Baffled German Government Concedes! “Global Warming Has Stopped…Warming Pause Is Remarkable…Unexpected”

UmweltbundesamtGreen Radio of the Umweltbundesamt – UBA – (German Federal Department of the Environment) recently had a radio interview with Henrik Kirchhof, some climate expert for the UBA I guess. Topic: Why has there been no warming in 15 years?

The German government finally concedes.

The host of the interview starts by telling the audience that “climate scientists have come under pressure because the average temperature indeed has not risen in 15 years“. Kirchhof:

In the years leading up to the year 2000, the temperature curve rose very sharply. But since then it isn’t rising so, in fact it’s not rising at all, the curve. The average temperature has stagnated at a very high level – we sort of have a plateau, and that during a time when CO2 emissions have risen considerably.”

Kirchhof then claims the 15-year period of stagnation is indeed relatively short, and, to add authority to this, Prof. Jochem Marotzke of the warmist Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg provides an audio comment:

What we are seeing here is a relatively short-term fluctuation, If one really wants to know how CO2 and global temperature are related, then you have to look at a longer time period.”

Marotzke refuses to say how long, though. We do know that CO2 was at about 280 ppm for 1000 years before the Industrial Revolution, and that during this time the global temperature fluctuated more than 1°C (in sync with solar activity). Of course Marotzke only wants to go back to 1900, as beyond that there is no correlation with CO2.

Kirchhof then adds (my emphasis):

…there is no doubt about the greenhouse effect, but even so this warming pause is remarkable because the climate scientists with all their models did not expect this.”

At this point Kirchhof of Green radio of the German Federal Department of the Environment are finally admitting that there are suddenly many more unknowns than they first thought, that the warmist scientists are indeed baffled, and that the science is not settled after all.

At the 2-minute mark, a somewhat surprised host is forced to ask how can it be that the temperature has not risen even though more CO2 is being emitted into the atmosphere. Here Kirchhof, in summary, admits they don’t know why:

Yeah, that’s the big question. The scientists here are not completely sure. But there are many possible explanations.”

Many possible explanations? That means they don’t have freaking clue! When it comes to complex systems like climate, it takes years and years of analyses and observation to untangle it all. Kirchhof (my emphasis):

A big role may be played by the oceans, which possibly are absorbing more heat, and so the additional heat is no longer being taken up by the atmosphere but instead is moving into the water. This can be measured. However if these surface water temperatures increased sharply until 15 years ago but now have stagnated, then it means that the ocean is absorbing more heat than it did before. You can suspect this, it’s very plausible, but you cannot prove it because of methodology reasons, says Jochem Marotzke.”

Marotzke:

The problem is, although it is plausible, and it is in principle in agreement with model calculations, the problem is that we do not have enough good measurements from the past to say: ‘Ah, back then the deep oceans absorbed less heat and today it is taking in more heat. These observations are simply missing.”

It makes us wonder with so much missing data and so many unknowns, how could they even have dared to think the science was settled a few years ago? Suddenly they tell us they don’t know squat, that they are completely baffled, and that they are scrambling for explanations!

The host then asks Kirchhof if there are other possible explanations. Kirchhof:

Yes. For example they have measured that the stratosphere has gotten drier. And when there is less water vapor up there in the stratosphere, then less heat is radiated back down. However, the scientists who have found this out have themselves said this effect is too small and only accounts for a quarter of the stopped warming.”

They can’t find the heat. Unknowns, mysteries, surprises…such is the life of a closed-minded climate scientist. But apart from all that, they are sure of the science.

The host then asks about the remaining three quarters of the heat. Kirchhof plays the aerosol card, which the IPCC loves to play whenever cooling isn’t supposed to happen, like from 1945 to 1975:

Yes. there’s also a third theory that sounds plausible for laypeople, namely that more dust particles, ‘dirt’ in everyday terms, is high up in the atmosphere. As a result, less solar radiation reaches the Earth and so as a whole it gets cooler.”

Kirchhof then goes on to say that Chinese and Indian power plants may be to blame for this, and says that polluting the atmosphere is not the way to solve climate change.

The host then brings up the excellent question of how long a pause in warming is necessary before climate scientists really have to rethink their science. Kirchhof:

There are in fact prognoses that this plateau could go on another five years, and if that indeed occurs, and meteorologist Jochem Marotzke also says the same, then there is something seriously wrong with the models, also when certain fluctuations cannot be precisely forecast.”

