To Chelsea Conaboy at The Philadelphia Inquirer regarding anger and "climate science," Gov. Christie may doubt your point of view -not scientists'
- Among statements from Nobel climate scientists, cooling has actually occurred but the scientist was afraid to say so,
- there has been no warming since 1995,
- there should be "anger and incredulity" that such is proceeding at all, much less lacking 100% open and transparent certainty in the reason for doing so, Ms. Conaboy.
- "The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998.
- OK it has
- above quoted from (East Anglia) ClimateGate emails, July 5, 2005.
- "He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming,
- although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend."...
- Trenberth: "“The reprieve we’ve had from warming temperatures in the last few years will not continue." ... He warns now 'missing' heat will haunt us. "“The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later,” says NCAR scientist Kevin Trenberth, the lead author....Earth’s surface temperatures have largely leveled off in recent years....
- That means about half the total amount of heat is unaccounted for."...
- "...I hope I don't get a call from congress ! I'm hoping that no-one there realizes I have a US DoE grant and have had this (with Tom W.) for the last
- 25 years....
- Cheers, Phil"
- "Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years.
- Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents."...(more below)
- It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was
- were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
- “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”
- Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled.
- “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’.
- So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.
- The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years. He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans.
- To: P.Jones
- ...I'm really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil. Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted
- to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted. I'll help you to deal with Michaels and the CEI in any way that I can.
- The only reason these guys are going after you is because your work is of crucial importance -
- More from 11/19/09 Der Spiegel (renowned for its large fact-checking department): from Columbia Journalism Review, "Inside the World's Largest Fact Checking Organization," by Craig Silverman, 4/9/10,
Ironically, climate change appears to have stalled in the run-up to the upcoming world summit in the Danish capital, where thousands of politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, business leaders and environmental activists plan to negotiate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Billions of euros are at stake in the negotiations.
Reached a Plateau
The planet's temperature curve rose sharply for almost 30 years, as global temperatures increased by an average of 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.25 degrees Fahrenheit) from the 1970s to the late 1990s. "At present, however, the warming is taking a break," confirms meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in the northern German city of Kiel.
- Latif, one of Germany's best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau.
- "There can be no argument about that," he says. "We have to face that fact."
Even though the temperature standstill probably has no effect on the long-term warming trend, it does raise doubts about the predictive value of climate models, and it is also a political issue. For months, climate change skeptics have been gloating over the findings on their Internet forums.
- This has prompted many a climatologist to treat the temperature data in public with a sense of shame, thereby damaging their own credibility.
"It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community," says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. "We don't really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point."
Just a few weeks ago, Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature
- trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius -- in other words, a standstill.
The differences among individual regions of the world are considerable. In the Arctic, for example, temperatures rose by almost three degrees Celsius, which led to a dramatic melting of sea ice. At the same time, temperatures declined in large areas of North America, the western Pacific and the Arabian Peninsula. Europe, including Germany, remains slightly in positive warming territory.
But a few scientists simply refuse to believe the British calculations. "Warming has continued in the last few years," says Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). However, Rahmstorf is more or less alone in his view. Hamburg Max Planck Institute scientist Jochem Marotzke, on the other hand, says: "I hardly know any colleagues who would deny that it hasn't gotten warmer in recent years."
The controversy sends confusing and mixed messages to the lay public. Why is there such a vigorous debate over climate change, even though it isn't getting warmer at the moment? And how can it be that scientists cannot even arrive at a consensus on changes in temperatures, even though temperatures are constantly being measured?
The global temperature-monitoring network consists of 517 weather stations. But each reading is only a tiny dot on the big world map, and it has to be extrapolated to the entire region
- with the help of supercomputers.
Besides, there are still many blind spots, the largest being the Arctic, where there are only about 20 measuring stations to cover a vast area. Climatologists refer to the problem as the "Arctic hole."
- But a NASA team from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, which does make the kinds of adjustments for the Arctic data that Rahmstorf believes are necessary,
Marotzke and Leibniz Institute meteorologist Mojib Latif are even convinced that the fuzzy computing done by Rahmstorf is counterproductive.
- "We have to explain to the public that greenhouse gases will not cause temperatures to keep rising from one record temperature to the next, but that they are still subject to natural fluctuations," says Latif.
For this reason, he adds, it is dangerous to cite individual weather-related occurrences, such as a drought in Mali or a hurricane, as proof positive that climate change is already fully underway.
- "Perhaps we suggested too strongly in the past that the development will continue going up along a simple, straight line. In reality, phases of stagnation or even cooling are completely normal," says Latif."...
Reference: Der Spiegel, 11/19/09, "Stagnating Temperatures: Climatologists baffled by global warming time-out," by Gerald Traufetter
- Der Spiegel, 4/01/10, "Climate Catastrophe: A Superstorm for Global Warming Research," by Marco Evers, Olaf Stampf, and Gerald Traufetter
- Emeritus Professor of Physics at UC Santa Barbara Harold Lewis writes a letter resigning from the American Physical Society to the Society's president at Princeton University, dated 10/6/10.
- "It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist....
- ...The APS position also contains what I consider
- pompous and asinine advice to all world governments,
- This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake. ....
- There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club."...
- "What is at stake in the Greens ‘revolution’ is the heart and soul of western civilisation,
- What is also at stake is the economic system that has resulted in the creation of wealth and prosperity for
- the most people in human history."