No global warming since 1998?
The Weekly Standard blog links to a BBC article which reports,
For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
Naturally, the Standard reminds us that the BBC is not exactly a “bastion of right-wing extremism.” Fair enough.
But the facts are a little more complicated. As I noted back in July, 1998 was an unusually hot year, whereas 1999 was relatively cool. Use 1998 as your benchmark, and it looks like temperatures have remained the same. Use 1999, it looks like they’ve gone up a bit.
But the real issue is how much we can tell from only ten years of temperature data. If you look at the graph below, you’ll notice that you can have thirty years of cooling in a century of rising temperatures:
But this is a political debate, so neither side is going to wait for decades. Skeptics will say there’s been no warming for a decade. Activists will say that most of the hottest years in history all occurred in the last decade.
I guess if we’re really lucky, we can find some policies that make long-term sense regardless of how they’re justified.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
12 Responses to “No global warming since 1998?”
This won't stop those whose minds were made up beforehand (just redirected from the “population explosion” and “food crisis” and “global cooling” scares earlier). The facts have never gotten in the way of the militant lefties. “Forward” [sic], march! (And march everyone else “forward,” [sic] especially.)
How accurate were the observations from 1880 to 1980? Was there any changes in observation methodology over the decades? Looking at the the graph it does appear a overall trend upwards is occurring if you average the entire data-set instead of just 5 year chunks. Even if one assumed a -2 degree error from 1880 to 1980 (highly unlikely) it only flattens the cart a little but there is still a upward trend.
The facts have never gotten in the way of the militant right-ies either DLS, what's your point? That both sides have groups that are immune to logic?
El nino (there's supposed to be a tilde there).
Are you tellign me that there are people commenting on this cooling period without taking el nino into account?
Such insane levels of discreditation they deserve. They are pathetic.
No more global warming?
No more global warming?
“The facts have never gotten in the way of the militant right-ies either DLS, what's your point?”
There's a tremendous preponderance of this on the Left, and it's by the Left that science gets corrupted and even more importantly for the rest of us, government policy and law become misguided (when not worse), as facts and so many non-facts are abused and misused, often for the same objectives since the mid-to-late 1960s. (obviously)
“No more global warming?”
Ever? Nobody can predict that, and they probably shouldn't,
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trend…
but sadly, what's much more important, we cannot also say “no more leftist hype and lies.”
The failure of the globe to warm (not that it would ever experience the apocalypse the doomsters screech about) hasn't stopped the “fine” folks from continuing their crusade. Why do you think they've changed phrases from “global warming” (which becomes embarrassing finally to at least some of the extremists, when there is no warming and everyone else notes this) to “climate change,” which is handier, anyway, as it is a more general and useful [sic] term.
Thus, it continues: “Forward” [sic], march! (And march everyone else “forward,” [sic] especially.)
No global warming? I think some of those herring reefers got smuggled out of Oslo.
But so what, maybe some of the human created warming agents can be minimized and we can cool down a bit.
Big problem: we are wasting too much effort and subsidies on inefficient “alternative energy” schemes that have down sides like excess water usage (solar), wind mills (dependent on wind and long transmission lines), polluting (coal) and not enough on cleaner natural gas and nuclear (the real answer). If there is no current global warming problem, then it still could be coming. We have to stop wasting water and subsidizing some of the less promising alternative energy schemes. (Sorry for the soap boxing.)
Yes, of course they are.
“If there is no current global warming problem, then it still could be coming”
That's no excuse for leftist idiocy. But in any case, while greenhouse gases are a straw-man excuse for the Little Green Fascists to practice various levels and kinds of totalitarianism on the rest of us, there are real pollutants that could be reduced, and these sadly are neglected. (Which, given the extremists' history, ironically is probably a good thing in and of itself, for it is another opportunity for wrongdoing that they have currently foresaken because of their preference for their “climate change” political movement.)
Here I thought you were a nice person. I hope you aren't lumping me in with the “leftist idiocy”. If you are than I will be forced to nominate you for the Hugo Chavez Award For The Most Democratic Thinker (Other Than Himself). All this noise about global warning gives the US a chance to go more efficient. No I'm not a greenie, I am a pragmatist. Natural gas creates less pollution, we have plenty and it can be piped. Meantime Nuclear should be fast tracked.