A Change On Climate Change

The Economist comes to its senses:

The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now. It does not mean global warming is a delusion. Flat though they are, temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century remain almost 1°C above their level in the first decade of the 20th. But the puzzle does need explaining.

The mismatch might mean that—for some unexplained reason—there has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-10. Or it might be that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period. Or, as an increasing body of research is suggesting, it may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy.

No kidding.

The models are, and always have been, junk science, and it is insane to make costly public policy decisions based on them.

16 thoughts on “A Change On Climate Change”

  1. I remember reading that Russian scientists studying ice cores determined that CO2 increases actually lag behind temperature increases by about 800 years. If that’s true, then the current increase in CO2 may be related to the Medieval Warming Period.

    1. We don’t need a theory to explain why there’s more CO2 in the atmosphere today — we put it there.

      1. Its funny because alarmists have used this lag argument to claim things are worse than they actually are and that we will hit a tipping point where drastic changes in behavior wont be enough because of the lag time.

      2. I see. So, according to Jim, there are no mechanisms to either input or remove carbon dioxide in the atmosphere other than humans?

        That’s a pretty funny kind of “science” to me.

        1. Of course there are other mechanisms, but for thousands of years those mechanisms kept CO2 concentrations under 300ppm. Then, over the last century, it’s gone to 380ppm. At the same time, we’ve burned more than enough fossil fuels to account for the additional carbon in the atmosphere. The isotope distribution of atmospheric carbon has changed, reflecting the difference between carbon from fossil fuels and from other sources. This isn’t a great mystery.

  2. There is a correlation (and this is a good example of why correlation is not causation) between temps and CO2 in the ice core record, going back nearly half a million years. The two tend (with a few exceptions) to rise and fall in parallel. Back when I believed in AGW (Yes, I admit it, I did, until around 1999) this was a convincing fact to me.

    But, further examinations revealed a time lag, of around 800 years, between the two. And temperature is the leading one; CO2 follows it, not the other way around. Temps go up or down, then CO2 levels follow. It is very enligtening to look at Co2 levels are the beginnings and ends of glacial eras; there, the lag really shows as a massive feature.

    History? That’s another thing that convinced me, by 1999, that the AGW claim was bunk; I knew damn well that earth’s climate had been far warmer in the last interglacial (approx 100k years ago) than it is in this one. This is not in dispute; temps were quite a lot warmer globally then, and in some areas, like Greenland, warmer by 8 or 9 C than now. Tropic climates extended far closer to the poles; for example, hippopotamuses lived in what is now the UK.

    In other words, the last interglacial, the Eemian, was warmer than even high end AGW claims we’ll hit due to AGW. And, though I can’t quite prove it, I am reasonably certain that the world didn’t end 100k years ago.

    And those vaunted climate models… they can’t even be run backwards and get a reasonable fit to the historic record, so they are useless.

    I’ve been a “lurk-warmest” since I came to my senses in 1999 and realized that AGW (to the degree claimed) was utter bunk. I do believe that human activity (not just emissions) causes a net increase in temp. For example, urban heat islands, unless they are balanced by regional coolings elsewhere, increase net global temp by a tiny amount. I believe that this human-caused increase is too small for us to be able to measure it, and also much too small for us to have any worries over; a few hundredths of a degree, at most. The only way I see it being significant in any way whatsoever is it might keep us above the tipping point for the next glacial era (And a glacial era is the real climate risk we face – our current interglacial is already abnormally long, statistically speaking).

    What shocks me is how long it’s taking for the economist, and others, to realize what utter baloney AGW is, and that’s without what climategate uncovered.

  3. It’d be great news if the climate is less sensitive to CO2 concentrations than previously estimated.

      1. Also not to the Watermelons who want to use climate change as a means of imposing government control across the board.

        It’s quite similar to the Federal destruction of liberty via the Health Insurance scam: “Since we “give” you health insurance we now can control every aspect of your lives because there is some way to connect everything you do to health.”

        The Watermelon Climate Scam: “Since everything you do has an impact on climate (no mater how trivial) we now can control everything you do.”

        Used to be religion thousands of years ago, then control of the means of production.

        Now it’s climate.

      2. If the climate is less sensitive to CO2 than thought then we’ll soon be back to the ice age scare. Not surprisingly, the solutions for a staving off the ice age will be the same ones demanded for staving off a heat spike, as the solutions to global warming were the same one suggested for the previous ice-age alarm (reduce energy consumption, move away from coal and fossil fuels, etc).

        1. Well, they did change their emphasis a few years ago from Global Warming to Climate Change. Why, if we just give up on our economic and political freedom and let the all wise Enlightened Ones rule the world, we’ll have the perfect Goldlocks Climate (not too warm, not too cool but just right) to go along with their Utopian Society.

  4. “temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century remain almost 1°C above their level in the first decade of the 20th.”

    So there was an unusual dip in temperature that has since been righted.

  5. I’m sure I read a story similar to this back when I was in high school.

    *digs through all the back issues of the student paper archived online*

    Ah, here it is.

    The mismatch between rising elevator pass prices and new students who still can’t find the elevator is among the biggest puzzles in the freshman class just now. It does not mean that the elevator at Fairmont High is a delusion. Obscurely located as it is, the easiest route to the second floor from the first floor is the elevator. But the puzzle does need explaining.

    1. BTW Alan, EFA from Hookers & Booze chat (the irreverant Aussie) suddenly and unexpectedly died a few days ago. He was in his mid 30’s, in great shape, and was found in his kitchen. The cause is still unknown. All the Rotties and refugees are still in shock.

  6. I’m not sure The Economist has come to its senses, as much as it is resetting the battlefield. The Economist is still pushing for social policy, which is socialism. Socialism isn’t sensible, it is stupid. And don’t tell me, “but the Swedes”, because those are the same idiots that gave Michael Mann and Paul Krugman prizes for pushing social solutions on comparatively free economies.

Comments are closed.