a reply to: soficrow
It's rather cold here in Dallas, a low of 15 tomorrow lol
But there is weather, and there is climate.
I think there is some confusion between comments regarding the last 15 years or so (depending on who and where you read about it). There are comments
made regarding the total lack of warming over the last 15 years or so. This, of course, leads one to believe that global warming has stopped, or
Another issue are remarks such as "10 of the hottest years on record were during the last 15 years". This leads one to surmise that global warming
is on at a runaway pace. If we are at a peak of global warming over recent centuries then, yeah, of course that would be true, even IF temperatures
were running fairly evenly over the 15 years in question. I am, of course assuming a sine wave situation and not a flat line which would be very
The significant part being that global warming has "paused" which is a bit of an overstatement. The truth is that the rate of global warming has
decreased significantly. Seems that a bit of both statements hold some truth, as well as some exageration. This is where both agenda's mislead the
public at large.
I understand how some people can totally buy into the whole AGW thing... The problem I have is that history does not really support such a model, nor
do the numbers presented regarding man's contribution to co2 levels add up. Again, I fear that agendas and exageration rule.
This particular interglacial period has been somewhat unique in that it has not followed the typical pattern of previous interglacials quite
as...typically lol. We (man) have experienced more a more "temperate" interglacial than the previous 5. Why is this? I, for one, have no idea and
frankly so much of the emphasis regarding climate study has been directed at AGW that this question has been totally lost in the mix. If you look at
the temperature chart for the last 10,000 years you see a marked increase early on, followed by a very atypical decrease in average temps over the
next 8000 years or so.
I feel it is an important one. One that has no agenda and if figured out, might inform us more about the future than the flailing currently going on.
It is clear that models are being constructed with faulty hypotheses as their basis. Several IPCC climatologists have openly declared that their
models are flawed (kinda hard not to when their predictions are failing). It is my opinion that way too much weight is given to the effect of the
greenhouse effect and, congruently the effect of co2 on climate.
It is clear that something unusual is going on this interglacial, however the unusual began long before man could possibly have affected climate in
any way. To blame the last 100 years on AGW is just plain facile in my book.