Global warming is not really progressing much, because it’s not really happening. The planet goes through warming and cooling cycles of course, but those cycles have nothing to do with people’s energy source of choice.
This makes it very difficult to convince people that burning coal and other fossil fuels causes the Earth to heat up. We haven’t seen any warming for the past two decades, despite record carbon emissions during the same time period. I don’t think the planet cares what energy source people use. Scientists know this, but they have to pretend to deny it in order to push an agenda.
Now, a recent study from Duke University is showing that a “middle-of-the-road” prediction will more accurately represent reality, and that previous dire predictions from the IPCC were too extreme and exaggerated.
New research from Duke University found that current climate models might be overestimated expected warming.
“Based on our analysis, a middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now,” Patrick Brown, a doctoral student at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment, said in a statement. “But this could change.”
Natural variability in surface temperatures, the study authors found, can affect warming rates from decade to decade, something the researchers called “climate wiggles.”
Climate models, like those used by the International Panel on Climate Control, got the “big picture right,” Brown said, but according to the new analysis at Duke, they underestimated the “climate wiggles” that can occur with natural variability.
“Our model shows these wiggles can be big enough that they could have accounted for a reasonable portion of the accelerated warming we experienced from 1975 to 2000, as well as the reduced rate in warming that occurred from 2002 to 2013,” Brown explained.
“Statistically, it’s pretty unlikely that an 11-year hiatus in warming, like the one we saw at the start of this century, would occur if the underlying human-caused warming was progressing at a rate as fast as the most severe IPCC projections,” Brown said. “Hiatus periods of 11 years or longer are more likely to occur under a middle-of-the-road scenario.”
Brown explained that the IPCC’s middle-of-the-road scenario “match[ed] up well” with their model that suggested there was a 70 percent likelihood a warming hiatus could last from 1993 and 2050.
The Duke researchers with San Jose State University and the U.S. Department of Agriculture created this new model based on reconstructed records of surface temperatures for the last 1,000 years.
“Our analysis clearly shows that we shouldn’t expect the observed rates of warming to be constant. They can and do change,” co-author Wenhong Li said.
We can probably chalk this up as yet another attempt to explain away the recent “hiatus” in global warming that we’ve been experiencing.
The study doesn’t really make anything clearer. In fact, it muddies the water even more. Essentially, all they’re saying is, “It might get warmer; it might get cooler; it might stay constant for a while, then go one way or the other. That’s why it’s safer to take a ‘middle-of-the-road’ approach, because we don’t really know anything for sure… except that all this unpredictability and variability is being caused by the burning of fossils fuels.”