« Insurance Industry Audit Says Insurance Premiums will Increase Faster with Senate Baucus Bill | Main | The Ongoing Woes of the M-16 Family of Weapons »

This Week in AGW

(That's Anthropogenic Global Warming, in case your wondering about the TLA)

It has not been a good week for proponents of the "accepted science" of Global Warming.

First and foremost, the weather has not been cooperating. Record cold, near record cold, and early snows have been reported across the northern expanses of North America, Europe, and Asia.

Second, the International Media has found, and reported on, "new" information which places grave doubt on the conclusions which have been touted as settled.

What happened to global warming?
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

By Paul Hudson, Climate correspondent

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

We're not quite sure exactly, but we are pretty sure that whatever it is, it isn't "Global Warming."


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (43)

Well, that makes it officia... (Below threshold)
Glenn Cassel AMH1(AW) USN Retired:

Well, that makes it official. Al Gore is a lying sack of manure.

Well, of course its not "gl... (Below threshold)

Well, of course its not "global warming" silly, it's "climate change", but that doesn't change the strategy. See, just like in that movie "Day After Tomorrow", now we're going to have freak sub-zero temperatures and snow.

As we used to say as kids w... (Below threshold)

As we used to say as kids we say to AL GORE and the green crowd LIAR,LIAR PANTS ON FIRE HANGING FROM A TELEPHONE WIRE and AL GORE is lying through his teeth

September was warmer here t... (Below threshold)

September was warmer here than July..Its already been down in the 20s 4 times, it is snowing right now for the 6th time this week, could not even bear to sit in the bleachers at My sons football game on Friday it was so cold..

8 months of winter and 4 months without a summer. Stick it Gore and You other warming morons.

Why do you think the Enviro... (Below threshold)

Why do you think the Enviro Wackos changed the title of the scam last year it not "Global Warming" its "Climate Change" that way no matter what the real scientist prove it still climate change to them, and the money keeps on rolling in. The wackos kick back the required amount to the politician and the DNC and everybody is happy.

It seems that all of the so... (Below threshold)
The Whistler:

It seems that all of the solutions to global warming involve socialism.

Capturing excess CO2, if that's necessary, would be cheaper than what the socialists are doing.

So what on Earth i... (Below threshold)
So what on Earth is going on?

Sun Spots
Yes maybe that big ball of gas that radiates heat could in fact have some affect on the Planets Climate.

But..but...but....Al says i... (Below threshold)

But..but...but....Al says it's all our fault (note his, OURS). It's almost like he's making millions off this racket.......er.......

As for 'climate change' being a NEW thing, guess that explains the crocodile skeletons buried in the Sahara.

Al Gore can come to My plac... (Below threshold)

Al Gore can come to My place and shovel Me out of this heatwave I have created anytime.

Isn't it obvious? Obama ge... (Below threshold)

Isn't it obvious? Obama gets elected - BOOM! - done! He's just that good. As for the past decade, clearly you don't understand the time-distorting physics of Obey-Won as well as the Nobel Peace Committee does.

They've been predicting glo... (Below threshold)
The Whistler:

They've been predicting global warming for 20 years. What did the models from 20 years ago predict for the year 2009?

Was it accurate?

If not we know that the entire thing is a scam.

The current cooling trend i... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

The current cooling trend is only temporary.

Says who? The BBC article that Graves linked to - obviously he didn't read it all the way through.

But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.

So what can we expect in the next few years?

Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.

It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).

"We're not quite sure exactly, but we are pretty sure that whatever it is, it isn't "Global Warming."

Only if you skim the top, don't pay attention to details, and don't drill down to the conclusions drawn by the scientist YOU linked to, Mr. Graves.

So Steve, they say that hig... (Below threshold)
The Whistler:

So Steve, they say that higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the worldwide average temperature.

CO2 rose from 1998, but the temperature didn't.

1998 was warm, but it was pretty similar to the 1930's (1936 I believe.) Were the CO2 levels the same?

We've been in a warming trend since the little ice age ended in the 1800's. Was that because of CO2? If so then what led to the little ice age?

Not to worry, not to worry.... (Below threshold)

Not to worry, not to worry. The models that completely failed to predict the current "temporary" cooling are "predicting" that it's going to be molten any year now. My model predicts it.

Steve - AGW has already bee... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Steve - AGW has already been shown to be a load of bunk. Scientists are fleeing association with it. It is fast becoming the reserve of wackos like yourself.

Serious climatologists will not dispute that the earth has gotten warmer, but they will no longer be so quick to jump to the unsupported conclusion that it is being caused by man.

Studies of the other planets have demonstrated warming this century too. I suppose that the Mars rover was putting out too much CO2. Scientists have agreed that much if not all of the climate change on other planets is caused by solar activity, but until recently have been unwilling to admit that the same activity can have similar effects on earth.

People who can read have looked back to the 70's (some of us can remember them) and we see that back then the fear was the coming ice age. The same lunatics screaming about the polar ice caps melting now were the ones screaming about runaway glaciers destroying the major cities of North America and mass famine due to crop failures in shortened growing seasons.

You're obviously too young or too stupid to remember these things.

There are good reasons to reduce emissions etc. In fact the US has reduced its emissions faster and further than and signatory to the Kyoto accord. Smell any hypocrisy there?

Al Gore doesn't control his carbon footprint he buys bogus carbon offsets. Anyone who has bothered to look at that realizes that they are a scam. Al invests in companies that maybe will reduce carbon emissions in the future, but here is no guarantee that they will or that they wouldn't have anyway without he investment. Oh, and Al gets a return on his investment too. For his scam he got a Peace Prize too. Next they'll give one to Bernie Madoff.

Liberal's are like the peop... (Below threshold)

Liberal's are like the people that believed the earth was flat. No matter how much evidence is shown to them, they still refuse to believe. I didn't see or read scientific data, I saw words like predict, may come, etc. Very informative and conclusive. No wonder Stevie the "special needs" troll believes. ww

Stevie really is a total id... (Below threshold)

Stevie really is a total idiot.

"Hey ObamaGoreAcle!! ... (Below threshold)

"Hey ObamaGoreAcle!!

I have a shovel ready profect for You two geniuses.. My driveways already got 6 inches of snow on it. Get Your lazy asses over here, give Me My stimulis funding start up costs and start digging nimrods!"

Whistler, Falze -T... (Below threshold)

Whistler, Falze -

The computer models 20 years back were pretty crude compared to what's being pushed out today. (Hey, think about Windows XP as compared to Windows 1.0)

I am willing to credit that there's computer models that accurately model the current conditions. I also think if they do exist that the forecasts they're pumping out are being discarded because they don't fit the 'correct' scenarios.

Anyone else recall how the hurricane forecasts for the last couple of years have been wildly inaccurate? A quick check shows there's been 2 tropical storms that escalated to hurricanes this year... with the highest speeds reported being 135 mph with Hurricane Bill. (Barely a Cat 4 - the cutoff is 130 mph.)

From the Wiki - 2009 Atlantic Hurricane Season...

Klotzbach's team (formerly led by Gray) defined the average number of storms per season (1950 to 2000) as 9.6 tropical storms, 5.9 hurricanes, 2.3 major hurricanes (storms reaching at least Category 3 strength in the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale) and ACE Index 96.1.[3] NOAA defines a season as above-normal, near-normal or below-normal by a combination of the number of named storms, the number reaching hurricane strength, the number reaching major hurricane strength and ACE Index.[4]

Pre-season forecasts
On December 10, 2008, Klotzbach's team issued its first extended-range forecast for the 2009 season, predicting above-average activity (14 named storms, 7 hurricanes, 3 of Category 3 or higher and ACE Index of 125). On April 7, 2009, Klotzbach's team issued an updated forecast for the 2009 season, predicting near-average activity (12 named storms, 6 hurricanes, 2 of Category 3 or higher and ACE Index of 100), citing the possible cause as the high probability of a weak El Niño forming during the season.[5] On May 21, 2009, NOAA issued their forecast for the season, predicting near or slightly above average activity, (9 to 14 named storms, 4 to 7 hurricanes, and 1 to 3 of Category 3 or higher).[6]
Yeah, I know it's Wikipedia, and should be taken with a horse-block of salt, but the numbers are there.

