A new record ‘Pause’ length: No global warming for 18 years 7 months – Temperature standstill extends to 223 months

Special to Climate Depot

The Pause draws blood

A new record Pause length: no warming for 18 years 7 months

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

For 223 months, since January 1997, there has been no global warming at all (Fig. 1). This month’s RSS temperature shows the Pause setting a new record at 18 years 7 months.

It is becoming ever more likely that the temperature increase that usually accompanies an el Niño will begin to shorten the Pause somewhat, just in time for the Paris climate summit, though a subsequent La Niña would be likely to bring about a resumption and perhaps even a lengthening of the Pause.

Figure 1. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 7 months since January 1997.

The hiatus period of 18 years 7 months is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend. The start date is not cherry-picked: it is calculated. And the graph does not mean there is no such thing as global warming. Going back further shows a small warming rate.

The Pause has now drawn blood. In the run-up to the world-government “climate” conference in Paris this December, the failure of the world to warm at all for well over half the satellite record has provoked the climate extremists to resort to desperate measures to try to do away with the Pause.

First there was Tom Karl with his paper attempting to wipe out the Pause by arbitrarily adding a hefty increase to all the ocean temperature measurements made by the 3600 automated ARGO bathythermograph buoys circulating in the oceans.  Hey presto! All three of the longest-standing terrestrial temperature datasets – GISS, HadCRUT4 and NCDC – were duly adjusted, yet again, to show more global warming than has really occurred.

However, the measured and recorded facts are these. In the 11 full years April 2004 to March 2015, for which the ARGO system has been providing reasonably-calibrated though inevitably ill-resolved data (each buoy has to represent 200,000 km3 of ocean temperature with only three readings a month), there has been no warming at all in the upper 750 m, and only a little below that, so that the trend over the period of operation shows a warming equivalent to just 1 C° every 430 years.


Figure 1a. Near-global ocean temperatures by stratum, 0-1900 m. Source: ARGO marine atlas.

And in the lower troposphere, the warming according to RSS occurred at a rate equivalent to 1 C° every 700 years.


Figure 1b. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the UAH satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 5 months since March 1997.

Then along came another paper, this time saying that the GISS global temperature record shows global warming during the Pause and that, therefore, GISS shows global warming during the Pause. This instance of argumentum ad petitionem principii, the fallacy of circular argument, passed peer review without difficulty because it came to the politically-correct conclusion that there was no Pause.

The paper reached its conclusion, however, without mentioning the word “satellite”. The UAH data show no warming for 18 years 5 months.


Figure 1c. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the UAH satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 5 months since March 1997.

For completeness, though no reliance can now be placed on the terrestrial datasets, here is the “warming” rate they show since January 1997:


Figure 1d. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the GISS, HadCRUT4 and NCDC terrestrial monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly datasets shows global warming at a rate equivalent to a little over 1 C° per century during the period of the Pause from January 1997 to July 2015.

Bearing in mind that one-third of the 2.4 W m–2 radiative forcing from all manmade sources since 1750 has occurred during the period of the Pause, a warming rate equivalent to little more than 1 C°/century is not exactly alarming. However, the paper that reported the supposed absence of the Pause was extremely careful not to report just how little warming the terrestrial datasets – even after all their many tamperings – actually show.

As always, a note of caution. Merely because there has been little or no warming in recent decades, one may not draw the conclusion that warming has ended forever. The trend lines measure what has occurred: they do not predict what will occur.

Furthermore, the long, slow build-up of the current el Nino, which has now become strongish and – on past form – will not peak till the turn of the year, is already affecting tropical temperatures and, as the thermohaline circulation does its thing, must eventually affect global temperatures.

Though one may expect the el Nino to be followed by a la Nina, canceling the temporary warming, this does not always happen. In short, the Pause may well come to an end and then disappear. However, as this regular column has stressed before, the Pause – politically useful though it may be to all who wish that the “official” scientific community would remember its duty of skepticism – is far less important than the growing divergence between the predictions of the general-circulation models and observed reality.

The divergence between the models’ predictions in 1990 (Fig. 2) and 2005 (Fig. 3), on the one hand, and the observed outturn, on the other, continues to widen. If the Pause lengthens just a little more, the rate of warming in the quarter-century since the IPCC’s First Assessment Report in 1990 will fall below 1 C°/century equivalent.


Figure 2. Near-term projections of warming at a rate equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] K/century, made with “substantial confidence” in IPCC (1990), for the 307 months January 1990 to July 2015 (orange region and red trend line), vs. observed anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue) at just 1 K/century equivalent, taken as the mean of the RSS and UAH v. 5.6 satellite monthly mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.


Figure 3. Predicted temperature change, January 2005 to July 2015, at a rate equivalent to 1.7 [1.0, 2.3] Cº/century (orange zone with thick red best-estimate trend line), compared with the near-zero observed anomalies (dark blue) and real-world trend (bright blue), taken as the mean of the RSS and UAH v. 5.6 satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.

The page Key Facts about Global Temperature (below) should be shown to anyone who persists in believing that, in the words of Mr Obama’s Twitteratus, “global warming is real, manmade and dangerous”.

The Technical Note explains the sources of the IPCC’s predictions in 1990 and in 2005, and also demonstrates that that according to the ARGO bathythermograph data the oceans are warming at a rate equivalent to less than a quarter of a Celsius degree per century.

Key facts about global temperature

  • The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 223 months from January 1997 to July 2015 – more than half the 439-month satellite record.
  • There has been no warming even though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings since 1750 have occurred since January 1997, during the pause in global warming.
  • The entire RSS dataset from January 1979 to date shows global warming at an unalarming rate equivalent to just 1.2 Cº per century.
  • Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to below 1.2 Cº per century.
  • The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.75 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.
  • The fastest warming rate lasting 15 years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.
  • Compare the warming on the Central England temperature dataset in the 40 years 1694-1733, well before the Industrial Revolution, equivalent to 4.33 C°/century.
  • In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of near-term warming was equivalent to 2.8 Cº per century, higher by two-thirds than its current prediction of 1.7 Cº/century.
  • The warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to 1 Cº per century. The IPCC had predicted more than two and a half times as much.
  • To meet the IPCC’s central prediction of 1 C° warming from 1990-2025, in the next decade a warming of 0.75 C°, equivalent to 7.5 C°/century, would have to occur.
  • Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its high-end business as usual centennial warming prediction of 4.8 Cº warming to 2100.
  • The IPCC’s predicted 4.8 Cº warming by 2100 is well over twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than 15 years that has been measured since 1950.
  • The IPCC’s 4.8 Cº-by-2100 prediction is four times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950.
  • The oceans, according to the 3600+ ARGO buoys, are warming at a rate of just 0.02 Cº per decade, equivalent to 0.23 Cº per century, or 1 C° in 430 years.
  • Recent extreme-weather events cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming to speak of. It is as simple as that. 

Technical note

Our latest topical graph shows the least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean lower-troposphere dataset for as far back as it is possible to go and still find a zero trend. The start-date is not “cherry-picked” so as to coincide with the temperature spike caused by the 1998 el Niño. Instead, it is calculated so as to find the longest period with a zero trend.

The fact of a long Pause is an indication of the widening discrepancy between prediction and reality in the temperature record.

The satellite datasets are arguably less unreliable than other datasets in that they show the 1998 Great El Niño more clearly than all other datasets. The Great el Niño, like its two predecessors in the past 300 years, caused widespread global coral bleaching, providing an independent verification that the satellite datasets are better able than the rest to capture such fluctuations without artificially filtering them out.

Terrestrial temperatures are measured by thermometers. Thermometers correctly sited in rural areas away from manmade heat sources show warming rates below those that are published. The satellite datasets are based on reference measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers, which provide an independent verification of the temperature measurements by checking via spaceward mirrors the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which is 1% of the freezing point of water, or just 2.73 degrees above absolute zero. It was by measuring minuscule variations in the cosmic background radiation that the NASA anisotropy probe determined the age of the Universe: 13.82 billion years.

The RSS graph (Fig. 1) is accurate. The data are lifted monthly straight from the RSS website. A computer algorithm reads them down from the text file and plots them automatically using an advanced routine that automatically adjusts the aspect ratio of the data window at both axes so as to show the data at maximum scale, for clarity.

The latest monthly data point is visually inspected to ensure that it has been correctly positioned. The light blue trend line plotted across the dark blue spline-curve that shows the actual data is determined by the method of least-squares linear regression, which calculates the y-intercept and slope of the line.

The IPCC and most other agencies use linear regression to determine global temperature trends. Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia recommends it in one of the Climategate emails. The method is appropriate because global temperature records exhibit little auto-regression, since summer temperatures in one hemisphere are compensated by winter in the other. Therefore, an AR(n) model would generate results little different from a least-squares trend.

Dr Stephen Farish, Professor of Epidemiological Statistics at the University of Melbourne, kindly verified the reliability of the algorithm that determines the trend on the graph and the correlation coefficient, which is very low because, though the data are highly variable, the trend is flat.

RSS itself is now taking a serious interest in the length of the Great Pause. Dr Carl Mears, the senior research scientist at RSS, discusses it at remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures.

Dr Mears’ results are summarized in Fig. T1:


Figure T1. Output of 33 IPCC models (turquoise) compared with measured RSS global temperature change (black), 1979-2014. The transient coolings caused by the volcanic eruptions of Chichón (1983) and Pinatubo (1991) are shown, as is the spike in warming caused by the great el Niño of 1998.

Dr Mears writes:

“The denialists like to assume that the cause for the model/observation discrepancy is some kind of problem with the fundamental model physics, and they pooh-pooh any other sort of explanation.  This leads them to conclude, very likely erroneously, that the long-term sensitivity of the climate is much less than is currently thought.”

Dr Mears concedes the growing discrepancy between the RSS data and the models, but he alleges “cherry-picking” of the start-date for the global-temperature graph:

“Recently, a number of articles in the mainstream press have pointed out that there appears to have been little or no change in globally averaged temperature over the last two decades.  Because of this, we are getting a lot of questions along the lines of ‘I saw this plot on a denialist web site.  Is this really your data?’  While some of these reports have ‘cherry-picked’ their end points to make their evidence seem even stronger, there is not much doubt that the rate of warming since the late 1990s is less than that predicted by most of the IPCC AR5 simulations of historical climate.  … The denialists really like to fit trends starting in 1997, so that the huge 1997-98 ENSO event is at the start of their time series, resulting in a linear fit with the smallest possible slope.”

In fact, the spike in temperatures caused by the Great el Niño of 1998 is almost entirely offset in the linear-trend calculation by two factors: the not dissimilar spike of the 2010 el Niño, and the sheer length of the Great Pause itself.

Curiously, Dr Mears prefers the terrestrial datasets to the satellite datasets. The UK Met Office, however, uses the satellite data to calibrate its own terrestrial record.

The length of the Great Pause in global warming, significant though it now is, is of less importance than the ever-growing discrepancy between the temperature trends predicted by models and the far less exciting real-world temperature change that has been observed. The el Nino may well strengthen throughout this year, reducing the length of the Great Pause. However, the discrepancy between prediction and observation continues to widen.

Sources of the IPCC projections in Figs. 2 and 3

IPCC’s First Assessment Report predicted that global temperature would rise by 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] Cº to 2025, equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] Cº per century. The executive summary asked, “How much confidence do we have in our predictions?” IPCC pointed out some uncertainties (clouds, oceans, etc.), but concluded:

“Nevertheless, … we have substantial confidence that models can predict at least the broad-scale features of climate change. … There are similarities between results from the coupled models using simple representations of the ocean and those using more sophisticated descriptions, and our understanding of such differences as do occur gives us some confidence in the results.”

That “substantial confidence” was substantial over-confidence. For the rate of global warming since 1990 – the most important of the “broad-scale features of climate change” that the models were supposed to predict – is now below half what the IPCC had then predicted.

In 1990, the IPCC said this:

“Based on current models we predict:

“under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3 Cº per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 Cº to 0.5 Cº per decade), this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1 Cº above the present value by 2025 and 3 Cº before the end of the next century. The rise will not be steady because of the influence of other factors” (p. xii).

Later, the IPCC said:

“The numbers given below are based on high-resolution models, scaled to be consistent with our best estimate of global mean warming of 1.8 Cº by 2030. For values consistent with other estimates of global temperature rise, the numbers below should be reduced by 30% for the low estimate or increased by 50% for the high estimate” (p. xxiv).

The orange region in Fig. 2 represents the IPCC’s medium-term Scenario-A estimate of near-term warming, i.e. 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] K by 2025.

The IPCC’s predicted global warming over the 25 years from 1990 to the present differs little from a straight line (Fig. T2).


Figure T2. Historical warming from 1850-1990, and predicted warming from 1990-2100 on the IPCC’s “business-as-usual” Scenario A (IPCC, 1990, p. xxii).

Because this difference between a straight line and the slight uptick in the warming rate the IPCC predicted over the period 1990-2025 is so small, one can look at it another way. To reach the 1 K central estimate of warming since 1990 by 2025, there would have to be twice as much warming in the next ten years as there was in the last 25 years. That is not likely.

But is the Pause perhaps caused by the fact that CO2 emissions have not been rising anything like as fast as the IPCC’s “business-as-usual” Scenario A prediction in 1990? No: CO2 emissions have risen rather above the Scenario-A prediction (Fig. T3).


Figure T3. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, etc., in 2012, from Le Quéré et al. (2014), plotted against the chart of “man-made carbon dioxide emissions”, in billions of tonnes of carbon per year, from IPCC (1990).

Plainly, therefore, CO2 emissions since 1990 have proven to be closer to Scenario A than to any other case, because for all the talk about CO2 emissions reduction the fact is that the rate of expansion of fossil-fuel burning in China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, etc., far outstrips the paltry reductions we have achieved in the West to date.

True, methane concentration has not risen as predicted in 1990 (Fig. T4), for methane emissions, though largely uncontrolled, are simply not rising as the models had predicted. Here, too, all of the predictions were extravagantly baseless.

The overall picture is clear. Scenario A is the emissions scenario from 1990 that is closest to the observed CO2 emissions outturn.


Figure T4. Methane concentration as predicted in four IPCC Assessment Reports, together with (in black) the observed outturn, which is running along the bottom of the least prediction. This graph appeared in the pre-final draft of IPCC (2013), but had mysteriously been deleted from the final, published version, inferentially because the IPCC did not want to display such a plain comparison between absurdly exaggerated predictions and unexciting reality.

To be precise, a quarter-century after 1990, the global-warming outturn to date – expressed as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the RSS and UAH monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies – is 0.27 Cº, equivalent to little more than 1 Cº/century. The IPCC’s central estimate of 0.71 Cº, equivalent to 2.8 Cº/century, that was predicted for Scenario A in IPCC (1990) with “substantial confidence” was approaching three times too big. In fact, the outturn is visibly well below even the least estimate.

In 1990, the IPCC’s central prediction of the near-term warming rate was higher by two-thirds than its prediction is today. Then it was 2.8 C/century equivalent. Now it is just 1.7 Cº equivalent – and, as Fig. T5 shows, even that is proving to be a substantial exaggeration.

Is the ocean warming?

One frequently-discussed explanation for the Great Pause is that the coupled ocean-atmosphere system has continued to accumulate heat at approximately the rate predicted by the models, but that in recent decades the heat has been removed from the atmosphere by the ocean and, since globally the near-surface strata show far less warming than the models had predicted, it is hypothesized that what is called the “missing heat” has traveled to the little-measured abyssal strata below 2000 m, whence it may emerge at some future date.

