Global Warming? Maybe Not?

[Orion21]

Global warming 'pause' may last for 20 more years and Arctic sea ice has already started to recover

• Study says warmer temperatures are largely due to natural 300-year cycles
  
• Actual increase in last 17 years lower than almost every prediction
  
• Scientists likened continuing pause to a Mexican wave in a stadium
  

By DAVID ROSE

PUBLISHED: 19:32 EST, 2 November 2013 | UPDATED: 20:00 EST, 2 November 2013

The 17-year pause in global warming is likely to last into the 2030s and the Arctic sea ice has already started to recover, according to new research.

A paper in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics – by Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Dr Marcia Wyatt – amounts to a stunning challenge to climate science orthodoxy.

Not only does it explain the unexpected pause, it suggests that the scientific majority – whose views are represented by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – have underestimated the role of natural cycles and exaggerated that of greenhouse gases.

Pause: How the Earth's average temperature defied scientists' predictions by remaining almost the same

The research comes amid mounting evidence that the computer models on which the IPCC based the gloomy forecasts of a rapidly warming planet in its latest report, published in September, are diverging widely from reality.

The graph shown above, based on a version published by Dr Ed Hawkins of Reading University on his blog, Climate Lab Book, reveals that actual temperatures are now below the predictions made by almost all the 138 models on which the IPCC relies.

The pause means there has been no statistically significant increase in world average surface temperatures since the beginning of 1997, despite the models’ projection of a steeply rising trend.

According to Dr Hawkins, the divergence is now so great that the world’s climate is cooler than what the models collectively predicted with ‘five to 95 per cent certainty’.

Curry and Wyatt say they have identified a climatic ‘stadium wave’ – the phenomenon known in Britain as a Mexican wave, in which the crowd at a stadium stand and sit so that a wave seems to circle the audience.

Recovery: A new study suggests global warming is at a halt and Arctic seas are starting to recover

In similar fashion, a number of cycles in the temperature of air and oceans, and the level of Arctic ice, take place across the Northern hemisphere over decades. Curry and Wyatt say there is evidence of this going back at least 300 years.

According to Curry and Wyatt, the theory may explain both the warming pause and why the computer models did not forecast it.

It also means that a large proportion of the warming that did occur in the years before the pause was due not to greenhouse gas emissions, but to the same cyclical wave.

‘The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s,’ said Wyatt. This is in sharp contrast with the IPCC’s report, which predicts warming of between 0.3 and 0.7C by 2035.

Wyatt added: ‘The stadium wave forecasts that sea ice will recover from its recent minimum.’ The record low seen in 2012, followed by the large increase in 2013, is consistent with the theory, she said.

Even IPCC report co-authors such as Dr Hawkins admit some of the models are ‘too hot’.

He said: ‘The upper end of the latest climate model projections is inconsistent’ with observed temperatures, though he added even the lower predictions could have ‘negative impacts’ if true.

But if the pause lasted another ten years, and there were no large volcanic eruptions, ‘then global surface temperatures would be outside the IPCC’s indicative likely range’.

Professor Curry went much further. ‘The growing divergence between climate model simulations and observations raises the prospect that climate models are inadequate in fundamental ways,’ she said.

If the pause continued, this would suggest that the models were not ‘fit for purpose’.

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz2mcrKbJG0

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[Nedule]

I have the same feelings about global warming. Scientist already acknowledge periods of ice age & warming periods from the past. Plus, if scientists estimates the earth to be 4.5 billion years old but are using the last 300 years of weather records as historical data to argue global warming, it's not good enough for me. The last 3 summers I haven't taken the winter comforter of my bed, that's the exact opposite of global warming in my opinion.

[Ginseng]

@Nedule

Global warming is not "global" in the sense that every location on the planet will get warmer. That is rampant runaway greenhouse effect and that's what made Venus the garden spot it is now.

The models suggest that some places will actually get colder, or wetter, or drier while overall there will be a temperature rise.