Let's review the forecasts -

Average number of storms - 9.6
Average number of hurricanes - 5.9
Average major hurricanes/yr - 2.3 Cat 3 or greater.

2009 Forecast

14 named storms.
7 hurricanes.
3 Cat 3 or higher.

Versus the actual to date

8 named storms.
2 hurricanes.
2 barely reaching Cat 3.

Looks like we're below average for the year. Reality doesn't seem to much care whether it comports itself according to model behavior or not - and I think the sooner the climate scientists admit that there's still variables they haven't accounted for, the better it'll be for us all.

"No one before the 18... (Below threshold)
jim m:

"No one before the 1830s believed that medieval people thought that the earth was flat."


Go read the link. I'm so sick of this flat earth BS. The only people who believe that ANYONE believed the earth was flat are ones educated by the US public school system.

And you can add that to the reasons that our public schools suck. They teach lies to our kids.

IMO, this , AGW, is the rea... (Below threshold)

IMO, this , AGW, is the real Al Gore legacy.

He helps to found GIM, Generation Investment Management. This London based firm invests it's money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe. They also sell carbon credits.

Gore produces An Inconvenient Truth. A movie full of exagerations that scares the hell out of most people who watch the movie.

Gore travels the world promoting global warming. The media reports it all as fact and they are especially adamant about pushing the lie that there is a scientific consensus.

This leads to govts around the world panicking and investing in so-called green technology.

So, how does so-called Cap & Trade help?
And who is really going to benefit from this?

Unfortunately for Gore, there appears to be some truth to the theory of Karma. Proof of that is so-called "Gore affect".

Soon alGore is gonna acknow... (Below threshold)

Soon alGore is gonna acknowledge the cooling trend...and take credit for it!

I'm actually surprised he hasn't already done it.

One thing that's becoming o... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

One thing that's becoming obvious to even some of the climate alarmists is that no one can create a computer model for a system they don't understand. What you end up with is stupidity at the speed of light. Apart from the computer models there's no evidence that CO2 causes warming at any level that can be caused by human activity.

The physics of CO2 forcing itself is flawed, being assumed to exist from the discrepancy between black body radiation equations and direct measurements. The simplistic assumption that the discrepancy must be the result of so-called green house gases is at the heart of all the warming models. That simplistic assumption ignores the effects of clouds, heat sinking and the shifting infrared emissivity of our atmosphere that occur on a spinning body illumated from one location, you know, like the earth illumated by the sun.

I spend my days in bed, lim... (Below threshold)

I spend my days in bed, limiting activity and
food intake. I collect all waste, including
my own, compost it, and return it to my garden
soil. Trouble is...my tomatos taste like
s&#t. Oh well, I'm doing my part. Please
follow my example; good old Mother Earth and
Al Gore will thank you. Now, back to bed,
with minimal respirations and the CFLs OFF.

"Well, that makes it off... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

"Well, that makes it official. Al Gore is a lying sack of manure."

"It's official..." until you actually read the conclusions of the scientist that Graves linked to:

But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.

"Stevie really is a total idiot."

I'd say the idiots are the ones who applauded the article and claimed it supported your side without knowing what it says.

Sucks to be you, you, YOU, you and you.... All I did was read the damn thing and quote it - you idiots licked it and hugged it without knowing what it said.

Run, Forrest, Run!

Read, Forrest, Read.

It's amazing, when you thin... (Below threshold)

It's amazing, when you think about it.

We all do it...we flip on the weather and see what the weather guy or gal has to say. Invariably (at least for those of us that live in places with weather that changes from day to day) they cannot get the forecast correct, but can spot on tell us what the weather was yesterday. I don't mean that they miss the daily high by a degree or two...they miss blizzards, hurricanes, damaging wind, they can't even really tell us if it's going to rain where we live...

But we keep tuning in, skeptically, to at least get an idea what might happen at most a few days in advance. I trust my local weather man 100%...to tell me what happened yesterday. I can tune in day after day and trust them and believe them when they tell me what the weather was like in the area the day before. But it does nothing to prove to me that they can be depended on to tell me what will happen tomorrow.

Now we're applying this to years, decades, centuries. They can pretty well relate what the weather was in the 1970s. Much better in the 1990s, much worse in the 1890s, let alone longer ago. Yet they "predict", within a degree, the temperature in a century.

Some of us tune in with interest about what they factually relate about the past and even pause to see what they're guessing for the future. We have a chuckle when they admit that their "models" couldn't predict the past 10 years (even when fed with data after the fact). And some of us still blindly trust the climate guy or gal when they tell us to panic about tomorrow despite the fact that they are using the same methods that led them to incorrectly predict what happened yesterday. And, amazingly enough, are smug about their trust.

It takes a bold bullspitter to stand up in front of a crowd, say they completely failed to do their job over the past few years, but please trust them when they say they can tell us what will happen when I am retired...using the same methods. And it takes a very "special" sort of person to applaud them.

If you're like me, have a h... (Below threshold)

If you're like me, have a halfway decent science education and enough curiosity to go look, you'll like this website. Science also teaches us that things change - weather and climate, vegetation, even us. Anyone that believes that they can prevent change is an idiot, and that goes double for Congress and AlGore.

jim m - "Al Gore doesn'... (Below threshold)

jim m - "Al Gore doesn't control his carbon footprint he buys bogus carbon offsets. Anyone who has bothered to look at that realizes that they are a scam."

That.... and he LOVES to shutdown any counter arguments and dissent or those that question him.

Example, watch this video of a couple days ago when The Gorable is questioned about the 9 glaring errors in his hack movie.

The Goracle can't answer to the factual errors in his film, so he and his supporters try to silence the questions about them by cutting the questioners mic.

Oh, and BTW, isn't it funny, in a sad way, how the enviro-whackoos decry studies because of financial ties to Big Oil or other such nonsesnse yet haven't a word to say about The Goracle profiting mightily so far and stands to gain hundreds of millions if crap and tax passes in any form.

Pssst s green</stro... (Below threshold)

Pssst s green, as long as you're whining about a section left out or not commented on from the linked article I wonder why you left out this section in your futile search for relevance.

But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.

[the disagreement being this statement: "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity,"]

He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.

He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.

If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.

Steve Green, you short-bus ... (Below threshold)

Steve Green, you short-bus ridin', window-lickin' retard -

Tell us all what enviro-fraud model, when loaded with the Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age, accurately predicts our current climate and environment.

Until you get something, STFU.

Uh, Steve. Just because a s... (Below threshold)

Uh, Steve. Just because a scientist "believes" that the trend is temporary doesn't mean there is any data or theory supporting his "belief".

Science doesn't operate on "belief", but on observable and recorded data.

And just how do these "believers" account for the current non-warming trend? They don't. People (like me) who understand science and the scientific method understand that, scientifically, the AGW theory is being undermined by the specific lack of data to support it.

I'm not sure Mr. (other) Gr... (Below threshold)

I'm not sure Mr. (other) Green is reading what he claims we ain't readin'. The scientist quoted said he "BELIEVES" the cooling will be temporary. Why does he have such belief since there is no evidence to the contrary? He believes it because if it is obvious he is wrong then he will have to find something productive to do.

Stevie is the type that whe... (Below threshold)

Stevie is the type that when something really bad happens he can be found in the corner in a fetal position sucking his thumb mumbling "it isn't happening".

I believe Obama should get the meteorologist award.

Gore is down to turning off mic's if he disagrees with you.

Steve Green is down to quoting a scientist who "believes" we will get warmer. Wow! What a bunch of challenged people. ww

You think Global warming is... (Below threshold)
jim m:

You think Global warming is real?

Then consider this: If you were a scientist and you had the world's most comprehensive record of climate data and that data was the basis on which all these computer models and theories were based on, wouldn't you take REALLY good care of that data?

No of course not you'd throw it away so no one else could prove you wrong.


Just as Mann committed academic fraud to produce his famous Hockey stick graph these A-holes have done the same thing.

NASA had to correct a decade of temperature records downwards by 2 degrees C because of a math error.

90% of US weather stations are maintained so poorly that they over estimate temperature by 1 to 5 Degrees C. http://www.surfacestations.org/

And so you still believe in global warming because a bunch of academic frauds and incompetents "Believe" that it is real?


