Temperature Trends

New Climate Model Simulations Project Global Warming At Rates Unprecedented For At Least the Past 1,000 Years by 2020

A falsifiable prediction finally - only five years away


Earth On Fire

Researchers from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory published an article, "Near-term acceleration in the rate of temperature change," in Nature Climate Change today in which they compared past rates of temperature change over 40-year periods with future projections. They predict that global average temperature will be increasing at a rate of 0.25 C° per decade by 2020. That rate of change would be "unprecedented for at least the past 1,000 years." If average global temperature began to rise at this rate, it would vindicate the climate models. If not, then what?

The prognosticated warm up has not yet started. As I noted earlier the private research group Remote Sensing Systems has pointed out that the climate models are all running too hot for most of the earth. As RSS reported:

"Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation." But the folks at RSS significantly further note, "The troposphere has not (emphasis RSS) warmed as fast as almost all climate models predict."

RSS Temperature Discrepancy

The good news is that the authors have made a falsifiable prediction to which we can know the answer in five years or so.

NEXT: Challenge to California Prostitution Law Banned by Crowdfunding Site GoFundMe

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Cool. Let’s sit back and see where we’re at in five years. Deal?

    1. I think this is a case of projecting from recent data, instead of long-term trends.

  2. So March 9, 2020 I won’t have 4 feet of snow on my yard?

    1. It’s always nice to get a thread started with the absolute stupidest of denier talking points. Don’t feel too bad, even a US Senator has used it recently.

      1. But receding ice caps is incontrovertible proof, right?

        1. If I have to explain the difference between “the globe” and “your backyard” then I don’t think we’re going to get very far very quickly.

          1. A globe is where I keep whiskey. The backyard is where I drink it.

          2. Both sides of the debate use single data points or correlated trends glibly to make a point. Your lefty philosophical preference doesn’t immunize you against confirmation bias.

            1. But this is why using the “look, global warming can’t be real, see how much snow I have in my yard” thing is just so dumb, and this is coming from someone who thinks global warming and climate change (other than the way that climate always changes on Earth) are pure horseshit. It’s a dumb tactic that gets even dumber because the retards on TEAM HOT will see someone on TEAM NOT saying this and laugh at it, then turn right the fuck around and do the exact same thing, and they don’t even have the capacity to realize that they’re doing that. It’s basically a black hole of stupid that it’s pointless to go down.

              I don’t need to point to anecdotal weather to point out that TEAM HOT is full of shit. Their own obfuscations, lies, and dishonesty do that already.

              1. See California Drought

              2. It’s basically a black hole of stupid that it’s pointless to go down.

                And tossing in more mental material only makes things that much more inescapable.

              3. Well, it was any dumber than the warmists saying that one freakish hurricane season in Florida was proof of AGW.

                At least Drake only seemed semi-serious about the snow comment.

                1. I was only semi-serious. And Tony got butt-hurt – so mission accomplished!

            2. Single data point like “this is the warmest year ever recorded,” or “last year was the second-warmest year ever recorded?” Even if this weren’t a childish “you do it toooo!” argument, nothing in this debate, and this “debate” is full of mind-boggling stupidity on your side, is quite as stupid as saying “it snowed at my house in winter, therefore climate science is all bunk.” (I’d address Epi too but he’s a walking embodiment of epistemic closure.)

              1. Dueling tu quoques.

              2. The last 10 years is basically a single data point in geological time.

                The Earth has warmed (and sea levels have risen) dramatically in the past, pre-human civilization. Yet our ancestors adapted and prospered.

                1. Our ancestors didn’t have corrupt power hungry politicians who claim to act in the best interest of everyone, while only seeking power for themselves through promises of providing the masses with their every dream.

                  Nope, back then, it was survived or die. So they did.

              3. You took the bait, chump. You responded seriously to a glib comment as if the warmistas aren’t regularly guilty of making somber proclamations on the basis of dumb evidence. There’s a website devoted to documenting those claims.

              4. “Single data point like “this is the warmest year ever recorded,” or “last year was the second-warmest year ever recorded?””

                Regardless, in both those years the divergence between the actual and IGPOCC-projected temperatures increased.

              5. So, if raw global temperate data shows the continued cooling trend we are currently in over the next 5 years… We can then discard “Global Warming” as a failed hypothesis and never talk about it again?

                It’s a relief to have an end-date to this nonsense.

          3. How many glaciers are there in your gated community, Tony Baloney?

      2. Do you even realize the irony present in what you just wrote?

      3. Shut the fuck up you witless fool.

        You worship CO2 like an icon. You have no understanding of any of the finer points of this debate. In one thread, you argued that CO2 by itself had to be the cause any increase in temps denying that feedback with H2O was relevant. When in reality for the theory to actually work out CO2 had to feedback positively with H2O. Even the sycophants at Real Climate or Skeptical Science would laugh you out of the room.


        1. He is not an idiot. He is a liar.

          Tony is a straight up piece of shit socialist who sees global warming as a trojan horse for his preferred political system.

          Objective reality is irrelevant to him.

          1. If I wanted a trojan horse for my preferred political system I would let your moron leaders get elected and ruin shit for a few more years. Is it that you don’t understand the sheer ludicrous scope of the conspiracy theory you’re alleging?

            1. So you deny that the greentards like yourself want to transfer wealth using climate as the excuse? Let’s go to the source.

              1. I wouldn’t use the word “excuse,” but global environmental problems do tend to necessitate government-led responses. Not being able to come up with libertarian solutions is what you’re using as an excuse to behave stupidly and refuse to believe in facts. Why don’t you try coming up with a libertarian solution to climate change? If you can’t figure out anything plausible, then I won’t negatively judge you for correctly rejecting a political ideology that fails to deal with real-world problems. Anything else would be childish and weak.

                1. Why do I need an excuse to fix something that isn’t a problem?

                2. How are those “government-led responses” working out for smog control in the glorious PRC?

                3. A soon as warmists start building nuke plants like their lives depend on it I’ll believe them.

                4. I wouldn’t use the word “excuse,”

                  No, of course you wouldn’t. That’s almost a glimmer of honesty – you better not make a habit of that, you’ll get drummed out of the cadre.

                5. “Not being able to come up with libertarian solutions is what you’re using as an excuse . . . .”

                  If Rossi’s E-Cat gadget cold fusion works as promised (he promises a demo of a working installation in about nine months), that’ll be a solution similar of what John Galt came up with. That sort of far-out research is what the government should be funding.

                  In the meantime, a transition to natural gas for vehicles, instead of to battery powered autos, would have been a wiser, less utopian measure the government should have favored.

                  1. Further out, there’s the “boron car,” advocated in the book, “Prescription for the Planet.” The author is in Russia, working on his three-part plan with government support.

                  2. Part of me hopes one of these micro fusion schemes actually works, but part of me hope that if it does, the inventor will go quiet and go galt, just to make the same point. However, that was parable, so I guess I just hope we get the fusion and not the lesson.

            2. Go sit on a sharp stick, liar.

              You really don’t know how transparent you are, do you? Evil motherfucker.

            3. Refute my claim dipshit. You carried on this raging argument against CO2/H2O feedback loops…it was fucking hysterical.

              But then you don’t really know what a feedback loop is or what chaos really is or why falsification is so important in science, etc. All those quotes by Feynman or Popper are just gibberish to you aren’t they you stinking black hole of stupid.

          2. He’ll keep seeing it that way until he winds up on the train car to the camps, in total shock about why he wound up there, because he is after all, not a tea bagger, who is the enemy.

            This is how you herd sheep, because no matter how many of them are led to the slaughter, they never learn.

      4. stupidest of denier talking points

        When it snows it is not a sign that AGW is farce, but when there is a hurricane or a tornado it is a sign that the perils of AGW are upon us.


        1. You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. I’d say go read something, but I know you won’t. Being a science denying embarrassment to humanity makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

          1. “Hurricane Sandy: Global warming, pure and simple

            We can dance around the issue all we want, but climate change was the storm’s systemic cause”


            1. And the research that shows this not to be the case? You’re missing the point, of course. Scientists are actually quite careful about not attributing any single weather event to global climate change. It’s you guys who are so ignorantly cavalier with anecdotes.

              1. I think the post just showed that they do attribute a single weather event to global warming.

                There are ample examples of such. CA drought, Katrina, ad nauseam.

                Again, go fuck yourself. Liar.

                1. Maybe George Lakoff really is not a scientist.

          2. http://www.nature.com/nclimate…..ATE-201309

            Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ? 0.4?C and 1.5 ? 0.4?C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9?C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65? warmer than in recent decades. Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.

            (emphasis mine)


            Why do you deny science, Tony?

            1. I don’t.

              In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven “astronomical” climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.

              We know what is causing current warming. It’s just scientific reality that you and nobody else can dispute. And we’re on track to well surpass the mid-Holocene maximum.

