Thread: Freeman Dyson on Global Warming

Well it's official. We passed a very important milestone the other day, but to pay attention to the press you wouldn't think so.
ten years ago during the northern hemisphere summer 1998 was declared the hottest year on record and proof positive of anthropogenic Co2 global warming, even though it's not.
Whether or not you place credence to NASA revising it's statistics and thereby making 1934 the hottest year of the twentieth century, the important aspect of 1997-1998 was that it was of course a super El Nino event
The 1997 El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO 97-98)
El Niño-Southern Oscillation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1997-1998 El Niño: the most recent event
As Wiki notes, this event was so strong it killed an estimated 16% of the worlds coral reefs.
None of the El Nino connection was talked about at the time, only 'global warming', but an interesting phenomenon has occurred since. As time has moved on and the planet hasn't heated up from 98, the El Nino event has developed greater and greater importance to the global warming priesthood on online discussions, (still nothing in the media which still doesn't acknowledge the El Nino took place) as by stating that the peak was an abnormal event it should be discounted from the data and therefore the 99 - 2006 plateau wasn't a plateau at all but still an upward trend over time.
Well, times up. As of June end we have ten whole years of data, and even 'smoothing' 98 to fit the average increase of the previous years, we now have no increase in warming. In fact, we have indications of cooling. Early days, can't call it a trend, but we can say statistically over the last ten years the globe didn't heat up.
Whoopee says the priesthood, the climate is a complex system (oh the irony) and there may be some fluctuations, but the 'long term' (that is stuff that hasn't happened yet) 'trends' are for continued warming.
Except that the theory that anthropogenic Co2 emissions are a driver of global warming/climate change have now been conclusively proven wrong.

It's simple really. The more Co2 given into the atmosphere, the greater warming occurs.
Co2 omissions have increased at a near constant rate amounting to over 30% since the mid eighties. Warming has not. All IPCC, NASA and Hadley centre models projected increased warming over the 98 - 2008 period if Co2 emissions continued/increased. The Co2 did, the warming didn't.
Scientifically, the theory of anthropogenic Co2 emissions causing climate change has been demonstrated to be wrong.
Expect the mainstream media to catch up to this around 2020.

Mmmmm, the warm glow of "I told you so...."

The actual data just make it a better party.

-dale

The VAST majority of the Arctic, Antarctic and Greenland is CONSTANTLY well below freezing.

Get back to me when ice melts at such a temperature, or fails to freeze at such a temperature.


John.

An interesting read on how NASA (Hansen) massages the data
Painting by numbers: NASA's peculiar thermometer [printer-friendly] | The Register

A closer look at the combined (GISS, HadCRUT, UAH, RSS) data, and data set anomalies, including why GISS (NASA) is so different from the rest.
A look at temperature anomalies for all 4 global metrics: Part 1 « Watts Up With That?
It's starting to look like some deliberate falsification has been going on.....

Yeah, Hansen's a fraud.

-dale

People, it's not "global warming." It's "global climate change." That way we have all the basis covered. If it's warm, it's climate change. If it's cool, it's climate change. If it stays the same, the earth lacks dynamism and we're all doomed.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

A closer look at the combined (GISS, HadCRUT, UAH, RSS) data, and data set anomalies, including why GISS (NASA) is so different from the rest.
A look at temperature anomalies for all 4 global metrics: Part 1 « Watts Up With That?
It's starting to look like some deliberate falsification has been going on.....

It's disgusting that the same person (Hansen) who controls the data also adjusts the data by some non-standardized method, which he also refuses to disclose so nobody can verify any of it. This is not science by any means and practices such as this would get you laughed out of other disciplines. It's even more disgusting that these unverified, non-standardized practices and methods are being used to set policy for the world.