Global warming did indeed slow at beginning of 21st century

The bitter debate between those who believe global warming is here – they think we are the cause and it is getting worse – and climate change deniers who pointed to a slowdown in global warming at the beginning of this century as proof that it is all a myth, is about to get heated again after scientists found that the warming did indeed slow down.

An apparent deceleration in the increase in worldwide temperatures at the start of this century, which is not explained in climate models, was referred to as a hiatus (pause) when first seen several years ago.

The global warming ‘hiatus’ spawned congressional hearings in the United States and a flood of skeptical blog posts before being curbed in 2015. Expect all that to be coming back!

Global Warming SlowdownThis graph shows a ‘slowdown’ in rising temperatures until 2010. The black line shows climate model temperature predictions, while the red line shows actual temperatures. Warming has recently gathered pace, breaking historical records in 2014 and 2015. (Image: Nature Climate Change)

Hiatus not just an artefact, it was real

Climate-change deniers have held on to this slowdown for dear life, saying there is the evidence that global warming is a myth, and if it did occur, it was a temporary blip that had nothing to do with us and the planet stopped warming in 1998.

However, in June 2015, a study published in Science concluded that the hiatus was merely an artefact which disappears when biases in temperature data are corrected.



Now an international group of eminent scientists from the US, Canada, UK, Japan and Australia is challenging that claim. They wrote in the academic journal Nature Climate Change (citation below) that even after correcting these biases, the slowdown was real.

Lead author, John Fyfe, who works as a climate modeler at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria, British Columbia, said:

“There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing. We can’t ignore it.”

2014 record warm year2014 was a record-breaking warm year. (Image: ncdc.noaa.gov)

Dr. Fyfe refers to a ‘slowdown’ rather than a ‘hiatus’. He emphasizes that it does not in any way undermine the climate change (global warming) theory.

The controversy revolves partly around the statistics on temperature patterns and trends. The study that challenged the existence of the slowdown corrected known biases in the surface temperature record maintained by the NOAA (US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), such as differences in temperature readings from buoys and ships.

Last year’s study included a record-warm year

This effectively raised the warming recorded, and the scientists also extended the record to include 2014, which was a record-hot year for average temperatures.

That study, led by director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information in North Carolina, Thomas Karl, calculated that the rate of global warming from 1950 to 1999 was 0.113 degrees Celsius per decade, similar to the 0.116°C per decade calculated for the 2000 to 2014 period.

Dr. Karl said that this meant that the 2013 assessment done by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – showing that warming had slowed – was invalid.

In this latest study, Dr. Fyfe and colleagues say that Dr. Karl’s approach was biased by a period of comparatively flat temperatures extended from the 1950s to early 1970s.

During that period, there were lower greenhouse-gas emissions, while the emissions of industrial pollutants, including sulphate (USA: sulfate) aerosols were keeping the planet cooler by reflecting the Sun’s rays back into space.

Warming slowed down considerably after 2000

According to Dr. Fyfe and team’s calculations, the Earth warmed at 0.170°C per decade from 1972 to 2001, which is considerably more than the 0.113°C per decade he and his team calculated for 2000 to 2014.

Dr. Fyfe says his approach is better, because it takes into account the events that affect decadal temperature trends. For example, studies have found that climate models overestimated the heating effect from solar radiation and underestimated the cooling effect of volcanic eruption at the beginning of this century.

Other scientists are studying variability in the Pacific Ocean, including a measure of sea surface temperatures (Pacific Decadal Oscillation). All these things can affect the climate, and mask the warming trend over the long-term.

Writing in Nature News, Jeff Tollefson quoted Susan Solomon, a climatologist at MIT, who said that Dr. Fyfe’s framework helps put 21st-century trends into perspective, and clearly shows that the rate of warming decelerated at a time when greenhouse-gas emissions were increasing dramatically.

Dr. Solomon, who is internationally recognized as a leader in atmospheric science, said:

“It’s important to explain that. As scientists, we are curious about every bump and wiggle in that curve.”

While acknowledging that investigating how short-term effects might impact decadal trends, Dr. Karl adds that these short-term trends do not necessarily explain the long-term effects of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Dr. Karl said:

“What gets obfuscated is the goal of uncovering the warming due to persistent greenhouse forcing [by human emissions]. It is simply not possible to gain insight on that underlying trend from short, segmented 10- to 20-year periods.”

Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, Gavin Schmidt, says he is fed up with the entire discussion, which he says comes down to academic bickering and pointless arguments on definitions.

Long-term warming trend persists

He says there is no evidence pointing to a change in the long-term warming trend.

The scientific disagreement could spill over into the skeptic blogosphere. However, that is not reason enough to sweep the slowdown under the rug, says co-author Michael Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University.

Scientific American quoted Dr. Mann as saying:

“As scientists, we must go where the evidence takes us, we can’t allow our worries about climate contrarians and how they might seek to misrepresent our work to dictate what we do and do not publish.”

Anyway, what happened at the beginning of this century is now academic, because that slowdown is over and 2014 and 2015 posted record warmth.

Dr. Mann said:

“So we have every reason to believe that the warming of the planet and the detrimental impacts of that warming will continue unabated if we do not dramatically reduce our emissions.”

Citation: Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown,” John C. Fyfe, Nathan P. Gillett, Shang-Ping Xie, Gerald A. Meehl, Matthew H. England, Benjamin D. Santer, Michael E. Mann, Gregory M. Flato, Ed Hawkins, Yu Kosaka & Neil C. Swart. Nature Climate Change 6, 224–228. 24 February, 2016. DOI:10.1038/nclimate2938.

Video – 10 signs that global warming is real

36 Comments
  1. NextLeader says

    Climate Change has been going on for 4.6 billion years. Get over it!

  2. NoNannyZone says

    Take a close look at the video at the 2 minute mark, it shows the city flooded in 2016. Well, here we are in 2016, what happened?

  3. Leslie Graham says

    That’s the surface air temperature graph. It doesn’t show the heat that was going into the oceans during the negative PDO of the last 18 years.
    Now that heat is coming back out.
    Given that the last two years have been the hottest on record and this year is going to be much hotter its a bit of a moot point now anyway.
    Even if their had been a ‘pause’ -which there wasn’t – its well and truly over now.

  4. Leslie Graham says

    Yes – Sherlock. We KNOW the climate has changed before. Of couse it has. It’s a very sensitive system. It takes very little to tip it one way or the other.

    If you really are so ignorant that you don’t even know what caused the slow climate changes in the past as opposed to what has caused the sudden temperature spike in the last century you really shouldn’t be commenting on a climate thread until you do.

    This is basic schoolboy level geography as taught to 14 year GCSE students in British schools everywhere.

    Of course the irony in the by-now-spectacularly-tedious “The climate has changed before” (TM) meme is due to the very fact that the climate HAS changed before is testament to how sensitive it is to forcings.

    The climate didn’t change by magic in the past. A ‘natural variation’ is a RESULT not a CAUSE.

    ‘Natural variation’ as a cause is superstitious magical thinking. It explains absolutely nothing and has as much credibility in scientific terms as claiming that ‘God did it’.

    If something as subtle as a tiny axial or orbital variation (The Milankovitch Cycles) is enough to initiate an ice age (with eventual assistance from CO2 feedbacks) it simply stands to reason that the current massive forcing from a huge 41% increase in the level of a powerfull greenhouse gas, to 404ppm – levels not seen in millions of years – is going to cause a lot more change and a lot more quickly.

    Sadly, reason and denialism are like oil and water.

    Any reasonably intelligent 14 year old could tell you that The Milankovitch Cycles are responsible for most of the slow climate changes in the past – notably on the 120,000 year time scale.

    They have three sub-cycles: 26000, 40000, and 100000 years due to the Milankovitch effect. They’re well understood. Their effects are imperceptible even over a 1000 years.

    Didn’t you learn about that at school like everybody else did?

    Solar variations have been another major driver of climate change over the past 10,000 years and are thought to have contributed to the localised warming and cooling periods in the Atlantic basin and western Europe.

    However, the correlation between solar activity and global temperatures ended around 1960.

    That’s important to note.

    At that point, temperatures continued rising rapidly while all solar activity remained flat or even declined slightly.

    This led scientists to conclude that, as during these last 60 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant trend, the recent and dramatic global warming episode must have another source.

    Seems logical doesn’t it? Hardly a radical idea is it?

    Another thing that has caused the climate to change many times in the past was a rise in atmospheric levels of CO2.

    In the past every time CO2 levels have gone up (or down) the climate has changed.

    Every single time. All other forcings being equal:

    CO2 goes down = The Earth gets cooler.

    CO2 goes up = The Earth gets warmer.

    Every single time.

    Just like now.

    The laws of physics don’t give a damn WHERE the extra 41% of CO2 came from – whether it is outgassing from some ancient warming ocean or whether some species of mammal is digging up and burning 30 billions tons of fossilised carbon every year thereby putting it back into the atmosphere.

    Nope the laws of physics don’t give a damn about that and they don’t give a damn about you. They just do their thing.

    The great thing about science is it’s true whether you ‘believe’ in it or not.

    CO2 goes up = The Earth gets warmer.

    Every single time.

    And please – don’t even bother with the “CO2 lags warming”(TM) meme. We all know about that too. And we know why.

    And also for your basic schoolboy education you might be interested to learn that almost every single climate forcing cycle is currently in the negative or has been until very very recently – like the last couple of years.

    Sun activity and TSI, volcanism, the current phase of orbital and axial Milankovitch Cycles, the PDO (might be switching right now) , aerosols – all of them have been in the negative for millenia or decades.

    Therefore the Earth ‘should’ be continuing the slow cooling we had seen for the last 7,000 years since the Holocene Climatic Optimum (aka the Holocene Thermal Optimum – the clue is in the name.)

    Instead the slow cooling stopped a few decades after we started pumping a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. What a fantastic coincidence eh? Another fantastic coincidence is that the brilliant physicist Svante Arrhenius projected that it would way back in 1896.

    Now that the slow cooling has turned into the fastest rise in temperatures the planet has ever seen outside of a meteorite hit. It has already more than overturned ALL of the previous 7000 years of cooling in less than a century.

    Over 70% of summer Arctic ice volume has melted in the last 30 years which is already affecting northern hemisphere rain and drought patterns. 70%! Does that really mean nothing to you? If the Earth isn’t warming why has 70% of Arctic ice melted since the 1970’s?

    Frankly, you have no idea what you are talking about, you do NOT know better than every climate scientist on Earth and yours, and other gullible dupes, mindless parroting of denier-porn memes and myths from the usual propaganda blogs is cringe-making. You are parroting things you don’t even understand and can’t be bothered (or don’t want to) take the ten minutes it would take you to discover what a crock of junk it all is. In this age of information at your fingertips your ignorance is your choice.

    So please stop spamming this tedious garbage. Climate change is a serious challenge – maybe even an insurmountable challenge now due to the 40 years of delay. You are not helping anyone, certainly not yourself. Your lifestyle will be affected just as badly as everyone else’s, and we just don’t have the time for this junk any longer.

  5. jmac says

    Thanks for taking the time to post that.

  6. Robert says

    Very welldone!

  7. NextLeader says

    Wow, you copy and pasted that from somewhere on the internet funded by Al Gore who is NOT a scientist but a politician!

    It is a scientific FACT that the major green house gas is water vapor, and both CO2 and CH4 naturally occur through biological processes such as respiration and volcanic activities.

    In any case, we all KNOW that Climate has changed, is changing, and will continue to change. If you are so fearful, scared or paranoid like a little 12 year old girl terrified of a harmless spider then go cry me a river, nobody really cares about you, your drama or political agenda.

  8. NextLeader says

    This is not how science is done! Real scientists use scientific method not political agendas like AL Gore.

  9. Robert says

    Yet you can’t say where…
    “.Wow, you copy and pasted that from …..”

  10. Robert says

    “…fearful, scared or paranoid like a little 12 year old girl …”

  11. Robert says

    There are many scientific facts about Anthropogenic climate change.

    You listed a couple.

    Great example of cherry picking.

    “It is a scientific FACT that . . and . . volcanic activities.”

  12. Robot46 says

    We’re at the peak of a Milankovitch cycle. The debate should be how we can avoid the ice age that’s going to happen.

  13. NextLeader says

    Humans are also part of nature, we breath out CO2 just like any other organism. Humans are not going to hold their breaths to reduce CO2. Grow up!

  14. NextLeader says

    They also claimed that the ice caps will melt. Ice melts at 0 C and the average temperature in the arctic circle is -40 C.The FACT is that the ice caps have grown thus far. Now you see, what this is all about? Fraudulent scientists capitalizing on a political movement to get FUNDING for worthless papers. If we already know that climate is indeed changing why do they need funding to regurgitate what we already know?!!!

  15. Robert says

    Well, that is so stupid, it hardly is worth a response…. Your, and my , or our dog, cat, pet snake, house plant’s breathing are part of a recycling process.

    However, your and my car, your and my grocery buying habits, your and my use of many building, clothing, toys, involve extractive processes. We are importing from eons past carbon that you and I are now injecting into our air and water.

    “Humans are not going to hold their breaths to reduce CO2. Grow up!”

    So, yes, “grow up! Take a science class.
    So, yes, “grow up! Learn what we are doing.
    So, yes, “grow up! Take responsibility for your actions.

  16. NextLeader says

    I’m sorry but you don’t know anything you are babbling about. You don’t know I have PhD in Science and you don’t know about all the other scientists who disagree with you and how much everybody else knows you are a corrupt human with little understanding of SCIENTIFIC METHOD. It is obvious to everybody that your incentive in this matter is getting FUNDING by pushing your political ideology.

    And once again I repeat: Humans are not going to hold their breaths or stop using their cars or stop building factories and businesses that emit CO2. You are a disgrace to the scientific community.

  17. Robert says

    Names?
    Gone missing…..
    “…all the other scientists who disagree with you…”

  18. Robert says

    Sciencey…”…you are a corrupt human with little understanding of SCIENTIFIC METHOD.”

  19. Robert says

    Then correct us.
    “…you don’t know anything you are babbling about. “

  20. NextLeader says

    Do your research, investigate the political ideology of “Climate Change”, look at the data!
    You need to understand that SCIENTIFIC METHOD is the process which real scientists use to investigate natural phenomena. And, all the computer models the “Global Warming” hypothesis was build on have proven to be wrong.

    Those characters named “Leslie Graham” and “Robert” commenting here obviously are professional shills for their agencies. So do yourselves a favor and think for yourselves instead of blindly believing propaganda for a political agenda.

    A few things to think about:
    What is the CORRECT global temperature? what should that number be?
    What happens when it start reversing and becomes a “global cooling” problem?
    How does the carbon cycle, equilibrium, photosynthesis, weathering, climate buffer, work together?

  21. Robert says

    Don’t forget to research the political ideology behind the denialism whilst you’re at it.

    A good place to start:
    Chris Mooney’s
    The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science- and Reality

    “..investigate the political ideology of “Climate Change”. . . “

  22. Robert says

    “…obviously are professional shills for their agencies.”

  23. Robert says

    “…propaganda for a political agenda.”
    “Humans are not going to hold their breaths to reduce CO2. ”
    “..funded by Al Gore …”
    “..I have PhD ..”
    “…ice caps have grown thus far…”
    “…the major green house gas is water vapor…”
    “..all the computer models the “Global Warming” hypothesis was build on have proven to be wrong.”
    “..FUNDING by pushing your political ideology.”
    “..all the other scientists who disagree with you …”

  24. Robert says

    Posts mostly on men’s rights site…..
    Maybe we should introduce this dickweed to Monkton and Tom Harris and ….

    “bolshy” perfect ! Coffee just started and I already got a new word for the day!

  25. NextLeader says

    “An apparent slowing in the rise of global temperatures at the beginning of the twenty-first century, which is not explained by climate models, was referred to as a “hiatus” or a “pause” when first observed several years ago. Climate-change skeptics have used this as evidence that global warming has stopped. But in June last year, a study in Science claimed that the hiatus was just an artefact which vanishes when biases in temperature data are corrected

    Now a prominent group of researchers is countering that claim, arguing in Nature Climate Change that even after correcting these biases the slowdown was real.

    “There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing,” says lead author John Fyfe, a climate modeller at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria, British Columbia. “We can’t ignore it.”

    Nature doi:10.1038/nature.2016.19414”

  26. NextLeader says

    S. Fred Singer said in an interview with the National Association of Scholars (NAS) that “the number of skeptical qualified scientists has been growing steadily; I would guess it is about 40% now.”

    Singer, a leading scientific skeptic of anthropocentric global warming (AGW), is an atmospheric physicist, and founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), an organization that began challenging the published findings of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the 1990s. SEPP established the Leipzig Declaration, a statement of dissent from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that has been signed by over one hundred scientists and meteorologists.

    Asked what he would like to see happen in regard to public opinion and policy on climate change, Singer replied,

    I would like to see the public look upon global warming as just another scientific controversy and oppose any public policies until the major issues are settled, such as the cause. If mostly natural, as NIPCC concludes, then the public policies currently discussed are pointless, hugely expensive, and wasteful of resources that could better be applied to real societal problems.

    NIPCC is the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, another group established by Singer. In 2009 NIPCC published Climate Change Reconsidered,an 880-page report on scientific research that contradicts the models of man-made global warming. Singer believes that global warming exists but that human contributions to it are minimal. In the interview Singer said he believed his efforts in the last twenty years had been successful in disproving the notion that “the science is settled.”

    Singer continues his work in the sciences, focusing lately on geophysical research and the Earth’s atmosphere. He is professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, and he was the founding Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami (1964-1967) and the Director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics University of Maryland (1953-1962).

  27. Robert says

    The part you didn’t quote. Also, the part not quoted on the denialist blogs:

    “It’s important to explain that,” Solomon says. “As scientists, we are curious about every bump and wiggle in that curve.”

    For his part, Karl acknowledges that it is important to investigate how short-term effects might impact decadal trends, but says that these short term trends do not necessarily elucidate the long-term effects of rising greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere.

    “What gets obfuscated is the goal of uncovering the warming due to persistent greenhouse forcing [by human emissions],” Karl says. “It is simply not possible to gain insight on that underlying trend from short, segmented 10- to 20-year periods.”

    Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, is tired of the entire discussion, which he says comes down to definitions and academic bickering. There is no evidence for a change in the long-term warming trend, he says, and there are always a host of reasons why a short-term trend might diverge — and why the climate models might not capture that divergence.

    “A little bit of turf-protecting and self-promotion I think is the most parsimonious explanation,” Schmidt says. “Not that there’s anything wrong with that.” ”

    My bolding

  28. NextLeader says

    Global Temperature Trends From 2500 B.C. To 2040 A.D.
    By Climatologist Cliff Harris and Meteorologist Randy Mann

    “Until the early to mid 2000s, global temperatures were more than a degree Fahrenheit warmer when compared to the overall 20th Century mean. From August of 2007 through February of 2008, the Earth’s mean reading dropped to near the 200-year average temperature of 57 degrees. ”

    “We, Cliff Harris and Randy Mann, believe that the warming and even the cooling of global temperatures are the result of long-term climatic cycles, solar activity, sea-surface temperature patterns and more.”

    “Much of this data was based upon thousands of hours of research done by Dr. Raymond H. Wheeler and his associates during the 1930s and 1940s at the University of Kansas. Dr. Wheeler was well-known for his discovery of various climate cycles, including his highly-regarded “510-Year Drought Clock” that he detailed at the end of the “Dust Bowl” era in the late 1930s.

    During the early 1970s, our planet was in the midst of a colder and drier weather cycle that led to concerns of another “Little Ice Age.” Inflationary recessions and oil shortages led to rationing and long gas lines at service stations worldwide. The situation at that time was far worse than it is now, at least for the time being.”

    “By 2020, some scientists state that solar activity will plummet once again that could lead to much colder weather across the globe.”

