Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled

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 Space 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.


read more
http://www.telegraph.co.u...uld-be-worried-about.html

It’s the cold, not global warming, that we should be worried about

Each year, an official estimate is made of the “excess winter mortality” – that is, the number of people dying of cold-related illnesses. Last winter was relatively mild, and still 24,000 perished. The indications are that this winter, which has dragged on so long and with such brutality, will claim 30,000 lives, making it one of the biggest killers in the country. And still, no one seems upset.

read more
http://www.telegraph.co.u...uld-be-worried-about.html

We've all changed our minds and now agree with you. No need to continue.

Don’t be fooled: man-made global warming does exist

This was the story that the scientists “tried to bury”; yet more evidence that global warming is at a standstill — or so it seemed to climate sceptics.

The reality about the Met Office’s new decadal forecast is more prosaic, and also more complicated: it has indeed issued some predictions for how global temperatures might change between now and 2017, but these are not like long-range weather forecasts. They are experimental projections assessing the probabilities of different temperature outcomes averaged out over the whole globe.

Nor is it true that these show a downgrading of global warming. Although five years is a short time period for assessing a changing climate, it is still likely that the planet will continue to warm and that new temperature records will be set. The Met Office also make clear that warming is driven by increasing levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases, not natural fluctuations.

This is not to say that it will definitely be warmer in 2017 than it is in 2013, but that global warming certainly makes it more likely to be so. Probabilistic forecasts emphasise that we are loading the climate dice in a warming direction — you can still get a cool year, but they become less and less likely as time passes. The danger for all of us is that we see a spell of cold weather as evidence against global warming: no one actually experiences “average weather”.

The global warming debate has become a cover for a fight between left v right world views. Many greens see evil corporations gambling the future of the planet and call for drastic statist measures, while many sceptics allow themselves to be blinded to scientific truths about atmospheric physics that are now as well-established as Darwinian evolution.

As a result of all this hyperbole, the voices of scientists get lost in the noise. The scientific consensus, echoed by every major academic institution in the world, is that increased greenhouse gases are warming our planet, and we reject this knowledge at our absolute peril. Global warming happens on a slower timeline than politics, but its physical reality is undeniable. Over the next century we are now more likely than not to see temperatures rise higher than they have been on Earth for more than 50 million years. I find that prospect terrifying.

Scientific dissent absolutely has a place, but we must not end up being derailed from the primary mission, which has to be to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and preserve a relatively habitable climate for our children.

- AGalchenyuk27

Don’t be fooled: man-made global warming does exist

This was the story that the scientists “tried to bury”; yet more evidence that global warming is at a standstill — or so it seemed to climate sceptics.

The reality about the Met Office’s new decadal forecast is more prosaic, and also more complicated: it has indeed issued some predictions for how global temperatures might change between now and 2017, but these are not like long-range weather forecasts. They are experimental projections assessing the probabilities of different temperature outcomes averaged out over the whole globe.

Nor is it true that these show a downgrading of global warming. Although five years is a short time period for assessing a changing climate, it is still likely that the planet will continue to warm and that new temperature records will be set. The Met Office also make clear that warming is driven by increasing levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases, not natural fluctuations.

This is not to say that it will definitely be warmer in 2017 than it is in 2013, but that global warming certainly makes it more likely to be so. Probabilistic forecasts emphasise that we are loading the climate dice in a warming direction — you can still get a cool year, but they become less and less likely as time passes. The danger for all of us is that we see a spell of cold weather as evidence against global warming: no one actually experiences “average weather”.

The global warming debate has become a cover for a fight between left v right world views. Many greens see evil corporations gambling the future of the planet and call for drastic statist measures, while many sceptics allow themselves to be blinded to scientific truths about atmospheric physics that are now as well-established as Darwinian evolution.

As a result of all this hyperbole, the voices of scientists get lost in the noise. The scientific consensus, echoed by every major academic institution in the world, is that increased greenhouse gases are warming our planet, and we reject this knowledge at our absolute peril. Global warming happens on a slower timeline than politics, but its physical reality is undeniable. Over the next century we are now more likely than not to see temperatures rise higher than they have been on Earth for more than 50 million years. I find that prospect terrifying.

