The NYT wonders: So, what’s up with this warming plateau?

posted at 8:31 pm on June 11, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

That the planet has not warmed significantly in going on fifteen years is a fact that has become pretty much impossible to deny across all fronts; back in March, longtime climate fearmonger The Economist had out with it, and on Monday the New York Times opened up about some of the inconvenient truths facing the many ‘climate scientists’ whose decades of catastrophic climate models are all spectacularly failing to bear out. Granted, it was couched in the usual high-handed dismissals of those who they categorize as dismissive of their climate-change concerns, but it did include several important admissions:

The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.

The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists. True, the basic theory that predicts a warming of the planet in response to human emissions does not suggest that warming should be smooth and continuous. To the contrary, in a climate system still dominated by natural variability, there is every reason to think the warming will proceed in fits and starts.

But given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on. They admit that they do not, even though some potential mechanisms of the slowdown have been suggested. The situation highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system, some of which cannot be closed until we get better measurements from high in space and from deep in the ocean.

Read on for much more parsing of the facts and excusing of poor policies, but here’s the really important gist: We don’t conclusively know all of the causes and effects of climate change, and we might not even know what we don’t know. This isn’t to say at all that greenhouse gases are not a thing, nor that carbon dioxide emissions are definitively unimportant, nor that we don’t have serious environmental issues that we need to consider going forward. But how is it, exactly, that the community of diehard eco-radicals and the self-proclaimed party of “science” has been proclaiming for decades that we are a heartbeat away from global catastrophe, and treating dissenting scientists as heretics, and insisting that we need to forcibly curtail our economic growth to deal with it and that people who aren’t one hundred percent on board are knuckle-draggers and/or greedy extremists, is surprised and angry that anyone is “dismissive” of them when it turns out they actually can’t be sure about it all? Because, science. I’ve often wondered why it is environmentalists interpret gloom-and-dooming as the most effective strategy for endearing people to their cause, when it actually seems to be pretty counterproductive.

In other climate-related news, self-anointed environmental messenger Al Gore, after lamenting on Tuesday that that scientists “won’t let us yet” link tornadoes to climate change, once more pushed on President Obama to hop to it on getting more forceful about a global-warming agenda, reports Politico:

The former vice president used a Google+ plus video chat Tuesday to tell supporters that Obama needs to go beyond his “great words” on the topic, and to lament that the president has yet to assemble a team to spearhead his second-term climate agenda.

“I hope that he’ll get moving on to follow up on the wonderful pledges he made in his inaugural speech earlier this year and then soon after in his State of the Union,” Gore said. “Great words. We need great actions now.” …

“He does not yet have a team in the White House to help him implement solutions to the climate crisis. He hasn’t staffed up for it,” Gore said, adding, “He’s got one person who hasn’t been given that much authority.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Flatline.

Bmore on June 11, 2013 at 8:43 PM

We don’t conclusively know what causes climate change

Of course we do.

Rethuglicans.

catmman on June 11, 2013 at 8:44 PM

What can we tax to stop this man caused consistency? It’s not right! Nature shouldn’t behave like this! TAX SOMETHING!

MechanicalBill on June 11, 2013 at 8:44 PM

Libs are funny.

bernzright777 on June 11, 2013 at 8:45 PM

Al Gore is insane.

More sad and tragic than funny, really.

Bruno Strozek on June 11, 2013 at 8:48 PM

The physics equation for temperature change expected from a greenhouse gas is simple. It looks at the starting molar concentration of the gas and the new molar concentration of the gas and calculates the expected change using a log. equation. The problem with that is like the above acknowledged the unknowns play a much bigger role.

chemman on June 11, 2013 at 8:49 PM

“… a climate system still dominated by natural variability.”

Yet we waste billions and regulate ourselves out of business trying to stop global warming.

JA6601 on June 11, 2013 at 8:51 PM

I clicked through to read the comments. Curiously, they didn’t open it up for discussion.

crrr6 on June 11, 2013 at 8:52 PM

TEA Party Extremists are killing this country….that and Palin.

JFKY on June 11, 2013 at 8:53 PM

Erika said, “We don’t conclusively know all of the causes and effects of climate change, and we might not even know what we don’t know.”

I’ll fix it: “We don’t conclusively know all of the causes and effects of climate change, and we might not don’t even know what we don’t know.”

Anti-Control on June 11, 2013 at 8:53 PM

AlGore is starting to look like Don Rickles

exceller on June 11, 2013 at 8:54 PM

some one ask Al Gore if he likes fish sticks…

equanimous on June 11, 2013 at 8:55 PM

I’m guessing the only reason they aren’t fudging the numbers is that enough of them have started to realize that this is a passe subject to most Americans.

Dr. ZhivBlago on June 11, 2013 at 8:56 PM

Why was I recalling Sec. Defense Rumsfeld’s press conference when he discussed known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns?

JohnFLob on June 11, 2013 at 8:57 PM

So the lady is finally moving from denialist to skeptic to getting on-board that climate change due to human activities IS, in fact, occurring.

Just to give you some more tips, Ms. Johnsen, the heat content of the ocean is increasing. This includes massive ice melts that absorb vast quantities of heat. Melting ice to water takes a large amount of heat input, without even raising the temperature.

There is no “plateau”, or “pause” in global warming. It’s progressing along, unabated. Sure, there are natural temperature fluctuations that occur, superimposed upon the greenhouse warming, and scientists have never denied that. In fact, there has been much research in attempting to distill out the human-generated effects from the natural variability.

self-proclaimed party of “science” has been proclaiming for decades that we are a heartbeat away from global catastrophe

Yes there are some; however, scientists don’t generally put emotion or alarm into their findings. It’s up to us to decide policy. So let’s not diss those that are doing the research, because they’re the ones attempting to peer into the future to see what we might have in store with human induced climate change.

oakland on June 11, 2013 at 8:58 PM

Al Gore is insane.

More sad and tragic than funny, really.

Bruno Strozek on June 11, 2013 at 8:48 PM

Nope.

He is very heavily invested in the scam. And he’s out there selling like a carnival barker.

And I wish him great misfortune.

M240H on June 11, 2013 at 9:00 PM

There is significant evidence that would tend to falsify global warming. The mean global air temperature has not risen for the last fifteen years. At the end of March the global extent of sea ice was above the long-term average and higher than it was in March of 1980. Last December, snow cover in the northern hemisphere was at the highest level since record keeping began in 1966. The UK just experienced the coldest March of the last fifty years. There has been no increase in droughts or wildfires. Worldwide hurricane and cyclone activity is near a forty-year low.

M240H on June 11, 2013 at 9:05 PM

Gore-bachev is starting to worry Hussein has too many balls in the air to deal his pet project, which happens to be money harvesting.

antipc on June 11, 2013 at 9:06 PM

The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists.

If you want to call the negation of all the predictions of your climate models and the rendering useless of billions of dollars in computer calculations a “bit of a mystery” then I suspect you need to adjust your sense of proportion.

True, the basic theory that predicts a warming of the planet in response to human emissions does not suggest that warming should be smooth and continuous. To the contrary, in a climate system still dominated by natural variability, there is every reason to think the warming will proceed in fits and starts.

And exactly how do you know that the warming you experienced was due to artificial means rather than natural variability if the system is dominated by the latter? If your models either didn’t accurately predict the effect of those natural variations, or, more likely, was ignorant of them and didn’t include them at all, why should your models be accorded any presumption of validity at all?

Socratease on June 11, 2013 at 9:07 PM

So the lady is finally moving from denialist to skeptic to getting on-board that climate change due to human activities IS, in fact, occurring.

oakland on June 11, 2013 at 8:58 PM

People like you cannot say with any authority what % of climate change humans are responsible for – anyone who cannot face & admit this truth does not deserve to be heard…

Anti-Control on June 11, 2013 at 9:08 PM

I must say, Al Gore is looking rather fetching these days, if you like the demented look. I guess money can’t buy love, nor sanity.

VorDaj on June 11, 2013 at 9:13 PM

“The science is settled.” :)

Wethal on June 11, 2013 at 9:14 PM

I must say, Al Gore is looking rather fetching these days, if you like the demented look. I guess money can’t buy love, nor sanity.

VorDaj on June 11, 2013 at 9:13 PM

Personally, I think this sums it up pretty well:

AlGore is starting to look like Don Rickles

exceller on June 11, 2013 at 8:54 PM

lol

Anti-Control on June 11, 2013 at 9:17 PM

I must say, Al Gore is looking rather fetching these days, if you like the demented look. I guess money can’t buy love, nor sanity.

VorDaj on June 11, 2013 at 9:13 PM

Yeah but it can get your chakra all loosened up.

Oldnuke on June 11, 2013 at 9:20 PM

I thought it was the cow farts? You know,, just like the dinosauers offed themselves.

It’s all so confusing. Flatulence, asteroids and meteors, volcanos and stuff. Ice ages and Priouses.

Hockey sticks and temp sensors over bbq grills.

I can’t decide which demise I prefer. Freezing to death or burning up. Been told both in my lifetime. Maybe I’ll perish from status quo.

wolly4321 on June 11, 2013 at 9:21 PM

Al Gore looks like Jabba The Hut.

TarheelBen on June 11, 2013 at 9:23 PM

oakland on June 11, 2013 at 8:58 PM

cagw people would be much more credible if they actually tried to think through energy issues rather than just fluttering their arms and waving their hands and babbling away about wind and solar. If you don’t understand the issues around a nuclear future then you can not be taken seriously.

and, btw, for those interested here’s a response to the ocean heat argument and the ‘missing heat’

http://judithcurry.com/2013/03/29/has-trenberth-found-the-missing-heat/

r keller on June 11, 2013 at 9:23 PM

The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists.

Bbbbbbbbbut I thought the scientist knew all there is to know about AGW. They told me that the science was settled.

antifederalist on June 11, 2013 at 9:25 PM

Yes there are some; however, scientists don’t generally put emotion or alarm into their findings. It’s up to us to decide policy. So let’s not diss those that are doing the research, because they’re the ones attempting to peer into the future to see what we might have in store with human induced climate change.

oakland on June 11, 2013 at 8:58 PM

Have you not heard of AL[L] Gore, the IPCC, the Sierra Club, WWF, Green Peace, the CRU, among many others?

JohnFLob on June 11, 2013 at 9:27 PM

Al Gore is insane.

More sad and tragic than funny, really.

Bruno Strozek on June 11, 2013 at 8:48 PM

Al-Gore is not insane. He’s simply banging the same drum that made him hundreds of millions of dollars. Some people might think there is no God because of Gore’s success, but actually, it means that there is no justice.

HiJack on June 11, 2013 at 9:27 PM

Gore said. “Great words. We need great actions now.” …

…Al…looks like he’s eaten them all!

KOOLAID2 on June 11, 2013 at 9:28 PM

So that strategy of endlessly repeating “We are doomed, doomed I say and mankind’s only chance is to give me ever more money and power” isn’t working out as they had hoped. Boy, am I disappointed.

Fred 2 on June 11, 2013 at 9:29 PM

oakland on June 11, 2013 at 8:58 PM

LMFAO, I thought you had committed suicide after your pet hoax blew up.

tom daschle concerned on June 11, 2013 at 9:29 PM

OT, but related, from WUWT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ROw_cDKwc0&feature=player_embedded
Skip forward to 2:30, the whole hour is worth watching.
Basically, the speaker lays out a well reasoned case that the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 is determined primarily by the global temperature, and that the ice core proxies underestimate past deviations of both temperature and CO2 concentrations.
Some familiarity with calculus and Fourier transforms is required to fully follow it, but it looks solid to me.

Count to 10 on June 11, 2013 at 6:56 PM

Okay, this is the last time I’ll spam this, I swear.

Count to 10 on June 11, 2013 at 9:30 PM

Ted Danson says we have 10 more. Eat tuna and dolphin now, before the oceans are one big bowl of fish stew.

wolly4321 on June 11, 2013 at 9:30 PM

Al-Gore is not insane. He’s simply banging the same drum that made him hundreds of millions of dollars. Some people might think there is no God because of Gore’s success, but actually, it means that there is no justice.

HiJack on June 11, 2013 at 9:27 PM

Which Al Gore are you speaking of? The Al Gore most us know and hate love is insane!

Anti-Control on June 11, 2013 at 9:33 PM

But given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on.

That’s more accuracy than the NY Slimes wanted. “Practitioners of climate science”. Yep. They are idiots playing their games in the area of climate science, not scientists actually investigating anything.

They admit that they do not, even though some potential mechanisms of the slowdown have been suggested.

LOL. One of the greatest meteorologists of all time and one of the fathers of chaos theory would be happy to tell them. Lorenz established long, long, long ago that there is a wall you hit when trying to brute force through simulations of a dynamical system. Lorenz was one of the fathers of Chaos Theory and he got his insight from meteorological models. It’s ironic that the recognition of the impossibility of making many predictions about certain systems (like the climate) from computational models with any certainty, at all, would first come from meteorology only to have the climate scientologists of today be the ones who claim that they know with near perfect certainty what the climate is going to do in the future based on a few (often mistaken and forged) data points along with models that make a mockery of the idea abstracting the actions of physical systems. The climate scientologists’ models are mostly jokes (as we saw with the leaked emails among the conspirators) that have little to do with physical laws and more to do with arbitrary constants that are adjusted to fudge the modeling data until it looks the way they want. Lorenz would probably be hanging these charlatans left and right, seeing how they have violated every principle of science and have brought great disrepute to climatology (now, climate scientology) and to science, in general.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 11, 2013 at 9:36 PM

The Goracle hardest hit!

GarandFan on June 11, 2013 at 9:39 PM

r keller on June 11, 2013 at 9:23 PM

r keller, honestly, I don’t have any idea of what your posting has to do with mine; perhaps you could connect the dots; I don’t recall mentioning anything about nuclear energy or any other form of commercial energy production, or anything involving “missing heat”

oakland on June 11, 2013 at 9:40 PM

That the planet has not warmed significantly in going on fifteen years is a fact that has become pretty much impossible to deny across all fronts

Yet here is a real email I received yesterday:

From: Ivan Frishberg, BarackObama.com <info@barackobama.com>
To: [My email address redacted]
Date: Monday, June 10, 2013 9:08:12 AM GMT-0400
Subject: Climate deniers: The list

[My first name redacted] –

It is 2013, right?

Why is it then that in 2013 we have to convince some of our lawmakers to believe in science?

Ninety-eight out of 100 climate scientists agree: Climate change is real, human activity is contributing to it, and it poses significant risks to our environment and our health.

But apparently, that’s not enough for the climate deniers in Congress.

Some have compared this so-called “warming period” to what they say are similar events during the Middle Ages.

(No word yet on whether any of them were able to hop in a DeLorean to see it for themselves…)

The truth is that the warming we’ve seen in the last 100 years is much worse — and much faster — than what we’ve seen in any time period before.

If we want to get anywhere on combating climate change in Washington, we need to change the conversation — and it starts with calling out every single one of these climate deniers.

Check out this list of every climate denier we could find walking the halls of Congress — then add your name to hold these guys accountable today:

http://my.barackobama.com/Climate-Deniers

Thanks for everything — and keep up the great work.

Ivan

Ivan Frishberg

Climate Campaign Manager

Organizing for Action

———————————————————————

Paid for by Organizing for Action

Contributions or gifts to Organizing for Action are not tax deductible.

This email was sent to: [My email address redacted] To update your address, go to: [redacted]

To unsubscribe from these messages, go to: http://my.barackobama.com/unsubscription

Organizing for Action, P.O. Box 66732 Washington, D.C. 20035

ITguy on June 11, 2013 at 9:41 PM

I’d get all worked up this if I hadn’t been killed by the Ice Age that was brought on by Global Cooling in the 70s.

whatcat on June 11, 2013 at 9:44 PM

So, at some point, do we get to call the AGWers “climate-change deniers”, because they deny that the climate changes naturally?

Count to 10 on June 11, 2013 at 9:45 PM

The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists.

But I’m sure we just need to throw more money at them, and they’ll figure it out… or at least come up with a computer model that will explain it, given data points cherry-picked to support their desired conclusion.

malclave on June 11, 2013 at 9:49 PM

Yes there are some; however, scientists don’t generally put emotion or alarm into their findings.

oakland on June 11, 2013 at 8:58 PM

Emotion, maybe, maybe not. Ideology and agenda, absolutely.

antipc on June 11, 2013 at 9:49 PM

I just kinda have a problem that the Great lakes exist, and I live in the Sonoran high desert and can go 10 miles from my house and find fish fossils. In my car, that isn’t a prious.

wolly4321 on June 11, 2013 at 9:56 PM

And to think we’ve only paid a few hundred-billion for all of this wonderful man-made Global Warming research — what a bargain.

And if they would have got cap and trade and lots of other laws passed that they wanted we would have only lost most of our freedoms and been charged a few trillion more every year.

And now our children can’t sleep at night because they have been propagandized into thinking daddy’s SUV is going to overheat the planet.

Wow, this climate science is some really nifty stuff.

Now, who do we indict first for this massive fraud?

Axion on June 11, 2013 at 9:59 PM

They don’t put alarm in to thier “findings”?

Are you kidding me? They have been telling me my whole life we are all going to die if they don’t get thier grant money.

Try again. It’s all about fear and emotion.

I submit drowning cute cuddly polar bears that can swim about 50 miles no problem and would consume micheal mann in a single meal.

wolly4321 on June 11, 2013 at 10:03 PM

The same polar bears that seem to have quite high populations as they drown to death.

Maybe it was the coke-a-cola can ads that saved them?

wolly4321 on June 11, 2013 at 10:10 PM

Al Gore:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMgGNxyCHsY

williamg on June 11, 2013 at 10:23 PM

Al Gore looks like Jabba The Hut.

TarheelBen on June 11, 2013 at 9:23 PM

More like Bela Lugosi.

nazo311 on June 11, 2013 at 10:43 PM

Please. Make. That. Picture. Go. Away.
Forever.
Plskthnxbai

whatabunchoflosers on June 11, 2013 at 10:45 PM

The whole reason they had to try to pass as much BS legislation and business crippling taxes as quickly as possible was to then be able to claim that THEY stopped global warming. It was never going to happen, and if we did nothing it proved them to be liars. Well… the proof is becoming an inconvenient truth for them.

Sugar Land on June 11, 2013 at 10:47 PM

Al Gore has predicted that the Arctic will be ice-free by end of summer of next year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6815470/Copenhagen-climate-summit-Al-Gore-condemned-over-Arctic-ice-melting-prediction.html

My dream: That he boards a boat to navigate the Arctic next summer, then gets stuck in the ice… while the polar bears circle and keep testing the doors.

theCork on June 11, 2013 at 10:51 PM

Gore looks like a GD monster with trimmed eyebrows!

Sherman1864 on June 11, 2013 at 10:51 PM

The Gonster!

Sherman1864 on June 11, 2013 at 10:52 PM

Why does it seem that many liberals begin to look like the devil as years go by?

Angineer on June 11, 2013 at 11:10 PM

” Ok Ya’ll whatever ya’ll said I said since 4ever is not what I said and all those youtubes on the interwebz I invented were photoshopped and audioshopped…ummmm… cause I always knew we were really goin into a solar minimal phase which means More Ice and Bears that are gonna be way bigger and fatter and hungrier…like Godzilla Bears…mkay? – Al Gore Climate Master and Inventor of the Interwebs.

workingclass artist on June 11, 2013 at 11:14 PM

Agree with Socratease that if the models haven’t accurately predicted what is currently or recently occurred, how can we utilize them to predict future occurrences with any reliability.

Angineer on June 11, 2013 at 11:23 PM

Just to give you some more tips, Ms. Johnsen, the heat content of the ocean is increasing.
oakland on June 11, 2013 at 8:58 PM

The earth has undergone radical climate fluctuation from the beginning. Throughout most of earth’s history, the planet’s been so overheated there hasn’t even been snow in the polar regions. Is the earth now warmer than at those times, Oakland? Not long ago (geologically speaking), during the Middle Ages, Greenland was actually, well, green–rather than cold and snowy as it is today. There have also been times of extreme cold, such as the time when the earth was completely covered in ice, every square inch of it. More recently, there occurred several centuries of bitterly cold weather, the so-called Little Ice Age (1350-1850). Just before the Neolithic Age (which isn’t so long ago in geologic time), North America was covered in a mile of ice. Are all these changes in our earth’s history due to people driving too many cars on the freeway?
Strangely, most charts “proving” global warming seem to begin just around 1850 when there began a gradual, steady uptick in temperatures. Most people, including Erika, don’t deny this upturn has been occurring for the last century and a half. But alarmists base much of their claims on the supposed correlation between greenhouse emissions and temperature, and the fact that temperatures have been flat for the last fifteen years even while carbon emissions are at an all time high is, as “The Economist” confesses, “puzzling.”
And of course, this recent temperature plateau would be puzzling to many people, because for thirty years, we’ve been shown the hockey stick graph over and over and over as if it were important. Suddenly it’s “Never mind. I meant the oceans, not the air.” Changing the goal posts, anyone?
Why is it so important to you that the ocean temperature continues to rise even while air temperature change has flattened? Do you think that’s where evil motorists are driving their cars, where evil capitalists are hiding their factories? Of course the ocean temperature continues to rise despite the flattened temperatures in the atmosphere: water has a higher specific heat and will absorb the heat that has accumulated in the atmosphere over the last century and a half only gradually. In other words, ocean temperature rise is not a leading indicator in this case, but a lagging one.
But I’m sure that won’t matter to low-info sheeple who want a cause to rally around so that they can add artificially injected meaning into their barren lives.

Burke on June 12, 2013 at 12:35 AM

Were the Ice Age warnings issued back in the 70′s settled science? I confess I can’t keep up…Killer Bees everywhere..then a dearth of bees anywhere..Too many people..Not enough people..droughts…floods..No more carbon based energy..Now the U.S.is the new Saudi Arabia of natural gas..Why it’s enough to make one doubt Al Gore invented the internet.

bluesdoc70 on June 12, 2013 at 1:19 AM

r keller, honestly, I don’t have any idea of what your posting has to do with mine; perhaps you could connect the dots; I don’t recall mentioning anything about nuclear energy or any other form of commercial energy production, or anything involving “missing heat”

oakland on June 11, 2013 at 9:40 PM

i missed this…and it is way to late to matter, but just for the record oakland’s post mentioned the ocean heat

Just to give you some more tips, Ms. Johnsen, the heat content of the ocean is increasing. This includes massive ice melts that absorb vast quantities of heat.

and my response was to point to recent article on ocean heat. Missing heat is part of this, since the air isn’t heating, maybe the heat is going into the ocean only to come out later. Makes sense…but not too much evidence yet

the nuclear thing was obviously in the context of wind/solar. If cagw is so serious, then advocates need to be equally as serious in their solutions. UN conferences in Bali or Rio don’t count. Wind and solar don’t count.

r keller on June 12, 2013 at 1:23 AM

Al Gore looks like Jabba The Hut.

TarheelBen on June 11, 2013 at 9:23 PM

Even more like his brother Jab In The Butt.

VorDaj on June 12, 2013 at 1:54 AM

bluesdoc70 on June 12, 2013 at 1:19 AM

Well written and so very true!

Sherman1864 on June 12, 2013 at 1:59 AM

Why does it seem that many liberals begin to look like the devil as years go by?
Angineer on June 11, 2013 at 11:10 PM

A sincere desire to resemble their master, no doubt!

Sherman1864 on June 12, 2013 at 2:00 AM

Tis Gore’s farts which cause those swirling winds they call toranadoes, I hear.

One day I shall visit that New World!

Sherman1864 on June 12, 2013 at 2:02 AM

Just to give you some more tips, Ms. Johnsen, the heat content of the ocean is increasing. This includes massive ice melts that absorb vast quantities of heat. Melting ice to water takes a large amount of heat input, without even raising the temperature.

There is no “plateau”, or “pause” in global warming. It’s progressing along, unabated. Sure, there are natural temperature fluctuations that occur, superimposed upon the greenhouse warming, and scientists have never denied that. In fact, there has been much research in attempting to distill out the human-generated effects from the natural variability.

But this is visibly not true. Here’s what the actual temperature data sets show:

1. For GISS, the slope is flat since January 2001 or 12 years, 4 months. (goes to April)
2. For Hadcrut3, the slope is flat since March 1, 1997 or 16 years, 1 month. (goes to March 31, 2013)
3. For a combination of GISS, Hadcrut3, UAH and RSS, the slope is flat since December 2000 or 12 years, 6 months. (This goes to May. I realize that Hadcrut3 is not up to date, but on the basis of its present slope and the latest numbers that I do have from the other three sets. I am confident that I can make this prediction.)
4. For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 6 months. (goes to April)
5. For Hadsst2, the slope is flat from March 1, 1997 to April 30, 2013, or 16 years, 2 months.
6. For UAH, the slope is flat since January 2005 or 8 years, 5 months. (goes to May)
7. For RSS, the slope is flat since December 1996 or 16 years and 6 months. (goes to May).

This is undeniable. As for the oceans, the latest Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomaly is +0.222 deg. C, having cooled by 0.012 deg. C in both hemispheres since April.

I take the defensiveness of the alarmists in the face of such evidence as proof that they don’t care much about the planet, the environment, or the people, else they would be happy to have such dire predictions proven wrong. Why would any compassionate being be happy to see the warming continue unabated, unless they were emotionally (and perhaps financially) bound to this near-religion?

Imagine what would happen to one’s grant money if one was a “climate scientist” working for the Hadley Climatic Research Unit, and suddenly became convinced by the evidence that something besides CO2 was the culprit? I’d imagine they would find one’s presence no longer required in the building, and here’s a box for your stuff. Now multiply that times all the organizations whose official stance is AGW, and consider the powerful groupthink in play as well.

