- Oct 30, 2010
- 5,556
- 4,371
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
At the risk of going round in circles I will say again - the warming in the 20th century needs to be put in perspective. The world has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1870. There have been three significant warming periods since then. However, the IPCC's headline statement is that 'It is extremely likely that more than 50% of the warming since 1951 is due to the increase in greenhouse gases and other anthropogenic forcings together'. Since 1951, warming only occurred during 1975-1998. So effectively the IPCC are using a period of 23 years out of a much longer period of natural or unattributed warming to justify their conclusion. There is no evidence that increased CO2 caused the warming between 1975-1998. It is similar in length and rate of increase to other warming periods that the IPCC does not attribute to rising CO2. The IPCC conclusion depends on the output of climate models which does not qualify as scientific evidence.
If the AGW hypothesis were valid then the models would have predicted the hiatus in warming we have seen since 1998. They didn't and spectacularly so. Von Storch at al. looked at a large range of models and found
that the continued warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level.
http://www.academia.edu/4210419/Can_climate_models_explain_the_recent_stagnation_in_global_warming
That's not to say warming will not continue but there is no proof that carbon dioxide is the main driver for it. The models are clearly missing a major factor, which could be a natural phenomenon. The IPCC, with its raison d'etre to prove AGW, is blocking the furtherance of scientific knowledge in this regard.
at the risk of wasting my time, why don't you publish your research and prove thousands of peer-reviewed papers wrong?