Scientific dissent absolutely has a place, but we must not end up being derailed from the primary mission, which has to be to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and preserve a relatively habitable climate for our children.
- AGalchenyuk27

Why is it the Human caused CO2 that is driving any measurable Global warming?

How could 3.4% of the total CO2 that is only 3.62% of all Greenhouse gases that constitutes only 2% of the total Atmosphere have any measurable impact on Global temperatures???

Why is it NOT the other 96.38% of CO2 that comes from Natural sources (not man made)?

DRIESSEN: A real man-made climate crisis
Preventing ‘global climate disruption’ is a costly endeavor
Comments (32)
Size: + / -
Print
Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on google_plusone_shareShare on redditShare on linkedinShare on stumbleuponShare on emailMore Sharing Services

By Paul Driessen

Friday, March 29, 2013

Illustration by William Brown

Enlarge Photo
Illustration by William Brown more >

Ads by Google

Help Stop Global WarmingLower Your Carbon Footprint & End Global Warming - Join JustGreen Now justgreencommunity.com

Story Topics

Environment
European Union
Climate Change And British Meteorological Office
Ron Arnold
Tides Center

Follow Us On
facebookFacebook
Question of the Day
Pope Francis reached out to "Muslim Brothers" on Good Friday. Will his efforts be reciprocated by top Muslim clerics?


Yes

No

Undecided

Other

View results

America faces a climate crisis, we are repeatedly told, and must do everything possible to avert it.

It’s true. However, the crisis has nothing to do with alleged human contributions to planetary climate systems that have always been chaotic, unpredictable and often disastrous: ice ages, little ice ages, dust bowls, droughts and monster storms have ravaged and sometimes even toppled cities and civilizations.

Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and British Meteorological Office now recognize that average global temperatures haven’t budged in almost 17 years. Little evidence suggests that sea-level rise, storms, droughts, polar ice or other weather and climate events and trends are statistically different from what our Earth has experienced over the past 100-plus years.

The real man-made climate crisis is our responses to the illusory crisis.

Over the past three years, the Tides Foundation and Center alone poured $335 million into environmentalist climate campaigns, and $1 billion into green lobbies at large, notes “Undue Influence” author Ron Arnold. All told, U.S. foundations have “invested” more than $797 million in climate campaigns since 2000, Mr. Arnold calculates, and more than $19.3 billion in “environmental” efforts since 1995.Moreover, this cash does not include the tens of billions that environmental activist groups, universities and other organizations have received from individual donors, corporations and U.S. government agencies to promote “man-made climate disaster” theories; European Union and United Nations contributions to climate cataclysm institutes; or U.S. and global spending on wind, solar and biofuel energy schemes.

