Cult Of Climastrology Pinpoints Exactly When Global Warming Started Or Something

No, really. Their models tell them so

(UK Daily Mail) This year is tipped to be the hottest on record as global temperatures continue to soar.

Now researchers have revealed for the first time when and where signs of this global warming first appeared in historical temperature records.

Using readings dating back as far as the 1870s, the researchers detected what they believe to be the first signs as early as the 1940s in parts of Australia, south east Asia and Africa.

Trending: The 15 Best Conservative News Sites On The Internet

What they are referring to is man-caused global warming, also known as AGW, anthropogenic global warming. Interestingly, the period of the 1940’s was part of a pause that lasted into the late 1970’s, which even featured cooling, which led to the freakout as to whether the world was moving towards a new ice age. Anyhow, if we saw the fingerprints of AGW then, what of the warming trend from the mid-1800’s to late 1800’s? And that of the around 1910-1940?

Rather inconvenient.

The study, by a team from Australia’s Arc Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science and the University of Reading, gives an insight into the global impacts that have already been felt by global warming, even at an early stage and possible effects that will be seen in the future, such as extreme rainfall.

To work out when global warming started, the team analysed changes in average temperature.

They created 23 models based on temperature data to study past and future trends.

And they found exactly what they were looking for, and this must be Blamed On Mankind. According to their models.

What caused the early temperature spikes? What caused the pauses/cooling periods?

Anthony Watts notes

From the UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES (via Eurekalert) and the “Where’s Waldo?” department comes this hilarious claim. Why hilarious? Because the headline says “global warming”, yet the research says that warming appeared in different decades in different parts of the world. So much for the “global” part. But, it gets better, the money quote says the USA isn’t conforming to the expected warming signal, but, “…according to the models but it is expected they will appear in the next decade.”

True. How can it be “global” when they’re only seeing things locally? He also notes that the actual paper is based on a simulation, rather than real world, and that “Model output is not the actual temperature record.” If you hit the link, you’ll see that this simulation goes out to 2060. I may not be great at remembering specific dates, but, by my reckoning, we’re pretty far off from 2060, and we don’t actually have data from 2016 on.

That all said, even if the simulation is right, it still wouldn’t prove anthropogenic causation, which is what the debate is about.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!