Five more years and all their arguments will disappear. And in ten years the climate scientists are going to be left standing there looking like total asses – because it’s not going to get warmer for another 30 years. The PDO, AMO and sun are all now beginning their cold phases simultaneously. One only needs to look at the past winters to see the first indications. If one major volcano blows then we are very likely back to the Little Ice Age conditions of the 17th century.

========================================
UPDATE: Meteorologist Joe Bastardi just tweeted: “IF THEY WOULD LOOK AT THE 1950S THEY WOULD SEE THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR
THEIR BLUNDER”
========================================

The models would have had much better results had the scientists taken the ocean cycles into account. But they refused to consider them because the warming that occurred from 1980 to 2000 would have had to be assigned in part to the warm phase of the ocean cycles, and correspondingly less so for CO2. The scientists were too obsessed with blaming every warming on CO2. Result: the climate scientists are left standing on the verge of humiliation today. All this is explained in detail by Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Lüning in their book: Die kalte Sonne.

It should therefore come as no surprise that the only model that is correct today so far is the one proposed by Lüning and Vahrenholt, who took ocean and solar cycles into account. The UBA would do the German taxpayers a huge favor by reading this book.

Also crackpot scientists out there should really think twice before opening up their big, alarmist mouths in the near future. Us skeptics aren’t going to let you off the hook by any means in 5 years time. Whether you get tarred and feathered in 2020 depends on what you say today. Do you really want to become the David Viners and Mojib Latifs of the future?

Amazingly, the alarmist scientists are looking at everything except what’s really obvious: the sun. Solar activity during the 20th century was at it’s highest level in 500 or more years, but today it is at its lowest level in some 200 years. Gee, you think that could matter? The data clearly show that it did in the past.

To sum it up, it is amusing to see the UBA all baffled, surprised, and now scurrying for explanations. My feeling is that unless certain people smarten up real quick, there is going to be a lot to laugh about in the years ahead.

Logo: www.umweltbundesamt.de/

 

72 responses to “Baffled German Government Concedes! “Global Warming Has Stopped…Warming Pause Is Remarkable…Unexpected””

  1. DirkH

    “Five more years and all their arguments will disappear. And in ten years the climate scientists are going to be left standing there looking like total asses”;

    No, five more years of free money and then you’ll get a new estimate for how much longer they need to research it.

    And – we have a GREEN RADIO by the Umwelt bundesamt, even though the Greens are not in power? So the UBA does not care which party is in power, it will be a GREEN policy any ole way? Oh, I thought so.

    Do they have a GREEN sermon on sunday? I just swatted a wasp; where do I have to confess and buy indulgences?

    1. Jimbo

      5 more years! I thought their time was almost up. ;)

      “A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal. Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature. ”
      http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD016263.shtml

      “The LLNL-led research shows that climate models can and do simulate short, 10- to 12-year “hiatus periods” with minimal warming, even when the models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol particles. They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.”
      https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html

  2. DirkH

    Interesting. The ultragreen UBA gives out licenses to sue to Green Orgs. They have given out this license to 80 organisations.
    http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/umweltrecht/verbandsklage/

    According to UmwRG an organization needs this licence before it can sue in enviro-related topics. Who would you guess has created this weird law? Well, the Red-green coalition in 2003 of course! Obviously the Greens used their power to introduce a legal hurdle so that only their sub organisations can be heard in the enviro field. I would hazard a guess that they have at the same time occupied the UBA for good, so that they control all of the enviro-related themes now, even after they have lost government participation.

  3. mwhite

    “Us skeptics aren’t going to let you off the hook by any means in 5 years time.”

    Not just the scientists, I hope you include the science and environmental journalists in there.

  4. mwhite

    ” We do know that CO2 was at about 280 ppm for 1000 years”

    http://drtimball.com/2011/ernst-georg-beck-a-major-contributor-to-climate-science-effectively-sidelined-by-climate-deceivers/

    When you put atmospheric measurements onto the end of proxy measurements you get Manns nature trick.

    “Ernst Beck re-examined the 19th century data as his friend Gartner describes,

    With his special meticulousness, Beck collected and analysed thousands and thousands of older measurements of the CO2 content of the air and found out that such content has been sometimes higher than today in the first half of the 20th century and also partially in the 19th century.

    He found the pre-industrial level little different from the current level, and the variability from year to year was much wider than the ice core and Mauna Loa record showed. He put all the data together in Figure 2.”

