Twenty year hiatus in warming

Burn the heretics

Burn the heretics

Throw another heretic on the fire. Graham Lloyd explores the view, becoming more accepted by the day, that global warming has slowed or plateaued over the past 15 or so years.

It follows on from the Economist article which has caused quite a stir (see ACM here). Cue headbangers whining that even considering hypotheses that contradict the incessant alarmism of the AGW religion is part of a ‘war on science’, or some other such BS.

DEBATE about the reality of a two-decade pause in global warming and what it means has made its way from the sceptical fringe to the mainstream.

In a lengthy article this week, The Economist magazine said if climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, then climate sensitivity – the way climate reacts to changes in carbon-dioxide levels – would be on negative watch but not yet downgraded. Another paper published by leading climate scientist James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for S

pace Studies, says the lower than expected temperature rise between 2000 and the present could be explained by increased emissions from burning coal.

For Hansen the pause is a fact, but it’s good news that probably won’t last.

International Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri recently told The Weekend Australian the hiatus would have to last 30 to 40 years “at least” to break the long-term warming trend.

But the fact that global surface temperatures have not followed the expected global warming pattern is now widely accepted. Research by Ed Hawkins of University of Reading shows surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range projections derived from 20 climate models and if they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years.

“The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations,” says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

“If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change,” he says. Whitehouse argues that whatever has happened to make temperatures remain constant requires an explanation because the pause in temperature rise has occurred despite a sharp increase in global carbon emissions.

The Economist says the world has added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010, about one-quarter of all the carbon dioxide put there by humans since 1750. This mismatch between rising greenhouse gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now, The Economist article says.


  1. Baldrick says:

    Link to article published in The Australian – here –

  2. Baldrick says:

    Even the head-bangers over at Un-Skeptical Science try to discredit the article on climate sensitivity in The Economist by saying: “Ultimately it was rather strange to see such a complex technical subject as climate sensitivity tackled in a business-related publication. While The Economist made a good effort at the topic, their lack of expertise showed.” (no link)
    However, The Economist devotes a whole section to Science & Technology that covers topics from whether life once existed on Mars to mapping the human brain.
    But according to Un-Skeptical Science they’re out of their depth when discussing matters relating to climate change. Mapping the human brain is fine but don’t mess with the climate religion!

  3. With the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report due to be released this year, and with all the who-ha that will surround it, the global warming alarmist establishment is almost certainly going to continue with its crusade against carbon dioxide with all sorts of more exaggerated climate alarmist claims. The problem is these people all have already nailed themselves to the cross of ‘gold standard science’ – IPCC AR4 – which became the settled science. What were the likes of Al Gore, Gordon Brown and Prince Charles saying? Oh yes … “The science is settled… it’s time to act”!!!!!!

  4. thingodonta says:

    I wouldn’t worry too much if it doesn’t warm over the next 20 years, which I suspect it won’t, as the general public will begin to see it looks more and more like the information minister for Saddam Husseins government, comical Ali-‘there will never be a pause in global warming, never!’, even as the temperature plateaus and cools.

  5. The amazing thing about the greenhouse effect hypothesis is that it fails to properly comply with real science.

    The figures presented for “backradiation” cannot possibly be due to a few % of the atmosphere. Water vapour and CO2 and all other GHGs comprise less than 40 grams per cubic metre of air at sea level – significantly less at altitude.

    Of that almost all is water vapour.

    To imagine that 40 grams of anything at the cold temperatures of the upper atmosphere can heat the surface of the Earth more than the Sun can is a very special type of insanity – yet this is exactly what this “pseudoscience” proposes we all should believe.

    Whether it warms or not in future will be controlled by the Sun – GHGs do not provide any extra energy and the only substance that can “trap” heat is water. Once water evaporates any heat “trapping” ability through latent heat of evaporation is transitory – it releaes the “trapped” energy upon condensation.

    Whilst remaining liquid it holds the latent heat of fusion.

    CO2 is a gas at all ambient temperatures and its fusion temperature is much colder than water – it has no known physical properties that could possibly contribute to any warming – and all of its properties have been long established.

    I do not believe any of their “pseudoscience”.

  6. The Economist may be puzzled by the lack of warming, (despite our massive increase in CO2 emissions) but climate skeptics aren’t.
    The reason there has been no warming during this massive increase in human CO2 release is very simple; CO2 does not drive the climate.
    It never has, and it does not now.

  7. There are hundreds of thousands of people that believe in Black Magic. There are hundreds of thousands that are convinced that extra-terrestrials visit continuously. There are hundreds of thousands that believe ghosts haunt certain buildings, that Sasquatch runs free in the forests, and that women are chattels. There are even sufficient “believers” in the fox that Tasmania spends seven million a year looking for non-existent foxes. There is some anecdotal and circumstantial evidence of these things. Some day someone somewhere might find some empirical evidence.
    There are about 43* people that think CO2 causes changes in the average surface air temperature of the Earth. There will never be any evidence of any kind, because there is none.

    *Reference Edward Wegman’s description of the clique around which the IPCC fairy story is constructed.

%d bloggers like this: