Pirate's Cove

Let’s be clear: some data shows zero warming since 1998. Some shows a decreasing global temperature. Most shows what is considered to be “statistically insignificant”, hence the reason I tend to use the Met Office data which shows a miniscule 0.14F increase since 1998 and minor 0.28F since 1990. But, the UN IPCC is extremely concerned that all the people pointing out that global temps over the past 15+ years aren’t following previous Warmist prognostication

(Bloomberg) U.S. and European Union envoys are seeking more clarity from the United Nations on a slowdown in global warming that climate skeptics have cited as a reason not to “panic” about environmental changes, leaked documents show.

They’re requesting that more details on the so-called “hiatus” be included in a key document set to be debated at a UN conference next month that will summarize the latest scientific conclusions on climate change.

In other words, they’re throwing science (not that the IPCC and other Warmists actually practice the scientific method to start with) out the window.

Including more information on the hiatus will help officials counter arguments that the slowing pace of global warming in recent years is a sign that the long-term trend may be discounted, according to Bob Ward, policy director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics.

Anyone getting the idea that this is more about politics, advocacy, and a political point of view than anything relating to science?

“In the public debate, there are people who are using the slowdown to say global warming is less of a problem than thought,” Ward said in an interview yesterday. “It has to be fully explained in the summary.”

Leaked drafts and documents show that the Warmists will push the meme that the heat is hiding in the deep oceans (apparently with all the missing hurricanes), which didn’t seem to happen before this pause. Also, many natural causes. Because natural causes can only account for pauses and cooling, not warming, ya know.

The UN World Meteorological Organization defines climate as the average weather over a 30-year period, and scientists say the 15-year slowdown isn’t long enough to mark a trend. Hungary and Germany, both EU members, cited this as a reason to delete any reference to the hiatus in the summary, while Japan questioned the purpose of using a 15-year average.

Yet, we were supposed to change our entire society and economy based on around 10 years of warming, from the late 1970’s to 1988, when Hansen spoke to Congress. Heck, based on Warmist talking points, it was a 7 year trend, since the like to use 1980 as a starting point, so that trend only went through 1987, being the “data” that Hansen used, and sent Al Gore on his long AGW spiral. But 15+ years is not a trend? Especially when all the models said that we should be seeing heavily increasing temperatures? Sure looks like it’s pretty much natural variability. Of course, Warmists like to use 1951-1980 as a baseline, since that was a time of a long pause/declining temps, leading many to worry about a coming ice age.

“A 15-years period of observation is not sufficient to give a qualified analysis of the global mean surface temperature trend in an assessment of climate change,” Germany said. It also said the use of the word “hiatus” is “strongly misleading” because “there is not a pause or interruption, but a decrease in the warming trend.”

A decrease that defies every Warmist computer model (the same models also fail when applied to past temps) and talking point, hence the need to invent reasons for the miniscule increases, most of which occurred during the last El Nino year. Really, the Warmist doctrine is fully based on the warming that occurred between 1980 and 1997, a sharp warming period that is about the same length as this pause.