Is Global Warming over?

While the chicken little panic artists are still trying to convince us all that the world is doomed from global warming and that the planet has reached a tipping point it seems that the planet is just ignoring them:

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.

Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.

We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.

Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.

We may well be heading for substantial cooling…of course the same embedded scientists currently reaping billions in research will all intone now that man has caused the catastrophic cooling we will be experiencing and now we need more taxes to further fix what Ironically they were trying to do all along.

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a  92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.

Brrrr…oh it’s all climate change, we are all doomed etc etc etc

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Urban Redneck

    Global Warming / Climate Change jumped the shark  . . circa 2006. But the media will take a few years to slowly turn around so that they can save face.

    All that really remains of the warmist arguments are in the form of bombastic fools in the following link, endeavoring to insinuate that climate skeptic organizations are propaganda proxies of the AMERICANS and BIG OIL:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10782486

    “Inequality & Poverty” are the new “Climate Change”

    Watch this space.

  • STEVE AND MONIQUE

    Global warming,global cooling.All you so called experts make up your fucking mind.My wardrobe cant handle the stress….ps:sure Kosh will have something to say about this.

  • Anonymous

    Some questions:

    When are they going to refer to it for what it is; man-made (anthroprogenic) or natural?

    When are the scientists who push the anthroprogenic line going to respond to the questions regarding the greater variances in temperature in pre-industrialised times?

    When is Nick Smith going to start talking like he has a qualification of scientific basis?

    When is Phil Ure going to stop using up the worlds supply of full stops?

    • Agent BallSack

      I am pretty sure those full stops are indicators of cognitive function STC, kind of like the little bar that you see when you’re loading Angry Birds on Android. But far less satisfying.

    • Vij

      He is a very sad man, just ignore him

    • nellie

      I prefer Midge Ure personally…

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFyWe6W3Y0w

  • ConwayCaptain

    There are more things than just simplistic “gases in the atmosphere” that affects the weather.  As we have seen in the article above the sun spots have a great effect and this has been known for years, long before the “global warming” scare.

    There have been times in recent memory when there has been bitter cold such as the winters of 46-47 and 62-63 in the UK and Europe.  I was born in the 1st and went tof Cadet School during the second in N Wales and it was BITTER.

    Much of the floding in recent years has been caused by deforestation.  The rain washes the earth down stream and the river bed rises so people assume that the river level has risen because if more water.  No it has risen because the river bed has risen.

    This has happened not just in places like Bangladesh/India/Pakistan but in the UK.

    They didnt dredge the Avon and the Severn so when there was heavy rain the river broke its banks and of course the councils had allowed building on the flood plain.  Just like Brisbane, Mississippi etc.

    • Petal

      Super post.

      I’d like to add that the sun makes up 98% of all the matter in our solar system.  If it has so much as a drippy nose or a minor headache, we’re all going to be experiencing the effects.

  • EX Navy Greg

    The whole thing is a crock of shit dumped on us by scientists / greenies around the world so they can bludge funding off their governments.

    • Kiwidon

      Could not have said it better – brilliant!

    • Gazzaw

      ‘bludge funding off their governments’. ……………………….. and Gore & his ilk can skim off a fortune from the money trail.

  • Agent BallSack

    The sun is cooling – Quick, everyone  throw money at it!

    • Thomarse

      Don’t say that! some dumbarse politician will have a midlife
      crises and set himself to save the world yet again, we’ll be paying for the
      next decade (then the decade after that will be “the world is ending
      because climate isn’t changing, through money at it”)

    • Euan Rt

      The sun is cooling because of all those solar panels soaking up the energy that should be getting to the ground. I say ban all the evil solar panels!

  • Andrew Goddard

    Look, I wouldn’t usually bother and you are completely free to make up your own mind on the subject (and seem to have) but I do think it’s worth reading a comment on that Daily Mail article at http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/01/british-tabloid-says-forget-global-warming-and-worry-about-cooling-should-we/. I suppose the main points to take away are that the Daily Mail vastly overstated the conclusions of the source material and went onto post borderline disingenuous claims over and above that as well. Frankly, I’d be delighted if solar cycles told the entire story and it meant that the potential hazards of Climate Change were no longer on the cards but that simply isn’t the case (though that’s not to say that they don’t play any part whatsoever). I’m not an expert, but my intuition and the research that I have done does tell me that pumping well over the carrying capacity of C02 into the atomsphere is going to have some altering effect on the climate… And while I’ve seen credible responses to specific claims over specific effects/degress of Climate Change I’ve yet to see one to that.

    • Anonymous

      It’s true that CO2 is a greenhouse gas & warms the atmosphere, but it’s ability to do so is greatly reduced as the atmospheric concentrations rise. Here’s an article that explains why:

      http://knowledgedrift.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/co2-is-logarithmic-explained-3/

      The IPCC states that a doubling of total atmospheric CO2 (not just man’s) can raise the temp. no more than 1.2C. The rest of the warming is reliant on feedbacks from water vapour which has proven to be a non issue due to the failure of the tropospheric hot spot to appear which invalidates the theory.

      • Jeremy Thomson

        For an article supposedly written in September 2011 the author is woefully out of touch with current CO2 levels.
        “Since the pre-industrial levels of 278 PPM one hundred or so years ago, CO2 levels have gone up about 38%,”
        That would make 278 x 1.38=342 PPM, sorry levels in Sep 2011 were 389 PPM

        ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt 

        The level now is 391.2 as rise of 1.2 PPM in just 5 months!

