No warming since 1998? Get real, deniers!

Posted on

"No warming since 1998? Get real, deniers!"

Honestly, if anyone tells you “For nearly a decade now, there has been no global warming” — as this Boston Globe columnist and some commenters on this blog have — they simply are not interested in seriously trying to undestand and deal with the gravest problem facing humanity. They deserve the label “global warming denier” for willfully trying to confuse the public debate.

Let’s look at the data, from NASA, presented last month:

Through the first 11 months, 2007 is the second warmest year in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean has entered the cool phase of its natural El Ni±o — La Ni±a cycle.


Figure (a) Annual surface temperature anomaly relative to 1951-1980 mean, based on surface air measurements at meteorological stations and ship and satellite measurements of sea surface temperature; the 2007 point is the 11-month anomaly. [Green error bar is estimated 2σ uncertainty….]

Yes, in some global datasets — not NASA’s however — 1998 is still the peak year because that year we had global warming PLUS the warm phase of the natural El Ni±o — La Ni±a cycle. But guess what, deniers? Climate change is about a change in the “climate.” A single year doesn’t make the climate, that’s why people use a running average — in order to show the trend. Duh!

NASA points out:

The six warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 15 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1988.

That would be a trend, as the figure above shows.

All those who say there’s been no warming since 1998, you should be happy to take a $1000 bet against the claim that this decade will be warmer than the last one, and that the next decade will be even warmer. Heck, I’ll give you 2-to-1 odds. Anyone who won’t take such a generous bet — you really deserve even odds if you are serious about what you are saying, like the Globe writer who claims we’re actually going to start global cooling — is just trying to confuse the public debate with rhetoric they don’t even really believe themselves. And that is the very definition of a global warming denier.

By the way deniers, when one of the next five years turns out to be the hottest on record in all the datasets, which is very likely barring a major volcano — will you admit you were wrong and the planet is warming due to rising human-generated emissions of carbon dioxide as predicted by the scientific community? Somehow, I think not.


« »

18 Responses to No warming since 1998? Get real, deniers!

  1. Paul K says:

    I hope your increasing desire to wager thousands of dollars on climate predictions isn’t a sign of a gambling problem. You might also ask the lawyers at the progress center about the propriety of soliciting bets on the internet. Just kidding.
    The graph shows a consistent warming trend from 1975 to 1998 and a leveling off since then. It is warmer than it was. It is still warmer than it was. Nothing in the graph indicates it it getting cooler. The British Met office has a slightly different graph. Their’s shows 2005 not quite as warm. NASA originally did too, but they adjusted their analysis higher.

  2. Joe says:

    As you know from the original NASA post, we’re in a down-cycle of solar activity and a La Nina. As Hansen says, barring a volcano, we’ll see the warmest year ever within 5 years.

  3. hippie with a pistol says:

    Joe has AGAIN been caught misrepresenting the solar radiation record. From his post you get the impression that TSI is at a minimum over an extended time frame. But that’s not the case.

    Although were are entering a solar minimum Dr Judith Lean has found that there is overall increasing solar activity during this century. She has reported that TSI during recent solar maximums has been higher than at any time in the past 4 centuries.

    Dr Kopp at SORCE notes that an estimated increase of 0.04% would induce appreciable climate change if it persists for a sufficient number of solar cycles.

    Since the Maunder Minimum solar energy has slowly increased over each subsiquent 11-year solar cycle.

    Furthermore, Dr Judith Lean finds that solar forcing is greater than previously expected:

    In the recent report, “The Sun Approaches Its 11 Year Minimum and Activity Cycle 24″

    “Climate response to decadal solar forcing has previously been expected to be too small to be detected. (Scientists reasoned that the amount of change caused by solar forcing would be too small to change the ocean temperatures significantly—i.e., any change would be dampened by the ocean’s thermal inertia.) However, recent empirical results associating decadal solar variability and climate contradict this expectation, and recent studies are beginning to shed light on how this may take place.”

  4. Joe says:

    Nothing has been more disproven than solar cycles being the major cause of recent warming. It is now tinfoil hat stuff. Spend some time on realclimate. Seriously!

  5. Ronald says:

    The way I look at it is, the carbon dioxide levels increases in the atmosphere are not enough to overcome any one year’s weather and weather patterns, but over time when we have increased the carbon dioxide enough, it will overcome individual years weather to greater than we have now.

