Advertisements

Warmists Who Denied The Pause Now Claim To Explain It

Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the
equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun
.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about
?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

The Earth has cancer
and the cancer is Man
.”
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

•••

A “Settled Science” update via Andrew Bolt’s Blog :

Warmists who denied the pause now claim to explain it

I guess just the acknowledgement is progress, but I do think Matthew England at least owes an apology.

Matthew England contradicting former Senator Nick Minchin in April 2012:

NICK MINCHIN: …Basically we’ve had a plateauing of temperature rise. I mean we are in a warming phase. The world is either warming or cooling. It never stops doing nothing. It’s either warming or cooling. We’ve had a warming phase since the end of the little ice age, 150 years ago. In terms of global average temperature it peaked 1998 and it is effectively stable now, despite the increase in CO2. So there is a major problem with the warmist argument because we have had rising CO2 but we haven’t had the commensurate rise in temperature that the IPCC predicted.

ANNA ROSE: That’s just not true, Nick…

MATTHEW ENGLAND: What Nick just said is actually not true. The IPCC projections of 1990 have borne out very accurately…

Matthew England in December 2012:


… we’re halfway through this projected period. And the warming to date is consistent with that [IPCC] projection.

And so anybody out there lying that the IPCC projections are overstatements or that the observations haven’t kept pace with the projections is completely offline with this.  And so anybody out there lying that the IPCC projections are overstatements or that the observations haven’t kept pace with the projections is completely offline with this. The analysis is very clear that the IPCC projections are coming true.

But Matthew England today:

The near two-decade long “pause” in rising average global surface temperatures was a “distraction” that did not change long-term model predictions of a much ­hotter world this century, according to new research.

Climate scientists at University of NSW said “natural variability” could explain the slowdown or “hiatus” despite strongly rising ­levels of carbon ­dioxide in the ­atmosphere…

Research leader Matthew ­England said …  “It is simply due to decadal variability. Greenhouse gases will eventually overwhelm this natural fluctuation,” he said…

“Our research shows that while there may be short-term fluctuations … long-term warming of the planet is an inevitable consequence of ­increasing greenhouse gas concentrations,” he said.

“This much-hyped global warming slowdown is just a distraction to the task at hand”.

Maybe, maybe not. But this concession is interesting:


The paper also suggests that decadal climate oscillations were not pushing heat into the deep oceans, another explanation for the “missing heat” and absence of surface warming.

Also published now in Nature Climate Change, another paper trying to explain the pause that England once denied:

Despite a steady increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), global-mean surface temperature (T) has shown no discernible warming since about 2000, in sharp contrast to model simulations, which on average project strong warming.

•••

UPDATE

via WattsUpWithThat :

Climate modeler Matthew England still ignoring reality – claims IPCC models will eventually win

…On the plus side, at least he acknowledges the existence of “the pause” now, but says it’s irrelevant. Whatever.

Read more here »

•••

See also :

Advertisements

Climate Scientists 95% Sure The Science Is Unsettled

It doesn’t matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true
.”
– Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace

No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world
.”
– Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment

•••

There has been no atmospheric global warming, at all, for 17 years and 5 months, despite 35% of all human CO2 emissions, since 1751, emitted over the same period.

No GLOBAL WARMING 17 YEARS 5 MONTHS

Satellites show no global warming for 17 years 5 months | Watts Up With That?

The global warming “pause” has become one of the biggest mysteries in climate science. A thorn in the side of the IPCC and the warmist community who assured us that the atmosphere would warm if ‘business as usual’ greenhouse emissions continued.

They were wrong. And their state-of-the-art, billion dollar climate models, which governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.

95% of CMIP5 Climate models bear no resemblance to reality and remain scandalously overheated.

CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013

95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong « Roy Spencer, PhD

There have been at least eight separate explanations for the standstill in global warming, with the latest from UNSW Professor Matthew England, claiming “Stronger than normal trade winds in the central Pacific are the main cause of a 13-year halt in global surface temperature increases …”. His paper released, three years after he accused sceptics of “lying that the IPCC projections are overstatements”.

