Where’s the warming?

posted at 6:00 pm on June 12, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Carbon emissions over the past decade actually exceeded predictions by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), no thanks to the global economic recession.  According to their anthropogenic global-warming theories, global temperatures should have risen significantly as a result.   James Taylor at Forbes wonders what happened:

Global greenhouse gas emissions have risen even faster during the past decade than predicted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other international agencies. According to alarmist groups, this proves global warming is much worse than previously feared. The increase in emissions “should shock even the most jaded negotiators” at international climate talks currently taking place in Bonn, Germany, the UK Guardian reports. But there’s only one problem with this storyline; global temperatures have not increased at all during the past decade.

The evidence is powerful, straightforward, and damning. NASA satellite instruments precisely measuring global temperatures show absolutely no warming during the past the past 10 years. This is the case for the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, including the United States. This is the case for the Arctic, where the signs of human-caused global warming are supposed to be first and most powerfully felt. This is the case forglobal sea surface temperatures, which alarmists claim should be sucking up much of the predicted human-induced warming. This is the case for the planet as a whole.

If atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions are the sole or primary driver of global temperatures, then where is all the global warming? We’re talking 10 years of higher-than-expected increases in greenhouse gases, yet 10 years of absolutely no warming. That’s 10 years of nada, nunca, nein, zero, and zilch.

Be sure to check out the links, which show charts over varying time sets, but which all show basically the same thing: no real change over longer periods of time. Not in the Arctic, which Taylor notes was supposed to be the canary in the coal mine, nor in the northern hemisphere, or the globe overall.  That’s even true for just the last decade, but it’s especially true over the period of several decades.  Periods of high amplitudes in warming are matched with low amplitudes.

Earlier this week, I linked to a couple of articles from physicists who have expressed considerable skepticism of the AGW hysteria, including one who worked in Australia’s climate-change ministry.  It’s worth revisiting his observation about the science, its models, and what’s missing:

This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three — so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.

That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.

What did they find when they tried to prove this theory?

Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.

This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.

It’s becoming even more clear now.  If carbon increases and the predicted warming didn’t follow, then the obvious conclusion is that the hypothesis regarding cause and effect is incorrect — and the missing hot spots are even further evidence of this.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

This is why Romney isn’t fit for the Oval Office, he bought these lies.

karenhasfreedom on June 12, 2011 at 6:02 PM

Why let a few (overwhelming) facts spoil a good hypothesis?

Tennman on June 12, 2011 at 6:05 PM

Went for a walk wednesday evening, it was 95º. Went for a walk the exact same time on thursday it was 55º. Right now it’s a blustery 60º. Cant believe it’s already the middle of June.

Tommy_G on June 12, 2011 at 6:05 PM

Defund UN, especially IPCC.

AshleyTKing on June 12, 2011 at 6:06 PM

Great news from Debbie Wasserman-Schultz: We’ve turned this economy around

“The sky is falling!” -Algore.

Akzed on June 12, 2011 at 6:06 PM

Fizzle, no sizzle all up in dis hizzle.

BallisticBob on June 12, 2011 at 6:07 PM

All I know is that in sunny SoCal it has been in the 50s at night and through the morning and I need to turn on the heat.

Blake on June 12, 2011 at 6:08 PM

Fo shizzle.

BallisticBob on June 12, 2011 at 6:08 PM

Where’s the warming?

Since the end of Wednesday, when it got up to 93 degrees, not in Milwaukee. High temps since 6 am Thursday morning:

Thursday – 52 degrees
Friday – 54 degrees
Saturday – 58 degrees
Sunday – 61 degrees

It’s more like April than June.

Steve Eggleston on June 12, 2011 at 6:08 PM

Coolest spring I can ever remember in SOCAL…

Khun Joe on June 12, 2011 at 6:09 PM

Normal science: you come up with a theory, you make predictions, and if the predictions don’t test out then you toss the theory and start over.

Leftist pseudoscience: you come up with a conclusion, you loudly announce that the science is settled, and you accuse anyone who refuses to toe the line of being a racist.

Steven Den Beste on June 12, 2011 at 6:10 PM

There is a documentary called The Great Global Warming Swindle that is an absolute must to watch for anyone that has any questions about the alleged global warming.

It is totally fact based and uses FACTS. Verifiable FACTS to show the THEORIES are wrong.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

ButterflyDragon on June 12, 2011 at 6:12 PM

Where’s the warming?

It’s in south Texas……damn it.

Every summer.

Mcguyver on June 12, 2011 at 6:14 PM

Where’s the warming?

Ask Mittens…

… he can tell ‘ya.

Seven Percent Solution on June 12, 2011 at 6:15 PM

I have my suspicions that fire in the sky is the culprit.

Beto Ochoa on June 12, 2011 at 6:16 PM

I hope Romney’s staff reads this and weeps, because they should.

SouthernGent on June 12, 2011 at 6:16 PM

Where’s the warming?

Why, it’s at the unemployment office, of course. Think of all of that horrible CO2 being emitted by all those serfs waiting in line.

hillbillyjim on June 12, 2011 at 6:19 PM

Where’s the warming?

Ran into a headwind.

BobMbx on June 12, 2011 at 6:21 PM

June 12 here in NH. Right now it’s 52 degrees.

Del Dolemonte on June 12, 2011 at 6:21 PM

This one is a beauty:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/09/crater-lake-ushcn-weather-station-the-giss-removal/

The temperatures from the Crater Lake weather station are excluded from the average because the temps there aren’t increasing like they do at the stations in the cities.

pedestrian on June 12, 2011 at 6:21 PM

Mitt is a global warming hack.

Roy Rogers on June 12, 2011 at 6:24 PM

OMG! We must do nothing now!!!!!!

profitsbeard on June 12, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Mitt Romney hardest hit.

HondaV65 on June 12, 2011 at 6:25 PM

The genius of our leaders is incandescent.

No, wait. Actually, they are screwier than those poisonous lightbulbs they are foisting upon us.

hillbillyjim on June 12, 2011 at 6:27 PM

Who cares if the predictions are wrong? A consensus of scientists say they need more grant money.

forest on June 12, 2011 at 6:31 PM

I remember that a few years ago ABC News put out a call for home made videos on ‘how global warming has affected you personally’.

How’s that for ridiculous?

I never saw any follow up on this.
Too bad, because it would have made for some hilarious YouTube videos.

justltl on June 12, 2011 at 6:32 PM

Just gone through the coldest May that i can remember in Sydney.

OldEnglish on June 12, 2011 at 6:33 PM

Where’s the warming?

It starts up again after we get a new Republican president.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on June 12, 2011 at 6:34 PM

And the ARGOS buoy system that descends 20m to get an idea of the most important thermal convection current has registered a continual drop since it was put in place. If there was AGW then that current would be getting warmer, not colder.

The worst part of the models is try to feed in any historical data and then project what it gets in the way of climate and you don’t even get a near match to what actually happens. The tree-hugging, polar bear fretting AGW fools are getting the direction and magnitude of their predictions dead wrong for nearly two decades… plus the polar bear population has been expanding. That’s causing some real problems in Canada and AK.

ajacksonian on June 12, 2011 at 6:34 PM

This guy says Ed is a denier and will probably provide Ed’s name, GPA, and Deacon List Ranking, to the appropriate authorities. Be ashamed, Mr Morrissey. Be very ashamed.

Limerick on June 12, 2011 at 6:36 PM

I have my suspicions that fire in the sky is the culprit.

Beto Ochoa on June 12, 2011 at 6:16 PM

This was the plot to the movie “Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea.” The first episode of the TV show was about combating global warming with a nuclear detonation at the North Pole. Wonder if this is where the East Anglicia Scientists got their theory from in the first place.

Tommy_G on June 12, 2011 at 6:36 PM

The IPCC? They’ve ethered their own credibility.

Anytime a Lib Comrade cites the IPCC they’ve already lost the argument.

Libs: stick to John Holdren and the NOAA.

visions on June 12, 2011 at 6:36 PM

Hot here, right now… About 130 miles north of the border.
But it got down to 37 last night. I reckon that’s why the smarter ones of them changed Global Warming into Climate Change.

Personally I like to call it:

Global Equilibrium With Occasional Local and Regional Variations, On an Overall Slight Cooling Trend Due to Reduced Solar Emissions.

LegendHasIt on June 12, 2011 at 6:38 PM

A consensus of scientists say they need more grant money.

forest on June 12, 2011 at 6:31 PM

Exactly, and they are backed up by a consensus of politicians who say they need to exercise more control over every facet of ‘free’ Americans daily lives.

Siddhartha Vicious on June 12, 2011 at 6:40 PM

I remember that a few years ago ABC News put out a call for home made videos on ‘how global warming has affected you personally’.

justltl on June 12, 2011 at 6:32 PM

When our electric power “necessarily skyrockets” we can all make videos about how “global warming” affects us.

cartooner on June 12, 2011 at 6:48 PM

ajacksonian on June 12, 2011 at 6:34 PM

Yeah, their computers can’t predict the past, let alone the future.

cartooner on June 12, 2011 at 6:51 PM

It’s a hoax. It’s always been a hoax. Read the CRU emails. NASA admitted they put their sensors in “less than optimal” locations (deliberately warmer spots)

Does one need a piano fall on them to understand?

dogsoldier on June 12, 2011 at 6:52 PM

This was at Watts Up With That? a couple of weeks ago:

“Earth itself is telling us there’s nothing to worry about in doubled, or even quadrupled, atmospheric CO2″

Tell that to the EPA. Set the coal industry free!

There’s absolute NO reason to have electricity rates sky rocket.

INC on June 12, 2011 at 6:56 PM

It doesn’t matter whether AGW is real or not.

It was always a means to an end.

A tool’s tool, if you will.

hillbillyjim on June 12, 2011 at 6:56 PM

The only thing that’s been increasing over the past decade in regard to global warming is Al Gore’s Wealth (AGW).

Tuari on June 12, 2011 at 6:56 PM

Could some of the devoted Mittbots puhleeze send an email to Mittens and let him in on the absolute fraud that AGW has proven to be in the past few years?

Ogabe on June 12, 2011 at 6:58 PM

Isn’t it obvious why the rise of the Oceans began to slow and our Planet began to heal? Profound humility has saved the day, say hallelujah, please make a donation to his re-election campaign.

Kenosha Kid on June 12, 2011 at 6:59 PM

1. AGW is a crock.

2. Weiner is being pushed out by Senior Dems

3. The Palin e-mail witch hunt has been a massive MSM failure.

And it’s only Sunday!

Good Solid B-Plus on June 12, 2011 at 6:59 PM

Now Mitt may not have time to be informed, but doesn’t he have staff to keep up with how issues develop? Wouldn’t a good staffer pull him aside and let him know he’s looking uninformed?

INC on June 12, 2011 at 7:02 PM

Kenosha Kid on June 12, 2011 at 6:59 PM

I’ll pass the puke bucket instead.

Steve Eggleston on June 12, 2011 at 7:05 PM

Why let a few (overwhelming) facts spoil a good hypothesis?

Tennman on June 12, 2011 at 6:05 PM

Precisely, and it is why AGW is not good science, but junk science. Science is the about forming theories that can be tested and accepting or rejecting them based on those tests. I know of no testable predictions of AGW that have been borne out by experiment.

I wish that more people on the AGW side of the debate understood both what the scientific process is about, but also what the theory of AGW actually is. Sadly too few people on both sides of the debate do know it very well.

The theory of AGW being dangerous is based not on the direct heating effect of increased CO2, but on that increase triggering a self-reinforcing heating cycle. That cycle is actually based on the amount of and nature of atmospheric water vapor. But there is no evidence that higher CO2 concentrations have significant impact on H2O concentrations or that the effects they do have contribute to warming.

