Party Line right, climate science wrong
By Paul Homewood
Guest Post by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley.
Christopher Monckton of Brenchley responds to the above piece by Ryan Cooper:
Ryan Cooper (left below), an innumerate journalist writing for The Week, asks (alongside the obligatory picture of a cuddly polar bear, right below) the tendentious question, “Have conservatives noticed their favorite climate talking point has been obliterated?
“Conservatives”, says Cooper, “have long been searching for a reason to do nothing about climate change … Several years ago, it seemed like that crowd had a perfect argument to justify inaction on climate: the global warming ‘pause’ … But lo and behold, two years later warming has surged back with a vengeance.”
Well, actually, it was the unlamented “Dr” Pachauri, railroad engineer turned climate guru, who gave the Pause its name in a speech in Melbourne more than three years ago. Oh, and the Pause was present until its peak length of 18 years 9 months just eight months back:
Cooper obediently trots out the Party Line that most of the missing global warming had gone into hiding in the oceans (no original thinker he). He adds that the el Niño that has now ended was nature’s way of putting the heat back into the atmosphere – except that it’s been doing that naturally for tens of thousands of years.
He says, “You should never hang an entire view of a chart on the last few data points” – and then hangs his entire view of the following chart on the last few data points, which show a spike in global warming caused by the more than usually active but now declining el Niño.
Cooper carefully cuts off the observed-temperature trend line just at the peak, concealing the inconvenient truth that in the past two months global temperatures have plummeted as the el Niño comes to an end.
Next, we are treated to a not particularly scary prediction that there is a 99% chance the world will be warmer this year than last (maybe it will, maybe it won’t, but even if it is it won’t be by much, and it won’t be a bad thing).
No Clim-Comm piece would be complete without the usual catalogue of lurid supposed disasters: “Coral bleaching has reached epidemic proportions” (well, that natural defense mechanism happens whenever there is a severe el Niño, such as 1998 or two further great El Niños before that over the past 300 years, and the corals survive it just fine: they’ve faced a lot worse in the past 175 million years).
“The Arctic just had its warmest winter on record” (and a good thing too).
“The ocean level has increased 36.5 mm since April 2011” (except that Cooper carefully chose the satellite data, which have serious calibration problems, rather than the less excitable tide gauges, and he also carefully cherry-picked his period by starting it at a local nadir in global sea level and ending it at the el-Niño-driven apex).
“Extreme drought and extreme precipitation are happening all over the place” (they always were and they always will, but the trend in extreme droughts, as in all droughts, has been downward for 30 years, and even the IPCC, both in its Fifth Assessment Report and in its Special Report on Extreme Weather, says there is no evidence for systemic change in precipitation, and still less evidence that such patterns of change as have occurred are driven by global warming).
Cooper ends with a traditional Marxstream-media rant: “Will they [the non-Marxists] come around and admit their previous mistake, and join in advocating for immediate, aggressive climate policy? The world is waiting.”
Well, it can wait a little longer, just like Cooper’s grasp of grammar (“advocate” is transitive, so “for” after it is superfluous) and of climate science. The IPCC’s First Assessment Report predicted that in the first 15 years of the 21st century the world would warm at a rate equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] Celsius degrees per century.
Observed global warming measured by satellites and taken as the mean of the RSS and UAH monthly temperature anomalies from January 2001 to June 2016, including the dramatic recent spike in temperatures but not yet including the la Niña that may follow the now-departed el Niño, is well below 0.6 C°/century:
Observed warming over the period, then, is about one-fifth of the IPCC’s originally-predicted central rate.
Before the usual suspects whine that it’s not fair to consider only the past 15 years, and that one should go back to 1990 itself, I say this. The IPCC, following the computer models, predicted in 1990 that, as business-as-usual CO2 concentration increased, the rate of global warming after 2000 should be somewhat greater than the rate of global warming before it.
Global warming since 1990, at 1.2 C°/century equivalent, is more than double the warming rate since 2001, suggesting that the ever-increasing CO2 concentration in the air is causing less and less global warming, contrary to official predictions.
I cannot tell you whether there will be a la Niña later this year and into next year. But if there is, and if it is anything like as noticeable as it was following the 1998 temperature spike, then by this time next year the Pause will have reappeared, and will be close to 20 years in length.
As the discrepancy between prediction and observation continues to widen beyond all hope of concealment by further data-tampering, it will eventually become impossible to bury the now well-established scientific truth that, even though CO2 emissions are above the business-as-usual forecast made by the IPCC in 1990, the rate of global warming is a small fraction of what had then been predicted.
How, then, has the scare been maintained for so long? The chief reason is that the climate extremists readopted an unpleasant tactic first developed by the totalitarians of the 20th century: organized, paid, structured vilification of anyone who dared to oppose them.
In the end, politicians know that climate skeptics won’t screech at them and won’t spend tens of billions on front groups whose sole purpose is to trash their reputations. But climate extremists do that, and it works. It frightens off ordinary folk, who would otherwise have seen through the climate scam far more quickly and completely than they have.
In the end, though, the world won’t warm at anything like the predicted rate. By the time even the extremists have realized that scientifically illiterate pieces like Cooper’s can no longer sweep the growing discrepancy under the carpet, how many tens of millions will their cruel policies of opposing affordable electric power have killed in third-world countries?
Mr Cooper should be ashamed of himself. But he won’t be. One needs a conscience first.