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.
8 comments:
SBVOR - I'm glad to see someone else besides me following the MET Office testing of IPCC models that was included in the 2008 NOAA climate report. It states very clearly that ANY 15 year or more interval with little or no warming would falsifiy the IPCC models at the 95% level. Here is the HadCRUT3v trend starting in May 2007.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997.42/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997.42/trend
So we are now at 14 years and 4 months with no warming heading into the start of a new La Nina and my money is on the IPCC models being falsified at the 95% level. The MET also announced last week that Brits and the US can expect ice age like winters for several decades. I'm sure Australia will claim that there carbon tax led to the rapid cooling and ice age like conditions.lol
Anonymous,
Thanks for the data.
My review of the literature and the data leads me to believe the global trend will be flat through about 2018. I then expect a cooling trend from about 2018 through about 2048. All of this will be primarily driven by the AMO cycle.
The alarmists are well aware of the peer reviewed papers supporting this expectation. That is why they are so desperate to impose their purely political tyranny now (before the next perfectly natural global cooling trend arrives).
SBVOR, the media is finally talking about energy/fuel poverty and of all places England. based on skyrocketing energy/fuel costs and colder weather more Brits are suffering from energy/fuel poverty and without policy changes the trend indicates that more than 1/2 the population will suffer from energy/fuel poverty by 2015.
Anonymous (Oct 15, 2011 9:59:00 AM),
Fortunately, the Shale Gas revolution which has lowered heating costs in the USA (my own included) is a global phenomena:
http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/
As you can see in the (enlarged) map from the previous link, England has no shortage of Shale Gas:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904563904576584904139100880.html
The only obstacle (as always) is a pack of lies from the usual environmental extremists:
http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2011/05/john-stossel-natural-gas-fracking-fears.html
These are the same environmental extremists who (falsely) claim the USA has only 2% of the world's oil resources:
http://sbvor.blogspot.com/p/drill-here.html
I've also been following this since the 2008 State of the Climate report.
Does anyone know what the enso-adjusted trend is currently? Specifically from 1999-present The last two reports have not mentioned any decadal trends since 2008.
Anonymous (Oct 27, 2011 12:31:00 PM),
I don’t know the answer to your question. It seems ENSO adjusted data are not easy to find.
But, in a brief search, I did find a paper published in 2000 which suggested that the ENSO adjusted global trend from 1958 through 1998 was 0.07K/decade (meaning, 0.07C/decade). That is very close to the steady rate of recovery from the Little Ice Age of 0.5C/century (since the 1700s) described by Akasofu, 2010 as well as Dr. David Evans (who drew upon Akasofu, 2010).
What I would really like to see is data adjusted for ENSO, AMO, PDO and a whole host of other ocean oscillations. But, I imagine attempting to accurately adjust the data would be pretty tricky.
Anonymous (Oct 27, 2011 12:31:00 PM),
The (land only, not ENSO adjusted) so-called BEST data confirm no global warming over the period from 1/2001 through 5/2010 (the so-called BEST dataset currently ends at 5/2010.)
Click here for the substantiating evidence.
Hello again,
Found this recently and I thought you'd find it interesting.
http://news.cisc.gmu.edu/doc/publications/Gu_Adler.pdf
Post a Comment