AGW Scientists Scrambling To Keep GW Relevant

Note: My comments in brackets.

DEBATE about the reality of a two-decade pause in global warming and what it means has made its way from the skeptical 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.
(Now coal is a global cooling fuel?)

For Hansen the pause is a fact, but it's good news that probably won't last.
(He means he hopes the cooling 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.
(Why not just say 100 years to be meaningful?)

But the fact that global surface temperatures have not followed the expected global warming pattern is now widely accepted.
(Except by the Alarmists like futurecurrents.)

Research by Ed Hawkins of University of Reading shows surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range projections derived from 20 climate models and if they remain flat, they will fall outside the models' range within a few years.
(The AGWers are hanging by a thread.)

"The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations," says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

"If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change," he says.
(Ya think?)

Whitehouse argues that whatever has happened to make temperatures remain constant requires an explanation because the pause in temperature rise has occurred despite a sharp increase in global carbon emissions.
(Look to the Sun and the PDO and AMO, Obama!)

The Economist says the world has added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010, about one-quarter of all the carbon dioxide put there by humans since 1750. This mismatch between rising greenhouse gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now, The Economist article says.
(They can't see the truth because they are biased to preserve their government grants and now their reputations.)

"But it does not mean global warming is a delusion."
(Geez, follow the science not your bias?)

The fact is temperatures between 2000 and 2010 are still almost 1C above their level in the first decade of the 20th century.

"The mismatch might mean that for some unexplained reason there has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-2010.
(Yes, look at the sun and the PDO and AMO. Just take a look!)

"Or it might mean that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period."

The magazine explores a range of possible explanations including higher emissions of sulphur dioxide, the little understood impact of clouds and the circulation of heat into the deep ocean.

But it also points to an increasing body of research that suggests it may be that climate is responding to higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before.
(Duh, finally you consider that you don't understand what you are talking about.)

"This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy," the article says.

There are now a number of studies that predict future temperature rises as a result of man-made carbon dioxide emissions at well below the IPCC best estimate of about 3C over the century.

The upcoming IPCC report is expected to lift the maximum possible temperature increase to 6C.
(Forget science, just cross your fingers and hope you can say, 'see we were right.')

The Research Council of Norway says in a non-peer-reviewed paper that the best estimate concludes there is a 90 per cent probability that doubling CO2 emissions will increase temperatures by only 1.2C to 2.9C, the most likely figure being 1.9C.

Another study based on the way the climate behaved about 20,000 years ago has given a best guess of 2.3C.

Other forecasts, accepted for publication, have reanalyzed work cited by the IPCC but taken account of more recent temperature data and given a figure of between 1C and 3C.
(Still, not one of you consider that temperatures might go down. Does that fit the term 'blind science'?)

The Economist says understanding which estimate is true is vital to getting the best response.

"If as conventional wisdom has it, global temperatures could rise by 3C or more in response to a doubling of emissions, then the correct response would be the one to which most of the world pays lip service; rein in the warming and the greenhouse gases causing it," the article says.

"If, however, temperatures are likely to rise by only 2 degrees Celsius in response to a doubling of carbon emissions (and if the likelihood of a 6 degrees Celsius is trivial) the calculation might change," it says.
(What if it cools, idiots?)

"Perhaps the world should seek to adjust to (rather than stop) the greenhouse-gas splurge.
(Adjust to the climate, not to CO2, dummies.)

"There is no point buying earthquake insurance if you don't live in an earthquake zone."

According to The Economist, "given the hiatus in warming and all the new evidence, a small reduction in estimates of climate sensitivity would seem to be justified." On face value, Hansen agrees the slowdown in global temperature rises can be seen as "good news".

But he is not ready to recalculate the Faustian bargain that weighs the future cost to humanity of continued carbon dioxide emissions.

Hansen argues that the impact of human carbon dioxide emissions has been masked by the sharp increase in coal use, primarily in China and India.
(No don't consider what really might be happening. I just can't believe you really think the cooling is because of coal use. Then why aren't you advocating more coal burning? And why didn't it work in years past?)

Increased particulate and nitrogen pollution has worked in the opposite direction of rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

Another paper published in Geophysical Research Letters on research from the University of Colorado Boulder found small volcanoes, not more coal power stations in China, were responsible for the slowdown in global warming.
(Little baby volcano's caused the cooling? Ummm, probably not.)

But this did not mean that climate change was not a problem.

"Emissions from volcanic gases go up and down, helping to cool or heat the planet, while greenhouse gases from human activity just continue to go up," author Ryan Neely says.

Hansen's bottom line is that increased short-term masking of greenhouse gas warming by fossil fuel particulate and nitrogen pollution represents a "doubling down" of the Faustian bargain, an increase in the stakes.

"The more we allow the Faustian debt to build, the more unmanageable the eventual consequences will be," he says.
(That's right, what ever caused the cooling doesn't matter. Let's stick to our guns until we are demoted to janitors for being so foolish.)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ientists-puzzled/story-e6frg6z6-1226609140980

 

We're supposed to wreck our economy, to the extent Obama hasn't already done so, on the basis of theories that do not match actual data. Climate models, filled with opaque fudge factors already, not only do not replicate historical data but diverge dramatically from current experience.

The "scientific consensus" scrambles to come up with rationalizations. Meanwhile, we are supposed to just swallow this stuff whole and pay gargantuan costs. Certainly that is the Obama plan.

I go back to what a guy said in the WSJ. "The question is how much money we will waste to have no effect on the climate."

 

Here is the article from The Economist:

http://www.economist.com/news/scien...ing-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions

 

How about this.


CO2 moderates temperature extremes.

Helping us warm when we are cold and cool down when we are hot. (this is what my model shows... but we need more funding. Note, the results of my model are not for sale. But if I had a enough for a house in Rancho Sante Fe, to pay CA taxes and pay myself and my team to work on this full time... nah...I would not change my results.)


I am pretty sure we could establish and inverse relationship between CO2 forcing on temps and my golf handicap... if we funded the correct study.

 

Thanks for the link.

It seems there are so many factors that the scientists don't know about and don't understand that they should just relegate themselves to monitoring climate change and get out of the prediction and blame business.

Of course, this would probably make the government decrease the $4 billion they are currently pumping the AGW scientists way every year.