Warmists: Global Warming Is Just Around The Corner, We Promise

Over at Ace of Spades, Ace mentions a study that links sunspots to the high level of warming that occurred from the late 19070’s to around 1990, and how that lack of sunspots is predicting a cooling period. That reminded me of this article from Monday that I stuck in Instapaper (via Tom Nelson)

Global warming ‘on pause’ but set to resume

Global warming has been on “pause” for 15 years but will speed up again and is still a real threat, Met Office scientists have warned.

Surface temperatures around the world have not increased on average since the late 1990s, causing some sceptics to suggest that climate change is not happening as quickly as experts predict.

But in a set of three new reports, the Met Office claims that global warming has been disguised in recent years by the oceans, which have absorbed greater amounts of heat and prevented us from noticing the difference at surface level.

This process, caused by the natural cycle of the oceans, could delay earlier predictions of global warming by five to ten years but will not last forever, researchers explained.

Hooray, they got their “the warming is hiding” talking points down, to go with the newer “it’s not the land temperature, but the sea temperature that matters” TP. The article also notes that natural things, like volcanoes, are masking the warming…um, so why can’t the initial warming be mostly or solely natural?

The Met Office has predicted it could be another five years before surface temperatures begin to rise again, but said the current “pause” would not affect long-term global warming forecasts.

“Trust us, it’s coming” (unless we pass laws that enact wealth transfers, er, carbon taxes, control the behavior of individuals and business, and take over economies). Mark your calendars to see if their predictions come true, because they made the same type previously. Yeah, how’s that working out?

The world faces record-breaking temperatures as the sun’s activity increases, leading the planet to heat up significantly faster than scientists had predicted for the next five years, according to a study.

That was 2009. But, what we’ve seen is no resumption of warming. Europe and much of the world has seen the past 4 out of 5 winters being harsh. Spring 2013 was barely a glimmer, and in many places never really made an appearance. Much of the Southern Hemisphere is experiencing a harsh winter now. As I’ve mention numerous times, since 1990 the global temperature, per Met Office data, has increase just 0.28F, and a statistically insignificant 0.14F since 1997, most of that from the 1998 El Nino.

So, what’s going to happen? Damned if I know. Damned if the Warmists know. The studies suggesting a coming cool period, either a short term one similar to the 1940’s to late 1970’s, or even a deep period like the Little Ice Age, could be right. Or not. Warming could restart next year, or 5-10 years out. Or not. Right now the world is in an elevated warm period following the 1998 El Nino. Some data shows that the global temps are actually going down a little bit. The climate will do what the climate will do. We are mostly along for the ride. One thing we can count on is that no matter what happens, Warmists will Blame Mankind. If we flip into a cool period of any length, expect the talking points to blame Mankind in some form or fashion for the “climate change” while simultaneously stating that nature and the actions of Mankind are masking the effects of anthropogenic global warming.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

22 Responses to “Warmists: Global Warming Is Just Around The Corner, We Promise”

  1. pinroot says:

    Has anyone determined the mechanism by which atmospheric warming has started warming the deep blue seas without warming the ocean surface first? My money is on “thermal teleportation.”

  2. john says:

    Teach 2010 was the hottest year ever on record since we have been keeping accurate records.. That is according to the U S government NOAA>. Last summer was the hottest summer in the USA that we have ever had (since modern records were kept). In a Pew poll 48% of self identified Republicans said taht there was solid evidence
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/10/16/study_shows_that_more_republicans_believe_global_warming_is_real_than_in.html
    Teach it is getting warmer. Americans know this through personal observations.

    • Dan Pangburn says:

      To put things in context . . .

      The area of the US is only about 2% of the area of the planet.

      Average global temperature history since 1975 is like a hill. We went up the hill from 1975 to 2001 where the average global temperatures reached a plateau per the average of the five government agencies that publicly report temperature anomalies. The anomalies and links to the reporting agencies are shown at http://endofgw.blogspot.com/ . The average global temperature trend since 2001 has been flat to slightly declining but is on the plateau at the top of the hill. Claiming that the hill is highest at its top is not very profound. The temperature trend has started to decline but the decline will be slow; about 0.1 K per decade for the planet, maybe twice that fast for land areas.

      • Zachriel says:

        Dan Pangburn: The average global temperature trend since 2001 has been flat to slightly declining but is on the plateau at the top of the hill. Claiming that the hill is highest at its top is not very profound.

        That’s a common mistake when relying upon correlation. Even if you can explain 99% of a pattern with a fit to data formula, it may only mean that 99% of the fluctuations are due to cyclical causes. Even the 1% has a trend, then it can be highly significant as it imperceptibly forces the curve upwards.

        A simple example is examining the hourly temperature over several days and correlating it to the angle of the Sun. You will find a very strong correlation, even while the average temperature may be slowly rising or falling due to the change in seasons.

        Indeed, climate is a very noisy system, and it has been very difficult to detect the increase in global mean temperature as it easily gets lost in all the chatter.

  3. Except that 2010 is not the hottest year ever in the continental 48, try 5th or 6th. Nor would that prove anthropogenic causation
    Furthermore, polls are not scientific. They’re political. But, we do know that “climate change” is solely a political movement.

  4. Zachriel says:

    William Teach: Over at Ace of Spades, Ace mentions a study that links sunspots to the high level of warming that occurred from the late 19070′s to around 1990, and how that lack of sunspots is predicting a cooling period.

    Solar activity is certainly important to explaining long term climate change. However, it does not explain the warming trend of the last century.

    Here’s solar energy versus temperature
    http://www.globalchange.gov/HighResImages/1-Global-pg-20R.jpg

    Here’s sunspots versus temperature, showing how it has decoupled over the last half century.
    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Uaz98ffkiBc/UFNkz4kIc9I/AAAAAAAAAvo/fuayENzTGOo/s1600/SunspotsVTemps.gif

    William Teach: Hooray, they got their “the warming is hiding” talking points down, to go with the newer “it’s not the land temperature, but the sea temperature that matters”

    Hey, we’re in luck! Scientists have a way to measure ocean temperatures beneath the surface. What do you think they show?
    http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/How_Argo_floats.html

  5. gail Combs says:

    You could try Physicist, Niv Shaviv’s The Ocean as a Calorimieter

    Or Chemical Engineer, John Kehr’s
    Norway Experiencing Greatest Glacial Activity in the past 1,000 year This links to a peer-reviewed paper showing a study on glacial activity in Norway for the past ~8,000 years. “…The authors simply state that most glaciers likely didn’t exist 6,000 years ago, but the highest period of the glacial activity has been in the past 600 years…”

    Or his:
    Himalaya Glaciers are Growing Another new peer-reviewed paper is discussed. The region of the study were the Karakoram Glaciers. “…It was also noted in the study that there has been a decrease in river run-off from this glacier complex. Since the glaciers have been growing in mass and the run-off has decreased, the only possible explanation is that the region has been colder and the glaciers have been melting less over the past decade…”

    Or his: Northern Hemisphere Summer Energy: The Leading Indicator

    or his: The End of an Interglacial

    If you do not understand the Milankovitch cycles try: In defense of Milankovitch about a 2006 paper by Gerard Roe

    Most March Snow Coverage in 26 Years

    Which goes along with NOAA’s more recent:
    Northern Hemisphere Oct 2012 snow cover

    Northern Hemisphere Nov 2012 snow cover

    Northern Hemisphere Dec 2012 snow cover

    Northern Hemisphere Jan 2013 snow cover

    Northern Hemisphere Feb 2013 snow cover

    What no one in the Govenment Propaganda Outlets MSM is willing to mention is the climate is bistable and the earth is at half precession and an eccentricity minimum at this end of this interglacial, the Holocene.

    The 64 trillion dollar question is what is the magic June solar insolation at 65N value needed to kick us into an Ice Age.

    This is Dr Robert Brown (Duke Univ Physicist) take on the climate.

    …examination of this record over the last 5 million years reveals a sobering fact. We are in an ice age, where the Earth spends 80 to 90% of its geological time in the grip of vast ice sheets that cover the polar latitudes well down into what is currently the temperate zone. We are at the (probable) end of the Holocene, the interglacial in which humans emerged all the way from tribal hunter-gatherers to modern civilization. The Earth’s climate is manifestly, empirically bistable, with a warm phase and cold phase, and the cold phase is both more likely and more stable. As a physicist who has extensively studied bistable open systems, this empirical result clearly visible in the data has profound implications. The fact that the LIA was the coldest point in the entire Holocene (which has been systematically cooling from the Holocene Optimum on) is also worrisome. Decades are irrelevant on the scale of these changes. Centuries are barely relevant. We are nowhere near the warmest, but the coldest century in the last 10,000 years ended a mere 300 years ago, and corresponded almost perfectly with the Maunder minimum in solar activity…”

  6. Zachriel says:

    gail Combs: You could try Physicist, Niv Shaviv’s The Ocean as a Calorimieter

    Interesting paper. Unfortunately, the tidal gauges used as proxies are not consistent with globally averaged sea level variation. That would indicate at least some of the supposed amplification is due to placement of the gauges. Indeed, Shaviv admits the global measures don’t support his hypothesis.

    Shaviv suggests cosmic rays as the amplification mechanism, but they don’t correlate well with the modern warming trend.

  7. Dan Pangburn says:

    Zachriel – Even reported average global temperatures are noisy. The noise is demonstrably impossible considering the effective thermal capacitance of the planet. That is why my findings are based on physics (not curve fitting) and are not limited to the last decade or so but extend back to the beginning of when temperatures were accurately measured world wide (approximately 1895). The full story is at http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html

    The sunspot number time-integral (not just sunspot numbers) correlates with average global temperature since sunspots have been regularly recorded (about 1610)http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/blog-post_23.html

  8. Zachriel says:

    Dan Pangburn: The noise is demonstrably impossible considering the effective thermal capacitance of the planet.

    That doesn’t jive. Some summer days it’s warm, some summer days it’s cool. It might be wet one day, then dry the next. Windy today, calm tomorrow.

    Dan Pangburn: That is why my findings are based on physics (not curve fitting)

    Of course it’s based on curve-fitting. You also ignored our point.

    Even if you can explain 99% of a pattern with a fit to data formula, it may only mean that 99% of the fluctuations are due to cyclical causes. If the 1% has a trend, then it can be highly significant as it imperceptibly forces the curve upwards.

    A simple example is examining the hourly temperature over several days and correlating it to the angle of the Sun. You will find a very strong correlation, even while the average temperature may be slowly rising or falling due to the change in seasons.

  9. Dan Pangburn says:

    Zach – The average global temperatures are reported monthly and/or annually. It’s the year-to-year reported fluctuations of average global temperature that are absolutely impossible because of the huge effective thermal capacitance of the planet. The month-to-month stuff even more so.

    If you had looked at my stuff, that should have been clear.

    Anyone who is technologically competent should recognize that the equation is based on physics, specifically thermodynamics, more specifically the first law of thermodynamics which is conservation of energy.

    That is trivially simple stuff to an MSME with 9 units of post graduate thermodynamics and more decades of experience as a licensed engineer than I care to admit to, like me.

    The statistical calculations, specifically the calculation of the coefficient of determination, determines how accurately the equation matches the measurements. The equation matches measurements with 90% accuracy. Consideration of the influence of CO2 makes no significant difference.

    Statistical/mathematical curve fitting has nothing to do with it.

  10. Zachriel says:

    Dan Pangburn: The average global temperatures are reported monthly and/or annually. It’s the year-to-year reported fluctuations of average global temperature that are absolutely impossible because of the huge effective thermal capacitance of the planet.

    Temperature ≠ energy

    Dan Pangburn: Anyone who is technologically competent should recognize that the equation is based on physics, specifically thermodynamics, more specifically the first law of thermodynamics which is conservation of energy.

    Temperature ≠ energy

  11. Dan Pangburn says:

    Zach – That’s a start. Now read my stuff and see if you can figure out the rest. Hint: energy change divided by thermal capacitance = temperature change.

  12. Zachriel says:

    Dan Pangburn: Now read my stuff and see if you can figure out the rest.

    We did. We raised objections, which you ignored.

  13. Dan Pangburn says:

    I responded to all of your objections.

    Your first objection assumed that the equation resulted from mathematical/statistical curve fitting. That is wrong. The equation is based on physics. From your comments, it is not clear that you are even aware that there is a difference.

    Your next objection was because you were talking about hour-to-hour or day-to-day variations at a single location and I mistakenly thought that you were aware that reported AGTs were monthly and annually and applied to the entire globe. I clarified the communication failure.

    Your last objection revealed that you did not understand the equation since apparently you erroneously thought that it equated temperature with energy.

    You either didn’t read, didn’t understand or simply ignored the responses.

  14. Zachriel says:

    Dan Pangburn: Your first objection assumed that the equation resulted from mathematical/statistical curve fitting.

    It wasn’t an assumption. We read your website. You chose values of the various parameters to make it fit the expected curve. Nothing wrong with that necessarily, but it is certainly curve-fitting.

    Dan Pangburn: You either didn’t read, didn’t understand or simply ignored the responses.

    Let’s start with this statement:

    Dan Pangburn: The average global temperatures are reported monthly and/or annually. It’s the year-to-year reported fluctuations of average global temperature that are absolutely impossible because of the huge effective thermal capacitance of the planet.

    Yet we do observe year-to-year fluctuations in average global temperature.

