Hans Storch. Climate Scientist. Statement to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, July 19, 2006 Hearing : Implications for Climate Change Assessments...... "Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
That's the only way the alarmists can keep their story going. We didn't hear them talk much about the super cold winter and spring. They have to be opportunists to try and support their claims. We are peaking on the 11 year solar cycle before the sun goes into a deeper than normal slumber. This is the last hurrah for the AGW alarmists.
Man, if this record heat wave (yet again) is during global cooling (17 years long!) I'd sure hate to see global warming.
That was in 2006... This is now... after it has become clear the models projecting co2 causes warming are radically and quickly failing again. http://euvoice.eu/2013/06/climate-e...ing-stagnating/ 06-26-13 12:08 PM SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures havenât risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this? Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. Weâre facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasnât happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) â a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year. SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that weâre observing right now? Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase. SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts? Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations. SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models? Storch: There are two conceivable explanations â and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldnât mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.
1. This is fricken hysterical. You have the data showing there has been no statistical warming for 17 years and you are still harping on a heat wave in certain areas. The left. 2. On top of that there MET seems to admit that using the most appropriate statistical test there is no warming outside of natural variability since the industrial revolution.
You should get a dictionary and study the words "weather" and "climate" and see how they differ. That examination will confirm to you that you are a moron and have no knowledge about the science of climate. You are just a biased moron of the left, Rectum.
..at which time his position was ....."Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere." Now apparently, there isn't that scientific evidence for his latest comments ... He's saying, "climate change seems to be taking a break."
Its cause the only "science" they in 2006 showing man made co2 causes warming were climate models. Those climate models are failing. "SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models? Storch: There are two conceivable explanations â and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldnât mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes." Which is what we have been telling you crazy agw nutters for years. and the studies are now coming out showing this... CO2 especially man made co2 has very little effect or impact on warming (a fraction of a percent) and most if not all of the climate fluctuation is natural.
He wasn't wrong in 2006 was he? He hasn't changed his position. There is AGW. So who are you calling nutters here? Oh it's your source. Honestly, the day you can carry a coherent argument will be the first. He is saying there only seems to be a break. There are other reasons given by other climate scientists to say why he seemsto be wrong about there being a break.
hey stu you seem to be a really big fricken troll. this is the science... from a real scientist... he was a nutter but he has the integrity to tell the truth. Taking him out of the nutter camp.