Global Warming Consensus Roundup : April 2013

97% of top government experts agree – There is no evidence of catastrophic climate change or global warming.

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t

– Kevin Trenberth – NCAR Director

Last summer’s central Great Plains drought was caused primarily by natural climate variability, not human-caused climate change, a team of federal scientists concluded in a report released Thursday

– Martin Hoerling – NOAA’s Severe Weather Expert

Chris argued that any such influence (CO2 and hurricanes) is expected to be small today, almost certainly undetectable, and that this view is not particularly controversial among tropical cyclone climatologists. He concluded that hurricanes should not be the “poster” representing a human influence on climate.

– Chris Landsea – NOAA’s hurricane expert

What is Wrong with Embellishing Science?

the low number of tornadoes in 2012 may go down in the record books.

2012 May Challenge Records for Low Tornado Count

Ted Scambos, the lead scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado, said that even under the worst case scenario he thinks it would take at least 500 years for West Antarctica’s ice to melt.

Antarctic team digs deep to predict climate future – News, Weather and Sports for Sioux City, IA:

The 5-year running mean global temperature hints at a slowdown in the global warming rate during the past few years.

– Jams Hansen – Father of global warming alarmism

‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

– Phil Jones – father of Climategate

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it

MoS2 Template Master

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report 

Please add to this list


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Global Warming Consensus Roundup : April 2013

  1. BobW in NC says:

    Lawrence Solomon at the Financial Post reports this shift as well: “Climate changing for global warming reporters ( ), and includes this very interesting point: For the journalists who are now reading this, and especially for those without a scientific grounding who understandably feel they must rely on authority, here is what needs to be known to cut through the scientific bafflegab and be confident as skeptics.” What caught my eye was the phrase, ” especially…rely on authority…”

    Bottom line: Authority, not science swayed these individuals. How many more are there like them?

  2. john says:

    I always trust the USA figures more than MET. Each year the summer ice extent gets smaller. The US Navy believes that the planet is getting warmer, and that around 2020 the polar ice cap will be gone in the summer. Until they change their views I am going to have to go with the hotties

    • Ben says:

      RE: john – “I am going to have to go with the hotties”

      Shell went with the hotties, and got freezeburnt…

      You go with the hotties. I will go with Shell’s heard earned money. Shell’s leadership have determined believing hotties does not lead to healthy ROI

      Last fall, Shell fled from an ice floe that the Navy and NSIDC said wasn’t even there. NSIDC claimed open water.

      “The drifting chunk of ice, more than 32 miles long by 12 miles wide, forced the drill ship Noble Discoverer to move off the planned well”

      They aren’t even drilling this year…

    • klem says:

      “Each year the summer ice extent gets smaller. The US Navy believes that the planet is getting warmer, and that around 2020 the polar ice cap will be gone in the summer. ”

      True, and this is unusual in what way?

  3. Don B says:

    Richard Muller,
    van Diggelen: What’s your message to climate change skeptics?
    Muller: Most of your skepticism is still valid. When something extraordinary happens in weather, such as the accidental occurrence of Hurricane Sandy hitting New Jersey and New York City just at the peak of tides — many people attribute the event to “climate change.” That’s not a scientific conclusion, and it is almost certainly wrong. Hurricanes are not increasing due to human causes (actually, they have been decreasing over the past 250 years). Tornadoes are not increasing due to human causes. (They too have been decreasing.) So please continue to be skeptical about most of the exaggerations you will continue to hear! Proper skepticism is at the heart of science, and attempts to suppress such skepticism represent the true anti-science movement.

    • Andy DC says:

      The high tides of Sandy resulted from a very large storm making a hard left turn and rapidly moving from the Gulf Stream to the southern New Jersey coast. This was a unique track caused by an unusual set of meteorological factors totally unrelated to “climate change”. It was truly a one in a hundred year type event, which no one was prepared for.

      In the meantime, the US has gone close to 8 years without a major hurricane. That is probably a one in two hundred year event.

      In the world of weather, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. If you live on the coast, sooner or later you are bound to lose. It is as simple as that.

      • klem says:

        Exactly, the only thing unusual about Sandy was that it turned and traveled NW instead of continuing in the usual NE direction. Yet this hurricane was hailed by politicians and journalists as evidence of impending ecological disaster. It galvanized public opinion and helped Obama win his election. Astonishing.

  4. Sam Glasser says:

    John? Didn’t you see the graph posted above?
    PS: “belief” is not science

  5. Sam Glasser says:

    John, again – if you please: Go to WUWT today and read “A Big Picture…” It cites five other data sets – all with the same conclusion as above.

  6. David says:

    “We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.” — UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.

    “Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” — NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.

    “Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.” — Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

    “In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn’t happen…Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data” — Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems.