This corrupting cash has feathered careers, supported entire companies and industries, and sullied our political, economic and ethical systems. It has taken countless billions out of productive sectors of our economy and given it to politically connected institutions that promote climate alarmism and renewable energy. Some of the crony-capitalist cash has gone to help re-elect their political sponsors.It’s a simple formula. If you toe the line, you pocket the cash and bask in the limelight. If you question the dogma, though — you get vilified, harassed and even dismissed from university or state climatologist positions for threatening the grants pipeline.The system has replaced honest, robust, evidence-based, peer-reviewed science with pseudo-science based on activism, computer models, doctored data, “pal reviews” and other chicanery that have been laid bare by Climategate and other exposes. It has turned colleges into centers for “socially responsible investing” campaigns based on climate chaos, sustainability and anti-hydrocarbon ideologies. Increasingly powerful, well-funded, unelected and unaccountable activist groups and bureaucracies use “dangerous man-made global warming” claims to impose regulations that bypass legislatures and ignore economic realities. They wield increasing power over our lives and liberties, with no accountability for foul-ups or even deliberate harm to large segments of our population.Climate alarmism and pseudo-science have justified regulations, carbon trading, carbon taxes, renewable-energy programs and other initiatives that increase the cost of everything we make, grow, ship, eat, heat, cool, wear and do. Thus, they impair job creation, economic growth, living standards, health and welfare.Excessive Environmental Protection Agency rules have closed numerous coal-fired power plants, and the agency plans to regulate more of America’s hydrocarbon-based economy by restricting carbon-dioxide emissions from vehicles, generating plants, cement kilns, factories, malls, hospitals and other “significant” sources. Were it not for the hydraulic fracturing revolution that has made natural gas and gas-fired generation abundant and cheap, U.S. electricity prices would be skyrocketing — as they are in Britain, Germany and Greece.European newspapers regularly feature articles about fuel poverty, near-blackouts, job losses, despair and deforestation for firewood, owing to the EU’s focus on “green” energy to stop global warming that isn’t happening, even as Chinese and Indian emissions send atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels ever higher. Now climate activists and the EPA want to restrict fracking for natural gas — the energy source that was once their preferred option. Their new preferences are wind turbines that kill millions of birds and bats every year, solar panels that blanket thousands of acres of wildlife habitats, and biofuels that divert food crops to replace fuels that we have in abundance but refuse to develop.”Dangerous man-made climate change” also gives politicians a handy excuse for development decisions that increase storm and flood risks, failing to prepare communities for inevitable severe weather events, issuing misleading storm warnings and providing slow or incompetent responses in the wake of natural disasters.Blaming carbon-dioxide emissions and rising seas was certainly easier than manning up and shouldering the blame for Bloombergian failures before and after Superstorm Sandy.By far the worst climate crisis, however, is eco-imperialism perpetrated against African and other poor nations, where billions still do not enjoy lighting, heating, refrigeration and other blessings of abundant, reliable, affordable electricity. Instead, they must continue burning wood and dung in open fires, hauling water from polluted rivers, eating spoiled food — and suffering millions of deaths from lung infections and virulent intestinal diseases.When the conversation next turns to climate change, discussing these real climate crises could open some eyes and generate a constructive dialogue.

Paul Driessen is senior policy adviser for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow and author of “Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death” (Merril Press, 2012).

Read more: http://www.washingtontime...ate-crisis/#ixzz2P2RUGoep
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

God WTF WAS I THINKING?

God WTF WAS I THINKING?
- sanfordnson

also

Now there's more ice at South Pole than ever (So much for global warming thawing Antarctica!)

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.u...rctica.html#ixzz2P2TUUz2U
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

According to NOAA data, all time Antarctic sea ice extent record was set on Sept 22nd, 2012

Spring temperatures expected by the weekend


Long-awaited warmer weather finally predicted to arrive in the next few days after coldest March for more than 100 years


Press Association
The Guardian, Tuesday 2 April 2013 19.36 BST




Long-awaited spring weather is finally expected to arrive this weekend as official figures confirm March was the UK's second coldest since 1910.

With last month's temperatures averaging at 2.2C (36F) instead of the typical 5.5C (42F), a return to normal temperatures is expected this weekend. Temperatures in the south are set to reach 10C (50F), only a few degrees below typical April averages, with sunshine spreading across the UK..

But the rise in warmer temperatures will bring unsettled weather including flurries of rain. Matt Dobson, forecaster with MeteoGroup, the weather division of the Press Association, said: "There's definitely a change on the way. We'll notice it next week more than anything, with temperatures returning to normal.

"Saturday looks like a lovely day for the south. Cold but plenty of sunshine around, although there will be a frosty start. By the end of Saturday it could get up to 10C in the south, which is a few degrees warmer than we have seen and just below the average for April.

"In the north it will still be fairly cold even on Saturday with rain and sleet about.

"Temperatures are on the up but the weather won't be that nice. It is turning less cold with temperatures returning to normal but with that rise we'll have lots of rain."

Average temperatures across the UK will reach 7C to 8C (44F to 46F) on Saturday, rising to 9C (48F) on Sunday and could continue to rise during the week, according to the Met Office. Temperatures will nearly hit 11C (51F), the average maximum temperature for April nationally, but will still be a few degrees away from the London average of 12C (53F). Dan Williams, of the Met Office, said: "What we'll see is temperatures going much closer to the average but we'll see more unsettled weather with it, about with some brighter, drier spells."

