It’s always going to happen in a decade or two, isn’t it?

Yes, I do realise that people are trying to predict what will happen therefore it happening in the future is no great surprise. But I do still find this tedious:

A controversial pause in global warming may be due to heat vanishing into the depths of the Atlantic and Southern Oceans.

But surface temperatures will start rising again in a decade, according to scientists in the US.

It’s always about to happen, isn’t it? It’s all prediction. I’d feel happier in splashing a few trillion in cash if there was some series of past events that showed that it’s going to be a serious problem rather than simply predictions that it’s going to be.

And no, we don’t in fact have that past evidence. All of the predictions that it’s going to be a future serious problem are conditional. Most importantly, conditional upon the economic and technological model that one uses about how many people there are going to be, how rich they are and what they use to power their society. Of the latest models, the ones that replaced the SRES, there’s only one that says that it is all going to be serious (as opposed to chronic) and that assumes that by 2080 we’ll still be using coal to power 50% of the economy.

An assumption which, if we’re to be honest about the growth in solar, fuel cells and so on, is really a pretty silly assumption to be making.

19 comments on “It’s always going to happen in a decade or two, isn’t it?

  1. Global warming can be good for you. More food production, for a start.
    And the two last times it happened (Roman Empire, MWP) were times of prosperity compared to what followed.

  2. The trouble is, the scaremongering has gone on for a long time now.

    When the bloke said, “In twenty years’ time we’ll have vineyards in Newcastle producing red wine” he obviously thought that was safe enough. But he said it in 1996.

    And there is the warmist problem. None, by which I mean nada, zilch, Sweet Fanny Adams, of their predictions have proved right.

  3. I’m not a climate scientist, obviously, but why would the heat stick to the ‘heavy’ water, and not transfer itself to the colder, ‘lighter’ water, instead of going all the way to the bottom of the ocean (giggle).

    “‘Every week there’s a new explanation of the hiatus,’ said Professor Tung.”

    Well, yes.

  4. “According to the study, the second important reason for the warming hiatus is that radiation from the sun has been weaker than predicted in the past few years.”

    And yet, I specifically remember the furious ‘debunking’ which went on a few years ago when people suggested the Sun drove the rise in temperatures. How can the Sun not be responsible for warming but can be responsible for cooling?

  5. The penny beginning to drop is it Tim? That you’ve been had by a bunch of (possibly initially well meaning) charlatans?

  6. I really don’t know what the fuss is all about with this conservation malarkey.

    The earth only has to last another 50 years or so and I’ll be done with it. Surely that’s not too much to ask?

  7. @Rib: you’ve forgotten one of the basic rules of climate science – the sun plays no part whatsoever in rising global temperatures, but its absence can cause global temperatures to drop. Rising temperatures are only ever caused by CO2, nothing else.

  8. The whole ‘catastrophe’ meme is based on outright denial of the IPCC position, in any case. If you actually look at what the IPCC says, the things that are scary aren’t plausible, and the things that are plausible aren’t scary.

  9. The more sober version of the report, where the warmer water sinks because it is saltier is just about credible – although one would expect it to lose some of its heat to the surrounding cooler water – but if the report is true that means that the AGW cult preachers have been overstating the rate of warming – in fact slightly more than doubling the underlying rate, by using only the upswing from trough to peal as a measure of the rate over a full cycle.
    When can we expect to see an apology from Al Gore?

  10. john77: the warmer water sinks because it has higher salinity (presumably because halide solubility increases with temperature)? But where does the excess salt to make it more saline come from? Saltier water is denser and would thus tend to sink, but there is a countervailing osmotic pressure gradient in the other direction. Does the salt diffuse from the lower layers? This all looks very iffy.

    I suppose the climatologists could be right, and ten years from now it will all kick off again, but what if they’re not? Will they pack their tents and sheepishly sidle off? I doubt it.

  11. Global warming has been observed on Mars, so maybe that’s where the heat will be hiding next.

    If only we had scientists like this back in the bad old days. We’d never have given up looking for phlogiston.

  12. @ Bloke in Costa Rica
    Well, from an ocean near you. The theory is that warmer water in the tropics tends to evaporate more than colder water in the North Sea so, since salt does not evaporate, it becomes more saline and heavier. When the ocean current takes it south and it meets Chile but less saline water it sinks; actually the article talks about the Atlantic as being the main effect so this would be Belize or Venezuela and Patagonia.
    Yes, it does look a bit iffy but as I gave up Physics one term after ‘S’ level (possibly equivalent to a first degree at some places – I only remember meeting one Rhodes Scholar who was taking a post-graduate degree, and he was Canadian), I should need to apply a gallon of WD40 to my brain before criticising the report so I am reporting it at face value.
    I assume that salinity and heat will diffuse a bit – one iffy bit about the report is the assumption there is a trivial amount of mixing when the two flows meet.
    BUT my point was that, if we believe this latest research, then the claims about the rate of warming are overstated by *more than 100%*.

  13. Maybe now that the hiatus is acknowledged (whether the reasoning is true or just a new level of BS) we can expect that every freak weather event (the one in 100 year events that are happening every 100 years of so) won’t be accompanied by references to global warming and whether that was the cause.

    I shan’t hold my breath.

  14. If you cannot explain the Pause,
    Then you cannot explain the Cause.

    Me, I live in western Canada and we have snow predicted for next week. I hope and pray for global warming, and plenty of it.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.