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/exponential-increase-CO2-warming.htm 

        “Cllaims of a linear increase in temperature ignore that in the ‘business as usual’ scenario, we are currently on pace to double the current atmospheric CO2 concentration (390 to 780 ppmv) within the next 60 to 80 years, and we have not yet even come close to doubling the pre-industrial concentration (280 ppmv) in the past 150 years.  Thus the exponential increase in CO2 will outpace its logarithmic relationship with surface temperature,”

      • Anonymous

        @ Jeremy: It doesn’t really matter though does it, as CO2 has such a small & diminishing effect on the temperature, & the positive feedbacks from water vapour are next to non existent. Basically we can pump out CO2 to our hearts content and all it will do is fertilise the world forests.

    • Groans

      You’re right, you’re not an expert

    • Jam_Sammie

      Look…I wouldn’t bother anymore. Anyone with any common sense knows this whole deal is a big rort. I work within the scientific community at the coal face and can tell you almost all the scientists I speak to agree. The problems are now so ingrained in the system that funding IS secured based on so called “green technology” and the greater population of scientists are almost being forced to come up with green solutions because nothing else is important enough. They are stuck in a catch 22 situation, study “green science” or study nothing at all. I could tell you all sorts of stories about preferential funding for “green technology” but that would only get my back up again.

    • Stanferguson22

      CO2 is now 390ppm of the atmosphere. A hundred years ago, it was about 290ppm. So, all our “pumping” might have taken it from 0.03% to 0.04%. Pretty small beer, don’t you think?

  • Agent BallSack

    Yet when Krakatoa exploded pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, the planet cooled. Yes there was ash too, causing a chilling affect but the fact remains – the planet cools and warms naturally, no amount of paying money and using hemp bags will make one damn iota of difference.

  • Anonymous

    Didn’t Al Gore get a Nobel Prize for his work on this shit?
    Can they strip him of that like they did the scottish bankers knighthood?

    • Anonymous

      Good call. Maybe they should also hand Gore the liabilities caused by Goodwin.  That would be a fair exhange for the financial liabilities his lies have caused the world.

  • Agent BallSack

    And on the plus side…none of those scientists and doomsday predictors are dead yet so we can point at them, mock them derisively and laugh.

  • Peter Wilson

    It’s always possible that global warming, oops climate change, is another example of the arrogance of human beings. To think that we can possibly have such an effect on a planet, considering the vast areas of empty space still left on the planet.

    Things have a way of balancing out, nature will provide us with a plaque or a world war to even things up.

  • NotLen

    I am surprised that Helen Clark did not pass a law banning global warming when she had the chance.  Look where that has got us now.

  • Jam_Sammie
  • Paulus

    Stop the Volcanoes around the world for a start. Yea.

    • STEVE AND MONIQUE

      They have done more damage then we have,and are still doing it.Regardless some will argue Its all our fault.

  • Jeremy Thomson

    Cherry picking the  dates
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Skeptics_guide_pg2.png
    This supposeded ‘not warmed in 15 years’ is folks looking at the circled temps.

    I love this guys analogy

    http://tintower.co.uk/2011/04/16/anthropomorphic-climate-change-and-the-1998-myth/

     ‘Suppose Liverpool F.C. have, for the past ten years, slowly climbed from languishing in around 17th in the Premier League to a comfortable mid-​​table position, let’s say 11th. Then one season, perhaps because of sheer luck, they finished second. If, over the next ten years, they become stronger and contend for fourth or fifth place, do we say that “they weren’t as good as they were ten years ago”?’

    Have a look a the Met Office’s refutation.

    http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/

     See that temperature graph, you can see the 1998 peak, but look at the years just before it.You can say global temperatures have decreased over the last 16 years or more because that would include comparatively cooler temps.

    As for decreased solar radiation causing a potential little ice-age. I wouldn’t count on it.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120130131509.htm

     Essentially 4 large closely spaces tropical volcanoes kicked off the Maunder minimum. Increased  ice sheets and glaciation kept it going, finally the melting of this ice disrupted Atlantic cyle an gave the little ice age of the 1750s.
    No decrease in solar radiation needed.
    A wonderful illustration of climate feedbacks in action however.

    Raise the temperatures and the sea ice melts.
    Dark ocean absorbs more heat than ice.
    Permafrost methane outgasses.
    Seas warm and lose C02 solubility.
    More greenhouse gasses.
    Repeat until massive volcanism.

    • Anonymous

      Actually if you look at the circled graph you’ve provided there has been practically no warming between 1979 to 1997 or 1999 to 2012:

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Skeptics_guide_pg2.png

      Almost the entire warming of your graph happened in one year during the 1998 el nino, and your buddy John Cook from skepticalscience.conjob builds a 33 year warming trend based on that one year of data? Who’s cherry picking now? Only a fuckin’ idiot would believe such shonky science, do you really believe that?

      Something else, the rest of the warming in the 20th century (the vast majority) occurred in the first half of the century when it’s scientifically accepted that man’s CO2 output was not responsible.

      • Jeremy Thomson

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlier 

        Naive interpretation of statistics derived from data sets that include outliers may be misleading. For example, if one is calculating the average temperature of 10 objects in a room, and most are between 20 and 25degrees Celsius, but an oven is at 175 °C, the median of the data may be 23 °C but the mean temperature will be between 35.5 and 40 °C. In this case, the median better reflects the temperature of a randomly sampled object than the mean; however, naively interpreting the mean as “a typical sample”, equivalent to the median, is incorrect. As illustrated in this case, outliers may be indicative of data points that belong to a different population than the rest of the sample set.

      • AGWSceptic

        @ Jeremy Thompson: That’s right, that’s why it’s not correct to base any beliefs in warming on 1 year of data (1998 El Nino), or to base it on data that is accepted to have occurred before man”s CO2 output was the driving force. To prove AGW you need to show the non existent tropospheric hot spot, AGW doesn’t work without it.

38%