Cloudy
61°
Cloudy
Hi 62° | Lo 41°

Climate report: Heating of Earth’s surface has slowed in the past 15 years

  • FILE - In this Tuesday Aug, 16, 2005 file photo an iceberg melts in Kulusuk, Greenland near the arctic circle. Scientists who are fine-tuning a landmark U.N. report on climate change are struggling to explain why global warming appears to have slowed down in the past 15 years even as greenhouse gas emissions keep rising. Leaked documents show there is widespread disagreement among governments over how to address the contentious issue in Sept. 23-26 stock-taking report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (AP Photo/John McConnico, File)

    FILE - In this Tuesday Aug, 16, 2005 file photo an iceberg melts in Kulusuk, Greenland near the arctic circle. Scientists who are fine-tuning a landmark U.N. report on climate change are struggling to explain why global warming appears to have slowed down in the past 15 years even as greenhouse gas emissions keep rising. Leaked documents show there is widespread disagreement among governments over how to address the contentious issue in Sept. 23-26 stock-taking report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (AP Photo/John McConnico, File)

  • FILE - In this July 19, 2007 file photo an iceberg melts off Ammassalik Island in Eastern Greenland. Scientists who are fine-tuning a landmark U.N. report on climate change are struggling to explain why global warming appears to have slowed down in the past 15 years even as greenhouse gas emissions keep rising. Leaked documents show there is widespread disagreement among governments over how to address the contentious issue in Sept. 23-26 stock-taking report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (AP Photo/John McConnico, File)

    FILE - In this July 19, 2007 file photo an iceberg melts off Ammassalik Island in Eastern Greenland. Scientists who are fine-tuning a landmark U.N. report on climate change are struggling to explain why global warming appears to have slowed down in the past 15 years even as greenhouse gas emissions keep rising. Leaked documents show there is widespread disagreement among governments over how to address the contentious issue in Sept. 23-26 stock-taking report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (AP Photo/John McConnico, File)

  • FILE - In this July 19, 2007 file photo, an iceberg melts off the coast of Ammasalik, Greenland. Scientists who are fine-tuning a landmark U.N. report on climate change are struggling to explain why global warming appears to have slowed down in the past 15 years even as greenhouse gas emissions keep rising. Leaked documents show there is widespread disagreement among governments over how to address the contentious issue in the Sept. 23-26 stock-taking report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (AP Photo/John McConnico, File)

    FILE - In this July 19, 2007 file photo, an iceberg melts off the coast of Ammasalik, Greenland. Scientists who are fine-tuning a landmark U.N. report on climate change are struggling to explain why global warming appears to have slowed down in the past 15 years even as greenhouse gas emissions keep rising. Leaked documents show there is widespread disagreement among governments over how to address the contentious issue in the Sept. 23-26 stock-taking report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (AP Photo/John McConnico, File)

  • FILE - In this Tuesday Aug, 16, 2005 file photo an iceberg melts in Kulusuk, Greenland near the arctic circle. Scientists who are fine-tuning a landmark U.N. report on climate change are struggling to explain why global warming appears to have slowed down in the past 15 years even as greenhouse gas emissions keep rising. Leaked documents show there is widespread disagreement among governments over how to address the contentious issue in Sept. 23-26 stock-taking report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (AP Photo/John McConnico, File)
  • FILE - In this July 19, 2007 file photo an iceberg melts off Ammassalik Island in Eastern Greenland. Scientists who are fine-tuning a landmark U.N. report on climate change are struggling to explain why global warming appears to have slowed down in the past 15 years even as greenhouse gas emissions keep rising. Leaked documents show there is widespread disagreement among governments over how to address the contentious issue in Sept. 23-26 stock-taking report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (AP Photo/John McConnico, File)
  • FILE - In this July 19, 2007 file photo, an iceberg melts off the coast of Ammasalik, Greenland. Scientists who are fine-tuning a landmark U.N. report on climate change are struggling to explain why global warming appears to have slowed down in the past 15 years even as greenhouse gas emissions keep rising. Leaked documents show there is widespread disagreement among governments over how to address the contentious issue in the Sept. 23-26 stock-taking report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (AP Photo/John McConnico, File)

Scientists working on a landmark U.N. report on climate change are struggling over how to address a wrinkle in the meteorological data that has given ammunition to global warming skeptics: The heating of Earth’s surface appears to have slowed in the past 15 years even though greenhouse gas emissions keep rising.