The news will be welcomed after Britons suffered the second coldest March on record, beaten only by March 1962 with a record-breaking average temperature of 1.9C (35F).

This March shared its average temperature of 2.2C (36F) with March 1947, following Met Office figures. It was also much drier than average for the UK, with 62.1mm of rain falling during the month – just 65% of the 95.1mm average.

Sunshine hours were also slightly down compared to average, with 82.9 hours for the UK notching up 81% of the average.

The cold and dry conditions seen in March were largely due to high pressure dominating UK weather patterns, allowing cold and relatively dry air to move in from the east.

http://www.hockeybuzz.com...read.php?thread_id=105725

Is a Planetary Cooling Spell Straight Ahead? NASA: We May Be On the Verge of a “Mini-Maunder” Event.http://www.globalresearch.ca/

All climate scientists agree that the sun affects Earth’s climate to some extent. They only disagree about whether or not the effect form the sun is minor compared to man-made causes.

We noted in 2011:

This week, scientists from the US Solar Observatory and the US Air Force Research Laboratory have discovered – to their great surprise – that the sun’s activity is declining, and that we might experience the lowest solar output we’ve seen since 1645-1715. The Register describes it in dramatic tones:

What may be the science story of the century is breaking this evening.

Scientists who are convinced that global warming is a serious threat to our planet say that such a reduced solar output would simply buy us more time … delaying the warming trend, but not stopping or reversing it.

On the other hand, scientists who are skeptical about global warming say that the threat is a new mini ice age. (Remember that scientists have been convinced in the past that we would have a new ice age, and even considered pouring soot over the arctic in the 1970s to help melt the ice – in order to prevent another ice age. Obama’s top science advisor was one of those warning of a new ice age in the 1970s. And see this.)

NASA reports this week that we may be on the verge of another Maunder Minimum (a period with an unusually low number of sunspots, leading to colder temperatures):

Much has been made of the probable connection between the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year deficit of sunspots in the late 17th-early 18th century, and the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America were subjected to bitterly cold winters. The mechanism for that regional cooling could have been a drop in the sun’s EUV output; this is, however, speculative.


The yearly averaged sunspot number for a period of 400 years (1610-2010). SOURCE: Courtesy of NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.

***

The sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion.

NASA explains that interactions between the sun, sources of cosmic radiation and the Earth are very complicated, and it takes an interdisciplinary team of heliophysicists, chemists and others to quantify what is really going on. And the Earth’s climate is also affected by cosmic radiation.

So – even if NASA’s prediction of a period of an unusually low amount of sun spots is proven correct – it is hard to know whether that will lead to a large or small reduction in temperature trends.

http://news.nationalpost....ket-where-virus-detected/

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/05/in-wake-of-sixth-bird-flu-death-china-closes-shanghai-poultry-market-where-virus-detected/
- AGalchenyuk27

http://articles.mercola.c...ut-the-bird-flu-hoax.aspx

The Great Green Con no. 1: The hard proof that finally shows global warming forecasts that are costing you billions were WRONG all along


No, the world ISN'T getting warmer (as you may have noticed). Now we reveal the official data that's making scientists suddenly change their minds about climate doom. So will eco-funded MPs stop waging a green crusade with your money? Well... what do YOU think?

The Mail on Sunday today presents irrefutable evidence that official predictions of global climate warming have been catastrophically flawed.

The graph on this page blows apart the ‘scientific basis’ for Britain reshaping its entire economy and spending billions in taxes and subsidies in order to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. These moves have already added £100 a year to household energy bills

http://www.dailymail.co.u...billions-WRONG-along.html

Leaked IPCC Climate Report Shows UN Overestimated Global Warming

Not scheduled for publication until next year, a leaked report by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) presents evidence that fear-mongering over the magnitude of global warming may be a little too ambitious.

The preliminary report, which is available for download online, was leaked this month by an individual directly involved in the agency’s review process. After sifting through the analysis, critics found a chart comparing four separate temperature models, each of which has overstated temperature rises that the Earth has actually realized.

http://www.thenewamerican...restimated-global-warming