Global Warming Will Stop, New Peer-Reviewed Study
Marc Morano
April 30, 2008
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=a17defa8-802a-23ad-4912-8ab7138a7c3f&Issue_id
Global Warming Takes a Break for Nearly 20 Years.
The UK Telegraph reports on April 30: "Global warming will stop until at
least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate, scientists have
said. Researchers studying long-term changes in sea temperatures said
they now expect a "lull" for up to a decade while natural variations in
climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas
emissions. The average temperature of the sea around Europe and North
America is expected to cool slightly over the decade while the tropical
Pacific remains unchanged. This would mean that the 0.3°C global average
temperature rise which has been predicted for the next decade by the
UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may not happen, according
to the paper published in the scientific journal Nature." End article
excerpt.
This significant new study adds to a growing body of peer-reviewed
literature and other scientific analyses challenging former Vice
President Al Gore and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC). MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen's March
2008 presentation of data from the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office
found the Earth has had "no statistically significant warming since
1995."
Australian paleoclimate scientist Dr. Bob Carter also noted in 2007 that
"the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based
warming has occurred since 1998." Carter explained that the "temperature
stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts
per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2."
An August 7, 2007, peer-reviewed study by the UK Met Office, Britain's
version of our National Weather Service, conceded that global warming
had stopped as well. Both the journal Nature and UK Met Office analysis
which appeared in the journal Science predict a continuation of global
warming in future years. [Note: Hyping yet more unproven computer models
of the future in response to inconvenient evidence-based data is the
primary tool of the promoters of man-made climate doom. But it now
appears that even these computer model scenarios are failing to predict
a man-made climate "crisis." Even the activists over at RealClimate.org
admitted on April 10 that climate models were not "forecasts" or
"predictions" but rather "scenarios." ]
The May 1study in Nature essentially finds that global warming will have
stopped for nearly 20 years (1998 until 2015). According to the UK
Telegraph article; "Writing in Nature, the scientists said: 'Our results
suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next
decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical
Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic [man-made]
warming.'"
The UK Telegraph article by reporter Charles Clover noted the
significant deficiencies in UN climate models: "The IPCC currently does
not include in its models actual records of such events as the strength
of the Gulf Stream and the El Nino cyclical warming event in the
Pacific, which are known to have been behind the warmest year ever
recorded in 1998."
The evidence-based data showing the Earth's failure to continue warming
has confounded the promoters of man-made climate fear. The American
people have consistently rejected climate alarm as a Gallup Poll
released on Earth Day 2008 shows the American public's concern about
man-made global warming is unchanged from 1989. Gore's $300 million
dollar campaign to promote climate fear is attempting to convince
Americans that they face a climate "crisis" despite the new accumulating
scientific evidence to the contrary.
The latest peer-reviewed scientific data showing the dominance of
natural climate variability appears to be directly at odds with Gore's
central climate message. On May 25, 2006, Gore declared, "We are the
most powerful force of nature now. We are literally changing the
relationship between the Earth and the Sun." Gore added that mankind's
CO2 emissions have "the capacity to bring civilization itself to a dead
halt." [Note: Unfortunately, children seem to be the most susceptible to
Gore's and others baseless climate doomsday message. See: New York
Times article: Children may be driving alarm over global warming. Also,
read more about global warming propaganda campaign aimed at kids here. ]
This new study in Nature further reveals a "tipping point" for the
promoters of climate alarm. 2007 and now 2008 have challenged man-made
climate fear as new peer-reviewed studies continue to debunk rising CO2
fears. A U.S. Senate minority report reveals over 400 scientists
dissented from man-made climate fears, and more and more scientists
continue to declare themselves skeptical of a man-made climate "crisis"
in 2008.
Sampling of key inconvenient developments for promoters of a man-made
climate "crisis" so far in 2008: (See also related link at bottom of
this report)
1) Oceans Cooling! Scientists puzzled by "mystery of global warming's
missing heat"
2) New Data from NASA's Aqua satellite is showing "greatly reduced
future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide." (LINK )
3) Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer, formerly of NASA, found not one
peer-reviewed paper has 'ruled out a natural cause for most of our
recent warmth'
4) UN IPCC in 'Panic Mode' as Earth Fails to Warm, Scientist says
(LINK )
5) UN IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri "to look into the apparent
temperature plateau so far this century."