For years, skeptics have touted what looks like a slowdown in surface warming since 1998 to cast doubt on the scientific consensus that humans are cooking the planet by burning coal, oil and natural gas.

Scientists and statisticians have dismissed the purported slowdown as a statistical mirage, arguing among other things that it reflects random climate fluctuations and an unusually hot year picked as the starting point for charting temperatures. They also said the data suggests the “missing” heat is simply settling – temporarily – in the ocean.

But as scientists study the issue, the notion of a slowdown has gained more mainstream attention, putting pressure on the authors of the new U.N. report to deal with it.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report is expected to assert that global warming is continuing. It is also expected to affirm with greater certainty than ever before the link between global warming and human activity.

Leaked documents obtained by the Associated Press show there are deep concerns among governments over how to address the purported slowdown ahead of next week’s meeting of the IPCC.

“I think to not address it would be a problem because then you basically have the denialists saying, ‘Look, the IPCC is silent on this issue,’ ” said Alden Meyer of the Washington-based advocacy group Union of Concerned Scientists.

In a leaked June draft of the report’s summary for policymakers, the IPCC said that while the rate of warming between 1998 and 2012 was about half the average rate since 1951, the globe is still heating up. As for the apparent slowdown, it cited natural variability in the climate system, as well as cooling effects from volcanic eruptions and a downward phase in solar activity.

But in comments to the IPCC obtained by the AP, several governments that reviewed the draft objected to how the issue was tackled.

Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted, saying a time span of 10 to 15 years was misleading in the context of climate change, which is measured over decades and centuries.

The U.S. also urged the authors to include the “leading hypothesis” that the reduction in warming is linked to more heat being transferred to the deep ocean.

Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for any statistics. That year was exceptionally warm, so any graph showing global temperatures starting with 1998 looks flat. Using 1999 or 2000 as a starting year would yield a more upward-pointing curve. In fact, every year after 2000 has been warmer than the year 2000.

Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for skeptics.

Many skeptics claim that the rise in global average temperatures stopped in the late 1990s, and their argument has gained momentum among some media and politicians, even though the scientific evidence of climate change is piling up: The previous decade was the warmest on record and, so far, this decade is even warmer, albeit slightly. Meanwhile, Arctic sea ice shrank to a record low last year, and the IPCC draft said sea levels have risen by 7.5 inches since 1901.

Many researchers said the slowdown in warming is related to the natural ocean warming and cooling cycles known as El Nino and La Nina. Also, a 2013 study by Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research found dramatic recent warming in the deeper oceans, between 2,300 and 6,500 feet.

“The heat is not missing,” said University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver, who is also a Green Party member of the British Columbia parliament. “The heat is there. The heat is in the ocean.”

The idea is that the energy trapped by carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases has to go somewhere on Earth, said Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer. But that heat energy will eventually make its way to the ocean surface and the air, putting surface warming back on the increasing track, he said.

“Energy will hide out in the ocean for a while before it pops out into the atmosphere,” Oppenheimer said.

For scientists studying the last 10 years, what’s been happening “is a cool question,” said U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist Gabriel Vecchi. But “anybody who tries to use the past 10 years to argue about the reality of global warming – which is based upon century-scale data – is just being distracting.”

Jonathan Lynn, a spokesman for the IPCC, declined to comment on the content of the report because it hasn’t been made final, but said it would provide “a comprehensive picture of all the science relevant to climate change.”

The IPCC draft report says it is “extremely likely” that human influence caused more than half of the warming observed since the 1950s, an upgrade from “very likely” in the last IPCC report in 2007.

A final version will be presented at the end of the panel’s meeting in Stockholm next week.

The IPCC’s conclusions are important because they serve as the scientific basis for U.N. negotiations on curbing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. A global climate treaty is supposed to be adopted in 2015.

as usual when this topic come up the globul warming alarmists come out to play a game of Whack-a-Mole. Even a low information democrat votes knows the gig is up on globul warming

Wonder then why the glaciers keep melting? The Columbia Glacier in Alaska has lost two miles of ice in six years. There is a before and after picture in this month's National Geographic. Just wondering..

Great question tillie. I really can't answer that but perhaps one of the armchair quarterbacks here who post things as if they are climatologists or Phd's could answer that question for you. I am sure that they have read some tainted propaganda somewhere along the line that explains it. Professors? What say you?

