Nature: “Global warming will happen faster than we think”… Because it’s happened slower than we thought it would!

Guest short note by David Middleton


Global warming will happen faster than we think

Three trends will combine to hasten it, warn Yangyang Xu, Veerabhadran Ramanathan and David G. Victor.

If anyone cares to read what Yangyang Xu, Veerabhadran Ramanathan and David G. Victor have to say about this… Click here.

If anyone desires more comparisons of predcitions and models, let me know in the comments section.


Scenario C has humans undiscovering fire in 1999.

76 thoughts on “Nature: “Global warming will happen faster than we think”… Because it’s happened slower than we thought it would!

    • Oh, come on. It sounds perfectly kosher to me. All the apples we’ve plucked from the Climate Predictions and Models barrel so far have been rotten worm farms. So it stands to reason that the ones further down must be 24-carat, extra-delicious fruity gold.

    • … in Wonderland?
      “For, you see, so many out of the ordinary things had happened lately, that ‘climate scientists’ have begun to think that very few things indeed were really impossible.”

    • GovMints get what GovMints wants. This is what happens when you mix Science with Government Graft, I mean Grants. You get Anti-Science, I mean Climate Science.

  1. When I get to the bottom I go back to the top of the slide
    Where I stop and I turn and I go for a ride
    Till I get to the bottom and it’s Global Warming again!

  2. That’s what they think.
    Mind you, it is based upon natural variability and less air pollution as well as our CO2 contributions. I am sure we could pollute the air more if we put our minds to it.

  3. I guess we should be happy that these guys aren’t politicians, or engineers, or anybody important.

      • I used to be published in Nature but I gave up on nudity when the changing climate, affected my exposed extremities adversely. I am surprised the magazine is still being published…?
        Any one for tennis,…. or perhaps hockey?

  4. The corresponding author is a professor of international relations. Nuff said.
    Nature (journal) is still looking for new lows in climate science.

  5. When I was in elementary school, my third grade teacher told the class that the earth was in a inter-glacial period. The science at the time indicated we were still in a warming period. ‘ Science closed.’ Nothing has changed that statement, in my observation, during the next 64 years. It is not the burning of fossils, and the like that may create an unbreathable atmosphere. Everyone ignores the fact that there are billions more creatures breathing this air. The one and only, absolute solution would be to eliminate 75% of the population.
    Some of the world is working toward a cleaner, healthier, earth. Don’t blame anyone for what has already happened, if the climate is damaged. Just support new technology that will make a better world in the future, even if it takes a couple hundred years. If the earth succumbs on it’s own fumes someday. THAN, we can blame Mother Nature with our last breath.

    [???? .mod]

      • ” The one and only, absolute solution would be to eliminate 75% of the population.”

        I’m more worried about whether or not Ron owns firearms or weapons of mass destruction, and where he lives …..

          • An observation of logic should not bother an intelligent person

            and neither does the gish gallop you posted bother an intelligent person. Indeed an intelligent person realizes that people ridiculing nonsense is in no way a sign of them being bothered by said nonsense. A not so-intelligent person, on the other hand, assumes that anyone who doesn’t agree with them are “bothered by” what they had to say and thus are somehow not “an intelligent person”.

          • Haha! What with Helter Swelter above, it’s a punntastic day on WUWT.

            I heard Jeremy Corbyn’s brother Piers say that global warming was a WMT – weapon of mass taxation.

        • Let’s hope Ron doesn’t get a hold of all five infinity gems. At least Thanos only wanted to wipe out 50% of the population.

    • The one and only, absolute solution would be to eliminate 75% of the population

      When you watched Avenger Infinity War, you thought Thanos was the hero of the piece, didn’t you? Though he obviously didn’t go far enough in your book, what with only stopping at 50% of the population.

  6. It is the nature of experts to never, never, ever, admit being wrong. They have a panoply of excuses to explain why they weren’t wrong.

    One of the standard excuses is that they were right about the events, and just off by timing. I think that’s what’s going on here.

    • commieBob

      From your article, I think it’s fundamentally politicians predisposition for narcissism.

      As someone once said, the politicians we want are the ones that don’t promote themselves for the job……something like that.

      • The one I’ve stuck to my whole life:
        The ones who want the job, are the ones who should not get the job.

      • No Nick, not the current global temperature which is far below the line. They NEED to keep including the super El Nino noise and pretend it is climate. Otherwise, the entire chart falls apart.

        This is how you can tell real science from pseudo-science. A real scientist would NEVER include massive noise in a chart meant to inform the reader.

    • Looks like the cutoff is around April 5,2063. First contact. The Vulcans will save us from global warming. I feel much safer now.

  7. We know what impact CO2 is going to have, the sacred models have spoken and they are never wrong.
    The fact that the real world hasn’t kept up with what we know is going to happen just means that some time soon heating is going to have to increase dramatically in order to get the earth back to where the sacred models say it should be.
    Be warned.

  8. Is that the latest GISS? I haven’t been paying much attention this last year or so but I guess all those incremental changes they keep making to the temperature record really start to add up after a while because I no longer recognise the shape of the curve.

  9. Whichever graph this one is, it will be a new one which we do not recognise as the past is being continually cooled and the present is being adjusted up. As the communists know, only the future is certain, the past is constantly changing.

  10. He has missed to mention the third trend- the great scam is exposed, grant money is running out.

    DMiddleton: Did you mean “predilections”?

  11. I can’t help but remember a believer’s comment (in 2014 or so) that CO2 warming is like stepping on an auto accelerator and having the engine hesitate a moment and then race wildly. Still waiting… maybe there’s a misadjustment somewhere?

    • So… their metaphor for CO2 driven warming is a badly configured engine?

      Sounds to me that even to a Warmist CO2 can’t even warm properly. Get your act together CO2! The lives of the thousands of freezing depend on it!

    • It would be more accurate analogy to say the engine raced wildly, then 800 years later the accelerator was pressed. Thus sayeth CAGW theory.

      • I think it’s more like the car accelerated, that caused the driver’s foot to push down on the accelerator, which caused the car to accelerate wildly until it was out of control.

        The stopping mechanism while accelerating wildly with the accelerator to the floor is a little murky, however….

        • Zig Zag Wanderer

          In motorcycle terms it’s something like dropping the clutch at full chat, flipping the bike over backwards and skidding down the road on their arse.

  12. When they say “A Good Chance,” Read, “We actually have no idea, but this MIGHT happen.”

    OK, that is five minutes of my life I will never get back…

    a little strange when I get the Duplicate Comment thing, and then the site freezes up. I will try one more time, hoping that this time it is not a Duplicate Comment

  13. “This dark news means that the next 25 years are poised to warm at a rate of 0.25–0.32 °C per decade3.”
    … based on models which overpredicted warming by 2x.

    “That is faster than the 0.2 °C per decade that we have experienced since the 2000s, and which the IPCC used in its special report.”
    The actual number is half that. The report is lying. Shocking they let this falsehood in a Nature article.

  14. This isn’t hard to understand, but I will translate the article for you

    Hello, I am a climate enthusiast using “scientist” as a way to get money out of people.
    I need a new computer, a good pair of black dress shoes, a suit to go with them so that when I give a speech I look good. I also like flying on a private charted jet and living high on the hog.
    This all costs money, so send me all the money you have and I will send you some benedictions – er, uh, thank you notes, and get on with cranking out my next bit of alarming gibberish.

  15. Note that just about all of these models start from the cool period of the 1970 tees. But we can go back to the very hot 1930 tees, then run their models from their.
    We can also go back to the MWP time and see how the models do from there. And let us not forget the very long warming period of the Romans, and while it was warm they expanded their empire. And before them it was the Minion period, yet another time of warm is good.

    Just how long can this fairy tale continue.

    Problem seems to be that the Politicians like to have something to frighten us s with, and the Media, a monster these days, likes bad things to write or talk about .

    Couple that with the likes of the World Bank refusing to help in developing Africa’s fossal l fuels, and we have a situation which will result in starvation and War.


  16. The best advice I can give folks is do not get your science from COMMENTS ( not peer reviewed) in Nature.
    Look at Ar5. If its not in Ar5, then withhold judgment until Ar6 is published.

    I would not take their argument seriously as it is only a comment in Nature and hasnt been peer reviewed and hasnt been through the grinder of other folks trying to poke holes in it.

    Verdict: pay no mind to it: no review, no data, no code. Meh.

    • Won’t see data or code, per Dr Mann it is to be considered intellectual property and should not be available to anyone that only wants to find something wrong with it

      • Well I read it, and saw this (my bold for emphasis):

        But the latest IPCC special report underplays another alarming fact: global warming is accelerating. Three trends — rising emissions, declining air pollution and >b>natural climate cycles — will combine over the next 20 years to make climate change faster and more furious than anticipated. In our view, there’s a good chance that we could breach the 1.5 °C level by 2030, not by 2040 as projected in the special report (see ‘Accelerated warming’). The climate-modelling community has not grappled enough with the rapid changes that policymakers care most about, preferring to focus on longer-term trends and equilibria.

        So – declining air pollution is now a BAD THING (can you believe it?)

        So they understand natural climate cycles and they KNOW that there’s a natural warming trend that will continue for the next 20 years). (apparently, the power of knowing these things has been granted to them)

        And then – from the “could have fooled me” department comes this gem:
        The climate-modelling community has not grappled enough with the rapid changes that policymakers care most about

        Well you learn something new every day!

    • So, pay no attention to the unofficial non-peer reviewed Alarmist nonsense, just the official pseudoscientific garbage the ipcc cranks out. Got it.

    • On the other hand, peer review (Especially climate science peer review) misses some real whoppers on a regular basis.

  17. Well Steve, I find the comments to be very interesting , and its obvious that many are from very smart folk.
    One of the benifits of living to a ripe old age is that one realises that there is no such thing as wasted knowledge. Something may appear to be of minor interest , but yearrs later we find that it was of use in another context.

    Knowledge, plus of course cheap energy is the key to our way of life , which I am very grateful for as back in the 1800 I would probably be dead by the time I was 40.


  18. Whenever you see global temperature charts for the next 2 years, you will probably notice that the data terminates around 2016. This is because 2016 was a hot El Nino year with well above average global temperatures. Ending at that time cherry picks the data to makes it look like global temperatures are rising faster then they really are. And 5 year averaging also tends to smooth and spread out the effects of an El Nino year to make it look like temperature increases are happening over a wider period of time.

    A better view of what is actually happening comes from the UAH Global Temperature Update which Dr. Roy Spencer publishes on his blog monthly ( It shows average monthly values and adds a 13 month moving average. The average temperature anomaly from the 1981-2010 mean for 2018 is .22C (the 13 month average is slightly higher). This is close to the mean from 1999 to the present, which eyeballing looks to be about .18C. This essentially means that global temperatures have barely budged in 20 years, not what a warmist would expect for a period in which CO2 levels rose 10% from 370ppm to 408ppm.

    Another anecdote for 2018: In November 2018, North America had the highest snow cover percentage for November in the entire 50 years since it has been tracked by satellite. Warmists will try to say that more snow is to be expected with Global Warming, but that doesn’t fly for November when average temperatures are well above freezing for most of the continent.

  19. Dan

    Whenever you see global temperature charts for the next 2 years, you will probably notice that the data terminates around 2016. This is because 2016 was a hot El Nino year with well above average global temperatures.

    I guess we should be equally cautious of global temperature charts that ‘start’ in 2016 for similar reasons?

    The average temperature anomaly from the 1981-2010 mean for 2018 is .22C (the 13 month average is slightly higher). This is close to the mean from 1999 to the present, which eyeballing looks to be about .18C. This essentially means that global temperatures have barely budged in 20 years…

    That’s the problem with “eyeballing” time series data. Apply linear regression to UAH from 1999 to the present and you get warming of 0.14C per decade; a total warming of 0.27 C:

    If you use that calculator for RSS, the other satellite TLT data set, the trend is over +0.20C per decade from the same start date.

    • That’s a nice website for doing calculations. Thanks for the pointer.
      My point was that where you start and end is of critical importance. Warmists are cooking the numbers by starting on a cold year and ending on a hot year.
      1) If you start in 1999 and go to 2015.5, avoiding the El Nino years of 1997-1998 and 2016-2017, you get warming of 0.056C per decade. Do the math for 100 years.
      2) If you include go peak to peak for El Nino years 1997.8 to 2017.0 you get a similar 0.054C/decade
      3) If you go about a year before the 1997-1998 (1996.0) El Nino started to the present (about a year after the 2016-2017 El Nino ended (2018.9) you get 0.096C/decade, still under 1C per hundred years.
      4) And if I go from the beginning of 2001 to the middle of 2015, the trend is actually negative, -0.005C/decade. (And those are not cherry picked dates – they look to be average years in the middle of a group of average years)
      5) Finally, if I look at the UAH for the entire record of 1979-present, I get only .128C/decade.

      One would think that the rate of warming would be greater at the higher CO2 levels of the last 2 decades, but that simply does not seem to be the case. Why were temperatures depressed in the 1980’s and early 1990’s? There were at least 3 stratospheric volcanic eruptions (Mt. St. Helens, 1980, El Chichon, 1982, and Mt. Pinatubo 1991 that are known to have depressed temperatures worldwide in their aftermath and definitely should be counted as a factor in the higher per decade rate from 1979 on.
      And what caused the temperature rise in the late 1800’s? It must have been natural factors unrelated to CO2. So when we talk about warming, we must investigate natural factors as well the possible affects of CO2. All the data must be considered before rushing into public policy decisions.

  20. Incredible!

    There is no data or analysis. Looking at the figure, in which observations appear to exceed predictions, that directly contradicts reality, I’d just say this.

    If the predictions were to follow Taylor’s theorem using prior observations, one couldn’t predict anything. There must be other influences at work, but they don’t say what they are.

    When I was a student (50 years ago), Nature had the reputation for being a rigorous gold-standard for science.

    While power may corrupt, climate science corrupts absolutely. Why does Nature publish this garbage?

  21. The earths fever will happen faster than we think ? I sure hope so .
    A con job based loosely on demonstrably false and misleading
    computer models programmed with intent to spit out what lobbyist’s want . Paid fraud used to rob tax payers
    and fulfill a political globalist agenda (Agenda 21 ) .

    In real science inaccurate biased results are scrubbed . In science fiction they aren’t .
    Attempts to further hollow out the middle class into servitude are apparently not going over well . People have had enough of politicians and crooks shaking them down .
    The jig is up . Enablers get out while you can .
    Bye bye Macron .

Comments are closed.