The Guardian in 2009 predicted five years of rapid warming:
The world faces record-breaking temperatures as the sun’s activity increases, leading the planet to heat up significantly faster than scientists had predicted for the next five years, according to a study.
The hottest year on record was 1998, and the relatively cool years since have led to some global warming sceptics claiming that temperatures have levelled off or started to decline. But new research firmly rejects that argument.
The research, to be published in Geophysical Research Letters, was carried out by Judith Lean, of the US Naval Research Laboratory, and David Rind, of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
Fail. Five more years of no warming followed.
Professsor Ross McKitrick says in a new paper that the warming pause has now lasted an astonishing 19 years at the surface and 16-26 years in the lower troposphere.
The IPCC has drawn attention to an apparent leveling-off of globally-averaged temperatures over the past 15 years or so…. Here, I propose a method for estimating the duration of the hiatus that is robust to unknown forms of heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation (HAC) in the temperature series and to cherry-picking of endpoints… Application of the method shows that there is now a trendless interval of 19 years duration at the end of the HadCRUT4 surface temperature series, and of 16 – 26 years in the lower troposphere. Use of a simple AR1 trend model suggests a shorter hiatus of 14 – 20 years but is likely unreliable…
While the HadCRUT4 record clearly shows numerous pauses and dips amid the overall upward trend, the ending hiatus is of particular note because climate models project continuing warming over the period. Since 1990, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose from 354 ppm to just under 400 ppm, a 13% increase…
In the surface data we compute a hiatus length of 19 years, and in the lower tropospheric data we compute a hiatus length of 16 years in the UAH series and 26 years in the RSS series.
This is “the science”. Why do warmists keep ignoring it?
With the science against the faith it has so frantically promoted, the UN searches for someone who will turn the debate. Note well: it’s looking for someone who isn’t a scientist but who can play on guilt, racial politics, gender politics and victimhood:
The United Nations is looking for a young woman to, as BBC put it, be the ‘Malala’ of the climate change movement, serving as a voice that will energize this September’s climate change conference.
The organization has put out a call for a woman under 30 to speak at the opening session of the 2014 Climate Summit, which is being held on September 23 in New York City. The woman has to be from a developing country and must have a background that includes advocacy on climate change or work on implementing climate mitigation or adaptation solutions. So far, the call for applicants has drawn 544 women, who emailed short videos of themselves persuading world leaders to act on climate change to the Secretary-General’s office.
The UN has outed itself with this stunt. Its criteria ensure no leading climate scientists need apply. See, this is no longer about science at all.
A CSIRO report has declared the chances of global warming being the result of human industry as 99.999 percent likely.
The paper published yesterday in the Climate Risk Management journal noted December 2013 was the 346th consecutive month where global land and ocean temperatures exceeded the monthly average of the 20th century.
In other words, not since February 1985 have global conditions been below the average mark.
The likelihood of such an occurrence without human contribution is less than one in 100,000, the report said.
Researchers looked at rates of greenhouse gas emissions modelled alongside increases in temperature and compared results without the emissions.
They also looked at other possible contributions, including volcanic eruptions and El Nino weather patterns in making its finding of human culpability.
The report makes particular note that certain trends quoted by sceptics – such periods of falling temperatures – are in fact signs of climate change.
“One would expect a far greater number of short periods of falling temperatures…if climate change was not occurring,” it said.
“One would expect a far greater number of short periods of falling temperatures…if climate change was not occurring,”
huh? wtf is that meant to mean..please explain..
“Researchers looked at rates of greenhouse gas emissions modelled”
ahh those models..the ones that have failed all estimates for warming predictions..
the statement by the CSIRO is actually so unscientific its a disgrace..why are they so desperate to convince the sheep?