True believers in the catastrophic man made global warming myth seem impressed by a letter to the WSJ editor by one Raymond L. Orbach. So, let’s debunk it:
1) Orbach’s central point is that satellite data show a warming trend over the last 30 years. True enough (thanks to the most recent -- perfectly natural -- AMO warming cycle). Carefully examine that link in it’s entirety and you’ll find all that is necessary to fully debunk Orbach’s letter.
Notable in that debunking is the fact that the longer term trend shows the planet has, for hundreds of years, been naturally warming at “a steady trend rate of 0.5°C per century” -- a full order of magnitude LESS than the (not at all unusual) 30 year AMO driven trend touted by Orbach. What follows is just (some very tasty) icing on the cake.
2) Orbach cites a paper allegedly claiming that a trend of at least 17 years is required “to detect overall trends.”
I have a theory as to how that (odd) number was calculated -- pretty simple really:
A) NOAA is on record stating:
“The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08±0.07°C decade, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the "ENSO-adjusted" trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade.”2010 was an El Nino driven warm year (part of the ENSO variations). Hence, the satellite data demonstrate that the ENSO-adjusted flat trend continues (making for 13 years without any global warming).
B) Phil Jones (of ClimateGate infamy) is on record stating that there has been no “statistically significant” global warming since 1995 (16 years ago). That assessment, by the way, met NOAA’s 15 year standard for invalidating all the IPCC computer models (see the link for substantiation).
So, is it mere coincidence that 17 years is now determined to be the (revised) magical number? You decide.
3) The nature of climate change is that there are countless natural cycles embedded within other natural cycles (which, in turn, are embedded within still more natural cycles). Human activity has probably contributed some very tiny (and utterly inconsequential) amount of warming. But, the fact is that there is nothing about current temperatures or current trends which is even remotely close to falling outside the bounds of natural variations.
Truth is, the warmists always want us to examine only their carefully cherry picked date ranges (and ignore all others). They are particularly keen on making sure we never look as far back as the previous (perfectly natural) interglacial warming period (much less the 3 very similar warming periods which preceded that one). Yeah, the data from those Vostok ice cores are particularly “inconvenient”, eh?
Click here to debunk the hysteria topic by topic.