  5. mwhite

    “Kirchhof then goes on to say that Chinese and Indian power plants may be to blame for this, and says that polluting the atmosphere is not the way to solve climate change.”

    It’s my understanding that the cooling effect of aerosols is due to those in the stratosphere. The only way to get large concentrations of aerosols into the stratosphere is the more powerfull volcanic erruptions.

    1. DirkH

      They make it up as they go along. Aerosol forcing has always been the wildcard to make the GCM hindcasting fit the temperature, they just invent a fitting history of aerosol forcing, as there are no global measurements or even consensus about the net effect of aerosol forcing. Some positive, some negative (carbon particulate positive; SO2 negative, but huge error bars in the estimates; very well suited to serve as the joker in the hindcasts.)

    2. Ric Werme

      During the last “The Ice Age is Coming” worry, a lot of the blame was focused on aerosols from power plants and urban smog, but it was never well quantified and remains a great unknown in IPCC documents. Also, aircraft contrails were getting a lot of “heat” for increasing the Earth’s albedo. All these are tropospheric events.

      Volcanic cooling is due to aerosols (mostly suphuric acid droplets) lifted into the stratosphere during the eruption.

    3. Jimbo

      Aerosols also warm the planet.

  6. alex

    The climate scammers are now blaming the oceans for the 17 year temperature stasis. But why blame the oceans now and not for the previous warming? Ifthe current statsis is due to the oceans abosrbing the energy, then the opposite must also be true, that is the warming was due to the oceans releasing energy tht was stored for centuries long before we started burning hydrocarbons. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, no?

    For these scam artists, science is science only when it benfefits their pockets.

    1. ArndB

      @“But why blame the oceans now and not for the previous warming?”

      Here you find a book (2009, pages 106) that links the pervious warming of the Northern Hemisphere (1919-1939) to the North Atlantic (West Spitsbergen Current): http://www.arctic-heats-up.com/ .

    2. Jimbo

      Thank you alex. They can’t have it both ways.

  7. DirkH

    3 Scientists from EIKE, Hamburg and Braunschweig predict rapid cooling in Central Europe from 2000 on , using Fourier analysis.
    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/fourier-analysis-reveals-six-natural-cycles-no-man-made-effect-predicts-cooling/

  8. “Global Warming Has Stopped…Warming Pause Is Remarkable…Unexpected” | Lamont County Environment

    [...] Baffled German Government Concedes! “Global Warming Has Stopped…Warming Pause Is Remarkable…Un… [...]

  9. Pat

    There won’t be much to laugh about in five years time- we’ll all be shivering in the dark.

  10. Ric Werme

    In a couple years I may have to start keeping track of comments putting forth this “too short” argument:

    —– (Does blockquote work over here?)

    Kirchhof then claims the 15-year period of stagnation is indeed relatively short, and, to add authority to this, Prof. Jochem Marotzke of the warmist Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg provides an audio comment:

    What we are seeing here is a relatively short-term fluctuation, If one really wants to know how CO2 and global temperature are related, then you have to look at a longer time period.”

    —–

    The period of warming people wrung their hands over was 1979-1998, 20 years. If we don’t resume warming by then, then people can claim that period was too short for measuring warming and therefore must not exist. :-)

    1. DirkH

      The propaganda echo only reached its climax in 2007. Wow, what a successful fraud.

    2. handjive

      If the period of warming from 1979 was announced in 1988 by Hansen, it took less than 10 years to identify it.

      Yet, 15 years of cooling and this is considered a short period.

  11. Ike
  12. Ulrich Wolff
  13. Born2sail

    I’m just a skeptic without portfolio so cut me a little slack for asking this question: Wasn’t WWII the cause of a spike for a great many things, including CO2, tossed into the atmosphere? If so, shouldn’t there be a corresponding fingerprint in the climate record that could substantiate some of the alarmist claims? I see none in the many timeline graphs and charts being produced. If anything, I’m surprised someone hasn’t claimed that the cooling during the 50’s was the result of the great WWII pollution during the 40’s.

    1. klem

      Ah yes, you are discovering some of the holes in the climate alarmist faith. As you say there should be some sort of spike or fingerprint, but none has been found. Alarmists can easily explain this away by claiming increased ocean heat absorption, or low resolution in recording methodologies, or coal aerosols, or increases in atmospheric water vapor, or some other unverifiable explanation. And once the hole has been explained away, the faith continues, all is well.

