Science: The blogosphere has been having a field day with global warming's apparent decade-long stagnation. Negotiators are working toward an international global warming agreement to be signed in Copenhagen in December, yet there hasn't been any warming for a decade. What's the point, bloggers ask?
Climate researchers are beginning to answer back in their preferred venue, the peer-reviewed literature. The pause in warming is real enough, but it's just temporary, they argue from their analyses. A natural swing in climate to the cool side has been holding greenhouse warming back, and such swings don't last forever. "In the end, global warming will prevail," says climate scientist Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City.
Science magazine should try and get its facts right: 2005 is warmest on record. 2009 saw record ocean temperatures--and the ocean is the heat sink in which 90% of warming occurs.
In the end? What's that supposed to mean?
In the end, the earth will have gone through many more ice ages as well as warming periods whether we're here or not.
This article suggests that the science is settled and the scientists who support global warming are eventually going to win.
This is the real problem--thinking that the science is settled and that no more research is needed.
Since 2000 the atmospheric carbon dioxide level has increased 18.8% of the increase from 1800 to 2000.
According to the average of the five reporting agencies, the average global temperature has not changed much for years and from 2002 through 2008 the trend shows a DECREASE of 1.8°C/century.
This SEPARATION between the increasing carbon dioxide level and not-increasing average global temperature is outside of the 'limits' of all of the predictions of the 'consensus' of Climate Scientists.
The separation has been increasing at an average rate of about 2% per year since 2000. It corroborates the lack of connection between atmospheric carbon dioxide increase and average global temperature.
The sun has not been this quiet (average daily sunspot count less than 4 for the period) this long (over 32 months) since the low centered about 1913 (41 months). As the atmospheric carbon dioxide level continues to increase and the average global temperature doesn’t it is becoming more and more apparent that many climate scientists have made an egregious mistake and a whole lot of people have been misled.
All of the global average temperatures for the entire 20th century and on into the 21st century are readily calculated with no consideration whatsoever needed of changes to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide or any other greenhouse gas.
How it is done is shown at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true . There is no Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) (and therefore no human caused climate change) from added atmospheric carbon dioxide.
[Editors Note: Comments are not peer reviewed and may be edited only for clarity, civility, language, and style guidelines in accordance with our editorial standards and the disclaimer on the web site]
Dan,
As I pointed out here, your self-published article has as much credibility as a blog post. By contrast, the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC has been subjected to a massive amount of scientific scrutiny - including consideration of whether observed changes in temperature can be attributed to sunspots.
When their climate models are run using only natural forcings (including solar factors), they fail to explain observed temperature changes in all continents and the global ocean. When anthropogenic forcings are incorporated, the model output is consistent with observations.
This chart is from p. 6 of the Summary for Policymakers from the 4AR Synthesis Report (PDF).
I believe the warmest year was 1998:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/policymakers/policy/slowdown.html
And none of the computer models that are predicting doomsday have calculated a cooling period.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm
Milan,
Not so. Only one section of the FAR (7.3.5) dealt with CO2's relationship with atmospheric termperatures, and it sounds rather like they aren't certain.
This section has received very little scientific scrutiny, despite the whole IPCC case resting on its tenuous findings.
Temperatures in the US have fallen 0.78 degrees in the last decade. The trend has accelerated since 2002.
Milan,
As I pointed out, the method and data sources (NOAA) are described in detail so anyone can do the assessment. If they do they will discover the same thing that I did. Climate Change is natural.
How wide will the separation need to get between the increasing CO2 and not-increasing temperature before people recognize that the IPCC got it wrong and that the scientific community has been misled?