    According to this web site:

    The co2 level was 365 parts per million in the atmosphere in 1998. (in November) In 2007 the co2 level was 382 parts per million which is a difference of 17 parts per million. This level is apparently not enough to overcome some differences is weather that can occur from a year to the next few years. 1998 was a year for a warmer weather pattern then the years after it.

    But when the levels of carbon dioxide get up to 400, 450 and 500 parts per million and then add in time, to change the earth by maybe melting the arctic ice and other changes, then the extra carbon dioxide does overcome any one years weather. We then have shifted to another climate.

    Same thing happens with alcohol. If I have a few drinks, it still might not be enough to overcome my driving skills. But if I keep on drinking, as hard as I might try, I can’t stay the same in physical or mental responses. Add enough carbon dioxide, and any favorable weather pattern won’t make our world cooler. We’ll be in a different warmer climate.

  6. Erl Happ says:

    You’re on Joe. Two to one on $1000. Great odds. ‘this decade will be warmer than the last one’ is what you are saying. Can we make the judgement in 2018? Its solar cycle 24 that will bring the chill, starting as of now. Index for inflation?

  7. Jay Alt says:

    Hippie, you are a funnyman.

    Dr. Judith Lean of NRL served as an author on the IPCC’s Scientific Basis report.

    And that chapter, which dealt with Solar Forcing, lowers the estimate of total solar irradiance (TSI) changes (over long periods) compared to the previous IPCC report (2001).

    They lowered the TSI estimates by a factor of 2 to 4. And the reference used to justify that drop is a paper by Judith Lean.

  8. Dano says:


    you should take your (likely) winnings from rubes like Erl and give them to charity, rather than keeping them for yourself, as this is akin to candy-from-babies.

    Jus’ sayin’



  9. Paul K says:

    Absent forcings and feedbacks a doubling of CO2 ppm yields a 1.2C temperature rise. The actual rise depends on the effect of forcings and feedbacks which is the area of climate science where there are still a lot of unknowns. What is known is that climate, even without any influence by man, is neither static nor linear.

  10. Ronald says:

    Paul K,
    You’re right about the complicated forcings and feedbacks. I wasn’t trying to describe anything to complicated. This discussion actually came up in a bar a couple of weeks ago and that’s the explaination I gave. I hope I wasn’t to far off.

    The co2 sensitivity I try to give people is that at this website:

    Frankly I haven’t followed the discussion that sorts all that out, and I don’t want to spend all the time that does it would take to sort it out. I pretty much accept the idea that we have to reduce co2 as well as the other human caused greenhouse gases emissions and leave the heavy lifting to the big boys.

  11. Joe says:

    Erl — you’re on. You tell me what two consecutive 10-year periods you’d like to compare. The bet is off if there is a major volcano in the next decades. I’d also like to know a bit more about you. You have a blog or social networking site or something?

  12. Michel Lauzon says:

    The best proof that the human are creating the global warming with fossile fuels is that Exxon’s budget for disinformation rises faster then the CO2.

    The British Royal Society publicly denounced Exxon for funding 6 or 7 scientific organisations to disinform, mitigate or contradict the consensus.

    Exxon said it stoped doing that and increased it’s payments to pseudo-scientific prostitutes :).

    The number of tornadoes as a function of time is a freightening exponential curve. There were in 1999 around 18 times more tornadoes on the US ground then in 1915. Later data was censured by Bush in 2000.

    Even worst is the “Global Equivalent Intellectual Quotient” wich started to fall when G.W. H. Bush first invaded Iraq. From a record of 100 (in constant 1990 Neurones) it went down at a rate of -50 % per decade.

    It is estimated that with less neurones humans could work without any gaz masks or O2 bottles in an environement of 1000 to 5000 PPMs.

    What is great is that the neurones decline timing with the CO2 rise and the temperature exactly perfect to prevent perception of it’s reality thus reducing the need for disinformation budgets. Limbics brains reprogramming by Zionists leaders will also be easier to reprogram them and even raise taxes to pay fictive national debts to the private Federal Reserve in the USA and other central banks in the world.

    Zionist bankers are thus teaming with petrolum companies and now weapons contractors in an effort to accelerate the SPP, NAU and NWO. Politicians find their share.

    We lost 20% of the ice cap between 2006 and 2007, we hit a discontinuity in the curve and are now to the equivalent of the IPCC “pessimist” prediction for 2035.

    I have heard that they “forgot” to include a little effect or 2 or 3 in their models : ice reflects 90% of the solar energy but when a portion melts water then absorbs 90% of this 1.36 Kw per square meter. Thus water temperature rose 0.6 C within a few years.