In the spirit of Columbus d... (Below threshold)
jim m:

In the spirit of Columbus day I invite every AGW believer to think again about what they "Know"


Steve My kids use th... (Below threshold)

My kids use this site maybe yout scientist can also.


We should be in the step where Hypothesis is False

Problem with bad data and s... (Below threshold)

Problem with bad data and science is it is often repeated often enough that people believe them even when it has been proven false. For example the claim that 1998 was the hottest recorded year is false after someone reverse engineer one of Al Gore appointee and found his numbers to be in "error".


It draws in the creditability of reporters who get their facts wrong.

Marc @ 28... The Goracle... (Below threshold)

Marc @ 28... The Goracle can't answer to the factual errors in his film, so he and his supporters try to silence the questions about them by cutting the questioners mic.

That was rather entertaining, wasn't it? His Goreness kept asking "Do you think polar bears are endangered?" while the journalist kept trying to interject "Their numbers are increasing."

And they are - 20-25 thousand at the last 'census'.

Plus, they're apex predators in their environment, and they're not picky about their food.

Seals are the polar bear's primary prey, particularly the ringed seal and, sometimes, the bearded seal. When hunting is good, polar bears will typically eat only the fat and leave the rest of the carcass for scavengers including arctic foxes, ravens, and younger bears.

Polar bears also sometimes kill and eat both walrus and beluga whales. They have been known to hunt short-legged reindeer and sometimes snack on other foods including birds, bird eggs, kelp, and beached whales. On Norway's Svalbard Islands, polar bears were once found feasting on a 350-year-old bowhead whale carcass that was uncovered by a retreating glacier.
In the end, it doesn't MATTER what you think, what matters is REALITY.

(This is a concept that really, really seems to escape the left.)

Weegie:-"Just because a sci... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

Weegie:-"Just because a scientist "believes" that the trend is temporary doesn't mean there is any data or theory supporting his "belief".

Science doesn't operate on "belief", but on observable and recorded data."-


Spot on.
Actually, AGW 'science' is a mostly belief-based political/social system. That darn pesky data keeps giving them fits.

To the rubes that follow it, it is a religion.
To the 'leaders' that preach it, it is power over the rubes.

If we go into a true mini-ice age with all the assosiated famine and death etc..., then there are going to be a lot of AGW Goreites swinging from lampposts.

How do you ever expect to c... (Below threshold)
Constitution First:

How do you ever expect to control the weather if you can't get on-board with a simple little lie like AGW?

We need lion-hearted solders to do battle with the truth-sayers; when the Gorical speaks, you regurgitate, got that?

Now I want everyone to to write a nice "Dear Al" letter to: [email protected]

Like this one:
Dear Al.
I'm curious, how is it possible to control the the climate (weather), by controlling a tiny percentage, of a trace greenhouse gas, that humans contribute 3% of? Could you explain?

Even if it were possible; would it be worth placing this country at risk of economic ruin for such uncertain effect?

By who's authority do you make this commitment, without this nations approval of it?

If this is about pollution, wouldn't you state it as such? otherwise your organizations' statements and actions are misleading at best.

Most of us think this is simply a monstrous lie, used as an excuse, for yet another tax.

"Steve - My kids use thi... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

"Steve - My kids use this site maybe yout scientist can also."

Not MY scientist - The Scientist that Rodney Graves linked to and quoted in his article above - the same scientist that everyone thought was wonderful when they believed it supported their hatred of Al Gore and liberals in general.

None of you clowns even read the article or you would have found that it didn't support Graves' position - and obviously he didn't read it or at least didn't understand it.

Pathetic, and hilarious at the same time.

there's a big difference be... (Below threshold)

there's a big difference between being pleased that past data, reveals that someone's projections were wrong versus buying into more projections that go against that past data, dipstick

None of you clowns... (Below threshold)
None of you clowns even read the article or you would have found that it didn't support Graves' position - and obviously he didn't read it or at least didn't understand it.

I read it. The point is that we have models did not accurately predict climate change. Therefore a good scientist would go back and re-examine the data. it is obvious that other factors affect the earths climate aside from CO2.

Instead they hold by their belief in the face of facts. That is no longer science it is faith.

What the conclusion of the article states what we all have know that the debate is not over.

So what can we expect in the next few years?
Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.
It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).
Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.
One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy