Pirate's Cove

Then attempts to cover up for the utter failure of the Warmists models

(NY Times) As unlikely as this may sound, we have lucked out in recent years when it comes to global warming.

The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.

Like this?

The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists. True, the basic theory that predicts a warming of the planet in response to human emissions does not suggest that warming should be smooth and continuous. To the contrary, in a climate system still dominated by natural variability, there is every reason to think the warming will proceed in fits and starts.

Believe it or not, this article is not on the opinion pages. Original Warmist theory did say that temperatures would continue to go up up up as CO2 concentrations grew. Then, when Earth’s climate, driven primarily by natural forces, refused to co-operate (and people were able to get both sides with the rise of the Internet), they started referring to it as “climate change”, eventually, over the past 5 years, causing Warmists to blame snow and cold and everything else on Mankind’s release of CO2, finally ending (for now) with the talking point that the heat is “hiding” in the deep oceans.

But given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on. They admit that they do not, even though some potential mechanisms of the slowdown have been suggested. The situation highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system, some of which cannot be closed until we get better measurements from high in space and from deep in the ocean.

Yet, we’re supposed to make drastic, costly, and liberty infringing legislation and regulation based on the rantings of people who do not know what’s going on.

Rarely do they (meaning Climate Realists) mention that most of the warmest years in the historical record have occurred recently. Moreover, their claim depends on careful selection of the starting and ending points. The starting point is almost always 1998, a particularly warm year because of a strong El Niño weather pattern.

Yet Warmists always want to mention 1980 as their starting point. Because from the 1940’s to the late 1970’s the Earth saw cooling. Hey, here’s another data point: 1990. The global temperature, such as it is, has only risen 0.28 degrees Fahrenheit since that year. Not scary. As far as the “historical record” goes, most data sets show that the warm periods over the last 7,000 years have been warmer than the current one.

But that does not really tell you what your retirement money is going to do in the market over 30 or 40 years. It does not even tell you how you would have done over the cherry-picked decade, which would have depended on exactly when you got in and out of the market.

The Times makes that argument in regards to Climate Realists focusing on the pause since 1997 in an attempt to diminish/defeat the CR argument, yet, what it does is highlight that Warmists have made arguments for catastrophic global warming over the next 50-100 years using cherry picked data for a short period of time (15 years).

And then hyper-Warmist Justin Gillis (you might be familiar with him as being one of the biggest AGW supporters in “journalism”) attempts to tell us about missing heat in the oceans, which cannot be proven, but, hey, trust the Warmists! And things like pollution and aerosols hiding the warming. That’s not science, it’s cultish doctrine.

So, if past is prologue, this current plateau will end at some point, too, and a new era of rapid global warming will begin. That will put extra energy and moisture into the atmosphere that can fuel weather extremes, like heat waves and torrential rains.

Again, is this an article or opinion piece? There’s been no increase in atmospheric moisture in over 25 years. In fact, satellites show a decrease. Extreme weather has been debunked. And, quite frankly, if the pause ends and temps go up, the Earth might eventually get to the same point as previous warm periods.

It’s no wonder that the Times’ article is not allowing comments: Warmists do not like to get the snot beat out of them.