Why the pause in global temperature rise?

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right or below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

The pause in global temperature rise has now lengthened past 18 years, and climate scientist Fred Singer asks some good scientific questions why.

Global warming skeptics like myself have been quick to note the long pause in any temperature increase since 1998, the lack of which has essentially invalidated all the climate models put forth by the global warming activists in the climate community. Singer goes one step further, however, asking the next question: Why has the temperature not risen? He doesn’t know, but he does put forth a number of suspects that the good scientists in the climate field should be pursuing, assuming they can open their eyes and work with real data for a change.

As usual, it isn’t as simple as we would like. The sun for example might explain it, but so could a lot of other factors, including a number put forth by global warming advocates. Good science demands that we look at them all, and find out the truth, rather than cherry-pick our favorite answer and ignore all other evidence.



  • Cotour

    I watched a travel program the other night called Globe Treker. They were traveling to many different places like Greenland and the Arctic and the Amazon jungle and they state plainly that all of any temperature increase that is apparently actively destroying the earth as we know it is now caused by human activity. (what will they say if and when we slip into a sustained cold phase?)

    The human race, from what I and I have to assume the other people watching the show, has now fully taken over the thermostat of the earth and are in solid control of it.

    Higher, cleaner and next level technology for sure, but do we really have that much control over the climate of the earth? They speak as though there is an expectation that the earth has only one established range of temperatures and conditions and what humans are doing is screwing with that every day status quo. In this model the universe is linear and unchanging as presented by most of the media. What would they say to snow ball earth?

    I compare it to what the president leaves out and does not say in his daily commentary, he chooses by design to leave a lot of reality out of his version of how things actually operate, just to keep it simple for us simpletons.

  • Edward

    > (what will they say if and when we slip into a sustained cold phase?)

    What a good question. It is hard to find an answer; after all, not only is another ice age due any millennium now, but the US has reached its “Kyoto” goal (despite not having signed up). Simultaneously, as Monckton’s essay points out, the temperature has stopped rising.

    [Sarcasm Alert!]
    Obviously, our temperature-control regime has worked as intended by the Kyoto conference, yet no one is throwing a ticker tape parade, exclaiming, “Yay! We are saved!” Instead, our successful method of controlling Earth’s supposed fever has only resulted in further alarm, in which the climate scientists now ask, “where did all that heat go?” It is as though the climate scientists and politicians are disappointed that Kyoto worked, that temperatures have stabilized, and that climate change is now limited to the natural change that we could have expected had we not burned fossil fuels for the past few decades.

    Hmm. I may not have been as sarcastic as I thought I would be. Where *are* the parties and excitement over the stabilization of Earth’s temperature (hence the prevention of the predicted anthropogenic climate change, weather weirding, rising seas and associated flooded cities, etc.)?

  • Cotour

    What really bothers me about this stuff, just like what really bothers me about the president, its not what they do say, its what they fail or neglect to say by design.

  • joe

    reminds me of the O-zone hole around the poles and the montreal protocol, the government and the media had everyone convinced that the refrigerants of the time were causing thinning of the ozone, when twenty years later after the refrigerants were basically outlawed for sale, the ozone hole became much smaller, this had nothing to do with refrigerants this was a political win win for the government, say something is causing a problem that’s not a problem and when its shown to “not be a Problem” proclaim that the initiative worked!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *