2010, a Banner Year for Global Warming Predictions

While doing a Google search for global warming 2010 it is interesting to note that by 2010 many of the predicted doomsday scenarios were to have played out. We are now in 2010 and none of the dire predictions have yet to materialize.

A funny thing happened however. Nature did not cooperate with the scientific consensus and the computer models. Just goes to show you cannot fool mother nature.

Global warming expected to snowball after 2010

Fri, Aug 10, 2007

Business/Politics

A report published in the Science journal yesterday by leading climate scientists outlines the most detailed model to date predicting the climate over the next ten years – and it’s not looking good.

2010 may be hottest year ever
PTI 12 December 2009, 12:25am IST

LONDON: 2010 is likely to be the world’s warmest year on record, the British Met Office has predicted.

According to the Met Office, man-made climate change will be a factor and natural weather patterns would contribute less to 2010’s temperature than they did in 1998, the current warmest year in the 160-year record

We will hold them to this.

Global warming ‘is three times faster than worst predictions’

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor

Sunday, 3 June 2007

Global warming is accelerating three times more quickly than feared, a series of startling, authoritative studies has revealed.

They have found that emissions of carbon dioxide have been rising at thrice the rate in the 1990s. The Arctic ice cap is melting three times as fast – and the seas are rising twice as rapidly – as had been predicted.

Another prediction that has not panned out.

Global Warming to Cause 50 Million Refugees by 2010
Friday November 4, 2005

“Scholars are predicting that 50 million people worldwide will be displaced by 2010 because of rising sea levels, desertification, dried up aquifers, weather-induced flooding and other serious environmental changes brought on by global warming and the resulting climate changes.” writes Larry West, About.com’s Guide to Environmental Issues.

So where are all these 50 million environmental refugees? Did the rapture happen and no one told us?

Climate Shift Tied To 150,000 Fatalities

Earth’s warming climate is estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year, according to the World Health Organization, a toll that could double by 2030.

in 2009 The number claimed shot up to 300,000

Global Warming is already responsible for 300,000 deaths a year and is affecting 300m people, according to the first comprehensive study of the human impact of global warming.

It projects that increasingly severe heatwaves, floods, storms and forest fires will be responsible for as many as 500,000 deaths a year by 2030, making it the greatest humanitarian challenge the world faces.

Wow! it only took a few years for the numbers to double not all the way to 2030. At this rate half the world population will be wiped out by 2030.

Whew talk about inflation. I guess in 2010 we can expect at least a half a million but since numbers are being arbitrarily thrown around why not say 10 million or even better 100 million?

Predictions of global warming have never panned out but the warmers with their religious zeal keep trumpeting it. It was convenient to make predictions back in the 90s and early two thousands because it was far enough away but we are now well within the period that temperatures where supposed to be through the roof and small Island nations should have already been flooded out well on their way to being swallowed up by the sea.

The famous hockey-stick and Nasa’s James Hanson’s graph’s had steady increases from 1998 on but we have seen a cooling trend since then, the exact opposite of what the warmer scientists and computer models predicted.

James Hansen Graph vs Reality

A new study that has recently been published also contradicts the assumption that atmospheric C02 has risen steadily, but in fact the study shows that it has remained consistent since for 160 years even though humans have steadily increased carbon output.

People are becoming increasingly skeptical of global warming because they have heard all these dire warnings and have taken note that everything predicted is simply not happening. The warmers keep having to move their predictions further out when their earlier predictions fail to materialize. How often must they be proven wrong for the hard core warmers to start questioning the entire concept of global warming?

The warmers know they are losing the PR battle. The first sign was when they were forced to change the terminology used from global warming to climate change. No one has to change the terminology when they are winning the argument. The problem is the public was sold on warming and now that it has not materialized the proponents had to come up with new euphemisms as a desperate attempt to keep their cause alive. It won’t work.

, , , , ,

  1. #1 by cav on January 2, 2010 - 7:37 am

    The frog, brought slowly to a boil, thought only of the pleasant southwest sea-breeze.

  2. #2 by Cliff Lyon on January 2, 2010 - 8:15 am

    Ken, Did you mean to say “it is interesting to note that 2010 (2009) was (is) predicted to be a banner year for global warming and when many of the doomsday scenarios were supposed to start being played out.

    You answers affects the entire post.

  3. #3 by Richard Warnick on January 2, 2010 - 9:40 am

    Science is indeed losing the PR battle, and Ken is doing us a favor by alerting us to the latest denialist talking points. If H.L. Mencken was alive today, he’d probably say: “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the scientific literacy of the American public.”

    There is no “cooling trend.” If you cherry-pick 1998 (an El Nino year) as a starting point, you make it look like that. However, the World Meteorological Organization will tell you 2010 is the last year of what’s already the hottest decade on record.

    One study indicates that the proportion of carbon dioxide emissions going to the atmosphere remains at 45 percent. The denialists then leap to the false claim that predictions of atmospheric CO2 increases were not met. We know for a fact that CO2 levels are rising and that human activity is the cause.

    There has been no change in terminology. “Global warming” is the worldwide rise in mean temperatures. “Climate change” refers to the resulting climatic changes, that vary from place to place. The reason why more studies now focus on climate change is because we’re now able to measure these effects.

  4. #4 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on January 2, 2010 - 11:54 am

    (Sigh)

    Ok, everybody, just look at page 14289 (page 2 of the pdf), and you’ll clearly see that the graph Ken is using is cherry-picking the data even more than simply using 1988 (higher than average) and 2008 (lower than average) as reference points. As the document says, scenario B was the one considered most likely to occur.

    Contrary to what you may think it means, Ken, the study you referenced doesn’t say that CO2 levels have stayed the same. It says that the rate of absorption by non-atmospheric sources has stayed the same. An increased rate of emissions will still yield an increase in atmospheric CO2 content, even if the absorption rate remains the same forever.

    No one has to change the terminology when they are winning the argument.

    Sure they do. As an analytical or productive methodology becomes more sophisticated, it makes new discoveries, comes to new conclusions, and requires different descriptive terminology. Ever hear of the Copernican Model? It was generally quite correct–until Kepler came along and enhanced it, and designed his own model. Or how about the Doctrine and Covenants? It was originally the Book of Commandments. Did changing its name and contents slightly take away its credibility?

    You should know by now that the arguments which make your family and friends nod silently aren’t going to get so easy a reception here.

    Dwight Sheldon Adams

  5. #5 by Ken Bingham on January 2, 2010 - 12:59 pm

    Cliff

    Yeah how it was originally written did sound like many of the predictions are to occur on 2010 when my point of this article is to illustrate that many of the doomsday scenarios were to have occurred by 2010 but have not. I have changed the wording to make my point more clear.

  6. #6 by cav on January 2, 2010 - 1:11 pm

    ‘It’s after the end of the world. Don’t you know that yet?’

    Sun Ra

  7. #7 by Less Isbetter on January 2, 2010 - 3:59 pm

    Self exile from the US here. I can see the Andes.

    The city that I live in will be deserted in ten years. The climate has gone to hell. The highlanders have starved out as the melting glaciers produced floods that stripped the top soil in the valleys. Then the summer rains never came.

    So they came down to the valley of the rich, their souls to sell.

    Now, they live in shanty towns and within five miles of me there are at least 200 families living on less than $3 a day. They aren’t even counted in the statistics as victims of the rape of the earth.

    There is enough water trickling down to keep the electricity on all day but soon there won’t be.

    My father in law is the head engineer of the community water supply, his guts are eating him alive as he tries to assess how much water for the town and how much for food production. He checks the mountains for a signs of snow or rain, year round , morning and evening.

    Yeah, that global warning is just a crock. Funny how the rich and the multinational corporations are buying up communal water rights all over the world.

  8. #8 by Uncle Rico on January 2, 2010 - 7:00 pm

    Yeah, right. I’ll bet Less is just posing as someone who has seen the first-hand effects of global warming but really just hates our freedom and wants to take it away from us as part of a radical, global, socialist plot. Nice try Less, but you can’t fool us! We is to smart four yuu.

  9. #9 by Rock Waterman on January 3, 2010 - 3:39 pm

    The experiences of Less do not prove man-made global warming. Does the earth’s climate change? Of course.

    But any discussion of the science of anthropogenic blame for climate change must take into account the exposure of the fraud at East Anglia University.

    Ken is correct here. The jig is up. The fraud has been exposed, and I hope to see the perpetrators prosecuted.

    We may kill ourselves yet, it won’t be from carbon dioxide poisoning. Carbon dioxide is not a poison, it’s a life-force.

  10. #10 by Cliff Lyon on January 3, 2010 - 4:47 pm

    Huh? Rock, Im surprised. are you being serious?

    Were you aware that the relevance of carbon dioxide is not its effect on humans but rather it correlation to warming?