Actually, it is not known whether the ocean is warming: each of the 3600 automated ARGO bathythermograph buoys takes just three measurements a month in 200,000 cubic kilometres of ocean – roughly a 100,000-square-mile box more than 316 km square and 2 km deep. Plainly, the results on the basis of a resolution that sparse (which, as Willis Eschenbach puts it, is approximately the equivalent of trying to take a single temperature and salinity profile taken at a single point in Lake Superior less than once a year) are not going to be a lot better than guesswork.

Unfortunately ARGO seems not to have updated the ocean dataset since December 2014. However, what we have gives us 11 full years of data. Results are plotted in Fig. T5. The ocean warming, if ARGO is right, is equivalent to just 0.02 Cº decade–1, equivalent to 0.2 Cº century–1.


Figure T5. The entire near-global ARGO 2 km ocean temperature dataset from January 2004 to December 2014 (black spline-curve), with the least-squares linear-regression trend calculated from the data by the author (green arrow).

Finally, though the ARGO buoys measure ocean temperature change directly, before publication NOAA craftily converts the temperature change into zettajoules of ocean heat content change, which make the change seem a whole lot larger.

The terrifying-sounding heat content change of 260 ZJ from 1970 to 2014 (Fig. T6) is equivalent to just 0.2 K/century of global warming. All those “Hiroshima bombs of heat” of which the climate-extremist websites speak are a barely discernible pinprick. The ocean and its heat capacity are a lot bigger than some may realize.


Figure T6. Ocean heat content change, 1957-2013, in Zettajoules from NOAA’s NODC Ocean Climate Lab: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT, with the heat content values converted back to the ocean temperature changes in Kelvin that were originally measured. NOAA’s conversion of the minuscule warming data to Zettajoules, combined with the exaggerated vertical aspect of the graph, has the effect of making a very small change in ocean temperature seem considerably more significant than it is.

Converting the ocean heat content change back to temperature change reveals an interesting discrepancy between NOAA’s data and that of the ARGO system. Over the period of ARGO data, from 2004-2014, the NOAA data imply that the oceans are warming at 0.05 Cº decade–1, equivalent to 0.5 Cº century–1, or rather more than double the rate shown by ARGO.

ARGO has the better-resolved dataset, but since the resolutions of all ocean datasets are very low one should treat all these results with caution. What one can say is that, on such evidence as these datasets are capable of providing, the difference between underlying warming rate of the ocean and that of the atmosphere is not statistically significant, suggesting that if the “missing heat” is hiding in the oceans it has magically found its way into the abyssal strata without managing to warm the upper strata on the way. On these data, too, there is no evidence of rapid or catastrophic ocean warming.

Furthermore, to date no empirical, theoretical or numerical method, complex or simple, has yet successfully specified mechanistically either how the heat generated by anthropogenic greenhouse-gas enrichment of the atmosphere has reached the deep ocean without much altering the heat content of the intervening near-surface strata or how the heat from the bottom of the ocean may eventually re-emerge to perturb the near-surface climate conditions relevant to land-based life on Earth.

Most ocean models used in performing coupled general-circulation model sensitivity runs simply cannot resolve most of the physical processes relevant for capturing heat uptake by the deep ocean. Ultimately, the second law of thermodynamics requires that any heat which may have accumulated in the deep ocean will dissipate via various diffusive processes. It is not plausible that any heat taken up by the deep ocean will suddenly warm the upper ocean and, via the upper ocean, the atmosphere.

If the “deep heat” explanation for the Pause were correct (and it is merely one among dozens that have been offered), the complex models have failed to account for it correctly: otherwise, the growing discrepancy between the predicted and observed atmospheric warming rates would not have become as significant as it has.

Why were the models’ predictions exaggerated?

In 1990 the IPCC predicted – on its business-as-usual Scenario A – that from the Industrial Revolution till the present there would have been 4 Watts per square meter of radiative forcing caused by Man (Fig. T7):


Figure T7. Predicted manmade radiative forcings (IPCC, 1990).

However, from 1995 onward the IPCC decided to assume, on rather slender evidence, that anthropogenic particulate aerosols – mostly soot from combustion – were shading the Earth from the Sun to a large enough extent to cause a strong negative forcing. It has also now belatedly realized that its projected increases in methane concentration were wild exaggerations. As a result of these and other changes, it now estimates that the net anthropogenic forcing of the industrial era is just 2.3 Watts per square meter, or little more than half its prediction in 1990:


Figure T8: Net anthropogenic forcings, 1750 to 1950, 1980 and 2012 (IPCC, 2013).

Even this, however, may be a considerable exaggeration. For the best estimate of the actual current top-of-atmosphere radiative imbalance (total natural and anthropo-genic net forcing) is only 0.6 Watts per square meter (Fig. T9):


Figure T9. Energy budget diagram for the Earth from Stephens et al. (2012)

In short, most of the forcing predicted by the IPCC is either an exaggeration or has already resulted in whatever temperature change it was going to cause. There is little global warming in the pipeline as a result of our past and present sins of emission.

It is also possible that the IPCC and the models have relentlessly exaggerated climate sensitivity. One recent paper on this question is Monckton of Brenchley et al. (2015), which found climate sensitivity to be in the region of 1 Cº per CO2 doubling (go to scibull.com and click “Most Read Articles”). The paper identified errors in the models’ treatment of temperature feedbacks and their amplification, which account for two-thirds of the equilibrium warming predicted by the IPCC.

Professor Ray Bates gave a paper in Moscow in summer 2015 in which he concluded, based on the analysis by Lindzen & Choi (2009, 2011) (Fig. T10), that temperature feedbacks are net-negative. Accordingly, he supports the conclusion both by Lindzen & Choi (1990) (Fig. T10) and by Spencer & Braswell (2010, 2011) that climate sensitivity is below – and perhaps considerably below – 1 Cº per CO2 doubling.


Figure T10. Reality (center) vs. 11 models. From Lindzen & Choi (2009).

A growing body of reviewed papers find climate sensitivity considerably below the 3 [1.5, 4.5] Cº per CO2 doubling that was first put forward in the Charney Report of 1979 for the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and is still the IPCC’s best estimate today.

On the evidence to date, therefore, there is no scientific basis for taking any action at all to mitigate CO2 emissions.

Finally, how long will it be before the Freedom Clock (Fig. T11) reaches 20 years without any global warming? If it does, the climate scare will become unsustainable.


Figure T11. The Freedom Clock


Climate Depot Note: Above Graphs courtesy of WattsUpWithThat.com

(Also see: It’s Official – There are now 66 excuses for Temp ‘pause’ – Updated list of 66 excuses for the 18-26 year ‘pause’ in global warming)

Update: Scientists Challenge New Study Attempting to Erase The ‘Pause’: Warmists Rewrite Temperature History To Eliminate the ‘Pause’


495 Responses

  1. There is no correlation of El Nino’s and global mean temperature. Stop taking just 1998 and bother to look at the half dozen others in the past half century. El Ninos are measured by rainfall in Southern California. We can compare this to several drainage basin discharge records that go back to 1933. There was a major El Nino here in 2005. Where is this in the temperature record? Right, nothing. 1969? Nothing. Okay, the dates are winter going into Hansen Dam discharge at 1951, 1969, 1978, 1983, 1993, 1998, and 2005. 1998 was the 5th highest discharge winter. It was rather small. So this broad theory that El Ninos cause global warming also do cause rain, that is how we define them. The rain maxima have zero correlation to global mean temperature, and ENSO statistics. This is just another urban myth. If enough El Ninos occur, one must occur sometime at or around the time of some spike in warming. That one event turned into a prediction proves the relationship false.

    1. In 1962, Edward Lorenz proved that long term prediction of climate was theoretically impossible, albeit without feedback. To date, whatever feedback might exist is clearly negative, because the last 18+ years demonstrate that. Therefore the system is non periodic, stable, and unpredictable. Net result: Nature doesn’t listen to Politics or fearmongering. Cheers.


      1. I am surprised that the singular phenomena of an increase in temperature around 1998 is attributed to El Ninos, yet there is no curiosity on anyone’s part to test this and see what an El Nino is and hence what other times there have been temperature anomalies. A single point is not a predictive model. Even without knowing when El Nino’s occur, when they do, the presumption is they cause global warming. Based on Southern California basin discharge records or a representative basin covering the mountains on the NE perimeter of Los Angeles, this is untrue, and rainfall since 1969 for El Nino’s has been substantially higher than pre-1969. So there is no correlation to global mean temperature, and El Nino magnitude expressed in rain has changed dramatically. The implication is clear. Those complaining that the post 1998 trend is cherry-picking a warm period from an El Nino presumed to come out of it cooler later, is based on the presumption that 1998 warming was from an El Nino, which is not correlated to any other event. Also, the ENSO record to these rainfall discharge winter peaks attributed here for 80 years as El Nino winters, has no correlation to positive, negative, ENSO’s at all. At best, ENSO transitions appear to be linked to these rainfall episodes.

        1. http://blogs.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/files/2013/03/201213-noaa.png

          Now think about what happens when we superimpose a long-term rise in global temperature from greenhouse gases with the ENSO sloshing. We should find year-to-year variations in the global temperature rise with upward spikes in temperature during El Nino years and flatter or even modest short-term decreases during La Ninas. And this is exactly what we find when we examine the global temperature record (see graphic).

          1. Mr Silha’s graph of red, blue, and gray temperature anomalies suffers from an extreme tampering with the aspect ratio to overemphasize the vertical. The truth is that the graph shows the world to be about half a Celsius degree warmer than it was in the 1950s – an increase in absolute terms of less than 0.2%, and well within the natural variability of the climate.

            One-third of all anthropogenic forcings since 1750 have occurred in the past 18 years 7 months, and yet global temperature has responded by not responding at all. That absence of any response to a considerable forcing is not what was predicted. It suggests that when global warming resumes, as theory leads us to suspect it will, the overall rate of warming will continue to be well below the central rate predicted by the IPCC.

            Mainstream science would lead us to expect only 0.5 Celsius degrees of new global warming from now to 2100.

            1. Monckton wrote <<>>

              Are the data incorrect?
              Is the graph misleading and if so, how?
              The graph merely shows a strong correlation between global temperature variability and ENSO.
              The graph also shows a trend spanning 60+ years of increasing temperatures. That is twice the standard period of 30 years considered necessary to detect a climatic shift.

              1. Mr Silha, whose comments here are nearly all predicated on the tired logical fallacy of uncritical and inappropriate appeal to presumed authority or reputation (argumentum ad verecundiam, as the medieval schoolmen put it), impresses no one by merely reproducing graphs of which he displays remarkably little understanding. Here, he appeals to two rent-seeking institutions, the IPCC and the World Meteorological Organization, and succeeds in getting the name of the latter wrong. If one is going to appeal to “authority”, one ought at least get the “authority’s” name right.

                He asks how one can demonstrate that mainstream science would lead us to expect 0.5 K K new global warming by 2100.

                Begin with the anthropogenic forcing of 5.15 Watts per square meter from the Industrial Revolution to 2100 on the RCP 6.0 “business-almost-as-usual” scenario in AR5. Deduct 2.3 Watts per square meter to 2012 (AR5, fig. SPM.5) and a further 0.1 Watts per square meter for forcing since 2012, leaving 2.75 Watts per square meter to come. Assuming the Planck parameter is 0.31 Kelvin per Watt per square meter (AR4, p. 631 fn), and the feedback sum to equilibrium is 1.5 Watts per square meter per Kelvin (AR5, fig. 9.43a), equilibrium climate sensitivity to the 2.75 Watts per square meter of forcing is 1.6 K. However, only two-thirds of equilibrium sensitivity will arise within a century (Roe, 2009, fig. 6), and, since AR5 predicts that the forcing on the RCP 6.0 central case will produce a straight-line temperature response, it will not all occur today but will occur gradually over the century, further halving the in-century response. Result: 0.5 K new anthropogenic warming this century.

                IPCC expects some 0.6 K of pre-committed but unrealized warming from our past sins of emission: but any expenditure we make now will not affect the occurrence of that warming, and in any event, after 18.5 years with no warming at all in the lower troposphere and 11 years with the ocean warming only at a rate equivalent to 1 K every 430 years, there may be no “in-the-pipeline” warming. Naturally, some of the warming caused by the 2.75 Watts per square meter of new forcing that will gradually arise from now to 2100 (if RCP 6.0 is not an exaggeration) will occur in the following century, but even at the artificially low discount rates used by governments in attempted justification of their mad climate-mitigation policies it would not be worth our while to do anything about such delayed warming. The more slowly the warming arrives, the more time we all have to adapt to its consequences, most of which will in any event be beneficial.

                Let Mr Silha address himself to the above simple chain of reasoning, rather than merely appealing pathetically to “authority”. Is there anything wrong with what I have outlined? If not, there will indeed be only 0.5 K new warming this century, in which event the effect will be net-beneficial.

            2. Agreed. As emissions of CO2 have increased, yet the temperature has decreased or flat lined, if the system feedback were “as claimed” by the AGW crowd, thermal runaway would have occurred, yet it hasn’t. The feedbacks must be negative. Taking that “Real World” observation and adding it to the conclusions of Dr. Lorenz, there is utterly no possibility of long range mathematical forecasting of a quasi periodic, stable, dynamic system. To quote his own words ” If the system is stable,
              future development will then remain arbitrarily close to its past
              history and it will be quasi- periodic. ”


            3. ENSO’s and other things are models between the data and the conclusion. This is very important to many people. To me, I like the raw data. Since the 1450’s when the Spanish Fleet off Mexico linked warmer water to increased West Coast and Central America rainfall, the historical cultural definition is very wet winters as El Nino years. ENSO’s are almost pure random noise. So let us overlay the 1933 to present Hanson Dam discharge data to RSS data. Show me a correlation. An ENSO model can be whatever you want, but the rain came or it did not. Show me a major rainfall winter as shown in this record that was not called an El Nino year. Also called an Atmospheric River. Also called the Pineapple Express. Give it any name you like. Roy Spencer was just on a Youtube presentation linking all El Ninos to global warming. Okay Roy, show me the correlation here. Regardless of position on climate, there is no link of global mean temperature rise to El Nino rainfall here.

              Hansen Dam is a flood control basin. That is its only purpose. This is not a reservoir. It stores no water. It produces no electricity. It is just for flood control off the San Gabriel Mountains. No city development is above the basin. The basin discharge area is a National Forest.

          2. NO Warming for 18 Years, 5 Months using HadCrut, RSS,
            4. For UAH, the slope is flat since April 2009 or 5 years and 11 months. (goes to February using version 5.6)

            5. For RSS, the slope is flat since December 1996 or 18 years and 3 months. (goes to February)


            Blue line is CO2, Red is UAH, Green is RSS.


    2. You definition of the term “El Nino” is incorrect.

      El Niño
      refers to the irregular warming in the sea surface temperatures from the coasts of Peru and Ecuador to the equatorial central Pacific. This causes a disruption of the ocean-atmosphere system in the tropical Pacific having important consequences for weather around the globe. This phenomenon is not totally predictable but on average occurs once every four years. It usually lasts for about 18 months after it begins.

      ENSO events do affect rain fall in the western US, but are independent of that.

  2. Thanks so much for the wonderful work. Only two people on the planet can stop the $2 billion a day global warming fraud, Boehner and McConnell. They both know the truth about it–as everyone does–that global CO2 danger doesn’t exist, that even if it did the US has no ability to alter it, and that millions of US taxpayer dollars are diverted daily from the poor and needy to climate danger profiteers. These two men have had daily access to microphones for two and three decades, have been asked countless times about this topic. Their response is to change the subject to jobs (a tactic said to be official GOP strategy in 2013), or to say ‘I’m not a scientist.’ There’s no pressure on them whatsoever to do the right thing. Electing Republicans obviously doesn’t help-in fact a 1990 George Bush mandate funded the climate danger industry in perpetuity on the backs of US taxpayers. My suggestion is that articles on the topic of AGW henceforth should include major focus on Boehner and McConnell. Nothing else has worked. These men don’t get credit they deserve for making sure that nothing stopped not only the greatest fraud in human history but one that’s based on demonizing Americans.

  3. Sadly, the American President will not acknowledge any of this. He still prefers “voodoo science” and propaganda.

    Nothing can stop Barack Obama from achieving his goal of ensuring an international agreement is signed in Paris in December 2015 to control fossil fuel energy. Well, that’s what he thinks.

    But if the truth is publicised more often in the public domain before December 2015, it may very well sink Obama’s dream. He is deluding himself about the climate and about carbon dioxide to the point that now, he resorts to lies about carbon dioxide and its effects.

    America made a big mistake appointing Obama as president. He has been the biggest threat to American democracy, the market economy and American prosperity by embarking on a socialist agenda, and blindly embracing the arrogant and dangerous ideology of environmentalism.

      1. ♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪



        ==OVER HERE===== Tinyurl.com/Start1ApplyCareers5h

      2. my companion’s relative makes $73 hourly on the PC ………….at weekend day I nontransmissible a high of thedistinction McLaren F1 once I been earnin 10953 US-DOLLARS thismost up-to-date 4weeks and inway frightfully 10 miss month . inspiration driving truth sometimes|this willbe} once uncertain habituallythe key financialy fulfilling i even have ever done . i began this 9-months past and basically alterably started securing extraordinarily seventy. sevenUS-DOLLARS… p/h . loads of on the article..io…….

        ➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalWorkWorldCOM/work/Best … ⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛

  4. Marc Morano is not a climate scientist nor any type of physical scientist, nor has he published any research in a peer reviewed science journal. His background is in political science.

    The following links lead to lists of organizations that accept the conclusions of the IPCC which are based on peer reviewed publications.
    Academies of Science from 80 different countries all endorse the consensus.

    Does anyone believe that the credentials of Mr. Morano are equivalent to those of the people in the organizations noted above. If Mr. Morano is correct, what is the implication with respect to these organizations?
    1. There is a worldwide conspiracy of a huge number of scientists and organizations to mislead the public and no one has been able to document the conspiracy. Is a secret conspiracy involving such a large number of people possible?
    2. The people that make up these organizations are terribly naïve. Is this really possible considering the caliber of the people involved (e.g., Nobel Laureates, officers of international corporations)
    3. The people that make up these organizations are terribly stupid. Members of the national academies of sciences of 80 countries, the leadership and majority of members all scientific organizations that have taken a position on the IPCC conclusions and officers of international corporations are not normally thought of as being stupid.


        1. Marc Morano didn’t write the article above. Try critiquing the information in the article, if you can. I’ll bet you can’t. All you can do is supply a list of organizations that confirm your belief in a bogus hypothesis. A question for you. Are you capable of independent thought?

          1. Even though the article was written by Monckton, it was posted by Morano. Monckton has no scientific credentials either. So why should I consider his opinion when it is contradicted by all the international scientific organizations that have taken a position on the issue? It is like preferring the opinion of your gardener over than of your doctor on what illness you have and what treatment is appropriate.

              1. Mr Silha mistakenly believes that science is decided by “consensus”. However, ever since Aristotle, argument from mere headcount has been deplored as a mere logical fallacy. Nor does it help to maintain (falsely, as it turns out) that the “consensus” consists of “experts”: for that is another shop-worn logical fallacy, that of argument from authority or reputation.

                The truth is that the rate of global warming has been well below prediction ever since 1990, which is why the IPCC has itself been forced to near-halve its medium-term predictions (which remain excessive).

                Mr Silha should understand that it does not matter what the Party Line says: what matters is the evidence, and the evidence that the predictions of the climate extremists were absurd exaggerations continues to accumulate.

                1. “what matters is the evidence, and the evidence that the predictions of
                  the climate extremists were absurd exaggerations continues to
                  Correct! Yet the AGW proponents refuse to recognize the evidence being demonstrated by time and the climate. They have to keep massaging the data to fit their narrative and call it “science”. More like a joke, it is.

            1. What credentials do you have? Why ought anyone listen to you? Your belief that International organisations trump reality is a dead giveaway. That’s like farming out your own children’s lives to foreign despots in the hope that they will like you.

        1. To yours, it is. You have supplied nothing but BS. How so? All off the organizations you cite have a leadership of a few that determine what the organization says. Tell me ALL the members of those organizations agree. THEY DON’T and if you don’t realize that, you are dumb as a rock. Finally, despite what they say, that proves NOTHING. CO2 is NOT a driver of climate. Time and the climate itself is demonstrating that FACT.

          1. Here, share this with the ‘Sheeple’! June 24, 2014 The Scandal Of Fiddled Global Warming Data

            When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data.


          2. http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/11/28/taylor-distorts-poll-of-meteorologists-on-climate-change/

            Your claim with respect to the American Meteorological Society is false (as the previous excerpt demonstrates).


            Given that 87 percent of scientists worldwide agree that human activity is the cause of global warming, it is ridiculous to claim that the leadership of scientific organizations override the consensus of their membership.

            As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no scientific body of national or international standing rejected the findings of human-induced effects on climate change. The organization revised the original statement that disagreed with AGW because many of the members were resigning or threatening to resign if the denial continued.

            Do you have any factual information?

            1. Yeah, my factual information is in the article above. YOU, on the other hand, think that supplying percentages of scientists that agree with your bogus hypothesis proves something. It doesn’t. Time and climate are proving you wrong. Those scientists know it too. That is why so many of them are researching the “pause” and coming up with excuses that people like you will accept with no critical thought.

              1. The point of my reply to you was to show that your claim that the members of scientific organizations disagree with the leaders is patently false.

                  1. Thousands of scientists – WOW.
                    The American Association for the Advancement of Science and its affiliates represent 10 million members. The numbers I quoted were from a statistically valid opinion poll of AAAS members (nearly half holding a Ph. D. and nearly a third with a Ph. D. actively engaged in research. The 87 percent translates to about 8.7 million scientists that agree that global warming is being caused by human activity.

                    87% – global warming caused by human activity
                    9% – global warming caused by nature
                    3% – warming not happening

                    77% – a very serious problem
                    17% – a somewhat serious problem
                    6% – not serious or not a problem.

                    1. Yet NONE of that proves anything. TIME and the CLIMATE are showing NO CORRELATION between CO2 increases and Temperature rises. That is a FACT YOU seem to ignore. It is so bad that temperatures have to be continually massaged to fit the narrative. That should tell you something about your 87 or whatever it is percent!!! Why are so many of those scientists YOU cite trying to explain the pause??? WHY!? You have any clue? Probably not.

                    2. http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/1970s_papers.gif

                      The list at the americanthinker site is nothing but a list of sensationalized hype in popular magazines and newspapers intended to sell their products. Many of the references are cheery picked, featuring statements by a single scientist, politician, or other activist. There are not references to published research in scientific journals (the arbitration mechanism for reaching agreement on scientific theories and facts).

                      Climate behavior is complex and, until recently, we have not had the measurement tools to get reliable data on the level of the various forcing functions that affect it. The orbit and obliquity of the sun would indicate a cooling trend leading to a new ice age (based on Milankovitch cycles). Prior to the Clean Air Act, industry was pumping particulates into the atmosphere that had a cooling effect. Of course, there is the continuing increase in CO2 that increases the greenhouse effect.

                      So where can we find the accurate measurements? Obviously in the peer reviewed scientific journals, a survey of which shows that a consensus eventually developed that the effects of greenhouse gases would override other forcing functions. If you don’t like this analysis or the source, find data from a reliable source that proves the analysis wrong. Reciting your personal opinion is no more useful than it is for me to voice a personal opinion. Facts are the only things that count.

                    3. Nowadays “peer review” is an absolute joke. Anyone with a contrary viewpoint won’t get published in the journals you have cited. Why is it that AGW proponents are continually trying to shut down debate? How “scientific” is that?
                      Furthermore, you can disparage American Thinker articles yet you link Huffington Post as a source. How rich is that! What a joke and you want to be taken seriously? LMAO!!!

                    4. The article was not written by the Huffington Post but by the following scientist.

                      Dr. Chameides is dean of Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.
                      He was the vice chair of America’s Climate Choices, a multidisciplinary study by the National Academies designed to help policy makers figure out solutions to the problem of climate change. The study was launched in November 2008 at the request of Congress to provide policy-relevant advice, based on scientific evidence, to guide the nation’s response to climate change. The group’s final report was published on May 12, 2011. (Read more about America’s Climate Choices.
                      Chameides combines more than 30 years in academia as a professor, researcher, teacher, and mentor with a three-year stint as chief scientist at Environmental Defense.
                      In addition to belonging to the NAS, he is a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union

                      So, do you have any criticism of Dr. Chameides?

                    5. Probably the same that you have of Dr. Roy Spencer or Dr. Willie Soon or Dr. Judith Curry or Dr. Richard Lindzen. Want me to go on?

                    6. You are delusional. Check your propaganda at the door. Take off the tinfoil hat, and stop preaching nonsense.

                1. Really? The point of my reply is to show that your claim that members of scientific organizations actually DO disagree with “self appointed leaders”, and that your claim is Patently False.
                  “Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36
                  percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a
                  serious concern.” 56% vs 36%.

                  “24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming”
                  model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the
                  climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they
                  strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk
                  and see no impact on their personal lives.”

                  “17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human-
                  and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a
                  smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are
                  skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC
                  modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take
                  action if research is biased?”

                  “10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model.
                  These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human
                  caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause
                  of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and

                  “5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model.
                  These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and
                  naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact
                  on their personal life.”


                  1. Are you that gullible as to believe what James Taylor wrote? He either lied or totally misread the paper. The following is a copy of a comment on his article by the authors of the paper.

                    First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …” Our research reconstructs the frames the members of a professional association hold about the issue and the argumentative patterns and legitimation strategies these professionals use when articulating their assumptions. Our research does not investigate the distribution of these frames and, thus, does not allow for any conclusions in this direction. We do point this out several times in the paper, and it is important to highlight it again.

                    In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause. What is striking is how little support that the Kyoto Protocol had among our respondents. However, it is also not the case that all frames except “Support Kyoto” are against regulation – the “Regulation Activists” mobilize for a more encompassing and more strongly enforced regulation. Correct interpretations would be, for instance, that – among our respondents – more geoscientists are critical towards regulation (and especially the Kyoto Protocol) than non-geoscientists, or that more people in higher hierarchical positions in the industry oppose regulation than people in lower hierarchical positions.>>>

                    Do you have any truthful references that contradict the information I posted?

                    Are you not embarrassed that you were duped into spreading a lie?

                    1. Firstly. I have set several logical traps for you. And I am waiting for them to play out. This is like cat and mouse. You are the mouse.

                      Secondly. Every attempt to open any line of Adult Responsible discussion with YOU has been met with derision and “gotcha” claims.

                      Thirdly. Since you insist upon acting like a child, I shall treat you as one.

                      Fourthly. Your grasp of Science is much less than your grasp of Marxism.

                      Fifthly. You do not merit communication or response because you are insincere. You are nothing but a paid shill who is propagandising an ideology. You provide no evidence that Fact or Science means anything to you. You provide ample evidence that these “discussions” are nothing but camouflage to engage in your ideology.

                      Sixthly: I crap bigger than you.

                    2. Lance wrote <<>>

                      You mean my posting the evidence that the James Taylor article you posted is patently false?
                      Is posting facts “derision and gotcha”?

                      Were you aware that the James Taylor claims patently false?

                    3. Lance wrote <<>>

                      Can you identify a single comment in which I expressed any Marxist sentiment?

            2. Also see:http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/08/icymi-theres-no-stopping-rise-in.html?

              ICYMI – there’s no stopping the rise in surface temperature!
              “In case you missed it (ICYMI), a couple of new papers have been published recently, demonstrating that there has not been any “pause” or “hiatus” in surface temperature in recent years. Yes, the rate of increase wasn’t as high as it has been in some other periods. However these papers demonstrate that there was nothing different from what can be expected from a warming trend with interannual variability imposed on it.”

        2. Your comparison has no merit. Cancer can be confirmed via biopsy. In other words, testing.
          Relying upon computer models and politically motivated hucksters is not testing, it is faith.
          The atmosphere is a dynamic, nonlinear, coupled, non periodic, quasi stable, system with negative feedback loops. Any attempt to simplify a system with thousands of variables down to a single controlling component is ludicrous. Of the CO2 in the atmosphere, 90+% of it is naturally occurring. So, about 10% or less of the present 0.00039 is available for reduction. So, you are asking all to believe that changing 0.000039 of one item out of thousands will significantly change the future. Solar output changes by .1% to .6%, naturally. That is orders of magnitude more important, and nobody controls it. You may be sincere, but you are not thinking logically. What if someone told you that you could slow down a passenger train by sticking your hand out the window and flapping it? Would you believe that? Hardly.

          1. Although your numbers are about right, your analysis is faulty.

            At about 200 ppm (0.0002 %), the average global temperature is about 60 degrees Fahrenheit. If that 200 ppm were reduced to 0, the global temperature would fall to 0 degrees Fahrenheit. The earth would return to being a snowball as it was some 6 or 7 hundred million years ago – http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100304-snowball-earth-ice-global-warming/

            Even though the percentage increase in CO2 due to human activity is small, it has upset the balance of the sinks and sources of CO2, resulting in an increase in the greenhouse effect.

            1. Not possible. Your belief is getting in the way of your logic and denies the world around you. CO2 has risen in the last 18 years and the climate has NOT gone into thermal runaway. That means that negative feedbacks are happening. The only way for your scenario to exist is for a feedforward, positive feedback to occur. If that were the case, the Earth would have burnt to a crisp long ago when the dinosaurs roamed the earth. I truly can’t believe you let others do your thinking for you.

            2. At 200 ppm the plants die and then we all die. So what? What’s the Average World Telephone number? Your argument is meaningless. Nobody is talking about the world going to 200 ppm. What is your point? Once again, you make the unfounded correlation / causation mistake. If I take your logic as factual, then ALL children should be horsewhipped because even if they make a small mistake, it upsets the balance of society, resulting in runaway crime. Or, Welfare should be cut to Zero because even if just a few people are abusing it, the ever expanding group of copycats will collapse the system. Perhaps you understand now. Anything can Win Or Lose by Irrelevant Standards and Illogical comparisons. You may well believe what you believe. Fine. Just don’t ask me to pay for it unless you are willing to guarantee the outcome with everything you own and everything you will ever get, and do so in an irrevocable trust, to pay for all the social destruction caused in case you are totally wrong. I’m ok with doing the same. Step up to the bar and get out your pen.

              1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
                If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody were the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C. However, since the Earth reflects about 30% of the incoming sunlight, this idealized planet’s effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) would be about −18 °C. The surface temperature of this hypothetical planet is 33 °C below Earth’s actual surface temperature of approximately 14 °C. The mechanism that produces this difference between the actual surface temperature and the effective temperature is due to the atmosphere and is known as the greenhouse effect.

                Greenhouse effect was proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824. John Tyndall made quantitative measurements in 1859 and Svante Arrhenius furthered the theory in 1896. In 1917 Alexander Graham Bell wrote “[The unchecked burning of fossil fuels] would have a sort of greenhouse effect”, and “The net result is the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house.”

                  1. Lance wrote <<>>

                    You are probable right. No doubt the theory of the greenhouse effect was created by a conspiracy of scientists starting back in 1824 by Joseph Fourier (the guy who developed the Fourier Transform concept – a real dummy). John Tyndall joined the conspiracy in 1859, claiming to have made quantitative measurements. In 1896 Svante Arrhenius joined the conspiracy. It is not clear whether Alexander Graham Bell joined the conspiracy or whether he was fooled by the other conspirators; anyway, he wrote “The unchecked burning of fossil fuels] would have a sort of greenhouse effect”, and “The net result is the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house.” It was clear to these conspirators that there might be a chance to create a “world government” in the 21st century and they figured this would be a way to fool the public into accepting such a government.


                    Of course, Wikipedia.org is part of the continuing conspiracy as are nearly all the international science organizations and international corporations. Much to my chagrin, the University of Texas seems to be a major player in this conspiracy.

                    Do you think that there are other universities participating in this conspiracy?

                    Is it only those of us that live in fantasy land that know about this 300 year old secret conspiracy involving millions of people?

                    Why would people consider the publications on science topics issued by universities when they have Lord Monckton to tell them what to believe. After all, he has a background in the classics and journalism.

                    1. Instead of your diversionary harangue, just answer the question. Only an actual greenhouse with actual physical boundaries prevents convective heat transfer. Precisely and exactly how does the absence of that boundary imply that radiation is somehow limited or enhanced by miniscule changes in a miniscule player in a global context? Prithee do tell me.

                    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_green_house_effect.svg

                      Lance wrote <<>>
                      For a detailed explanation, read the article at this link.

                      The picture is a simplified explanation. Solar radiation is absorbed by the land and oceans, warming them. You may be familiar with infrared cameras that provide a visual picture of heat radiated by warm objects (e.g., people, heated structures). Warm objects emit (radiate) long wave infrared energy. The land and ocean, heated by the rays from the sun radiate long wave infrared energy toward space. Greenhouse gases (GHG’s) in the atmosphere absorb some of this radiation and reemit it in a random direction (some toward space, some back toward the surface (where it is reabsorbed), and some in a horizontal direction. As the amount of GHG’s in the atmospherep increases, the amount of infrared reemitted toward the surface increases.
                      Although this process is referred to as the greenhouse effect, the GHG’s act more link a blanket than a real greenhouse. A blanket does not create heat but simply slows the escape of heat from the source covered by the blanket by slowing the escape of the warmed molecules of air. GHG’s work by slowing the escape of infrared radiation back to space.

                    3. 1. Even IF your conception is correct, which I disagree with, but it doesn’t matter.
                      2. CO2 has nearly reached absorption saturation so that additional CO2 matters very little.
                      3. The glass boundary in a greenhouse allows energy in but prevents convection from dissipating that collected energy. Is your car hotter with the windows closed or open?
                      4. The atmosphere is roughly a sphere of 8000 miles diameter. It has no solid barrier preventing expansion. The surface area of that sphere is 4 Pi R^2 = 200 Million Square Miles and a volume of 4/3 Pi R^3 = 268 Billion cubic miles. Any heating of the atmosphere increases the kinetic energy of the molecules and causes an increase in volume roughly proportional to T2/T1 . For a 1 degree increase you get roughly a 1.5% increase in volume or an additional 4 Billion cubic miles additional volume. That translates into new radius of 4106 miles. This changes the surface area to 212 Million square miles. Your new spherical irradiance in W/sqM causes the system to dissipate the energy until it reaches a new equilibrium, ostensibly returning to its prior condition. If it didn’t do this we’d be in one hell of a mess.

                      No one can hold the laws of physics constant for political purposes or control a system this large by edict. It is self congratulatory to imagine that the miniscule effect of possibly changing 0.000038 v/v of the atmosphere will control anything.

            3. “At about 200 ppm (0.0002 %), the average global temperature is about 60 degrees Fahrenheit.”
              Says who??? What crap! Nobody, I mean NOBODY can claim such nonsense as a certainty. When you assert garbage such as that it is no wonder no one believes your side.

            4. Firstly, you circularly argue an irrelevant belief. That you believe it is fine. That you espouse it is irresponsible without more than propaganda from a failed tent preacher, hangers on, parasites, and loons. Educate yourself.

              Here, it is proven that predicting future climate is mathematically impossible.


              The only thing Lorenz didn’t consider in 1962 was feedbacks.

              OK. Fine.

              CO2 UP, Temperature Down or Flat. For 18 years.

              That means the Feedbacks are negative.

              End of Climate scare. Unless you are a drooling, snake handling, liberal zealot who ignores both reality and fact and history for the sake of socialism and self congratulation.

              You see, you can choose not to be stupid. It is a choice. Please make it.

            5. Everything you people say is predicated with escape clauses. “IF it were reduced to zero”. IF warming rates continue. IF you don’t give me your money.

              IF you take the slope of your curve in Sept – Feb, the Earth is going to freeze. IF you take your origin at June 15 – Aug 1, the Earth is going to burn up. IF you cherry pick and torture history and data long enough with Lysenkoist ideology, eventually the numbers “confess”.

              You are a Loon. Return to your rock and stop spouting nonsense.

              1. I do not spout anything. None of the claims I post are my personal opinion. I simply post information that I retrieve from sources such as NOAA,, NASA, NCAR, various universities, Science magazine and web sites of science organizations such as AMS, WMO, AAAS, and AGU.

                1. Oh. Yes. You aren’t a willing propagandist, just a concerned citizen who only posts what SkepticalScience and their minions deem truthful. Gee Mr. Wizard, that means Edward only follows his specifically directed conscience of only posting exactly what reinforces his personal/political/financially rewarding/employer mandated beliefs. That makes Mr. Ed entirely not responsible for propagandizing Marxist Talking points and easily refuted arguments to authority for the sake of his politics. You pick and choose what you spout, and spout you certainly do. I asked you about ODE/PDE stability, and you responded with nonsense. Either you don’t understand the question, aren’t able to answer it, or are still waiting for your handlers to tell you what to think. Maybe you believe your own authority. I truly don’t care. Your ignorance is a danger to yourself and to others. Yet you persist in being illogical. Maybe you think tossing virgins into volcanoes will help discover the witches. Or maybe only Republican witches will float. You are amusing. An earnest liar, clueless about being duped, or a willing liar, claiming to be just having an opinion. I don’t care what opinions you have, except that you are ultimately demanding that I pay for them . You pay for them. They are not my fantasies. They are yours.

                  1. Without a lot more information, the graph is useless. Can you specify the solar output (output of a young sun is lower), the effects of the solar orbit, the effect of a different continental organization, etc. As you go back further in time, the greater the uncertainty there is in most measurements and conclusions. The greenhouse effect is based on nearly three hundred years of research and is not questions even by climate skeptic scientists.

                    Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence).

                    Judith Curry
                    Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.0°C to 5.4°C (high confidence).

                    Climate scientists (even those like Spencer and MIT’s Richard Lindzen, both outspoken “skeptics”) tend to agree that simple radiative transfer models predict about 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F) average global warming for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The big question is how much natural processes, referred to as feedbacks, will amplify or dampen this response.

                    It is stupid to argue that increasing CO2 concentrations will not increase global temperatures. Even the most skeptical climate scientists accept that it will. Their only argument is the level of sensitivity. Do you have any reliable source (i.e., a recognized climate scientist actively researching climate change) that has asserted that the climate sensitivity is less than 0.9 degrees Centigrade?

                    1. You say: The big question is how much natural processes, referred to as feedbacks, will amplify or dampen this response.
                      At this time it is an UNKNOWN. The amount of sensitivity is SPECULATION. By EVERYONE.
                      Because of that unknown your next sentence makes no sense:

                      ” It is stupid to argue that increasing CO2 concentrations will not increase global temperatures.”

                      How so? If it is unknown what factors may DAMPEN the response (to perhaps near zero) how can you make that statement? WHY NO ONE IS SURE AT THIS TIME. That is the BIG question!

                      Finally, a link to Dr. Curry’s Climate Sensitivity Uncertainty from Sept. last year:


        3. Give me a break with the BS analogies. They are old and totally irrelevant. If that is the best you have, then you have nothing. That sums up what you AGW kooks are pushing. Nothing.

                1. Lance, unfortunately, you are correct. As I learned a long time ago, experience can be a tough and unforgiving teacher. May God bless you and your family.

            1. Solar irradiance has been decreasing since about 1975 after reaching a peek about 1960. However, the increase in greenhouse effect caused by the increase in GHG;s in the atmosphere have more than made up for the decrease in solar energy reaching the planet.

                  1. Ah. skepticalscience is your source that you linked. Why didn’t you say you were a soros shill? Now it all makes sense. Do you get paid by the post or is this your new religion?

                  2. You are aware that the natural variation in solar flux is 300% of your graph’s claimed change? Which politician will now control the Sun if we all simply pay enough money? Don’t you ever stop to think how stupid your position is? If you did, you’d stop posting nonsense. If you don’t, then someone must pay you to do so or you must choose to be antihuman and antilife for philosophical reasons of your own choosing. But none of those grant you moral authority.

                    1. Short term variability is irrelevant. The important metric is the long term variability.

                    2. Translation: Anything that doesn’t agree with my climate change religion is irrelevant.

                      Isn’t that convenient – not science, but mighty convenient.

                    3. Your personal opinion is as irrelevant as mine. Your answer is unimpressive. Provide some facts from a reliable source and I will consider your comments. Post your personal opinion, and I will ignore it.

    1. IPCC and most peer reviewed published papers are full of junk science based upon climate computer modeling. Climate computer modeling can not make reliable predictions much beyond tomorrow, let alone months or years into the future. The computing technology is not yet there where it can perform the the nearly infinite numbers of interrelated calculations predicting the chaos of our sun’s activity effecting the gas dynamics of our atmosphere.

      1. Agreed. ODE/PDE models are inherently unstable with respect to completeness and initial conditions. Unless someone knows ALL of the relevant variables and ALL of their initial conditions at the EXACT SAME instant, and the model is Absolutely convergent within that context, then the model will of necessity diverge. It is called a Bifurcation. The collapse of the model after X time periods of iteration. X in this case is known to be 3.54 periods. That is why Weather cannot be reliably known beyond about 3 days, much less 100 years. MIT Professor E. Lorenz proved in 1962, without feedbacks, that it is impossible to predict long term climate/weather. Given that 18 years of increasing CO2 have NOT shown increasing temperature, the feedbacks are of necessity negative. Therefore, the system is quasi periodic, unpredictable, and no maths model can ever predict it with certainty over any long period.

        See Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow:


        See Andronov-Hopf Bifurcation:

        Bifurcation at 3.54 T:
        Simple: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Bifurcation.html

        Expert: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Period_doubling

        Simple Explanation: http://www.sosmath.com/diffeq/first/bifurcation/bifurcation.html

        Expert Explanation:http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Andronov-Hopf_bifurcation

      2. mrhuehls wrote <<>>

        Watch this video. Dr. Emanuel does not rely complex computer models but explains that there is overwhelming evidence that increasing CO2 levels are causing an increase in global temperatures.

        Emanuel sees himself as a conservative. He believes marriage is between a man and a woman. He backs a strong military. He almost always votes Republican and admires Ronald Reagan.




        Emanuel is also a highly regarded professor of atmospheric science at MIT. And based on his work on hurricanes and the research of his peers, Emanuel has concluded that the scientific data show a powerful link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

        "There was never a light-bulb moment but a gradual realization based on the evidence," Emanuel said. "I became convinced by the basic physics and by the better and better observation of the climate that it was changing and it was a risk that had to be considered."

        Texas Tech atmospheric scientist Katharine Hayhoe is an evangelical Christian who travels widely talking to conservative audiences and wrote a book with her husband, a pastor and former climate change denier, explaining climate change to skeptics.

        A physicist by training, John Cook is an evangelical Christian who runs the website skepticalscience.com, which seeks to debunk climate change deniers' arguments. Barry Bickmore is a Mormon, a professor of geochemistry at Brigham Young University and the blogger behind Anti-Climate Change Extremism in Utah, where he recently rebuked Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) for his climate views and posted editorials mentioning his Republican affiliation.

        Emanuel waded into the fray early last year. He wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal criticizing a friend and colleague for dismissing the evidence of climate change and clinging "to the agenda of denial."

        "I've always rebelled against the thinking that ideology can trump fact," said Emanuel, 55. "The people who call themselves conservative these days aren't conservative by my definition. I think they're quite radical."

        Emanuel dislikes applying the word "skeptic" to those who deny climate change. He says all scientists are skeptical; that's the nature of the field. His own innate skepticism meant that it took him longer than his colleagues to be persuaded of climate change, Emanuel said.

        1. The percentages of any given gas in the atmosphere as a global number are quite stable. CO2 is plant food at night when the chlorophyll photosynthesis quits working. There is still enough of the Taiga Forest left in the northern hemisphere that CO2 from its many sources, most natural, is well regulated, as are the plethora of other micro content gases in the atmosphere. Humans are not a factor, other than episodically polluting their nest, and even then much of that is managed naturally when the pollution is stopped.

          1. So, you are saying because you don’t value the website all the information must be wrong. If you really believe that then you truly are a dullard.

    1. CO2 is a marginal player. The first 20 ppm are incredibly important. after that it craps out, exponentially, in effect. Spectral absorption saturation. Doubling the CO2 might mean another .01% absorption, even less at the next doubling. From about 300 ppm onward, it is irrelevant in terms of energy trapping. Water vapour overwhelms CO2 and it is a very, very dynamic player. Point is, CO2 isn’t the “controller of all things”, it is an idiot’s excuse to play Ringmaster, kind of like Al Gore pretending to know something. But there IS a correlation between US Postal Rates and Published warming:


    1. Anyone who truly had a background in atmospheric science and was prepared to put the rational evaluation of evidence above narrow partisan prejudice would be able to draw attention to any errors of substance in the head posting, which is unusually well supported by evidence from authoritative sources.

    2. As a Registered Engineer who specializes in Thermodynamics and Heat Transfer, I seriously doubt your background qualifies you to speak to this topic. That said, let your wisdom speak for itself. It usually does.

      1. Just like you and the guy who made this blog are just paid by the deep corporate pockets so spew out hot air. Engineer, I seriously doubt you have any qualifications to your field. You could had got your degree from a diploma mill like ITT Tech.

          1. Lance the capitalist pig. No more. You just expose yourself as the capitalist pig. Story over. That just told me what your qualifications. Keep stuffing $$$$ in your mouth by the deep corporate pockets. As for me I don’t get paid by anyone. People who tell the truth today are not paid by anyone. People who lie such as yourself are paid by people to say those things. Okay thermodynamic engineer go in the garage and build my AC because you just spew hot air.

            1. locust, not once did you make a coherent and logical argument. The whole time you just insult lance and give no real contribution to the discussion. I just wanted to point that out…

        1. My, My, such a big mouth on such a small little boy. I don’t take direction from children.

          You are propagandising a bunch of pseudo
          intellectual pablum. Just out of curiosity, I wondered how people like
          you could be so stupid. Bill Whittle explains it nicely:


          Oh. You seem to believe you understand a lot of things, and those very thoroughly. Why don’t you prove that? eh? Here’s the question, smart guy: How might reliable predictions be made of long range simulated results using initial value constrained partial differential equations and ordinary differential equations when not all of the initial conditions are known and the system is known to be non periodic and quasi stable. Be certain to include and address the doubling interval defined by an Andronov-Hopf bifurcation and explain how you overcome that situation after 3.54 periods.

          That ought to do it. I shall patiently await your reasoned response. Cheers.

        1. I didn’t think you’d dispute my statement and you didn’t. Why are so many scientists trying to explain a “pause”? Your graph means nothing.

          1. No pause to explain, as is obvious from the RSS data if you don’t cherry-pick only the last however many years. Many scientists have been saying that, and more now that we’re into the second record-breaking year in a row.. Yes some have been investigating reasons the graph has taken the exact shape that it has, but you are confusing signal with noise, and the signal is unmistakably clear. The planet is getting warmer. There are hundreds of indications of this, including glaciers melting all over the earth. But I’m sure you’ll keep your head buried in whatever hole you’ve stuck it and continue to believe whatever you want regardless of the facts.

            1. Second record breaking year my butt. You talk about cherry picking! How rich! That is all you AGW clowns do! Massage data to fit a failing narrative. NONE of the catastrophic scenarios, that were predicted 20 years ago, have come to pass. Why is that? Polar ice caps are still there growing and receding as they always do. Sea levels are not rising either. All you can do is try to obfuscate by calling the signal “noise”. Admit it, your hypothesis just doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny. You are the one with your head up your rear end.

              1. You shoud educate yourself before making postings such as this. Polar ice caps are not growing. In fact the rate of ice loss at both poles is accelerating, according to every scientific agency charged with studying this. Look at the full RSS data set, which is Monckton’s holy grail. The period of the so-called “pause” is above the prior trend. It represents a faster rate of warming than before. I think you need to start finding some more reliable sources of data than those you have obviously been relying on.

                1. I knew you’d come back with some inane comment that YOU think is proof of something. The polar caps are only disappearing in the AGW kook’s world (yours obviously). There is plenty of contrary evidence that I know you discount, just as I discount ANYTHING you supply? Why? Because your “scientists” are dishonest frauds. The e-mail scandal proved that! NOW, here is Michael Mann’s (another fraud) own words:
                  Mann agreed with other researchers that the oceans are likely taking up a
                  certain amount of heat and that the recent small volcanic eruptions
                  probably also have played a role in keeping surface warming at bay.

                  “The problem isn’t that we cannot explain the temporary slowdown in
                  warming — the problem is that there are so many explanations for it,
                  we’re not yet sure what the true role is for each,” he wrote in an
                  By his own words, they DON’T know how the climate truly works. Case closed.

                    1. Right. You have no clue how the climate works and neither does anyone you cite. The RSS is nothing more than a data set that proves NOTHING in regards to the relationship between CO2 and temperature. If you have any intellectual honesty you will recognize that. If you refuse to do so, then you are nothing more than an AGW kook. That simple.

                      As far as name calling goes, I have little respect for you AGW advocates? Why? I basically regard you folks as stupid and willing to follow a policy that would lead the western world to economic oblivion. For what? Because they’ve scared you into believing a catastrophic scenario due to CO2 increases in the atmosphere?

                      If you had any independent thought process, you’d see the discrepancy between what has been predicted and what has actually occurred!! But too many people like you want to believe the AGW scientists and their organizations. Why? Also, why are they so eager to shut down debate? What are they afraid of? If you aren’t asking yourself those questions than you are just a sheep following what others tell you.

                    2. “The RSS is nothing more than a data set that proves NOTHING in regards to the relationship between CO2 and temperature.”
                      Correct. That relationship has been established by thousands of lines of other evidence, including direct observation by satellites. However, RSS is claimed to be the basis for an article I read somewhere titled. “A new record ‘Pause’ length: No global warming for 18 years 7 months – Temperature standstill extends to 223 months.” And my point, which you refuse to deal with, is that that claim is deceptive.

                    3. “That relationship has been established by thousands of lines of other evidence”
                      That is an outright lie! It has not been proven. You care to cite any sources for that lie? I know you’ll link to some bogus AGW site where they’ll say, like Michael Mann above (whom I quoted), that is “likely” or “probably” and we’re not sure yet………LMAO!!!
                      BTW, why are the predictions of 20 years ago not being matched by reality? Even the AGW scientists aren’t making the claims that they are being matched. It’s just “give us another 50 years or so”. Riiiight!!!

                    4. This is not exactly what you asked for, but it is close enough — a list I put together on another occasion…

                      Here are some references for you about the primary causation of global warming being human rather than solar activity:

                      Small influence of solar variability on climate over the past millennium

                      Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance

                      Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010

                      Statistically derived contributions of diverse human influences to twentieth-century temperature changes

                      Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand
                      solar minimum


                      Cosmic rays, solar activity and the climate

                      Statistically derived contributions of diverse human influences to twentieth-century temperature changes

                      Causes of Climate Change

                      Climate Change: Lines of Evidence

                      Now you owe me an answer about Monckton’s deceptive use of RSS data as a basis for the article above, which was our original topic before you gish-galloped all over the map.

                    5. Who said he’s deceptive? You? Someone else? Your links are a sheep’s clothing. Nothing more or less. Bottom line? Temperatures, sea levels, polar caps, are not behaving as predicted. An Inconvenient truth, huh???…..LMAO!!!

                    6. The RSS data taken as a whole proves Monckton has been deceptive. He looks only at a part of it where he can establish a flat line, but he never shows you that line is far warmer than the trend that came before (which won’t catch up to the level of his “pause” until 2025).

                      My links, by the way, are peer-reviewed science, but obviously, because they don’t support your narrative they are “a sheep’s clothing” (you say without even bothering to look at any of them). So, as far as you’re concerned, that’s the end for me. I’m taking Mark Twain’s advice:


                    7. “My links, by the way, are peer-reviewed science,”
                      Which today, means absolutely NOTHING. The foxes saying the other foxes didn’t rob the hen house. I’ve read AGW skeptics, who are probably 10 times smarter than you, and they make more sense. I have read all your links before and seen them argued against by the people I reference. You and the other AGW kooks that come here are proving nothing but how intellectually closed minded you really are. The FACT that AGW proponents really want to shut down debate should tell you something. But, obviously, in your case, it doesn’t. Why? Shallow thinker perhaps? I’d say so.

                    8. “The debate is over” is one of the most bizarre science statement I’v e ever heard. Do you know the story about PlittDown man? The argument was over for years till they found it to be a fraud.

                    9. Someone already stole your Crown, buddy.

                      “Lysenko was consequently embraced and lionized by the Soviet media propaganda machine. Scientists who promoted Lysenkoism with faked data and destroyed counterevidence were favored with government funding and official recognition and award. Lysenko and his followers and media acolytes responded to critics by impugning their motives, and denouncing them as bourgeois fascists resisting the advance of the new modern Marxism.”


                    10. Post below was intended as a response to Cunundin. I may well have misplaced it, and for that am quite sorry. 🙁

                    11. That’s all the RSS data there is. That’s the complete set going back to the beginning, And it was Monckton’s choice, not mine, to use RSS rather rather than some ground-based dataset that would have made his whole “pause” demonstration impossible.

                    12. You really are kidding aren’t you? Now your just getting silly. Do they “tell us” what the primary causation is. Wow. Nature!?! lol….lol….lol……

                    13. You are promoting Marxist/Green/Leftist/Stupid propaganda, buddy. Mush brained swill for ignorant people.

                      Here’s a good thing for you to read. “The governing body of the IPCC is made of a minority of scientists almost all of them promoters of the environmentalist ideology, and a majority of state representatives and of non-governmental green organizations.”


                      If you’re truly educated, you may read it in the original French, here:


                      And, if you truly care about “Climate Scientists”, the authors ARE.

                      Jean Poitou is a physicist and climatologist, graduated from Ecole
                      Supérieure de Physique et Chimie (Physics and Chemistry engineering college) and is climatologist at the Laboratory of the climate and environment sciences at IPSL, a joint research lab from CEA, CNRS, and UVSQ (*). He has written a book on the Climate for the teachers of secondary schools

                      François-Marie Bréon at CEA since 1993, has published 85 articles, is Directeur de recherche at CNRS, and author of the IPCC report 2013; he has been scientific manager of the ICARE group (CNES, CNRS, University of Lille), and of the POLDER and MicroCarb Space missions.

                    14. Everything you post is deceptive, agenda driven, and mush brained emotion. Let’s start a Boogeyman Police. Taxpayer funded. To protect everyone from those hideous things hiding in the closet. Then, let’s fund billions of dollars to prove it. If the people taking the money don’t prove it, then we cut off their funding. Then we start a boogeyman police department and staff it with highly paid jobs for boogeyman police, managers, staffers, and lobbyists. Then we open that trough up to anyone who wants to get taxpayer subsidies to print boogeyman posters and train people in how to spot boogeymen, in the dark, in the light, on holidays, and under ultraviolet light. Then we start up education classes in boogeyman detection and teach small children to be very afraid of the boogeyman if their parents deny their fear of the dark. Yes, that’s just about exactly how Globull Warming plays out.

                    15. There you go again. Denying Reality. When are you Reality Deniers going to stop preaching your idiotic faith? The Deceptions are yours. Reality has given your ideology a rousing Bronx Cheer, but no, you stick your fingers in your ears and shut your eyes tight, and deny that you have been willingly following a provably failed ideology. Must hurt like a B!tch. Stupid usually hurts. Not my problem.

                    16. The fanatic “cunudiun” says the assertion in the head posting that RSS data show 18 years 7 months without global warming is “deceptive”. On the contrary: since all of the assumptions on the basis of which the calculation was made are explicit in the posting, there is nothing deceptive about it. There has indeed been no trend for 18 years 7 months on the RSS data, or 18 years 5 months on the UAH data, and one has to go further back than that to establish a positive trend, and then a far feebler one than the models had predicted.

                    17. The RSS data that you “cherry picked”, as you put it. We had a cooling period during the “Prior Period”, as you call it. Again, you miss the point. On top of the child like “science” the models the IPCC are using are wrong, on their own word. The whole “theory” on is wrong. Hypothsis at this point!

                    18. The data speak for themselves if they are raw. Otherwise they are reflecting someone’s agenda. Your data as presented bears no resemblance to the truth. It reflects your Marxist agenda.

                2. NOAA web site, will that do for you. Google “record ice 2014 NOAA” Look at NOAAs web site and go down the page till about the fifth issue under Antarctic Ice sheet. It’s been setting records!!!I love the “cherry picked” , as you say, Prior period. What a joke.

                  1. I followed your instructions, but many NOAA pages come up when I Google that, and I can’t find one that allows me to follow your directions. Can you post a link? It is well know that Antarctic sea ice is setting extent records, but that is very different from the Antarctic Ice sheet, which has been decreasing in volume much fasetr than the increase in sea ice.

                3. The fanatic “cunudiun” has not appreciated that the Antarctic ice-cap has grown, and was at record high extents for the satellite era and time of year for much of the past 12 months. The models did not predict this. However, there were many predictions that at the other end of the world the Arctic sea ice would have disappeared altogether in summer by 2012. It is now 2015 and that has not happened yet.

                  1. The deceiving “monckton” is at best an ignoramus who does not appreciate the difference between the thin sea ice floating in the water around Antarctica and the massive ice sheets resting on its land. The former has indeed spread out to a maximum “extent” like a scoop of ice cream dropped on a warm kitchen floor, but the volume of this increase (+26 gigatonnes per year, Holland et al, J Climate, 2014) pales in comparison to the annual loss of land ice from the Antarctic continent (-159 gigatonnes per year, McMillan el al, GRL, 2014) and also in comparison to the loss of Arctic sea ice at the other pole (-261 gigatonnes per year, PIOMAS), the annual ice loss from the Greenland ice sheets (-378 Gt, Enderlin et al, 2014), and from other land based glaciers worldwide (259 Gt, Gardner et al. Science, 2013). In total, this means that every year our warming planet is losing more than a trillion tonnes of ice.

                    As for earlier predictions of Arctic ice disappearance, in December 2007, National Geographic reported

                    Just last year two top scientists surprised their colleagues by projecting that the Arctic sea ice was melting so rapidly that it could disappear entirely by the summer of 2040.

                    This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.”


                    Depending on your definition of “nearly”, that prediction may well have come true. In the summer 2012, according to PIOMAS, the Arctic sea ice reached a minimum volume of 3261 km3, less than one fifth of what it was in 1979. I challenge Monckton to provide one prediction by a reputable scientist that “the Arctic sea ice would have disappeared altogether in summer by 2012.”

                    1. https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/vishop-extent.html?S
                      They address your bogus “ice thickness” garbage. Look for it. This is for Antarctica.

                      You want the Arctic? Here: https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/vishop-extent.html?N
                      They also address the “thickness” question.

                      Two top scientists say something and you jump like Pavlov’s dog. You are incapable of any independent thought. It is apparent. Oh, BTW, National Geographic has turned into a poor joke with their AGW hysteria.

                    2. So according to your source the August 12 Arctic average extent for the 1980’s was 8.11 million sq. km, the 1990’s average was 7.41, and we’re now (2015) at 5.66, the fourth lowest ever for this date. What’s your point?

                    3. You didn’t look at it CLOSELY. Figures. No need to explain it to you. Your mind is CLOSED.

                    4. You have a habit of making all kinds of accusations and calling people names but never providing any substance that would would make what you say the least bit credible. I carefully transcribed for you yesterday’s (August 12) figures to two digits. What else is on that chart? I’m tempted to do a little name calling myself, and believe me I could come up with some doozies.

                    5. LOOK, dummy! YOU ARE LOOKING AT ONE DATE not the TREND. My God, you are dense. YOU DESERVE THE NAME CALLING. You are that stupid.

                    6. Oh, capital letters now. Ouch!

                      The trend since the mid 1980’s is clearly downward, of course with some annual variation. Since the ice ebbs and flows every year, you need to pick a particular time of year to do a proper comparison. I picked yesterday August 12. You prefer sometime in winter? Here: Arctic sea ice maximum reaches lowest extent on record

                      No matter what date you pick, the trend since the 1980’s has clearly been downward. In 2012, it reached an all-time summer minimum. The two years of data since does not constitute a “trend”.

                    7. Have a good day. No caps, better? The point, as it must be drawn out for you, is that it is NOT disappearing as it was predicted. It is in it’s usual state of flux.

                    1. I suspect you are talking about something you REALLY know something about. Cooking. I don’t mean that as a slander either!

              2. Isandhlwana79 wrote <<>>
                Any evidence from a reliable source to support your contention?

                Isandhlwana79 wrote <<>>
                To which catastrophic predictions are you referring?
                To the best of my knowledge, the IPCC projections (not predictions) have been shown to be within the error bounds they published. If anything, the projections have been overly conservative.

                Isandhlwana79 wrote <<>>
                Indisputable data and unchallengeable logic total devoid of emotion?
                Is this how you engage in a rational scientific discussion?

                1. The predictions have not been in the “error bounds”. Nice try. Wrong.
                  “Is this how you engage in a rational scientific discussion?”
                  The problem is, you aren’t rational. None of you AGW kooks are. You all are nothing more than sheep, incapable of independent thought. I despise you people. Why? As I said below, you would follow a policy that would lead the western world into economic oblivion. For what?! A scary scenario that is not going to happen. How do I know this? Because temperatures are NOT rising as the proponents said they would. They continually have to “adjust” data. Doesn’t that say anything to you???? HUH!? Look at that again……THEY HAVE TO ADJUST THE DATA!!!! You see nothing wrong with that? If you don’t, you are a sheep like the rest.

                    1. The graph is bogus. Tell me why AGW proponents continually have to adjust the temperature data. Why is that? You got an answer?

                1. What did all the tide gauges look like in the 1880’s Wow. Did old one arm joe record the tide on Sundays or was it once a month back then? Science is wacky cool.

            2. “Dont Cherry pick” as you cherry pick 1979-2016!?! Are you kidding. Please use the numbers from 1900-2016. We could get a better look at the other “global warming”periods in the last century. Additionally, It’s not us saying this. The head of NOAA was. If you go to the NOAA web you will find Record Arctic ice over the last couple years. The Antarctic has been setting records for ice for years. By the way, as a side note, What happened to all the hurracanes and tornados they were assuring us in this theory? Please spare the brainwashed category 0 Super Storm, tide induced, Sandy. Check out the category 3 “long Island express” in the thirties. Thats during the “global warming” period you may want to put in your graph. How about the Category 5 hurricane , as opposed to just a category 3 Katrrena, that hit Galveston during that “global warming” period?

            3. The fanatic “cunudiun” appears not to understand that there has indeed been a pause in global warming over the past 18 years 7 months, notwithstanding that one-third of all anthropogenic forcings since the industrial revolution have arisen in the same period. The pause, therefore, was not predicted by the models and is inconsistent with their predictions. The way science works is this: a hypothesis is put forward, it is tested, and if found false it is rejected. The hypothesis that rapid warming should be occurring by now has been proven false by events. It should be rejected.

    1. The issue at hand is that the models are wrong. The whole theory of global warming is dependent on a computer model that turns out to be wrong. The correlation between CO2 and the warming of the planet isn’t there. I love the 1979-2016. Did time begin in 1979? The warming period of the thirties seems to be missing. I could go on how stupid the “science” is behind it. The weather stations have changed dramatically even over a creationest idea the earth started in 1979. They always have “records” in the news. If I put a weather station next to me I would have a record high and record low today. Just like a new weather station. All the science is so flawed you can drive a mac truck through it.

      1. Of all the repeated false utterances of climate science deniers, “The models are wrong” must win a prize. Repeated so casually and so often, it seems to have an air of truth. Also incorrect is the statement that the whole theory of global warming depends on a model or models. The reality is that we know from many lines of evidence — from paleoclimatology to satellite readings — that global warming is real and now being caused largely by humans. Still, the models have done very well and taught us much. For more on models, see http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.ca/2014/08/lets-talk-about-climate-models.html.

        Or consider the actual record of climate models, which is very probably very different from the propaganda you have been exposed to:

        Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:

        · That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.
        · That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
        · That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
        · That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.

        · Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
        · That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
        · The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
        · They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.

        · They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
        · The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
        · The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
        · The expansion of the Hadley cells.

        · The poleward movement of storm tracks.
        · The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
        · The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
        · The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
        · That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.


        1. The fanatic “cunudiun” appears to believe that the much-vaunted models were correct in predicting the rate of global warming. However, the head posting amply demonstrates this assumption to have been false. In 1990 the models predicted warming at a rate almost thrice the rate that has been observed in the quarter-century since. The models have in fact consistently and appreciably exaggerated the rate of global warming, and continue to do so.

        2. You are so wrong it isn’t funny. Why don’t you try and look at the contrary evidence on models and try to understand it. If you can, which I highly doubt.
          The same goes for the dummies ‘Dadmax’ and ‘Michael Stone’ who like your comments.

                1. ICYMI – there’s no stopping the rise in surface temperature!
                  “In case you missed it (ICYMI), a couple of new papers have been published recently, demonstrating that there has not been any “pause” or “hiatus” in surface temperature in recent years. Yes, the rate of increase wasn’t as high as it has been in some other periods. However these papers demonstrate that there was nothing different from what can be expected from a warming trend with interannual variability imposed on it.”

                    1. You have READING COMPREHENSION issues!!!! I said they have ADJUSTED the data to FIT the NARRATIVE……………………..C L E A R ??????

                    2. Show us how you ‘know’ that. Best sources, quotes and cites.

                      Just as the average middle school kid knows to do….

                    3. Robert, I already did that above. It is well known that NOAA has adjusted the temperature data. The question is, why did it take them so long? The answer is probably that the “pause” was getting too much traction. They had to figure a way to negate it. That way they keep all the true believers on the reservation.

                    4. So.
                      No sources.
                      And an unhealthy dose of conspiracy theory; “… too much traction. They had to figure a way…”

                    5. Tell us about the “adjusted”. Tell us how you know what adjustments are done to your choice. Tell us …

                    6. Yes that second one cites some really good ‘science’…

                      Evaluating a Web Site for Research Rubric

                    7. If that is all you have to say, you have nothing. But I already knew that about you. No comments on the first? Go to your masters at AGW. They’ll tell you how to respond…….LMAO!!!

    2. The graph shown by the fanatic “cunudiun” indicates a warming rate of just 0.7 K per century. Indeed, this is consistent with the 0.9 K/century predicted using the simple model in Monckton of Brenchley (2015), in the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. The significance of so long a pause as 18 years 7 months, as it now is, is that it inexorably reduces the long-run warming rate. For 0.7 K per century is harmless.

        1. Tell us how you perceive the rubric as “..pure BS.”

          And you do realize your comment exemplifies why learning the basic critical thinking skills utilized in that rubric is important, right?

          1. Your “rubric” is BS as means nothing in the debate on AGW. Why don’t you use some of your “basic critical thinking skills” and look at the evidence supplied by what you deride as “deniers”. That is if you have any of those skills. I doubt it.

    3. No, that’s a pause.

      There was a period of warming followed by a period (let’s call it a pause) where temperatures seem stable.

      Nothing phony about it.

      We would call it a “reversal”, not a “pause”, if temperatures start going down.

      1. But it didn’t simply follow a period of warming. It followed a period of warming followed by an abrupt jump where 28 years of warming were compressed into a single instant, making this pause catch-up period possible. The point is that only by ignoring the historical perspective, is it possible to create what people assume is usually meant by the word “pause”, i.e. a slowdown in global warming.

        1. More BS that means nothing on the topic of AGW. Figures. That is all you people can do. Appeal to authority figures and castigate anyone who doesn’t believe. You are a joke.

  5. You may be wondering: how is it even possible for the world economy to be using more than the Earth produces every year? Never mind if it is ethical or sustainable, surely this situation should not be physically possible. Ecological Overshoot is possible (in the short-to-medium-term) in a couple of ways, but the most dramatic is that we can use geological resources to supplement what the planet can renew every year. Fossil fuel energy sources, coal, oil and gas, are all fossilized organic material from millions of years ago – essentially ancient sunlight. For millennia humanity had to live within the budget of what the biosphere could produce with the sun’s energy in any given year, but the discovery of fossil fuels meant a way to utilise the sun’s energy from millions of years ago. Unfortunately though, as we now know, this fuel has two major problems: it causes climate change and it takes so long to form that for our purposes it is finite. As well as using ancient biological material that has fossilized, we have also been able to operate in Overshoot since the 1980s by letting carbon pollution accumulate in our atmosphere and oceans (causing climate change), and by liquidating not just geological but present-day ecological assets such as forests and degrading soil fertility. Damaging ecological assets reduces their ability to generate resources and assimilate wastes, reducing the biocapacity of the Earth. This means that even if our economy doesn’t grow next year, Earth Overshoot Day will still be a little earlier. We don’t know for sure how long we can carry on operating in global Overshoot without total system collapse, but we do know what we can do to avoid that happening and build a sustainable and happy future that respects ecological limits.


  6. Check out the graphs presented

    UAH 1.5C above the mean

    RSS 2.5C above the mean.

    Above average temperatures are called warmer.

    Carl Mears at RSS uses the term “denialist” to describe those who misrepresent his data.

    The Recent Slowing in the Rise of Global Temperatures

    Authors: Carl Mears

    Date Added: Monday, September 22, 2014

    Recently, a number of articles in the mainstream press have pointed out that there appears to have been little or no change in globally averaged temperature over the last two decades. Because of this, we are getting a lot of questions along the lines of “I saw this plot on a denialist web site. Is this really your data?” While some of these reports have “cherry-picked” their end points to make their evidence seem even stronger, there is not much doubt that the rate of warming since the late 1990’s is less than that predicted by most of the IPCC AR5 simulations of historical climate. This can be seen in the RSS data, as well as most other temperature datasets. For example, the figure below is a plot of the temperature anomaly (departure from normal) of the lower troposphere over the past 35 years from the RSS “Temperature Lower Troposphere” (TLT) dataset. For this plot we have averaged over almost the entire globe, from 80S to 80N, and used the entire TLT dataset, starting from 1979. (The denialists really like to fit trends starting in 1997, so that the huge 1997-98 ENSO event is at the start of their time series, resulting in a linear fit with the smallest possible slope.)


    Yes, Marc Morano, he is talking to you.

    Have a look at the graph from RSS.


    Notice that not one single data point from 1994 to the present is below the mean. When temperatures are above average there is warming.

        1. THAT doesn’t tell you anything?????? You are another sheep, Jack. Accept whatever is put out there (as long as it goes along with your pee-conceived notions) with NO critical thinking. Do you even consider that they could be in error???

            1. Light years better than YOU, without a doubt…..LMAO!!!
              BTW, coming from someone with a closed mind (YOU), I’ll take that as a compliment.

                    1. Well go over to WUWT. They’ll school you good. You don’t know diddly squat about science.

                      You are no challenge either. Why? You don’t know anything…..LMAO!!

                    2. No. I think I already told you. I never go to that site. Don’t want to catch cooties.

                    3. Your post about droughts and heat waves (My God!) was the hysterical post in the thread. Stop projecting, boy. It is unbecoming.

                    4. Do I have to do your homework for you? Read a newspaper. Or even just read something other than WUWT.

                    5. oooooh…..a newspaper…..WOW! Is that where you get your hysterical information?……LMAO!!!

                    6. Ok. I’m going to make one more exception. I’m going to talk about something that’s verifiable and on this page. It was you who went on and on about data being “adjusted”. You proved you didn’t know a damned thing. You even cited NOAA’s page listing their reasons for the adjustments, and still didn’t understand. One commenter pointed out to you that raw data ALWAYS need to be adjusted. You made an inane comment about how terrible that means the situation must be. No. As someone who has worked in processing raw scientific data, I can tell you that comment was dead on. Real world data always needs some kind of cleaning-up or adjustment or manipulation — call it whatever you want — for it to be useful to normal people who don’t have an inside knowledge of, for example, what time of day it was collected, or any of a million different variables that can affect its validity. Would you have rather had NOAA release their raw data exactly as it came it from the field without those adjustments, so that it would have been completely useless to anyone who didn’t know what adjustments to make themselves? But the clincher is that when I pointed out to you that the very same data you were so busy crapping all over was used by Monckton to construct his graph crucifix that is the subject of the lead article above, you just went silent. Changed the subject. Gish-galloped onto something else. No acknowledgement that YOU WERE WRONG. No “OK I didn’t know that.” Nothing. There’s a lot you don’t know. A lot more than that. I may not have “emeritus” as prt of my title, but I have spent my life in science, in energy fields related to global warming, and I know a mouthy, know-nothing idiot when I see one. Goodbye.

                    7. You sure don’t write like someone who has ” spent my life in science, in energy fields related to global warming”. I think you are lying. You are a blowhard who can call someone else “mouthy”. Project much? .
                      Tell me, how are YOU sure that the data was “adjusted” properly? You got a clue? Probably not. You just accept it on face value. YOU yourself said you don’t visit sites that run contrary to your beliefs . How intellectually honest is that? If you were honest you’d look at those sites and have an open mind but you don’t. That is why I regard you as stupid. Ignorant on top of it. And you are that, in spades! Talk about a know -nothing idiot. Go look in the mirror, boy, you’ll see one……

                    8. Oh God forbid I call you names! You think I’m lying. That’s your problem.

                      NOAA explains the reasons for their adjustments. Nothing is secretive. As for the RSS data, Monckton uses it. Why don’t you have an argument with him?

                      I was joking about WUWT. I have wasted hours there. The whole place is designed to make one waste hours sorting through a bullsh^t mountain. How about all the times you and your denier friends have shut down arguments because they were supported by a link to SkepticalScience, or NASA, or (on this page) Nature!. It’s a joke. You even dissed me a while ago because I made incidental reference to something reported in National Geographic. Obviously the rule is any source which doesn’t agree with your preconceived notions (as reinforced by a constant stream of crap from WUWT) is supid/dishonest/fill-in-the-blank.

                      It bothers me not in the least that you regard me as stupid. I know I am not stupid, so that means one of us is wrong. Especially since you expressed that opinion at the outset before you had even had a conversation with me.

                      Here is your homework. I did some of it for you. It took me about 10 minutes. Google (or your favorite search engine) is a remarkable tool, and I’m sure you can find a lot more if you get out of the WUWT box and related echo chamber:

                      Changes in some types of extreme events have already been observed, for example, increases in the frequency and intensity of heat waves and heavy precipitation events.

                      U.N. agency frets over climate’s role in expanding refugee crises

                      From these charts, you can figure out the effects on sea level yourself https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c6d90ce15a1cccbfd078664ec515f66a5c9739ceabf77192b53c71126b25efde.jpg

                    9. “I was joking about WUWT. I have wasted hours there”

                      Sure you have………


                      It bothers me not in the least that you regard me as stupid

                      Yeah,, it bothers you alright. If it didn’t, you’d just ignore me as another “mouthy know-nothing”, but you don’t. Why? Insecure, perhaps? You are right, I don’t know you. Nor do I care to know you. I regard you as an ignorant liberal full of yourself, trying to impress others with something you can’t prove. But that is how it is with you AGW kooks. So sure you are right!

                      I am not the one pretending that I have a complete understanding of climate dynamics. People like you think you do when you don’t.

                    10. YOu guys are kinda funny…. with your derisive ad hominum attacks on each other.
                      The climate change crowd are not stupid… just honestly misled, deceived and overwhelmed by huge numbers of people who have fallen victim to self aggrandizing pseudo science.
                      Climatology is no more scientific than POLITICAL SCIENCE.
                      Weather is extremely difficult to measure … at least in the minor degrees the climate change crowd are claiming. What we do have is an abundant media ready to report every little tornado, or flood. or drought or hot spelll or cold spell. It doesn’t seem to matter what mother nature throws at us … the climate changers are always right. from the presidient on down. And they have absolutely no scientific evidence other than 97% of the “scientists” are on our side.
                      True science claims propability.or predictability. And the climatologists have none of that. It is almost impossible to predict the weather more than 2 weeks in advance. Absolutely none of their data is verifiable or can be replicated. It simply cannot be checked by anyone. it must all be accepted ON FAITH. This is NOT science in any usual sense of the word. Who among the changers would be willing to stake thier house on the weather in Montana in 5 or 10 years. I have given here before precise data regarding the record highs in Regina in the past 131 years. We have had 174 record highs in the 65 years after 1949 and 192 record highs in the years before 1950. IN July we have had only 3 record highs after 1949 while having 28 record highs before 1950. In the past 20 years we have had only 0 record highs in May,2 in June , 1 in July and 3 in August. Our summers are definitely cooler while our winters are definitely warmer. crops have never been better in southern Sask. Such changes have been greatly beneficial to everyone. … needing less electricity for our air conditioners and less gas and oil for our winter heating. Don’t take my word for it … you can check the numbers for yourself on line anytime. Southern Sask and adjacent areas appear to be an island of climate stability in an ocean of “climate upheaval”. ( or does this “ocean ” exist only in our imaginations.??)
                      When can anyone check the numbers proving “climate upheaval” of the climate change crowd.? the answer is NEVER.
                      It appears that CLIMATE CHANGE IS THE HOAX OF THE 21ST CENTURY.
                      Could it be that the melting polar ice caps are responsible for our warmer winters.?? ( and they have been melting for the past 10,000 years. ) But why do we have cooler summers.??
                      Don’t forget…. climatology is no more scientific than political science.
                      The ever changing variables simply cannot be measured in any significant detail. And larger detail of any significance simply does not exist. AMEN brothers Amen. Pax ominibus.
                      PS… Pollution of our air, water, soils, food, our oceans our everything… along with the exponential growth in world population should be of far greater concern than climate change. Those problems are all REAL… not in the “maybe” category.
                      Tell me… who in Canada has suffered from the negative aspects of climate change. I don’t know a single person. And i have just indicated that whatever changes have occurred in Sask have been beneficial for almost everyone. Why must we continuously bleat and bray about climate change when our polluted environment is disintegrating all around us. Human folly knows no limits.

                    11. Those fires are burning because the people running things have refused for more than a hundred years to burn out the yearly buildup of brush and other fuels. Current forests do not look anything like forests of 300 years ago, they are over grown fire traps just waiting for a spark.

                    12. I have two farms 25 miles apart. ONe was extremely dry while the other was somewhat dry at first followed by above normal rainfall. Temperatures were only slightly above normal and did not include any extreme heat at all. Crops at one farm are much below normal while at the other farm are mostly normal. And only 25 miles apart. Such local variations are NOT CLIMATE CHANGE.

                      Parts of northern Sask were also very dry this year. …and did include an area of above normal temperatures. This led to a much above average level of fires .. in an area a few hundred miles by a couple of hundred miles. These conditions are perfectly “normal” Pockets of wetness and dryness occur often.
                      What on earth these totally normal variations in precipitation and temperatures have to do with climate change is quite beyond me.
                      Are you aware that nothing is more “natural” to a forest than a forest fire. Pine an spruce cones will usually not germinate and must be burned over to induce germination.
                      there is no doubt that climate change has become a religion for many people….And no amount of “LACK” of evidence will ever get them to change their minds.
                      “A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still”.
                      I repeat …no matter what NORMAL weather extremes mother nature throws at us … it is all proof positive of climate change.
                      You made the statement that 2015 was the warmest year ever … globally. But this data again CANNOT BE PROVEN OR RELATED OR VERIFIED IN ANY WAY. Indeed this kind of thing just can’t be measured in the minor amounts that are claimed. This stuff is much the same as the religious folks who are always predicting the end of the world.
                      Somebody constructs a graph or plots a line on a paper and it is just accepted as fact… without the slightest proof. We NEVER get to see the raw data.
                      Indeed there are no limits to human folly…. and gullibility.
                      NObody knows how many acres were burned…. and anybody who says they do is making wild guesses. Where were these acres burned? That is not stated. OMG ..at least give us some idea what and where that chart above refers to.
                      But then why would anyone want to post speciific data that someone might so easily disprove.

                    13. People are just not closing their eyes hard enough, are they? No one seems to be able to match your lack of evidence.

                    14. OH dear….This is clearly a waste of my time.
                      The “changers” are the ones who must produce the evidence, not us.
                      In science you can’t prove that something does not exist.
                      I have given you several ( many ) arguments and evidence in my last two posts.
                      You have failed to address even one single item.
                      You reply with a glib totally irrelevant one liner…..a large number of fires in Northen Sask. which proves absolutely nothing.
                      In July in Regina … we’ve had only 3 record highs after 1949 and 28 before 1950. Please explain that one.
                      One more impossibility bordering on the absurd.
                      It is utterly impossible for us to reduce our carbon footprint ( and our limitless pollution) as long as we allow the worlds’ population to grow exponentially.
                      But still none of the “changers” addresses that most obvious problem.

                    15. The evidence is overwhelming, but you have to open your eyes to see it, not just cry that it isn’t there without making an effort. Hint: Regina isn’t the whole planet. Hint: NASA or the Met Centre in Britain, or meteorological agency of Japan all can tell you that 2015 was the warmest year ever. If you have sources of information proving they are wrong, you should reveal them, not simply whine that the data is not there. Same with the rest of your nonsense. The science is overwhelming. That’s why all the scientists believe it.

                      P.S. Did you look at that graph and read the article about the California fires. That too is evidence, based on real data.

                    16. Do you mean his evidence about his two farms or what he said about parts of Northern Saskatchewan?

                    17. Maybe because it’s raining more. More water. more growth… more food during burn season. Also there are forest management variables. What makes these climate induced.

                      Having said that… graphs 1 and 3 are barely statistically significant.

                      What is the hypothesis on why warming would cause this? This whole paper is hogwash. Especially when it starts mentioning AGW leading to more frequent and severe droughts. There is no evidence for that.

                    18. Maybe if you read the peer-reviewed paper the graphs are from, you could find the answer to some of your questions.

                    19. I did… where do you think I got the “more frequent and severe droughts” from.
                      This is a perfect example of a paper on a mission to find some AGW bad effect.

                    20. The quote “more frequent and severe droughts” does not appear in the paper, so it is difficult for me to isolate exactly what point you are referring to.

                      But to me, this is pretty clear:

                      We show that fire weather seasons have lengthened across 29.6 million km2 (25.3%) of the Earth’s vegetated surface, resulting in an 18.7% increase in global mean fire weather season length. We also show a doubling (108.1% increase) of global burnable area affected by long fire weather seasons (>1.0 σ above the historical mean) and an increased global frequency of long fire weather seasons across 62.4 million km2 (53.4%) during the second half of the study period. If these fire weather changes are coupled with ignition sources and available fuel, they could markedly impact global ecosystems, societies, economies and climate.

                    21. We’ve been cooling since 1998 according to the satellites so maybe global cooling causes this… Did you try the second paragraph of the introduction?

                    22. But why did you pick 1998? If you’d picked just about any other year, you’d see that the satellites show we’ve been warming. And if you picked the ground-based datasets, you’d see it’s been warming. Or if you looked at the oceans. You have cherry-picked the evidence that will give you the conclusion you want, but that’s not how science works.

                    23. Climastrology just rewrites the surface data… they don’t need to cherry pick the data… they just convert the grapes into cherries.

                      Why the divergence… I’m still waiting for an answer.

                    24. Can you stick to a point? First you called me a “satellite data denier.” When I showed you I wasn’t and gave you the entire RSS data set, you complained that it started right after a period of global cooling. Yes it does. So what?

                    25. Sooo. When you tack on the warmer temperatures from the 1940’s to your trend line… the overall slope is going to drop right back down to next to nothing. Why isn’t that obvious?

                    26. Because then it would show there is very weak warming over a longer period of time or none at all depending on what data you use.

                    27. The graph in the article I linked to shows the increase in wildfires that’s been happening across the entire U.S., not just California, since about 1980. What happened 1000 years ago is irrelevant to our present situation. Did you bother to read it before you commented?

                    28. It’s always in the same direction… the post colder… the most recent warmer? Do you know how much it’s been adjusted since even 1980?

                    29. No it’s not always in the same direction, and the adjustments have been very minor, doing nothing to change the big picture about AGW.

                    30. Really. So in the early1980. James Hansen reported how much warming from 1910 to 1980… ? How much do the graphs show now? You don’t think that’s significant?

                      Here’s his 1980 paper. Please reference page 961. It looks to me like about 0.35 C…. Notice how 1940 was higher than all the rest and significantly higher than 1980.

                      From 1880 to 1940 about .4 to .45C temp rise. Now. it’s about 0.7C Notice the massive cooling from 1940 to the mid-1960’s (that will be almost erased).


                      Now compare it to today’s data. There’s emails about “erasing the 1940’s blip” Now it’s been erased. That’s not science.

                    31. Ahh so you’re moving the goals posts. First you said the changes weren’t significant. Now that I show you they are you say I just don’t understand them… Got you.

                    32. Is there a list of every revision done to the temperature with the reason why? That’s what engineers have to do.

                    33. Can they explain the divergence with the satellite data? which is checked against air balloons? Do they have a list of every revision and what is affected?
                      Have you researched how they correct for UHI? It’s weak. (Partly adressed here. Not very convincingly).

                    34. Not some automated algorithm. It’s very hard to account for UHI. Also, doing things like irrigation or more lawn watering in an area can have a big effect. That’s why satellite data is more reliable.

                    35. I could be wrong about this, but thought the whole Berkeley Earth project started because of concerns about UHI, and Watts and the deniers had to eat their hat after it proved it wasn’t such a big deal. You might want to look into that.

                      Carl Mears, Vice President / Senior Research Scientist at RSS, says he considers “surface temperature datasets … to be more reliable than satellite datasets.”

                    36. His argument is not very convincing… The temp records agree more? yes… after they are adjusted.

                    1. Go read Trenberth yourself. I have actually posted to WUWT. And I like Watts attitude towards to the sky dragon slayers. And you?

                    2. Yeah, I’ve seen you there. You’ve gotten roasted right good. That is why you hang out here. Figuring the expertise isn’t quite as high…….LMAO!!!

                    3. Really, Jack? Is that the best you have? No wonder they roasted you over on WUWT……….LMAO!!!!

                    4. Good! You too! You AGW kooks are a riot . That is why I’m laughing my assoff……….hehehehe

          1. Yes, very sure. I downloaded the RSS data set in order to make my graph, the one which embeds Monckton’s graph, and the line matches up exactly.

          2. RSS adjusts for diurnal shift.

            UAH data is also adjusted.

            “One might ask, Why do the satellite data have to be adjusted at all? If we had satellite instruments that (1) had rock-stable calibration, (2) lasted for many decades without any channel failures, and (3) were carried on satellites whose orbits did not change over time, then the satellite data could be processed without adjustment. But none of these things are true. Since 1979 we have had 15 satellites that lasted various lengths of time, having slightly different calibration (requiring intercalibration between satellites), some of which drifted in their calibration, slightly different channel frequencies (and thus weighting functions), and generally on satellite platforms whose orbits drift and thus observe at somewhat different local times of day in different years. All data adjustments required to correct for these changes involve decisions regarding methodology, and different methodologies will lead to somewhat different results. This is the unavoidable situation when dealing with less than perfect data.”


            1. One might ask… why do the surface temperatures have to be adjusted every year… even the ones from 60 years ago. Why are the adjustments in the USA related to CO2 correllated with CO@ concentration.

      1. Yeah, because it doesn’t fit the BS narrative you subscribe to. Yet you people think you support “science”. You guys are directly from the 14th century in your science viewpoints.

      1. Funny that he couldn’t get that published in a journal….

        “Much is made of the peer-review of scientific papers…
        . . .

        I have had three recent experiences ….”

        1. Did you read Fred Singer’s article? With nutcases like him running around with the title “Professor Emeritus”, one can’t help but be a little more sympathetic to people like I79 who are taken in. It’s too bad we can’t see Singer’s third rejected paper, because if those reviewers are even 10% right, he should be institutionalized rather than writing papers for public consumption. Imagine proposing a geoengineering project to increase the soot being dumped on Greenland’s ice. Anyone with any doubts about how bad this situation already is can check out Jason Box’s Dark Snow Project. Looks to me like peer-review is working exactly as intended, in this case at least.

          1. It is pretty bad when arguing from authority is tried wo an authority…..

            The whole contrarian/denier facade isn’t weathering well. No substantive body of evidence – poptech’s list and nipcc are about the only compilers – , counter arguments amongst the alt hypotheses, a few journals that cater to their submissions, a few names and faces on a few TV channels and editorials and blogs, …..

            And no policies, just attacks.

            1. With heat waves, droughts, and floods becoming a regular feature of life on almost every continent, climate a factor exacerbating refugee crises, and sea level rise accelerating due to irreversible ice melting in West Antarctica, Greenland and mountain glaciers worldwide, it’s really too bad they’re not right.

              Not to overlook ocean acidification, invasive species, wildfires … what else? It looks like we’re already well into the next, reality phase of this global warming thing, and they’re still denying it’s happening at all. I think maybe they’re training to get circus jobs as contortionists.

              1. And today is Overshoot day;
                ” In 2015, 13 August is Earth Overshoot Day. The day marks the estimated calendar date when humanity’s demand on the planet’s ecological services (which produce renewable resources and assimilate wastes) outstrips what the Earth can supply. This means that for the rest of the year, we are taking more than is regenerated, operating in Overshoot. Last year, Earth Overshoot Day was August 19th. We first went into Overshoot in the late 1970s, and since then the day has crept ever earlier on the calendar. This means we are using the ecological resources of just over 1.5 Earths.”

                “what else?” There is methane….. And politicization. .. And. ..

                1. Another hyperbolic statement with ZERO basis in fact except some bogus link to a kook website. Weren’t you the one lecturing about the value or worth of a website?…..How ironic…….LMAO!!!

                    1. Robert, you and the three dummies that like your comment have a combined IQ less than 100. That is a FACT…….LMAO!!!

                    2. Repeat it again, you fool. You look dumber each time you post it. Why? Because your limited intellect can do nothing else…….LMAO (at you, idiot)

              2. “With heat waves, droughts, and floods becoming a regular feature of life
                on almost every continent, climate a factor exacerbating refugee
                crises, and sea level rise accelerating due to irreversible ice melting
                in West Antarctica, Greenland and mountain glaciers worldwide, it’s
                really too bad they’re not right.”

                PURE BS. You got any QUANTITATIVE data to back that assertion? Tell us how things are different than they have been in the past.
                Talk about “hysteria”. That’s you, boy.

                1. For somebody who’s repeatedly been making all kinds of assertions with no evidence whatsoever to back any of it up, you have a pretty big mouth.

                    1. Your link proves why you are such a shallow thinker. That link proves NOTHING except you being a dummy.

              3. Please explain how every weather event is now claimed to be proof of globull warming, but such events are quite common in the not so distant past and way before you clowns ever got your marxist propaganda wrapped around natural variability. You are truly a waste of space.

                1. Too bad you don’t have any understanding of probability, statistics or mathematics, because it would be a waste of time trying to explain it to you.

                  1. As I said, YOU have NO credentials. You should learn to keep your mouth shut and not appear a fool, but no, you’ve opened it and removed all doubt.

                    1. That didn’t answer my question. In his old age, Singer has become nothing more than a paid shill, if he was ever more than that when he was younger.

                    2. In his old age, admittedly he isn’t as sharp as he used to be, he is still at LEAST 10 times smarter than you. You are an ignoramus with a closed mind who can’t even think for yourself. Sad really.

                    3. First a problem with hysterics. Now talking to yourself. You really should see a shrink.

                    4. You should read a book on climate dynamics given that you know nothing about it other than what you read in newspapers……LMAO!!!!

    1. Bear in mind what the IPCC really said about a “hiatus.”

      ” Even with this “hiatus” in GMST trend, the decade of the 2000s has been the warmest in the instrumental record of GMST”

      AR5 – page 769

      Notice the quotes around “hiatus”. That is in the original in Table 9.2.

      1. Which still doesn’t prove CO2 is causing it. Read Trenberth’s article. He offers a number of explanations for the “hiatus”. At the end of the day, it is guess work and not proof of CO2 DRIVING climate change.

        1. No climate scientist claims that natural variability is not a factor.

          Since you have not linked to Trenberth’s article, please do so. I like original sources, not gossip.

              1. You don’t want to look for it, that is your problem, not mine. I could not care less whether you believe it or not. I’m not trying to impress you with anything.

                  1. Good for you, Jack. I am not the one trying to impress anybody with anything. That is YOU and the other AGW advocates coming here to argue a case you can’t possibly prove and it frustrates you.

                    1. Why? Why don’t you go away? After all you aren’t convincing anybody of anything.

          1. Why don’t you look for yourself. The link to Trenberth’s article is in the comments. I’m not doing your research for you. Get off your arse and do the work.

  7. A snippet from Trenberth:

    Karl et al. recently argued that there has been no slowdown in the rise of GMST and hence no hiatus (3).
    The authors compared slightly revised and improved GMST estimates after
    2000 with the 1950–1999 period, concluding that
    there was hardly any change in the rate of
    increase. Their start date of 1950 is problematic, however. An earlier
    which some now call the big hiatus, lasted from
    about 1943 to 1975 (see the figure); including the 1950–1975 period thus
    lowers the rate of increase for the 1950–1999
    comparison interval. The perception of whether or not there was a hiatus
    on how the temperature record is partitioned.

    In other words, we’re just guessing……….LMAO!!!!

  8. Another link for the kooks to digest:

    My point in giving these links is that there are a LOT of HIGHLY educated people who dispute not only AGW but the supposed ‘Greenhouse’ effect (even AGW scientists themselves realize the term ‘Greenhouse Effect’ is a misnomer. It doesn’t correctly state the dynamics at play). There is plenty of information out there for people to find but the the idiots that come here spouting their nonsense REFUSE to even look at it! Then they want to be taken seriously. Right. Bottom line, all you folks are mental midgets.

    1. Only the wise who reject or deny or dismiss or exclude or ignore or explain away “orthodox” earth systems science ARE NOT mental midgets and ARE in possession of the true and certain knowledge about climate. /s

            1. Immature playground name calling only is polemical.
              I deliberately choose NOT to attempt to engage in logical dialectic or well-reasoned argument with stupid, which only drags the participants down to its level and bludgeons them with its world’s experience

              1. “Immature playground name calling only is polemical.”
                Followed by;

                “I deliberately choose NOT to attempt to engage in logical dialectic or well-reasoned argument with stupid…”
                OH…yes. Mensch59 demonstrates he is guilty as charged. Fun…and funny, Mensch.

                1. Finding someone new to stalk Graves? I can refuse to engage with STUPID (personifying STUPID if you would look at the entire post in context O King of fallacious contextualization)) without calling a person stupid. Or does such nuance escape your magnificently and miraculously and magnanimous superior rationality?

                  1. No…but that’s not what you did, was it? Don’t obfuscate. It just makes your inane self-obsessed, pseudo-intellectual pap ever more obvious.

                    I’m honored that you rate me so highly…”superior rationality”! Obviously true…but it IS relatively simple to out your style of verbose bloviating.

                    Are you done yet? As one pathetic commentator on these boards once said, “Feel free to have the last words so you can rest assured to win some points.”
                    Bye now.

                    1. ga-esi gị isi nke gị ịnyịnya ibu
                      It might help…but no guarantees.
                      I’m going to take your advice and leave you alone. You are becoming boring. No more whining from you.

    2. If a CO2 greenhouse gas warming effect existed…”
      my bolding

      This page seems to be part of the alt phfiziques oft promoted by a select few….

      “The atmospheric greenhouse effect essentially describes a fictitious mechanism.
      If a CO2 greenhouse gas warming effect existed…”
      my bolding

      1. We can see climate scientists are certainly not particularly
        numerate. In the last 30 years we know that CO2 emissions have grown
        from 19,000 Million metric tonnes in 1981 to 33,000 million metric
        tonnes today (2010 figure).

        That’s a whopping 74 percent increase in CO2 emissions. Yet despite
        all that extra CO2 floating above us global temperatures have flat lined
        since 1998.

        Indeed, even the “best” among them, NASA’s (now retired) greenhouse
        gas guru James Hansen, who spawned the carbon climate craze in 1981,
        dodges the issue that the CO2 climate numbers don’t correlate with
        global temperatures. No correlation = no causation. Thus discrediting
        the crux of the “theory” that CO2 controls climate.

          1. Better than what you have………..LMAO!!!! I still am laughing over the Bernie Sanders link………..talk about a kook…..it fits that you would support that loser……….LMAO!!!!!

      2. NASA Apollo Expert blasts former NASA Colleague

        At the fore of highly-qualified independent experts debunking the
        greenhouse gas charade is Texan Dr. Pierre Latour. Latour is carving a
        reputation as Hansen’s nemesis since he joined the unpaid ranks of
        independent analysts at Principia Scientific International, where he is
        now Vice Chairman.

        Dr. Latour built a stellar career in industry first making his name
        as Chemical Engineer on NASA’s Apollo space mission. He and other
        experts in thermodynamics have this to say to Hansen:

        “Chemical engineers design and operate radiant, convection and
        conduction furnaces, kilns, forges, chemical reactors and boilers for
        refining petroleum, manufacturing chemicals and generating electricity
        since 1920. Not once have we seen any GHE.”

                  1. You wouldn’t know a ‘logical fallacy’ if it bit you. You are a joke. Poor little man, you are. Coming here to argue about something you know nothing about……………………..LMAO!!!

    1. That’s comical. The G&T ‘paper’ amounts to:

      “The atmosphere isn’t really a greenhouse, so the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist”.

      It’s just a petty quibble over semantics, with absolutely no physical basis.

          1. I admit, I don’t have the expertise to criticize it. I don’t pretend to either. I am reading them and others debate the supposed “greenhouse effect”. I know Singer, Lindzen, Spencer, and Monckton accept it’s (GHE) premise (people who’s opinions I find as reasoned. I understand that doesn’t necessarily make THEM right either). The overall effect of it they ALL debate.

            Now how have YOU determined “it’s garbage”.

      1. An inconvenient truth:

        We can see climate scientists are certainly not particularly numerate.
        In the last 30 years we know that CO2 emissions have grown from 19,000
        Million metric tonnes in 1981 to 33,000 million metric tonnes today
        (2010 figure).

        That’s a whopping 74 percent increase in CO2 emissions. Yet despite
        all that extra CO2 floating above us global temperatures have flat lined
        since 1998.

        AGW is a fraud.


        1. Global warming has accelerated, not slowed down. All natural climate forcings have been negative for the last half century, so all of the accelerating accumulation of heat in the climate system during this period is due to us. All of the accelerating ice melt and sea level rise of recent decades is also due to us. Human activity is now the driving force of global climate change, and there is a lot more warming in the pipeline even with the most optimistic emissions reductions scenarios, and a lot more climate consequences. This is just the start.

          1. You rely on formulas and data that I find as highly suspect. We will just agree to disagree. You won’t sway me with what YOU think is proof. No need to go further as you and I have been around this block before. As I have told you in the past, I think you are a gentleman. That is more than I can say for ALL the other AGW advocates commenting here on this article. Take care and best wishes.

            PS I read about the issue ALL the time and look at BOTH viewpoints. My mind is not closed but I have yet to be swayed by any AGW arguments. My position is that they have yet to prove their case.

              1. No. The main point of the article is that the satellite temperatures are not showing warming and the divergence continues to grow between satellite data and the surface data which has massively been manipulated since 1980. Did you read it?

                1. So the fact that global warming has actually accelerated, rather than slowing down, doesn’t refute an article which falsely claimed that global warming has paused?

                  I think you need a refresher in logical thinking.

                    1. I’m not, but you have to remember the other 97/99% of the climate system that is warming without respite.

                    2. He called me that too. I think he’s desperate to score some kind of point rather than admit that the sources of data he’s been relying on have been misleading him.

                    3. The satellites are reporting surface temperature. And they are not reporting any warming of any significance in 18 years. It’s measuring the surface.

                    4. Satellite series represent the temperature of the lower troposphere. Here’s how the planet’s accumulating heat breaks down:

                      Atmosphere: 1%
                      Cryosphere: 3%
                      Surface: 3%
                      Oceans: 93%

                      So, what do you think about the warming in the other 99% of the climate system?

                    5. Ocean is not measured with enough precision to tell whether it is cooling or heating. There is also mixed data. ARGO shows cooling/stable. He addresses that in the article and shows a version of the same meaningless graph you showed.

                    6. Scientists disagree.

                      “There is no standstill in global warming. The warming of our oceans has accelerated, and at lower depths. More than 90 percent of the excess energy trapped by greenhouse gases is stored in the oceans. Levels of these greenhouse gases are at a record, meaning that our atmosphere and oceans will continue to warm for centuries to come. The laws of physics are non-negotiable”

                      – World Meteorological Organisation.

                    1. And if you start it just about anywhere else, it shows warming, Go to woodfortrees and play with it. There are only three or four years where you can start the graph and it doesn’t show warming. All the other starting points do.

                      I’m glad you agree with me about Monckton.

                    2. Sure. I’ll agree Monckton is incompetent if you agree to this summary of what we’ve discuseed.

                      1. No statistically significant warming since 1998.
                      2. The warming from 1980-1998 came after a period of significant global cooling which started in 1940. So if you take the trend back to 1940, the warming would still be almost insignificant in all likelihood and still way way way way much lower than any models would show.

                    3. 1. Absolutely not false… How is the warming statistically significant in the satellite data?
                      2. Not irrelevant at all. Totally relevant. Why is it irrelevant?

                    4. But it is relevant… because the atmospheric models are what we are basing the threat on… and if they aren’t reliable… then we’re basing it on a crock. It’s all important. (Note This is Hansen’s Scenario A emissions and we are still below Scenario C temperatures.) More proof that the atmosphere is way less sensitive than modeled.

                    5. Depends which temperature data set you use. This chart eliminated the cooling from 1960 through 1975…. that existed in Hansen, et al. 1981. Your boys keep changing the data so fast, I don’t know how the modelers can keep up.

            1. You completely missed the point. Natural influences on climate have been slightly negative for half a century, but the planet has warmed rapidly, and the warming has even accelerated. The warming influences from human activity (primarily our greenhouse gas emissions) account for this warming. Natural factors cannot account for it. Do you see?

                  1. You can also pull up Hansen’s 1980 paper and see how much the graph has changed since then. Are you interested? NO? Do you even have any idea how much the global temps have changed since then? are you even curious? No? Not even concerned about confirmation bias… No? How unsuprising.

                    1. You think you’re doing some wonderful service to humanity by “exposing” a “fraud”. In fact all you’re doing is regurgitating fossil fuel propaganda that’s been debunked over and over again. Climate change is real, supported by mountains of evidence, and is the single greatest threat to ever face humanity. Morons like you seem to pride themselves on ignorance and flat-out dismissing ALL the peer-reviewed, scientific evidence, in favour of amateur blog spam. I think you’re a disgusting imbecile and borderline psychotic.

                    2. Even the creator of RSS himself said that satellites are less accurate than ground measurements you fucking moron. It doesn’t even measure temperature. You’re a little tool of the fossil fuel industry, helping to spread their disinformation and propaganda. Congratulations on being a complete imbecile and helping to contribute to your own species’ extinction, dumbfuck.

                    3. And it’s not regurgitation, it’s a fact, that data has changed significantly since 1980 alone. You can go to the website and pull up his paper from 1980 and see how it’s been altered.

                1. It’s nothing to do with models. It’s to do with the fact that all natural influences have been negative for half a century, meaning that they cannot possibly be responsible for any of the ~0.8C of global warming over this period. That’s the divergence that AGW deniers cannot explain.

  9. Climatology is no more scientific than Political Science or most of the other “social sciences”
    Climate studies seems to have much more in common with religious studies than with science.
    Saying that there is a scientific bases to the study of weather or climate is just one more exercise in self aggrandizement
    None of their data can be examined or verified.
    I would love to have some verifiable data for just one city somewhere in the USA. ( excluding CA.)
    All your ” pseudo scientists” are on the gov’t payroll.
    There is an old saying…Just be thankful we don’t get all the gov’t we pay for. lol

    the supposition that world wide temperatures can be accurately measured by less than one degree C. is utter foolishness.
    And the addtitional supposition that one degree C. could possibly be significant for anyone is equally foolish.
    Tell how anyone in Canada has suffered from recent changes in climate.
    I have repeatedly stated that whatever changes have occurred in Sask. have been beneficial to almost everyone.
    One more item of interest…
    REcord lows for Regina…
    before 1950 = 257
    after …1949 = 109
    there is no doubt that our winters are warmer.
    So i suppose one could make the argument that ON AVERAGE the temperatures have risen. slightly even though our summers are now cooler.
    On june 30, 1912 Regina experienced one of the very worst tornadoes in all of Canadian history.
    Had this tornado arrived a hundred years later , i am sure that everyone in Regina and everywhere else would cite it as proof of climate change.
    So what? I am all in favour of warmer winters.
    Lucky for us… indeed… that it happened so long ago.
    POLLUTION is our big problem …not climate change.
    Of all the poisons and pollutants produced by man co2 is the least harmful…. It is all first class plant food.

    1. Sea level is not rising…. any more than it has been for the last several hundred years. less than 2 mm per annum. http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/globalregional.htm

      Global Regional Trends Comparison (4 Main Regions, various subregions)

      The graphs compare the 95% confidence intervals of relative mean sea level trends for CO-OPS and global stations. Trends with the narrowest confidence intervals are based on the longest data sets. Trends with the widest confidence intervals are based on only 30-40 years of data. The graphs can provide an overarching indication of the differing rates of regional vertical land motion, given that the absolute global sea level rise is believed to be 1.7-1.8 millimeters/year. Note that they are relative sea level trends, and are not corrected for local land movement. The calculated trends for all CO-OPS stations are available as a table in millimeters/year and in feet/century. A complete table of non-CO-OPS station trends are available as a table in millimeters/year and in feet/century.

      1. See http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html
        “The mean sea level (MSL) trends measured by tide gauges that are presented on this web site are local relative MSL trends as opposed to the global sea level trend.” (Same NOAA web site as your link.)

        Now see http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
        Compare the current rate of 3.21 mm/yr to the rate in the lower graph from 1870-2000. You can se that in 100 years, from 1870 to 1970 it rose about 140 mm, which is 1.4 mm/yr.

        So it is definitely increasing.

        National Geograpic says the same thing.

        Core samples, tide gauge readings, and, most recently, satellite measurements tell us that over the past century, the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). However, the annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80 years.


  10. https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/21/removing-the-1940s-blip-2/

    As of 1975, there was nearly unanimous consensus among experts that the first half of the 20th century was exceptionally warm, and that temperatures had plummeted after 1940. In fact, by the late 1960s, temperatures were colder than they were in 1900.

    The 1940 spike in temperatures doesn’t fit the current global warming narrative, so government funded climate scientists decided to get rid of it.

    From: Tom Wigley
    To: Phil Jones
    Subject: 1940s
    Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
    Cc: Ben Santer

    It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.


    And they did exactly that. The Hockey Team removed almost all of the 1940s blip, and the post 1940 cooling.

    They accomplished this by massively cooling the period from 1901 to 1960. The graph below shows haw Northern Hemisphere temperatures have been rewritten since the 1975 National Academy of Sciences report. The Hockey Team knocked more than 0.4ºC off 1920 temperatures, relative to the late 1960’s.

    By doing this they paved the way for Michael Mann’s hockey stick – which of course wouldn’t have worked if 1970 was colder than 1900.

    But it wasn’t just the Northern Hemisphere, the Hockey team has also dramatically cooled the Southern Hemisphere’s past.

    Without all of this massive data tampering by the Hockey Team, the global warming story collapses.

  11. This is how “science” is done in Church of Climastrology. How can anyone not convicted these people of fraud yet? They are clearly plotting to manipulate the data to tell their preconceived story. No wrongdoing? REAALLLLLLY.. Whatever… maybe it’s not illegal… But it’s certainly NOT science.

    From: Tom Wigley
    To: Phil Jones
    Subject: 1940s
    Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
    Cc: Ben Santer


    Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
    explain the 1940s warming blip.

    If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
    land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).

    So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
    then this would be significant for the global mean — but
    we’d still have to explain the land blip.

    I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
    ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
    ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
    forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
    these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
    1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity
    plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
    consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.

    Removing ENSO does not affect this.

    It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
    but we are still left with “why the blip”.

    Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol
    effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced
    ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling
    in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.

    The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note — from
    MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can
    get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal
    solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987
    (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s
    makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it
    currently is not) — but not really enough.

    So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?
    (SH/NH data also attached.)

    This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d
    appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.


  12. The leaders of the”climate change” effort are never going to stop because their goal is control of the world’s carbon based economy. The whole concept is based on fraud, conspiracy and the ignorance of a huge populace full of useful idiots. The challenge is going to be educating the masses to the truth and overcoming their fears based on emotional deception. This a long enduring endeavor. Lies are easy to believe and the truth hard to sustain!

  13. Really useful information. Thanks for the info, you made it easy to understand. By the way, if anyone is facing a problem of filling NCAR SF 103, I’ve found a template here https://goo.gl/Tl4W8X. You also can esign the form and fax it.

Leave a Reply