Get ready for a “non-linear climate event”

A brief summary on the Climate debacle fraud so far

  • We have lots of unreliable data, that keeps being changed
  • This is plugged into climate models, that keep predicting doom
  • The real world readings, even after fiddling with them, don’t match the most conservative of climate models
  • There is an arbitrary 2 degree “dooms day scenario” for this century that has no basis in fact

It is with this in mind, I want to pull up this author’s last paragraph first.

I’m not a scientist, but 10 years ago I spent almost a year interviewing almost all the world’s leading climate scientists for a book I was writing. I learned that all our calculations for dealing with climate change could suddenly be swept aside by a non-linear event — and this could be it.

Gwynne Dyer is an independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.

Now I’ve set the scene, get ready for the next panic in the Climate Change Circus:  non-linear climate change.

Most people think of global warming as an incremental thing. It may be inexorable, but it’s also predictable. Alas, most people are wrong. The climate is a very complex system, and complex systems can change in non-linear ways.

In other words, you cannot count on the average global temperature rising steadily, but slowly, as we pump more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It may do that — but there may also be a sudden jump in the average global temperature that lands you in a world of hurt. That may be happening now.

“We are moving into uncharted territory with frightening speed,” said Michel Jarraud, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization, last November. He was referring to the fact that the warming is now accelerating in an unprecedented way.

2014 was the hottest year ever — until 2015 beat it by a wide margin. 2016 may beat that record by an even wider margin. It was the hottest January ever — and then the average global temperature in February was a full fifth of a degree Celsius higher than January.

That was a huge jump, since the “average global temperature” is an average of all the temperatures over the seas and the land in both the summer hemisphere and the winter hemisphere. It is normally a very stable figure, changing no more than a few hundredths of a degree from year to year.

I love how they contradict themselves.  How can it normally be a very stable figure when they have been telling us for decades that it has been increasing at an alarming rate?   I’m also just a journalist, and not a scientist, but come on now, you can’t have it both ways.

But now the panic is that it will all turn to pot at an accelerated rate.

But March was not only hotter than February. It was hotter by an even wider margin than February was over January. Indeed, each of the past 11 months has beaten the highest previously recorded average temperature for that month.

Some people try to explain this all away by blaming it on El Niño, a periodical rise in the ocean surface temperature in the eastern Pacific that moves the rainfall patterns around worldwide, causing droughts here and floods there. But El Niño is a LOCAL rise in temperature, it does not normally affect the average global temperature much.

Much.  And local?  Seriously?  Doesn’t local data not get added to calculate global data?  There isn’t such a thing as global data.  Only local data rolled up.

As for the frightening acceleration in the warming in the past three months, that has no precedent in any El Niño year, or indeed in any previous year. It could be some random short-term fluctuation in average global temperature, but coming on top of the record warming of 2014 and 2015 it feels a lot more like part of a trend.

Could be.

But it “feels” like a trend.

F*** science, such as it is, we have a journalist who last talked to scientists ten years ago who says it “feels” like something.

Could this be non-linear change, an abrupt and irreversible change in the climate? Yes. And if it is, how far will it go before it stabilizes again at some higher average global temperature? Nobody knows.

Last year the average global temperature reached one full degree Celsius higher than the pre-industrial average. That is halfway to the plus-two degree level which all the world’s governments have agreed we must never exceed, but at least we got to plus-one slowly, over a period of two centuries.

The plus-two threshold matters because at that point the warming we have already caused will trigger natural feedbacks that we cannot control: the loss of the Arctic sea-ice, the melting of the permafrost, and immense releases of carbon dioxide from the warming oceans. After plus-two, we will no longer be able to stop the warming by ending our own greenhouse gas emissions.

Amazing, that they are looking at fluctuations on a monthly basis and then extrapolate that.  If you have a look at the 1960s, as the world’s industries were absolutely going gangbusters after the world war, we were in a “mini Ice Age”.  When temperatures started to rise then, they did by amounts more significant than “February” or “March”.

All of this is still assuming that a warming planet is a bad thing.  Who decided that?  Research shows that a warmer New Zealand, by a degree or two, would be a more prosperous country for it, and the change of the high tide line won’t change anything but the height of sea walls, causeways and where new properties are going to be consented.

Anyone checked out  Queensland lately?  How are they coping with temperatures higher than what is predicted for New Zealand for the next 200 years?  Surely their world must be falling apart?  Their economy in tatters?  People leaving in droves for colder and safer places to live?

But yes, they are figuring out that the public are no longer scared of climate change.  The public has come to accept it as inevitable.  So now we need to dial up the fear with “non-linear” climate change.  Where in the space of 10 years, New Zealand’s climate will be the same as it is in Indonesia today.   And boy, isn’t Indonesia failing because of it!  The people there have been dying, businesses failing, crops dying, all because of that extreme warm weather.

What exactly are we afraid of?  That we lose a little beach frontage and the weather is a little warmer.

And then what?

Good news is, if this guy is right, it could be happening soon.




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.

  • cows4me

    There’s nothing independent about Gwynne Dyer he’s a leftist shill. These AGW pushers could give Suzanne Paul a run for their money perhaps they should run the line “but wait there’s more” after their propaganda.

  • James Hawthorne

    nice work – credit where credit is due. the sun enters a new season every 2000 odd years. 12 of these seasons in a Great Year. very simple- and nothing we can do about it.

  • kiwisnab

    As far as predictions of AGW go, I am in the so-called contrarians camp. The following quote from a BBC article (Rise in CO2 has ‘greened Planet Earth’) sums up my opinion “And Prof Judith Curry, the former chair of Earth and atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, added: “It is inappropriate to dismiss the arguments of the so-called contrarians, since their disagreement with the consensus reflects conflicts of values and a preference for the empirical (i.e. what has been observed) versus the hypothetical (i.e. what is projected from climate models).”

    Bits of this article about how the increase in CO2 has led to more tree growth, consequently sucking up the CO2, were in the news late last week.

  • Dave of the West Bank

    Here’s my data. Not much warming here. Temperature data logged every 5 minutes. The missing data is a result of a flood demolishing my weather station :(

  • JC

    “Non linear” climate events/change is simply an admission that even with their jacked up figures there won’t be any catastrophic problems so they have to frighten us with some doomsday event that they can’t predict.

    However, they have anchored this non linear event in the words of one of the world’s greatest scientists..

    “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.” (Peter 3.10)


    • andrewo

      Climate is both complex and nonlinear.
      I am also informed by an Oxford University professor of mathematics that we simply cannot model complex,nonlinear systems. Maybe that’s why all the models are wrong?

      • JC

        What the models are doing is, like.. taking 10 parts and making a prediction on a system that might have 100,000+ other working parts… and the parts you know may or may not be the most important or relevant.

        In such a situation it seems to me best to look back at the past and see if there are patterns of warming and cooling.. if there are then a big chunk of research should be directed at adapting to such events.


  • Brian Dingwall

    As Whale points out, this

    “But El Niño is a LOCAL rise in temperature, it does not normally affect the average global temperature much.”

    is a straight out, egregious, lie, as the global average temperatue plots reveal the El Nino signal very clearly. He cannot be ignorant of this. The1998 EN stands out like dogs.

    La Nina cooling is now widely forecast, so Gwynne’s timing is good for his propaganda couldn’t have left it much longer..but he leaves out the fact that the HADCET record shows April to be the 217th warmest in the longest existing temperature record (Central England only).

    He should also go back to those he interviewed 10 years ago….he would be surprised to see just how much the graphs they showed him then have been altered to support the scam….and just how many have changed sides….

  • Steve

    Something I’ve never really understood about this 2 degree change. The average winter temperature in the Artic is around -30 to -34 deg C. In summer about 3 – 12 deg c.
    The Antartic average temp is up to -49 C. A bit confused how a jump of a couple of degrees will make a lot of difference to the ice in either place. My freezer at home is -15C and if it was -13C I dont think I’d be throwing out food due to defrosting

  • sheppy

    Reading that it sounds like his trough of other people’s money is about to runout as doomsday hasn’t arrived in cue. I bet he’s desperately trying to invent some new science to investigate that will turn the money tap back on

  • Hakaru

    If you put a dark car and a light car out in the sun, the dark car will heat up faster and be hotter than the light car. If the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is making the trees and plants grow better, thereby increasing the amount of darker colour on the earth, would there not be an increase in temperature due to the same effect as we see in the two car test. Maybe I am simplifying this but who knows, it is at least as feasible as some of the other explanations we are being given by the experts.

    • PersonOfColor:WHITE

      This is the albedo effect, and you are right. However, the re-radiated heat back into the atmosphere doesn’t change. We still get the same amount of heat in and then out again. Most people, are unaware that the greenhouse effect, is NOT like a greenhouse (which is enclosed) the heat escapes back to space. The greenhouse effect just slows it down a bit so that we maintain an ambient temperature. The whole hypothesis of AGW is such an enormous crock of s***.

  • Dan

    So the science is settled, sea levels will rise by (take your pick) metres BUT we are in uncharted waters.

    That’s like giving a map foran area where no explorer has been before.

    El nino and La ninja is predicted by observing sea ANOMOLIES however if they tie this to Climate change then surely El this or La that are NOT anomalies are they. They are normal climate change stuff.

    With their arguments they can wriggle out of anything. Sheesh!

  • sandalwood789

    For all of the panic-merchants claiming that “this year” or “that year” was the hottest year on record –

  • Uncle Bully

    Really? With all the “may”s, “might”s and “could be”s in this article, you’d actually be better off predicting climate change with tea leaves, chicken bones, or whatever your local witch doctor specialises in. Who do they think they are, these climate change drama queens?

  • Graeme

    They have to

  • Graeme

    They have to get money somehow so whynot make something up . Take money out of the cimate debate and it wll die.

  • PersonOfColor:WHITE

    I was incensed when I read this article in the local media rag. I nearly wrote to the editor…but remembered that this was futile anyway.

    To imply that the ‘linear’ event which IS the last El Nino wasn’t really caused by El Nino but was ongoing climate change is the most outrageous, mendacious twaddle. He demonstrates that he KNOWS it was El Nino then seeks to unpack it into something else. All the while he hedges his bets with weasel words

    • sheppy

      It buys many people a place at the trough, a lot of whining in Parliament and more money stolen out of everyone’s pockets to keep the climate change fraud alive

  • Keyser Soze

    Classic, the facts have gotten in the way of the man man climate change fraud so some wowser just posits a new theory to fit the predetermined narrative…and people believe it! Remarkable!

  • jonno1

    This is just a new buzzword for what was previously called the tipping point. A few years ago I had an enjoyable debate with someone who was convinced that this ‘hotspot’ would trigger the aforementioned catastrophic tipping point by multiplying any actual temperature rise by a factor of 3 or so. When I explained he was more likely to find a unicorn than a hotspot he went a bit quiet. Funny how no-one mentions the hotspot any more!

    On a side note, I am genuinely at a loss as to how anyone of reasonable intelligence could possibly believe this nonsense. I have a colleague, highly educated, who responds to any reference to factual climate data by attacking the source/author, or suggesting that he/she has ulterior motives. Quite bizarre behaviour.