RealClimate Now Ponders: Why No Warming?

Posted on Wed 07/15/2009 by


Andrew BoltBy Andrew Bolt

rc_fig1_thumbThere’s been an astonishing shift in the global warming debate. RealClimate, a prominent climate blog run by leading alarmist scientists such as Michael ”Hockey Stick” Mann and Gavin Schmidt, has acknowledged that the warming has paused, after all, and probably will not resume (if at all) for at least another decade.

The site has published an overview by Kyle Swanson of his new paper, which tries to explain why temperatures have cooled since 2001 – a fact that our own (Australian) Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong, has refused (from fear of the implications) to even explicity acknowledge:

The contentious part of our paper is that the climate system appears to have had another “episode” around the turn of the 21st century, coinciding with the much discussed “halt” in global warming. Whether or not such a halt has really occurred is of course controversial (it appears quite marked in the HadCRUT3 data, less so in GISTEMP); only time will tell if it’s real. Regardless, it’s important to note that we are not talking about global cooling, just a pause in warming.

What’s our perspective on how the climate will behave in the near future? The HadCRUT3 global mean temperature to the right shows the post-1980 warming, along with the “plateau” in global mean temperature post-1998. Also shown is a linear trend using temperatures over the period 1979-1997 (no cherry picking here; pick any trend that doesn’t include the period 1998-2008). We hypothesize that the established pre-1998 trend is the true forced warming signal, and that the climate system effectively overshot this signal in response to the 1997/98 El Niño. This overshoot is in the process of radiatively dissipating, and the climate will return to its earlier defined, greenhouse gas-forced warming signal. If this hypothesis is correct, the era of consistent record-breaking global mean temperatures will not resume until roughly 2020.

And now there is this note of caution that the debate on man-made global warming is far from as settled as so many journalists, activist scientists and politicians have so falsely insisted for so long:

Nature (with hopefully some constructive input from humans) will decide the global warming question based upon climate sensitivity, net radiative forcing, and oceanic storage of heat, not on the type of multi-decadal time scale variability we are discussing here. However, this apparent impulsive behavior explicitly highlights the fact that humanity is poking a complex, nonlinear system with GHG forcing – and that there are no guarantees to how the climate may respond.

Summing up: some of the scientists most prominent in promoting the theory that man is heat the world to hell now promote a paper saying that theory is actually questionable, and we now face a prolongued period of no temperature rises instead, contrary, it says, to what leading climate models predicted.

And this is the theory that the (Australian) Rudd Government is so sure of that it’s imposing on the economy a colossal emissions reduction scheme that will tax our emissions, from power stations to cows, dragging down growth and putting tens of thousands of jobs in danger.

Professor Roger Pielke Jr wonders what 22 years of cooling will do the warming debate.

Meterologist Anthony Watts wonders if this explains why Schmidt and fellow warmists Dr. Paul Knappenberger, Dr. Wally Broecker and Dr. Ray Pierrehumbert are looking so gloomy at the Global Climate Change forum:

Relax, guys! We may not be fried alive!


Meanwhile, in the US:

As politicians in Washington, DC debate what to do about global warming, the Northeast has been hit with record low temperatures this morning.


A new paper in Nature Geoscience discovers that the climate models used to predict our warming future cannot even predict our past:

“In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record,” said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. “There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models.”


As I predicted, Al Gore refuses to meet (Australian Senator) Steve Fielding to explain why the temperatures aren’t rising with our gases, after all:

Climate change preacher Al Gore has gone into hiding and has refused to find time to meet with Family First Leader Senator Steve Fielding.

“I have made several requests to Mr Gore and his staff for a meeting with the former Vice President but have been met with a wall of resistance,” Senator Fielding said.

“This is certainly not something I expected. I would have thought Mr Gore would welcome the chance to put to rest my concerns and shed some light on the 15 year graph which shows global temperatures remaining steady while carbon dioxide emissions have increased.”

“Perhaps Mr Gore just doesn’t have the answers to my questions – maybe they’re a set of inconvenient facts?”


Terry McCrann says last week’s G8 summit exposes the fraud of the politicians preaching global warming – because no one is going to slash emissions any time soon. And he makes this prediction of the carbon capture and storage plan that Kevin Rudd explained in Italy last week that had world leaders cheering:

Outside some very specific pre-engineered contexts, CCS can never be other than energy wasteful, functionally improbable and hugely expensive. It actually makes – let’s be very clear, utterly useless – wind power look like the very model of financial and energy efficiency.

We’ll have the first serious full-scale CCS plant operating in Australia in the same year as our first nuclear reactor.

TonyfromOz adds …..

Rather than post a second article from Andrew, take this link to one of his other posts today. In it he details how a prominent Nobel Laureate in Economics says that those who deny Climate Change should be put on trial for Crimes against Humanity in the same manner that Hitler’s henchman faced trial at Nuremburg after the end of the Second World War. Surely this isn’t a return to McCarthyism of the 40’s and 50’s. What have we become?

Andrew Bolt is a journalist and columnist writing for The Herald Sun in Melbourne Victoria Australia.

Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt’s Blog