MJBrutus on June 12, 2011 at 7:08 PM

Big Gub’mitt Romney hardest hit.

beatcanvas on June 12, 2011 at 7:10 PM

But, but people will die, the maps will be redrawn by rising water, Polar bears and seals will be extinct. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

Southernblogger on June 12, 2011 at 7:14 PM

Don’t you all know that no change in temperature is a sign of global warming? Sheesh.

vcferlita on June 12, 2011 at 7:14 PM

The best part of the New Hampshire debate is going to be Romney and his “global warming because a lot of people told me so”.

Marcus on June 12, 2011 at 7:15 PM

This is why Romney isn’t fit for the Oval Office, he bought these lies.karenhasfreedom on June 12, 2011 at 6:02 PM

So did Pawlenty. The fearless Alaskan didn’t buy this crap.

Basilsbest on June 12, 2011 at 7:16 PM

This just in …….

If flying towards the sun this weekend, be careful not to touch it. It’s hot.

fogw on June 12, 2011 at 7:20 PM

So many folks think Mittsy is supah smart – obviously he doesn’t do much critical thinking for himself. Anyone can go with the prevailing winds – it takes a bit smarter person to think for themselves and take the harder road.

Ogabe on June 12, 2011 at 7:21 PM

Looks like my investments in ocean front property in Arizona won’t pan out. //snark

Slowburn on June 12, 2011 at 7:21 PM

So will we expect Romney to name Al Gore as an adviser to his campaign???

albill on June 12, 2011 at 7:22 PM

You stupid wing-ding-dong-bong-a-longs, don’t you understand: Too hot, too cold, or no change whatsoever means that global warming is real and happening and dangerous.

If you give me a billion dollars, I will study this further.

Bishop on June 12, 2011 at 7:22 PM

So the fact that the surface temperature hasn’t been going down puzzles me (but doesn’t worry me, as warm is better than cold), but if the atmosphere isn’t warming, like it would if CO2 was increasing it’s greenhouse effect, I’d like to see an explanation of why that doesn’t invalidate the AGW hypothesis.

Count to 10 on June 12, 2011 at 7:23 PM

Ack, ack, ack

Gohawgs on June 12, 2011 at 7:25 PM

Basilsbest

+10

Roy Rogers on June 12, 2011 at 7:28 PM

wow, the arctic isn’t warming…. huh.

So that means that polar bears aren’t actually drowning in oceans doue to lack of ice chunks? I guess that also means that walruses really aren’t dieing off either, and want shore line maybe because it is warmer for their offspring and has more food by those shores?

HUH!

When it comes to whales though…. I will leave it alone.

upinak on June 12, 2011 at 7:29 PM

Ack, ack, ack…

Gohawgs on June 12, 2011 at 7:25 PM

So, the only problem with that is that the observation is that Mars has warmed in the past three years — but, over that time, Earth hasn’t.

Count to 10 on June 12, 2011 at 7:29 PM

I completely and unequivocally deny the existence of global warming. Human-caused or otherwise.

KSgop on June 12, 2011 at 7:30 PM

AGW or global cooling before that was never about helping the planet or even pollution, people have become rich and powerful from the climate lie because they wanted to become rich and powerful, and because we’re lucky to breath the same air they do, so kneel before Zod and do as Zod decrees.

And expect more lies.

Speakup on June 12, 2011 at 7:31 PM

I completely and unequivocally deny the existence of global warming. Human-caused or otherwise.

KSgop on June 12, 2011 at 7:30 PM

Over what time scale?

Count to 10 on June 12, 2011 at 7:33 PM

There goes my beach home in northern Canada.

clement on June 12, 2011 at 7:34 PM

AGW or global cooling before that was never about helping the planet or even pollution, people have become rich and powerful from the climate lie because they wanted to become rich and powerful, and because we’re lucky to breath the same air they do, so kneel before Zod and do as Zod decrees.

And expect more lies.

Speakup on June 12, 2011 at 7:31 PM

I’m sure that plenty of people got rich (or made a more modest living) off of it, but that’s only because there were a lot more people who wanted to believe that the world faced some preventable crisis.

