What Happened to Global Warming?
May 14, 2013 § 10 Comments
In a recent issue of the Economist is the disturbingly interesting report that in the last decade or so the carbon dioxide emitted was according to predictions but the temperature remained flat. Between 2000 and 2010 the world added about 100 billion tonne of CO2, but the five year running average of temperature remained flat over the same period.
This needs some serious explanation. That reduced emissions are generally good for us is not in question. But the models quantifying this ought to be robust if we want the general public energized. There is nothing robust about the model in the indicated period. Continued emphasis on energy efficiency is certainly warranted. This delivers both economic benefit and reduction in emissions. But the more costly carbon sequestration suggestions may now come under greater scrutiny.
Vikram Rao
Research Triangle Energy Consortium 
Vik:
so where is the connection between CO2 and temperature changes??
Yes more efficient use of energy is a wonderful thing…..and needs to be pursued…..but the public won’t stick around if they start believing they are being lied to……
Yes, that is in fact my point. The models are not predictive for the last decade. In fact, note that the temperature is drifting almost off the error band (click on the image to see larger image). If this keeps up, costly carbon mitigation measures may be a hard sell.
And yet, how do we reconcile the undeniable melting of polar ice, the greening of Iceland, the opening of the Northwest Passage. Something is happening at the phenomenological level, but not showing up as global warming.
Vikram
When the data do not support the hypothesis, one can either torture the data or change elements of the hypothesis. In this case, the error is glaring. The paleoclimatalogical record from Antarctic ice cores indicate rising temperatures Precede rising CO2, rather than the politically correct opposite.
Funny thing about facts, they always get in the way of prejudices.
IPCC stands for intergovernmental panel on climate change. A government body (UN) instigating climate change sang froid. A war on carbon based life forms. As Kurtz says in Heart of Darkness, ‘Exterminate the brutes!’
The scientific members who have dropped off the original body, the Faustian trembling from the Chairman and the incestuous relationship exposed between the remaining few should point to the need for Gargantua to consume the entire ridiculous entity.
A Nobel Prize for a slide show from an enfeebled political loser – really.
Models are for children. Let’s all grow up.
Efficient use of energy makes all the sense in the world. Tax subsidized false choices for costly power generation substitutions are foolish, whether for oil, nuclear or ‘alternative’ power generation.
The rara avis beauty of the shale gas and oil revolution is the subtle exposure of Adam Smith’s pin maker at work. George Mitchell pushed his crew to do the impossible. Devon and Halliburton went horizontal with massive computer power creating 2D, 3D and now 4D charts of the deep rock.
Just ten years ago, the stage was finally set for the exploitation of the sea of shale gas upon which thousands of landowners rest. They, their communities, their taxing authorities and the nation have faired rather nicely from such a rich combination of land rights, technology, driven and well paid workers, open architectural regulations and the free flow of risk capital.
And the first inning hasn’t even finished!
Vik- I don’t have a link handy because I’m on my phone, but I would recall that sulfur dioxide, while toxic in the form of acid rain, is one of the best substances for “geoengineering” because it reflects a great deal of sunlight back, whereas carbon debilitates the atmosphere’s ability to do so. Since China, India and other rising economies do not yet have the same commitment reducing criteria air pollutant rmissions, the theory is that the SO2 they are producing from unscrubbed coal units is probably delaying a great deal of “pent-up” warming. Thus a corollary of that theory would be that when combatting criteria air emissions becomes a priority for those nations (or are just naturally reduced by a switch from coal to fracked gas), warming would likely speed up.
It’s long been considered “Climate Change” not warming because of the erratic nature of the consequences.
But according to NOAA, April 2013 is the 338th consecutive month of above average global temperatures.
The nations that are quickly becoming submersed by sea water don’t really care what The Economist graph indicates.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/4
and which nations might those be?
Mauritius, Bangladesh, India, 30% of Africa’s coastline. How about NYC ?
But again, “338th consecutive month of above average global temperatures.”
The first is a volcanic island nation continuing to rise from the sea. The second and third could never distinguish between the monsoon effect, tidal forces and ‘rising seas’, given their low lying coasts. The latter is a continent. NYC has some of the best records for tidal change over the past 300 years – no change related to industrialization, sorry.
The correct answer is Seychelles, Andaman Islands, and Nauru, all of which have applied to the UN for aid in combating rising seas – without a scintilla of factual evidence – as represented by the UN’s response.
In fact, the oceans of the world rise and fall with the moon, sun, volcanism, local geologic forces. There is no evidence, outside of global warming models, of any human induced rise of sea levels as a result of the burning of fossil fuels and the subsequent release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
The facts are brutal, yet true.
Well Parli, that puts you firmly in the camp with 3% of the world’s scientists.
Again I reiterate, “338th consecutive month of above average global temperatures”, as reported by NOAA, not The Economist.
Now that, three years later, NOAA has been discredited for ‘adjusting’ the temps and the satellite data continues to support a flatline for temp increases, where do the 34,000+ scientists stand on AGW? Firmly in doubt. I doubt Naomi Orestes is interested in their 19% figure for support of AGW. But, who cares about opinion, as science is about proving or disproving the N hypothesis. Try it, you’ll like it…