GWPF Science Editor Dr David Whitehouse takes a close look at some recent developments in the long-running global temperature ‘pause’ controversy.
A new paper has been published in the Analysis section of Nature called Reconciling controversies about the ‘global warming hiatus.’ It confirms that the ‘hiatus’ or ‘pause’ is real. It is also rather revealing.
It attempts to explain the ‘Pause’ by looking into what is known about climate variability. They say that four years after the release of the IPCC AR5 report, which contained much about the ‘hiatus’ it is time to see what can be learned.
One could be a little sarcastic in saying why would Nature devote seven of its desirable pages to an event that some vehemently say never existed and maintain its existence has been disproved long ago.
Now, however, as the El Nino spike of the past few years levels off, analysing the…
View original post 324 more words
“The gap between observations and models persists. The observed trend deviated by as much as −0.17 °C per decade from the CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5; ref. 19) ensemble-mean projection1—a gap two to four times the observed trend.
The hiatus therefore continues to challenge climate science.”
– Nature Climate Change (PEER-REVIEWED STUDY)
“This paper published today in Nature Climate Change by Hedemann et al. not only confirms the existence of “the pause” in global temperature, but suggests a cause, saying “…the hiatus could also have been caused by internal variability in the top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance“.
That’s an important sentence, because it demonstrates that despite many claims to the contrary, CO2 induced forcing of the planetary temperature is not the control knob, and natural variability remains in force.”
The “pause/hiatus” in Global Warming is now nearing 20 YEARS. This despite *record* man-made CO2 emitted over the same period.
Don’t be at all surprised if – CNN, BBC, ABC, CNBC, LATimes, NYTimes, WaPo, The Age, SMH and the rest of the “climate change” obsessed sycophant media don’t report this massively inconvenient climate news. – Too many reputations, jobs, govt grants and funding are now at stake.
The “uncertainty monster” strikes again
We’ve been highly critical for some time of the paper in summer 2015 by Karl et al. that claimed “the pause” or hiatus went away once “properly adjusted” ocean surface temperature data was applied to the global surface temperature dataset. Virtually everyone in the climate skeptic community considers Karl et al. little more than a sleight of hand.
No matter, this paper published today in Nature Climate Change by Hedemann et al. not only confirms the existence of “the pause” in global temperature, but suggests a cause, saying “…the hiatus could also have been caused by internal variability in the top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance“.
That’s an important sentence, because it demonstrates that despite many claims to the contrary, CO2 induced forcing of the planetary temperature is not the control knob, and natural variability remains in force.
Also of note, see the offset as designated…
View original post 1,026 more words
Study: Worsening drought from climate change may be ‘considerably weaker and less extensive than previously thought’Posted: June 7, 2016
From the department of “settled science”…
A new publication in Nature Climate Change puts the brakes on predictions that global warming/climate change may produce continental scale droughts into the late 21st century. For example, NCAR said in 2010: CLIMATE CHANGE: DROUGHT MAY THREATEN MUCH OF GLOBE WITHIN DECADES
Then they had to back down and correct the original, when they found the drought PDSI (Palmer Drought Severity Index) numbers were overestimated by double the amount:
Update – July 3, 2012
This news release has been revised to reflect a miscalculation in the original study that inadvertently resulted when simulations of historical drought were combined with simulations of future drought. The revised maps, below, indicate that drought levels on the Palmer Drought Severity Index may reach -10 in certain regions, whereas the levels reached -20 on the original maps. Similarly, upper-latitude areas become less moist than previously projected. Large portions of the globe are still expected to…
View original post 1,189 more words
When the journal “Science” prints a study doubting CO2 sensitivity, or basically, the effect that man-made CO2 has on the temperature of the atmosphere, you can be 100% sure that the “science” of climate change is most definitely not “settled”!
By David Kreutzer, Ph.D. ~
Last summer, the editor of Science wrote a commentary on climate change where she said “The time for debate has ended.”
After appealing to policies based on economic knowledge she doesn’t have, she finished with speculation as to which ring of Dante’s Inferno would God designate for climate skeptics.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry with former Vice President Al Gore at the Paris Climate Conference. (Photo: State Department/Sipa USA/Newscom)
All in all, it was an awesomely unscientific tour de farce and totally depressing in that it came from one of the world’s two most prestigious science journals.
Of course the time for debate hasn’t ended—especially for the meaningful debate concerning how much impact carbon dioxide has on global warming.
The relationship under debate is how much warming will the world see from a doubling of carbon dioxide—which is called the equilibrium climate sensitivity.
View original post 755 more words
Friday, 22 July 2011
A recently published study on sea level rises in Australia and New Zealand has some questioning the effect of climate change on the oceans.
Phil Watson, a coastal researcher with the New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage, analysed data from four tide gauges, located at Fremantle, Sydney, Newcastle and Auckland, collected as far back as 1897.
He notes in his study that various long-term factors such as changes in the Moon’s orbit, El Nino events and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation affect sea levels on a periodic basis. To remove these effects, the data was converted into a 20-year moving average.
“The 20-year moving average water level time series through to 2000 clearly depict relative water level changes that are increasing over time, though at a reducing rate,” writes Watson in his study which appeared in the Journal of Coastal Research.
He says the most reliable gauges, located at Fremantle and Auckland, show an increase in sea level of approximately 120 millimetres between 1920 and 2000, or 1.5 millimetres per year. But this increase is reducing at a rate of between 0.02 and 0.04 millimetres per year.
“This decelerating trend was also evident in the detailed analysis of 25 US tide gauge records longer than 80 years in length,” he writes.
“Further research is required to rationalise the difference between the acceleration trend evident in the global sea level time-series reconstructions and the relatively consistent deceleration trend evident in the long-term Australasian tide gauge records.”