IPCC struggles to explain lack of global warming — natural factors vs. ‘blip’

Reuters reports:

The panel will try to explain why global temperatures, while still increasing, have risen more slowly since about 1998 even though greenhouse gas concentrations have hit repeated record highs in that time, led by industrial emissions by China and other emerging nations.

An IPCC draft says there is “medium confidence” that the slowing of the rise is “due in roughly equal measure” to natural variations in the weather and to other factors affecting energy reaching the Earth’s surface.

Scientists believe causes could include: greater-than-expected quantities of ash from volcanoes, which dims sunlight; a decline in heat from the sun during a current 11-year solar cycle; more heat being absorbed by the deep oceans; or the possibility that the climate may be less sensitive than expected to a build-up of carbon dioxide.

“It might be down to minor contributions that all add up,” said Gabriele Hegerl, a professor at Edinburgh University. Or maybe, scientists say, the latest decade is just a blip.

Read more…

9 thoughts on “IPCC struggles to explain lack of global warming — natural factors vs. ‘blip’”

  1. Or maybe they just don’t know, which is an excellent reason to suspend all economic activity and plunge the world into a depression. No, wait, that’s not right…

  2. What wart on the end of my nose? That you see is a reflection from the brim of my hat bouncing of my neighbors house going in my left ear and appearing on my nose as a wart. So there. If they can not explain the lack of warming how can they explain an increase in warming? All they can do is try to get you to believe their religion is not covered in warts.

  3. I thought real science made an hypothesis, tested live data and when the live data failed to prove the hypothesis, a new hypothesis was developed for testing. These guys keep trying to make the data fit their hypothesis. Is this science? Probably not, but Oh how the money rolls in.

  4. But they are always so confident and positive about their models and predictions (Ever read Asimov’s “Foundation Trilogy”? … remember the ‘Mule’?)…. Yet they are now saying that there are a number of unaccounted for variations that could dramatically alter their best predictions to a degree as to make them look completely stupid and out of their depth …. WHICH THEY ARE.

  5. As long as the ‘powers that be’ are in collusion with these frauds they don’t have to worry if their models and predictions come up empty. Observation, empiracle evidence and the scientific method mean nothing in the face of willful ignorance motivated by power and greed so nothing will change for the foreseeable future.

  6. It doesn’t really matter what they say now. THey are on the record with definite predictions, and definite statements on the role of CO2. Their predictions are not in accord with reality, nor their statemtns on the role of CO2. This is called “falsification of a theory.”

    That’s the way science works.

  7. I’d love to be at that round table. I can see a lot of blubbering going on. Spit and dribble and nothing much else.

  8. …or the possibility that the climate may be less sensitive than expected to a build-up of carbon dioxide.

    BINGO!

  9. Or they could just admit they dont know and their models are no good and maybe we dont have a consensus because things are different than what our hypotheseis stated…….naahhh!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.