              This feeble crap is worse than nothing. It proves you are desperately grasping for reasons not to believe in facts. I don’t get it. What skin do you have in the game? Some hysterical bullshit about a socialist conspiracy? Outside of rooms like these you people sound like lunatics.

              1. No, all that we know for sure is that the CO2 level is rising. After that, it’s a pretty complex model, and even if you somehow do reduce the CO2 levels to that of the 17th century AND another “little ice age” begins, you still will not have proved the point.

              2. I cited a peer reviewed journal article. You cited a web page. Gee, Tony, you don’t even understand the rules of your science, do you?

                A further cite from the Science paper:

                The findings support the view that the Holocene Thermal Maximum, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age were global events, and they provide a long-term perspective for evaluating the role of ocean heat content in various warming scenarios for the future.

                (emphasis mine)

                We are nowhere near the Holocene Climate Optimum. And if we “knew” what was causing the recent warming (well, the warming until ~20 years ago, that is), then the models would not be failing so miserably now. You really are in way over your head on this one. Go run to your RealClimate kiddies. I’ll wait.

                1. C’mon, NASkippy. Newspaper columnists keep saying the ‘science was settled’ long ago. And if there’s any good authority on science, it’s newspaper polemicists.

                  1. Yeah, who can argue with a Barista? Kale makes you smart. Well, that and iPads and teachers’ unions.

          3. Herpy derpy derpy derpy doo.

          4. Yes, yes let the anger and hatred flow through you. Now call for all of us to be executed for denying your idiotic fucking cult.

      5. Climate has never done anything but change. Climate always changes, always has, always will. Why do you deny that? Do you even have a clue how ridiculous that is? Your parents must have turned you on your head, held onto your little legs and used you for a pogo-stick to give you such serious brain damage. Ignorant climate change denier.

      1. What is interesting about that is that sea level has been rising steadily for thousands of years. I have dived on ancient indian villages in 60 ft of water in the gulf. You can still find tree stumps at 100 feet.

        1. There are also good maps that show much of the Battery was water 200 years ago, yet we somehow reclaimed all that land that is now in grave danger of being swallowed by the giant waves of global warming. Also, see LaGuardia Airport.

          1. I notice that rising and falling land levels is rarely mentioned in these conversations. Only the sea rises and falls.

            1. Yep. WUWT had a great post (deniers!!) on Norfolk and the sea level rise there. It was in all the papers how great the rise is, however none of the articles mention that Tidewater area is on top of an old meteor crater that is causing the land to slowly sink.

    2. So by 2115 it will be 4 degrees hotter than now. Big whup. I’ll probably be in the ground by then, or uploaded to a robot with liquid cooling.

  3. Oh, wow… They have a model that makes predictions…

    OK, so what? I’m an economist. Models are a dime a dozen. *Correct* models are rather rarer.

    1. It’s important because the IPCC says their models aren’t predictive. It always them to wiggle out of anything with the “we are adding new data.” line when convienient. A model that claims it has predictive value can be accepted or rejected on the strength of its accuracy

      1. A prediction that’s adjusted after the fact isn’t a prediction at all.

        1. That is the thing about the IPCC, they never claim to know the future warming trend, but that doesn’t stop policy makers from putting together a wish list of stuff to fight global warming.

          1. Trying to eke any truth from all of this is well nigh impossible. I’ll just keep an eye on the beach. If the waterline moves towards me, then I’ll worry.

            1. I’ve watched to shoreline for years. It seems to be coming right for me and then runs away. I think Gaia is just trying to intimidate me.

              1. Sounds like the work of an alien world to me.

            2. Actually, you should worry when the waterline moves away from you.

              1. It sounds like the tide going in and out.

        2. Nostradamus figured that out.

  4. “Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.”

    Comments of this sort would be much easier to understand if we didn’t have to deal with dependent negative clauses. And I’m sure the confusion is not intended at all, right?

    1. “Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.”

      This is the big tell that the alarmists have nothin’. It’s an argument from ignorance “Only demons could ahve caused the house to catch on fire; the house is on fire; demons must exist”.

      The models are terrible predictors because they are poorly parameterized. And running them over and over again with slightly different inputs to produce some average is not a very meaningful exercise. It’s not surprising that they show systematic errors with CO2 increases, and it’s not suprising that they show systematic errors without CO2 increases.

      The claim that the current temperature increase is inexplicable without CO2 increases is the opposite side of the coin that current temperature increases are inexplicably low with CO2 increases. It means the models are overly sensitive to CO2 changes and nothing more.

