Norwegian scientists admit that the climate has shown no warming since 2000.


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Norwegian scientists admit that the climate has shown no warming since 2000.

They then spend a lot of time trying to explain this — and failing — in the context of the theory of global warming. The bottom line remains, however. All the predictions and models of the global warming advocates have been shown to be wrong. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has continued to rise, without causing any increase in global climate temperature.

Or to put it plainly: We don’t know what’s going on.

Share

17 comments

  • D. K. Williams

    Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. Algore won’t be happy.

  • Jim

    If the study by these Norwegian scientists is valid, then their conclusion should also be taken seriously. And they conclude by saying this:
    “Terje Berntsen emphasises that his project’s findings must not be construed as an excuse for complacency in addressing human-induced global warming. The results do indicate, however, that it may be more within our reach to achieve global climate targets than previously thought. Regardless, the fight cannot be won without implementing substantial climate measures within the next few years.”

    Also worth noting that their level of predicted warming is about equal to the low end of what the IPCC’s models predicted…just around 2 degrees. And, it should also be noted, that the findings you cite are from a press release, not a published study. The study has not been reviewed or published yet. Dr. Magne Aldrin, one of the co-authors, said “The results mentioned in the press release by the Research Council of Norway is taken from [a] PhD thesis … from March 2012 and that part of [the] PhD thesis is not published or accepted for publication in a journal.” So the bottom line of this press release is that achieving a level of warming that most scientists say is the most allowable to avoid catastrophe (2 degrees) is within our reach, but that we should act now in order to reach it. And when the study is finally released all of that may change.

  • Climate alarmists have been saying for 20+ years that we need to implement “substantial climate measures within the next few years”. We haven’t. The data (not the models) show that the global climate is NOT warming and global sea levels are NOT rising. Trying to explain the Earth’s climate through anthropogenic global warming theory is like trying to explain orbital mechanics with epicycles.

  • Jim

    Sea levels have been rising, even faster than the IPCC predicted…rising at a level of 3.2mm per year. That is the data.

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035/article

    And the data on warming shows that land/ocean has been warming over the past 100+ years. That too is the data.

    http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/files/2012/10/Figure-1.png

    These are not models.

  • How dare you disparage epicycles!!! The science is clear. You simply need enough of them.This has nothing to do with funding of my epicycles research!

  • Pzatchok

    I love the quote or the researcher.
    “The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the 1990s. This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity.”

    Well DOH!!!!

    The whole rest of the article was the researcher just begging that even though he has no real proof that man is causing global warming we still need to fund his research for the next ten years.

    I wonder if he included changes in the Sun into his all new and finally, fully, inclusive all world model? Or is he like others in his field just ignoring that huge world wide influence.

    if you factor in other research like the temps on Mars http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2005/11/01/mars-warming-nasa-scientists-report and subtract their rises from the Earths we might actually have all the Earths temperature increases explained as coming from the Sun.

  • Phil Berardelli

    It seems unlikely that a reasoned, dispassionate discussion about climate change could be conducted in today’s political environment. If it were possible, the biggest topic would not be warming — it would be cooling. The planet is due for another ice age, the 21st in a series that began 2 million years ago and has been recurring with reasonable regularity. That would be real climate change, as well as a catastrophe for humanity. What we have gleaned from the proxy record is that global temperatures during the previous interglacial period averaged 2 degrees C. warmer than they are now. Consider the implications. Even if the current average temperature equalled that level, it would not be high enough to forestall glaciation. So, even if we could actually mitigate Earth’s temperature, would we want to?

    Then there’s the question of solar activity, which has increased by about 0.5 percent over the past century (or 100 times more than the percentage increase of CO2 in the atmosphere). For years, when I covered climate science, I was assured that the sun was a minor component in the equation. Now, at last, the community is beginning to acknowledge that solar forcing seems to play a bigger role than previously considered. Perhaps that’s the reason why the models have not tracked the data so well over the past decade.

    There is a middle ground available to anyone willing to concede that current science is not settled, and that many variables remain. That would be to wait a few years so that more temperature and related data can be collected in the face of what seems to be the cusp of a new Maunder Minimum. Solar activity has been plunging — relatively speaking — since 2000. If the trend continues, we will see, much more clearly, how much of a role the sun plays in short-term global climate. Wouldn’t that be worth finding out before anyone must accept draconian measures based on a great deal of uncertainty?

  • Jim

    The reality, Phil, is that the waiting period you are suggesting is going to happen. We clearly will be taking no draconian measures for years. Fracking will continue, oil will come up out of the tar sands (regardless of the pipeline), fuel efficiency standards are not going to take place for years, and pricing of carbon seems DOA. There is absolutely no political climate, nor public opinion, that will allow for any draconian measures.

  • Jim,

    You are probably right about the likelihood of little strong environmental regulation in the next few years, but based on every comment you have made on my website about climate, this lack of action is not by your choice. I strongly suspect that if you had your way, we would have draconian climate measures, and we would have them immediately. Nor are you alone in this desire, which is why I and Phil and many others point out the flaws of the global warming advocates (disguised as scientists) as often as possible.

    Just as in the case of Obama’s violations of the Constitution, you want us to believe that all is well, and that there aren’t any threats to our freedoms. Sorry, but for me at least this isn’t going to wash. Obama has demonstrated a willingness to violate the Constitution, which makes him a threat to my freedom. Global warmists have demonstrated a willingness to lie and cheat in their scientific work in order to advocate draconian political regulations, which makes them a threat to my freedom. To paraphrase Patrick Henry, for that reason I will oppose them, to the death.

    In contrast, your call for complacency reminds me of the Jews of Germany in the mid-1930s. How did that work out?

  • Jim

    Indeed you are right about my stance on climate change. I would like a price on carbon, I think creating stronger fuel standards could have been done much quicker than the President called for, and even though natural gas is better than oil, it still adds CO2 to the atmosphere so I don’t think that is much of a solution. I do believe we are running out of time, and probably quicker then we think. Whatever steps the President calls for through regulations will probably be minimal. There will be no draconian steps taken.

    I was actually going to add “much to my chagrin” to my comment to Phil, but I knew you were aware of that. The reality is that years are going to go by before strong action is taken, so we will see where we are then.

  • Phil Berardelli

    The problem, Jim, is that the politicization of science has caused terrible harm to the field. It has stifled debate and, as I have pointed out to scientists from time to time, it has made skepticism a dirty word, when every scientists should be a stubborn skeptic. And don’t be so confident about time passing before those severe regulations appear. This administration has declared war on coal and on so-called fracking. They have stifled the Keystone pipline and defied court orders to resume drilling in the Gulf of Mexico — an activity that has been conducted with a high degree of safety for over 50 years. The EPA has been maintaining a secret email system so activists could plot regulatory action absent public scrutiny. In short, this administration cannot be trusted to husband the nation’s environmental responsibilities honestly. On top of it all, nothing has been ascertained about the climate — including whether it is actually warming or is on the cusp of a catastrophic cooling. Good heavens, man. Put aside your preconceptions and pare your position down to commenting on what we know at this point, which is precious little.

  • Jim

    Phil, I think there is plenty of skepticism in the climate field, and to date skepticism about global warming has won the day, at least as evidenced by any real action. Drilling in the Gulf is booming, and is only going to increase. This article from the Wall Street Journal is a good one:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443890304578008573749823206.html

    Yes there were new regulations put in place after the spill, but could you really expect less after that disaster? I don’t think any administration, Republican or Democrat, would have let business continue there as normal after that disaster. And clearly, at least according to the article, companies are learning to live with those regulations just fine.
    As far as coal, certainly Obama has put in stronger regulations on that industry. But production there is falling mainly due to the arrival of cheaper natural gas. and fracking. Fracking and natural gas will only increase in my opinion…it will be impossible to stop it. And coal will get hurt by it.

    To be honest, I put my preconceptions aside years ago…I used to be a climate skeptic.

  • Jim

    Phil, that WSJ article might be hidden behind a pay wall, so let me provide some stats from it:
    Beginning with just a handful of wells off the beaches and marshes of Texas and Louisiana in the 1950s, the Gulf now has more than 4,000 platforms pumping oil and gas from 35,000 wells through nearly 30,000 miles of pipelines.
    BP still is the largest Gulf producer, will invest $4B over the next decade, and has 6 deep water rigs, with 2 more coming by the end of the year.
    One of the more stringent requirements from regulations increased the amount of time for permit approval from about 50 days to 150 days, something the industry lives with just fine.

  • Phil Berardelli

    I covered oil and gas production for over a decade. What’s going on there now is pale compared with what could be going on — and how quickly the industry should have recovered after the BP spill. You said, as if it were unquestioned, that no administration would have let business go on as usual after the accident. But the cause of the BP spill was quickly identified as unusual — the procedures applied to the rig did not conform to well-established practices. In other words, there was no reason to shut down every other oil operation in the Gulf. That’s beside the point, however. If you consider your skepticism a preconception, then you don’t understand what skepticism means. It’s the lack of preconception and the constant, healthy application of rigorous testing and retesting of data, leading slowly and carefully to a solid conclusion — which itself can be replaced by better evidence. That isn’t what has happened with AGW, because there is no proof — none — that AGW exists. If the climate debate were being pursued honestly and without the usual knee-jerk reactions, then the current message of the climate-science community would be: We don’t know what’s happening yet.

  • wodun

    The “solutions” are often as bad as the “problem” they want to fix. With all of the predictions so inaccurate, why should we belive the “solutions” will be any better?

    Carbon taxes are horrible programs. There are many ways to manipulate them. They don’t help a business pollute less. The proceeds are squandered by governments. Companies connected to activist politicians make out like bandits. If we want a less corrupt government and society, then implememting carbon taxes is the wrong thing to do.

  • These Norwegian scientists seem to be saying, the previous climate models do not work due to the recent cooling and the apparent warming of the 1990s. This is really good news, showing there is no consensus among scientists about the previous ‘man-made global warming’ models.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *