Climate Change

With 'Standstill' in Global Warming, Climate Scientists Reconsider Projections

No change in temperatures since 1998


Scientists say the recent downturn in the rate of global warming will lead to lower temperature rises in the short-term.

Since 1998, there has been an unexplained "standstill" in the heating of the Earth's atmosphere.

Writing in Nature Geoscience, the researchers say this will reduce predicted warming in the coming decades.

But long-term, the expected temperature rises will not alter significantly.

The slowdown in the expected rate of global warming has been studied for several years now. Earlier this year, the UK Met Office lowered their five-year temperature forecast.

But this new paper gives the clearest picture yet of how any slowdown is likely to affect temperatures in both the short-term and long-term.

(H/T Archduke Pantsfan)

NEXT: Baltimore Denies Cover Up of Speed Camera Misdeeds

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Yeah, ummhh, we don’t know why it slowed down, but, never mind any of that.

    1. I blame you. God damn it, Jesus, quit messing up the plans of men!

  2. Precisely. Never mind that it slowed down, our long term estimates are still valid. We have still condemned the planet, blah, blah, blah

    1. Curtisls87| 5.20.13 @ 8:24PM |#
      “Precisely. Never mind that it slowed down, our long term estimates are still valid…”

      Yep. In several thousand years, things are gonna get HOT! So Kyoto and stuff!

    2. Seems foolish to abandon the con while they still have a few idiotic buffoons suckered.



      Too bad, I was looking forward to passing my ‘I survived global warming and all I got was this lousy T-shirt’ shirt on to my grandkids. Looks like it’ll be too worn out to give to them.

      1. Ah man, that’s so sad. lmao

  4. I’m looking for the noobie from last week who assured us that the rate of change was still what was claimed (so long as you ‘control’ for the data that doesn’t match the predictions).
    S/he claimed to be a professor of some science discipline or other, but then didn’t show up again after being caught misquoting.
    Well, I hope his/her students have enough gumption to call bullshit.

    1. Tony will be filling in for the “noobie from last week.”

      And if I’m not mistaken, he should be showing up any second now.

      1. It wasn’t shithead. It was a noobie who pretended to be very careful in his/sher posts until I asked where the quote came from.
        It was a direct copy/paste from the article, except that the shitstain edited out EVERY BIT of qualification which proved his/her claim wrong! And then expected no one to search the article to see the dishonesty?
        How stupid do you have to be to do that?
        Shreek does so now and then, shithead does so only after the original post is long buried; he’s a totally dishonest turd.

        1. Tony aka T O N Y is also known as “shithead”?

          All I know is anytime AGW is mentioned on this site Tony Shithead usually appears within minutes herp-derping his idiotic heart out.

          It appears he’s either a card carrying member of the AGW religious cult. Or he’s Reason’s “science” editor, Ronald Bailey, using his secret pen name. My guess is it’s the former, since the latter seems to be waking up, at least somewhat, to the hoax of AGW.

  5. So it turns out the scientists don’t actually have a consensus on how the global climate works? Huh.

  6. Look, none of this matters. You’re still going to have to let liberals take over the economy.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.