    I won’t be fooled by mathematics and modeling, I have done it all my life and for me the IPCC is just under heavy pressure from their governments to pretend they are stupid.

    The temperature rise in the north of Canada is fantastically fast. Permafrost is disapearing very rapidly and you will understand that it will outgas a fantastic amount of methane wich is 20 to 35 more potent then CO2 for reflecting back the infrared back to us.

    The amount of lies in the numbers freigthens anybody so they simply hide the real information when they don’t cheat it. They constantly swap units and areas in order to mask the changes.

    Why so much lies ? Is it a sign that the elders in power think they can sustain a lie because changes will be so fast that we will die before we can guess it ?

    Many of the paid disinformation agents are the same who lied for the tobacco industry. All these liars share one thing : a profit for wars and human disappearance from the surface of the earth to be replaced by a Zionist elite totally unconcerned about the “inferior” humans.

    Some say we are at 394 ppm of CO2, some say 385, some 394 ppm CO2e… I am willing to bet we will bust 400 ppm much sooner then any prediction. If I apply the usual error factor it could even be in 2008.

    The truth is that there is no truth. Truth became a comodity and was bought by a monopole of liars to destroy what was left of it.

    96% of the medias are controlled by 6 or 7 zionists, right ?

  13. Todd says:

    Its amazing that you are so scared of global warming. I am always amazed at you alarmists.

    Are you so pessimistic on human innovation? Do you realize where science and technology was 100 years ago and where we will be when these models are predicting these ‘catastrophic’ events?
    Are you afraid that adaptation isn’t possible?

    I understand that it is entirely possible that your feable brain can’t comprehend the technology of the future and human’s innate ability to adapt to the environment.

    I am not sure your education but based on this article I would assume you have spent no time in climate modelling. It is a very intense and complicated science that is far from perfect. You and the other alarmists assume and take these predictions as given. You are wrong.

    You honestly disgust me. If you truly want to save the planet, go ahead and off yourself. That would certainly eliminate the carbon dioxide you produce daily.

  14. fostert says:

    “Are you afraid that adaptation isn’t possible?”

    I am. When most of Bangladesh is under water, are the Bangladeshis going to evolve to be able to breathe underwater? And will their crops do so as well? I don’t think so. Maybe they could build levees along their entire coastline, but where will they get the money to do that? They are poor, and we don’t care. The fact is that they will adapt, but they will do so by moving somewhere else. But what country wants to absorb 100 million refugees? Unfortunately, the solution to that issue will be political, not scientific. And political solutions rarely ever work. Ask yourself this: how many Bangladeshi refugees are you willing to let live in your house? Are you willing to make that adaptation? If you aren’t, than yes, adaptation will be impossible.

  15. Todd

    What’s amazing is that anyone can be foolish enough to think it is all about us humans. You think we live in a protective biosphere all our own and it doesn’t matter that we are destroying the environment that you suggest we adapt to.
    It’s the environment that can’t adapt fast enough to what we do. If the ecosystems collapse, man is done for. The enviroment is not separate from us. That is a concept that is not understood by many who criticize environmentalists.
    Whatever we do to the environment, we do to ourselves. Is that clear?

    What’s truly amazing is that anyone’s gut instinct wouldn’t tell them that spewing a gas into the atmosphere to the point of upsetting the balance of gases there, would NOT have some unwanted consequences. It’s common sense, irrespective of the science.

  16. Jason says:

    Just passing through after a Google search brought me here.

    Read through the post and several comments. What’s truly amazing in this discussion is how the original author and several of those who left comments afterward think that snotty, childish remarks like “duh,” “tinfoil hats,” and “deniers” constitute a strong, reasoned, and cogent argument. Neither side is winning converts with the constant trash talk.

    This issue is supposed to be about the strength of science and reason, not religious fervor, your hurt feelings, and immaturity.

  17. Chris says:

    you AGW nuts really need to pull your head out of the sand. If any of you had actually gone to the NASA website that has teh temperature trend graph shown at the top of this link you would have also seen the following chart:

    which shows a far less convincing set dataset. From this link it is hard to see any warming since 1998. Just saying it, or in your cases, pounding your fists while saying it, dosen’t make it so.

  18. Common Sense Joe says:

    Just wondering if you are still taking wagers? BTW, How will you decide if it is warmer? Since global warming is now “climate change”, the extremists always have a way out. Will you try to get out of the bet if a volcano explodes? Since C02 is the supposed cause, considering how much more CO2 there will be in the air in the future, how high will the temperatures have to be not to be just a fluctuation in the natural cycle?