    But, we should remember, that the Earth’s coldest periods have usually followed excessive warmth. Such was the case when our planet moved from the Medieval Warm Period between 900 and 1300 A.D. to the sudden “Little Ice Age,” which peaked in the 17th Century. Since 2,500 B.C., there have been at least 78 major climate changes worldwide, including two major changes in just the past 40 years.

    “By the end of this 21st Century, a cool down may occur that could ultimately lead to expanding glaciers worldwide, even in the mid-latitudes. Based on long-term climatic data, these major ice ages have recurred about every 11,500 years. The last extensive ice age was approximately 11,500 years ago, so we may be due again sometime soon. But, only time will tell.”

  29. NextLeader says

    Who’s denying climate change that has been going on for 4.6 billion years before humans ever existed?

  30. Robert says

    No one.

  31. Robert says

    So, mr. PhD, why are you:
    1) not sourcing your quote
    2) picking one source rather than looking at the full set of data
    3) quoting weatherman when the topic is climate change

    ?

    Please explain.

    Also, why are you ignoring the research cited in IPCC’s AR5 (or, for that matter, 1, 2, 3, 4 ) years , decades , of research pointing to 1,000s of papers saying virtually the opposite of your sole resource?

  32. Robert says

    “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed
    changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have
    warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the
    concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased (see Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.3 and
    SPM.4) ”
    “The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have
    increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Carbon dioxide
    concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel
    emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed
    about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification (see
    Figure SPM.4)”
    “Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system.
    The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750 (see Figure SPM.5). ”
    “Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system.”
    “Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”
    “Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all
    components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and
    sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. ”
    SPM WG1 AR5 IPCC

  33. Robert says

    “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed
    changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have
    warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the
    concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased (see Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.3 and
    SPM.4) ”
    “The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have
    increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Carbon dioxide
    concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel
    emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed
    about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification (see
    Figure SPM.4)”
    “Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system.
    The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750 (see Figure SPM.5). ”
    “Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system.”
    “Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”
    “Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all
    components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and
    sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. ”

    From: SPM WG1 AR5 IPCC

  34. NextLeader says

    Climate Change is natural:

    1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.

    2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

    3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

    4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

    5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.

    6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

    7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.

    8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.

    9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” – suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming

    10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

    11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago

    12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds

    13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that “fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class—predominantly—are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world”.

    14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions

    15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity”

    16) A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.

    17) The science of what determines the earth’s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.

    18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even pretend to control

    19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it.

    20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century – within natural rates

    21) Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland says the earth’s temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

    22) There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades

    23) It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries

    24) It is a falsehood that the earth’s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder

    25) The IPCC claims climate driven “impacts on biodiversity are significant and of key relevance” but those claims are simply not supported by scientific research

    26) The IPCC threat of climate change to the world’s species does not make sense as wild species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles

    27) Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.

    28) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population

    29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago

    30) The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles

    31) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called “greenhouse gases” may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming

    32) Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures

    33) Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history – we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere

    34) It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere

    35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything

    36) There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes

    37) One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that “none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases”

    38) The world “warmed” by 0.07 +/- 0.07 degrees C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 degrees C expected by the IPCC

    39) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says “it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense” but there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally

    40) Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth’s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms

  35. NextLeader says

    The Self Corruption of Climate Science

    by William Pentland, Forbes

    published June 9 2011

    “As one of the Forbes [dot] com contributors who believes the science behind global warming is settled, it breaks my heart to report that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has made it considerably harder for me to convince my skeptical colleagues to reconsider their position.

    The climate-gate controversy created by ethical improprieties of climate scientists at the University of East Anglia in England has created a crisis of confidence among Republicans and other political conservatives in the United States.

    Rather than instituting “shock and awe” reforms to restore its credibility, the IPCC appears to have unintentionally widened the gulf of understanding between a large portion of the American public and many of the world’s most talented climate scientists.

    This is a profound mistake and one we will all pay dearly for in the long run.

    If the IPCC wants to remain a relevant institution, it needs to act now and act decisively. The first step is changing the “tone at the top” about the importance of principles and procedures for evaluating the use of so-called “grey literature” – unpublished or non-peer-reviewed scientific research – in the IPCC’s assessment reports.

    The mishandling of grey literature has resulted in many of the errors discovered in the most recent Assessment Report, which summarizes the state of climate change science for policymakers and political learders at every level of government.

    In response to these and other issues, the IPCC asked the Inter-Academy Council (IAC), a highly-regarded international organization of scientists, to review (among other things) the IPCC’s policies for using grey literature.

    Importantly, the IAC concluded that the “IPCC’s procedures [for using grey literature] are adequate, it is clear that these procedures are not always followed.” To avoid similar errors resulting from the use of grey literature in the future, the IAC made the following recommendation to the IPCC:

    The IPCC should strengthen and enforce its procedure for the use of unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature, including providing more specific guidance on how to evaluate such information, adding guidelines on what types of literature are unacceptable, and ensuring that unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature is appropriately flagged in the report.

    Here is the problem and it is more of a pickle than most people realize.

    The IPCC’s response to this recommendation seems so recklessly inept that it will almost certainly exacerbate an already toxic political divide over climate-change science. Simply put, rather than “strengthening and enforcing” the procedure for using grey literature, the IPCC weakened that procedure so that it could enforce it.

    To implement the recommendation as prescribed by the IAC, the IPCC needed to do three specific things:

    Provide more specific guidance on how to evaluate such grey literature

    Add guidelines on what types of grey literature are unacceptable

    Ensure that grey literature is appropriately flagged in the report

    To its credit, the IPCC at least attempted to do the first and second things. The trouble is that the IPCC bungled the job and bungled it badly. At least partially, the opportunistic response to the third IAC action item is to blame for the bungling.

    For starters, the IPCC adopted guidelines on unacceptable sources of grey literature, which include a prohibition on the use of blogs, social networking sites, and broadcast media as sources of information for IPCC Reports.

    Okay, that seems clear enough, but that clarity is eclipsed by wildly ambiguous guidelines the vastly more significant sources of grey literature –newspapers and magazines.

    The IPCC adopted the following policy on this front: “In general, newspapers and magazines are not valid sources of scientific information.”

    What does “in general” mean?

    The IPCC at least tried to answer this and similar questions by endorsing a “Guidance Note” developed for evaluating the use of grey literature, which also responded to the IAC’s call for “clearer guidelines” in the first action item listed above.

    The “clear guidelines” provided by the Guidance Note for evaluating the use of grey literature were supposed to “help ensure that the principles underlying the IPCC Rules and Procedures are properly implemented.”

    Here is the rub: the Guidance Note was developed to implement “IPCC Rules and Procedures” that no longer exist, but have been replaced by different rules and procedures.

    To illustrate by way of analogy: imagine creating a dictionary of French words defined in English to interpret an essay written in French. How helpful would that dictionary be for interpreting an essay written in Chinese?

    The IPCC appears to have overlooked the fact that the Guidance Note is interpreting the text of a phantom policy that resulted from its still more troubling response to the third and final issue identified by IAC. The IPCC Task Group (TG) responsible for responding to the IAC stated in a summary of its findings that enforcing the IPCC’s official policy requiring all unpublished and non-peer reviewed literature to be flagged, as recommended by the IAC, “would not be practical.”

    Apparently, deleting the flagging requirement from the text of the IPCC’s official policy was practical.

    The TG concluded that the IPCC should not follow (or, enforce) the procedures for evaluating grey literature that had been on the books as official IPCC policy for more than a decade. Rather than complying with procedures considered “impractical,” the TG advised the IPCC to create new procedures that would be easier to comply.

    In particular, the TG advised the IPCC to “[r]eplace the current Annex 2 of the Procedures [governed use of grey literature in IPCC Assessment Reports] (‘Procedure for using non-published/non-peer-reviewed sources in IPCC reports’) by a new Annex 2.”

    The IPCC took the TG’s advice, but apparently did not realize that doing so would render the Guidance Note mentioned obsolete.