  14. DirkH

    Undeterred, German central planners heap insult on injury, create new subsidy for energy storages; 660 EUR gift per installed Solar PV kW, via KfW; plus cheap credit for 100% financing of the storage.
    http://www.tga-fachplaner.de/Newsarchiv/2013/4/Foerderung-fuer-Solarstrom-Speicher-startet,QUlEPTQxNzY4OCZNSUQ9MTEwMjEx.html
    search terms, google: speicher EEG
    for more reports.

  15. Ulrich Wolff

    The transition from the last ice age into the present warm period driven by a decreasing positive imbalance of the earth’s energy budget is still continuing. From 1904 – 2007 total increases of an average ocean water level (≈ 168 mm) and average temperature (≈ +0.74K) correlate with an average imbalance of the earth’s energy budget (≈ +0,52 W/m2) during that time period not leaving room for any contribution from an increasing CO2 concentration within the atmosphere.
    http://de.scribd.com/doc/133241574/Variations-of-the-Earth’s-Energy-Budget-are-driving-Increases-of-Ocean-Water-Levels-and-Temperatures

  16. elmer

    Or maybe the whole theory is backwards and increased CO2 causes global cooling. If more and more of the atmosphere is being made up of CO2, which is the weakest greenhouse gas, that means CO2 is replacing other much stronger greenhouse gasses like water vapor and Methane, which would cause global cooling.

    1. klem

      For all we know you may be explaining the true mechanism of the earth’s climate.

  17. Magoo

    “What we are seeing here is a relatively short-term fluctuation, If one really wants to know how CO2 and global temperature are related, then you have to look at a longer time period.”

    Yes, but the effects of anthropogenic global warming were only supposed to be obvious from approximately 1980 onwards, which gives us a maximum of 17 years of warming (1980-1997) attributable to AGW. The various temperature records now show no statistically significant warming for between 16-23 yrs, depending on which record you use.

    If they want to say that the period of no warming is a short period then they best understand that it’s longer than the period of warming attributable to AGW. They can’t have it both ways now can they.

    1. klem

      True. Here’s another one. Last year climate alarmists claimed that Anarctica was melting away due to AGW. This year they are claiming that Antarctica is growing due to AGW. Another example of alarmists trying to have it both ways.

      And the news media has said nothing.

  18. cementafriend

    Elmer, you have been sucked in by “Green” propaganda. Methane has an IR absorption very much less than CO2 and it exists in the atmosphere at very much lower concentration than CO2 (1.3ppm cf 395ppm). Its effect is insignificant and unmeasurable. Check the post on my website. If you can find any measured facts to disprove the post, do comment.
    Oil companies are promoting the use of methane from coal seams and shale deposits. Methane is a usefuel fuel for some purposes but coal in many areas (including parts of Germany) is a cheaper and better fuel.

    1. klem

      “Methane is a usefuel fuel for some purposes but coal in many areas (including parts of Germany) is a cheaper and better fuel.”

      Which would explain why China and India are planning a total of 800 new coal fired power stations to be built over the next 20 years. These people know that coal is a cheaper and better fuel, why don’t we?

  19. Jonas

    If global warming has “paused” then why is their a dramatic increase in ice in the artic as land ice melts into the Ocean (worse case scenario thought to take 100 years but now looks like 2-7 years)? Fact is the ice wouldn’t be melting so severely in Siberia and the Anartica if it wasn’t getting warmer.

    Why is methane concentrations in the atmosphere exploding? You do know that as the Ocean absorbs more heat it acidifies, releasing methane, which WILL cause abrupt climate change, right?

    Worse thing about this is you CAN’T stop the earth from absoring more heat AND stop the oceans from absorbing CO2 which will force you have to quintuple aerosels in the atmosphere annually to make up the more and more heat absorbing methane. Well, I’m sure they could try but that seems like it would create one heck of a pressure cooker…

  20. Roger Wolsey

    A recent (explainable) aberration doesn’t debunk the trend. Human aggravated global warming is happening.
    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/03/climate-change-volcanoes/

    1. DirkH

      I missed all those Cracatoas and Pinatubos in the last 15 years. Should have watched more TV. Where were they?

      Oh. A few small volcanoes you say. Ah. And that was enough to overwhelm the influence of CO2. Hmmm. I see.

      So you’re saying CO2 is a bit player? Funny – that is exactly MY opinion as well.

    2. klem

      “Human aggravated global warming is happening.”