Count to 10 on June 12, 2011 at 7:35 PM

You need to sharpen up your counter-factual liberal idiot backward thinking process: All that this data proves is that our dear earth would have cooled down, helping build up some reserves for the upcoming onslaught of global warming, but global warming prevented this temporary cooling off period, so we are all doomed to fry soon. This is exactly like the stimulus spending: without it things would have been much worse. /sarc: I hate to have to add that tag.

GaltBlvnAtty on June 12, 2011 at 7:39 PM

In Maryland near DC, we’ve had some warmer-than-normal temperatures for the past few weeks. Must be all that hot air (if the bosses will pardon the expression) coming from both ends of PA Avenue.

Bigfoot on June 12, 2011 at 7:40 PM

Newt Goremny hardest hit.

itsnotaboutme on June 12, 2011 at 7:44 PM

Looks like my investments in ocean front property in Arizona won’t pan out. //snark

Slowburn on June 12, 2011 at 7:21 PM

Lex Luthor, is that you?

njrob on June 12, 2011 at 7:52 PM

In Maryland near DC, we’ve had some warmer-than-normal temperatures for the past few weeks. Must be all that hot air (if the bosses will pardon the expression) coming from both ends of PA Avenue.

Bigfoot on June 12, 2011 at 7:40 PM

I haven’t been here long (born/raise in CA), but I got the impression that it’s the near 100% humidity that makes it miserable.

Count to 10 on June 12, 2011 at 7:54 PM

Count to 10 on June 12, 2011 at 7:29 PM

I think you misread the article…

Gohawgs on June 12, 2011 at 7:56 PM

Cue next PR claim. It was supposed to be a natural cooling period, but instead it stayed even because of man-made warming. See, if you can’t move one goalpost, there’s always the second one that can be moved.

MrX on June 12, 2011 at 7:56 PM

I haven’t been here long (born/raise in CA), but I got the impression that it’s the near 100% humidity that makes it miserable.

Count to 10 on June 12, 2011 at 7:54 PM

DC was built on swampland no one else wanted. They’ve yet to drain it.

Roy Rogers on June 12, 2011 at 7:57 PM

“Great news from Debbie Wasserman-Schultz: We’ve turned this economy around”

We need to ask Debbie a few more questions.

Have the seas begun to recede, Debbie?

Has the planet begun to heal??

RedPepper on June 12, 2011 at 7:59 PM

BREAKING NEWS: Global temperatures unexpectedly low.

Stephen Macklin on June 12, 2011 at 8:00 PM

I haven’t been here long (born/raise in CA), but I got the impression that it’s the near 100% humidity that makes it miserable.

Count to 10 on June 12, 2011 at 7:54 PM

which makes it no different than any other heat wave.

People forget, unless it was months and months and months of something.

upinak on June 12, 2011 at 8:00 PM

Hey Manbearpig, you were, and still are, a lier

Kini on June 12, 2011 at 8:01 PM

I think you misread the article…

Gohawgs on June 12, 2011 at 7:56 PM

I don’t think so. The data was that Mars had been warming such that the dry-ice cape had been shrinking for the past three years. The writer speculates this a problem for AGW, but that would mostly only be if Earth was also warming over the same period — which it hasn’t substantially. Of course, that in itself is a problem for the AGW hypothesis, but in a different way.

Count to 10 on June 12, 2011 at 8:01 PM

Count to 10 on June 12, 2011 at 7:35 PM

P.T. Barnum syndrome.

Speakup on June 12, 2011 at 8:03 PM

I do love reading Dr. Roy Spencer. He presents evidence and proof of the greatest hoax perpetuated on the American people, since the TSA claiming to protect us.

Kini on June 12, 2011 at 8:04 PM

which makes it no different than any other heat wave.

People forget, unless it was months and months and months of something.

upinak on June 12, 2011 at 8:00 PM

California heat waves are 0% humidity. 110 degrees, sure, but no humidity. Maybe I grew up spoiled. Summers in MD suck, especially since the pools are only open for two months by law.

Count to 10 on June 12, 2011 at 8:06 PM

This article is More proof that:

SCIENCE is a search for TRUTH.

…whereas CONSENSUS is only a search for POLITICAL CORRECTNESS!!

landlines on June 12, 2011 at 8:06 PM

Count to 10 on June 12, 2011 at 8:01 PM

Is it possible, just throwing this out, that Earth’s CO2 increase has artificially lowered its natural temperature increase from variation in the Sun’s output?

OldEnglish on June 12, 2011 at 8:07 PM

DC was built on swampland no one else wanted. They’ve yet to drain it.

Roy Rogers on June 12, 2011 at 7:57 PM

They should have built it on a mountain top.

Count to 10 on June 12, 2011 at 8:08 PM

It’s becoming even more clear now. If carbon increases and the predicted warming didn’t follow

This is a great reason why you don’t leave important science to laypersons with a political agenda. You can cherry pick all the sources you can find, even ones from the Australia climate change ministry (oh my!). But if you asked for NASA’s overall perpsectives on global warming, the answer would be far different than what you suggest in pointing to NASA’s data.

http://climatesafety.org/climate-change-breaks-nasas-temperature-charts/

Conservatives need to stop fighting science. There’s too much money involved for such a large number of people to exclude themselves from such high growth areas of our economy.

bayam on June 12, 2011 at 8:09 PM

I do love reading Dr. Roy Spencer. He presents evidence and proof of the greatest hoax perpetuated on the American people, since the TSA claiming to protect us.

Kini on June 12, 2011 at 8:04 PM

You forgot Social Security

darwin-t on June 12, 2011 at 8:09 PM

It’s more like April than June.

Steve Eggleston on June 12, 2011 at 6:08 PM

Hey, we’ve got snow on Mauna Kea

Kini on June 12, 2011 at 8:10 PM

AGW is a religion. It does not need proof, it merely needs a theory and a following. The following must include high priests that push the lies, and a critical mass of highly gullible individuals. Skepticism cannot exist in the face of AGW–for where there is skepticism, a critical mass of dupes cannot be obtained.

ted c on June 12, 2011 at 8:10 PM

You forgot Social Security

darwin-t on June 12, 2011 at 8:09 PM

And Medicare… what was I thinking?!

Kini on June 12, 2011 at 8:14 PM

Is it possible, just throwing this out, that Earth’s CO2 increase has artificially lowered its natural temperature increase from variation in the Sun’s output?

OldEnglish on June 12, 2011 at 8:07 PM

Seems kind of implausible, but in highly non-linear systems, there is no way to be sure. Also, Mars has very little atmosphere and is geologically dead, but the sand storms change it’s albedo, so I’m not sure that the same solar effects wouldn’t different results.

Count to 10 on June 12, 2011 at 8:14 PM

Count to 10 on June 12, 2011 at 8:01 PM

Yes, 2005 is used in the article. The article also states that Mars, like Earth, has warmed and cooled over its history. Since Man doesn’t inhabit Mars, it stands to reason that Man wasn’t responsible for the various warming and cooling cycles on Mars. That some other “force”, maybe like the sun, is responsible for the changes in weather. It might just be the same here on Earth…

Gohawgs on June 12, 2011 at 8:15 PM

AGW is a religion. It does not need proof, it merely needs a theory and a following. The following must include high priests that push the lies, and a critical mass of highly gullible individuals. Skepticism cannot exist in the face of AGW–for where there is skepticism, a critical mass of dupes cannot be obtained.

ted c on June 12, 2011 at 8:10 PM

NOt a whole religion, just one of the tenets of the religion of the church of man-cause-catastrophe.

Count to 10 on June 12, 2011 at 8:16 PM

AGW is a religion. It does not need proof, it merely needs a theory and a following. The following must include high priests that push the lies, and a critical mass of highly gullible individuals. Skepticism cannot exist in the face of AGW–for where there is skepticism, a critical mass of dupes cannot be obtained.

ted c on June 12, 2011 at 8:10 PM

The devil was behind the scam revealing email release?

