News Section
Stories from Climate Central's Science Journalists and Content Partners

Why the Globe Hasn’t Warmed Much for the Past Decade

Repost This

Even the quickest glance at a graph of global temperatures makes it clear that the planet was warming sharply during the 1980s and 1990s. But while the 2000s were the hottest decade on record, the rate of warming slowed considerably after the turn of the current century — even while human emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions have continued to grow. The question that has lingered is where’s all the extra heat going? 

Global mean land-ocean temperature index, 1880 to present.
Click image to enlarge. Credit: NASA

The answer, according to a new paper in Geophysical Research Letters, is that a lot of it is being stored in the deep ocean, more than a half-mile down. “We normally think about global warming as what we experience on the Earth's surface,” said co-author Kevin Trenberth, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in an interview. If extra heat is temporarily stored elsewhere thanks to natural climate variations, we won't necessarily notice it. 

But sooner or later it will inevitably emerge, which means that the current slowdown in warming may well be balanced by a period of rapid warming in a few years — nobody knows how many — from now. Scientists have always said that global warming would proceed in fits and starts, not in a smooth upward trend in temperatures. This study offers one specific explanation of why that happens.

The natural variation in this case appears to be changes in wind patterns associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or PDO, a gradual see-sawing of ocean surface temperatures and wind patterns that goes through warm and cold phases lasting several decades. (The more familiar El Nino/La Nina oscillation, by contrast, see-saws every few years).

According to Trenberth and his colleagues, deep ocean temperatures began to rise significantly starting in about 2000, at about the same time as trade winds in the Pacific were changing in strength, in turn affecting ocean currents, all very plausibly as a result of a shift in the PDO. 

Watch 62 Years of Global Warming in 13 Seconds

A progression of changing global surface temperature anomalies from 1950 through 2012.
Double-click video for full screen. Credit: NASA

Ordinarily, heat trapped by greenhouse gases would warm the ocean’s surface water, but since warm water floats on top of colder water, the heat would have a hard time percolating to the depths. “You need something to push it down,” Trenberth said. That something could easily be strong prevailing winds, which can literally stir things up — or in this case, down.

Nobody can actually see this process in action; instead, Trenberth and his colleagues used sophisticated ocean-circulation models and fed in observed data about sea-surface temperatures, winds, currents and even changes in sea level, all of which affect how heat moves around. In the end, changes in the wind turned out to have the most profound effect. It’s still a circumstantial case, but, said Trenberth, “we find it very plausible that this is a real effect.”

Adding to their confidence is the fact that a similar mechanism, only in reverse, explains why 1998 remains one of the hottest years on record. “You can point to the PDO, which took extra heat out of the ocean,” Trenberth said. That pushed global warming along faster than it would naturally have happened.

Indeed, Trenberth, speculates that the PDO could also explain why temperatures rose so quickly during the 1980s and 1990s. “You can argue that the PDO was pulling heat from the ocean during that time, which is just when global warming took off. So it may well be that this natural variability has been modulating the way we see global warming for decades.”

In other words, the PDO is affecting how the ocean takes in the extra heat from manmade global warming, and is helping to influence the rate at which the extra heat gets released back into the atmosphere as well.

If that’s the case, then global temperatures are poised for another rapid rise when the PDO see-saws out of its current phase and begins pulling heat back out of the ocean — something that’s inevitable sooner or later, although nobody knows precisely when it might happen. When it does, the question will no longer be where all the extra heat has gone, but where’s all the extra heat coming from. 

But the answer is likely to be exactly the same.

Related Content
Did Someone Say 'PDO'? 
Ozone Hole's Shifting Winds May Sap Major Carbon Sink
Perpetual Ocean: High-Def View of Surface Currents
El Nino May Be On the Way, Altering Weather Patterns
Higher Winds, Higher Waves: But Is It Climate Change?

Comments

By Vic Pfitzner (Grayson georgia 30017)
on March 27th, 2013

Since when has warm water stopped rising to the surface?  Have you ever tried to boil water with a hair drier?  Carbon dioxide increase no longer effects the atmosphere in any measurable way because the frequencies emitted from the earth effected by carbon dioxide are already converted to heat.  Over 80% of the heat radiated from the earth is not effected by green house gases.  By all means look for sustainable sources of energy,  Keep your eye on the ball,  Do not be diverted by false claims of those with an agedna to make money out of carbon. 
Vic Pfitzner

Reply to this comment

By R.T. Stubb (Bennington/Vt/05261)
on March 28th, 2013

Not seeing a hockey stick in the graph.

Reply to this comment

By Hominid
on March 28th, 2013

More surmises - i.e., conjecture with NO evidence - built upon earlier surmises from the warmers.  They never give up their nonsense and pseudoscience!

Reply to this comment

By Tom Paine (San Francisco, California)
on March 28th, 2013

This is all about computer models - I could make a computer model that wold say we would be under a foot of ice on the 4th of July.  Don’t you realize most people are laughing at you behind your back, even your so called friends know this is all about politics, and nothing to do with the truth.

Reply to this comment

By Nyalls McShane IV (Washington, DC, 20007)
on March 28th, 2013

Wow. Trenberth really twisted himself into a pretzel to come up with this one.

Keep up the good fight!

When you come up with something remotely believable let us know.

Reply to this comment

By R. Freedom (Independence, MO)
on March 28th, 2013

Some of the profound influences on our climate may be undersea thermal activity that fluctuates from time to time and solar storms from our sun.  But neither are factored into the global warming computer models because they’re totally unpredictable.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21520404

http://www.realclearscience.com/2013/01/22/new_type_of_volcanic_eruption_only_occurs_underwater_251097.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130212—chicxulub-asteroid-dinosaurs-volcano-mass-extinction-environment-science/

Reply to this comment

By Mike Lemonick (Princeton, NJ 08542)
on March 28th, 2013

R.T. Stubb doesn’t see a hockey stick because the graph only goes back to the late 1880’s. The actual hockey-stick graph goes back a thousand years, and when you do that, it’s clear that temperatures have been (more or less) flat for most of that time, but began rising sharply at the end of the 19th century. You can take a look here: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/scientist-steps-off-the-battlefield-discusses-climate-wars/

Reply to this comment

By Babu G. Ranganathan
on March 28th, 2013

GLOBAL WARMING MAY NOT BE MAN MADE

Dr. Larry Vardiman (scientist and physicist) of the Institue for Creation Research says:

“One possible scenario may be found in a recent series of articles by Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Marsh, cosmic ray specialists from Denmark, who have shown an indirect connection between galactic cosmic ray (GCR) intensity and global temperature.7,8,9 They are studying the influence of the Sun on the flow of GCR to Earth. The Sun’s changing sunspot activity influences the magnetosphere surrounding the Earth permitting more GCR to strike the Earth during high periods of activity.

When the Sun is active, the intensity of GCR striking the Earth is increased, causing more ionization in the atmosphere, creating more carbon-14, and possibly creating more cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). This increase in CCN, in turn, appears to create more low-level clouds which cool the Earth. When the Sun is quiet the GCR intensity striking the Earth is reduced, allowing the Earth to warm. Svensmark and Marsh have shown a striking statistical correlation between sunspot activity and global cooling and warming over the past 1000 years.

The recent rise in global temperature may partially be due to current low solar activity supplemented by a recent increase in carbon dioxide concentration measured at Mauna Loa. The connection which still needs further study is the production of CCN and clouds by GCR.”

There is a good deal of science showing that global warming is not mad made. Yes, we still should have pollution controls, as we already do, but not to the extreme because it will unnecessarily hurt business.

Visit my newest Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION

Babu G. Ranganathan
B.A. Bible/Biology

Author of popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS

Reply to this comment

By Chuck Kaplan (Newton Ma 02459)
on March 28th, 2013

Do you “consensus” climate scientists not realize how hypocritical you sound?

In the 1990’s the temperature was going up. The IPCC states, very likely,  that almost all (say 94%) was anthropogenic.

Now the models are overheated, and it is time to make excuses. Now you discover natural variability. Where was it in the 1990’s?  Even if you buy Trenberth’s newest argument, then was not the climate sensitivity overstated in the 90s?

Look, almost all skeptics buy into CO2 has some effect, approx. 1C per doubling. There is very little evidence that the CS is much more than that. Only studies using faulty statistics get above 4C. So can we lower the volume and stop the cAGW doom-mongering?

Too much is still unknown.  Stop the fearmngering and get back to researching all aspects of the climate, not just CO2.

Reply to this comment

By R.T. Stubb (Bennington/Vt/05261)
on March 28th, 2013

Mike,

My apologies, I should have said I don’t see a hockey stick ... caused by fossil fuel consumption.
Fossil fuel consumption rose steeply starting ~1950 (http://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/03/12/world-energy-consumption-since-1820-in-charts/) but the temp rise in your graph started in 1910.

I suppose we could break the curve down into a piece wise curve starting with a steep rise from 1910 to 1940, a holding pattern from 1940 to 1970 and then another rise from 1970 (but less steep than 1910-1940 period) but then our conclusion might be that the cause of the current temperature trend is a continuation of what ever caused the 1910-1940 trend.

Reply to this comment

By Larry
on March 28th, 2013

For the love of God, please change the headlines and the overall tone of the article!  The deep ocean is part of the globe; saying “the globe hasn’t warmed much for the past decade” and “the rate of warming has slowed considerably” is incredibly misleading and just adds gas to the fire for people who try to deny the reality of global warming.

Global SURFACE air temperatures above land have not risen as quickly as some people projected, since the heat is going to the deep ocean rather than above land.  And even then, the rise in surface temps is still within the confidence interval to be accurate. The globe has warmed and it is not slowing down; all that’s changing is the distribution of that heat.

Reply to this comment

By glenn
on March 28th, 2013

Wait a minute.  This theory violates basic principles of thermodynamics.

Heat can’t be submerged into the ocean without first appearing at the surface.  If the temperature does not increase at the surface, then there is no additional heat.  Period. 

The writer seems to think that heat can get from A to B without ever being at A.  This is nonsense, and I’m surprised it even appears in print.

Reply to this comment

By Mike Lemonick (Princeton, NJ 08542)
on March 28th, 2013

Larry makes a good point, which Kevin Trenberth made to me as well. What we experience on Earth’s surface, where we live, doesn’t represent the entire globe. That’s why the globe as a whole can warm steadily, but specific parts of it—might at a given time be warming faster or slower than the average.

R.T. Stubb, thanks for the clarification. But you’re still getting tripped up on the question of scale. On scales of centuries, temperatures remained generally steady for a thousand years before heading upward at the end of the 19th century, as CO2 levels began to increase. On the scale of a few decades, there are all sorts of bumps and dips, as natural climate variations (and possibly the effects of human-generated aerosols as well) move temperatures higher or lower than the average trend.

Chuck Kaplan erroneously suggests that climate scientists only pay attention to CO2. They don’t: they’re interested in ALL climate influences, both natural and manmade. It’s only by factoring all of that in that they can really understand climate change. And when they factor it all in, the rise in temperature over the 20th century is best explained by a combination of all those things—but with human-generated CO2 dominating the rest, especially in recent years.

Mr. Ranganathan very much overestimates what people have demonstrated about the link between cosmic rays and warming. One small step in that possible link has been demonstrated in the lab, which might or might not represent what happens in the real world, and which, even if it does, is just one of many steps required for the effect actually to make a difference. Beyond that, both cosmic ray fluxes and temperatures have been measured pretty accurately for the past 60 or 70 years—and show no clear correlation.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/newsthe-effect-of-clouds-on-climate-a-key-mystery-for-researchers

Reply to this comment

By Dale Liston (Kansas city, KS 66106)
on March 28th, 2013

LOL! Absolutely amazing article. This writer sounds more like a defense lawyer not a scientist. Global warmist are more on par with JFK and 911 conspiracist. I have never seen such ridiculous excuse making and twisting. Actually the temp has flat lined in last 15 years not 10.

Reply to this comment

By Dave (Basking Ridge, NJ 07920)
on March 28th, 2013

I read the abstract of the referenced paper and I read the CC report about it and then all these comments.

Of course the planet surface where we all live has warmed in the past decade. There are many indicators of that involving how the earth’s ecosystems and environments have changed as a result of that. Technically the warming in terms of where the vast majority of all the extra heat goes is, and has always been, dominated by the oceans. The world’s oceans are vast in area - just look at a globe instead of a projection - and depth. And they are of course fluid. So, the ocean surface gets warmed in this context (contrary to what for instance Glenn says) but the surface doesn’t stay put as land surfaces do and so warmed surface water also mixes down. This means that one cannot readily gauge the rate of ocean heat acquisition by a surface temperature measurement alone. This is one reason why sub surface temperature measurements are also taken. By comparison land is not fluid. The rate of vertical transport of heat downwards is much slower and so land surfaces heat up faster than ocean surfaces. The respective global warming data also bears this out.

As I understand it, the highlighted paper (according to the referenced abstract) concerns the fact that the oceans at depths below about 700m have also warmed up and discusses that. No more no less. The fact of that is not new. How to predict it and understand it is an ongoing issue. This EEA web page also notes the sub 700m warming and provides a nice OHC data graphic where you can see the actual measurement data for the change in ocean heat content:
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/ocean-heat-content/assessment It is trending up.

See also land surface temperatures looked at separately from ocean surface temperature - for instance the graph “Decadal land surface average temperature” here http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/.  Also trending up.

Reply to this comment

By Colin (St Paul, MN 55104)
on March 28th, 2013

Maybe consider rephrasing as “Why IT MAY SEEM the Globe…”?

Body of story points out that planet-wide warming has occurred; as constructed your headline contradicts this. Kind of a mess, gives ammunition to denier crowd and fails to delineate clearly just how planetary warming continues—ie, oceans, surface and air temperatures can be both interdependent and in ways, for a time, isolated from one another…..calls to mind the parable of the Elephant and the Blind Men.

Reply to this comment

By Mike Lemonick (Princeton/NJ/08542)
on March 28th, 2013

I take Colin’s point, but when you get right down to it, the denier crowd will do its thing with or without ammunition.

Dave is right that much of the warming has so far gone into the ocean; what’s new is that the heating seems to have increased since the early 2000’s, and that there’s a plausible mechanism that could explain why.

Reply to this comment

By R.T. Stubb (Bennington/Vt/05261)
on March 28th, 2013

Mike,

Thanks for the clarification. But you’re still getting tripped up on the question of cause and effect. The steepest temperature rise (1910-1940) on the graph preceded the widespread adoption of fossil fuel by forty years. Cause and effect works on any scale.

Reply to this comment

By Mike Lemonick (Princeton, NJ 08542)
on March 28th, 2013

R.T. Stubb: You’re absolutely right that cause and effect works on any scale, but there are some important points to take into account

First, global temperature, as you clearly know, is governed by both natural and manmade forces, which can have different influences at different times. In the early part of the 20th century, a significant amount of temperature increase was being caused by a gradual brightening of the Sun. Climate scientists don’t claim it was mostly fossil fuels back then; just partly. Later in the century—after about 1970—there was, as you note, much more CO2 in the atmosphere. At the same time, the increase in solar brightness leveled off. So most of the increase at that point was from CO2. Currently, some of the excess heat trapped by CO2 is being stored in the ocean, so while it’s still hotter than it’s been in 1,000 years, it’s not getting hotter quite as fast.

The fact remains that if there hadn’t been a significant increase in CO2 after about 1900, with an even steeper increase after 1950 or so, the Hockey Stick would be more of a baseball bat—maybe with a bump up in the early 1900’s, but essentially flat after that.

Reply to this comment

By Dave (Basking Ridge, NJ 07920)
on March 28th, 2013

Indeed Mike. The vast hot surface of the N-S sub tropical extent of the Pacific Ocean is the main heat source for the planets climate system. When that gets moved east and west by thousands of miles due to ENSO, the whole world feels the effects - which can be significant. So any new take on where large amounts of oceanic heat goes and how it gets there carries that type of significance. Who knows?  Maybe these guys are right about the mechanism for the more recent deep ocean HC rise and a whole slew of that heat will resurface – literally – as maybe the PDO changes and get distributed into the weather systems. Interesting. Also, maybe in the meantime some fraction of that deep ocean heat source component is slowly ‘resurfacing’ already in the polar regions…  Those places always seem to be finding a bit more reason to melt than the cryo guys estimate. 

Thanks.

Reply to this comment

By J.V. Rudd (Louisville, CO 80027)
on March 28th, 2013

@RT: People have been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere since 1850, and temperatures have been rising ever since.
Here is a graph of human-generated CO2: http://www.mongabay.com/images/2006/graphs/co2_global_1750-2000.jpg
The fits and starts of the temperature on the decadal time scale are due, as has been pointed out, because of other forces such as the ENSO, volcanic activity resulting in SO2 in the upper atmosphere, solar cycles, etc.  that mask the CO2 warming.

The climate models now used by NOAA and all the other scientists around the globe take all of these effects, and more, into account, which is how they can reproduce the temperature trends we’ve seen so accurately. For more on what goes into a modern climate model see:
http://www.research.noaa.gov/climate/t_modeling.html
And to see how well they predict what has happened take a look at the graphs here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

Reply to this comment

By Colin (91006)
on March 28th, 2013

Wouldn’t it make more sense to conclude that the global warming theory is wrong instead of coming up with a new theory every year to explain why it’s predictions are wrong?

Reply to this comment

By Chuck (Arkansas)
on March 28th, 2013

When the ice around the world quits melting and the Arctic returns we can all stop worrying. Ice doesn’t melt unless it gets warmer.

Reply to this comment

By S.D.Geenen (Sunshine Coast/Australia)
on March 29th, 2013

Interesting but I think its important that you don’t mould and cheery pick evidence that supports your world belif. Because
while natural forcings can account for much of the early 20th Century warming, humans played a role as well.  Additionally, the early century warming wasn’t as large or rapid as the late century warming, to which these natural factors did not contribute in any significant amount. But more importantly, we don’t assume that the current warming is caused by humans because it’s “unprecedented” or faster and larger than previous natural warming events.  We know the current warming is anthropogenic because that’s what the physical evidence tells us.

Reply to this comment

By Jon Skar (Elgin IL)
on March 29th, 2013

“speculate” , “argue” , “question” ,  “plausibly” ,  “circumstantial” , “speculates” , “that well may be” , “if thats the case” , “nobody knows precisely”

Reply to this comment

By Mike Lemonick (Princeton, NJ 08542)
on March 29th, 2013

S.D. Geenen (who lives in one of my favorite places) makes an excellent point. The fact that temperatures are shooting up at a great rate is reason to be concerned, but the attribution to human activity is based on other things.

Colin would have an excellent point as well, but he starts from a fatally flawed premise. Nobody is coming up with “a new theory every year,” or even every decade. The basic prediction—that the human-generated greenhouse gases should warming the planet—hasn’t changed even a tiny bit since it was first proposed more than a century ago. The first good, solid evidence that it the theory was correct started to come in in the 1980’s, and it’s been accumulating ever since. The details of exactly how fast it should warm, and how the warming should proceed in particular places, and what the effect of various feedbacks should be, are subtler details that are still coming into focus. The idea that a hugely successful theory is somehow invalidated because some of the details aren’t 100% settled yet is, frankly, nonsensical.

Reply to this comment

By Jo
on March 29th, 2013

The ice is melting outside my window.  This proves global warming… we just need to ignore the fact that it will return later in the year is all…. 

Further evidence is that temps rose this morning like 25 degrees in a matter of hours.  If we graph that, we can see we are all in trouble!    Don’t pay any attention to the fact that this month has been much colder than normal, that doesn’t fit our needs… its the slice I’m looking at that proves it!

Reply to this comment

By Mike Lemonick (Princeton/NJ/08542)
on March 29th, 2013

John Skar, thanks for reminding folks that responsible climate scientists like Kevin Trenberth go out of their way to distinguish between things we know virtually for certain—that human greenhouse-gas emissions are warming the planet, for example—and between things we only suspect or surmise, based on current knowledge, subject to change if the evidence warrants it.

Thanks also to Jo, for reminding us that your local weather on a given day or even during a given month or year or several-year stretch says nothing whatever about whether the climate is changing. Weather is highly variable; climate, the long-term average of weather over decades, and over broad areas, is a different thing. So last years hot March (in some places, anyway) said nothing useful by itself about global warming. This year’s cold March, ditto. It’s only the long-term trends—which do indeed show an increase in global temperatures, and also in regional temperatures in many places, that allows scientists to declare confidently that the planet is warming.

Reply to this comment

By Nyalls McShane IV (Washington, DC, 20007)
on March 29th, 2013

Here is an interesting piece I read this morning in The Australian.

Think of it what you like.

Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/twenty-year-hiatus-in-rising-temperatures-has-climate-scientists-puzzled/story-e6frg6z6-1226609140980

Reply to this comment

By Chuck (Arkansas)
on March 30th, 2013

Jo, I wasn’t referring to the frost on the window of your short bus while riding to school in the morning. We all know that as the bus fills with children and the engine heats up the ice on the window goes bye bye. Now run along.

Reply to this comment

By Curt Parker (Wildwood, Missouri, 63011)
on April 2nd, 2013

At the very least, a growing number of Warmers are being shaken by empirical data piling up that not only refutes the silly notion about climate science being “settled science” (whatever that is), but that the correlation between green house gases and temperature increases is not automatic. In fact, it appears as if there is little to no correlation… and that fluctuating temperatures, going back thousands of years, are due to nature cycles we still do not fully understand. If man’s actions have detrimental effects on climate, they seem to be quite modest and not permanent.  Yes, improve our stewardship of the planet, but do it honestly and with great care.

Reply to this comment

By mlemonick
on April 2nd, 2013

Curt Parker: Nobody is actually feeling “shaken,” since climate scientists have understood for years that anthropogenic warming is superimposed on natural cycles. The idea that greenhouse gases and temperature have “no correlation” is a pretty bold statement, given that the heat-trapping properties of ghg’s have been well understood for a century and a half. It’s also well understood that without the heat-trapping properties of greenhouse gases, Earth would be frozen solid. So if you’re going to argue there’s no correlation, there’s a pretty high burden of proof on you to show it.

Reply to this comment

By Heather (Dracut, Ma 01826)
on April 22nd, 2013

I am just curious…..... what would be considered proof that global climate change theory was wrong?  Everything the weather does, we are told is proof of global warming….. to hot its global warming, to cold it is global warming, if it snows it’s global warming, if doesn’t snow that’s global warming too, a lot of rain is global warming, no rain is global warming…......

So could someone enlighten us as to what would be considered proof that the global warming theory was wrong?  I do not think it is a vlaid theory if there is nothing that could prove it wrong!

Reply to this comment

By Vic Pfitzner (Grayson GA)
on April 27th, 2013

Not one ” warmer”  has contradicted what I first wrote’  on March 27th .  There were six active undersea volcanoes int the arctic ocean when the ice melted.  Only a fool would believe that warm air A few degrees above normal would have any effect on the ice compared with extremely hot lava below the ocean . It has happened before, the Chinese navy sailed around the arctic in the early thirteenth century.  The green house gases do a good job keeping us warm, but the increasing effect decreases rapidly as CO2 increases.  Most likely The CO2 from the trillions of tons of limestone in the world was in the atmosphere in the first place before the trees grew and turned to coal and the oceans created all the limestone. odviously the climate was favorable for growth of algy coral and trees then
Vic Pfitzner

Reply to this comment

By mlemonick
on April 28th, 2013

Vic P, in order to contradict you, you’d have to have made a compelling claim. “Only a fool would believe” is not a compelling claim. Neither is “most likely…” How much heat did those volcanoes put out? (not “how hot was the lava?”—it’s not the same question). How many undersea volcanoes are active in a typical year?

You’re making what’s known as an argument from personal incredulity. You just can’t believe it’s global warming—but your belief or disbelief carries zero scientific weight. There’s no “there” there, and nothing to refute.

Reply to this comment

By mlemonick
on April 28th, 2013

Another point by Vic P—that the heat trapping effect of CO2 drops off the more there is in the atmosphere—has been raised so often it’s a standard item in collections “frequently debunked claims about global warming.” Here’s one that goes into it in some good detail
http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm

Reply to this comment

By Vic Pfitzner (Grayson GA 30017)
on May 2nd, 2013

To Melemonick.  Heinz Hug has a convincing explanation of the diminishing effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.
I don’t think any scientists measured the output of the undersea volcanoes.  Where I grew up The summer of 1939 was far hotter than any weather that we have had since.  and the Temperature has not risen for fifteen years.  It is fifteen years since I have seen birds prop dead from the heat.  Check out the death of Budgerigars in South Australia in the early 1930’s There are none so blind as those who will not see.  I lived most of my life in western NSW Australia.

The heat in australia in the 1930’s was caused by increased sunspot activity, lack of rain Too many sheep, a plague of rabbits that devoured the vegetatiion and left the “Red centre” as a vast heat sink.  That is as close as we will ever get to Anthropogenic warming.  We have been through worse droughts since without as much effect. Warmists should remove the patch and look at things with both eyes

Reply to this comment

By mlemonick
on May 2nd, 2013

Vic, I don’t doubt your personal experience for a moment, but one’s personal experience in a particular place says very little about global temperature trends.

I’d never heard of Heinz Hug, so I Googled him. Here’s an interesting page, which may explain why:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php?s=159

If nobody has actually measured the heat output of Arctic volcanoes, then any claim you make about them is without any value at all. Again, what you (or I) do or don’t personally find plausible isn’t worth anything when we’re talking about science.

As for your statement about being “as close as we will ever get to Anthropogenic warming,” I think to myself, “Hmm, on one side, Vic Pfitzner and a very small number of scientific cranks. On the other, the overwhelming majority of scientists who have spent their careers studying the topic. Whom to believe….?” 

Reply to this comment

By Vic Pfitzner (Grayson GA 30017)
on May 2nd, 2013

Thanks for the Email address from Mlemionik   I went on to read the arguments of Dr Miskolczi and Dr zagoni.  They went on to reinforce my point of view..  Check them out.  VP

Reply to this comment

By Vic Pfitzner (Grayson GA 30017)
on May 3rd, 2013

The definition of Scientific crank according to mlemomic is anyone who doesn’t agree with his point of view.  Galileo had a consensus of cranks to disagree with him.  He was right and the majority were wrong. In our time A count of scientists that understand the complexity of climate behavior would show that the majority would deny that CO2 generated by people has any measurable effect on the climate. The myth has been perpetuated by people like Dr mann,  Al Gore A group of scientists in England and some so called scientists in Australia who depend on funding from the federal Government .  Temperatures have no correlation with The rising percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Vic

Reply to this comment

By Vic Pfitzner (Grayson georgia 30017)
on May 4th, 2013

May I quote Dr. Zagoni.  He was on a sight you asked me to look up
“Earth type planetary atmospheres, having partial cloud cover and sufficient reservoir of water; maintain an energetically uniquely determined, constant, maximized greenhouse effect that cannot be increased further by emissions. The greenhouse temperature must fluctuate around this theoretical equilibrium constant; [change] is possible only if the incoming available energy changes.”

Reply to this comment

By Vic Pfitzner (Grayson georgia 30017)
on May 4th, 2013

Thank you for the privilage of being able debate with you on such an important subject. It was good to recieve your replies.  Vic Pfitzner

Reply to this comment

By Fred Schmurtz (Lafayette, CA94549)
on May 14th, 2013

If the economic consequences weren’t so dire, it would be amusing to see how the climate change alarmist do after the fact science to try to explain away yet another occurrence of reality disagreeing with their predictions.

The way science is supposed to work is you have a theory, test it against the real world, if it works—great, if it doesn’t then it is back to the drawing board.

The way climate change “science” works is to propose the theory, test it against the real world, then when it doesn’t work tweak out some explanation why the theory is still right, then do it again, and again, and again.

When a theory doesn’t have predictive value it is really useless.

Reply to this comment

By Vic Pfitzner (Grayson georgia 30017)
on May 15th, 2013

Yes.  An agenda more taxes or maybe central government then Falsify figures spout gobldydook to try to fool the public
It is the second largest worldwide hoax

Reply to this comment

By Alan M. windle (Philadelphia, PA 19119)
on January 1st, 2014

Mr. Lemonick, I heard you give an excellent talk at the Academy of Natural Science in Philadelphia about a year ago when Global Weirdness first came out. I tell people about the book every chance I get, since it’s the best “not too technical” exposition of the scientific issues around climate change that I am aware of. You and your team did a really great job.

I also admire your patient and level-headed replies to the mostly absurd comments posted here by skeptics. You treat them with more dignified respect than they deserve. I hope it is to some good effect in the long run.

Reply to this comment

By Carlos Galvan (Hosuton, TX)
on February 16th, 2014

The Graph & the video posted here showing temps for the last 130 & 64 years (respectively), are pretty scary.  However after looking at a number of graphs for the last 2000 years +, I am again able to sleep comfortably.

Reply to this comment

Name (required):
Email (required):
City/State/Zip:
Enter the word "climate" in the box below:

[+] View our comment guidelines.

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment will not appear until reviewed by Climate Central staff. Thank you for your patience.