16 1 min 15 yrs

Whoops. Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said. The World Meteorological Organization’s secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer. This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998. An inconvenient truth?

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

16 thoughts on “GLOBAL WARMING COOLED!

  1. I like the fact there is a prediction in the article. They say a record breaking year within the next five. That would be a practical sign that AGW is a real issue.

    Then again ten years ago you would have good very good odds on no warming from certain people in this parish.

  2. An inconvenient truth?

    No, just La Nina at work.

    They have confidently predicted that the record high temperatures set in 1998 will be exceeded within the next few years. But the denialists will have that time to think up more reasons for doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about carbon emissions.

  3. "This would mean global temperatures HAVE NOT RISEN SINCE 1998."

    No it wouldn’t mean that and there is nothing magical about 1998 that makes the question even interesting.

    Graph temperature since 1975, or analyse the data, and it is blatantly obvious that the trend is upward and recent data is still consistent with that.

    Henry,

    "That would be a practical sign that AGW is a real issue"

    And then, having delayed for up to 5 years, you’ll demand another practical sign. After all, that’s what’s happened with all the practical signs so far.

    If 2012 breaks the record, there’ll be somebody saying in 2015 that global warming stopped in 2012. If the temperature doesn’t oblige, they’ll find some other short-term noise to obsess about.

  4. There may be a record temperature in the next five years since records began, but there’ll be no record temperature. If so, and as records began yesterday in climatic terms – so what?

    Peter –

    But the denialists will have that time to think up more reasons for doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about carbon emissions.

    No need. The free market is delivering a cleaner, more efficient future even as you fret.

  5. Pete Moore,

    " If so, and as records began yesterday in climatic terms – so what?"

    Records did not begin yesterday in climactic terms. Climate is measured on timescales of ~30 years.

    If you mean geologic timescales, it is not even yesterday on that scale either. On geologic timescales, all of this is happening in the blink of an eye. That is a problem because it’s the delta and the rate that matters.

    And that’s just the temperature. Meanwhile the ocean is also becoming acidified by the same cause.

    "The free market is delivering a cleaner, more efficient future even as you fret."

    Just like it did on Easter Island. Similarly the free market is going to build semi-detached houses on Venus and we’ll all have flying skateboards by 2015.

  6. David: I know you are a smart guy. Do you feel even a little queasy about the balance of mainstream scientific thought on this issue? Your side (despite the quacks they find) has very few real experts on its side.

  7. Mahons,

    It’s the science bit that interest me most. That’s what I like to debate and so when I went to the Friends of the Earth conference, care of the BBC, I was shocked to find that they didn’t WANT to at leat cover the issues such as how man-made C02 emissions make such a dramatic impact of our planets climate – instead I was heckled and booed – childish.

    I dispute the fact that there are "few" scientists who share my rejection of the AGW agenda, but to put it another way, suppose they ALL agreed with the Rev Gore, it would not be the first time the scientific community "agreed" only to discover they were completely and utterly wrong. My example – that magical ozone hole.

  8. David,

    I just knew when I read this today that you’d be leaping upon it like a priest on an altarboy.

    I so much want you to be right. But unlike you I have no offspring and intend keeping it that way. I do hope your line will be able to cope with the ghastliness the future holds for our beleaguered planet.

  9. David,

    " it would not be the first time the scientific community "agreed" only to discover they were completely and utterly wrong. My example – that magical ozone hole."

    Not the best example you could have chosen since the ‘skeptics’ about the ozone hole were (a) wrong, not prescient – this would still be so even if CFCs had nothing to do with ozone depletion (b) succeeded in delaying things until the damage was completely obvious – in fact much worse than expected (c) not just like AGW denialists, but in many cases the same people (e.g. Fred Singer).

    It’s a complete red herring anyway, since no matter what the uncertainties are, the scientific community is more likely to be right than the average punter.

  10. The science is one thing but the economics and the politics are something else.

    Take a non-controversial scientific fact. Smoking kills. Nobody seriously disputes that and if we were sensible creatures we would simply stop this useless expensive unhealthy activity. But many don’t.

    So if people can’t stop an activity that they know is killing them how do you persuade them to change a course that is allegedly killing the planet when the alternative is, effectively, poverty now.

    You may change behaviour around the margins, make people reuse their shopping bags or change their bulbs. But the scale of change that would be necessary to reduce carbon sufficiently to make a difference? That’s not a realistic political proposition. Even those who advocate it don’t do it in their own lives.

    So we are really facing a campaign of tax increases wrapped up in the language of environmentalism which will allow governments to take more of our money which will be used for vote-buying.

    The extra tax you pay on your car is as likely to be used to build more roads as anything else.

  11. Peter, Frank, when did you discover that the world hasn’t been warming since 1998? Do you agree that the world hasn’t been warming since 1998, irrespective of the reason?

  12. Henry,

    "The science is one thing but the economics and the politics are something else."

    Yes. But the ‘skeptics’ have hitched their star to bad science, so it seems safe to assume that they believe they have no economic answers either.

    "Take a non-controversial scientific fact. Smoking kills."

    In fact there were similar lobbies that tried to cast doubt on that too.

    "Nobody seriously disputes that and if we were sensible creatures we would simply stop this useless expensive unhealthy activity. But many don’t."

    And the fact that there is a market for it still shows that many of the assumptions underlying the free market – rational agents acting in their own and therefore all of our interests – are far from a given.

    Q: How many free market fundies does it take to change a light bulb?
    A: None, they just sit in the dark and wait for an invisible hand to change it for them

  13. Allan,

    "Do you agree that the world hasn’t been warming since 1998, irrespective of the reason?"

    Why would you pick 1998? 1998 was a record high point. Furthermore the period since 1998 is too short and includes too much WEATHER noise to conclude anything significant about CLIMATE warming or cooling. Try a 30 year period, which is long enough to average out the weather, and you will see a significant upward trend.

  14. Frank

    And the fact that there is a market for it still shows that many of the assumptions underlying the free market — rational agents acting in their own and therefore all of our interests – are far from a given.

    The market is working very well for cigarettes. Buyers and sellers do business all the time. Where society tries to prevent the distribution of dangerous goods for which a demand exists it does little to prevent the coming together of buyers and sellers but makes sure the sellers are armed.

    The key point is that governments understand that banning smoking won’t work and concentrate on restrictions. It is a fine example of governments having an intelligent approach.

    Recognising the effectiveness of markets does not mean they should have free rein in all circumstances. That is why we have politics. The libertarians and the Leninists are the tiny extremes. Most people are in the centre.

    The invisible hand won’t change your bulb but it will make sure you don’t have to put your name on a waiting list to get one.

  15. more fraud exposed on the ipcc report. Yes yes the consensus of 100s of scientists reviwing the data LOL What they actually did was fill out a form letter questionare about the data. Gee thats a real in depth review…

  16. Troll,

    So what did the reviewers miss? Provide some actual quotes from the IPCC report that are materially wrong.

Comments are closed.