    The IAC review was kind and gentle compared to the fleecing that would have ensued had the climate-gate crimes been committed by a domestic government agency like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Similarly, the scope and severity of the IAC’s recommendations are relatively modest, steering clear entirely of more extreme criticisms leveled against the IPCC alleging abuse of the peer-review process.

    This makes the IPCC’s ludicrously inadequate response to the IAC’s recommendation all the more maddening.

    The record strongly suggests – and I hope it is only a suggestion – that the IPCC does not appreciate the gravity of its reputational problems in the United States with many if not most Republicans and other political conservatives.

    The IPCC has merely “gone through the motions” of implementing the IAC’s recommendations or become so grossly incompetent that it can no longer manage basic governance requirements reliably.

    The IPCC is facing a major crisis of confidence and it is almost guaranteed to deepen if the IPCC does not act decisively and aggressively to restore its credibility.

    This must start with establishing compelling policies on the use of grey literature and then complying with those policies consistently and convincingly.

  36. NextLeader says

    IPCC too blinkered and corrupt to save
    Published in Financial Post

    “”
    Vincent Gray has begun a second career as a climate-change activist. His motivation springs from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body that combats global warming by advocating the reduction of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Dr. Gray has worked relentlessly for the IPCC as an expert reviewer since the early 1990s.

    But Dr. Gray isn’t an activist in the cause of enforcing the Kyoto Protocol and realizing the other goals of the worldwide IPCC process. To the contrary, Dr. Gray’s mission, in his new role as cofounder of The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, is to stop the IPCC from spreading climate-change propaganda that undermines the integrity of science.

    “The whole process is a swindle,” he states, in large part because the IPCC has a blinkered mandate that excludes natural causes of global warming.

    ” The Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) 1992 defined ‘climate change’ as changes in climate caused by human interference with atmospheric composition,” he explains. “The task of the IPCC, therefore, has been to accumulate evidence to support this belief that all changes in the climate are caused by human interference with the atmosphere. Studies of natural climate change have largely been used to claim that these are negligible compared with ‘climate change.’ ”

    Dr. Gray is one of the 2,000 to 2,500 top scientists from around the world whom the IPCC often cites as forming the basis of its findings. No one has been a more faithful reviewer than Dr. Gray over the years — he has been an IPCC expert almost from the start, and perhaps its most prolific contributor, logging almost 1,900 comments on the IPCC’s final draft of its most recent report alone.

    But Dr. Gray, who knows as much about the IPCC’s review processes as anyone, has been troubled by what he sees as an appalling absence of scientific rigour in the IPCC’s review process.

    “Right from the beginning, I have had difficulty with this procedure. Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely.

    “Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC, I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organization from the very beginning.”

    Dr. Gray has detailed extensively the areas in which global warming science falls down. One example that this New Zealander provides comes from his region of the globe: “We are told that the sea level is rising and will soon swamp all of our cities. Everybody knows that the Pacific island of Tuvalu is sinking. Al Gore told us that the inhabitants are invading New Zealand because of it.

    “Around 1990 it became obvious that the local tide-gauge did not agree — there was no evidence of ‘sinking.’ So scientists at Flinders University, Adelaide, were asked to check whether this was true. They set up new, modern, tide-gauges in 12 Pacific islands, including Tuvalu, confident that they would show that all of them are sinking.

    “Recently, the whole project was abandoned as there was no sign of a change in sea level at any of the 12 islands for the past 16 years. In 2006, Tuvalu even rose.”

    Other expert reviewers at the IPCC, and scientists elsewhere around the globe, share Dr. Gray’s alarm at the conduct of the IPCC. An effort by academics is now underway to reform this UN organization, and have it follow established scientific norms. Dr. Gray was asked to endorse this reform effort, but he refused, saying: “The IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only ‘reform’ I could envisage would be its abolition.”

    — – Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and the Urban Renaissance Institute.

    CV OF A DENIER:

    Vincent Gray is a graduate of the University of Cambridge, with a PhD in physical chemistry. He has published more than 100 scientific papers and authored the book, The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001.’

    Dr. Gray has participated in all of the science reviews of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and in 2006 was a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Center. “””

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.