4 ms·

The catastrophic global warming crowd seems to have no problem at all predicting a grim future based on temperature increases over a short period of time. I te

• anon1385 14y ago
  >I tend to agree with you that planetary climate trends are not visible within the span of available global temperature data Uh, we have temperature data available for far longer than 17 years, and it does show a clear warming trend. That is why you had to cherry pick the 17 year interval remember? WUWT is not a credible source of scientific information or analysis so I'm not going to waste my time reading it. A model from 1988 is hardly relevant: climate science has advanced hugely since then. If scientists though the 1988 models were good enough why have they spent the last 24 years making better models?
  • gwright 14y ago
    I was a little unclear. What I meant is that the instrumentation record (thermometers and satelites) is quite short (geologically speaking) vs. the proxy record (ice cores, tree rings, etc). And maybe I can make another clarification. I accept that there is a warming trend visible in the geological record. I don't think that trend is the source of the 'debate' with regarding to catastrophic global warming. The debate arises when climate modelers predict a catastrophic rise in temperatures that is a distinctly different signal layered on top of the accepted climactic trend and which is triggered by human activities. This comes not from direct increases in CO2 but via postulated positive feedbacks in the system triggered by increases in CO2 or other greenhouse gases. A 17-year pause in the background climactic trend (i.e. what the planet would be doing without human activities) is not at all surprising nor does it conflict with long term climactic trends. A 17-year pause in the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming predicted by the models is a completely different story. When that is coupled to the continuing increase in CO2 concentrations you now have a way to evaluate the magnitude of the postulated CO2 feedback. The pause, despite the increased C02 would seem to indicate that the models have overestimated the positive feedback. Without the positive feedback the dire consequences predicted by the models is much less likely and so the massively expensive and disruptive policy choices are that much harder to justify -- especially in the short-term. TL;DR A 17 year pause in warming is a strong indication that anthropogenic climate models are woefully incomplete and shouldn't be the basis for massive policy disruptions in the energy sector.