  15. Dan Pangburn says:

    Zach – Apparently you do not recognize a physics-based equation when you see one.

    You probably see the same reported average global temperatures that I do. They represent average monthly surface measurements at discreet points at or near the surface. You must be aware that temperatures change substantially both spatially and temporally. What is reported is some manipulation of these values which results in a random uncertainty of the reported values with standard deviation of about ±0.1 K. The true average global temperature, (that which varies directly with the global energy) is prohibited from varying as much by the huge effective thermal capacitance.

  16. Zachriel says:

    Dan Pangburn: The true average global temperature, (that which varies directly with the global energy) is prohibited from varying as much by the huge effective thermal capacitance.

    That’s what we thought you said.

    The effective thermal capacitance of the Earth’s surface is small compared to the thermal capacitance of the oceans. Currents in the ocean can bring warmer or cooler waters to the surface significantly changing the mean surface temperature. Changes in albedo can also cause changes in mean surface temperature. Also, the enthalpy of fusion for ice is very high, so significant heat can be absorbed upsetting your simplistic model.

  17. Dan Pangburn says:

    Zach – You must have missed this in my 7/26 post “…effective thermal capacitance of the planet.” The oceans are part of the planet. If you would take the blinders off you might notice that the source for the value of effective thermal capacitance that was used is at Reference 5 in http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html

    The currents/oscillations/surface temperature fluctuation were discussed in a paper made public 11/24/11 at http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/Verification%20Dan%20P.pdf . References 9, 10, 11, and 12 in that paper are particularly revealing as to why the reported temperatures have so much uncertainty with respect to the true global temperature trend. An early version of the equation as shown there has since been refined as shown in Climatechange90.

    The sensitivity of average global temperature to albedo change (and average cloud altitude change) is quantified in http://lowaltitudeclouds.blogspot.com/

    I monitor arctic ice area at http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png . It is about average for the last decade. According to some sources, the thickness had been declining, indicating some melting, until a few years ago. Any effect do to ice melting or water freezing must find room in the 10% of average global temperature change that the equation does not explain.

    As shown in Figure 2 at http://endofgw.blogspot.com/ , the atmospheric CO2 level continues to go up while the average global temperature doesn’t. I wonder how wide this separation will need to get for some people to realize that they haven’t understood the science very well themselves and have been misled by people whose paychecks depend on continuing to deceive the public.

  18. Dan Pangburn says:

    This is a repeat post. The original may have tripped a spam blocker or something.

    Zach – You must have missed this in my 7/26 post “…effective thermal capacitance of the planet.” The oceans are part of the planet. The source for the value of effective thermal capacitance that was used is at Reference 5 in http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html

    The currents/oscillations/surface temperature fluctuation were described in a paper made public 11/24/11 that is listed as Reference 1 in http://endofgw.blogspot.com/. References 9, 10, 11, and 12 in that paper are particularly revealing as to why the reported temperatures have so much uncertainty with respect to the true temperature trend. An early version of the equation as shown there has since been refined as shown in Climatechange90.

    The sensitivity of average global temperature to albedo change (and average cloud altitude change) is quantified in http://lowaltitudeclouds.blogspot.com/

    I monitor arctic ice area at http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png . It is about average for the last decade. According to some sources, the thickness had been decreasing, indicating some melting, until a few years ago. Any effect do to ice melting or water freezing must find room in the 10% of average global temperature change that the equation does not explain.

    As shown in Figure 2 at http://endofgw.blogspot.com/ , the atmospheric CO2 level continues to go up while the average global temperature doesn’t. I wonder how wide this separation will need to get for some people to realize that they haven’t understood the science very well themselves and have been misled by people whose paychecks depend on continuing to deceive the public.

    (WT: Akismet and Bad Behavior, along with a WordPress setting, will throw any comment with more than 2-3 links into moderation cue. Stops bot spam, but, unfortunately, also catches legit comments)

  19. Dan Pangburn says:

    WT – Thanks for the venue and the explanation. It cancelled a bunch of bad thoughts.

    I was starting to get a bit snarky anyway, and when that happens, it’s time to hang it up on a thread.

    Best regards,

  20. Zachriel says:

    Dan Pangburn: You must have missed this in my 7/26 post “…effective thermal capacitance of the planet.” The oceans are part of the planet.

    You also said, “The true average global temperature, (that which varies directly with the global energy) is prohibited from varying as much by the huge effective thermal capacitance,” which isn’t accurate, even in light of your first statement — especially in light of your first statement.

Bad Behavior has blocked 8073 access attempts in the last 7 days.