      1. We can’t explain this, therefore it must be due to human causes. Remember Tarran, Ron Bailey is constantly lecturing us about we skeptics are the ones suffering from confirmation bias.

      2. Actually there are a couple of models that accurately model the ‘earth’s temperature’ over the past 160 years or so.

        Dan Pangburn has written one.

        1. He’s not a REAL scientist!


          1. Or he must be funded by BP and Exxon like Willie Soon!

            1. You guys do realize you’re practicing the very definition of confirmation bias?

              1. Models without a strong CO2 dependence accurately model the T for the past 150 years and predicted the plateau; CO2 models do not. How is that confirmation bias?

                Science is a method: hypothesize, test, observe, revise hypothesis, repeat. Better hypotheses replace the old ones that don’t fit. CO2 doesn’t fit, so reject it.

                1. I thought climate models were untrustworthy. I guess just the ones found on random blogs written by mechanical engineers are worth anything? (This is all debunked at reputable places, of course.)

              2. Sarcasm is not fucking confirmation bias, retard.

  5. The bad news is that when their prediction doesn’t come true, none of the believers will care. These people have been making falsifiable predictions and watching them not come true for decades and it has made no difference. Why Ron thinks this time is going to be different is beyond me.

    1. What predictions haven’t come true. Name them, cite your sources. You don’t have the privilege of spouting off factoids with no backup, because everything you say on this subject is false or based on falsehoods.

      1. “Senior members of the UN’s climate science body admit a claim that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035 was unfounded

        The UN’s climate science body has admitted that a claim made in its 2007 report – that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035 – was unfounded.”


      2. What predictions haven’t come true[?]

        Srsly? Here.

        1. Just glanced at the page, are any of those predictions from this century?

      3. In the 1970’s they were predicting another ice age.

        10 years ago they predicted temperatures to rise, but they flat lined.

        1. Who is they?

          (These are both false.)

        2. I, for one, welcome our new Eskimo overlords.

      4. See here .

      5. “What predictions haven’t come true. Name them, cite your sources.”

        Hoooooleeeey shit. They are legion. There are websites devoted to it. You stupid, ignorant, evil piece of shit.


        Just google global warming predictions failed.

      6. You don’t have the privilege of spouting off factoids with no backup

        This is all debunked at reputable places, of course. With nary a link of course. Love the proggie two-step double-standard at the drop of a hat. I mean shit man, you didn’t even make me scroll up to find it.

    2. Second, explain why bad predictions negate current measurements.

      1. What predictions haven’t come true.


        Second, explain why bad predictions negate current measurements.

        Come back here with those goalposts. They were fine where they were.

      2. Bad predictions never negate current measurements.

        Current measurements should be able to negate bad predictions, but generally are explained away by hand-waving.

      3. Hahahahaha, make sure you bend at the knees when you’re moving those goal posts, genius. Ah, jeez, I normally ignore you but you are a hoot sometimes.

  6. Wait, didn’t the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize (notice it wasn’t for science or engineering) state that we would be under water by now?


    I am a strong proponent of curbing pollution and sustainable building (designed & built my own active/passive solar home), but “Global Warming” is a money/power grab by BIG Government and her cronies.

    Why else would it have morphed into “Climate Change” when empirical evidence showed the planet in a cooling trend?

    There were vineyards in the North of England & Greenland during Medieval Times… must have been the methane from all those oxen farts…

    “Cork Cows, Not People”

    1. You see it all over the world. The remains of a thriving civilization under water or in the middle of a desert. The earth is constantly changing.

      1. It’s occurred to me (and others, of course) before that the desertification in and around the Mediterranean might be due to human causes. I mean, we’ve been there a good long while, and look at the place.

        1. Humans have f’d up a number of places. England used to be covered with trees, as did Prince Edward Island. The Indians…er…Native Americans essentially burnt the entire Great Plains to chase buffalo etc.

          As to N Africa, didn’t the Romans sew salt into the land around Carthage? The Middle East was the cradle of civilization, not the desert it is today. Some of this could well be due to over-farming or over-cutting trees.

          We are doing a pretty good job destroying the forests in the Amazon for sugarcane and Indonesia for palm oil today. This worries me more than CO2.

          1. I’m pretty sure the Carthage salt thing is just a story, if I recall my actual Roman history properly. If you think about it, that would be an astounding amount of salt, and don’t forget salt was actually a really valuable commodity. You don’t waste a shit-ton of it on pointless gestures.

