Where did that Warming Go?

Though not particularly relevent to discussion one way or the other about long-term warming trends, world temperatures in April appear to again be relatively cool.  More intresting is the satellite-measured temperature trend for the last decade, which looks pretty flat (and this before shift of the PDO to its cool phase, probably this year).


Global warming theory as reported by the last IPCC predicted that the most warming was predicted for the middle troposphere over the tropics.  Its hard to see any warming in this region even over the last 30 years.  With no apparent warming in the sourthern hemisphere, "global" warming seems to be limited in the last 30 years to the Northen Hemisphere outside the tropics, and even this warming has stopped over the last 10 years.

18 thoughts on “Where did that Warming Go?”

  1. Very curious. They went from “global warming” to “climate change” and now I guess they’ll go to “global climate.” Without the “warming” and without the “change” it doesn’t seem to pack as hard a wallop, though. 😉

    There’s a fantastic article at Skeptic Magazine looking at the validity of GCMs, and climate pronouncements. Climate models fail the crap-detector test every time.

  2. Why is it so hard to understand that climate change is observed over decades, not years? This is really basic science. Your ‘no warming’ shit is scientifically ridiculous – as much so as saying that atoms don’t exist because you can’t see them, or that stars don’t move because you don’t perceive their motions. Current temperatures are totally consistent with an ongoing warming trend.

  3. Of COURSE climate is observed over decades, not years! If the AGWers weren’t such hucksters- on a par with con artists, they’d have acknowledged that the PDO was cyclical, with both positive periods and negative periods running 20 to 30 years. The fact that the PDO was in a positive phase over the late 70s to early 2000s- inflating the global warming trend, was ignored in their efforts to hype the extent of warming. – A. McIntire

  4. That’s right Scientist. We have been on a warming Trend since the mid 1800’s!!

    Of course, we have been on a cooling trend since about 7500 BP.

    We’ve been on a warming trend since the last ice age.


    Unfortunately for you, if we REALLY go back in time we are STILL on a COOLING trend based on the long Paleo record!!


    So, which is it Scientist?? Are we really WARMING or COOLING?!?!?!?!?!?!

    Is 30 years really long enough to establish a long term trend??


  5. I’ll preempt Scientist by saying “lrn2wblnk” (i.e. learn to put web links properly into a post), lol… like it matters…

    Also, why does it matter over what period of time we measure a warming or cooling trend? People should live life and stop worrying about these type of things. There are benefits/travesties for both warming and cooling. People have been around for a blip of Earth’s history and we (humankind) are talking about controlling a system which has been self-regulating for billions of years. The system will learn to self-regulate what humankind throws at it.

    I will trust Earth to regulate itself and adapt to whatever it throws back at me (warming or cooling). Either I go hang out at the beach with SPF 100 or build igloos and snowboard!!! win-win

  6. Scientist, climate is change. The question is the nature and cause of the change currently occurring, not the fact that it is changing. It’s the warmists who are irrationally extrapolating a short-term trend into man-made catastrophe. If we’re going to throw cheap analogies around, then the warmists claims are as scientifically ridiculous as finding dragons and puppies in cloud formations.

  7. Wait! Those aren’t really puppies and dragons that I’m seeing? 🙂

    Good point Kyle.

    In the end, it really doesn’t matter (warm or cool). My concern is not about temperature, but the cost of humanity’s stupidity. When ‘they’ decide to use force against others to control the climate, then we will see loss of individual liberty and the possible chance against nations who do not comply with the new world order.

  8. “scientist”-

    you ought to read postings before hurling invective at everyone. go back and read the first line of the posting.

    “Though not particularly relevant to discussion one way or the other about long-term warming trends…”

    so how much time is relevant? you never answer this question. for how long or how much would the world need to cool for you to say that the trend has changed?

  9. How rich have James Hansen and Algore gotten from all this? I’ve seen estimates that Gore’s net worth has risen by over $100 million pushing global warming and he has investments which could make him much richer, if he can scare governments into mandates that benefit his companies.

    Hansen apparently got 250 grand from John Kerry’s wife and 720 grand from George Soros for pushing the global warming line. Anyone familiar with Hansen’s total haul?

  10. stan-

    i have often heard those stories on hansen, but have never been able to confirm them.

    where did you get that data?



  11. And just think about the possibilities even if accepting a global warming trend. When making a prediction with chaotic/innumerable-variable systems. one must always be aware of the statement: “If current trends continue…”. Current trends never continue. Either some other variable or set of variable enters into the equation or — in human related systems — people adapt to the change and neutralize the effects (like building a sea wall).

    On the other hand, what if in 2025 or so, we experienced globally a series of massive and closely spaced volcanic activity that put up aerosols that were equal to several Mt Pinatubo’s? There could theorectically be a massive cooling for a short time; it could be a short but devastating cooling; then all of the projected warming might seen as a saving grace. My point is that we do not know the future, not even close; and to look at any temperature trend in black and white terms is a sign of hubris and plain stupidity. If the planet was obviously heating up 10 degrees C per decade that would be different. But the IPCC crowd predicts, what? 3-5 degrees C over a century, if current trends continue. I think they are all crazy and arrogant to tell the public and policy makers, who pander to the masses, that we need to cripple our economies for a potential threat that is not the end of the world and that no one really understands today,and will probably not understand for generations. They forget that only progress brings both a higher quality of human life and a cleaner environment for humans and animals — going back to the 15th century gives us only one side of the equation.

  12. I agree with mbabbitt. It’s a very interesting comment. There are a lot of problems with the IPCC forecasts, even giving GW for granted:

    1. I sincerely doubt the chart of carbon usage for the century. It’s way over the top, we will almost deplete fossil fuels long before 2100, and yet they trace it as it would forever grow up for centuries. It’s not real. Peak Oil will hit long before 2040, some people even think it is happening now. Peak Coal will be a reality in a few decades more. Perhaps 2030, perhaps 2050. Still, the numbers just don’t add up.

    2. IPCC forecasts that the economy woes due to GW would be equal to 5% of GDP of 2100. Let that sink in in your minds. 5%. That’s it. What’s the proposed alternative? Nuke the economy. God, ain’t that a great advice!

  13. Whoever controls the temperature records controls the climate. If you can change the temperature records to suit your own models, you can create your own climate–in the minds of dumbed down journalists and the public.

    Back in the 90s, VP Al Gore took a personal interest in NASA. I well knew that Gore’s interference set back the next-gen shuttle by over a decade, and that he diverted many millions of $$ from the ISS to Russia–which Russia spent on a new generation of more accurate ICBMs. I never thought to think what influence Mr. Gore was having on the part of NASA that dealt with climate. Now, I think I know.

  14. The cold will win the argument no matter how they fake the data. Eventually even the dumbest will realize it’s a hoax … pay more taxes and government will pretend to control the weather … the perfect scam.

    Looks like the English have got it pegged.

Comments are closed.