De opwarmingspauze ofwel hiatus duurt nu al zo’n 18 jaar. (Zie ook hier.) Toch verneemt men daarover weinig in de MSM. En als er al aandacht aan wordt geschonken, gaat dat niet zelden gepaard met denigrerende commentaren jegens de klimaatsceptici, die daarop voortdurend hebben gewezen. Immers: ‘The science is settled.’

Maar onlangs verscheen een artikel in Nature van elf auteurs, waaronder de notoire klimaatalarmisten Michael E. Mann en Benjamin D. Santer, onder de titel: ‘Making sense of the early 2000’s warming slowdown’.

Onder de titel, ‘The Global Warming Hiatus Is Real, So Why Don’t We Hear About It?’, schreef David Whitehouse, voormalig wetenschapscorrespondent van de BBC, voor ‘The Spectator’:

A new paper in a prestigious journal suggests that the hiatus in global warming of the past 15 years is real. So why has it been ignored?

In 2007 I pointed out that it was curious that in recent years the global annual average temperature had not increased at a time when greenhouse gasses were increasing rapidly and when the media was full of claims that the earth’s temperature was getting higher and higher. I proposed no explanation but said that it was a curious observation that would probably change in the near future. I was lambasted for being a denier and liar. Yet in the following years the global temperature did not increase.

Some vocal scientists spent more time saying it was wrong than actually looking at the data. While many in the media portrayed the phenomenon as a desperate weapon used by sceptics to undermine climate science, real scientists took notice and began to study the warming pause. It was not long before it was being discussed at conferences and in scientific journals. Something was clearly different about the nature of global temperature change since 1997 than it had been in the previous two decades. It was not only slower, but not increasing at all for many years. Indeed it was said in the prestigious scientific journal Nature that the “pause” or “hiatus” is the biggest problem in climate science. …

It is curious, and somewhat depressing, that the hiatus seemed to become an icon in the “battle” between those scientists who felt the need to defend science against sceptics who they fear are out to destroy it. Most of the media saw it that way and whenever a paper, or just a comment, came out saying the hiatus didn’t exist they were onto it. Environmental journalists seemed obsessed with bashing sceptics instead of reporting the science and, as for the many papers taking the hiatus seriously they seemed to be deliberately looking the other way. In doing so they were missing the biggest story in climate science. …

One problem the media have in reporting science is what I have called the “last paper effect.” How many times have you read or heard that this or that particular piece of research settles the debate or is the last word? The science on say bacon and cancer, on butter, on sugar, or the hiatus is settled by this latest paper. The problem is there is always another paper coming along later. …

In the latest issue of the journal Nature Climate Science eleven distinguished scientists published new findings on surface temperature measurements and ocean heat content analysis. It is titled “making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown.” The carefully constructed very first sentence summarizes the diversity of opinion. “It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.” …

One would have thought that this would have been a great story for the world’s news media who were so enthusiastic to bury the hiatus. But no. They are looking the other way again. Almost none of the outlets who trumpeted the end of the hiatus has mentioned this latest research. …

Aldus David Whitehouse.

Lees verder hier.

Dit nieuws lijkt mij nu een leuk ‘itempje’ voor het NOS-journaal dat ons nog onlangs opschrikte met de mededeling (zie hier, vanaf 14.15 u.) dat de opwarming sneller gaat dan gedacht. Dat blijkt dus niet waar te zijn. Er is de laatste 18 jaar geen of nauwelijks opwarming. De NOS controleert de bronnen niet en loopt 18 jaar achter. Voorts werd meegedeeld dat we nog maar zo’n 25 jaar de tijd hebben om iets aan de uitstoot van CO2 te doen. Voorwaar een serieuze waarschuwing! Maar ook een opluchting. Want hadden we niet al tientallen jaren gehoord dat het vijf voor twaalf was?

Voor mijn eerdere bijdragen over klimaat en aanverwante zaken zie hierhier, hier, hier en hier.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email