But 8 of those decades were pre-1940 when we are told that man-made climate change had not taken effect. In the past 15 decades it was warmed in 10 of them and stayed static in 5. Let's look at decade to decade variability. It couldn't possibly be the other way around? (Computer models can explain the recent trends, or more accurately, it is possible to select a few models that do from amongst the many that do not.) The recent standstill is, of course, natural variability, the recent rise is, of course, man-made. This is another example of scientific double standards. Since then there has been no change although of course it is warmer than it was in the 70s. His decade to decade change is a less than two decade spell of warming, to the mid 1990's, during which the warming increased at a rate much faster than the IPCC estimated the CO2 effect could account for.
The latest spell of warming began about 1980 following 40 years of standstill (still not adequately explained) and 90 prior years of warming. Well, I will let the comment about as long as 30 years ago for your perusal in the context of climatic variations.ĭr Allen is wrong. He said that temperatures are rising exactly as predicted as long as 30 years ago. Dr Myles Allen said that one should look at the figures that are relevant, that is decade to decade changes. However, the report did let a scientist get away with a biased interpretation of why the standstill has occurred, or rather bypassing the problematic nature of its existence. Lets hope this nomenclature is applied consistently in the future by the organisation that said in 2005 that the science was settled. The report did not call these questioners sceptics. One should take encouragement from the broadcast version of the Met Office's "Four degrees of warming 'likely'" in that when referring to the recent temperature standstill it says that scientists have questioned it. Likewise one must also be glad that the media is catching up. It took quite a while for the fact that global annual average temperatures haven't altered for a decade to become accepted by mainstream science, even if there are many who still doubt that it is either happening or important. NO WARMING: WHY SCIENTISTS BECOME SCEPTICSĪn email from David Whitehouse below regarding Global warming could happen sooner on the BBC (Click "Refresh" on your browser if background colour is missing)
For a list of backups viewable in China, see here. Other mirror sites: Dissecting Leftism, Political Correctness Watch, Education Watch, Immigration Watch, Food & Health Skeptic, Gun Watch, Socialized Medicine, Eye on Britain, Recipes, Tongue Tied and Australian Politics. The blogspot version of this blog is HERE. So their personal emotional needs lead them to press on us all a delusional belief that the planet needs "saving". Many Greenies (other than Al Gore and his Hollywood pals) have that instinct too but in the absence of strong orthodox religious committments they have to convince themselves that the world NEEDS them to live in an ascetic way.
#6AM AT THE CHUM BUCKET JOEL FULL#
Monasteries and nunneries were once full of such people - with the Byzantine stylites perhaps the most striking example. There is an "ascetic instinct" (or perhaps a "survivalist instinct") in many people that causes them to delight in going without material comforts. 6 of one degree average rise reported for the entire 20th century by the United Nations (a rise so small that you would not be able to detect such a difference personally without instruments) shows in fact that the 20th century was a time of exceptional temperature stability. Against the long history of huge temperature variation in the earth's climate (ice ages etc.), the.