The past 17 years of flat global temperatures are creating a big chill for lots of global warming doom-premised industries. Those experiencing cold sweats must certainly include legions of climate scientists who have come to depend upon the many tens of billions of taxpayer bucks for studies that would have little demand without a big crisis for the public to worry about. And that amount pales in comparison with the hundreds of $ billions we spend on generous subsidies, lost tax revenues and inflated consumer costs for otherwise non-competitive âgreen energyâ industries which depend upon those scary climate reports, or the insane economic penalties imposed upon all segments through EPAâs climate-premised regulatory rampage. Cooler temperatures blow ill-winds for government bureaucrats, crony-capitalist rent- seekers, and other hucksters whose ambitions depend upon hot air. Even Western Europe, the cradle of carbon-caused climate craziness and cap-and-trade corruption, is feeling a cold draft. As Alister Doyle, reporting from Reuters in Oslo, recently observed: âWeak economic growth and the pause in warming is undermining governmentsâ willingness to make a rapid billion-dollar shift from fossil fuels. Almost 200 governments have agreed to work out a plan by the end of 2015 to combat global warming.â In April, the Parliament in Strasbourg voted against artificially propping up the price of Emission Trading System carbon permit prices following the collapse of energy demand in connection with the Continentâs economic crisis. While the low price of carbon allowances is great for energy customers, you can be assured that it is viewed very differently by so-called ârenewableâ energy and carbon credit trading promoters who depend upon higher-than-market fossil fuel prices to stay in business. The Parliamentâs veto reflects encouraging recognition that unwarranted, economy-ravaging carbon rationing is a feverish folly. Goshâ¦Where Did All of Those Expensive Climate Models Go Wrong? A scientist who commented in a Climategate email was badly mistaken when he observed: âIt is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.â As it turned out, our policymakers did make those horrendously costly decisions based upon highly speculative model projections, mostly reported by the U.N.âs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Still, another researcher probably got it right, anticipating some very troubling consequences: âWhat if climate change appears to be just mainly a multi-decadal natural fluctuation? Theyâll kill us probablyâ¦â Even Paul Ehrlich, best known for his 1968 doom and gloom book, âThe Population Bombâ, recognizes this peril. Writing in a March 2010 Nature editorial that a barrage of challenges countering the notion of a looming global warming catastrophe has his alarmist colleagues more alarmed than usual, he said: âEveryone is scared s***less [fecally void], but they donât know what to do.â There is good reason for this cooling climate consternation. As David Whitehouse at the Global Warming Policy Foundation points out: âIf we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change.â Whitehouse notes that there has been no statistically significant increase in annual global temperatures since 1997. He goes on to say: âIf the standstill (lower temperatures) continues for a few more years, it will mean that no one who has just reached adulthood, or younger, will have witnessed the Earth get warmer during their lifetime.â (Since 1997, atmospheric CO2 has increased from 370 ppm to 390 ppm.) These observed developments have prompted the U.K.âs Met Office Climate Center (the national weather service) to quietly revise its projections. They now say: âThe latest decadal prediction suggests that the next five years are likely to be a little bit lower than predicted from the previous prediction.â The predicted increase from 2013 through 2017 was 0.43 degree Celsius above the 1971-2000 mean, while the previous prediction said temperature would increase 0.54 degree from 2012 through 2016. Simply stated, it will be cooler than they expected! The London Daily Mail published a chart that, as they say, âreveals how [the IPCCâs] â95 % certainâ estimates of the Earth heating up were a spectacular miscalculation.â Comparing actual temperatures against the IPCCâs 95% certainty projections, the lines track closely until recent years, at which point the line representing the observed temperatures âis about to crash out ofâ the boundaries of the lowest projections. They were supposed to climb sharply after 1990. Whereas the IPCC has predicted that temperatures will rise by 3 degrees Celsius by 2050 if CO2 doubles from pre-industrialized levels of 1750, The Research Council of Norway plugged in real temperature data from 2000 to 2010 and determined that doubling would cause only a 1.9 degree Celsius rise. Another study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences links temperature changes from 1750 to natural changes (such as sea temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean) and suggests ââ¦the anthropogenic global warming trends might have been overestimated by a factor of two in the second half of the 20th centuryâ. Peter Stott, a researcher who authored the most recent IPCC report chapter on global climate projections, has found that climate model projections of an alarming temperature rise are inconsistent with past observations. When he and his colleagues at the U.K.âs Met Office forced the amount of global warming predicted by the models to equal the amount of warming actually observed, the projected future rise to accompany human greenhouse gas emissions dropped substantially. In other words, the better climate models match the past, the less scary the likely future looks. Stott isnât alone. Within the past two years, at least seven peer-reviewed studies published in the scientific literature have concluded that the influence of doubling the amount of CO2 in the Earthâs atmosphere is likely to be substantially lower than IPCC has determined and have ruled out the high-end projections. James Annan, formerly a strong defender of Michael Mannâs infamously flawed alarmist âhockey stickâ graph and an expert on âclimate sensitivityâ to CO2 and other influences, recently concluded in his blog that IPCC is increasingly acting in a wholly unscientific manner. He referred to a list of scientists polled as largely constituting âthe self-same people responsible for the bogus analyses [he] criticized over the years, and which even if they were valid then, are certainly outdated nowâ. Annan also said: âSince IPCC can no longer defend their old analyses in any meaningful manner, it seems they have to resort to an unsupported âthis is what we think, because we asked our palsââ¦having firmly wedded themselves to their politically convenient long tail of high values, their response to new evidence is little more than sticking their fingers in their ears and singing âla la la I canât hear youâ.â Those IPCC reports serve as the primary basis for EPAâs regulatory actions under the Clean Air Actâ¦as are the presidentâs statements that his administrationâs policies are based upon âthe overwhelming judgment of science.â Asserting in his State of the Union Address that global warming played a role in fueling deadly and destructive storms like Hurricane Sandy, President Obama said: âWe must do more to combat climate changeâ¦Itâs true that no single event makes a trend. But the fact is, the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods â all are now more frequent and intense.â But thereâs a big disconnect from facts here. In reality, there has been no increase in the strength or frequency of landfall hurricanes in the worldâs five main hurricane basins during the past 50-70 years; there has been no increase in the strength or frequency in tropical Atlantic hurricane development during the past 370 years; the U.S. is currently enjoying the longest period ever recorded without intense Category 3-5 hurricane landfall; there has been no trend since 1950 evidencing any increased frequency of strong (F3-F-5) U.S. tornadoes; there has been no increase in U.S. flood magnitudes over the past 85 years; and long-term sea level rise is not accelerating. Well Then, If IPCC Is Wrong, What About Those Recent Heat Waves? Reacting to hot temperatures in much of the U.S. last summer, former NASA employee and eternal anti-fossil fuel activist James Hansen warned us that August was âthe kind of future that climate change would bring to us and our planet.â Echoing this, Al Gore lamented on his website, âdirty weather is created by âdirty energyâ â¦â a lot of people are saying out loud, âIâm too hot!â â. Even NOAA said that the lower 48 had seen the warmest year on record in 2012. Story Continues
Yet as well-known Climate Depot blogger Marc Morano, recognizes: âNOAA can only claim that 2012 was the warmest single year on record through statistical tricksâ¦including âadjustingâ raw data and adding data to the overall data set from stations that did not exist when the record first started being recorded. Absent these illegitimate actions, the measured temperatures from the 1930s still match or exceed the measured temperatures from the 1990s and 2000s.â Perhaps unsurprisingly, we havenât heard much in the media about the fact that in June last year, 46 U.S. cities, including some in the Deep South, set or tied record lowsâ¦or that Alaska, which isnât part of the lower 48, has been reporting some of the coldest winters on record since 2000. According to the Alaska Climate Research Center at University of Alaska-Fairbanks, that record has held true for 19 of 20 National Weather Stations sprinkled from one corner of the state to another. The New York Times breathlessly reported: âThe temperature differences between years are usually measured in fractions of a degree, but last yearâs 55.3degree average [in the contiguous U.S. states] demolished the previous record, set in 1998, by a full degree Fahrenheit.â But somehow they didnât see fit to mention that 2008 was two degrees cooler than 2006, or that 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 were all cooler than 1998 by a larger margin than 2012 was hotter than 1998. And, by the way, donât forget that the U.S. isnât the globe. Those contiguous states, which omit Alaska and Hawaii, represent only 1.58% of the Earthâs surface. During most of the 2011-2012 winter, the Bering Sea witnessed an ice extent between 20 to 30 percent above the 1979 to 2000 average, with the highest February expanse ever measured. Fellow Forbes contributor James Taylor reported that Antarctic sea ice also set record, with the largest amount of ice ever recorded occurring on day 256 of the 2012 calendar year. In fact Antarctic sea ice has been growing ever since satellites first began measuring it 33 years ago, and the expanse exceeded the 33-year average throughout 2012. Hot and Cold Blasts from the Past; Be Careful What You Wish For: Much of recent warming alarmism centered upon a temperature trend that began in the 1980s, occurring less than a decade after our planet came out of a three-decade cooling trend that led many to fear a coming Ice Age. As climatologist and fellow Forbes contributor Patrick Michaels recalls: âWhen I was going to graduate school, it was gospel that the Ice Age was about to start. I had trouble warming up to that one too.â Referring to recent alarmism, he observes: âThis (greenhouse hysteria) is not the first climate apocalypse, but itâs certainly the loudest.â As the late world-renowned atmospheric scientist Reid Bryson, formerly a leader in voicing Ice Age concern in the 1970s, said: âBefore there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?â Bryson told the Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News in 2007 âAll this argument is the temperature going up or not, itâs absurd. Of course itâs going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because weâre coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because weâre putting more carbon dioxide into the air.â He went on to comment: âYou can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.â It might be worth mentioning that some heavyweight U.S. solar physicists are once again predicting that Planet Earth may very well be heading into a period of protracted cooling due to a lengthy spell of low sunspot activityâ¦potentially another âLittle Ice Ageâ. This announcement that came from scientists at the U.S. National Solar Observatory and U.S. Air Force Laboratory was based upon three different analyses of the Sunâs recent behavior. One of the worldâs leading solar scientists, Habibiullo Abdussamatov, head of the Russian Academy of Sciences Pulkovo Observatory in St. Petersburg and director of the Russian segment of the international Space Station, agrees that Planet Earth may be in for a long cold spell. He points out that deep cold periods have occurred five times over the last 1,000 years. Each is correlated with declines in solar irradiance, much like we are experiencing now. Dr. Abdussamatov believes: âA global freeze will come about regardless of whether or not industrialized countries put a cap on their greenhouse gas emissions. The common view of Manâs industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect.â He predicts that a new Little Ice Age will commence around 2013/2014, the depth of the decline will occur around 2040, and a deep freeze will last for the rest of this century. The last Little Ice Age, which occurred in the middle of the 16th century, wasnât broadly regarded as a good time. That period lasting about 150 years, killed millions in Europe, ending soon after Washingtonâs troops suffered brutal winter temperatures at Valley Forge in 1777, and Napoleonâs experienced a bitterly cold retreat from Russia in 1812. Whether cooling continues or not, is there any reason at all to panic? No, and by the same token if, for any reason, global warming resumes as it probably will, again and again following intermittent cool-downs, letâs be grateful for the many human health and welfare benefits it brings. Letâs celebrate times when CO2-dependent agriculture flourishes over extended growing seasons, and when cold-related death rates decline. Letâs accept the fact that climate changes for many reasons without permission or help from usâ¦it always hasâ¦always willâ¦and not always for the worse. And letâs be skeptical about advice from alarmists who obviously depend upon scare tactics to sell us a hot bill of goods. http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...ize-climate-science-and-green-energy-funding/
I know the issue. There is likely a defect problem world wide with the instruments used to measure temperature. I am sure if we "adjust" the instruments we will get a more true picture indicating that Global warming has continued to unabated. fan27 chief climatologist school of advanced climatory research
Meanwhile Obama is wrecking our economy via the EPA. Millions of young people have been indoctrinated in school to believe it is the single most important thing in their lives and of course, they are too ignorant and lacking in crtical thinking skills to realize they have been played. It sickens me to have to discuss it with them because invariably they end up getting angry that we can just wilfully destroy the planet. They are so earnest and sincere but so ignorant.
I'll bet futurecunt and rectum didn't even read this thread. They are two ignorant lefties who follow their lying leaders like sheep. Either they are incredibly retarded or they are being paid to promote the AGW lie.