The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.
This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.
Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.
Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.
Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.
Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two.
Again, my take on this is that I don’t know if human CO2 production has a significant effect on climate. Like the rest of the 99.9% of people out there, I’m not a climate scientist and I have no special knowledge. I look at history, the economic and social context, the backgrounds of the various “experts”, the psychology of groupthink on both sides, the known coverups and propaganda and try to determine what is science and what is not.
One thing that doesn’t surprise me is that their climate computer models aren’t working. Anything less than perfect measurements of all independent parameters into a computer that isn’t subject to roundoff errors is bound to create wildly false predictions over a long enough time horizon. That’s one of the properties of chaotic systems.
In judging motivations, many assume the powers that be are only interested in unfettered access to fossil fuels until utter depletion, and the externalization of costs, per the historical pattern of industrial megacorp behavior. But I think elite motivations have changed. The remaining uncolonized economies and untapped resources of the planet are rapidly diminishing, and elite economic power is now sufficiently consolidated and monopolistic that unfettered growth and competition is unrealistic and counterproductive even from a corporate perspective. Preservation of power in the face of looming limitations will become paramount. One thing we can take away from this is that TPTB must be very concerned about the social consequences of these changes, especially since the debt-based monetary system requires continuous growth as successive economic domains are looted to exhaustion. This is corroborated by the very deliberate and decades-long campaign of destroying children’s health, public education and the industrial infrastructure in this country. The middle class has changed from a useful tool to a major threat to the monopolists, especially now that we have the internet (a major miscalculation on their part). But despite their best efforts, we still have a highly educated, relatively well off middle class, it’s taking time to reduce us to abject illiteracy, poverty and serfdom. But as far as I know, history shows that limits to economic growth in agriculturally based societies have always resulted in a highly polarized and stratified economic structure. Look at pre-industrial europe or china before its colonization. My guess is that this model is being consciously pursued, a kind of high-tech middle ages.
In any case the monopolists must be seeking ways to procure future income streams in the face of these changes, and the logic of increasing consolidation and monopolization leads to, actually necessitates global governance to enforce the post-industrial economic order. Carbon credits, carbon taxes and their derivative economies would go a long way towards financing both needs, while providing a convenient rationale for suppressing and reversing the economic activity that could sustain the middle class, by artificially raising the price of energy. This fact should be considered when trying to decide which climate “experts” to trust, if any.
The elites’ power derives from debt, especially debt-based money. Local non-debt currencies would go a long way toward creating sustainable and human-based regional economies. Decentralization will become essential to survival. We shouldn’t wait until we have no choice.