New Report: Global Warming And ‘Extreme Weather’ Are Not Accelerating

Posted: April 4, 2019 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate, Critique, data, Temperature
Tags:

Global warming – more tortoise than hare? [image credit: hevria.com]

Once again the forces of climate fear are sounding the alarm bells, but is there anything new to justify it? A new report thinks not.
H/T Climate Change Dispatch

Contrary to claims by the WMO that global warming and its impacts are speeding up, data shows that since 2016, global temps have continued to decline, says Dr. Benny Peiser @ The GWPF .

The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) is misleading the public by suggesting that global warming and its impacts are accelerating.

In fact, since 2016 global average temperature has continued to decline.

That’s according to Norwegian Professor Ole Humlum whose annual review of the world’s climate is published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

Last week, the WMO issued its own review of the climate, which insinuated that global warming was worsening.

However, Professor Humlum points out that the data tells a very different story:

“Reading the WMO report, you would think that global warming was getting worse. But in fact, it is carefully worded to give a false impression. The data are far more suggestive of an improvement than deterioration.”

And the lack of anything to be alarmed about is clear across a range of measures, says Professor Humlum:

“After the warm year of 2016, temperatures last year continued to fall back to levels of the so-called warming “pause” of 2000-2015. There is no sign of any acceleration in global temperature, hurricanes or sea-level rise. These empirical observations show no sign of acceleration whatsoever.”

Professor Humlum’s key findings are here .

Read more in the State of the Climate 2018 (pdf) (52 pages)

Comments
  1. oldbrew says:

    Yet more nonsense…

    CLIMATE ACTIVISTS OPPOSE CO2 AIR CAPTURE
    Date: 04/04/19 BBC News

    A technology that removes carbon dioxide from the air has received significant backing from major fossil fuel companies. But climate campaigners are worried that the technology will be used to extract even more oil.

    https://www.thegwpf.com/climate-activists-oppose-co2-air-capture/

  2. JB says:

    Three of ten blind men examining the proverbial elephant: This creature doesn’t have a long nose. It’s a prehensile reproductive organ!

  3. oldbrew says:

    Ed Berry’s new paper defies the consensus
    APRIL 5, 2019

    Dr Ed Berry has written a paper entitled Human CO2 has little effect on atmospheric CO2. He concludes:

    “Human CO2 does not increase atmospheric CO2 enough to cause climate change.”

    Electrifying!

    I was drawn to it immediately, but recoiled at apparently appalling treatment by the editor. The American Journal of Climate Change rejected the paper for the following outrageous reason:

    “The conclusion of this paper is completely opposite to the consensus of the academic community.”

    On his website, Ed readily agrees that it opposes the consensus, adding:

    “… the journal did not forward any evidence that there is an error in my paper and did not acknowledge that my paper proves the “consensus” is wrong. So, if it is unacceptable to publish a paper that contradicts the “consensus” how can there be progress in science?”

    The paper remains unpublished, but Ed makes his journal submission available on his website. PLEASE NOTE that Ed cautions readers: Copyright does not allow republishing of journal submissions. Therefore I will not republish the paper here until it’s publicly available, in case I deter other journals from accepting it. You can of course read Ed’s copy.

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2019/04/ed-berrys-new-paper-defies-the-consensus/
    – – –
    Dr Berry writes: “The balance level of present human CO2 is about 18 ppm.”

    From the comments section:

    FERDINAND ENGELBEEN NOVEMBER 12, 2018 AT 2:24 PM
    Euan Mearns has a nice background article, which shows that the 14C bomb curve can’t be used to show what happens with a 12CO2 peak:

    http://euanmearns.com/whats-up-with-the-bomb-model/

    Reply

    DR. ED NOVEMBER 12, 2018 AT 3:14 PM
    Dear Ferdinand, I am presently working on an addition to my preprint that explains why Euan Mearns is wrong. Sorry, but you will have to wait until I finish that part before we can argue the details.