Green Predictions on Thin Ice; Glaciers, Not So Much
show comments
  • Andrew Allison

    In Alaska too!
    Just to set the record straight, average temperatures have been declining since 1998, when a warming which began in the mid-60s at the very least paused (the data are readily available from NASA). The fact that atmospheric CO2 has continued to increase exponentially during this period presents something of a problem for the alarmists. As does recent evidence suggesting that rising CO2 levels are a result, not a cause, of warming.

  • Brett

    In Alaska too!
    Just to set the record straight, average temperatures have been declining since 1998,

    No, they have not. The current data shows that 2005 and 2010 were the hottest years on record, not 1998. Nor was there a cooling trend – seven of the ten hottest years on record occurred in the 2000s.

    And the Himalayan glaciers that are adding ice seem to be an exception to a broader trend of glaciers in retreat.

    The glaciers are tricky because of the issue of precipitation. If you get increased precipitation (and snowfall) from climate change, then that can actually lead to thicker glaciers. It’s happening in East Antarctica, if I recall correctly (although regrettably not in West Antarctica, which is much more likely to disintegrate).

    Personally, I think the sea level rises are much more troubling. We’ll either have to spend a ton of money building barriers and dikes to protect existing coastal cities, or gradually move inland and abandon the coastal areas that get swamped.

  • Mark Michael

    Comment #2: “Personally, I think the sea level rises are much more troubling. We’ll either have to spend a ton of money building barriers and dikes to protect existing coastal cities, or gradually move inland and abandon the coastal areas that get swamped.”

    I have great news for you! The seas pretty close to stopped rising. See:


    NOAA Tide Gauges : Sea Level Rise – Less Than 2 Inches Per Century

    Posted on March 18, 2011

    I averaged the sea level change rates for all NOAA global tide gauges with data in the current century, and the average rate is +0.47 mm/year – which is 1.85 inches per century. Far below the IPCC forecasts.

    The NOAA data source for this conclusion:

    With respect to whether or not there’s been that much warming over the last 40 years or so, you might check out Dr. Roy Spencer’s website and see if his graphs aren’t at least possibly accurate. I know you’re likely to consider him a “denialist” since he’s a skeptic about the idea of catastrophic (runaway) GW, but give it some consideration:


    1) The linear warming trend during 1973-2012 is greatest in USHCN (+0.245 C/decade), followed by CRUTem3 (+0.198 C/decade), then my ISH population density adjusted temperatures (PDAT) as a distant third (+0.013 C/decade)

    2) Virtually all of the USHCN warming since 1973 appears to be the result of adjustments NOAA has made to the data, mainly in the 1995-97 timeframe.

    3) While there seems to be some residual Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect in the U.S. Midwest, and even some spurious cooling with population density in the Southwest, for all of the 1,200 USHCN stations together there is little correlation between station temperature trends and population density.

    4) Despite homogeneity adjustments in the USHCN record to increase agreement between neighboring stations, USHCN trends are actually noisier than what I get using 4x per day ISH temperatures and a simple UHI correction.

    The following plot shows 12-month trailing average anomalies for the three different datasets (USHCN, CRUTem3, and ISH PDAT)…note the large differences in computed linear warming trends (click on plots for high res versions):

  • Jacksonian Libertarian

    Thank you 3. Mark Michael for not making a bunch of unsupported statements of so called “Settled Science”. Global Warming is the Greatest Scientific Hoax in history, and the so called Scientists and Journals responsible should be charged with crimes against humanity for the fraud.

  • Corlyss

    What’s shocking about this report is that it is from the BBC. I listen to BBC World Report. They never let a story related to energy or climate go by without spouting the European global warming party line.

  • klem

    “Scientists and Journals responsible should be charged with crimes against humanity for the fraud”

    There are alot of people out there who agree with you whole heartedly. This has gone way beyond just an error in the science.

  • Toni

    I agree that 1998 was the pivotal year. There’s been no global warming since.

    And nobody has ever explained — to my satisfaction, at least — how the global warmists know *for sure* that the warming to date is outside the normal range for fluctuations in earth’s temperature. The earth’s been hotter than this before the Industrial Revolution and automobiles began polluting the atmostpher.

  • Hammered at Tosca

    I understand that Pachauri not long ago wrote a work of fiction. The protagonist was a arriviste jet-setting international bureaucrat. [Something Grandmother Mead didn’t allow discussed at her dinner table omitted here] featured as a major theme. Go figure.

  • Les

    “As regular readers know, VM isn’t into climate denial; we don’t quarrel with science and the preponderance of the evidence we’ve seen points to a significant warming trend.”

    While seemingly a reasonable view, the quoted comment highlights what is so wrong with the Global Warmer view of the world. In a nutshell, of course the world has been on a warming trend – it’s been coming out of the Little Ice Age (circa 1400-1850).

    The issue is not, and never has been, about a recent warming trend. It’s about whether man’s activities are changing the climate (specifically warming) to any significant degree, and whether that anthropogenic change is serious or catastrophic.

    The first single step therefore needs to be to separate out the natural climate change process from anthropogenic changes, and in this, the Global Warming Movement has more than simply failed to demonstrate the distinction: it has denied the distinction. Lip service is paid natural variation, but only to dismiss it as something of consequence, and of course the otherwise all important Sun is apparently a passive bystander. The fraud of Michael Mann’s infamous Hockey Stick Graph is to deny that natural variation of any significance occurred in the recent past, in that case for the past 1,000 years.

    I work in an unusual business which carries a high degree of exposure to weather changes, and for the longer term, climate trends are a serious issue. We spend a lot of time reviewing the literature, and also undertake our own climate research (using external University researchers) based on local proxies such as peat bogs (which are in isolated locations and in pristine condition).

    One of the things I have noticed is the degree to which the “warming” concept distorted. It is almost always provided as an average measurement, which is utterly meaningless unless volatility is included. What does appear to be happening is a general mildness – summers not so hot, and winter’s not so cold. Let’s hope it lasts, because once the mildness ends, we get back to greater temperature extremes.

    While the “experts”, with the Uni of East Anglia’s CRU and NASA’s Goddard Institute topping the list, have reported more extreme maximum temperatures, their (deliberate, it would seem) failure to even remotely adjust for the urban heat island effect crosses the line from scientific negligence to scientific fraud. Typically, urban heat island adjustments are used as an excuse to manipulate the data to show even more extreme temperature rises. The methods CRU and GISS use will not be able to withstand any level of truly independent scrutiny, and once the Democrats lose control of Congress, it is going come under real scrutiny. Put simply, too much of the “research” has been funded by the US Government, including for CRU, and fraud would be a Federal crime. Faced with gaol sentences, watch for researchers doing deals to get immunity.

    The Climate Change/Global Warming issue has always been about one thing – the commencement of an independent tax system for the UN, as a first step an international government. The credibility of the Global Warming movement will be gone with 2-3 years, but it will seamlessly transfer to the next issue (overpopulation/starvation) needing a global tax to enable resolution. The overpopulation/starvation concept is an oldy, but its ripe to be used to exploit a new generation!

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to and affiliated sites.