OH Noes! Increased Carbon Dioxide Making More Flowers In Tropical Forests

“PLANTS convert atmospheric carbon dioxide into energy in the form of sugars, which they can use to fuel any number of vital life processes. As more carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, plants have an opportunity to produce a bounty of new energy.”

SHOCK HORROR!! Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and warmth are what eco-systems require to flourish 😱

Watts Up With That?

From FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY and the “but wait, all climate change must be bad!” department.

Climate change linked to more flowery forests, FSU study shows

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — New research from a Florida State University scientist has revealed a surprising relationship between surging atmospheric carbon dioxide and flower blooms in a remote tropical forest.

FSU researchers studying the rich tropical forests of Panama’s Barro Colorado Island found that climbing rates of carbon dioxide have set the stage for a multidecade increase in overall flower production.

The findings were outlined in a paper published in the journal Global Change Biology

“It’s really remarkable,” said Assistant Professor of Geography Stephanie Pau, who led the study. “Over the past several decades, we’ve seen temperatures warming and carbon dioxide increasing, and our study found that this tropical forest has responded to that increase by producing more flowers.”

Pau’s findings suggest that tropical forests, which…

View original post 680 more words

Advertisements

THE Inconvenient Truth Is That Catastrophists Are Wrong

Eco-catastrophists - THE AUSTRALIAN

Institutionalised data bias is a handy default for radical-left eco-catastrophists who have a tendency to extract worst-case scenarios from every weather event. | THE AUSTRALIAN

GLOBAL warming alarmists want to change us, they want to change our behaviour, our way of life, our values and preferences. They want to restrict our freedom because they themselves believe they know what is good for us. They are not interested in climate or the environment. They misuse the climate in their goal to restrict our freedom. Therefore, what is in danger is freedom, not the climate.

FORMER head of Deutsche Bank, the ABC and ASX, Maurice Newman, writes another insightful piece in todays Australian maintaining that “it’s not carbon dioxide that threatens us with extinction but blind ideology dressed up as science.”

*

The inconvenient truth is that catastrophists are wrong

Maurice Newman | The Australian :

It should come as a great relief to know the freezing temperatures recently experienced in the northern hemisphere do not signal an end to global warming.

Imagine if mankind’s increasingly costly attempts to arrest CO2 emissions were unnecessary. That the misallocation of productive resources, prolonging the misery of the world’s most vulnerable people, was nothing more than a cynical ideological exercise?

Hopefully, those global warming doubters in Florida watching frozen iguanas falling stiff from the trees now know that while they were freezing, according to Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology, little old Penrith in Sydney, Australia, was the warmest spot on the planet, recording its highest temperature ever, having “broken the all-time maximum temperature record for … the Sydney metropolitan area”.

Well, perhaps in all that excitement the bureau can be forgiven for overlooking the fact Penrith Lakes started recording temperatures only in 1995 and for missing a much higher temperature recorded in nearby Richmond in 1939. But they were right. It was hot.

In a hurried piece in Fairfax publications, the Climate Council of Australia’s Will Steffen throws hot water on any misconceptions that may have been drawn from abnormal snowfalls in Britain, Switzerland and Japan, the record-breaking cold snap in Canada and the US, and the expansion of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet.

He says: “Terms like ‘global warming’ and the mental images they trigger can be misleading when people attempt to understand what is happening to the climate. A far better term is ‘climate disruption’, which captures the real nature of the vast array of changes, many of them abrupt and unexpected, that are occurring.” So fire and ice, it’s to be expected.

Of course you won’t be surprised to learn Steffen claims “the climate disruption we are increasingly experiencing is not natural. It is caused by the heat-trapping gases we humans are pouring into the atmosphere primarily by the burning of coal, oil and gas.”

On the day Steffen’s opinion piece appeared, this newspaper republished Matt Ridley’s article in The Times claiming “the Earth is very slowly slipping back into a proper ice age”. This confirms research by Henrik Svensmark, Australia’s David Evans and others, who correlated low solar activity (fewer sunspots) and increased cloud cover (as modulated by cosmic rays), with a cooling climate.

Indeed, last year scientists submitted 120 papers linking historical and modern climate change to variations in solar activity.

Steffen wasn’t among them. He says: “Whole ecosystems are succumbing to (human-induced) climate disruption. In 2016 unusually dry and hot conditions triggered massive fires in Tasmania’s World Heritage forests, while ocean circulation patterns have moved ­unprecedented underwater heatwaves around the world, driving the tragic coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef.’’

Yet the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Russell Reichelt, dismisses many of the claims that he says “misrepresent the extent and impact of coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef.”

Peter Ridd from James Cook University goes further, saying: “We can no longer trust the scientific organisations like the ARC (Australian Research Council) Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies. The science is coming out not properly checked, tested or replicated, and this is a great shame.”

Steffen’s work could fit this description. He spends much time pushing eco-catastrophism. “Climate disruption” he says “brings growing risks of large-scale migration and conflict as people, particularly the most vulnerable, are forced to deal with increasingly difficult conditions where they live. Some security analysts warn that climate disruption will dwarf terrorism and other conventional threats if present trends continue or worsen.

“Had enough of climate disruption? Then let’s leave our 20th-century thinking behind and get on with the job of rapidly building innovative, clever, carbon-neutral 21st-century societies.”

But Ridley questions the influence of carbon dioxide. He reminds us that: “In 1895 the Swede, Svante Arrhenius, one of the scientists who first championed the greenhouse theory, suggested that the ice retreated because carbon dioxide levels rose, and advanced because they fell. If this was true, then industrial emissions could head off the next ice age. There is indeed a correlation in the ice cores between temperature and carbon dioxide, but inconveniently it is the wrong way round: carbon dioxide follows rather than leads temperature downward when the ice returns.”

But where would manmade global warming “science” be if it relied on just facts? For decades, climate science has been plagued by scandals, deceit and the confessions of whistleblowers.

Penrith’s hyped recording is not new. Scientist and long-time BOM critic Jennifer Marohasy has been calling for an audit and urging Energy and Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg “to inform the World Meteorological Organisation that the temperatures recorded by our bureau are not consistent with calibration, nor any international standard”, and, to “direct the bureau to desist from announcing new record hot days”.

Still, institutionalised data bias is a handy default for radical-left eco-catastrophists who have a tendency to extract worst-case scenarios from every weather event.

But despite their best efforts, in the public’s eyes their story is wearing thin. There have been too many false predictions and unwarranted alarmism. People are wising up to the reality that climate science has become an unfalsifiable ideology and resent having their moral conscience questioned should they disagree.

If Ridley is right and the earth is slowly slipping back into a proper ice age, it will be literally cold comfort, not to mention lethal, to keep passing it off as climate disruption.

To survive such an event, our successors will need a plentiful supply of cheap, reliable energy, impossible given today’s intelligentsia’s religious objection to low-cost fossil and nuclear fuels.

It’s not carbon dioxide that threatens us with extinction but blind ideology dressed up as science.

(Climatism bolds and pic link added)

The inconvenient truth is that catastrophists are wrong | The Australian

•••

Related :


CLIMATE Skeptics Have Valid Reasons To Question Manmade Global Warming

Globe-Earth-Green.jpg

A MUST read op/ed written by Craig Rucker, Executive Director of CFACT and CFACT President David Rothbard.

THIS excellent piece focuses on an important part of the climate debate often overlooked – the heat absorption ability of the carbon dioxide molecule as its concentration increases in the atmosphere.

THE article received “coast to coast” attention via a media usually dismissive of sceptical arguments to the supposed “climate crisis”…

RUCKER’s forward received via email …

“Newspapers coast to coast”

CFACT-mastheads-1-12-18-768x380

This CFACT Op Ed appeared in the newspapers above and more!

Media bias against climate realism is rampant – especially on the national level. Some major publications, like the Los Angeles Times, have actually positioned themselves in opposition to free speech by imposing bans on opinions running counter to the Al Gore narrative.

Fortunately that is not the case with many local media outlets.

I’d like to call your attention, for a couple reasons, to a recent op/ed I co-wrote with CFACT President David Rothbard.

First, as we’ve discussed so often before, the contents of our article reveal that the hysterical case for global warming doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. There are good reasons, scientifically speaking, why those who are skeptical of climate alarmism have their doubts.

Secondly, and most encouragingly, our op/ed hasn’t been circular filed – as it might have been by the establishment media. In fact, it appeared in a host of local newspapers from one end of the United States to the other!

Climate skeptics have valid reasons to question manmade warming

by and

Many people are actively worried about global warming. And it frustrates them that skeptics and “deniers” refuse to acknowledge the “science” of such an urgent, manmade problem.

But there may be valid reasons to dispute the theory that man is responsible for climate change. And to demonstrate why the issue isn’t so clearcut, here’s a basic climate question to ponder:

As the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere increases, does its ability to absorb heat increase, decrease or remain the same?

Most people will assume the answer is “increase.” After all, CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas. Adding more of it to the atmosphere should mean more heat being “trapped.”

The correct answer, however, is decrease.

How do we know this? Because the U.N.’s very own, Al Gore-friendly Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acknowledged in its reports that CO2 loses the ability to absorb heat as its concentration increases. The IPCC explains that CO2 follows a “logarithmic dependence,” which means that it takes ever-doubling amounts of CO2 to keep adding the same amount of heat absorption in the atmosphere. In fact, CO2 absorbs only a certain narrow spectrum of infrared radiation, and the IPCC recognizes that the middle of this band is already “saturated.”

People who fret about manmade warming may find it hard to believe that CO2 actually loses “heat-trapping” ability. But they should know that even the very climate-concerned IPCC admits to such limitations. They still argue that we need to fear manmade warming, however. And their reason is simply that they believe any additional heat absorbed by CO2 will be greatly amplified by water vapor feedback.

This begs the question … are they right? The answer is “No.”

Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas of the atmosphere — and responsible for most of the warming that keeps the Earth habitable. In order to make their case, the IPCC theorizes that any additional warming from CO2 will lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere. And this water vapor will trap more heat, raising temperatures further. It is this “feedback loop” that is used to justify their predictions of catastrophic, future warming.

It’s an interesting concept, but it contains an inherent problem. Water vapor added to the atmosphere inevitably transitions to clouds. And cumulus clouds not only reflect solar radiation back into space but also produce rain. And rainfall not only cools surface temperatures but also scrubs CO2 out of the atmosphere. This is why water vapor feedback remains heavily debated in the scientific community, and even the IPCC admits that “an uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation.”

One thing we can all agree on, though, is that the Earth has warmed over the past 150 years, and by roughly 0.85 degrees Celsius. But the cause of this warming may well be the significant increase in solar activity during that time. In 2016, Norwegian scientists Harald Yndestad and Jan-Erik Solheim reported that solar output during the 20th century reached the highest levels in 4,000 years. And also in 2016, at least 132 peer-reviewed scientific papers suggested a solar influence on climate.

The IPCC rejects claims of solar variability, though. They argue that changes in solar “irradiance” (brightness) are relatively small. But recent research from scientists like Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark demonstrates that variations in the sun’s output also affect the solar magnetic field and solar wind — which directly influence ionization in the troposphere and cloud formation.

As the IPCC observed in its first assessment report in 1990, global climate in recent millennia “has fluctuated over a range of up to 2 degrees Celsius on time scales of centuries or more.” It’s very possible that the heightened solar activity of the past century has driven recent global warming. As such, there are valid reasons to question the theory of manmade climate change, and to urge greater study of the issue.

Climate skeptics have valid reasons to question manmade warming | CFACT

•••

CO2 Related :

CO2 – “The Stuff of Life” – Greening The Planet :

 


WHAT I Learned About Climate Change: The Science Is Not Settled

ramclr-050814-settled-ibd-color-final-cms.gif

EXCELLENT article written by a ‘Vegan Democrat’ and former CAGW believer, highlighting the reasons why many remain sceptical of the “settled science” of climate change…

*

By David Siegel Entrepreneur, investor, blockchain expert, start-up coach, CEO of the Pillar project and 20|30.io

What is your position on the climate-change debate? What would it take to change your mind?

If the answer is It would take a ton of evidence to change my mind, because my understanding is that the science is settled, and we need to get going on this important issue, that’s what I thought, too. This is my story.

More than thirty years ago, I became vegan because I believed it was healthier (it’s not), and I’ve stayed vegan because I believe it’s better for the environment (it is). I haven’t owned a car in ten years. I love animals; I’ll gladly fly halfway around the world to take photos of them in their natural habitats. I’m a Democrat: I think governments play a key role in helping preserve our environment for the future in the most cost-effective way possible. Over the years, I built a set of assumptions: that Al Gore was right about global warming, that he was the David going up against the industrial Goliath. In 1993, I even wrote a book about it.

Recently, a friend challenged those assumptions. At first, I was annoyed, because I thought the science really was settled. As I started to look at the data and read about climate science, I was surprised, then shocked. As I learned more, I changed my mind. I now think there probably is no climate crisis and that the focus on CO2 takes funding and attention from critical environmental problems. I’ll start by making ten short statements that should challenge your assumptions and then back them up with an essay.

1*fo9wFKN5dhW6645fMr5VlQ.jpg

  1. Weather is not climate. There are no studies showing a conclusive link between global warming and increased frequency or intensity of storms, droughts, floods, cold or heat waves. The increase in storms is simply a result of improved measurement methods. There has been no real increase.
  2. Natural variation in weather and climate is tremendous. Most of what people call “global warming” is natural, not man-made. The earth iswarming, but not quickly, not much, and not lately.
  3. There is tremendous uncertainty as to how the climate really works. Climate models are not yet skillful; predictions are unresolved.
  4. New research shows fluctuations in energy from the sun correlate very strongly with changes in earth’s temperature, better than CO2 levels.
  5. CO2 has very little to do with it. All the decarbonization we can do isn’t going to change the climate much.
  6. There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.” Carbon dioxide is coming out of your nose right now; it is not a poisonous gas. CO2 concentrations in previous eras have been many times higher than they are today.
  7. Sea level will probably continue to rise — not quickly, and not much. Researchers have found no link between CO2 and sea level.
  8. The Arctic experiences natural variation as well, with some years warmer earlier than others. Polar bear numbers are up, not down. They have more to do with hunting permits than CO2*.
  9. No one has demonstrated any unnatural damage to reef or marine systems. Additional man-made CO2 will not likely harm oceans, reef systems, or marine life. Fish are mostly threatened by people, who eat them. Reefs are more threatened by sunscreen than by CO2.
  10. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others are pursuing a political agenda and a PR campaign, not scientific inquiry. There’s a tremendous amount of trickery going on under the surface*.

Could this possibly be right? Is it heresy, or critical thinking — or both? If I’ve upset or confused you, let me guide you through my journey…

Read all of it here: What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled | Medium

Highly recommended ~ 38 minute read with an abundance of supporting data, evidence and peer-reviewed “science”….

This nine-thousand-word essay represents over 400 hours of research boiled down into a half-hour reading experience, with links to 250+ carefully chosen documents and videos. I’m building the argument from the bottom up, so take your time and see if it makes sense. Along the way, I’ll list five “smoking guns” that I think make the argument for decarbonization unsupportable. Before we dive in, I want to talk about …

David Siegel | Medium

What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled | Medium

H/T  🇦🇺 Canberroo  🇦🇺

•••

Related :

 


GLOBAL Cooling A Reality But Technology And CO2 Will Help Earth Survive

Screen Shot 2018-01-09 at 11.05.40 am

AN IMPORTANT and timely read Via The Times – MATT RIDLEY (Climatism bolds)

RECORD cold in America has brought temperatures as low as minus 44C in North Dakota, frozen sharks in Massachusetts and iguanas falling from trees in Florida. Al Gore blames global warming, citing one scientist to the effect that this is “exactly what we should expect from the climate crisis”. Others beg to differ: Kevin Trenberth, of America’s National Centre for Atmospheric Research, insists that “winter storms are a manifestation of winter, not climate change”.

Forty-five years ago a run of cold winters caused a “global cooling” scare. “A global deterioration of the climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilised mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon,” read a letter to President Nixon in 1972 from two scientists reporting the views of 42 “top” colleagues. “The cooling has natural causes and falls within the rank of the processes which caused the last ice age.” The administration replied that it was “seized of the matter”.

In the years that followed, newspapers, magazines and television documentaries spoke of the coming ice age. The CIA reported a “growing consensus among leading climatologists that the world is undergoing a cooling trend”.

This alarm about global cooling is largely been forgotten, but it has not entirely gone away. Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University has suggested that a quiescent sun presages another Little Ice Age like that of 1300-1850. I’m not persuaded. Yet the argument that the world is slowly slipping back into a proper ice age after 10,000 years of balmy warmth is in essence true. Most interglacial periods, or times without large ice sheets, last about that long, and ice cores from Greenland show that each of the past three millennia was cooler than the one before.

However, those ice cores, and others from Antarctica, can now put our minds to rest. They reveal that interglacials start abruptly with sudden and rapid warming but end gradually with many thousands of years of slow and erratic cooling. They have also begun to clarify the cause. It is a story that reminds us how vulnerable our civilisation is. If we aspire to keep the show on the road for another 10,000 years, we will have to understand ice ages.

The oldest explanation for the coming and going of ice was based on carbon dioxide. In 1895 the Swede Svante Arrhenius, one of the scientists who first championed the greenhouse theory, suggested that the ice retreated because carbon dioxide levels rose, and advanced because they fell. If this were true, then industrial emissions could head off the next ice age. There is indeed a correlation in the ice cores between temperature and carbon dioxide, but inconveniently it is the wrong way round: carbon dioxide follows rather than leads temperature downward when the ice returns.

A Serbian named Milutin Milankovich, writing in 1941, argued that ice ages and interglacials were instead caused by changes in the orbit of the Earth around the sun. These changes, known as eccentricity, obliquity and precession, sometimes combined to increase the relative warmth of northern hemisphere summers, melting ice caps in North America and Eurasia and spreading warmth worldwide.

RECORD COLD

Planes wait at the gates outside terminal five at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport in the heavy snow.

IN 1976 Nicholas Shackleton, a Cambridge physicist, and his colleagues published evidence from deep-sea cores of cycles in the warming and cooling of the Earth over the past half million years which fitted Milankovich’s orbital wobbles. Precession, which decides whether the Earth is closer to the sun in July or in January, is on a 23,000-year cycle; obliquity, which decides how tilted the axis of the Earth is and therefore how warm the summer is, is on a 41,000-year cycle; and eccentricity, which decides how rounded or elongated the Earth’s orbit is and therefore how close to the sun the planet gets, is on a 100,000-year cycle. When these combine to make a “great summer” in the north, the ice caps shrink.

Game, set and match to Milankovich? Not quite. The Antarctic ice cores, going back 800,000 years, then revealed that there were some great summers when the Milankovich wobbles should have produced an interglacial warming, but did not. To explain these “missing interglacials”, a recent paper in Geoscience Frontiers by Ralph Ellis and Michael Palmer argues we need carbon dioxide back on the stage, not as a greenhouse gas but as plant food.

The argument goes like this. Colder oceans evaporate less moisture and rainfall decreases. At the depth of the last ice age, Africa suffered long mega-droughts; only small pockets of rainforest remained. Crucially, the longer an ice age lasts, the more carbon dioxide is dissolved in the cold oceans. When the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere drops below 200 parts per million (0.02 per cent), plants struggle to grow at all, especially at high altitudes. Deserts expand. Dust storms grow more frequent and larger. In the Antarctic ice cores, dust increased markedly whenever carbon dioxide levels went below 200 ppm. The dust would have begun to accumulate on the ice caps, especially those of Eurasia and North America, which were close to deserts. Next time a Milankovich great summer came along, and the ice caps began to melt, the ice would have grown dirtier and dirtier, years of deposited dust coming together as the ice shrank. The darker ice would have absorbed more heat from the sun and a runaway process of collapsing ice caps would have begun.

All of human civilisation happened in an interglacial period, with a relatively stable climate, plentiful rainfall and high enough levels of carbon dioxide to allow the vigorous growth of plants. Agriculture was probably impossible before then, and without its hugely expanded energy supply, none of the subsequent flowering of human culture would have happened.

That interglacial will end. Today the northern summer sunshine is again slightly weaker than the southern. In a few tens of thousands of years, our descendants will probably be struggling with volatile weather, dust storms and air that cannot support many crops. But that is a very long way off, and by then technology should be more advanced, unless we prevent it developing. The key will be energy. With plentiful and cheap energy our successors could thrive even in a future ice age, growing crops, watering deserts, maintaining rainforests and even melting ice caps.

•••

More Must Read Matt Ridley :


Global warming will weaken wind power, study predicts

“Remember that when climate sharks claim that storms will become more intense.” P. Homewood

#sciencesaysso

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Joe Public

From the Guardian:

image

Wind farms are key to tackling climate change but warming will significantly cut the power of the wind across northern mid-latitudes, including the US, the UK and the Mediterranean, according to new research. However, some places, including eastern Australia, will see winds pick up.

View original post 413 more words


THE Great Global Warming “Pause”

Stop_global_warming_sign_in_blizzard_-_February_10,_2010_blizzard.jpg

BETWEEN the start of 1997 and the end of 2014, average global surface temperature stalled. This 18-year period is known as the global warming “pause” or “hiatus” and has been the subject of much research and debate in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

THE rise in global temperatures that alarmed climate campaigners in the 1990’s had slowed so much that the trend was no longer statistically significant. This despite one-third of Man’s entire influence on climate since the Industrial Revolution occurring since February 1997.

THE pause took a pause during the 2015/16 super El Niño which was the strongest such event in recorded history and helped to make 2015 and 2016 the warmest years in the modern warm period. However, 2017 witnessed the biggest drop in global temps in recorded history, seen across most data sets, bringing temps back inline with 1997-2014 averages, rendering “the pause” alive and well, to date.

THERE has been a recent surge in media reports aiming to debunk and bury the inconvenient hiatus, not predicted by any climatologist, science agency, government body, media outlet or UN computer model.

A few of the latest attempts by the mainsteam media at re-writing climate history…

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

BEFORE it “never happened” – ‘established’, ‘peer-reviewed’ climate science was all over the pause…

1997 – 2015 TEMPS

 

 

PEER-REVIEWED PAUSE “SCIENCE”

 

The Executive Summary alone mentions the word “pause” eleven times, but the key paragraph is this:

UPDATE

The Met Office link to their “pause” explanation has been deleted! Very un-Orwellian of the climate mafia…

“The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth.”― George Orwell1984


2017

“The hiatus continues to challenge climate science.” – Hedemann et al | Nature Climate Change …

screen-shot-2017-11-23-at-november-23-2-54-36-pm.png

The subtle origins of surface-warming hiatuses | Nature Climate Change

*

PAUSE for thought via Tony Heller’s RealClimateScience

Before it was disappeared, the hiatus was central to the IPCC report.

The MWP, LIA, 1940’s spike, 1970’s global cooling – all disappeared by the climate mafia.

Sometimes settled science requires rewriting history over and over again.

Deep Sixing The Hiatus | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

*

CALL me a cynic, but if “global warming” is so dastardly, and an “imminent global threat”, as we’re constantly told, isn’t a near 20 year warming “pause”, “hiatus” or “slowdown” (if that works better for you) a good thing? It definitely wouldn’t appear so by how much abuse, huffing and puffing is spewed out by the climate mafia when those two words – “pause” or “hiatus” are printed or uttered. One might think that the angry voices have skin in the climate game, financially, politically and/or ideologically. Oh…wait!

AS we know, the pause has been a big embarrassment to the climate establishment, because the longer it goes on, the more it casts doubt on their climate models and their theory, and thus threatens the literal trillion dollar industry made up of grants, funds, well-paid government jobs in climate bureaucracies, rent-seekers, advocacy groups, bird-slicers (windmills) and bat-blasters (solar farms)…

A LOT of jobs, reputations and (taxpayer) funds are now at stake.

*

TO conclude, an excellent summary of the pause and what it means for our understanding of the chaotic and complex climate system by Dr David Whitehouse…

The lesson of the pause is not that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist, but rather that the computer models, which predicted an acceleration in global warming, and on which current policy is based, have proved to be inaccurate. Nevertheless, the pause is an important event that enriches our understanding of a highly complex climate system. In the future, a long-term rise in global temperatures may resume. There is a good chance, however, that the recent super El Niño only interrupted the 1997-2014 pause. No-one knows. But if the pause were to resume or warming keeps slowing down, many of the fundamental assumptions of climate science would have to be re-assessed.

Dr David Whitehouse is the science editor of the Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

•••

UPDATE

THE latest “pause-buster” paper that this post is based on claims that “Missing Arctic temperature data, not Mother Nature, created the seeming slowdown of global warming from 1998 to 2012, according to a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change.” – Zhang et al. …

IF that’s the case, then what for the “missing data” at the other ‘inconvenient’ pole – Antarctica – that has been cooling for the past ~40 year and gaining ice mass?

“Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) data (2003–08) show mass gains from snow accumulation exceeded discharge losses by 82 ± 25 Gt a−1, reducing global sea-level rise by 0.23 mm a−1..” – H. Jay Zwally et al. …

PERHAPS cancel’s out the apparent “unreported” Arctic data that underpins the latest pause-buster attempt by Zhang et al.

FURTHER, a valid and worthy observation by our friends “Climate Realists” who noted on twitter:

Latest Excuse on the Pause: There was NO pause in global warming because of a lack of data in the Arctic… and yet your told the Arctic is the worst it’s ever been.. work that one out.

AND this via @SimonMaxfield8

FOR the Arctic they give a warming estimate of 0.659°C per decade. This means, without the Arctic data, the global temperature paused, i.e. only one region was contributing to global warming, and a region where it’s been estimated about half is due to natural factors.  

•••

Global Warming Pause/Hiatus Related :

El Niño Related :