You're perfectly capable of finding the scientific answer to that question on your own--curious minds need to know. Or you could continue to settle for being told what to think by the deniosphere.

globul warming alarmists have now been PROVEN wrong by the FACT that the globe has not warmed in almost 2 decades.....talk about denial - the globul warming alarmists are swimming in it

Here is what we do know. The climate is changing, no one disagrees with that, climate is always changing. The problem with the global warming issue is the the Left wants to point fingers to the evil of man and man needs to be regulated. Now, progressives use global warming to push for more control over their fellow man. They use it to reduce human mobility, support their call for population control (aka more abortions, less births), to rail against oil companies and push for energy alternatives that just can't replace oil, etc. Every argument supporting the notion that global warming is man caused calls for restriction on citizens and how we all have to lower our lifestyle for the better good. That is the issue that most of us have. Global warming fanatics are preachy, single minded in their militant march towards restriction, minimal existence and punishing the citizens of this country as if we have caused so much of what they consider global warming. So long as the zealots keep that up, common sense Americans will pull away and not support the climate change movement.

You seem to be having trouble separating the science from the most draconian public policy recommendations. There is no "argument" on the "'notion' that global warming is man caused". What follows from this single fact are many policy recommendation--some of which may be draconian. What is certain though, is the longer we delay addressing the issue, the fewer good choices our children and grandchildren will have going forward.

“The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degrees Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me . . . that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this “warming’ period.’’ Climate skeptics don’t ‘deny science’. FACTS: All greenhouse gases worldwide make up 2 percent of the atmosphere. Only 3.6 percent of that 2 percent is carbon dioxide. Only 3.4 percent of that 3.6 percent is man-made. FACT : 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity

I think your cut and paste numbers (source?) go astray after a bit. Your first few numbers are reasonable, but this: "only 3.4 percent of that 3.6 percent is man-made" understates the amount of man-made CO2--it's more like 40% (400ppm-285ppm =115 /285 = 40%). That would put your final number (0.117%) off by a factor of ten. Looked at another way: if we ask how much of the current warming is due to CO2, the accepted estimate is that about half of the current warming (1.4 F since mid-19th century) is due to CO2. Half of 1.4 is .7. Dividing .7 by 59 (total greenhouse warming) gives .0118, which rounds to 1.2%--very close to your final figure of 0.117%, except 10x higher. Which again is close to what I got fixing your numbers. So instead of a fraction of a % of the greenhouse effect being due to human activity, if my math and estimates are right, then roughly 1% of the total "greenhouse effect" is due to the CO2 we've added. These numbers may overestimate a bit, but I think they're more accurate that your source's claim. Again, it would be nice of you to post your source.

""Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for any statistics. That year was exceptionally warm, so any graph showing global temperatures starting with 1998 looks flat. Using 1999 or 2000 as a starting year would yield a more upward-pointing curve. In fact, every year after 2000 has been warmer than the year 2000."" Appears they have created the "wrinkle". Any scientific reason they picked 1998 vs say 1900 or did that date get the result they wanted.

try 1936...

Correct Jim, figures don't lie but liars sure do figure. They cherry picked statistics as progressives know that this is really not about climate change, it is about ways that they can shape and change society and control human behavior.

As usual, you've got it exactly backwards--the deniers are the ones who rely on cherry-picking data to make their case. Depending on the years one chooses for surface temperature start and stop dates, you can make the slope of your graph go up, down, or stay nearly flat. That's exactly what the deniers do to make their case.You can play with the data yourself at this site: www.woodfortrees.org . Even using surface temps is cherry-picking in a way--the year to year variability can be used in just the misleading manner the deniers choose. And it isn't limited to surface temps., GWTW below cherry-picked when posting that Arctic ice extent is 60% greater than last year. Left unsaid in her post is that 2012 was a record low for ice extent. So the fact that 2013 ice extent was greater than 2012 shouldn't be surprising, but also shouldn't be used to claim that Arctic ice is increasing, when it's not. The 30 year trend is clearly downward. Looking at the totality of evidence--warming in the atmosphere, on land, in the oceans, plus the detrimental environmental effects of the warming nearly everywhere, makes it very hard to deny that climate change is happening.

Thank you professor. Where did you earn your Phd. in climate science. Was is Think Progress, Union of Concerned Scientists (sort of scientists), MoveOn.org or MSNBC?

also important is "where" the 60% increase formed. Right?

Reply to GWTW below: That 60% increase in arctic ice extent over 2012 was enough to boost 2013 all the way to 6th LOWEST summer ice extent measured during the last 3 decades. No amount of weaseling alters that fact. Reply to Itsa below: You too could post accurate, and factual information on climate change--almost anyone with a sincere interest and an open mind could, and in the process help promote genuine discussion and honest dialog. The question people should be asking of the deniers is why they feel compelled to repeatedly distort the facts on this issue. The issue isn't going away, and it's one the next generation, and the one after that, will also deal with. Future generations will find our failure to begin to address the issue puzzling.

globul warming alarmists knew long ago that the warming had stopped so they published that no data was statistically significant unless 15 years had passed - hence the date. Dr. Pachauri HEAD of the IPCC was constrained to admit some months ago. There has been no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero for getting on for two decades.

Here you go again. You can't keep the story straight--or rather the deniosphere can't. Sometimes, they claim the warming has stopped--as your post here does. Down below, your cut-and-paste post says the current ocean warming is insignificant, since the oceans have such a great capacity to absorb heat. Which is it? Make up your mind--it can't be both. Either we're warming, or we're not. Or maybe...you really don't know what you're talking about.

0.06 degrees deep ocean warming ....we are all quaking in our boots -

Yes, the usual suspects here can't explain why the predictive models showing a dramatic raise in CO2 gases will result in dramatic rises in global heating. Then you plug in the actual rise in CO2 gases and you get very little or no changes in global temperature. Perhaps when those models are funded by people who wanted that expected result but the actual result is something totally different than perhaps the thinking person will put 2 and 2 together and get 4. Then again you have the usual suspects that put 2 and 2 together and get 5 or whatever feels good.

You're misstating the models AND the science. The current findings are not "totally different" from the predictions. Instead, the current trend in surface temperature rise is at the low end of model predictions. If the current trend of surface warming lasts for another decade (which might be good news for the planet, but is unlikely to happen), then it might be time to scrap/rework the models entirely. There is always going to be a mismatch between model and observations--by definition. A model is a simplified version in the real world, and can never exactly reproduce reality--all that can be hoped for is to more closely approximate 'reality' over time. Second, this article and the science from which it came states clearly that the warming is continuing. Only now more of the warming is being taken up in the deep oceans. There's an absurdly conspiratorial implication to your post: "models are funded by people who wanted that expected result". Really? Based on what evidence? And thousands of scientists all over the world are part of some nefarious conspiracy to what...sap our vital fluids? Get real. Or break out the tin foil.

Al Gore predicted ice free arctic summers. Only a 60% increase this year. Tell Al Gore to get real..and send him some tin foil.

You're mis-using statistics. 2012 was record low ice extent. In this year's "recovery", ice extent was 60% greater than last year's record low. Which is not quite the same as your "60% increase this year". The trend is still downward--this year's extent was still below the 30 year average. As for the prediction of 'ice-free Arctic summers', I guess the Pentagon, the Canadians, the Russians, and the oil companies should all 'get real'. Maybe you should send them all some tin foil. You must have lots.

Reply to Bruce ..al gore predicted an ice free Arctic in 5 years...5 years ago.

Reply to GWTW: Once again, your claim from the deniosphere is not quite what it seems. But it's useful to the deniers as one more way to distract the public from an accurate understanding of the truth. Any fair-minded person could have checked what he said, had they been interested. Gore is not a scientist, and he misstated the science involved when he spoke. The researcher whose work he relied on disavowed Gore's statement almost immediately--as did climate scientists in general, but somehow that message gets lost in the massage. But to be clear, Gore said "could be", not "would be": "Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years. In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: 'These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.'"

For a reader to be knowledgeable about the alarmists newest deep ocean claim should know the following: If you were to transfer 4 degrees of atmospheric warming to the oceans how much would that change the average temperature of the Earth’s water? .... drum roll please...... 0.001 Degrees C of ocean temp change! Heat capacity of ocean water: 3993 J/kg/K VS Heat capacity of air: 1005 J/kg/K..... HINT! stop listening to the globul warming Alarmists daily spin. Why do you thing they are always changing their story.

You're the one who can't keep his story straight: sometimes you claim the planet is cooling, now you say the oceans are warming--but deny there is any significance to that fact. The fact the oceans are warming is the best evidence that the planet is heating up from enhanced green house gases. Are you acknowledging with your latest cut-and paste post that additional energy is being trapped by the greenhouse effect? That extra energy has to go somewhere. More of that trapped heat energy is going into the oceans now, but eventually, some of that additional heat will find its way to the surface. When the Pacific Ocean switches to an El Nino phase, we may see dramatically warmer surface temperatures--as happened in 1998. Your cut-and-paste post takes comfort in water's physical ability to absorb heat, but the seemingly insignificant warming of the oceans also results in sea level rise, while the additional absorbed CO2 makes the water more acidic, which among other things, harms coral reefs and threatens world fisheries.

