the raw data does not in any way support the AGW theory. [/quote]
          http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/06/how-the-us-temperature-record-is-adjusted/

          • Avatar

            riverp

            |

            Even taking into account the adjustments that need to be made according to the urban heat island effect and other potential biases, the result is still the same. The differences are small and the trend still shows that global temperature is increasing. (Jones PD, & Wigley TML (2010) ‘Estimation of global temperature trends: What’s important and what isn’t.’ [i]Climatic Change[/i] 100, 59– 69.) Land temperature data shows that temperature has increased about 1 degree Celsius over the past 100 years. Sea-surface temperature data shows that the temperature has increased by 0.8 degrees Celsius over the past 100 years and atmospheric temperature data shows that the temperature has increased by 0.5 degrees Celsius over the past 30 years. The trend is clear. Furthermore, taking into account the factors that affect global temperature variations such as the sun’s milankovic cycles, other solar activities, and greenhouse gases the studies show that according to the milankovic cycles global temperatures should indicate cooling, but the opposite is happening, and other solar activities have actually shown to have little to no impact on the global temperature, leaving the evidence to point to greenhouse gases as the main driver of climate change which is indicated by the increased global temperature. Here is where CO2 comes into play, and the current rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 is 200 times faster than ever before. To say that fossil fuel burning is not the reason for the increase in CO2, what then is the reason?

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

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

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

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and [i]the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.[/i]

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            I smell another troll, Gator.

            They always bring out a barrage of so-called data and/or opinion to bolster their position while totally ignoring that there is no foundation for their position.

            There is no Greenhouse Effect as they so presume and no amount of obfuscation and lying will ever create one.

          • Avatar

            riverp

            |

            JayPee how can you say that there is no greenhouse effect? CO2 is a greenhouse that has kept our planet warm enough for life to sustain. Were it not for the other greenhouses like it, the planet would be 33 degrees Celsius cooler (about 90 degrees fahrenheit cooler). Which is why it is only logical that increasing the amount of these gases in the atmosphere will consequently increase the temperature.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            At 50km, the atmospheric pressure is about the same as Earth.At 50 km, the temperature is also about the same as Earth.

            At the same pressure, the temperature is similar- yet the atmospheric chemistry is very different.
            [img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/dunce-cap.jpg[/img]
            https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/venus-really-isnt-that-complicated/

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            No greenhouse effect because of 100% failure of proof by the alarmists. Every attempt to establish proof has failed. The absolute silence about even a single verifiable laboratory demonstration is the proof.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]They always bring out a barrage of so-called data and/or opinion…[/quote]

            What data? So far all we are getting are multi-trillion dollar Climate Change Industry talking points. But I agree, I smell a kid.

            Same BS as before.

          • Avatar

            riverp

            |

            Regardless of the order in which I listed the climate forcings my point remains valid. What is unusual about our climate today is the rate at which it is changing. You are referring to the entire geologic time period in which the planet has experienced various temperatures, but you are missing the point that these changes happened over thousands of years due to natural processes. The issue today is that the climate is changing at a rate that it never has before. Also, I would highly recommend you read the peer reviewed [i]book[/i] by Tony Eggleton titled [i]A Short Introduction to Climate Change[/i].

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote] What is unusual about our climate today is the rate at which it is changing. The issue today is that the climate is changing at a rate that it never has before. [/quote] Complete and utter nonsense!
            [quote]http://www.debate.org/photos/albums/1/2/1423/35583-1423-x9xs7-a.jpg[/quote]

            Besides! Warming stopped over 18 years ago, refuting all of the failed models and faked data. AGW is a failed hypothesis. :zzz

            Really, we have heard all of these pathetic and refuted alarmist talking points(lies) before. Blah Blah Blah Bla Blah… Boring!

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [img]http://www.debate.org/photos/albums/1/2/1423/35583-1423-x9xs7-a.jpg[/img] Clicked the Wrong button!

            The issue today is that the climate Model Predictions are FAILING at a rate that it never has before. AGW is being refuted at ever faster and more unusual ways.

            Almost as fast as the lame excuses and the nonsense spouted by acolytes to the “cause”.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            What is it with these “believers”?

            They come here with zero supporting evidence, and then refuse to accept documented facts and reason.

            Brain dead.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Another arrogant scheissmund. Harry the hammer, drewski, danny boy, just a schwantz. They’re all the same . And maybe, ONE AND THE SAME.

            Regardless, we’ve thru this before with these microcephalics. Do want you want with him.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]Regardless of the order in which I listed the climate forcings my point remains valid.[/quote]

            Just admit that you do not know. 😆

            You have nothing to validate your bogus claims. You are just spewing talking points you were given by those who have a financial interest in perpetuating this scam, and those who are fraudulently manipulating data into artifacts.

            So…

            #1- You [i]cannot[/i] list all climate forcings, [i]cannot [/i]order them from most to least effective, and [i]cannot[/i] then quantify them.

            #2- You [i]cannot[/i] provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            And lastly, you [i]cannot[/i] disprove the 4,500,000,000 year precedent.

            Impressive! 😆

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Jones and Wigley? Serial data “adjusters” 😀 None of your sources are credible. https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/?s=phil+jones

            Not the Sun eh?
            [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Sunspot_Numbers.png/350px-Sunspot_Numbers.png[/img]

            [img]http://www.sciencebits.com/files/pictures/climate/crcFig3.jpg[/img]

            The “data” does not show any warming until after it has been Mann-Handled.