Wilkey

[dafrey23]

@Nedule

Global warming is not "global" in the sense that every location on the planet will get warmer. That is rampant runaway greenhouse effect and that's what made Venus the garden spot it is now.

The models suggest that some places will actually get colder, or wetter, or drier while overall there will be a temperature rise.

Wilkey

This... "Global Warming" is a misnomer. Climate change is what's really happening. The extremes get more extreme. Storms are stronger, heat waves get hotter and longer, and cold snaps are colder and longer. I'm not sure where the study above came from, but most of the worlds scientists would take umbrage to its conclusions. We can all find a study funded by the right person that will say whatever we want. When it comes to science, I follow scientists and not the individual studies.

[fookite]

I have the same feelings about global warming. Scientist already acknowledge periods of ice age & warming periods from the past. Plus, if scientists estimates the earth to be 4.5 billion years old but are using the last 300 years of weather records as historical data to argue global warming, it's not good enough for me. The last 3 summers I haven't taken the winter comforter of my bed, that's the exact opposite of global warming in my opinion.

What, exactly, would it take to convince you that you are wrong?

[Orion21]

The study used for the article was done by scientists at Georgia Tech University in the US. It measured the actual results vs the predicted measurements from the IPCC models used to justify the idea of rampant HUMAN caused global warming. The study concluded that the models were not accurate because they were over weighting the affect of human activity. It's not trying to say Global Warming doesn't exist, but that the 138 models used created a much more bleak picture of the future than what has actually occurred. Just read the article. It's not anti Global Warming it's a "pause" against the crazy "the world is ending" global warming myths used by zealots to scare people and justify increased taxation across the globe to "fight" human caused global warming.

[Nedule]

What, exactly, would it take to convince you that you are wrong?

There's a lot of scientist & data to back up that global warming is not a concern or caused by humans, in fact most global warming scientist admit that cow farts are much worse for the enviroment than cars & industry. The problem is that governments like to tax us & business' need another reason to sell you another green product we really don't need.

Good movie:

[dafrey23]

There's a lot of scientist & data to back up that global warming is not a concern or caused by humans, in fact most global warming scientist admit that cow farts are much worse for the enviroment than cars & industry. The problem is that governments like to tax us & business' need another reason to sell you another green product we really don't need.

Good movie:

There's little to no independent study that says this. Yes, there are studies, but you have to always look at who funds the study. If you get your news from any cable news station it's likely wrong. Both sides of the spectrum trump up their narrative. You've got to look to the scientific community to tell you the truth on this as a whole and not pick one study here or there. Consensus is the key.

And, regardless of whether climate change is man-made or not, it's something that needs to be dealt with or we'll pay for it in higher insurance rates due to storms, higher sea levels, and destruction of farmable land throughout the world.

[Jeremy Festa]

Seriously, you'll find whatever you want if you look hard enough.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/10/08/3864474.htm

[Ginseng]

Yes. This. And Judith Curry is counted among climate change deniers. Peer reviewed does not automatically mean truth. It does generally mean the study design, methods, and inferences are reasonably consistent. But all studies are debatable...the challenge is to not just believe that which confirms our own conceptions.

Wilkey

[MIKA27]

I have the same feelings about global warming. Scientist already acknowledge periods of ice age & warming periods from the past. Plus, if scientists estimates the earth to be 4.5 billion years old but are using the last 300 years of weather records as historical data to argue global warming, it's not good enough for me. The last 3 summers I haven't taken the winter comforter of my bed, that's the exact opposite of global warming in my opinion.

My sentiments exactly - Couldn't allay my thoughts any better.

[stogieluver]

No one will ever be able to convince me that Mankind has anything to do with it.

[Jeremy Festa]

No one will ever be able to convince me that Mankind has anything to do with it.

Never ever be 100% certain, on anything.

For example: If you were 99% sure about this. I am still going with the 1%.

[stogieluver]

Never ever be 100% certain, on anything.

For example: If you were 99% sure about this. I am still going with the 1%.

