In a joint press conference NOAA and NASA have just released data for the global surface temperature for 2013. In summary they both show that the ‘pause’ in global surface temperature that began in 1997, according to some estimates, continues. Statistically speaking there has been no trend in global temperatures over this period. Given that the IPCC estimates that the average decadal increase in global surface temperature is 0.2 deg C, the world is now 0.3 deg C cooler than it should have been. –David Whitehouse, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 21 January 2014
See the table below:
![NOAA-Table[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/noaa-table1.jpg?resize=640%2C300)
The Sun’s activity has plummeted to a century low, baffling scientists and possibly heralding a new mini-Ice Age. “I’ve been a solar physicist for 30 years, and I’ve never seen anything quite like this,” Richard Harrison, head of space physics at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire, told the BBC. The lull is particularly surprising because the Sun has reached its solar maximum, the point in its 11-year cycle where activity is at its peak. —News.com Australia, 19 January 2014
The history of science shows us that sometimes sceptics are right and move from the fringe to the mainstream. It also tells us that some travel in the opposite direction. The “pause” is something to be explained, and not dismissed as a “myth.” It is perhaps no surprise that climate scientists are at different stages in their study of its significance and importance. Sadly it is also unsurprising that some media outlets chose to concentrate on only one strand of opinion concerning it. –David Whitehouse, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 22 January 2014
Just when those computer programs predicted carbon dioxide-driven temperatures going orbital and sea levels flooding Capitol Hill, something went terribly wrong. Global temperatures went flat, and have stayed that way now since the time most of today’s high school students were born. If you thought global warming was scary, here’s an alternative to consider. Some really smart scientists predict that Planet Earth is now entering a very deep and prolonged cooling period attributable to 100-year record low numbers of sunspots. –Larry Bell, Forbes, 21 January 2014
The European Commission has finally begun rolling back the EU’s ruinous climate and green energy policies. The roll-back is in part an acknowledgement that Europe’s green agenda has been an unmitigated fiasco, causing skyrocketing energy prices across Europe and harming competitiveness. But the old guard of commissioners are trying to salvage a green legacy before they are replaced in the autumn by a set of commissioners more concerned about Europe’s economic future. A more significant retreat from unilateral climate policies is likely to gather speed, and the proposed targets may not survive. –Benny Peiser, City A.M., 23 January 2014
The exact link between global warming and flooding is much less certain, and those who keep pursuing the topic are taking attention away from the true problem of over-development, a group of eminent scientists say in a research paper. David Cameron ignited a row at the height of the recent UK floods by proclaiming that he ‘very much’ suspected the devastation had been caused by climate change. Environment Secretary Owen Paterson refused to endorse the Prime Minister’s views and the Met Office said there was no evidence that the winter floods had been caused by man-made global warming. –Ben Spencer, Daily Mail, 22 January 2014
See, this is why politicians need some scientific trainiing.
On the one hand there are observations that need explaining and theories that are currently inadequate for the purpose.
On the other there is a man with a hunch who “very much” suspects that the science is settled enough for him, thank you.
Personally, I really want that guy to be nowhere near any position of power.
Thanks A., good article.
Whatever the cause is for the stop of global warming, it must be less potent than the natural causes that did it.
And the global temperature “pause” goes on, and on ….
Will the White House and the UN IPCC pay attention to NOAA/NASA? CAGW politicians and scientists face a powerful reckoning: the cause of the pause was also the cause before the pause.
David Whitehouse points out that the ‘pause’ in global surface temperatures is real and has become the biggest problem in climate science, and adds that it was so-called sceptics that first pointed it out. Initially they were dismissed and ridiculed for so doing. Now they have been proven correct it is they who have shown the true spirit of science in the face of mean-spirited publicity driven wannabe celebrity scientists, advocates and many so called science journalists.
It is time for them to acknowledge their contribution. If a climate scientist had made such a discovery they would be being given medals and awards by now. That those who pointed out the ‘standstill’ have not speaks of double standards within the scientific community and a lack of integrity.
It shows that in the age of the internet you don’t have to be employed by the university of wherever to have made a contribution to climate science. In this case an enormous contribution
Model invalidation with forecast error can be a hateful, mean bully at times. We need Einstein, Keynes, and Feynman to strongly proclaim it science process in action. But there are no such giants to stand up for this today.
