Reuters’ March 16 posting “ Climate Scientist struggle to explain warming slowdown,” is looked at by some as a significant refutation of the catastrophic man-made global warming (CAGW) theory. The theme of the posting, IMHO, is that the slowdown is puzzling but these brilliant alarmist scientists will straighten out this “glich”. Then all will be made right with the world —–which by the way is going to get very, very hot pretty soon according to our climate models.
Here is how the posting opens up:
“Scientists are struggling to explain a slowdown in climate change that has exposed gaps in their understanding and defies a rise in global greenhouse gas emissions.
Often focused on century-long trends, most climate models failed to predict that the temperature rise would slow, starting around 2000. Scientists are now intent on figuring out the causes and determining whether the respite will be brief or a more lasting phenomenon.
Getting this right is essential for the short and long-term planning of governments and businesses ranging from energy to construction, from agriculture to insurance. Many scientists say they expect a revival of warming in coming years.”
Then the article tells us all the ways that this “pause” is probably meaningless. It seems that the IPCC will save us the embarrassment of failed alarmist forecasts explaining why the global temperatures are not going up:
“The IPCC will seek to explain the current pause in a report to be released in three parts from late 2013 as the main scientific roadmap for governments in shifting from fossil fuels towards renewable energies such as solar or wind power, the panel’s chairman Rajendra Pachauri said.”
You can see that they have already decided the outcome of the study when they report this:
“A section of a draft IPCC report, looking at short-term trends, says temperatures are likely to be 0.4 to 1.0 degree Celsius (0.7-1.8F) warmer from 2016-35 than in the two decades to 2005.”
And you can bet by picking carefully selected studies, they will have an explanation which the politicians and media will gladly accept without question.
The posting tells us that:
“Experts say short-term climate forecasts are vital to help governments, insurers and energy companies to plan.”
When have the alarmists short-term forecasts be on the mark? If they begin providing accurate short term forecasts, they will be the first of their kind.
But some of their work is yielding results. The switcheroo is to no longer speak of global “warming” but speak of “climate change”.
“Pachauri said climate change can have counter-intuitive effects, like more snowfall in winter that some people find hard to accept as side-effects of a warming trend. An IPCC report last year said warmer air can absorb more moisture, leading to heavier snowfall in some areas.”
Despite the evidence to show the following to be inaccurate, it has provided them with good polling results:
“Concern about climate change is rising in some nations, however, opinion polls show. Extreme events, such as Superstorm Sandy that hit the U.S. east coast last year, may be the cause. A record heatwave in Australia this summer forced weather forecasters to add a new dark magenta color to the map for temperatures up to 54 degrees Celsius (129F).”
The Reuters posting is really an attempt to rationalize the failure of the computer models to predict the global temperatures accurately as something temporary.