    Right? I mean, no one is suggesting humans will be poisoned by carbon dioxide.

    I think you are kidding.

  11. #11 by Rock Waterman on January 3, 2010 - 6:12 pm

    On the contrary, Cliff. There are plenty of people who have been convinced that carbon dioxide must be reduced because it is poisoning the planet. You may be aware that carbon dioxide is the substance that plants require to make oxygen for us to breathe, but there are plenty of others who have been convinced it is deadly.

    My beef is with the scientists who have betrayed our trust. Science should be empirical; Politics should have no place in scientific inquiry. The East Anglia emails have shown these guys to have sold out.

    I favor the promotion of scientific truth; let the chips fall where they may.

    I am, however, very much interested in the cause of the hapless plight of the Andean natives Less discusses. Maybe I’ll find the time to look into it.

  12. #12 by Cliff Lyon on January 3, 2010 - 6:41 pm

    Rock,

    We also exhale carbon dioxide. If you breathe into a paper bag for very long, you will die. Lots things kill you in high doses.

    perhaps you misunderstand. C02 in the atmosphere in concentrations above 350ppb acts like a heat trap NOT a poison.

    Help me Rock. Im so confused. You seem to have a sharp mind, inquisitive and rational.

    Perhaps you have not had the time to adequately inform yourself on the subject?

    Would you like some references?

  13. #13 by Rock Waterman on January 3, 2010 - 8:12 pm

    We’re not talking about the same thing here, my friend.

    Perhaps I shouldn’t have thrown out the statement on carbon dioxide, but I have been frustrated elsewhere by people who seem to have forgotten 7th grade science, and had no clue that carbon dioxide is the stuff they breathe out. But that’s a side issue for me. forget I mentioned it.

    What has me currently miffed is that until all the deceptions shake out over the East Anglia scandal, I no longer know what to believe. I’m just a schmuck layman, and the waters have been so muddied now that I have to assume for the time being that everything I know is wrong.

    Almost everything we have been taught about global warming is tainted by the deliberate dishonesty of the gatekeepers. All the so-called independent validation can be traced to the same tainted source.

    What we do know is that the scientists we depended on for our facts falsified the data, admitted they falsified the data, and admitted destroying the reputations of any reputable scientists calling them on it.

    So, I have to remain agnostic for now. But I will tell you that reading these emails (the East Anglia ones, not the ones here on this blog) has infuriated me. As you infer, I’m a seeker of the truth, I don’t care what side it comes down on in the political or religious arena, I just want the facts. And I have been betrayed by scientists, of all people!

  14. #14 by Rock Waterman on January 3, 2010 - 8:16 pm

    Rock Waterman :
    We’re not talking about the same thing here, my friend.
    Perhaps I shouldn’t have thrown out the statement on carbon dioxide, but I have been frustrated elsewhere by people who seem to have forgotten 7th grade science, and had no clue that carbon dioxide is the stuff they breathe out. But that’s a side issue for me. Forget I mentioned it.
    What has me currently miffed is that until all the deceptions shake out over the East Anglia scandal, I no longer know what to believe. I’m just a schmuck layman, and the waters have been so muddied now that I have to assume for the time being that everything I know is wrong.
    Almost everything we have been taught about global warming is tainted by the deliberate dishonesty of the gatekeepers. All the so-called independent validation can be traced to the same tainted source.
    What we do know is that the scientists we depended on for our facts falsified the data, admitted they falsified the data, and admitted destroying the reputations of any reputable scientists calling them on it.
    So, I have to remain agnostic for now. But I will tell you that reading these emails (the East Anglia ones, not the ones here on this blog) has infuriated me. As you infer, I’m a seeker of the truth, I don’t care what side it comes down on in the political or religious arena, I just want the facts. And I have been betrayed by scientists, of all people!

  15. #15 by Ken on January 4, 2010 - 8:16 pm

    Met Office prediction

    2010 may be hottest year ever

    LONDON: 2010 is likely to be the world’s warmest year on record, the British Met Office has predicted.

    According to the Met Office, man-made climate change will be a factor and natural weather patterns would contribute less to 2010’s temperature than they did in 1998, the current warmest year in the 160-year record

    Reality

    Winter Could Be Worst in 25 Years for USA…
    CHILL MAP…

    3 Deaths Due To Cold in Memphis…

    Vermont sets ‘all-time record for one snowstorm’…

    Iowa temps ‘a solid 30 degrees below normal’…

    Seoul buried in heaviest snowfall in 70 years…

    Historic ice build-up shuts down NJ nuclear power plant…

    Beijing — coldest in 40 years…

    Miami shivers from coldest weather in decade…

  16. #16 by Cliff Lyon on January 5, 2010 - 8:15 am

    Ken,

    You DO realize this is evidence of Global Warming right?

  17. #17 by Richard Warnick on January 5, 2010 - 8:24 am

    Ken did not provide a link to the entire article. Which says that the 2010 prediction is due to the fact that, like 1998, this will be an El Nino year. So the prediction is a no-brainer, although the Met Office carefully hedged by saying that volcanic eruptions etc. could counteract the El Nino effect.

  18. #18 by Cliff Lyon on January 5, 2010 - 9:23 am

    I think Ken knows this Richard. I have to. He cannot be so daft.

    BUT, just in case. Here is a simple primer.

  19. #19 by Richard Warnick on January 5, 2010 - 11:29 am

    And there’s a link in Cliff’s link that reveals where Ken goes for “Reality”… The Drudge Report.

  20. #20 by Less Isbetter on January 5, 2010 - 11:30 am

    Simple way to settle the whole thing.

    Every day every body got a damn opinion or a new idea.

    Organize the Internet. The info is out there. Just give every person on your email list a position to check, agree on what counts water, heat, etc. Then graph it in Excel. What is, is.
    Someone will write a macro to correctly find and post the data. Now that wasn’t real hard.

    The site:
    wunderground.com
    will give all the info needed.

    Yes, thank you for filling me in on the Peruvian floods, my father in law just got back from a survey of this watershed, middle of the rainy season, no standing water, no running water. No new snow above 4000 meters.
    Of course this is two hundred kilometers south of the floods . I just stocked up with 200 kilos of bottled water.

  21. #21 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on January 5, 2010 - 2:22 pm

    Obviously, the first 5 days of 2010 can’t so easily throw off the whole year’s temperature dynamic. Ever hear a football announcer say, “And the Superbowl goes to. . .” at half-time on the first game of the season? Ken, you should be more cautious with such claims considering that you have such problems with people making far-reaching predictions about future climate conditions.

    Dwight Sheldon Adams

  22. #22 by Richard Warnick on January 5, 2010 - 8:53 pm

    Looks like someone else besides Ken believes what they read in The Drudge Report. The post is almost word-for-word.

  23. #23 by Ken on January 10, 2010 - 3:43 pm

    Now top climate scientists are predicting a 20-30 year cooling period. More bad news for warmers. If temperatures continue to fall and winters become cooler we will need oil and coal even more. That may be good news because increases in C02 is supposed to increase temperatures so if we expand the use of fossil fuels it may offset the colder weather? Except of course, the increased C02 was already supposed to heat the planet which isn’t happening so that blows the intire theory of AGW out the frozen water.

  24. #24 by Richard Warnick on January 10, 2010 - 4:19 pm

    Ken–

    Thanks for finding these stories. The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) is where I get my information on the disappearance of the arctic ice.

    David Rose is either incredibly naive, or deliberately cherry-picking when he says that NSIDC found “Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007.” The 2007 summer sea ice extent was a record low.

    Here is the actual conclusion from the NSIDC statement that Rose took out of context:

    At the end of the Arctic summer, more ice cover remained this year than during the previous record-setting low years of 2007 and 2008. However, sea ice has not recovered to previous levels. September sea ice extent was the third lowest since the start of satellite records in 1979, and the past five years have seen the five lowest ice extents in the satellite record.

    NSIDC Director and Senior Scientist Mark Serreze said, “It’s nice to see a little recovery over the past couple years, but there’s no reason to think that we’re headed back to conditions seen back in the 1970s. We still expect to see ice-free summers sometime in the next few decades.”

    It’s completely false to state, as Rose did in his lead:

    The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.

    Once again, we see that denialist propaganda is relying on cherry-picked data.

  25. #25 by cav on January 10, 2010 - 4:19 pm

    It is absurd to claim that I have scientific knowledge with respect to this or that conclusion by reason of the fact that you suspect and promote principles / rumors which I am then asked to accept on faith because you tell them to me.

    A government espionage organization joins up with climate researchers in a race to figure out what’s happening to our fragile planet.

    http://www.inhabitat.com/2010/01/05/cia-teams-up-with-climate-scientists-to-monitor-climate-change/

  26. #26 by 2010 on January 11, 2010 - 11:14 am

    Ice free North Pole…cool!! The Gulf stream will stop, the populated areas of Europe and North America will have severe winters. The north will warm up, have longer summers. It will be a Golden Age. The world will be topsy turvy more so than it is already.

    We will start a new theater of avatar war in Yemen, after the huge success of drone avatars in Pakistan. Yemen which rhymes with seamen, that pirates are as well. We will build 55 odd Littoral Combat Ships for the Navy, or rather the Navy is building them for us… 208 million a piece (a bargain) to patrol the shorelines of the New Empire, 55!! Neato!!

    No kidding. The Obama peace dividend indeed. They will likely be built in whoever voted for the health reform’s state, as long as it is attached to the ocean.

    Osama will install central heating in his cave. Underwear styles are to be defined in a new way of risque’ and Obama will become hugely unpopular due to Reid’s informing of the public that Obama is fair skinned with no negro accent, unless of course he wants to have one which some would call mocking, if it were used to gain favor and influence.

    Then again it is Reid that is fair skinned and has as much chance of staying in power as any white man with a negro accent.

    It really cannot become more ludicrous, yet the day Palin enters the fray all will become as crazy as it can be.

  27. #27 by 2010 on January 11, 2010 - 11:18 am

    Here is the neat new boats our contractors will get to play on.

    http://www.rense.com/general89/nav.htm

  28. #28 by Peter Mizla on April 10, 2010 - 5:36 am

    Not so fast

    most climate models predict that the affects of over 391 PPM Co2 will begin to kick in after 2010.

    Here in southern New England we had the warmest March on record, with the most precipitation on Record- April thus far has seen record amounts of rain here. We had the earliest warmest temperature of over 90 on record (April 7th) of 93 degrees- and thus far April has been 15 degrees above normal! A record thus far.

    Day to day weather is not an indicator of global warming- be it record warmth- or the record snowfalls to the south of New England this past winter.

    However trees, flowers and shrubs are out here as they would be in the first week of May. An above average summer for hurricanes is predicted for this year- being along the east coast- which has developed along the shore 10 fold since the great New England hurricane of 1938- is a sobering thought.

    As we approach 400 PPM C02- the most in 4 million years- we can look back at climatic conditions of the planet then- the earth was about 5 degrees warmer then today- and sea levels where 3-5 feet higher.

    The reality is we have no idea what the current amount of Co2 will mean for the near future- but from the data and observing I do- changes are well here- and becoming more pronounced.

  29. #29 by glenn on April 10, 2010 - 7:17 am

    The Golden Age Peter!

  30. #30 by jon on April 14, 2010 - 10:40 pm

    anyone that uses the claim “3 Deaths Due To Cold in Memphis…” to portend the coming ice age doesn’t deserve this much effort. thankfully i have learned much from the comments. i hope his swimming pool dries up.

  31. #31 by Andy on November 27, 2010 - 3:45 am

    Hmmm 2010 global temps set to be as high as 1998. Looks like the Met were right?

  32. #32 by cav on November 27, 2010 - 9:53 am

    Just waiting for that small sliver of hope to crack wide open.

    http://www.startribune.com/local/110708239.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUeDyic:E7PNDh_oaE3miUsZ

    In a nutshell: local scientist goes on radio show, calmly argues the case for global warming with wingnut host, live, and wingnut can’t hack it, gives in and admits that the guy is correct.

  33. #33 by Afterburn on November 27, 2010 - 11:01 am

    The volume of ice that lay upon the land that has melted since the end of the last phase of the ice age, about 13k years ago is 80 million cubic kilometers. Man was not involved in this process which altered the face of the planet in a way man can only dream about. Sea level has risen almost 400 feet since that time.

    Good thing too it warmed enough to melt this ice up or humans would not be here in the numbers exceeding 6 billion. Humans being what they are will adapt as we experience “climate change”, or not, just like any other life forms. Keep in mind that 99% of all species the earth has ever seen, are now extinct.

    Since climate is not steady, and is either warming or cooling, as humans take you pick as to what you would rather experience, cooling and the need to for energy to sustain life in places we now dwell, or warming which entails other problems, though less dire than freezing.

    We are not going to change the dynamics that brought us into the world in the time frame and paradigm that we humans have evolved in as the modern age. We can only alter the portion that we believe has altered the climate by our activities. Telling that to China and India and the rest of the world after our excesses will be difficult.

    I will bet we’ll adapt.

(will not be published)


%d bloggers like this: