**Written by Doug Powers
Eventually the climate modeling community is going to have to reconsider the central question: Have the models the IPCC uses for its predictions of catastrophic warming overestimated the climate’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases?
The Australian ran an article over the weekend that dovetails with that question. Here’s the first sentence:
DEBATE about the reality of a two-decade pause in global warming and what it means has made its way from the sceptical fringe to the mainstream.
There are a couple other ways that could have been phrased:
1) “‘Consensus of scientists’ starting to wonder if ‘consensus of scientists’ were wrong”
2) “Al Gore spotted releasing nitrous oxide into atmosphere while personally feeding baked beans to herd of cattle”
In a lengthy article this week, The Economist magazine said if climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, then climate sensitivity – the way climate reacts to changes in carbon-dioxide levels – would be on negative watch but not yet downgraded.
Another paper published by leading climate scientist James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the lower than expected temperature rise between 2000 and the present could be explained by increased emissions from burning coal.
For Hansen the pause is a fact, but it’s good news that probably won’t last.
International Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri recently told The Weekend Australian the hiatus would have to last 30 to 40 years “at least” to break the long-term warming trend.
But the fact that global surface temperatures have not followed the expected global warming pattern is now widely accepted.
Research by Ed Hawkins of University of Reading shows surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range projections derived from 20 climate models and if they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years.
“The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations,” says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
“If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change,” he says.
Whitehouse argues that whatever has happened to make temperatures remain constant requires an explanation because the pause in temperature rise has occurred despite a sharp increase in global carbon emissions.
At what point do the “consensus of scientists” become the “fringe skeptics” as reality plays out? (as long as there’s big money in it, never)
**Written by Doug Powers
Twitter @ThePowersThatBeblog comments powered by Disqus
The Day After the Day After Tomorrow: Leo DiCaprio to produce ‘post apocalyptic’ climate change film
February 2, 2016 09:45 PM by Doug Powers
January 26, 2016 12:22 PM by Doug Powers
January 22, 2016 05:23 AM by Doug Powers
If Bernie Sanders & Michael Moore want to take Flint’s water problem to the top, here’s where they should start
January 17, 2016 10:50 PM by Doug Powers
Clueless people: Bette Midler explains unseasonably warm NYC Christmas week to the ignorant and selfish
December 23, 2015 09:41 AM by Doug Powers