6) New scientific analysis shows Sun "could account for as much as 69%
of the increase in Earth's average temperature" &
7) Scientists find dust free atmosphere may be responsible for up to
..36 F rise in global temps
8) Analysis in peer-reviewed journal finds cold periods - not warm
periods - see increase in floods, droughts, storms, famine
9) New York Times Laments Media's incorrect hyping of frogs and global
warming
10) Prominent hurricane expert reconsiders global warming's impact
11) MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen's March 2008 presentation
of data from the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office found the Earth has
had "no statistically significant warming since 1995."-
12) An International team of scientists released a March 2008 report to
counter UN IPCC, declaring: "Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the
Climate"
13) Emitting MORE CO2 may 'be good for life on Earth', says
climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer, formerly of NASA in May 2008.
Update May 2, 2008:
Marc Morano
Scientists React
Sampling of Scientists Commenting on 'global warming will stop until at
least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate' study published
in the peer-reviewed journal Nature on May 1:
1) Dr. Roger A. Pielke, Jr. Professor in the Environmental Studies
Program at the University of Colorado reacted to this study in the
journal Nature by declaring: "Climate models are of no practical use."
Pielke, who is not a climate skeptic, said on April 30, "There is in
fact nothing that can be observed in the climate system that would be
inconsistent with climate model predictions. If global cooling over the
next few decades is consistent with model predictions, then so too is
pretty much anything and everything under the sun. This means that from
a practical standpoint climate models are of no practical use beyond
providing some intellectual authority in the promotional battle over
global climate policy."
2) Former Harvard University Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl, a string theorist
who is currently a professor at Charles University in the Czech Republic
said on May 1: "Wow. So the refutation of a prediction of a dangerous
warming by the world's top 2,500 scientists ;-) "does not come as a
surprise". Note that with no global warming since 1998, the paper
predicts 20 years of no warming. Recall that Al Gore has predicted
global destruction in less than 8 years from now. [.] The whole
validation of all existing climate models is (or should be) mostly based
on the data from the previous decades or centuries. If an effect that is
argued to be as strong as the greenhouse effect has been neglected while
it has the power to change 60-70 years of the temperature dynamics, it
implies the existence of a critical flaw in the whole picture."
3) UK Astronomer Dr. David Whitehouse, who authored the 2004 book The
Sun: A Biography, said on May 1, 2008: "Isn't it curious that over the
next decade man-made global warming will be cancelled out by natural
cycles. It's nice that Mother Nature (not the journal) is helping us
this way but it does beg the question as to whether the man-made effect
was all that significant if it can be nullified this way."
4) Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn, founder of the UK based long-term solar
forecast group Weather Action, said on April 30: "It is noteworthy that
this 'prediction' in the journal Nature coincides pretty well with
various solar-based predictions including the solar-magnetic based
prediction we issued from WeatherAction in Jan this year - i.e. cooling
till 2013 at least. It seems like the 'Anything But the Sun' faction of
UN IPCC works by copying what has already been predicted by a number of
solar-based forecasting techniques and then attributing the cause to
something earth-based. That way they hope to save the lie that man's
irrelevant earth-based efforts could cause climate change. Of course the
long term cooling change expected in sea temperatures referred to in
this paper in Nature as 'cause' is nothing of the sort it is a
consequence of the changes in sun-earth magnetic and particle links.
The Nature article is in effect saying that 'Climate Change causes
climate change'. Give us a break! Why is there a 22 year cycle in the
solar magnetic links and also the same cycle in world temperatures? The
reason is that the earth-sun magnetic links drive world temperatures
(and this understanding enables successful long-range weather forecasts
to be made). The pillars of pseudo-science writing in nature believe
their 'sea cycle' is the driver of what happens so they will have to
tell us that that the sun's magnetic field is driven by the Earth's
oceans. Does anyone buy this? Application of the scientific method to
science would be a good idea!"
5) Dr. John Brignell, a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the
University of Southampton wrote on his Numbers Watch website on May 1:
"As we were saying only last month, the motto du jour is get your
rationalization in first. The latest wheeze among the doomsayers is that
hell fire is being postponed. Of course, it would have been more
impressive if it had been published before the recent decade of
measurements showing no warming at all. As it stands, it is nothing more
than a testament to the infinite tunability of computer models. The
warmers are getting more and more like those traditional predictors of
the end of the world who, when the event fails to happen on the due
date, announce an error in their calculations and a new date."
6) Environmental Economist and global warming co-author Dennis Avery's
2006 book, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years, wrote on May 1:
"How many years of declining world temperature would it take now-in the
wake of the ten-year non-warming since 1998-to break up Al Gore's
"climate change consensus"? [.] All of this defies the "consensus" that
human-emitted carbon dioxide has been responsible for our global
warming. But the evidence for man-made warming has never been as strong
as its Green advocates maintained. The earth's warming from 1915 to 1940
was just about as strong as the "scary" 1975 to 1998 warming in both
scope and duration-and occurred too early to be blamed on human-emitted
CO2. The cooling from 1940 to 1975 defied the Greenhouse Theory,
occurring during the first big surge of man-made greenhouse emissions.