Roy Rogers on June 12, 2011 at 8:16 PM

This is a great reason why you don’t leave important science to laypersons with a political agenda. You can cherry pick all the sources you can find, even ones from the Australia climate change ministry (oh my!). But if you asked for NASA’s overall perpsectives on global warming, the answer would be far different than what you suggest in pointing to NASA’s data.

http://climatesafety.org/climate-change-breaks-nasas-temperature-charts/

Conservatives need to stop fighting science. There’s too much money involved for such a large number of people to exclude themselves from such high growth areas of our economy.

bayam on June 12, 2011 at 8:09 PM

As he cherry picks a chart with an irrelevant extremum.

Count to 10 on June 12, 2011 at 8:18 PM

Yes, 2005 is used in the article. The article also states that Mars, like Earth, has warmed and cooled over its history. Since Man doesn’t inhabit Mars, it stands to reason that Man wasn’t responsible for the various warming and cooling cycles on Mars. That some other “force”, maybe like the sun, is responsible for the changes in weather. It might just be the same here on Earth…

Gohawgs on June 12, 2011 at 8:15 PM

No argument with that. It’s just that it isn’t a really strong argument against AGW.

Count to 10 on June 12, 2011 at 8:21 PM

Count to 10 on June 12, 2011 at 8:14 PM

Ok, thanks for that, Count. We really don’t have a clue, do we?

OldEnglish on June 12, 2011 at 8:21 PM

It’s becoming even more clear now. If carbon increases and the predicted warming didn’t follow, then the obvious conclusion is that the hypothesis regarding cause and effect is incorrect — and the missing hot spots are even further evidence of this.

Nope. The obvious conclusion is that more fudge factors are needed.

unclesmrgol on June 12, 2011 at 8:24 PM

James Taylor: Ten Years And Counting: Where’s The Global Warming?
June 9th 2011, 9:01 AM
***********************

If atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions are the sole or primary driver of global temperatures, then where is all the global warming? We’re talking 10 years of higher-than-expected increases in greenhouse gases, yet 10 years of absolutely no warming. That’s 10 years of nada, nunca, nein, zero, and zilch.

There is a difference between global warming theory and alarmist global warming theory. Global warming theory holds that certain atmospheric gases warm the earth. Unless other factors intervene, adding more of these gases will tend to warm the atmosphere. This is well accepted across the scientific community. Alarmist global warming theory entails the additional assertion that the earth’s sensitivity to even very modest changes in atmospheric gases is extremely high. This is in sharp scientific dispute and has been repeatedly contradicted by real-world climate conditions.

Most powerfully, global temperature trends during the twentieth century sharply defied atmospheric carbon dioxide trends. More than half of the warming during the twentieth century occurred prior to the post-World War II economic boom, yet atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions rose minimally during this time. Between 1945 and 1977, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels jumped rapidly, yet global temperatures declined. Only during the last quarter of the century was there an appreciable correlation between greenhouse gas trends and global temperature trends. But that brief correlation has clearly disappeared this century.

Which brings us back to the sharp scientific disagreement about whether the earth’s climate is extremely sensitive or merely modestly sensitive to minor variances in the composition of its atmospheric gases. Carbon dioxide comprises far less than 1 percent of the earth’s atmosphere. In fact, we could multiply the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere a full 25 times and it would still equal less than 1 percent of the earth’s atmosphere. The alarmists claim that the minor increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations during the past 100 years, from roughly 3 parts per 10,000 to roughly 4 parts per 10,000, is causing climate havoc. Real-world temperature data tell us an entirely different story.

The Scientific Method requires testing a proposed scientific hypothesis before accepting it as the truth. When real-world observations contradict the hypothesis, you go back to the drawing board. For more than a century now, real-world climate conditions have defied the alarmist global warming hypothesis. This is especially so during the past decade, when temperatures should be rising dramatically if the alarmist hypothesis is correct. Temperatures are not rising dramatically. They are not even rising at all.
(More………………)

Oh well, back to the old drawing board…

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7825

canopfor on June 12, 2011 at 8:25 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4