No, the Farmers Almanac prediction for this winter (which is lent more than a little credence in these parts) is not using sophisticated sensors, sats in space, or high level math to have declared that we all ought to have our woolies cleaned and ready. Watts Up With That? is one of the heaviest trafficed sites that is skeptical (to the point of being called a chief denier) that global warming is due mainly to human activities. That’s not to say that the earth ISN’T getting warmer, just that the Warmists are going all enviro and seeing catastrophe around every bend, that humans are the curse and not the cure, and that only by submitting our lives to their Most Beneficient administration will we all get out of this alive in 100 years or so. Hmm, we keep hearing this from regular type Progressives all the time – thus they have earned the title of Watermelon environmentalists (Green on the outside, Red on the inside (from a time when Socialists / Communists were red, not blue; such is rebranding)) but what is the measured reality vs the prediction of all the models that have been driving all this drivel that “we’re all gonna die!” by too hot (or not able to breath under water from rising sea levels).
And remember, back in the Stone Age of the ’70s, these self declared Smart People were the same ones hootin’ and hollerin’ that “we’re all gonna die” – but from a new Ice Age. So, having heard that, I keep thinking that this latest stuff is the same thing, just the other side (and there is WAY more money going into this – as in “follow the money”). Anyhow, WUWT has a post that has the summarization of the most frequently used warming datasets, shows the aggregate on a plot, and then shows that result compared to the IPCC predictions that is driving so much of Government policies in social engineering “for our own good”. The money question is – do the predictions match reality?
I’m afraid not.
The mean of all five datasets:
…Since a trend of less than 0.15 K is within the combined 2 ? data uncertainties arising from errors in measurement, bias, and coverage, global warming since December 1996 is only detectable on the UAH dataset, and then barely. On the RSS dataset, there has been no global warming at all. None of the datasets shows warming at a rate as high as 1 Cº/century. Their mean is just 0.5 Cº/century.
The bright blue lines are least-squares linear-regression trends. One might use other methods, such as order-n auto-regressive models, but in a vigorously stochastic dataset with no detectable seasonality the result will differ little from the least-squares trend, which even the IPCC uses for temperature trend analysis.
The central question is not how long there has been no warming, but how wide is the gap between what the models predict and what the real-world weather brings. The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, to be published in Stockholm on September 27, combines the outputs of 34 climate models to generate a computer consensus to the effect that from 2005-2050 the world should warm at a rate equivalent to 2.33 Cº per century. Yeah, right. So, forget the Pause, and welcome to the Gap…
So, where’s the stupendous man-made global hellfire? Er, not there. Period. And how does that work against the UN’s galaxy of IPCC’s predictions?
… So let us have no more wriggling and squirming, squeaking and shrieking from the paid trolls. The world is not warming anything like as fast as the models and the IPCC have predicted. The predictions have failed. They are wrong. Get over it.
Does this growing gap between prediction and reality mean global warming will never resume? Not necessarily. But it is rightly leading many of those who had previously demanded obeisance to the models to think again.
Go Read the Whole Thing, as it gets more interesting and (get this!) involves more real science!