      Human aggravated, did you actually say that? Wow ‘aggravated’ is a fantastic weazel word, it basically means nothing. I love it.

  21. ENEN EverNewEcoN

    This definitely explains why the North Pole
    is almost completely melting and melting
    before our eyes presently.

    http://evernewecon.weebly.com/habitat.html

    1. DirkH

      Well of course it is melting before our eyes presently, it is melt season.
      You must either be very stupid or very manipulative.
      http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png

    2. DirkH

      “CHANGING TEMPERATURE AND
      HUMIDITY MEANINGFULLY OVER A
      PROTRACTED TIME IS LIKE
      TOSSING EPIDEMIOLOGICS INTO
      A TOP HAT.”

      Somehow that’s not that catchy. Do you need a copywriter?

    3. DirkH

      And, there is no such thing as “EPIDEMIOLOGICS”; do you mean “Edipemiologists”?

      1. DirkH

        Sorry, switched two letters; “epidemiologists” of course.

  22. Ponce

    The answer is a simple one………production and export, world wide, is down so that many factories that were the reason for that problem are now closed down.

    “No Export = No Jobs = No Recovery”… Ponce

  23. Jon

    Yes. there’s also a third theory that sounds plausible for laypeople, namely that more dust particles, ‘dirt’ in everyday terms, is high up in the atmosphere. As a result, less solar radiation reaches the Earth and so as a whole it gets cooler.”

    So in laymans terms you mean the Aluminum that makes up one of the concoctions in Chem-trails reflecting the Sun, giving the impression that Global warming isn’t happening?
    Or to put it another way they have Fixed the Problem?

    and the next time you take the car out, lift up the hood and sit on the engine!
    or put your hand in the fire when you burn anything!
    not to mention 7 billion bodies consuming and giving off heat!
    You lot think Humans don’t contribute to Global warming. WTFU
    Jim fixed it, and they are fixing it for you, that’s how dumb you all are!

    1. DirkH

      If you say that land use change and the Urban Heat Island effect contribute measurably to locally higher temperatures I guess nobody here would deny that.

      The amount of heat produced by human civilization is only 481 Exajoule a year, though; or 4.81*10^20 Joule.

      How much energy reaches the Earth in a year in the form of insolation?
      3.78432*10^24 Joule (assuming 240 W/m^2 insolation on average reaching the surface)

      We can therefore say that solar energy reaching the surface is about 10,000 times stronger than the energy consumption and waste heat production of all the 7 billion humans and their machines.

  24. Lisbeth Nielsson

    Having just watched “What in the world are they spraying” about chemtrails, I cannot help to wonder what effect posing 20 million tons of toxic alluminium, barium and strontium and other heavy metals into our atmosphre may cause. Apparently this is a means to – amongst others – control the weather and according to the “geoingineers”, to prevent global warming. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mEfJO0-cTis#!

    1. DirkH

      I watched that a while ago. That California radio station that got all alarmist about Aluminum in the rainwater got the reading wrong by a factor of 1000… something about milli vs micro… a fact that is missing from the film…

  25. Spadecaller

    Speculating on causes of the warming hiatus after the event, as the alarmists are doing, is a violation of the rigors of scientific discipline.Why did the models not take all possible factors into account?Let us respect that science is all about making testable predictions.To paraphrase Einstein,one anomalous result alone is sufficient to invalidate a proposition.The last couple of decades are replete with failed global warming prognostications.Ergo the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory has been discredited.End of story.Game over and back to the drawing board.BTW, a sceptic is defined as one who does not accept or reject a proposition without prior critical rational analysis.

  26. Jon

    May Day Mai Day, THE WORLD IS IN NUCLEAR MELTDOWN!!!

    Our World Leaders call it Progress and want to build many more!

    Question their Sanity, for Gods sake! Why is it never in the News?

    If you are going to disguss the weather, atleast talk about Hot Particles.

    over and out.

    1. DirkH

      Hmm, jon, why do you think is the core of the planet thousands of degrees hot? Well, because of nuclear decay.

      No German leader would ever dare to mention the word nuclear lest people like you, the millions of blind followers of the Green panic mongers, would shred him to pieces, don’t worry.

      We’ll burn more coal instead.

      Avoid climbing mountains, BTW; the Thorium in the granite leads to twice the radiation level that you find in flat country.

      And don’t eat bananas. They are so radioactive they regularly set off the alarms at the borders.

  27. Douglas Hollis

    Ah, yet another humorous “global warming has stopped” article. Yeah…funny how the decade AFTER it had supposedly stopped (2000-2009) was the hottest ever measured, by far. Funny how 11 of the top 12 of the hottest years ever on record post-date the supposed ‘end’ of global warming. Talk about counterintuitive. Strange, also, how the rate of ice mass loss in Greenland DOUBLED between 2002 and 2009. However, it has since almost doubled AGAIN, now losing around 367 billion tons each year. I guess it didn’t get the memo about AGW having ‘stopped’? In addition, by 2012 an unprecedented 97% of the surface area of Greenland’s ice was busy melting, in stark contrast to an average for 1979-2010 of only around 25%. This absolutely floored scientists. As for the Arctic, since 1979 it has lost an area of ice roughly half that of the contiguous United States. New record low summer ice extents were measured in 2002, then in 2005. Then along came 2007 crushing all previous records…and then, lo and behold, came 2012, losing a whopping 175% of the amount that 2007 had lost. Ah…but I forget, global warming had stopped. Funny how these ice sheets just don’t want to play along!

    About the supposed Antarctica ‘contradiction’, while land ice is indeed melting, the extent of sea ice has increased somewhat. However, the best estimates put the total Antarctic ice loss at between 100 to as high as 300 billion tons/year.

    Incidentally, there have been a number of warming pauses in the 20th century temperature record lasting a decade or more…yet each time without fail, the pause ‘unpaused’ itself and the curve just kept on climbing inexorably higher. For the past few years, we’ve seen a preponderance of cooling La Nina years, effectively masking the real effect of our carbon emissions. Of course, skeptics like to measure from 1998, the hottest year ever recorded at the time, which was itself boosted by a massive El Nino (only like, the biggest of the century). Why not measure from say, 1996, and tell us how much global warming has paused? Oh…because that would negate the towering starting point so useful to the argument. Since then, of course, 2005 and 2010 both surpassed the 1998 record, and this WITHOUT the help of El Nino. So yeah…clearly these AGW scientists have been trying to pull the wool over your eyes, and hyped up the threat faced by mankind. Right. Truth be told, they’ve actually been somewhat conservative. I’m just sayin.

    1. DirkH

      Funny how you don’t provide a link to the data set to which you refer. Or a source link to any of the claims you make. Should we take your word for it? Well in that case your word is trumped by the temperature I experience. I’ve seen warmer Februaries than this May; I think back in 1999.

  28. Douglas Hollis

    That’s rich. I didn’t see you demand sources from anybody else, only the guy whom you disagree with. Nice hypocrisy there, and then you pretend that it’s only ‘my word’, too. Awesome. I used a variety of sources, and it wasn’t particularly hard to find. No arcane links to outdated info, just the facts. But don’t take my word for it, lol. Google is your friend, if you’re really interested in a more balanced world view.

    1. DirkH

      “That’s rich. I didn’t see you demand sources from anybody else, only the guy whom you disagree with. Nice hypocrisy there”

      It’s a pity that you can’t provide a source. I’m not very keen on trying to find out what you have found on the Internet. At least give me a hint. Que es mas macho, Grist or ThinkProgress?

  29. Gerald

    I don’t think it will be too much global warming ,From what I have read and noticed I think the earth has lost a little of its atmosphere. the clouds seem to be lower to the ground wide tornados. I think tornados are wider because the upper part of them are closer to the ground do to lower atmospheric height. and wild weather because of sudden temperature shifts due to less atmosphere instead of gradual seasonal shifts. I have notice the weather men don’t seem to mention atmospheric pressure like they used to.

  30. Douglas Hollis

    Okay, so…when I wrote my first piece, I had about a dozen sites open, each with lists and tables and graphs. I don’t have the time to go back and hunt those down, however I could provide you with a fairly concise oversight.

    For a start, you could have a look at the following:

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/15/1014151/ten-charts-that-make-clear-the-planet-just-keeps-warming/?mobile=nc

    http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=percentage

    Also have a look at the short video on here: http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

    Hope that helps.

    1. DirkH

      Hm, yeah, that helps; next time I need to provide a link I’ll just dump a dozen from my collection and let the other guy try to sort out what I actually refer to. I’ll make sure to have some Soros or Rockefeller funded stuff in there…

      But anyway, we know where Soros stands, thanks.

    2. DirkH

      …here is George Soros’ Joe Romm’s declaration of how the future will look like:
      http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/08/1691411/bombshell-recent-warming-is-amazing-and-atypical-and-poised-to-destroy-stable-climate-that-made-civilization-possible/?mobile=nc
      (he extrapolated Marcott & Shakun’s “unrobust” blip into the future…)

      Yeah, climate experts over there. Sorta like The Onion is a climate expert.

  31. Douglas Hollis

    Very well, please be so kind as to point me to any one claim in my initial contribution which you have a problem with, and I’ll see what I can do for you.

    If you don’t mind, please elaborate a bit on the “unrobust” blip? I have no idea what you’re talking about. I have to date seen no reason to doubt the integrity of the study in question, nor its findings. And some examples of the sites in question “lying” (preferably by way of peer-reviewed articles that run counter to those claims you would contend to be “lies”).

    1. DirkH

      Shakun says it’s not robust. In video interview with NYT eco-lib Revkin.
      http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/scientists-find-an-abrupt-warm-jog-after-a-very-long-cooling/#more-48664

      You thought it was valid? Well, we always find the funniest misconceptions among the warming cult.

      1. Douglas Hollis

        I’ve tried posting twice, but so far no joy. Not sure if posts reflecting the truth about AGW gets moderated right off this site, frankly wouldn’t be surprised if that were the case.

        1. DirkH

          Calm down. Often comments from me vanish in wordpress’ spam bucket as well, until Pierre gets to fish them out. We are not at realclimate.

          1. Douglas Hollis

            So, for a start. Your reference to a warmist cult is most revealing, and leaves you with somewhat less credibility than you may hoped for. Unless of course you intended to include, as part of this cult, the roughly 97% of the world’s climatologists who acknowledge the reality of AGW, or the world’s most prestigious scientific institutions who, almost without exception, endorse the same position. All misguided cultists, in your eyes. And of course, the only people who seem to know better are those without any real credentials in the field of climatology.

            Of course, I do not propose that scientific consensus is sufficient in itself to establish ultimate truth, and critical thought should always be strongly encouraged. However, I think you should know that there is a fine line between critical thought and thoughtless critique. Try not to make yourself guilty of that. It might help to actually stimulate dialogue.

            1. DirkH

              Well, listen. I don’t care about you or any other warmist. I just want you to lose.

              You can get in line behind all the other totalitarian movements.

            2. Douglas Hollis

              About your link re Shakun. Honestly, I believe your confidence in the study’s supposed shortcomings may be a little misplaced. Have another look at what Shakun says. The 20th century “uptick” is “of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and…is based on only a few available pale-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be representative of global temperature changes, and THEREFORE IS NOT THE BASIS OF ANY OF OUR CONCLUSIONS [emphasis mine]. Our primary conclusions are based on a COMPARISON of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, AS DOCUMENTED BY THE INSTRUMENTAL RECORD.”

              Do you see, then, that that which was admitted to be statistically non-robust was discarded by the authors, and replaced with the dataset provided by the modern instrumental record. This was then compared to the more proxy-rich paleotemperature record of the Holocene and beyond. Please elaborate as to why you think the study doesn’t stand.

            3. Douglas Hollis

              DirkH…thank you for your honesty. Most refreshing indeed. So, true to form, you were never interested in any of the facts.

  32. Douglas Hollis

    This site is hilarious.

  33. Douglas Hollis

    I can post now? Geesh.

  34. Douglas Hollis

    Apparently not. Go figure.

  35. Douglas Hollis

    About your link re Shakun. Honestly, I believe your confidence in the study’s supposed shortcomings may be a little misplaced. Have another look at what Shakun says. The 20th century “uptick” is “of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and…is based on only a few available pale-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be representative of global temperature changes, and THEREFORE IS NOT THE BASIS OF ANY OF OUR CONCLUSIONS [emphasis mine]. Our primary conclusions are based on a COMPARISON of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, AS DOCUMENTED BY THE INSTRUMENTAL RECORD.”

  36. Douglas Hollis

    Red carpet? Too funny.

    So it’s all a one man show then? You could try adding a clause that the post is awaiting moderation, for a start.

  37. Anthropogenic Global Alarmism | Imminent Arctic Ice Death Spiral

    [...] soaring over the same period. The current lack of any significant global warming since 1998 has the scientific community baffled and casts doubt on the accuracy of all 73 IPCC CMIP5 climate models, none of which predicted the [...]