Wait Till Next Year

2014 was a warm year. It is possible that it was the warmest year in the modern temperature record–maybe it was second or third. The top three years are close enough that you could legitimately call it a three-way tie.


What does it mean? In and of itself, nothing. Since 1998 we have had a string of years that were warm and 2014 is another one. But they haven’t been much warmer than 1998. As temperatures rose dramatically between 1976 and 1998, those who are alarmed by the potential of anthropogenic CO2 to disrupt our climate were quite busy predicting that temperatures would continue climbing–the plateau since 1998 disturbs them, sometimes to the point of pretending it isn’t occurring. Those who think the alarmists are full of hot air are quite pleased with the pause.

Although (who was it–Trenberth or Santer? I honestly can’t remember) some prestigious climate scientists have said that 17 years was needed to pick out a trend in global temperatures, really you need about 38, to be confident. (Hey skeptics–you don’t believe these guys about anything else.Why would you believe them about 17 years being sufficient statistically. You know they have problems with statistics, right?)

2014 was more of the same–another year of the plateau following 1998. If you want to know what it means, you’ll probably have to wait for about another 20 years.

If temperatures went down for a couple of years, then that would be worth examining in greater detail. If CO2 concentrations dropped,even slightly, that would be worth examining. But this is more of the same ol’, same ol’.

The fact that the usual gang of alarmist subjects made a big fuss out of the possibility that this was the warmest year should have been the first clue.

2014 did not provide any answers to our questions about climate change. Wait till next year…

20 responses to “Wait Till Next Year

  1. Wait till next year?! Nah … This is the BIG year (well, at least it’s purported to be!) La belle dance en Paris s’approche {OK, so my French is very rusty!]

    My skeptical “prediction” for the next eleven months: Many variants of ‘Next chorus/ Next verse … A little bit louder/ And a whole lot worse.’

    OTOH, verifiable <gasp> evidence (apart from increasingly dubious recyclings of the oh-so-tired-and-familiar scary mantras): Not so much!

    But as an aside, for all that there are a relative few** jurisdictions that have – to one degree or another – bought into the UNEP/UNFCCC’s Kool-aid, I have yet to see any significant increase in (UNEP/UNFCCC expected) contributions to the purportedly barely adequate $100 billion per year fund. Have you?!

    ** Some notable exceptions being California and my former province of residence, Ontario. Not to mention the atrociously blighted U.K., my country of origin. But I haven’t noticed that any of these has dedicated/shifted any significant amount of funds to one or more of the UNEP/UNFCCC’s ‘send us your money and we’ll spend it’ banks. Have you?!

    In the meantime, YMMV, but my view is that a far greater threat to the future of our planet (not to mention the people who inhabit it) is the far too long ignored – and/or failure to acknowledge – the poison being fed to and/or bred into far, far too many of those who were born to – or chose to adopt – the Muslim faith.

    But for some strange reason, the UN doesn’t seem to care too much about the outfall from this. Quelle surprise, eh?!

    • I don’t think that you should assume a correlation between AGW skepticism and Islamophobia. I have worked with, taken classes from and taught Muslims. They are come in all kinds like everybody else. I taught at a Christian College for 4 years. Hate was taught there.

      • I made absolutely no such assumption or correlation. That you should have found or inferred such from my post strongly suggests to me that you are one of those unfortunate people who, as I had noted in a recent post, have been let down by the inadequacies of post-secondary education:

        many college graduates have not learned to write effectively, they can not read and comprehend any reasonably complex book, they have not learned to reason, and their basic knowledge of the history and institutions of the society in which they live is lamentably poor.

        Source: A Crisis of Competence.

  2. Matt Ridley wrote an excellent editorial for The Times titled: A Lukewarmer Against Dogmatism.

    The clincher comes near the end.

    “Also, I soon realised that all the mathematical models predicting rapid warming assume big amplifying feedbacks in the atmosphere, mainly from water vapour; carbon dioxide is merely the primer, responsible for about a third of the predicted warming. When this penny dropped, so did my confidence in predictions of future alarm: the amplifiers are highly uncertain.

    Another thing that gave me pause was that I went back and looked at the history of past predictions of ecological apocalypse from my youth – population explosion, oil exhaustion, elephant extinction, rainforest loss, acid rain, the ozone layer, desertification, nuclear winter, the running out of resources, pandemics, falling sperm counts, cancerous pesticide pollution and so forth. There was a consistent pattern of exaggeration, followed by damp squibs: in not a single case was the problem as bad as had been widely predicted by leading scientists. That does not make every new prediction of apocalypse necessarily wrong, of course, but it should encourage scepticism. – Matt Ridley

    • Matt Ridely, has been the subject of calls for his beading by Greenpeace staff members in the UK.
      Climate kooks call for skeptics to lose their heads.
      Climate skeptics wish for climate kooks to start using theirs.

  3. Ben Santer was the one who said 17 years would be sufficient.

    “LIVERMORE, Calif. — In order to separate human-caused global warming from the “noise” of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long, according to climate scientists. […] ”

    “One individual short-term trend doesn’t tell you much about long-term climate change,” Santer said. “A single decade of observational temperature data is inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving human-caused warming signal. In both the satellite observations and in computer models, short, 10-year tropospheric temperature trends are strongly influenced by the large noise of year-to-year climate variability.”


  4. What is particularly galling (or humorous) is that if we do have an actual warm year that exceeds the past couple decades, they have already declared that this will mean the “pause will be over”. The hypocrisy is obvious, it takes 17 years to make finding of a warming slowdown, and a single year to disprove it.

    Then the hype machine will crank up and intentionally obfuscate that “one warm year” = “pause is over” = “the models are on track” = “its worse than we thought” = “deniers, deniers, deniers!” = “all hail the lords of science”.

    Another proud day for science.

    I do expect warming to continue, however if a lower rate of warming continues to rule out the long tail worst case outcomes, then that is meaningful. This implication is never spoken of.

    • Huh? A single year will disprove the ‘pause’ in the hands of naughty AGW realists? A single year, an outlier, has been the anchor for all the pause nonsense. That’s your reasoning at work.

      How long will it take a ‘lower rate of warming’ to rule out ‘the long tail worst case outcomes’. Apparently this lower rate ‘continues’ as we write…do we just call it from a GAT chart, or do we refer to the physical basis of global warming?

      • I don’t know Nick, how long will it take?

        If there is one thing for sure, the climate establishment will never answer a question like that as they prefer to just make up the rules as they go along. Ask a question like “How long and how much would the model – observation discrepancy need to be before you would seriously question the model’s efficacy?”. An obvious and honest question. Feel free to answer it yourself.

        The fact that further warming will likely occur does not equate to clear and present danger. If we get 1C of warming in the 21st century, the apocalypse will likely be avoided.

      • Nick,
        If you have fixed the pause, do let the alarmist opinion leaders know. They are up to something over 50 excuses to explain away the pause you have so handily dealt with.

  5. Tom, whatreallyhappened.com linked to your site. You have arrived.

  6. When it comes to allocating warming to man made and natural causes, I will go with Scafeta’s analysis. About 60^ of the warming of the last century was natural. What I would like to get into was why he was dumped on by so many of the “skeptic ” blogs.

  7. Pingback: These go up to 11 – Stoat

  8. Tom,
    It is the nature of apocalyptic cults to always look to next year for fulfillment of their desire.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s