You're right. I've learned that in my business over the last four years. So, let me rephrase my statement: I don't THINK anyone will ever be able to convince me that Mankind has anything to do with it.

[Habanos2000]

Is someone saying that Al Gore was wrong?? THAT, I believe!

[Hugomarink]

Whether one believes that global climate change is real or not, or that mankind is contributing to it (or not), doesn't it make sense that we should always strive to find ways to create less pollution and waste via cleaner technologies, renewable energy, sustainable living, etc.? It seems that those who take umbrage with climate change theories are, for some reason, mostly just against governments taxing and regulating big businesses who pollute and run roughshod over the environment. I don't think I can ever understand this kind of thinking. The earth is a living and breathing ecosystem that can be altered, damaged, and destroyed. Why should we not strive to be responsible stewards of this planet while we're here and pass that thinking on to future generations? It doesn't matter if climate change is real or not. A cleaner, healthier planet is better for all of us.

[Philski]

^Took the words out of my mouth, and put it much better than I could.

[IcedCanuck]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_arg.htm

[IcedCanuck]

Whether one believes that global climate change is real or not, or that mankind is contributing to it (or not), doesn't it make sense that we should always strive to find ways to create less pollution and waste via cleaner technologies, renewable energy, sustainable living, etc.? It seems that those who take umbrage with climate change theories are, for some reason, mostly just against governments taxing and regulating big businesses who pollute and run roughshod over the environment. I don't think I can ever understand this kind of thinking. The earth is a living and breathing ecosystem that can be altered, damaged, and destroyed. Why should we not strive to be responsible stewards of this planet while we're here and pass that thinking on to future generations? It doesn't matter if climate change is real or not. A cleaner, healthier planet is better for all of us.

x3 - Couldn't say it better if I tried.

[Puros Y Vino]

From a data standpoint, there isn't enough to conclusively find a trend or exception to climate behavior. 300 years of data on a 4.5 billion year old planet is not an adequate sample.

Do we have an impact on the Earth directly? I believe so. Is it enough to change our planet's climate? I'm not sure if we're solely talking about overall temperatures. If we're talking about oils spills, chemical spills on a mass scale then yes, I think we're affecting our environment.

The skeptic in me is bolstered by all the "doom and gloom" propaganda around Climate Change. There is a whole industry around it and people are getting filthy rich over it. "cough, cough Al Gore cough cough". With that said, we humans should be adopting cleaner technology and energy and stop the outright poisoning of resources such as water and the ground we grow our crops in. This whole movement reeks of putting the onus on the people vs the corporations that engage in illegal dumping of countless chemicals into the environment all in the name of saving $'s and increasing profits. The EPA in the US has become a joke. It has zero teeth. If you lobby hard enough, you can get away with anything.

[Orion21]

I agree 100% Frank. I absolutely think we are in a period of climate change, but there is an ENORMOUS political and business machine behind this huge push to tax and fine to reduce "global warming." If we can't even accurately predict the weather a week ahead of time how in the world can someone believe these climate predictors (not scientists) can project out 10, 20 or 100 years into the future? The facts are that they can only build models. These models are created by humans, so they are inherently subject to bias and error.

I agree with a couple of other posters that we should all strive to create a cleaner more efficient world that respects mother nature and preserves it for our children and generations to come. But one large volcano eruption has a trillion times more impact on climate patterns than my car or my choice of light bulbs. The fact that governments and special interests groups have convinced such an enormous amount of people that these types of choices should be taxed or use restricted to protect the environment is insane. Seriously, have any of you researched where these new tax dollars to "protect" the environment go? They go to pay already existing liabilities, not to protect the environment. . .

[Nedule]

Whether one believes that global climate change is real or not, or that mankind is contributing to it (or not), doesn't it make sense that we should always strive to find ways to create less pollution and waste via cleaner technologies, renewable energy, sustainable living, etc.? It seems that those who take umbrage with climate change theories are, for some reason, mostly just against governments taxing and regulating big businesses who pollute and run roughshod over the environment. I don't think I can ever understand this kind of thinking. The earth is a living and breathing ecosystem that can be altered, damaged, and destroyed. Why should we not strive to be responsible stewards of this planet while we're here and pass that thinking on to future generations? It doesn't matter if climate change is real or not. A cleaner, healthier planet is better for all of us.

I agree with this too, I have no issues being good stewards of the earth. The problem I have when we as a society are shamed & guilted for just existing, we’re blamed for the typhoons, earthquakes etc based on inconclusive science, which is essentially means it's a theory.

I rarely buy green products & mostly avoid "carbon neutral" products & companies unless they are truly honest with facts on why they are green, because many companies & gov't easily fool the naive. The whole "carbon credits" program that gov't have created, can fool you if you don't do your homework. In my area where I live, we have a lot of prime farm land that grows wheat, barley & other grains that are shipped around the world. Some of this farm land is being bought up by large corporations that need "carbon credits" to become green. What do they do with this land? They plant trees, which may not sound horrible until you think about it. Prime farm land put back to forest so that chemical companies --- P&G and the likes --- can get the "green" seal of approval without changing any of their true bad habits. And all this stems from global warming, or should I say "climate change" because that is more inclusive when the warming trend stops on its own. It’s 15 degrees colder than the “normal” temperature out my door right now, I better go start my truck & let it idle for 2 hours to counter act this abnormally cold weather.

[Esteban77]

I have work in science for over 17 years for anyone to suggest consensus is science is ridiculous. Most of the scientist I know are highly biased which is often the reason they go into their field of study and to suggest one scientist is not as altruistic, i.e. Judith Curry, as another without presenting how they are falsely presenting their data is intellectually dishonest. It is nothing more than an effort to marginalize the individual and engaging in popular consensus building which is not science. Making statements without scientific data to backup ones statement or "copy and pasting" claims that contain no scientific data are worthless efforts to marginalize through consensus. If you truly wish to be scientific, you must weigh all data. From what Orion has presented in the graph above and my knowledge of the data, the man-made computer models are highly flawed. Since 1998 when Global warming, now Global climate change, became vogue, CO₂ has increase by >80ppm (NOAA) and the average global temperature has decreased by ~0.46ºC (UAB satellite data), but 0.19ºC higher than normal average.

[ptrthgr8]

I don't doubt that the earth's climate is changing, but that's simply because it's always been changing. I'm absolutely one of the skeptics when it comes to mankind's impact on this constant change in the earth's climate. My reasons:

1. I have a general distrust of any large centralized gov't. Centralized gov'ts tend to use "green" regulations and laws to further increase their power and control.
   
2. I think humans are ridiculously arrogant if they think they can do more damage to the planet than the planet has done to itself over the last 4.5 billions years.
   
3. Hippies are annoying.
   
4. I can't stand the smugness of many of those who are trying to "save" the planet. You and your Prius can pound sand.
   
5. I don't like any movement/cause that uses scare tactics, hysteria, and guilt to try to make its point.
   
6. People who don't understand why people don't like to see "green" regulations, taxation, etc. on businesses don't understand how economics work. Costs get passed on the consumer. Period. I don't like paying more for anything simply because someone said "it's to save the planet!"
   
7. Solar activity also drives climate change. If you can show me how you plan to control the sun's output, then perhaps I'll listen to you.
   
8. Data sample size is limited. The official/historical temperature data goes back less than two centuries. But they're trying to make an argument that things have never been worse? Hermmmm......
   

Just my opinions, of course. But there you have it.

Cheers,

~ Greg ~

[Nedule]

Solar activity also drives climate change. If you can show me how you plan to control the sun's output, then perhaps I'll listen to you

Cheers,

~ Greg ~

I always use that argument too. Also remember that huge earthquake in Chile a few years ago. It was so big it actually changed the axis of the earth, & I'm sure that had a greater effect on the earth's temperature than my truck idling, but you don't hear green scientists talk about that. Don't forget cow farts too, there really bad for the environment.