Most recently, the climate has stubbornly refused to warm since 1998,
even though human CO2 emissions have continued to rise strongly."
7) Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based
climate and atmospheric science consultant, wrote on May 2: "Several
teams made climate models and all those models predicted global warming
with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. None - not
one - of those models predicted that global warming would peak in 1998
then stop for the following decade despite atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentration increasing by ~5%. But that is what has happened. Now, one
team has amended their model so it shows the cessation of global warming
in 1998. Their amended model predicts that global warming will re-start
in 2015. Does anybody other than a fool believe them?"
8) Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., presently
senior scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder wrote on May
1: ".a useful quote from Kevin Trenberth, of the US National Center for
Atmospheric Research: 'Too many think global warming means monotonic
relentless warming everywhere year after year. It does not happen that
way.' This is an amazing error. Global warming does require a
more-or-less monotonic increase in warming (in the absence of a major
volcanic eruption) as illustrated in all available multi-decadal global
model runs. This essentially monotonic report is even emphasized in the
2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers (see Figure SPM.4)! Climate Science
published a proposed test of the multi-decadal global model predictions
(see A Litmus Test For Global Warming - A Much Overdue Requirement).
Clearly, so far, the models are failing to skillfully predict the rate
(and even the sign for the most recent years) of global warming. Andy
Revkin should follow up his article to document what the models predict
in terms of global warming (in Joules) over different time periods, and
what do the observations actually show. This would be excellent
investigative (much needed) journalism."
Media Reaction:
Scripps News: Globe may be cooling on Global Warming - May 1, 2008 - By
Deroy Murdock
Excerpt: In a December 2007 Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee minority-staff report, some 400 scientists -- from such
respected institutions as Princeton, the National Academy of Sciences,
the University of London, and Paris' Pasteur Institute -- declared their
independence from the pro-warming "conventional wisdom." "Not CO2, but
water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas," asserted
climatologist Luc Debontridder of Belgium's Royal Meteorological
Institute. "It is responsible for at least 75 percent of the greenhouse
effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped
CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it." AccuWeather's Expert
Senior Forecaster Joe Bastardi has stated: "People are concerned that 50
years from now, it will be warm beyond a point of no return. My concern
is almost opposite, that it's cold and getting colder." And on
Wednesday, the respected journal, Nature, indicated that Earth's
climactic cycles have stopped global warming through 2015. If nothing
else, all this obliterates the rampant lie that "the scientific debate
on global warming is over."
Junk Science: The Great Global Warming Race - May 1, 2008 - By Steven
Milloy
Excerpt: A new study indicates alarmist concern and a need to explain
away the lack of actual global warming. Researchers belonging to the
U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, reported in
Nature (May 1) that after adjusting their climate model to reflect
actual sea surface temperatures of the last 50 years, "global surface
temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate
variations . temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming."
You got that? IPCC researchers project no global warming over the next
decade because of Mother Nature. Although the result seems stunning in
that it came from IPCC scientists who have always been in the tank for
manmade global warming, it's not really surprising since the notion of
manmade climate change has never lived up to its billing. [.] Just this
week, Al Gore drummed up $683 million for an investment fund that aims
to profit from government-subsidized global warming-related
technologies. A few weeks ago, Gore launched a $300 million global
warming ad campaign. Do you think he's at all interested in returning
that money to investors and contributors? Or that he and the IPCC are
interested in returning their Nobel Peace Prizes?
Australian John Ray, Ph.D., who publishes the website Greenie Watch said
on May 2: "Their entire global warming scare was based on around two
decades of warming in the late 20th century so if that is followed by 20
years of stasis and cooling, which one of those two episodes represents
the trend? How can we be sure that there is ANY trend? If natural
fluctuations can cause an episode of cooling, how can we know that
natural fluctuations did not cause the episode of warming? We cannot
know that. The prophecies of doom are just irresponsible and very
damaging speculation."
Melanie Phillips writes in the UK Spectator in an article titled "Can
someone pause Al Gore for the next decade?" on May 1: "With a precision
of prediction which would have caused medieval sorcerers to strike
crystal balls off their wedding present lists, these scientists can
foretell precisely when these 'natural climate variations' will
subside - even though at the very same time Richard Wood of the Hadley
Centre confides: '...climate predictions for a decade ahead would always
be to some extent uncertain...' Always uncertain, eh? But isn't the
prediction that the planet is about to fry so certain that, as the Royal
Society so memorably told us, the argument is over? Truly, a most
flexible theory indeed."