The AGW argument is that CO2 is the PRIME driver of global temperature, both via its own effects and the positive reinforcements arising from that effect. That CO2 can continue rising unabated while global temps remain flat is a powerful piece of evidence against that view, which is why we are seeing the increased pressure from the AGW crowd and the desperate “torturing” of the data to prove themselves correct.

JamesS on June 12, 2013 at 5:13 AM

Everyone with a grain of sense is an enviromentalist today. It is comes to just how far do you buy into the idea that humanity must do everything it can do to erase our carbon footprint. We just can’t do that and maintain a viable economy. Meanwhile, Gore has become uber wealthly selling his climate panic money making schemes.

SC.Charlie on June 12, 2013 at 6:53 AM

Everyone ready for the weekly report of the near asteriod missed Earth report in the media?

SC.Charlie on June 12, 2013 at 7:11 AM

“What difference does it make?”

Uncle Al has made 1/2 a billion dollars off the scam and gets 72 vestial virgins when he checks in.

acyl72 on June 12, 2013 at 8:58 AM

Yes there are some; however, scientists don’t generally put emotion or alarm into their findings. It’s up to us to decide policy. So let’s not diss those that are doing the research, because they’re the ones attempting to peer into the future to see what we might have in store with human induced climate change.

oakland on June 11, 2013 at 8:58 PM

And yet these are the same “scientists” (yes, I used quotes!) that try to shut down all discussion by calling out those who question their “findings” (using models proven false with current temperature records) as idiots of the highest degree.

If they were real scientists, they would allow access to the raw data before “adjustments” (instead of destroying both the raw data and the adjustment algorithms), they would peer review all findings and only claim what could be verified independently by peers, measure their predictions against current temperature records, and they would welcome debate.

But these are not real scientists.

Let’s call these “scientists” what they really are… grant money whores, which puts them on the same integrity footing as the Obama administration.

dominigan on June 12, 2013 at 9:41 AM

It is comes to just how far do you buy into the idea that humanity must do everything it can do to erase our carbon footprint. We just can’t do that and maintain a viable economy.

SC.Charlie on June 12, 2013 at 6:53 AM

That kind of cost-benefit humanistic analysis isn’t fashionable these days. It certainly makes sense to me, but you and I are in the minority.

My theory about why it’s not fashionable is that people have tried to make politics into a religion. Activists want that oh-so-exciting-and-thrilling feeling that comes along with fanatical commitment to “the absolute.” Cost-benefit analysis just leaves many people feeling “meh.” So they reject it, sensible and humane though it might be.

Of course, there are economic incentives for promoting global warming, and these are well known. But the religious reasons–the need for some to prop up their empty lives by means of exhilarating absolutes–shouldn’t be ignored either.

Burke on June 12, 2013 at 9:54 AM

CO2 is probably just doing the same thing it always has, lagging temperature changes. Real scientists have known this for a long time. Grant chasing and media hip ‘climatologist’ conveniently ignore and dismiss.

MechanicalBill on June 12, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Hmm. Is Al Gore angling to a job to head a massive new government bureaucracy devoted to “climate change” (i.e., squeezing even MORE money out of the taxpayers)?

RebeccaH on June 12, 2013 at 10:32 AM

The climate scientologists’ models are mostly jokes (as we saw with the leaked emails among the conspirators) that have little to do with physical laws and more to do with arbitrary constants that are adjusted to fudge the modeling data until it looks the way they want

Jokes? Have you ever performed a FEA? Can you solve second-order differential equations? Can you perform multi-phase, multi-modal heat transfer analysis? Can you program in C? In FORTRAN?

When you can answer “yes” to all of these, then get back to me. You might have the slightest degree of credibility then.

oakland on June 12, 2013 at 8:22 PM

dominigan on June 12, 2013 at 9:41 AM

And yet these are the same “scientists”

and just who are “these” scientists, to whom you refer? what institutions? what specialties and degrees? what research?

oakland on June 12, 2013 at 8:25 PM

JamesS on June 12, 2013 at 5:13 AM

The following should only be read by those who are interested in a truly comprehensive view on the subject, and only by those who are interested in reading what actual experts in the subject have to say. All others, continue reading “Watts Up With That??

http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/

oakland on June 12, 2013 at 8:34 PM