    “The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate…The planet’s climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.” — Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

    “Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences…AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.” — Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, who authored the 2009 book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency.”

    “I am an environmentalist,” but “I must disagree with Mr. Gore” — Chemistry Professor Dr. Mary Mumper, the chair of the Chemistry Department at Frostburg State University in Maryland, during her presentation titled “Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming, the Skeptic’s View.”

    “I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.” — Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled “The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere” and he published a paper in August 2009 titled “Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field.” [Update December 9, 2010]

    “The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.” — Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University. [Updated December 9, 2010. Corrects Jelbring’s quote.]

    “Those who call themselves ‘Green planet advocates’ should be arguing for a CO2- fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere…Diversity increases when the planet was warm AND had high CO2 atmospheric content…Al Gore’s personal behavior supports a green planet – his enormous energy use with his 4 homes and his bizjet, does indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to save the planet.” — Renowned engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan, who was named “100 most influential people in the world, 2004″ by Time Magazine and Newsweek called him “the man responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than any living engineer.”

    “Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith…My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.” — Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with Australia’s CSIRO’s (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research.

    “We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening.” — Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens’ Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering.

    “There are clear cycles during which both temperature and salinity rise and fall. These cycles are related to solar activity…In my opinion and that of our institute, the problems connected to the current stage of warming are being exaggerated. What we are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere or of the oceans.” — Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

    “Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.” — Hebrew University Professor Dr. Michael Beenstock an honorary fellow with Institute for Economic Affairs who published a study challenging man-made global warming claims titled “Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming.”

    “The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it’s fraud.” — South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.

  7. gregole says:

    Tidbits of testimony of Richard S. Lindzen to congress:

    CO2 levels have increased from about 280ppm to 360ppm over the past century, and,
    that combined with increases in other greenhouse gases, this brings us about half way to
    the radiative forcing associated with a doubling of CO2 without any evidence of enhanced
    human misery.

    The increase in global mean temperature over the past century is about 1F which is
    smaller than the normal interannual variability for smaller regions like North America
    and Europe, and comparable to the interannual variability for the globe. Which is to say that temperature is always changing, which is why it has proven so difficult to demonstrate human agency.

    Doubling CO2 alone will only lead to about a 2F increase in global mean temperature.
    Predictions of greater warming due to doubling CO2 are based on positive feedbacks from poorly handled water vapor and clouds (the atmosphere’s main greenhouse substances) in current computer models. Such positive feedbacks have neither empirical nor theoretical foundations. Their existence, however, suggests a poorly designed earth which responds to perturbations by making things worse.

    The most important energy source for extratropical storms is the temperature difference between the tropics and the poles which is predicted by computer models to decrease with global warming. This also implies reduced temperature variation associated with weather since such variations result from air moving from one latitude to another. Consistent with this, even the IPCC Policymakers Summary notes that no significant trends have been identified in tropical or extratropical storm intensity and frequence. Nor have trends been found in tornados, hail events or thunder days.

    Warming is likely to be concentrated in winters and at night. This is an empirical result based on data from the past century. It represents what is on the whole a beneficial pattern.

    Temperature increases observed thus far are less than what models have suggested should have occurred even if they were totally due to increasing greenhouse emissions. The invocation of very uncertain (and unmeasured) aerosol effects is frequently used to disguise this. Such an invocation makes it impossible to check models. Rather, one is reduced to the claim that it is possible that models are correct.

    Claims that man has contributed any of the observed warming (ie attribution) are based on the assumption that models correctly predict natural variability. Such claims, therefore, do not constitute independent verifications of models. Note that natural variability does not require any external forcing – natural or anthropogenic.

    Large computer climate models are unable to even simulate major features of past climate such as the 100 thousand year cycles of ice ages that have dominated climate for the past 700 thousand years, and the very warm climates of the Miocene, Eocene, and Cretaceous. Neither do they do well at accounting for shorter period and less dramatic phenomena like El Niños, quasi-biennial oscillations, or intraseasonal oscillations – all of which are well documented in the data.

    Major past climate changes were either uncorrelated with changes in CO2 or were characterized by temperature changes which preceded changes in CO2 by 100’s to thousands of years.

    Increases in temperature on the order of 1F are not catastrophic and may be beneficial.

  8. rw says:

    And let’s not forget the view of scientists from the Russian Academy of Sciences, as reported in Voice of Russia:

    A global warming that so many are talking about is not so much a scientific problem, rather it is much more a marketing trick.

    (see notrickzone )

  9. Jimbo says:

    Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
    “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”

    Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
    ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

    Dr. Phil Jones – CRU – 13th February 2010
    “I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I’d say so. But it hasn’t until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.”

    Dr. Phil Jones – BBC 13 February 2010
    [Q] B – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”

    [A] “Yes, but only just”.


    Dr. James Hansen
    “…the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.” . . .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s