Coolists 3 – Warmists 0

Global temperatures continue their overall stagnation that has taken hold over the last decade or so, and have plummeted over the last three months, defying the global warming alarmists predictions of a temperature spiral as CO2 emissions continue to rise.

Roy Spencer just released the UAH MSU March global lower troposphere temperature data. Here’s the trend over the last 10 years for sea surface temperature:

Source: http://www.drroyspencer.com/ (Here, March data not included)

 Co2 driving the climate is a joke, a ruse – tantamount to saying Mexico drives the world economy. Sure it is a factor, but a small one. When I look at all the people running around with CO2 reduction as their new religion, I just shake my head. Duped! What a con-job.

This brings up our Climate Bet here with warmist Rob Honeycutt, who boldly bet $5000 that the 2011-2020 decade will be even warmer than the previous 2001-2010 decade. So far the first three months of the new decade are slam dunks for the COOLIST column, and have opened up an early lead 3 – o.

YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS
2011 01 -0.010 -0.055 0.036 -0.372
2011 02 -0.020 -0.042 0.002 -0.348
2011 03 -0.099 -0.073 -0.126 -0.345

The status of the bet has not changed since the last update here.

Sure there are still another 117 months to go before the bet is concluded, but I’m not in hurry for these months to pass by. So far ocean cycles are showing that they run the place, and not a trace gas. As the negative PDO takes hold and AMO heads south, more cooling is in the pipeline. The weak solar cycle also bodes ill for the warmists.

That cracking noise you hear is not the spring ice beaking up – it’s the sound of AGW science breaking apart.

31 responses to “Coolists 3 – Warmists 0”

  1. Slimething

    Yeah but Dr. Hansen says a strong El Nino is probably coming this year.

    That reminds me. Wasn’t open water from the ice death spiral in the Arctic supposed to cause OHC to soar due to the extra sunlight pumping heat into the Arctic deep? Weren’t we told that is where the missing heat was hiding explaining the recent increasingly cold snowy winters that only affects small portions of Europe (tic)? Last I checked both the Arctic and North Atlantic heat content are plummeting. It appears to me anyway a phase change is in the making.

    1. Jimbo

      Hansen might be wrong. Why? The weathermen whose job it is to have high accuracy say highly unlikely.

      “No No to el Nino ( till 2012)”
      http://www.weatherbell.com/jb/?m=20110404

      “El Nino cheerleaders will be disappointed”
      http://www.weatherbell.com/jd/?p=576

  2. R. de Haan
    1. Jimbo

      “Historic snow cover data not displayed on these images.”

      As pointed out by a commenter on WUWT. Still impressive snow cover though.

    2. Villabolo

      With commentary.

      Why are March to March Concentrations being compared when that month is the end of winter? Everyone knows that sea ice Concentration, in Winter or early Summer, is made up of thin ice that will melt into nothingness at the peak of Summer in mid-September.

      Honesty requires a comparison between Minimas so, without further comment, here is a September 10, 1981 to September 10, 2010 comparison.

      http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=09&fd=10&fy=1981&sm=09&sd=10&sy=2010

  3. R. de Haan

    Joseph D’Aleo has presented his first agricultural prediction on Weatherbell

    http://www.weatherbell.com/jd/?category_name=blog_home_page

  4. mindert eiting

    Aha, CO2 is a small factor, which I interpret as a small contribution to cooling. Everything helps us coolist to win the bet. The score 3-0 is an impressive start in the error landscape shown. If we do not win the bet (very unlikely) I get at least the climate I want.

    1. Brian G Valentine

      “… which I interpret as a small contribution to cooling”

      Me too, or I should say, at least within the realm of physical possibility. A “positive” value of “climate sensitivity to doubling CO2 in the atmosphere” is not physically possible, at least not within the time frame needed to determine the value of it if it was possible.

      I am most disturbed that these facts had long been known, in the numerous refutations of the “atmospheric Greenhouse effect” since the time of Arrhenius at least.

      I never dreamed that I would focus a part of my life on an idea that was described to me as a teenager as “absurd.” I hope I don’t have to revisit any more previously debunked ideas that take on a Zombie-afterlife especially those supported with such fervor by cultists and cranks

  5. ArndB

    “So far ocean cycles are showing that they run the place, and not a trace gas.”
    Jeff Id at AIRVENT has a fine post on the ocean issue today:
    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/234-5/ ,
    while IMO: “Climate is the continuation of the ocean by other means”:
    http://www.whatisclimate.com/

  6. R. de Haan

    For the wind power lovers visiting this blog:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/06/whoa-windfarms-in-uk-operate-well-below-advertised-efficiency/

    Please turn this article in a special Pierre before the German Greens start planting more wind mills.

  7. j r

    Pretty safe bet either way. By 2020 $5000 will be worthless.

  8. John C

    Nice manner of patting each other on the back – So confident, so funny, so utterly ignorant.

    The fact is that there’s uncertainty on both sides of the AGW debate. Some people focus on disasters (ie Al Gore) and blame it all on GW. Others deny elementary physics and dispel facts that are observed around urban areas or on planets in our very own Solar System.

    Like it or not – Our race is changing the make-up of the Earth’s atmosphere. The devil is in the details, but regardless of the specifics: Climate does not equal weather. It’s simply foolish to sit around and gloat about temperature lows on landmasses, as that tends to harbor dry and dynamic of airmasses. If you really want the big picture, look at sea temps and especially temperatures near the polar areas of the planet. But then again, most of you are not worried about gathering any real information… You’d rather trash and insult people trying to get to the truth and read some supporting article on the internet and regard it as fact.

    I fully understand the quest for truth. I don’t automatically accept Al Gore’s ‘facts’ but I also question the confidence and exuberance that deniers gleefully show when something seems to ‘fit’ their beliefs. Our place on planet Earth is clearly defined by the resources that lie on it – We can clearly find traces of our pollution in the air, water, and soil. Lifeforms before us with less technology also left a clear mark upon the air, water, and soil as well – However, they had millions of years! We’ve make a huge mark in a fraction of that time.

    I cannot tell you with certainty that CO2 will turn our planet into a sauna… nor can I tell you that it won’t turn into an iceball. Basic physics suggests that our planet WILL warm from CO2 – and it has a higher halflife than CH4 or other greenhouse gases so it’s effects are longer lived. Climatology suggests that there is a trend of warming… Large snowfall totals are actually helped by warm layers in midlevel heights. Do you know how much it snows in Antarctica? Look it up. Also, don’t bring up temp data from 200 million yrs ago… We’re not dinosaurs and I don’t think you or I would like to live in that climate.

    I see so much bad science and utter nonsense from both sides that it makes me angry. We have to allow room for doubt and be ready to leave false beliefs behind when overwhelming data supports it. I choose no sides, I only look at the facts and think of what’s best for our future generations, including my own children.

    1. DirkH

      ” If you really want the big picture, look at sea temps and especially temperatures near the polar areas of the planet. But then again, most of you are not worried about gathering any real information…”

      I don’t think that you’re not taking sides; i think you thoroughly insult skeptics, so you have chosen your side. Think of yourself as impartial and objective and polite and nice and whatnot; i have a different opinion; formed by your writing.

    2. Jimbo

      John C,
      Have you had too much caffeine today? Remember around the middle of last year “2010 set to be the hottest year on the record?” Floods in Pakistan? Heatwave in Russia? These were all weather related so I hope you smacked those idiots who chose to blame global warming.

    3. Jimbo

      John C,
      Did you smack down those idiots who suggested that the lack of snow was due to global warming? You want it both ways. See this effect – both peer reviewed.

      Winters maybe warmer [??]
      Winters maybe colder

      Simple physics does not necessarily lead to what you claim in the chaotic and highly complext climate.

  9. R. de Haan

    This is a promising development:
    Don’t write off the combustion engine yet!
    http://www1.umn.edu/news/news-releases/2011/UR_CONTENT_314387.html

    1. DirkH

      Just set them free and wait until Ketone lakes develop; then siphon them off and crack it. Best thing, the world will smell better.

      “Niedermolekulare Ketone zeichnen sich durch einen meist angenehmen, fruchtigen Geruch aus.” (wikipedia.de)

      “Small Ketones often have a nice, fruity smell.”

  10. Brian G Valentine

    “Small Ketones often have a nice, fruity smell.”

    Esters, not “small” (low MW) ketones, such as acetone and methyl ethyl ketone.

    I can’t verify that statement any more, I lost my sense of smell completely and permanently at the age of 21 as a graduate student – resulting from an HF accident in a lab. (Lucky I wasn’t killed)

    1. DirkH

      It’s probably Pie-in-the-sky anyway; Ketones are water soluble from what i read and users of the process will have to expend energy in some way filtering them out, so how the bacterium could provide an efficient solution compared to biomass or bioethanol is left unanswered. Could become another “breakthrough technology” that needs to be subsidized for the duration of its existence.

      1. Brian G Valentine

        “to transform fatty acids produced by the bacteria into ketones, which can be cracked to make hydrocarbon fuels.” – [loc.cit.]

        When we think about how much mass is lost for every step that removes oxygen to produce hydrocarbon (carbon and hydrogen only) – we realize that the whole process is wasteful.

        This is another “breakthrough” technology akin to making “plants that grow plastic.” No one would or will ever have interest in applying it because it makes no economic sense.

        Some oil companies will invest in meaningless enterprises for the “feel-good” feedback they get from (some) greenies when they do it. A few tens of millions thrown down the bogs means nothing to them.

        [Instead of wasting their money in that way, I wish they would instead enhance the emolument they pay me for being a “denialist.”]

        1. DirkH

          Thanks. I missed the fatty acids bit. They seem to have a hang for long process chains.

  11. R. de Haan

    More on the Global Cooling event that is taking place from Joe Bastardi
    http://www.weatherbell.com/jb/?p=902

  12. R. de Haan

    John C
    6. April 2011 at 19:10 | Permalink | Reply

    Please use you anger to look at the facts.

    Facts is all that counts.

  13. R. de Haan

    Never underestimate human ingenuity the internal combustion engine is here to stay
    http://rarereaders.seablogger.com/2011/04/never-underestimate-human-ingenuity-the-internal-combustion-engine-is-here-to-stay/

  14. R. de Haan

    Changing the odds
    Steven Chu: climate modelers should fabricate lots of tipping points
    http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/04/steven-chu-climate-modelers-should.html

    1. Brian G Valentine

      Most poisonous snakes require absolutely no encouragement to bite.

  15. DirkH

    Ron, i am very convinced that the ICE will hang around for quite a while, given the efficiency of modern VW Diesels, for instance. But the biggest advantage is the cheap and energy-dense fuel.

    I only doubt that those bacteria will be the solution used for future fuel production… It’s much easier to switch to NatGas or LPG (propane/buthane mix). The solution – should oil become scarce – is already there and doesn’t require fancy bacteria.

    I still have that pet idea of trying to get EU funding for devising a way to capture the Methane from Termite nests to turn it into a renewable car fuel. Should be ridiculously inefficient, eh, i meant to say sustainable. 😉

  16. WilyWayne

    I think that anthropogenic global warming has occurred in the last several decades due to the effects of CFCs instead of CO2. Now that they have dissipated, the global temps are plummeting. This, of course, is just one of several possible reasons for the downward trend in global temps. Cbserved data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. CO2 has steadily risen since the industrial revolution, but global temps have increased only slightly until the 1950-2000. The evidence presented in this paper is much stronger. Check it out: Study shows CFCs, cosmic rays major culprits for global warming. http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=8012

  17. WilyWayne

    If CO2 has truly caused little warming, then CFCs may be the future magic bullet to stop an ice age. At present, this may imply that the climate emerging now is going to get colder and for a much longer time frame. But, global warming caused by man is a reality. It’s just they blamed the wrong gas and it has stopped.