It is not surprising to read the same blather from the usual suspects on here claiming, that the AP article "proves" global warming is not happening. Did they read the article? If they did, they clearly did not reach a conclusion based on the facts in the story. Instead, they might as well have cut-and-pasted any number of their previous comments on the topic that betray their misconceptions and prejudices. To address some of those: to my knowledge, Al Gore does not fund climate science research. But it would not matter if he did, the findings of climate science are the result of multiple lines of evidence, many follow-up studies, and in order to be considered valid, findings must either be replicated, or independently validated over the course of time by other research. Over the long term, the scientific process is self-correcting. To simply state that "climate is always changing" as an excuse for doing nothing is inane and misleading. We are currently over-riding the long-term natural cycles of warming and cooling--conducting an experiment by adding CO2 at an unprecedented rate and to levels not seen in 2 million years. Those who make claims of fudged data should look at the actual evidence. Such claims regarding climate science research, for example "Climategate", and the "Hockeystick", were investigated and found to be without substance. The source of such claims was not scientists, but professional deniers, bought and paid for by those with a vested interest in confusing the public, and thereby delaying action that would address global warming. Half-truths and dishonesty are standard procedures for the deniosphere; what is disheartening is how easy it is to convince some people that something is not true when ample evidence that the climate is warming can be found even in New Hampshire--earlier ice outs and longer frost-free dates, declining moose pop., invasive species thriving, more potent poison ivy, to name some.It's amazing what some will avoid seeing when their preconceived ideas intrude on reality.

Step One, read data and Left leaning media with which we agree. Step Two, copy and paste the facts along with talking points picked up from subversive Left leaning sites. Step Three, practice the principle that if you say something enough, people will start to believe it. Step Four, like a parrot, repeat those facts over and over again and demonize others calling them "trolls", "carp per diems", etc. Step Five, read more data which reinforces your view based on ideology and begin again.

Given their predilection for cut-and-paste posting, constant disparagement of the science and the scientists, frequent distortions of fact, and vague allusions to nefarious conspiracies that would involve thousands of scientists worldwide, I'd say that 'talking points', 'parrot-like behavior', and 'ideology' are simply how the deniosphere functions. The deniosphere's origin and the fact it took a page (and many of the players) from the tobacco industry's earlier denier campaign are well-documented. Like it or not, mindlessly repeating distorted and false claims IS troll-like behavior; the term is accurately descriptive of the Carp Per Diem brigade on this and several other topics. On the other hand, "demonizing"-- smearing those with whom you disagree, when you can't make a factual argument, by regularly tossing out loaded words like "subversive", "unpatriotic", and "Marxist/communist", is a practice with which some on here are all too familiar.

Well, if the shoe fits............. Is it troll like behavior to repeat things you have no clue about but learned or copy and pasted from some partisan website. I stand by my post above it is your modus operandi, we all see it, we all read it and we all know that you are not a climate scientist or any kind of scientist so you must rely on things which you read and cherry pick from sites that support your overall ideology. How can you feel that every single one of your views is absolutely correct and not be up for discussion?

Reply to Itsa below: If you have an issue with information I've presented here, then make it. You falsely equate science with "ideology". What ideology does the physics of the greenhouse effect have? What ideology did Charles Keeling have when he first began to measure CO2 levels on the slopes of Mauna Loa back in the 50's? What ideology does the study of changes in the extent of Arctic ice have? Or the study of ice cores on Greenland or Antarctica? As for "discussion", I guess I missed that aspect of your posts--lost no doubt in the thicket of name-calling and smears.

For me the whole debate was about at what degree. Climate has always gone through cycles. That is evident to us that have lived awhile. And like any science there are variables. The question is how much do those variables figure into the equation. I am disturbed by the fact that most reports are based often times on who funds the folks that are doing the research. Since most scientists depend on grants and private groups funding them, it does not take a rocket scientist to come to the conclusion that it would be to their advantage to have results that favor that group's politics. If Al Gore funds your research and he does not like your results, chances are you will not be getting future funding from him. The easiest subject to fool folks on is science. Most of us are not informed and find science boring. Climate change is happening, the question is at what degree?

You are correct that research can be swayed by who funds it. We have seen this over and over again when an industry funds a study i relation to its own product. But one of the beauties of open science is that results need to be reproducible. Answers don't necessarily have to be identical, but close enough to confirm the process. Multiple researchers studying the same topic provide a checks and bounds to the ethics to each other as publications must survive peer review and scrutiny. A scientist who intentionally (or even unknowingly) biases his study in favor of the funder, will be called out by those who try to replicate the work. Due to lack of publication, that researcher my not gain funding for future research. In the case of climate change, there are many funding sources and thousands of researchers that build on each other's work, but in many cases they must first be able to replicate the earlier work. With enough corroborating results, a consensus builds. In the case of climate change, there are thousands of researchers in general agreement of one outcome and based on recent numbers, about 1% of active researchers come to differing conclusions. Many of those in the minority are connected to funding by businesses with something at stake. Feel free to decide for yourself where the truth lies. The real debate here is political and not scientific.

There is much to agree with you wrote neighbor, but science isn't consensus. As a Six Sigma Blackbelt and a Scientist, I know that predictive models can be very powerful but they must be based on on strong accurate data from strong accurate measuring equipment. If your measuring equipment doesn't have a strong Gauge R & R your model isn't going to be very accurate. If your data is based on fudged data your predictive model isn't going to be accurate. A real scientist would present their data and tell you exactly how the design of experiment was carried out and what measuring equipment they used and the respective measuring devices' Gauge R & R and give you the equation for the model for the measurement of greenhouse gases and temperature. Perhaps there is some kind of interaction but some of the models I have seen produced by the climate change industry are pretty lame.

Head of the UN Climate Panel Pachauri admits purpose of the UN IPCC report it to make the case that 'action is needed on climate change' ….. Pachauri admits the IPCC science reports are tailored to meet the political needs of governments: 'We are an intergovernmental body and we do what the governments of the world want us to do. If the governments decide we should do things differently and come up with a vastly different set of products we would be at their beck and call.'

Globul warming proven FALSE - now Climate Change proven FALSE...... "Earth’s average atmospheric temperatures haven’t increased in almost 17 years. It’s been eight years since a Category 3 hurricane hit the United States. Tornado frequency is at a multi-decade low ebb. Droughts are shorter and less extreme than during the Dust Bowl and 1950s. Sea ice is back to normal, after one of the coldest Arctic summers in decades. And sea levels continue to rise at a meager 4-8 inches per century."

Nicely put by RedBird: "one of the beauties of open science is that results need to be reproducible. Answers don't necessarily have to be identical, but close enough to confirm the process. Multiple researchers studying the same topic provide a checks and bounds.." But it's also worth pointing out that when an industry funds a study, the problem is not necessarily that they somehow force or bias the outcome, but that they have control over whether or not the results get reported or published in a public forum. Don't like the results? Don't release the data.

Already read the first of what I'm sure will be several posts from climate change deniers supposedly celebrating this news. The headline does NOT read, "Climate Change Ending." Just because it's happening at a slower rate doesn't mean it's not happening at all.

Climate changes, that's for sure. But for how long will it continue to get warmer, and at what rate? What is needed -- in the context of the difference of usage of the word "theory" in the vernacular and in formal science -- is a foundational theory of climate physics which adequately explains and accurately predicts causes, directions, and degree of climate change. What we are seeing is simply that we do not yet actually have such complete knowledge. It is, of course, silly to therefore make specifically conformist or alternative claims and predictions based upon that simple fact, in the context of suddenly somewhat unexpected outcomes.

If you read the CM for your news you are seriously shortchanging yourself. Watts Up With That? The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change should give you some real news

The worlds most viewed website on global warming?? According to what metric? Published by a partially deaf retired TV weather reporter. Yup, sad commentary on us if this claim was even partially factual.

Maybe you like NOAA - news like this perhaps...... NOAA exaggerates 2012 Greenland Ice Mass Loss by 10x

Not quite. The author of that post admitted on his blog that he'd misinterpreted the graph and the accompanying text. But whether that admission ever made it to WUWT is another question. http://manicbeancounter.com/2013/06/25/noaa-greenland-ice-sheet-report-card-2012-false-statement-on-ice-mass-balance-change/#comments

it should be fun to read the globul warming alarmists backtracking on their radical, juvenile so-called science. Their comments will be full of excuses and full denial of facts that have destroyed their movement.

It is simple Sail. You can't make predictive models with fudged data. As a Six Sigma Black Belt I have made predictive models based on variable data and it is amazing how accurate those predictive models can be. Some of the so-called scientists in the Climate Change Industry should hang their heads in shame for some of the garbage they put out their.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.