I just saw the NASA press release which makes it clear that warming continues, and wondered what this site would say about it.
Surprise, surprise, Watts claims that it says the opposite. How about going to the source instead of a shill?
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/january/nasa-finds-2013-sustained-long-term-climate-warming-trend/#.UuFDo2TTk19
REPLY: Apparently you can’t source, note that these are the words of the GWPF newsletter, not mine, for a more detailed look see: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/23/also-rans-ncdc-and-giss-global-surface-temperatures-finish-4th-and-7th-for-2013/
– Anthony
Just curious…. what caused the “pause” in the rise from ’51-’80, the 30 years they use as the average? Is it the same mechanism that’s causing this now?
M Courtney says:
January 23, 2014 at 8:08 am
“See, this is why politicians need some scientific trainiing.
On the one hand there are observations that need explaining and theories that are currently inadequate for the purpose.
On the other there is a man with a hunch who “very much” suspects that the science is settled enough for him, thank you.
Personally, I really want that guy to be nowhere near any position of power.”
The reality is that the entire political establishment including the top civil servants running the different departments have been brainwashed with IPCC BS attending special programs organized by a.o Met Office in cooperation with the Greens. These are the same programs that were joined by the BBC staff.
They already believe they are climate experts. That ‘s why you see Merkel telling with confidence that she personally will keep the average temperature within a margin of 2 degree Celsius.
This was after she went to Greenland to watch the summer ice melt.
The only way out is to replace the entire establishment.
So the difference between the warmest and 10th warmest year in the “record” is 0.16 degrees F? And the proof that they can make worldwide annual temperature measurements with that accuracy is? And the margin of error for worldwide temperature measurements in 1930 is? and 1880? Did none of these people receive scientific training?
Can you please fix the first chart (with the “angry red” divergence) so it embiggens when you click on it , as usual? Thanks!
VoiceInTheWilderness says: @ January 23, 2014 at 8:33 am
I just saw the NASA press release which makes it clear that warming continues, ….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thank you for bringing to our attention that NASA continues to LIE. :>)
BBC news: Global warming pause ‘central’ to IPCC climate report
From the Met office:
Am I correct that NASA and NOAA is reporting that there has been essentially ZERO increase in CONUS temperatures for over 120 years? If you add a straight line to their slide 10, isn’t it essentially flat since 1890?
Just askin….
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NOAA_NASA_2013_Global_Temperatures_Joint_Briefing.pdf
2013 was only the forth warmest year? If carbon dioxide is the critical factor in global warming and carbon dioxide in the air rising each year, shouldn’t each year then be the hottest year on record?
I saw the climate scientists have determined that the cold weather I had in Florida earlier this January is caused by global warming, so I guess I should want less global warming so that Florida can warm back to normal then.
I wonder what that table would look like without data “adjustment”.
Here’s the lie…
NASA Finds 2013 Sustained Long-Term Climate Warming Trend
NASA scientists say 2013 tied with 2009 and 2006 for the seventh warmest year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures.
With the exception of 1998, the 10 warmest years in the 134-year record all have occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the warmest years on record.
If you analyse this opening statement logically, it actually suggests NO warming trend, rather supportive of the pause trend. If 2010 and 2005 rank highest and 2013 ties with 2009 and 2006 … well you can see how they ‘spin’ the lie
WTF
children will flatly deny taking a cooky, even tho’ you know and they know it’s in their hand behind them!
This is just ridiculous stuff.
I don’t know how AW has managed to keep it together dealing with deluded scheming scientist and their bare faced lies.
And they continue to monkey with the data trying to eek out warming. But they can do nothing about the Satellite record.
Because of VoiceInTheWilderness says:
I went and read that article and it made me laugh. They are jumping through hoops with numbers trying to hold on to the global warming meme. Gavin could be called a “Spin Sci” and his efforts to hold on are almost commendable. The article says in one part:
“Each successive year will not necessarily be warmer than the year before, but ..” don’t ya love it?
The problem with using anomalies on a chart like this is that the average unscientific person will think that the yearly degrees shown are actual increases in tempeature per year. That type of thinking would make the termperature increase since 1998 about 5.48 degrees C, scary indeed! They will also not understand that the base perioid used (1951 -1980) was during the last cold phase of the PDO. But I am sure that is all calculated by those pushing the AGW agenda.
philjourdan says: January 23, 2014 at 9:30 am
And they continue to monkey with the data trying to eek out warming. But they can do nothing about the Satellite record.
Keep saying that, if you repeat it often enough you might get others to believe it.
The Satellite record is not adjusted as much as the terrestial records, but there are times when the data is published that the values shown do not gell with what we have experienced for that month. So I do not have abslute faith in that record either, especially as the whole thing relies on Algorithms to get the values.
We already know that the Satellite Sea Level records went through a major adjustment a while back, who is to say that Roy Spencer won’t be forced to also make some “Adjustments”.
I much prefer the Unadulterated Terrestial Record for both Temperature and Seal level.
@A C Osborn – I agree with the unadjusted terrestrial record. But that is not something readily available to the general public, nor is it ever publicized.
I guess your disagreement with me is my poor choice of words. I should have said the Satellite record is HARDER to tamper with. I am not trying to delude myself on their efforts on any data set. As I have said in the past, we will soon be freezing to death in record heat.
Correction not Seal level but Sea level, I am not bothered how many seals there are LOL.
The world needs to quickly snap out of this CAGW scam and get prepared for the new cold period – PRONTO.
All expenditure and activity on “alt-energy” should be shelved immediately and every effort re-directed.
We need to take full advantage of traditional fuels in more innovative ways for the entire cycle; Discovery-Recovery-Distribution-Recycling.
When are we going to get an honest temperature record. We know that 1935/45 held the record for warmth even with 1998 in the books. it was the chiseling down of these and earlier years to increase the slope of the rise from 1880s (satellite temps confounded making large adjustments up on the recent end. Using a base of 1950-80 is totally dishonest. Had they used even the fiddled temperatures of 1940s, it would be only half the anomaly reported. Add the few tenths C back onto the 30s/40s and suddenly, some of these earlier dates remain among the 10th warmest. I’m unhappy with the acquiescence of skeptics. Even Bob Tisdale’s adopting the teams base years is a crock. Fine, he can show with their own numbers that things aren’t going anywhere over the past 16 years, but Gee, it would be nice to show what the real anomaly looks like since the last warm peak.
There are soon going be hundreds of thousands of climate scientists/environmental scientists in the coming decades transforming themselves into high school science teachers, if they are lucky.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/04/quote-of-the-week-high-school-climate-science/
Steve McIntyre: “In my opinion, most climate scientists on the Team would have been high school teachers in an earlier generation – if they were lucky. Many/most of them have degrees from minor universities. It’s much easier to picture people like Briffa or Jones as high school teachers than as Oxford dons of a generation ago. Or as minor officials in a municipal government.
Allusions to famous past amateurs over-inflates the rather small accomplishments of present critics, including myself. A better perspective is the complete mediocrity of the Team makes their work vulnerable to examination by the merely competent.”
There is no “too soon” for this to happen. For any young climate scientist who wants to remain one his best strategy under present conditions is to start publishing on natural variability and on studies critical of the way the Team thinks climate theory works.
Mike Fayette sent us to these charts:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NOAA_NASA_2013_Global_Temperatures_Joint_Briefing.pdf
The chart for warmest 5 years and warmest 10 years is hilarious–or maybe my funny bone is just active today–but they have 10 years up and rate the years as being “Likely or “Unlikely” to be in the warmest 5 years or warmest 10 years since.. well they don’t say since when. This is titled NOAAs Warmest years on record and begins from 1998–skipping a few years–but they don’t give any base date–this is just NOAAs warmest years. The rating system uses “Likely, Very Likely, More Likely than Not, Unlikely, and More Unlikely than Likely.”
Is this science? I mean, come on….. Is this written for dolts? :Well, it’s Likely NOAAs Warmest Year. Unless its unlikely–or more likely or less likely or maybe its more unlikely than likely.
SCIENCE?
Anthony, I want to suggest something–Lets do a chart for “Noah’s” Warmest years. What is Likely, Unlikely, More Likely then Unlikely.. and so on. We could be just like NOAA! Josh–you have my permission to use this idea–this is science after all and I think skeptics should have a “Warmest Year” chart too. I’ll bet our Noah has a bunch more “likely” warm years than their NOAA!
sorry about the run on italics–I missed a code in there–what ever happened to us “reviewing” our comments–i liked that feature and it disappeared in short order.
This can’t be right.
The industrial revolution and industry burnt so much coal, that the temperature can’t possibly go back down. The aviation is burning kerosene and heating up the troposphere. Our cars pour out gas and heat, ships pour out smoke, even cattle burp making more & more global warming.
Even the chinese are making more and more smoke and pollution now.
Who started this site & who pays for it?
This must be the worst internet disinformation site in the world.
M Courtney says:
January 23, 2014 at 8:08 am
See, this is why politicians need some scientific trainiing.
———————————————————————-
At the very least, they should make sure they get proper information from several sources, so that they can hold up in a discussion without having to constantly refresh their thoughts to stay on track. I watched the Senate hearing in which Judith Curry participated in last week. Many of the senators at the senate hearing had difficulty in finding appropriate words, as they tried to put forth a question or statement. There were two senators who were obviously prepared, though. Both Sen Inhofe and Sessions were on top of the conversation. It was also interesting to watch Judith Curry. I had the impression she was wishing that she was somewhere else, but she bravely carried on and read her material. It did not seem to be an easy task for her, either.
The four department heads answering the senators questions were pitiful in their responses. Through much of the session, I would characterize their general expressions as the s..t-eating-grin look, especially the guy. The EPA head was pathetic with her responses. I had the impression that she herself knows very little about any of the details of climate change. It was disturbing to listen to these 4 heads of important US departments, who were so obviously limited in their knowledge of the subject of ‘climate change’, yet they hold part of the reins of power over all of us.
funny coincidences:
Your post at January 23, 2014 at 10:15 am asks
If you had read the article then you would have seen it begins saying
So, NOAA and NASA provided what you call “internet disinformation” and they were started and are funded by the US government. So, if you are a US taxpayer then you payed for the “internet disinformation”.
If you are asking who pays for its presentation on your screen then you also pay for that; directly for your internet server and indirectly for the advertising which also appears on your screen.
But I infer from your post that you follow fads, so may also want to know that you are behind the times. Global warming is so last century: it stopped 17 years ago. Nobody knows if global warming will resume or if you will need thermal underwear to cope with global cooling in the coming decades.
Richard
*”I’ve been a solar physicist for thirty years. and I’ve never seen anything quite like this” Said Richard Harrison, Head of space physics at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire.*
It’s been there for millions of years Richard, could that be a clue as to why this is new to you?
If I expect that the moon will disappear after tomorrow but observe he is still there, I may call this a pause in his disappearance. This pause does not have a physical explanation. The cause of the pause is the cause of my expectation and is psychological.
funny coincidences says: January 23, 2014 at 10:15 am
Not another brainwashed 20 something surely?
Hi Funny! (Robt waves “hello” in a friendly fashion.)
What state or province are you from? Since you “can’t be” using any fossil fuels yourself, or for your family, or for your parents, or work or for school (or to power the computer your are typing at), please be sure to open all the doors and windows of your home (which is obviously made from hand-chopped trees using a … No, guess you can’t even use a axe or saw to cut the trees to make a shelter, can you. And obviously, you have no windows – the glass takes lots of energy to melt, pour, trim and ship and install in the walls of the house that you don’t have. Or the roof you don’t have, since the lumber for that also requires fossil energy. And a saw. And nails – which also require energy to make and ship and install into the roof you don’t have on the concrete foundation you don’t have to shelter you from the northern hemisphere cold that you aren’t experiencing. Or the Australian heat you cannot escape either. Or the record-setting Antarctic sea ice extremes you can’t be sheltered from either.
And, without the hot water you are not using, and the fresh water you are not drinking, and the steel and concrete you are not using in the sewage treatment and water re-cycling and purification plants you are not using, I am not really sure anybody would ask you to share their automobile or carriage or bus or train you are not using to get anywhere – except by foot. Which, since you are not bathing or using soap or cleaning yourself after you don’t use the toilet or the septic system or the closest river (which I am “certain” you would never want to pollute yourself!), maybe that is best after all.
So, I “do” hope you have sterilized yourself. Else, “you” might be polluting my future with your waste. See, “you” are condemning billions to a lost life of the misery YOU obviously want to live, and are each day, condemning millions to an early death in squalid dirt, starvation, and thirst with no hope of a better life. Just last year, YOU were responsible for 25,000 “excess” deaths in the UK alone!
(By the way, you do understand that while CO2 was steady, global average temperatures rose, were steady, and fell.
And, while CO2 has risen, global average temperatures have rose, fell, and been steady.)
please wake up
it is coo-ooling
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2014/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend
and it is all part of a NATURAL process
\
who could have figured that out?
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
funny coincidences – you appear to have forgotten the sarc tags.
“””””…..M Courtney says:
January 23, 2014 at 8:08 am
See, this is why politicians need some scientific trainiing……”””””
Well I would much rather solve that issue, by getting government and politicians out of the science business, except for their Constitutional Article I section 8 patent mandate.
@resourceguy…… We need Einstein, Keynes, and Feynman …..”””””
Keynes was a scientist ??…..Well a “dismal scientist” wasn’t it ??
“”””””……NASA Finds 2013 Sustained Long-Term Climate Warming Trend
NASA scientists say 2013 tied with 2009 and 2006 for the seventh warmest year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures.
With the exception of 1998, the 10 warmest years in the 134-year record all have occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the warmest years on record…….””””””
“”””…continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures….””‘”
NO no no!…..They merely say 2013 tied with 2009 and 2006 as seventh warmest year since 1880.
Hello ! Houston, we’ve got a problem ! hello, are you there ?? Excuse me sir, there has been ZERO RISE IN GLOBAL TEMPERATURE since 2006; 2006, 2009, 2013, ALL exactly the same temperature; NO rise at all; got it ??
Excuse me sir…. 2013 , 2009, 2006 are ALL only the SEVENTH highest temperatures since 1880.
Duzzat mean, that there are years (lots of them), before 2013 that were WARMER higher temperatures, than 2013; sir izzat true ??
Duzzn’t that mean temperatures are NOW going DOWN rather than UP ??
I’m convinced, sir; it was warmer before and now it’s getting colder.
And some of the highest altitudes on earth can be found up in the mountains ! but when you get over the mountains, the altitudes come down, just like around temperature maxima.
Izzat what’s happening, sir ??
@ M Simpson (Climate Scientist) says:
Well said!
Peter Plail says:
January 23, 2014 at 12:12 pm
funny coincidences – you appear to have forgotten the sarc tags.
===========
Beat me to it.
Plainly /Sarc I would guess
Auto
This is only for an area a little bigger than my little spot on the globe (Central Ohio) but it is interesting.
“How often have we dropped below 0*F?”
http://www.erh.noaa.gov/iln/climo/below0.php
“How Often Have We Reached 90 Degrees or Higher Each Year?”
http://www.erh.noaa.gov/iln/climo/90s.php
It looks to me like the tip of the Hockey Stick would be scrapping the ice.
This is the main problem with charlatan climate scientists.
“Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an incorrect or deviant decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.
Loyalty to the group requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the “ingroup” produces an “illusion of invulnerability” (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the “ingroup” significantly overrates their own abilities in decision-making, and significantly underrates the abilities of their opponents (the “outgroup”).
Antecedent factors such as group cohesiveness, faulty group structure, and situational context (e.g., community panic) play into the likelihood of whether or not groupthink will impact the decision-making process.
funny coincidences says: @ January 23, 2014 at 10:15 am
This can’t be right….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ever hear of the sun, and the oceans and clouds and water and ozone? Those all affect climate and the temperature. CO2 is a tiny bit player that is a critical plant food. Get used to the idea.
“expect each successive decade to be warmer than the previous.”
Reading between the lines, “we reckon we can fool you for at least another decade with this bullshit”
My view was in the 1990s that the PDO would be likely cyclic and I thought a negative phase was likely due later by the turn of the century Going on that the warm phases were shorter than the cool phases.. If this happened global temperatures would stop rising and likely follow a similar period during the 1940s and 1970s. Surprise, surprise, we have a negative PDO and global temperatures are failing to warm.
unny coincidences says:
January 23, 2014 at 10:15 am
This can’t be right.
The industrial revolution and industry burnt so much coal, that the temperature can’t possibly go back down. The aviation is burning kerosene and heating up the troposphere. Our cars pour out gas and heat, ships pour out smoke, even cattle burp making more & more global warming.
Even the chinese are making more and more smoke and pollution now.
———————————————————————————————————————-
During between world war I and world war II, industry was going mad burning loads of coal, keeping warm, electricity production and making steel etc. There was was no global warming between the 1940’s and 1970’s.
The sun,, ocean, and global cloud albedo especially related to PDO and ENSO were mainly responsible (~83%) for the cooling mentioned above, the warming until the last strong El Nino and the non warming/cooling period now.
“If you thought global warming was scary, here’s an alternative to consider”: global cooling.
why?
1) alternative energy source such as wind, solar, tidal/wave and biomass will have reduced output due to for example more frequent snow and ice covering solar panels and wind turbine blades, reduced growth of biomass, frozen coastal waters reduce waves, etc
2) food production will reduce since longer winters and shorter summers, not even necessarily colder summers, will reduce the growth season of our crops
3) infrastructure, transportation and commuting will be severely hampered (just look at how the recent winter storms caused and are causing major air-traffic delays, commuter nightmares, snowed in roads and houses etc.
Simple analysis:
1) If they were trainable, how would you train them?
2) If you could train them, what information would you use to train them?
3) Information needs analysis, how would you teach them analysis?
4) Et cetera …
Thanks, Anthony. That was a great collection.
When are you going to understand that the US is not the world.
It’s not cooling. The trends since 2002 are not statistically significant. Also you’ve “forgotten” to include the most reliable record, i.e. UAH TLT temperature data.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1987/to:2014/plot/uah/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/uah/from:1987/to:2002/trend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Gary is correct you are not.: Side by side comparison of Hansen’s GISS global temperature GRAPHS for 1980, 1987 and 2007 showing the cooling of the years around 1940.
John Finn says: …
HenryP says:…
It’s not cooling….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Henry like the rest of us does not trust the manipulated global temperature data sets so he has carefully selected rural temperature sets from around the world and built his own global temperature data set. That data set based on rural temperatures shows cooling.
OOPS, that Side by side comparison of Hansen’s GISS global temperature GRAPHS is HERE
@John Finn
Must Add CO2:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1987/to:2014/plot/uah/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/uah/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1987/normalise/offset:0.48/plot/esrl-co2/from:1987/normalise/offset:0.48/trend
Interesting how all those with vested interests and agendas are scared as Hell.
Nature makes fools of man. Always has!
I have just updated my figure comparing the temperature up to Dec/2013 against my 2010 prediction based on astronomical harmonics:
See here the updated figure:
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/#astronomical_model_1
The forecast was great until now, the only climate model that has worked!
Read my latest paper to understand more about the planetary theory theory:
Scafetta, N., 2014. The complex planetary synchronization structure of the solar system. Pattern Recognition in Physics 2, 1-19.
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/2/1/2014/prp-2-1-2014.pdf
nicola
“I’ve been a solar physicist for 30 years, and I’ve never seen anything quite like this,” Richard Harrison, head of space physics at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire, told the BBC.”
Statements like this from people like Richard make me laugh. How old is the sun, ~4.6 BILLION years or so, and he hasn’t seen “something” in all his 30 years?
John says
it’s not cooling. The trends since 2002 are not statistically significant.
Henry says
I have been telling and teaching that if you want a proxy for evaluating energy coming in you must look at maximum temperatures.
Please try to understand it
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
note my point 1-7
Once you figured out where we are, in the maximum curve, you can also figure out the means curve.
We are cooling.
It is cooling from the top down,
for example, see here, for 60-70 latitude
http://oi40.tinypic.com/2ql5zq8.jpg
At the lower latitudes, you get more rain. At the higher latitudes it will get cooler and/or dryer.
Droughts similar to Dust bowl 1932- 1939 drought coming up in around 2021.
The last time I looked Henry’s “data” was totally unrepresentative for the world as a whole. If I remember correctly he used a disproportionate number of stations in South Africa.
In any case I thought everyone trusted the UAH satellite record maintained by Roy Spencer & John Christy which is unaffected by UHI issues. Any ‘manipulation’ in the surface record only affects mid-century readings so is largely irrelevant to the recent trend.
I’ve no idea what your link is supposed to show. It just goes to another WUWT thread. If you’ve got something which shows the world was warmer in 1934/34 than in 1998 then show it. I don’t believe it was.
Sorry that should be 1934/35
“you will need thermal underwear to cope with global cooling in the coming decades”.
I will be back in China soon but the smog was so thick last time I couldn’t find my way to the shop counter that had it in stock.
Will I get a discount on this item from my health insurance or on prescription from my doctor?
Why must you add CO2? Did I mention it? As it happens current observations support my belief that CO2 sensitivity is lower than IPCC estimates. In the past decade or so natural variability has favoured a cooling trend (e.g. solar activity). The fact that the world hasn’t cooled suggests the enhanced greenhouse effect is offsetting the natural influences.
2013 was 4th warmest in the UAH satellite record. 2013 was an ENSO neutral year. That does not suggest cooling or anything close to it.
I heard this morning on the news that 1100 temp records (lows) have been broken so far this month. But, as someone wrote on a different thread, I can’t wait for them to tell us that Jan was the hottest on record.
John Finn says
If I remember correctly he used a disproportionate number of stations in South Africa.
Henry says
you do not understand my sampling technigue
perhaps you should try to catch it
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/23/newsbytes-nasa-noaa-confirm-global-temperature-standstill-continues/#comment-1547324
Which don’t show 1934/35 as warmer than 1998.
I do. It’s called cherry-picking.
Nicola Scafetta says (in his paper)
How planetary harmonics could modulate the Sun and the
climate on the Earth is still unknown
Henry says
Today I was just thinking myself,
that to me it seems there are only two people who figured it out right
regardless of all the noise we get from mother earth (means temps.)
That is me, (myself)
and William Arnold, 1985, in his paper, “On the special theory of order”
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
John says
I do. It’s called cherry-picking.
Henry says
I am a Christian, I believe in (the) truth/ Truth
I hope you do too?
You think I would do cherry picking if this work is only my hobby?
You think somebody is paying me for the work done>?
btw
does anyone here know as to what ahppened to William Arnold?
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
philjourdan says
As I have said in the past, we will soon be freezing to death in record heat.
henry says
interesting choice of words
not poor but true
http://oi40.tinypic.com/2ql5zq8.jpg
I certainly don’t think anyone is paying you.
Oh man… LoL. Just LoLoLoLoLoLoL .
=======
[ “I’ve been a solar physicist for 30 years, and I’ve never seen anything quite like this,” Richard Harrison, head of space physics at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire, told the BBC.” ]
Patrick says
(January 24, 2014 at 12:05 am)
Statements like this from people like Richard make me laugh. How old is the sun, ~4.6 BILLION years or so, and he hasn’t seen “something” in all his 30 years?
“Statements like this from people like Richard make me laugh. How old is the sun, ~4.6 BILLION years or so, and he hasn’t seen “something” in all his 30 years?”
Yeah, cause that is obviously what he meant, and you aren’t deliberately distorting the meaning of his statement for the sake of a cheap shot at him…
Cheap and nasty.
John Finn says:…
movement of Koppen climate boundaries (plants) in the middle of a continent where ocean ossilations will not have as much of an effect: http://www.sturmsoft.com/climate/suckling_mitchell_2000_fig2_3.gif
six months of northern hemisphere snow. (We already know the Antarctic has had record sea ice grown and the Arctic had summer temperatures below normal all season)
October http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201310.gif
November http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201311.gif
December http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201212.gif
January: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201301.gif
February http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201302.gif
and
March http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201303.gif
Here are three of Hansen’s GISS global temperature graphs showing how he changed them: link
Gail says
Here are three of Hansen’s GISS global temperature graphs showing how he changed them:
As I was just saying:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/21/setting-the-record-straight-on-the-cause-of-pause-in-global-warming/#comment-1549101
Heck here in north central Massachuesetts we just warmed 20 degrees in one day! So what is 1.19 degree over 134 years?