            Here we see how the “data” was “adjusted”, leaving the “evidence” to point to greenhouse gases as the main driver of climate change which is indicated by the increased global temperature.
            [quote]Original quotes and a letter from astrophysicist Richard C. Willson (head of the ACRIM satellites):[/quote]”People who were in charge of satellites and created the original graphs (the world’s best astrophysicists: Doug Hoyt, Richard C.Willson) protested in vain against manipulation.

            Willson, “Fröhlich made changes that are incorrect and illegal … He did not have sufficient knowledge Nimbus7 nor has he done any custom calculations … PMOD composite is useful to those who argue that behind global warming may mainly anthropogenic causes.

            And from Douglas Hoyt (the famous inventor of GSN – Group Sunspot Number indicator) – who agrees with Willson. Klimaskeptic.cz:”The graph tampering done by Judith [Lean] and Claus [Frohlich}was scientifically unjustified. Hoyt must know that. The questionable changes were done to the data from the Nimbus 7 satellite, where he used to be in charge.”

            [img]http://blog.idnes.cz/blog/7317/144075/aa3.jpg[/img]

            Why is it that every claim the Branch Carbonian’s make, turns out to be based upon failed models, “data” that has been “adjusted” to fit said models and never on any actual empirical observations?

            The “studies” show? They cannot build a model that works based upon these false assumptions and fiddled “data”. 😀 Please link us to the failed models these “studies” call evidence. We really want to see how they “validated” them. 😀

            And what are the “adjustments” that need to be made according to the urban heat island effect and other potential biases, for in-filled stations?

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Come on amirlach! Everyone knows that you must adjust temp data upwards to counteract the UHI effect. 😮

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Oh Right! I Forgot…
            Here is the comparison of raw rural and urban data:
            [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/long_rural_urban_raw.png[/img]

            And here is the comparison of adjusted rural and urban data:
            [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/long_urban_rural_adjusted.png[/img]
            [quote]Dr. Long suggests that NCDC’s adjustments eradicated the difference between rural and urban environments, thus hiding urban heating. The consequence:[/quote] And they do it without blinking. :-*
            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/26/a-new-paper-comparing-ncdc-rural-and-urban-us-surface-temperature-data/

            But i’m sure riverp will give us a reasonable explanation why it is “nessisary” to “adjust” rural upwards to match the UHI contaminated urban… And why we cannot trust our lying eyes. 😀
            [img]http://www.urbanheatislands.com/_/rsrc/1272907297013/home/Boston_urban_area.png[/img]

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    My “confidence” level regarding these “adjustments” could be hiding with Trenberth’s Missing Heat… Very very low, in the deepest ocean.

  • Avatar

    Mervyn

    |

    Isn’t it time that those responsible for the climate models (which have all failed to correctly project future temperature trends) are held to account for their failures and incorrect assumptions and flawed modelling?

    • Avatar

      Sonic Resonance

      |

      That’s not quite how it works, and there’s nothing to be held accountable for. Edison, for example, failed nearly 2000 times to create the lightbulb. Should he have been made to apologize for those failures? They brought about the lightbulb, after all! I don’t see how this is any different.

      • Avatar

        Gator

        |

        Edison was not wasting billions of taxpayer dollars.

        Strawman much?

        • Avatar

          Sonic Resonance

          |

          Almost, but not quite a you all straw man.

          Since when do you get to decide if it’s wasting?

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            I am a taxpayer, it is my money too.

            And strawman arguments do not hold water.

          • Avatar

            Sonic Resonance

            |

            And I am also a taxpayer, and it is my money too. I think it is being spent… Towards a good cause.

            I don’t think I misrepresented anyone’s argument (straw man).

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Can you model something you do not understand?

            And yes, comparing a private venture that was successful, to a government funded failure is a strawman.

          • Avatar

            Sonic Resonance

            |

            The point is that it was a failure before it was successful

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Edison did not invent the lightbulb, it already existed, and he simply improved it. Again, without taxing the public.

            There has never been a successful goverment funded climate model. If you would like to fund failure, go for it, but quit advocating the picking of my pocket.

            Can you model something you do not understand?

          • Avatar

            Sonic Resonance

            |

            Taxing the public has nothing to do with it. Climate models exist but of course they need to be improved. It’s the same situation if you ask me. Edison used failure to get has success, and so he had much support. Perhaps there just isn’t a successful government funded climate model YET. (Not that I agree with you).

            Edison did not understand how to make a commercially viable lightbulb, so he used trial and error to make one.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Obvously taxes are what support this nonsense, and you cannot run from that fact.

            Can you model something you do not understand?

          • Avatar

            Sonic Resonance

            |

            I’m not running from taxes. They aren’t inherently evil.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

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

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

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

        • Avatar

          Sonic Resonance

          |

          Typical*

          Forgive my autocorrect.

      • Avatar

        amirlach

        |

        The Scientific Method states, that when your hypothesis fails. You should “adjust” your “theory” to match observations.

        Co2 alarmists have instead “adjusted” the data to fit these failed models.

        If they learned from their “failures” they would be making models that could skilfully predict climate.

        Others have made models that do a very good job of modeling climate. The working models say Co2 has almost no effect on climate, which is inconvenient to those who want to impose global socialism.

        This is and always has been the goal of the IPCC.
        [img]http://www.rugusavay.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Maurice-Strong-Quotes-1.jpg[/img]

        Mr. Oil for Food Scandal guy.
        [img]http://www.katewerk.com/temp/strong_chq.jpg[/img]

Comments are closed

No Trackbacks.