            1. It a myth. Carthage remained a city. Why wouldn’t it? It was there for a reason.

              1. Actually Rome did destroy Carthage but it was rebuilt by Julius Caesar a century later. The Salting of Carthage was a myth though as the Romans needed the farmland.

                1. Carthago delenda est.

            2. The salt trade Mali fabulously wealthy. Yeah, I can’t see wasting it.

              1. Made Mali*

          2. I’ve been watching this show called “10,000 BC” on BBC or something (All I know is they’re British). And I was struck by the shear amount raw materials they need. I thought to myself: “No wonder places over in Greece and the Middle East are decimated ecologically. We were inefficient as all hell back then.”

          3. I think the ME changed largely due to rivers changing course.

            1. Ocean currents changed. The Sahara used to be less deserty.
              The currents changed causing changes in rainfall patterns.

          4. That depends on what you mean by “we”.

            The Brazilians are destroying the Amazon forests,.

        2. I will give you deforestation and overuse of land, but cities under water is the erf doin’ what it do.

          1. That ring’s at the bottom of a fourty hectare lake!

            1. So’s a relatively famous sword, right?

              1. Oh, but you can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you.

        3. The famous “cedars of Lebanon” are largely gone. Goats will eat anything and cause desertification. Irrigation canals can eventually poison the soil with salt. The Romans caused one spice (supposedly the most delicious of all) go extinct from over-harvesting.

          1. The Romans caused one spice (supposedly the most delicious of all) go extinct from over-harvesting.

            I thought that was the Harkonnens? Wait…what book were we talking about??

              1. Funny, just a few weeks ago a read a book set in Ancient Rome where laserpicium was a plot point at one point.

              2. The depiction of the plant’s stalk on the coin closely resembles a fasces.

          2. +1 000 000 000 000 000 Silphium

    2. Hey there levelplayingfield, I am looking to upgrade my doublewide for me and my sister. Could you link some sources you used for designing a passive or net-zero house?

    3. Agreed. Deforestation, erosion, water quality, overfishing, stuff like that–what used to be called “conservation”–is legitimate, actionable, and can be seen to have demonstrable effects within very short time frames. Carbon, on the other hand, is a canard used by the Feds to wet their beak in corporate profits and have leverage within business via regulatory capture.

      1. Carbon, the basis of all life, is being vilified for the sole purpose of diverting massive portions of the world’s wealth and political power to those whose only skill is to hoax.

  7. Lead author: Steve Smith

    Perhaps the title should be: Climate Will Hot-Rape Us by 2020


  8. There have been other falsifiable predictions…that have failed. Polar amplification, hot spot in the tropical troposphere, hurricane frequency going up, etc. Even Trenberth said that a divergence of about 15 years would invalidate that climate models…you see how all of those have been “received” by the warmer press.

    1. Bingo! It’s not like the models already haven’t been falsified. They made predictions. The predictions are wrong, i.e. outside the 95% CI. So what’s the response? The dog oceans ate it! The confirmation bias is astounding.

      1. Why did they not predict that the oceans ate it?

  9. “If average global temperature began to rise at this rate, it would vindicate the climate models. If not, then what?”

    You know what Ron. The timeline will be moved up. Global warming is always just around the corner.

    1. So what you’re saying is that we will have Cold Fusion and Hyperdrives just before Global Warming hits us?

      1. Exactly. Which is why they want to poorify you now before your flying car is ready.

        Remember the pause also means we’re just building up a hunk of burning love in the oceans which will fry us when it comes out in 2030

        1. I heard that the antarctic ice cap is collapsing and it is too late to do anything about it. Funny, I haven’t heard anything else about that lately.

    2. Global warming is currently occurring. Every single record indicates that. Even you morons accept it in your talking points usually.

      1. Global warming is currently occurring.

        No. Global warming WAS occurring. We have reached a plateau. Warmists like ‘pause’ because it implies the future will be warmer.

        1. No we haven’t reached a plateau. How is it even possible to believe clearly debunked bullshit for so long? It’s like you aren’t even trying to understand the facts of the matter or something.

          1. Derp derp derp derp derp.

      2. “Every single record indicates that.”

        Except that it doesn’t.


        Again, go fuck yourself you evil shit.

      3. Tony, you are a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action. The only reason you think you know a great deal is because you know so little. If you actually knew much more than you do you’d know enough to realize you know virtually nothing.

  10. New Climate Model Simulations

    Meet the new ones. Same as the old ones.

  11. Considering the fastest way to decarbonize the atmosphere without abject poverty being the rule is with nuclear and natural gas, I’d say the evironmentalist don’t even believe their own story given how hard they fight against these proven technologies.

    1. Oh and my favorite crazy person on this Paul Farrel.


      From the article
      Free-market capitalism is a downhill race fueling the great commodity wars that will “define human life” and human civilization, a perfect storm of global wars, mass starvation, pandemics, environmental catastrophes, total anarchy, emerging dead ahead.

      He forgot the cats and dogs living together.

      1. +1 GB

      2. Total anarchy tends to reduce large-scale wars.

    2. You notice Tony completely avoided this part of the thread.

  12. so how many wolves did chicken little say there were this time?

  13. It’s like these warmer idiots think that a sine wave is a really a straight line cause they can fit a straight line between -pi/2 and pi/2.

    1. Stop ignoring the science!

  14. New Climate Model Simulations Project Global Warming At Rates Unprecedented For At Least the Past 1,000 Years by 2020

    These are new and improved climate model simulations. They’re not like the old climate model simulations. No, these are new.

    The prognosticated warm up has not yet started.

    The Climate is just waiting for all those that were born long enough ago to remember when the old models were bullshit, too. THEN the Climate will start to really warm!

    The good news is that the authors have made a falsifiable prediction to which we can know the answer in five years or so.

    Ok, I know that is tingue-in-cheek but the only people who do NOT want to see those older models were ALSO falsifiable AND proven FALSE are the true believes in the “Capitalism hurts Gaia” camp.

    1. “The Climate is just waiting for all those that were born long enough ago to remember when the old models were bullshit too to DIE OFF. THEN the Climate will start to really warm!”

      This Daylight Savings Time is wreaking havoc on my brain-to-typing fingers connections.

    2. Yeah, for anyone old enough to remember the bullshit they were shoveling 30 years ago this shit is beyond laughable.

  15. I recall someone made a comment about how CAGW is an artifact of climatology’s infancy. I do agree. It is like scientists sticking to spontaneous generation as more and more evidence of Germ theory comes to light. Presumably spontaneous generation didn’t have politicians advocating large programs over it…

    1. That’s no excuse to not clean up that pile of clothes on the floor.

  16. “The good news is that the authors have made a falsifiable prediction to which we can know the answer in five years or so.”

    We have decades of of predictions like this that turned out to be horseshit. Do we really need to keep doing this?

  17. “Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.”

    So they still don’t have actual proof that humans are warming the planet? Some settled science.

  18. “If average global temperature began to rise at this rate, it would vindicate the climate models. If not, then what?”

    Not having time to read through the paper is there something driving warming to accelerate to catch up with the models other than it would be nice for the models if it did? The post does not offer much of a synopsis of the paper

  19. It can’t get here soon enough. I’m about 900 feet above sea level. How long until I own beach front property? That’s what I want to know.

  20. “The good news is that the authors have made a falsifiable prediction to which we can know the answer in five years or so.”

    Not sure what you think that is going to mean? People are still waiting for Jesus.

  21. Last month or so, there was a climate report that said my state’s (Missouri) climate would become that of Arizona.

    Is that supposed to be a bad thing? While people have fled St. Louis, millions of people have moved to Arizona, in a large part, because of the weather.

    1. People are flocking to Arizona for the climate. It would be awesome if they could stay home instead of flooding into my home state.

  22. I would point out that if it is RSS you rely on, they also say that the troposphere has warmed significantly in the past 35 years (0.23 degrees F per decade), as well as this:

    “My view is that the subduction of heat into the ocean is very likely a significant part of the explanation for the model/observation discrepancies.”


    1. Without convincing evidence of model physics flaws (and I haven’t seen any), I would say that the possible causes described below need to be investigated and ruled out before we can pin the blame on fundamental modelling errors.

      -Carl Mears, RSS

      It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.

      -Richard Feynman

      One is practicing science. The other is practicing religion.

      1. Ronald cites them, just playing along.

  23. It’s 2015 and the dire predictions pushed as fact by the AGW Hoaxers for this date have not happened. They never got what they wanted, but they have managed to destroy prosperity on a grand scale. Those responsible should be held criminally liable, not further rewarded given free reign to do even more damage.

  24. We need to figure out a way to change the way the climate is changing so that the climate doesn’t change anymore, or something. The devil is in the details which requires my green company (our logo is green too!) to receive billions of dollars in subsidies, else it will soon be 2007 at which point it is too late.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.