The first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report was completed in 1990. This came on the heels of about 11 years of global warming from 1979 until that point (arguably earlier since the draft must have been commissioned sometime in the 1980s, right)? Now anyone who “knows” climate change knows that warming has been monotonically increasing since we started paying attention, right?
Be that as it may, the temperature record has certainly not increased, and appears to have even slightly cooled since GWB was elected.
And the following point has nothing to do with the skeptic position or the alarmist position or the “damages” from warming or any of that. It is again an epistemological one. Supporters of the IPCC right now say that you can’t really conclude anything about climate from periods as short as 10 or 13 or 15 years, that you need thirty or more years in order to say anything about trends. Fine. But why did it take 50 years after the first warming trend (ended at WWII) for a report to be written? Or better yet how come the first assessment was written after the only decade of warming since WWII (up to that point).
Feel free to make something up to defend this. But 1 + 1 only equals three in alternative universes.
>> Supporters of the IPCC right now say that you can’t really conclude anything about climate from periods as short as 10 or 13 or 15 years, that you need thirty or more years in order to say anything about trends.
You’re a sly dog. Good point!
>> But why did it take 50 years after the first warming trend (ended at WWII) for a report to be written?
I suppose that was a rhetorical question, but I’ll respond anyway.
* Because the world had bigger problems in 1945?
* Because a world with higher living standards (1980s) will worry about silly things?
* Because the environmental movement wasn’t around in 1945?
For some fun, see the comments at
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/09/your-cheat-sheet-to-the-ipcc.html
where I try to antagonize the bully (someone named Goddeloos). Search for ‘trey’.
For some serious analysis by a now-heretical fully-licensed climate scientist, see:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/28/ipcc-diagnosis-permanent-paradigm-paralysis/
Required reading, IMO.
Thanks, Trey, and thanks, WC. I assume you both follow Coyote. I mean, Trey reads Coyote, whom WC introduced me to.
With the Shutdown, World War III, etc., on the horizon, these slippery IPCC bureaucrats can do a lot of damage,
Yes, I read Coyote from time to time. Good stuff. I used to visit his Climate Skeptic blog. These days, I’ve been going elsewhere: Judith Curry, WUWT, Bishop Hill, Climate Audit, Roger Pielke, Jr.
I had been toning down the blog reading, but with the IPCC SPM report, I’ve been tuning back in.
Got to get back to behavioral economics: Thinking Fast and Slow.
754888 684042Thanks for the sensible critique. Me and my neighbor were just preparing to do some research about this. We got a grab a book from our area library but I feel I learned a lot more from this post. Im quite glad to see such wonderful info being shared freely out there. 92454
Muchas gracias. ?Como puedo iniciar sesion?
66883 241411This internet page is actually a walk-through its the internet you desired with this and didnt know who require to. Glimpse here, and you will definitely discover it. 689627
667775 337153That being said by use it all, planet is genuinely restored a bit more. This situation in addition will this particular Skin tightening and starting to be moved and into the mood of these producing activities. day-to-day deal livingsocial discount baltimore washington 257246