Global Warming Update

A prediction of 2013 as a “year without summer.”

Nobody tell Al Gore.

[Update a while later]

To the horror of the warm mongers, global cooling is here:

The increase in global temperatures since the late 19th century just reflects the end of the Little Ice Age. The global temperature trends since then have followed not rising CO2 trends but the ocean temperature cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Every 20 to 30 years, the much colder water near the bottom of the oceans cycles up to the top, where it has a slight cooling effect on global temperatures until the sun warms that water. That warmed water then contributes to slightly warmer global temperatures, until the next churning cycle.

Those ocean temperature cycles, and the continued recovery from the Little Ice Age, are primarily why global temperatures rose from 1915 until 1945, when CO2 emissions were much lower than in recent years. The change to a cold ocean temperature cycle, primarily the PDO, is the main reason that global temperatures declined from 1945 until the late 1970s, despite the soaring CO2 emissions during that time from the postwar industrialization spreading across the globe.

The 20 to 30 year ocean temperature cycles turned back to warm from the late 1970s until the late 1990s, which is the primary reason that global temperatures warmed during this period. But that warming ended 15 years ago, and global temperatures have stopped increasing since then, if not actually cooled, even though global CO2 emissions have soared over this period. As The Economist magazine reported in March, “The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.” Yet, still no warming during that time. That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes.

Reality continues to refuse to conform to the narrative.

42 thoughts on “Global Warming Update”

  1. Yeah it has been colder than usual here in Europe with rain, hail, and even snowing in some places which is particularly odd considering we are in May. The wind speeds are also higher than usual.

  2. warming ended 15 years ago

    The 2000-2009 decade was warmer than 1990-1999. 1998 was warm, but 2005 and 2010 were warmer still. Warming didn’t end in 1998.

          1. Following chart is from NASA data of combined land-surface air and sea-surface water temperature anomalies.

            If you’ve any evidence that the data provided is wrong, provide your own.

          2. I suppose you could use the UAH satellite for the last 30 years, but that also shows that
            The 90′s were warmer than the 80′s
            The 00′s were warmer than the 90′s

          3. Wiki is using the NASA data sets, which continue to record significant drops in temperatures in 1930’s and 1940’s, threatening millions of more deaths in WW-II.

            In 2009 the UK Met office and UEA admitted that the rate of warming from 1975 to 1998 was the same as the warming from 1860 to 1880 and the rate from 1910 to 1940 (all were 1.6 C per century). That was really embarrassing, so in three years they’d reduced the 1860 to 1880 warming by 0.6 C per century and the 1910 to 1940 warming by 0.2 C per century, while boosting the 1975 to 1998 warming by 0.3 C.

            Whew! Non-crisis averted!

        1. So what? It’s warmer right now than it was at 10:30 this morning. But, I’m not worried that my insides will be boiling by nightfall.

          Just so, natural climate cycles are many decades, even centuries and millennia, long. They go up, and they go down. The current plateau is inconsistent with the AGW conjecture. There is no evidence that we are having any effect on the Earth’s climate.

          1. Emissions have risen an additional 25%, yet the global temperature average has, at best, significantly decelerated, effectively to zero.

            The heat would have to be going somewhere, and it is not, as some fatuously suggest, being teleported to the deep oceans. The ineluctable conclusion is that there is no excess heat being retained, and the AGW conjecture is a simplistic inference being promulgated by primitive minds.

          2. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations haven’t gone up close to 25% since 1998, and there has been significant warming since 1997 or 1999 — just not much since that one outlier year of 1998. If there is excess heat being held in by the greenhouse effect you would expect it to go a number of places, with surface air temperatures being only one of them.

          3. It is true that atmospheric concentration has not tracked emissions particularly well lately, and even the superficial resemblance people naively latched onto is diverging.

          4. That is because our emissions have little impact on atmospheric concentration, which is governed by temperatures, as the guy who literally wrote the book on climate science explains.

            “If there is excess heat being held in by the greenhouse effect you would expect it to go a number of places, with surface air temperatures being only one of them.”

            No you wouldn’t. That is a monumental flail. There is nowhere for something of that magnitude to go without leaving any trace of its path.

            This is the stupidest hysteria since the Millerites. Take my advice: jump ship while you still have a chance for any future credibility. It’s all going to come crashing down in the not-very-distant future.

            (Had to break up this post to avoid sp@m filter)

          5. Furthermore, temperatures are nowhere close to the mean of climate projections. Under the AGW conjecture, the energy which would have caused that rise has to be stored somewhere, and come roaring back at some time.

            That is, it isn’t enough that temperatures merely resume their earlier rise for there to be any reason for concern. They have to jump back up into the range of those projections.

            It isn’t going to happen.

          1. Clearly he’s getting paid by the oil industry, right?

            By The Heartland Institute.

            I wouldn’t buy their authority on AGW anymore than I would that of Greenpeace.

          2. Ah, The Heartland Institute. Then clearly his remuneration has got to be several billion quatloos a month. You’re right, ignore him, he’s been corrupted by money.

          3. Clearly you believe Heartland to be an apolitical organization dedicated to fairly and accurately representing all points of view.

          4. It’s not quatloos! His compensation is in gold-pressed latinum. Get with the right century, people.

          5. Clearly you believe Heartland to be an apolitical organization dedicated to fairly and accurately representing all points of view.

            Certainly more so than IPCC.

  3. It strains credulity to think Al doesn’t know. If anyone in the private sector were as heavily invested and profiting as mightily from this kind of scheme there would be hell to pay. But in the end here they will all dodge the bullet by acting as if they were just following the best science available at the time. It’s the same scam different decade. (See Global Cooling.) That’s why they have tried to rename it Climate Change. That covers all bases and keeps the tax dollars flowing.

    1. As Glenn “InstaPundit” Reynolds put it, “I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who claim it’s a crisis start living like it’s a crisis.” When they give up their AGW conferences with thousands of attendees jetting in (often in private jets) to faraway locations, when Al Gore gives up his mansions, when Obama doesn’t burn thousands of gallons of jet fuel to deliver a one hour speech, etc.

      In other words, their talk is just intended for the rubes. If they actually believed the world was on the brink of crisis and needed saving, they wouldn’t be behaving the way they do.

      1. I agree with your accepting the human ability to rationalize…we are the “little people” it is us that need to “conserve”, learn to get along with less. Our masters would be able to convince themselves that what they have to say and their own sense of their own importance justifies all the expense of their travel, lecture tours, or even recreation.

      2. I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who claim it’s a crisis start living like it’s a crisis.

        This is a superficially appealing argument, in a “gotcha” sort of way, but if you think about it for more than a second it isn’t very persuasive. You could make the same argument about the national debt: I’ll believe it’s a crisis when people like Paul Ryan stop cashing their government paychecks. Or asteroid impacts: I’ll believe it when the B612 foundation members stop giving TED talks and start building asteroid-proof shelters. Or Syria: I’ll believe it when John McCain resigns from the Senate to join the resistance.

        One doesn’t need to be a martyr to be correct.

        1. “One doesn’t need to be a martyr to be correct.”

          hahaha so you equate dozens or hundreds giving up an all expense paid trip to Bali via carbon-spewing jumbo jets as martyrdom!!!!

  4. I don’t need any ‘experts’ to tell me that some of my of has gotten messed up twice because of the cold. We’ve planted okra twice and no joy. Carrots twice and some peas too, too cold and gone.

    The ground temp won’t stay high enough, and the seedlings go south.

    The first time we lost stuff it was in the 80’s when we planted, then temps dropped back to low 60’s day time and high 30’s at night two nights running. And this was all in May.

    Experts, BAH!

      1. Experts, BAH!

        That could be the slogan of the Republican Party.

        There is a political party out there which has categorically rejected the fallacy of arguing from authority? Where is this party?

    1. That’s “has been drips under pressure”, BAH!
      That’s what so many so called “experts” amount to.

Comments are closed.