Vanished global warming may not return – UK Met Office

man made environmental effects

It is not the climate change that is the subject of dispute. It is the arbitrary nature of assigning cause. As pointed out in this article, weather oscillations are caused by wind, water, sun, moon, planets and celestial mechanics. With our knowledge base, we can't accurately predict El Ninos and La Ninas, so how can anyone rationally believe we can accurately predict climate change on planet Earth level. Yet, governments around the world are imposing costs on society with no proof their actions will remedy anything. Meanwhile, the well known Carbon cycle is routinely interfered with by filling in natural Carbon sinks such as wetlands and oceans to build houses and artificial islands. Man should stick to less grandiose endeavors than trying to change the universe. The Rocky and Appalachian mountains didn't exist at one time, the U.S. Midwest was an ocean and a land bridge existed between continents or there was one large continent depending on theorist. Despite all this, we are supposed to blindly accept whatever people profiting from a theoretical concept choose to feed us. Remove the money and see how serious the climate change "scientist" are.

My High School Science Teacher in 1964, Mr. Andrews gave a wonderful & spot on accurate lecture on CO2 buildup in the atmosphere, primarily from burning Carbon based Fuels.

Tumultuously changeable and unpredictable weather patterns, rising temperatures that Will melt ice packs and glaciers, world wide. These melts would lead to sea level rise threatening ports and millions of lives in port cities.

***And So it is.

And now we see, The Industry ABSOLUTELY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING to our well being and the health of our children...and successive generations...who WILL pay a price.

*****"Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago !

*****"Top executives were warned of possible catastrophe from greenhouse effect, then led efforts to block solutions.

"By Neela Banerjee, Lisa Song and David Hasemyer

Sep 16, 2015

"Exxon's

Richard Werthamer (right) and Edward Garvey (left) are aboard the

company's Esso Atlantic tanker working on a project to measure the

carbon dioxide levels in the ocean and atmosphere.

"The project ran from 1979 to 1982. (Credit: Richard Werthamer)

At a meeting in Exxon Corporation's headquarters,

a senior company scientist named James F. Black addressed an audience of powerful oilmen. Speaking without a text as he flipped through detailed slides, Black

delivered a sobering message:

****"carbon dioxide from the world's use of fossil fuels would warm the planet and could eventually endanger humanity."

"In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release

from the burning of fossil fuels,"

Black told Exxon's Management Committee, according to a written version he recorded later.

It was July 1977 when Exxon's leaders received this blunt assessment, well before most of the world had heard of the looming climate crisis.

"A year later, Black,

******a top technical expert in Exxon's Research & Engineering division, took an updated version of his presentation to a broader audience.

******He warned Exxon scientists and managers that independent researchers estimated a doubling of the carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius

******(4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit), and as much as 10 degrees Celsius

(18 degrees Fahrenheit) at the poles. Rainfall might get heavier in some regions, and other places might turn to desert.

"Some countries would benefit but others would have their agricultural output reduced or destroyed," Black said, in the written summary of his 1978 talk.

"His presentations reflected uncertainty running through scientific circles about the details of climate change, such as the role the oceans played in absorbing emissions. Still, Black estimated quick action was needed.

******"Present thinking," he wrote in the 1978 summary, "holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical."

"Exxon responded swiftly. Within months the company launched its own extraordinary research into carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and its impact on the earth.

******Exxon's ambitious program included both empirical CO2 sampling and rigorous climate modeling. It assembled a brain trust that would spend more than a decade deepening the company's understanding of an environmental problem that posed an existential threat to the oil business.

"Then, toward the end of the 1980s,

******Exxon curtailed its carbon dioxide research. In the decades that followed, Exxon worked instead at the forefront of climate denial.

******"It put its muscle behind efforts to manufacture doubt about the reality of global warming its own scientists had once confirmed. It lobbied to block federal and international action to control greenhouse gas emissions.

******"It helped to erect a vast network of distortion and misinformation"..

.fake 'think tanks' (100+) designed to sow disinformation.

....and Front Web Sites (1000+) to propagate the disinformation.

.....including fake head lines, fake science articles which have been published in major news outlets and an amazingly ugly phone and e-mail campaign sowing fear in the minds of 100's of Scientists around the world.

"There hasn't actually been any global warming for the last fifteen years or so"

Assertions like this without any reference to data have to be suspect.

NASA has comprehensive climate data readily available and there is pretty good transparency on where its from and how its been processed.

It is here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

If we just look at the annual global "anomalies" - (anomaly here is defined as the amount that that year's value differs from the overall mean of the data set) the continually rising trend to 2015 is fairly clear.

There is significant fluctuation (roughly +/- 0.2 of a degree) year on year. One of the simplest means of smoothing them out is to use a moving average. Using a 5 year window the trend is even clearer, all the averages of 0.6 or higher occurred since 2005 and the highest two - of 0.712 and 0.702 are 2014 and 2015.

However what is visible is that the trend seems to slow at around about 2005-2006. By eye there is a "knee" in the trend line. Its still upwards but at a slower rate. From 1970-2001 the average rate of increase in the moving average is 0.016 degrees a year, from 2002 to 2015 the rate is 0.011 degrees a year (*). It is not clear that that rate is declining further however. Perhaps it is this reduction in the rate of the rise that Lewis confuses with a stall in the rise itself.

(*) even using the moving averages these rate figures do vary somewhat on the exact start and end year used.