Reporter Charles Clover of the UK Daily Telegraph wrote on May 1: "The
political task of negotiating a meaningful new climate treaty in
Copenhagen next year now looks more difficult because it will not take
place against a backdrop of droughts and soaring temperatures of the
kind that got climate concern under way in 1988."
Steven Goddard wrote in the UK Register on May 2: "How can scientists
who report measurements of the earth's temperature within one
one-hundredth of a degree be unable to concur if the temperature is
going up or down over a ten year period? Something appears to be
inconsistent with the NASA data - but what is it? [. ] Both of the
satellite data sources, as well as Had-Crut, show worldwide temperatures
falling below the IPCC estimates. Satellite data shows temperatures near
or below the 30 year average - but NASA data has somehow managed to stay
on track towards climate Armageddon. You can draw your own conclusions,
but I see a pattern that is troublesome. In science, as with any other
endeavor, it is always a good idea to have some separation between the
people generating the data and the people interpreting it."
Geoffrey Styles wrote in Energy Outlook on May 1: "Those who approach
climate change with a quasi-religious fervor are likely to become
apoplectic at any suggestion that a few cooler months or years might
derail the growing policy momentum to institute the means of
dramatically reducing emissions.
Full Text of today's UK Telegraph Article Below:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/30/eaclimate130.xml
Global warming may 'stop', scientists predict
Charles Clover, Environment Editor - UK Telegraph
30 Apr 2008
Global warming will stop until at least 2015 because of natural
variations in the climate, scientists have said.
Researchers studying long-term changes in sea temperatures said they now
expect a "lull" for up to a decade while natural variations in climate
cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
The average temperature of the sea around Europe and North America is
expected to cool slightly over the decade while the tropical Pacific
remains unchanged.
This would mean that the 0.3°C global average temperature rise which has
been predicted for the next decade by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change may not happen, according to the paper published in
the scientific journal Nature.
However, the effect of rising fossil fuel emissions will mean that
warming will accelerate again after 2015 when natural trends in the
oceans veer back towards warming, according to the computer model.
Noel Keenlyside of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Kiel,
Germany, said: "The IPCC would predict a 0.3°C warming over the next
decade. Our prediction is that there will be no warming until 2015 but
it will pick up after that."
He stressed that the results were just the initial findings from a new
computer model of how the oceans behave over decades and it would be
wholly misleading to infer that global warming, in the sense of the
enhanced greenhouse effect from increased carbon emissions, had gone
away.
The IPCC currently does not include in its models actual records of such
events as the strength of the Gulf Stream and the El Nino cyclical
warming event in the Pacific, which are known to have been behind the
warmest year ever recorded in 1998.
Today's paper in Nature tries to simulate the variability of these
events and longer cycles, such as the giant ocean "conveyor belt" known
as the meridional overturning circulation (MOC), which brings warm water
north into the North East Atlantic.
This has a 70 to 80-year cycle and when the circulation is strong, it
creates warmer temperatures in Europe. When it is weak, as it will be
over the next decade, temperatures fall. Scientists think that
variations of this kind could partly explain the cooling of global
average temperatures between the 1940s and 1970s after which
temperatures rose again.
Writing in Nature, the scientists said: "Our results suggest that global
surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural
climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific
temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic [manmade] warming."
The study shows a more pronounced weakening effect than the Met Office's
Hadley Centre, which last year predicted that global warming would slow
until 2009 and pick up after that, with half the years after 2009 being
warmer than the warmest year on record, 1998.
Commenting on the new study, Richard Wood of the Hadley Centre said the
model suggested the weakening of the MOC would have a cooling effect
around the North Atlantic.
"Such a cooling could temporarily offset the longer-term warming trend
from increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
"That emphasises once again the need to consider climate variability and
climate change together when making predictions over timescales of
decades."
But he said the use of just sea surface temperatures might not
accurately reflect the state of the MOC, which was several miles deep
and dependent on factors besides temperatures, such as salt content,
which were included in the Met Office Hadley Centre model.
If the model could accurately forecast other variables besides
temperature, such as rainfall, it would be increasingly useful, but
climate predictions for a decade ahead would always be to some extent
uncertain,
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"If scientists say they are 100% sure, or that they are absolutely
certain about the cause and effect and ignore variables which might show
that they could be wrong, they are practicing junk science. Junk science
happens when scientists believe something based on just some of what
they see."
|