With no consensus and little confidence as to what is actually driving the current 17 year global warming ‘Hiatus’, how does the IPCC conclude in their latest AR5 assessment report, that they are ‘even more confident’ (95%) that human’s are to blame for global warming that stopped in 1998?

Their confidence in man-made global warming has increased, even as temperatures have declined. In fact, the last IPCC report to experience any warming was SAR in 1995

aaa SAR

No Warming For 70% Of The IPCC’s History | Real Science

And yet they cry…

“The Science Is Settled”

“Overwhelming consensus”

“97% of Scientists”

“The Debate Is Over”

“Climate Action Now…before it’s too late”

“If you deny climate change, you deny your grandchildren a future”

etc etc…

Andrew Bolt’s column in today’s Herald Sun, demonstrates how the 95% confidence meme, sounds more like another cleverly worded PR campaign out of the IPCC and warmist community, to promote the cause for draconian emissions controls.

Confusion should give alarmists pause for thought

I

FEBRUARY 12, 2014 8:00PM

By Andrew Bolt

YOU would think scientists of the NSW Climate Change Research Centre had done enough damage to their warmist crusade.

A month ago, its Professor Chris Turney got his ship of researchers stuck in Antarctic sea ice he had claimed was melting away.

“Sea ice is disappearing due to climate change, but here ice is building up,” Turney’s expedition wailed.

In fact Turney’s team — planning to examine parts of the Antarctic “highly susceptible to melting and collapse from ocean warming” — apparently hadn’t realised sea ice there had grown over three decades to record levels.

How we laughed.

Blog with Andrew Bolt

Turney’s climate centre, at the University of NSW, sponsored this disaster, which ended with two icebreakers rescuing the mortified professor and his warming crusaders.

It’s farce like that which helps explain why the CSIRO reported last week only 47 per cent of Australians buy its spin that the climate is changing and we’re to blame.

Australians now rate global warming of “low importance”, the CSIRO sighed, and warmists faced “the challenge of finding the right language” to gee them up. But up bobs another Climate Change Research Centre scientist to show the warmists’ problem isn’t the “right language” but the false hype.

Two years ago, Professor Matthew England appeared on the ABC’s Q&A to attack Nick Minchin, the former Howard government industry minister and a sceptic. Minchin had raised a puzzling fact: the planet had not warmed further since 1998.

“Basically we’ve had a plateauing of temperature rise,” he said. CO2 emissions had soared, but “we haven’t had the commensurate rise in temperature that the IPCC predicted”.

England’s response?

“What Nick just said is actually not true. The IPCC projections from 1990 have borne out very accurately.”

England later even accused sceptics of “lying that the IPCC projections are overstatements”.

So imagine my surprise when England admitted last week there had been a “hiatus” and “plateau in global average temperatures” after all. Startled readers asked England to explain how he could call sceptics liars two years ago for mentioning a “plateau” he now agreed was real.

England was defiant: “In terms of my comments on Q&A, I stand by them. Back then, the observations had not departed from the model projection range. In the past year or two, 2012 average and also 2013, that’s no longer the case.”

What bull. In fact, five years ago the pause was already so obvious that Family First senator Steve Fielding confronted Penny Wong, Labor’s climate change minister.

“Global warming quite clearly over the last decade hasn’t been actually occurring,” Fielding said, and showed Wong the temperature charts. Wong and her advisers — chief scientist Penny Sackett and climate scientist Will Steffen — said he was wrong. Journalists mocked him. Except, of course, the warming pause is now so obvious even England now admits it.

True, the warmists always have excuses and the ABC reports each without noting how the latest contradicts the last. Last week it reported England’s new paper explaining the warming pause: “Stronger than normal trade winds in the central Pacific are the main cause of a 13-year halt in global surface temperature increases …”

England now claims those stronger winds somehow drove the missing warming into the deep ocean.

But only eight years ago the ABC reported the opposite: “The vast looping system of air currents that fuels Pacific trade winds … has weakened by 3.5 per cent over the past 140 years and the culprit is probably human-induced climate change.”

Eh?

Continue Reading »

•••

Related :

Climatism Links :