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?quality=83)
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
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 ??
@ur momisugly 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: @ur momisugly 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.