2014: Among the 3 percent Coldest Years in 10,000 years?

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

We were told in October, before 2014 was over, that it was heading toward being the warmest year on record (Figure 1). The visual link of Polar Bears underscored the message. In fact, 2014 was among the coldest 3 percent of years of the last 10,000, but that doesn’t suit the political agenda.


Figure 1

We know the headline referred to NOAA’s projection, but the public only remember “warmest year”. It is a routine of manipulation of headlines practiced by bureaucrats and supporters of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC), from the start. The claim was not surprising, because NOAA was pushing 2014 as warm beginning in January with this headline NOAA: January 2014 fourth-warmest on record.” Various months were identified during the year, for example, “NOAA: August 2014 Was The Warmest On Record,” noting August was the warmest by a fraction. But they had already reported,

The summer of 2014 is officially the hottest since the modern instrumental record began more than 130 years ago, according to the latest state of the climate report from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.

By October they were summarizing the year.

“This makes the first ten months of 2014 the warmest January to October period on record and puts 2014 on track to be the warmest year recorded in the NOAA archive, which dates back to 1880.”

Bob Tisdale provided an excellent summary of the “Anticipation” for two surface records from GISS and NCDC. He was not surprised when these records appeared, showing 2014 was the warmest, according to them, by 0.02°C. Remember, this is from a record that is restricted by the historic record to measurements of 0.5°C. We also know the two satellite records, RSS and UAH, both show it was not the warmest year.

To counteract the headline you need something very dramatic, because there is nothing significant about the 2014 temperature as Tisdale plans to identify in an upcoming article titled, The Uptick in Global Surface Temperatures in 2014 Doesn’t Help the Growing Difference between Climate Models and Reality. He is interested in seeing how Gavin Schmidt, who replaced James Hansen at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), is carrying the torch. History shows that GISS readings are consistently higher than all other sources. It is just one indicator of the temperature adjustments made so the AGW hypothesis fits the political agenda.

Challenges and IPCC Fixes

How valid is the 2014 claim? In the 10,000 – year context, it is significant because it is among the 3 percent coldest years, which is far more significant than the 100-year warm alarmists proclaim. There are two major reasons: Highest readings occur in the most recent years of a rising temperature record. Every alteration, adjustment amendment and abridgment of the record so far, was done to create and emphasize increasingly higher temperatures.

1. The instrumental data is spatially and temporally inadequate. Surface weather data is virtually non-existent and unevenly distributed for 85 percent of the world’s surface. There are virtually none for 70 percent of the oceans. On the land, there is virtually no data for the 19 percent mountains, 20 percent desert, 20 percent boreal forest, 20 percent grasslands, and 6 percent tropical rain forest. In order to “fill-in”, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), made the ridiculous claim that a single station temperature was representative of a 1200 km radius region. Initial claims of AGW were based on land-based data. The data is completely inadequate as the basis for constructing the models.

2. Most surface stations are concentrated in eastern North America and Western Europe and became the early evidence for human induced global warming. IPCC advocates ignored, for a long time, the fact that these stations are most affected by the urban heat island effect (UHIE).

The UHIE was one of the first challenges to the claim of AGW evidenced in the instrumental record. Two graphs produced by Warwick Hughes were the most effective and appeared in 1991, shortly after the first IPCC Report in 1990. Figure 2 shows temperature at six major Australian cities.


Figure 2

A most likely explanation for the increasing UHIE, is expansion of the suburban area until it encompassed airport weather stations originally outside the city. The automobile made this possible. Figure 3 provides a comparison with 26 rural stations.


Figure 3

The difference is marked. What is equally interesting is that temperatures were higher in the first part of the record from 1880 and 1900.

3. There is a consistent revision of the record to lower historic readings. This increases the gradient of supposed warming. It is apparent in the New Zealand record(Figure 4).


Figure 4

A search of WUWT, using the term “Temperature adjustments”, yields a plethora of evidence. Every adjustment serves to change the gradient of the curve making today warmer than the past. Explanations, when given, usually provide little justification for the adjustment. The other tell tale sign is that virtually all adjustments occur before the UAH satellite temperature record began in 1991.

4. Policy anticipated that satellite data would replace the need for surface weather stations. As a result many weather stations were abandoned (Figure 5), or at least not included in the calculation of the global average.

“The figures below indicate

a the number of stations with record length at least N years as a function of N ,

b the number of reporting stations as a function of time,

c the percent of hemispheric area located within 1200km of a reporting station.”


Figure 5

The number of surface stations was inadequate in 1960, but was further reduced in 1990. Notice that only approximately 1000 stations cover 100 years.

But how accurate can the global temperature be when Antarctica is omitted. Consider the IPCC conclusion

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctic).

Antarctica is 14 million km2, an area almost equal to Russia, (17 million km2), the largest country on Earth.

Add to that the 14 million km2 of the Arctic Ocean, for which there is no data, as the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) Report notes (Figure 6).


Figure 6

Extent of these regions is one thing, their role in world climate is another, and arguably far more important than almost any other region.

6. Figure 6 shows that fewer stations are a contributing factor to higher temperatures.


Figure 6

Stations NOAA used from the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) in Canada illustrate the problem. (Figure 7).


Figure 7

There are 100 stations north of the Arctic Circle, but NOAA only uses Eureka, a known warm anomaly, to cover 1/3 of the second largest country on Earth. Even the 1200km measure doesn’t apply.

7. Alteration of the historic record includes the infamous hockey stick, in which a member of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) group is reported to have told Professor David Deming, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period? That involved creating the handle of the hockey stick. The blade was formed from CRU Director Phil Jones’ data that showed an increase of 0.6°C in approximately 120 years. The problem was the error factor was ±0.2°C or ±33 percent.

8. 20th century temperature trends begin with warming from 1900 to 1940, cooling from 1940 to 1980, warming from 1980 to 1998 and a slight cooling trend to 2014. Alarmists attributed the cooling to human addition of sulphate, but that failed when temperatures began to rise, with no decline in sulphate levels.

9. If we accept overall warming from 1900, which is reasonable as the Earth emerges from the Little Ice Age (LIA), then the highest temperatures will occur in the most recent record (Figure 8).


Figure 8

Identifying that 2014 was fractionally warmer than any other in the record does not change the trend of the “pause”. It does not enhance the CO2 causation claim.

10. The claim is 2014 is 0.02°C warmer than any other year. It is reasonable to assume that the US temperature record is among the best. Anthony Watts showed that only 7.9 percent of US stations are accurate to < 1°C. (Figure 9)


Figure 9

A Counter Headline Must Provide Perspective

Some form of the title for this article could work. 2014: Among the 3 percent Coldest Years in 10,000 year.” Figure 10 shows the Northern Hemisphere temperature for the period variously called the Climatic Optimum, the Hypsithermal, and the Holocene Optimum.

clip_image021Figure 10

The red line, added to the original diagram, imposes the approximate 20th century temperatures (right side) against those of the last 10,000 years. As CO2Science noted from Dahl-Jensen (1998),

After the termination of the glacial period, temperatures increased steadily to a maximum of 2.5°C warmer than at present during the Climatic Optimum (4,000 to 7,000 years ago).

The key phrase in the 2014 claim is, “in the record”, but that only covers approximately 100 years. In the climatologically meaningful 10,000-year context, it is among the coldest.

The claim that 2014 was the warmest on record was politically important for proponents of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) story that human CO2 was causing global warming. Central to that argument was the need to prove late 20th century temperatures were the “warmest ever”. This is why the 2014 claim conveniently appeared before the Conference of the Parties (COP) meeting in Lima Peru, at which the false IPCC claim was desperately promoted. Political importance of the measure was accentuated by the continued, 18+ years lack of increase in global temperature.

Evidence keeps contradicting the major assumptions of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis. As T.H. Huxley (1825 – 1895) said,

The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.

The problem is the facts keep piling up and the AGW proponents keep ignoring, diverting, or stick-handling (hockey terminology), their way round them. We know the science is wrong because the IPCC projections are wrong. Normal science requires re-examination of the hypothesis and its assumptions. The IPCC removed this option when they set out to prove the hypothesis. It put them on a treadmill of fixing the results, especially the temperature record. As Chinese General Tao Kan said, “It is like riding on the back of a tiger and finding it hard to get off.”

336 thoughts on “2014: Among the 3 percent Coldest Years in 10,000 years?

      • Sounds like Climatologists and MSM should get a GRIP on past temps before declaring current high temps as historic

      • rooter
        “It is just fantastic. This could be a classic. Surely beats the interpolation in gistemp.”
        Yes rooter it is fantastic…..especially while it shows that people like your self can not distinguish between climate and weather, or yearly cycles.
        Estimating and evaluating the particular 2014 in the format of 10,000 years is a climatic evaluation.
        I know this make no heads or tails for you thus far….be patient.

        A climatic evaluation or estimation is not calculated only on temp variations,….. like the measured amount of warming or cooling during the year…..but actually through the CS metric…. the amount of temp variation in accordance to CO2 emissions.
        Whatever value of CS you fancy, according to the reality this is the higher CO2 emission-concentration year for the last 10,000 years with an amount of warming that makes this year with the less ever “amplifying” of warming, meaning that the 2014 regardless of so much CO2 in atmosphere shows no “amplifying” and therefor showing that there is no warming whatsoever but actually the climatic signal is one of cooling, to the extent of it been the higher COOLING CLIMATIC signal for this year than any other year for the last 10,000 years.

        Sorry but you know we have this thing the CS you know, and it has a meaning and a use for, is not a figment of imagination…….it is the main climatic metric, for better or worse.

        So in the climatic estimation, like when you say the warmer or colder year ever (evah), or for any time with a length beyond a 100 years, this year belongs to the 3% of the coldest years for the last 10,000…..actually with a very very high possibility of it been the coldest ever (evah) for the last 10,000 years.

        In a weather or yearly or even a decade time span estimation… it could be whatever you or any one else fancies to be….and I would not really care, as I my self more interested in the climate and climate change than weather……..But when claiming an estimation in the bases of the term “since the records began” than you are in a climatic estimation by default, so to speak.

        So no matter how many record warming years you have according to the simple weather or yearly cycles estimations, or how many such record years you may “produce”, it does not really mean anything in climate terms,…………… that is why these crazy records make not even a dent to the plateau or the hiatus…or put another way….these record years can not give you back that large amount of the missing heat, no matter what, because that is all to do with climate and not weather…….

        hope this is not very complicated in principle..


      • @rooter and icouldnthelpit

        Hey root/pit! You two have quite a dynamic-duo, tag-team act going here! My compliments! And since you two puckish hive-wits are obviously the hive’s go-to-guys for smart-lip snark (not to mention your unequaled skill at positioning your opening comments at the very tippy-top of the comments section of “denier” posts (again, my compliments)), let me ask you two, knee-slapper-genic pros to help me out a bit, by allowing me to draw on that special, snot-nosed, dork-humor gift of yours.

        -You see, HotWhopper’s latest blog post (January 21, 2015) has “Sou” all fluffed up and “pecking” away at David Rose (yes!–that David Rose!), in the course of which Sou/HotWhopper, like some free-range, purloo-pot-qualified, tragic-victim-of-overly-strict-fusspot-training, mono-maniac headless-chicken, continues to defend that big, fat “egg” she laid in an earlier, well-scrambled post, declaring 2014 to be the hottest year on record–even though the data she cites, IN HER VERY OWN, RELEVANT POSTS, clearly shows either a 62% (NASA) or 52% (NOAA), likelihood that 2014 is NOT–REPEAT NOT!!!–THE HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD!!! And, of course, the comments section of her latest post is a cock-a-leekie cacaphony of useless-pecker, capon-groupie, castrato shrieks.

        So, like, I’m trying to capture this whole testosterone-free, egg-head, bird-brained deal, that’s going on over at HotWhopper’s blog in a comment that features some of that snappy snark you guys are so famous for. You know, that sort of thing. So could you two put your fore-fingers to work, on my behalf–PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE!–and grope up a coupla, choice, drippin’ snark-goobers I could use in my little zinger-project?

        Thanks in advance.

      • On a personal note, I see that HotWhopper critiqued my topside comment in her January 23, 2015 post addressing Dr. Ball’s guest opinion, above. And let me say (on this blog, I mean, since it would be a fool’s errand for me to make a chit-chat “run” at HotWhopper’s blogI) that I truly appreciate HotWhopper’s unstinting (even gushing) praise for my comment, stylistically speaking.

        On the other hand she did “rip” me with a well placed zinger, “(Mike [curious that HotWhopper makes such an issue, in her blog-post, of the proper employment of upper-case/lower-case letters in acronyms, but, then, inappropriately capitalizes my “handle”–yet another example of the hive’s in-your-face, hypocritical double-standards? I think so] may be good [SEE!!!–didn’t I tell you HotWhopper just loves my stuff?!!!] at language from the gutter [a sensitive issue here since it involves a lady, and everything (and we all have had some episodes in our past, I dare muse, that–shall we say– benefit from the application of one or more, memory-gap, figurative, fig-leaf pasties), but I sense that HotWhopper speaks with real authority here, and (unlike your typical hive, B. S.-er type) can truly appreciate and savor the fine points that separate “good” gutter-language from “not-so-good” gutter-language)…but [ah! the fatal “but”] he’d [reference to moi] never pass a stats test [ZIIIIIINNNNNGuh!!!THUNK!!!].)”

        Well now, I could try and brazen-out HotWhopper’s whole exposure of one of my most shameful secrets by raising the technical objection that I “have-too!” passed “stats tests” and, indeed, have never failed even one (but there’s a story there, that I’d rather not go into (and no!!! I didn’t cheat on any tests)). But the sad truth is that HotWhopper’s characterization of my “stats” skills is close enough so that I’m not gonna argue the point.

        O. K. so now that I’ve eaten a good helping of humble-pie (more to come) and all that other good stuff, let me now convert my public humiliation into a quality-time teachable-moment:

        -NASA assigns 2014’s claim to the “warmest year” (of those under consideration) a probability of 38% (see the chart that is a part of WUWT’s January 19, 2015 blog-post “GISS and NCDC Need To Be More Forthcoming…etc.”). So naturally, being a complete stats-dolt, I did a little subtraction from 100% and came up with (I wince to say this!) the notion there’s an implicit, NASA-sourced, 62% probability that 2014 is NOT the hottest year (please, excuse me–I’m experiencing some transient (I hope!) emotional trauma here, so I ask you to bear with me while I take a moment to ball up my right hand into a fist, look at myself in the bathroom mirror, strike myself repeatedly on the forehead, and intone, “STUPID!!!STUPID!!!STUPID!!!)!

        -Feelin’ better now, thank you. And off to the final step in the healing process. So what then is the real skinny, stats-wise? What is the NASA probability that 2014 is NOT the hottest year (and, please, I don’t mean 2014 in comparison with any other, ONE-PARTICULAR YEAR (where HotWhopper would like to take the discussion (yes! I saw your little trick, there, HotWhopper))). Simple answer, right? A two-digit percentage, right? (unless, of course, the hive’s agit-proppers have cooked up yet another of their famous, flim-flam, >100% deals, like they did with their slicko, Gruber-booger attribution-“trick”). Anybody?

      • Mike, one quick personal question if you’d be so kind.

        [middle is trimmed]

        What an honour that would be. .

    • Far more evidence than that for considerably warmer earlier temps. Take a minute to look it up before spouting off.

    • Well, youcouldn’thelpit, what with all the whining about polar bears and receding ice and Arctic Warming and Suzuki-Claus and Greenland melting faster than we originally thought and stuff, it’s nice to know that greenland has something to say about all of that. Now go and harvest some firewood from under that Alaskan Glacier, would you? There’s a good fellow.

      • I do not know why there so many tedious troll comments in this particular post, almost exclusively of the depth and wisdom of “Yah, boo! Sucks to you” variety.

        Anthony, can’t you create a tedious trolls section in which to put these comments? On the main thread, leave the pathetic handles these individuals hide behind and say, “please find full comment in the Tedious Troll section”

        These comments appear to be part of a petty alarmist conspiracy to interrupt the free flow of intelligent discussion. They are designed to pxxx off the other readers and to try and turn any sensible debate into a shambles.

    • Good point! But, unfortunately, the ice core data is the only and best data we have for the past 10 000 years. However, as discussed in this article, the surface station records are NOT the best we have for the last 30 years. As Anthony’s paper showed, they are in fact horrible, and should not be used in serious scientific discussions. However, the CAGW people insist on using them because they support the approved narrative.

      • It doesn’t matter if they have a margin of error, since there are many thousands of them. What matters is whether or not they are biased in one direction, and if that bias has been changing over the course of the record. I don’t recall Anthony’s paper showing that, other than some anecdotal examples.

      • Not only the stations, but the measuring instruments also.


        Interviewed was meteorologist Klaus Hager. He was active in meteorology for 44 years and now has been a lecturer at the University of Augsburg almost 10 years. He is considered an expert in weather instrumentation and measurement.

        One reason for the perceived warming, Hager says, is traced back to a change in measurement instrumentation. He says glass thermometers were was replaced by much more sensitive electronic instruments in 1995. Hager tells the SZ
        ” For eight years I conducted parallel measurements at Lechfeld. The result was that compared to the glass thermometers, the electronic thermometers showed on average a temperature that was 0.9°C warmer. Thus we are comparing – even though we are measuring the temperature here – apples and oranges. No one is told that.” Hager confirms to the AZ that the higher temperatures are indeed an artifact of the new instruments.

        – See more at: http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.Dm2Z36NY.dpuf

        And then they adjust.

        Dr. Ball, you crossposted a note the differences between
        Version 3 and Version 2 GLOTI annual-averages data is 18% +/- 143%, ranging from -1280% (year 1947) to 629% (year 1960).

        I see V3 & V2, which leads me to believe there was a V1 and wonder what that adjustment was.

    • Tell it to Phil Jones – he insists you can determine the temperature of the Southern Hemisphere to an accuracy of one-thousandth of a degree on the basis of one thermometer.

      • Good point. Phil Jones is engaged in “magical thinking” on determining the average temperature of the Southern Hemisphere with one thermometer, or he is engaged in decietful thinking.

      • Once you accept the CAGW dogma that temperature change can be predicted by the change in a single predominant factor CO2 (actually the difference in the logarithms of CO2) then whether you use Hanson’s model of Monckton’s model, if you assume that CO2 is well-mixed (which we now know it isn’t) then the change in temperature does not depend on where you measure it. This is just a mathematical consequence of the equations, given that CO2 at a fixed point in time is taken as a global constant.

    • Indeed, ice cores and d18O is the most reliable of climate proxies, bar none. These show a temperature decline for the past 6-8,000 years. It is the inevitable step-down into another ice age. Ever hear of Ice Age? No?

      • “Are they reliable for local or global temps?”

        It is hard to answer a question that uses undefined terms… Reliable with respect to what? Reliable for use as what?

        If you want to rely on the data as an excuse to manage and manipulate society, then sure, why not? Any excuse is as good as the next for those still wearing blinders.

        If you want to rely on the data to try to project what may be happening in the near future, then no … but it the projections from the ice core data shows that you shouldn’t be relying on the other data either; one runs counter to the other … best advice is not to blindly rely or depend any on either.

    • icouldnthelpit, the earliest ‘thermometers’ were made after the 15th century. The first artificial Earth satellite was Sputnik – 1957. How else do you propose we infer global or regional temperatures before then? We have proxies, archeology / history. They can useful as long as you don’t resort to trickery and hide declines and accept their shortcomings.

      • icouldn’thelpit:
        So it is a 62% chance that 2014 was not the warmist year. I am with you there.
        In fact, we can add in the Satellite data and it becomes a 98% chance that 2014 was not the warmist year.
        How about that!

        Oh? You don’t like satellite data?

    • Icouldthelpit

      Man you must really like your job! how much do you get paid to be the first one to post on every single article? Either you are really desperate for cash or trolling pays really well. let me in on who you are connected to I could do a great job of sound like fool for the right amount of cash.

      • Exactly. Note that the record ice extent in Anarctica. Note the rebound of ice extent in the Arctic. Note that Greenland stopped losing mass in 2013-14. Oxidize that Carbon, they say that will save us. Hasn’t yet, unfortunately.

    • icouldnthelpit

      Why yes it was, even a dummy can see you [are] a troll! Now don’t be greedy let the rest of us cash in too!

    • How does it feel like having the brain of a [trimmed]?

      So without any evidence, proxy or otherwise, but just on your say so the whole Earth has been a lot colder in the past 10,000 years. Got it.

      Even your brilliant cohort rooter’s graph shows a couple centuries of warmer temperatures over 2,000 years ago.

      Not that this is of any matter, this constant back and forth of my graph is better than your graph, this data is better than your data, my speculation is better than your theory just proves the obvious, nobody knows. And if climate activists did not steadily vomit fear-mongering for political power and Al Gore did not discover he could make a $100 million on climate alarm-ism no one would care.

      [Please do not insult seagulls. .mod]

    • Actually, that’s seems a fairly rational criticism. Care to comment Dr. Ball? Of all the flawed temperature records I doubt the most, paleo proxy reconstructions are the ones I trust the least. Yamal get what I’m sayin’?

    • Of course you can easily disprove this by enumerating some areas where there is evidence that the early-mid Holocene was colder than the present day.
      But I’m not holding my breath.

    • Well you also have the Antarctic ice cores, alpine ice cores, O18 isotopes from all over the Earth, as well as other forms of proxy data which all suggest approximately the same Holocene temperature reconstruction, save for certain tree ring proxies which make for horrible thermometers.

    • The GISP2 Ice Core shows over a 3°C difference over many years. The post was critical of 0.02°C global average difference between years being treated as significant.

      • icouldnthelpit

        Oh! So you ignore the article under discussion and particularly its Figure 10.

        Instead of discussing the data in the article you pretend that the repeatedly refuted bunkum from Marcott et al. has some merit. What next; resurrect the Mann, Bradley & Hughes ‘hockey sticks’?

        This thread is about the above article from Tim Ball. The evidence in that article is the subject of discussion. I recognise that you would prefer to troll discussion onto warmunist propaganda of your choosing; but this thread is about the above article from Tim Ball.


    • Oh, come. Have you even read enough paleo studies to actually understand what he is saying? If he really wanted drama he could have used the GEOCARB series and stated that the present global temps are within the lowest 0.01 % of the Phanerozoic (last 500 million years). It doesn’t change even when you use the lower error boundary.

      • icouldnthelpit

        How does late Holocene cooling put us now in the lowest 3%? It would seem to do the opposite. I don’t see your point.

        If you go down you get lower.
        Cooling is temperature going down (the “opposite” is warming).
        The cooling has been making temperatures lower for a long time so the lowest 3% are recent.

        Can you now see the point or is it still too difficult for you?


      • We are presently in the coolest part of the Holocene because the trend has been a cooling trend, with slight fluctuations. Recent warming does not alter the fact that temperatures are stepping down into a new ice age. We need the benefits of more warming. So far, CO2 has let us down.

      • Any textbook on climate will verify the temperature decline of the Holocene. What you SKS types will never realize is that you are being fed a steady diet of swill which you lap up. When you encounter real science, you suffer culture shock.

      • pit: “Do you have a source for that?”

        Wikipedia should be reliable enough for you (fiercely guarded by a troll named Connelly):

        The temporal and spatial extent of Holocene climate change is an area of considerable uncertainty, with solar forcing recently proposed to be the origin of cycles identified in the North Atlantic region. Climate cyclicity through the Holocene (Bond events) has been observed in or near marine settings and is strongly controlled by glacial input to the North Atlantic.[12][13] Periodicities of ~2500, ~1500, and ~1000 years are generally observed in the North Atlantic.[14][15][16] At the same time spectral analyses of the continental record, which is remote from oceanic influence, reveal persistent periodicities of 1000 and 500 years that may correspond to solar activity variations during the Holocene epoch.[17] A 1500 year cycle corresponding to the North Atlantic oceanic circulation may have widespread global distribution in the Late Holocene.

      • Yes, the troll seems to have spliced a ‘hockey stick’ onto the end, but didn’t make much effort to make it look ‘real’.
        The above is a plot of all histories, as rendered by various proxies, with varying sensitivities. So even the 2004 splice is still within the noise of uncertainty.

  1. I wonder in 100 years how they will adjust the data of this time. It will be the same temperature as now, but now was actually a lot colder than we think.

    • I think it will depend on whether “science facts” as the focus of our K-12 education program or “social facts” prevails. Right now academia, the media, and think tanks are working very hard and the new Next Generation Science Standards require (I read the NAS workshop program that came out recently) that the focus be on changing beliefs about climate change and new values in ways that discredit the rational mind completely.

      http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/blending-sustainability-and-education-to-gain-arational-nonlinear-minds-and-new-behaviors/ was written a few years ago, but the RSA in the UK came out with its “Seven Dimensions of Climate Change” just this morning making this same distinction. RSA is also working with the Roosevelt Institute and others to create the Next American Economy. Our actual world is thus being reshaped to fit false beliefs about climate change and temps. Perceptions of the past 100 years from now will be greatly influenced by all this mind arson going on unless it is better understood and more widely appreciated.

      • “Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school.” This is going to be more so in the future.

    • Andy, if you have any mercury lab thermometers, hold on to them. I plan to check the calibration of any new ones I buy using mine. Hard to say how the standard might change.

      • Sorry, but I would prefer to see figures with clear captions (and references) that stand on their own. These blogs seem to often be hastily written and posted, with poor attention to detail and technical writing standards. This site could really use an editor (I understand Anthony cannot do it all himself).

        [Send money. .mod]

    • So tell me, skeohane, what does Figure 10 say? That we are still in the little ice age? The figure does not show any dip below the 20th century mean (the lower red line) in the last 6000 years. Do you really believe that?

      • Ice core d18O temperature proxy is the most reliable. The last 6-8000 years have seen a decline in temperatures. This decline has been established in climatology for a long time. You really need to get up to speed on this.

  2. I suggest you take time off from the hair-splitting, conspiracy theorizing, and sophistry to take a trip up north in Canada or Alaska, where the warming is undeniable even to the most skeptical observer.

    • It may be warmer, but aren’t you missing the point? Warmer than what? Any of the last 100 years, or any of the last 10000 years? Which is most important?

    • This is addressed in Figure 8 under bullet point 9. There is little doubt the earth’s surface temperature has measurably warmed over the last 100 years. Dr. Ball never says otherwise.

    • Alaska land air surface temperature CRUTEM 4 Jan 1977 – Feb 2013 trend MINUS 0.025 Deg C /decade……Sir Harry…you are blowing smoke ?

      • flash man is blowing ignorance. He swallows it at Hot Whopper and spits it out here, thinking to impress. Well, he does impress.

    • For arguments’ sake, let’s assume we’re still in the warming trend since the LIA. So what? What’s your larger point? Any evidence that a warmer climate is more dangerous to humans than a cooler one? Any evidence that reducing atmospheric CO2 makes climate & weather safer? Show us. Historical examples would be nice.

      And while you’re at it, what exactly is the importance of Arctic ice to human safety?

      • Historical examples will be a challenge since there’s no period in the historical record when CO2 levels have been as high as they are now.

        But the risk is certainly real – while there may be benefits to warming in parts of the world, any kind of significant, long-lasting climate change to a world of >7billion people optimized for current temps will be dangerous. We may at some point be able to grow wheat on the tundra, but it’s not going to happen fast enough to offset the loss of arable land in Africa, or the disappearance of water sources in Asia. If climate change is a bust, we can all breathe a sigh of relief. But if not, we’re gonna be pooched and by the time it’s obvious it will be way too late to do anything about it.

      • For Sir HF:

        there’s no period in the historical record when CO2 levels have been as high as they are now In planetary history? That’s laughable. In human history? Still debatable.

        7 billion people optimized for current temps WTF does that even mean?

        the loss of arable land in Africa, or the disappearance of water sources in Asia Speculation, not fact.

        Still waiting for real, verified data if you care to try again.

      • Reply to Sir Harry Flashman,

        If we follow your lead we and our children and grandchildren will be pooched. It’s already obvious, but I hope it’s not too late to do anything about it. I’d rather not cause real harm to the present and future generations to avoid imaginary harm such as you’ve listed. Quite a list of scaremongering without any real scientific support …

      • Sir Har har; (I have a temporary stutter)

        “…offset the loss of arable land in Africa, or the disappearance of water sources in Asia…”

        Just where do you get these delusions?

        There is currently no loss of arable land in Africa!
        All claims to the contrary are based on false assumptions and bad models, not direct observations.

        Water sources in Asia are not disappearing! They’re not even declining!
        Again, all claims to the contrary are based on false assumptions and bad models, not direct observations.

        Perhaps, if your memory goes back this far, you remember the gray paper source problems of the IPCC reports? The IPCC happily allowed activists and green organizations to ‘write’ articles for their summaries and reports. These activists included very dodgy claims from the weakest of articles.

        Science? Not even close!

      • SHF, you can completely ignore the “historical record” and turn to the geological record instead. If you do that, well thats a fish of a different scale – just to mangle a metaphor. The present CO2 levels are the lowest in 400,000,000 years. Refer to GEOCARB III which is the gold standard for CO2 estimates over the Phanerozoic. The present (Pleistocene-Holocene and maybe toss in the Pliocene as well) is also the coldest period since the end of the Permian at the end of the Paleozoic. If you are concerned about planetary climate, then it behooves you to consider the “history” of the planet before singling out something as paltry as the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age.

    • And I suggest you google “confirmation bias” before attempting to draw conclusions about global climate from your own personal observations.

    • Sir Harry Flashman
      January 21, 2015 at 8:10 am

      I suggest you take time off from the hair-splitting, conspiracy theorizing, and sophistry to take a trip up north in Canada or Alaska, where the warming is undeniable even to the most skeptical observer.

      You say Alaska, I say the UK, let’s call the whole thing off. See Spain and Canada brrrrrrr!

      25 Jan 2015 – UK


      • Flashman, the chart in your link doesn’t support the kind of ‘global warming’ that you warmists preach: it’s not proportional with the Keely CO2 curve. Instead it shows a ‘step’ increase in average temp around 1976, and almost flat after that (if anything, cooling after 2009). But it is consistent with the gradual warming since LIA that even skeptics accept as ‘settled’ science. No ‘compelling’ proof of GHG warming here.

        Indeed, the conclusion reached by the authors of this chart (akclimage.org) is:

        The stepwise shift appearing in the temperature data in 1976 corresponds to a phase shift of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation from a negative phase to a positive phase. Synoptic conditions with the positive phase tend to consist of increased southerly flow and warm air advection into Alaska during the winter, resulting in positive temperature anomalies.

        In fact, if you look at my posting below you can actually see this “warm moist air advection” from the Pacific taking place as we speak!

      • Sir Harry Flashman, I see a downward trend for Alaska since around 2000.

        ……however since 1977 little additional warming has occurred in Alaska with the exception of Barrow and a few other locations. The stepwise shift appearing in the temperature data in 1976 corresponds to a phase shift of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation from a negative phase to a positive phase. Synoptic conditions with the positive phase tend to consist of increased southerly flow and warm air advection into Alaska during the winter, resulting in positive temperature anomalies……http://akclimate.org/ClimTrends/Change/TempChange.html

    • SHF says:

      …in Canada or Alaska…

      Cherry-picking at it’s finest.

      Global T has fluctuated by only 0.7ºC — over a century and a half. That is NOTHING.

      Just prior to our present Holocene, temperatures have changed by TENS of whole degrees! And within only a decade or two!

      Compare that ‘climate change’ with what we’re in now. Even the most wild-eyed Chicken Little alarmist finds it impossible to make the case that what we are seeing now is anything except natural climate variability. Global T has jiggled by a tiny 0.7ºC. So what? How can you possibly morph that non-event into a giant scare?

      You should have picked a credible scare story, because CAGW fails:

      • David Socrates January 21, 2015 at 10:12 am
        Very bad graph.
        The X-axis has no numbers, and the label is confusing.

        Thank you so much David Socrates for demonstrating so well the low intellect of climate alarmists.

        To this simple retired airline pilot and idiotic “climate denier”, moi, the graph is not confusing at all and the title is absolutely clear. Read the title and generate your own “numbers” (or words), for the x axis, in an instant. If you can not do this you really should stop embarrassing yourself by writing about things totally outside your comprehension.

      • acementhead says:

        Thank you so much David Socrates for demonstrating so well the low intellect of climate alarmists.

        Truer words have rarely been written. A low intellect appears to be a basic requirement of the climate alarmist crowd, and D. Socrates sets the bar.

        When Socrates says the graph is “confusing”, then it is — to him.

      • OK Mr acementhead

        ” the graph is not confusing ”

        From your experience flying aircraft, please tell all of us, what the dark ticks on the graph represent, and what the light ones represent. (hence the interval of each tick) Then, tell us when the graph starts and when does it end.

      • Socrates:
        “dark ticks (sic) on the graph…light ticks (sic)…and intervals between the ticks (sic)”
        Easy to tell that Socrates is sicked..er, ticked off.

      • Hugh? Hugh are ugh?
        What isit that you don’t understand about the graph?
        Tell us. We are here to help…if you can be helped.

    • Flashman:“Alaska, where the warming is undeniable even to the most skeptical observer.”

      I’m skeptical. So whenever I see a claim like above about warming in Alaska I jump to the current weather charts to see what’s going.

      Looking at CWOP (a NOAA network of QC’d backyard thermometers) I do see some curiously warm areas along the coast, but just north of Anchorage the temps drop sharply.

      Hmm, sharp temperature gradient. That suggests a ‘front’ of some kind. Let’s look at the current surface analysis:

      I was right. Stationary and occluded fronts hanging over the coastal areas, with really warm temps to the South. But this is Alaska in the winter. Where is the warm air coming from? Should we conclude (like Flashman et al.) that finally here is ‘compelling’ proof of Global Warming?

      No, it’s just a conveyor belt (‘atmospheric river’?) of warm moist air blowing off the mid-latitude Pacific Ocean.

      But are these temps ‘weather’ or ‘climate’? Well, the average temperatures for central Alaska in January ranges from a max of -1F to a min of -10F. It’s some where between those extremes just a few miles north of Anchorage. So I’d say the expected temps are what we are seeing currently (along with some ‘weather’ fronts)

    • Ok, how about Anchorage, Alaska, today?

      Here’s the weather almanac for today:


      Max Temperature 21 °F
      Avg Max 22 °F
      Record Max 36 °F (2001)

      Min Temperature 12 °F
      Avg Min 9 °F
      Record min -15 °F (2012)

      Today’s temperature is right in the normal range. Notice that the record low for today was only 3 years ago, in 2012. But the record high was 14 years ago, in 2001.

      What’s your point Sir?

      What hair splits here? What’s the conspiracy? What’s your sophist theory?

      • How about Ketchikan’s temperature, in the warm area today:

        Today’s High 46 °F
        Avg High 39 °F
        Record high 57 °F (1981)

        Today’s Low 43 °F
        Avg Low 29 °F
        Record Low 7 °F (1982)

        Ketchikan is still 13 degrees F cooler than the record high–which occurred nearly 35 years ago, in 1981.

        Thanks for bringing up Alaska, Sir.

        Examining reality is very instructive when considering your alarmist theory that my SUV is killing the planet with trapped heat.

        Welcome to the real world!

      • Ok, how about Anchorage, Alaska, today?

        Here’s the weather almanac for today:


        Max Temperature 21 °F
        Avg Max 22 °F
        Record Max 36 °F (2001)

        Min Temperature 12 °F
        Avg Min 9 °F
        Record min -15 °F (2012)

        Today’s temperature is right in the normal range. Notice that the record low for today was only 3 years ago, in 2012. But the record high was 14 years ago, in 2001.

        What’s your point Sir?

        What hair splits here? What’s the conspiracy? What’s your sophist theory?

    • Flashy

      Or greenland were we all know that you can farm and live and have grand old time, oh wait that was 500 years ago. I am so confused what time period was warming and which was cooling!

    • @ Sir Harry Flashman

      You say “I suggest you take time off from the hair-splitting, conspiracy theorizing, and sophistry . . . .”

      Pot calling kettle. Actually, we all thought the tree-hugging alarmist community were ‘sophists’. Our ‘Rationalist’ (reliance on reason and truth rather than intuition to justify one’s beliefs or actions) WUWT community are certainly not ‘Sophists’ (a person who uses clever or quibbling arguments that are fundamentally unsound).

      We are easily able to tolerate a 15 degree C change in temperature between freezing cold kitchen conservatory and warm lounge. We survive. We can adapt. Even the dog is still alive. It is not catastrophic. It is not Armageddon.

      Now, please, please, come back only when you have a ‘rational’ argument.

  3. In order to “fill-in”, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), made the ridiculous claim that a single station temperature was representative of a 1200 km radius region.

    This statement seems misleading. As I understand it, the claim is that the “trend”/anomoly (rather than absolute temperature) at a station is representative of trends at other stations within a 1200km radius region. While I don’t necessarily agree (UHI, for example), the difference in the two statements is distinctive and provocative.

    • A trend is a series of absolute temperatures in point in time. but so what? It is still making gross assumptions in the data. It is equivalent to assuming that since the temperature in Florence, South Carolina is down this January from last January this must also be the case in Boston Massachusetts and Chicago, IL both about 1200 km away in different directions. Anyone familiar with US geography immediately knows how ridiculous an assumption this is.

      • It’s a bit more nuanced that that. When a daily reading at a station is missing, the trend of a closeby station which does include the daily reading, is used to interpolate the missing value. Closeby is chosen to be within 1200km of the station with the missing value. In the vast majority of cases, close is within 100km and usually is much less.

        Nobody will use an ORD station trend to infill missing data at LGA, as EWR , JFK or even BOS would be a much better choice, for example.

        That said, one must first remove any UHI signal from the trend, and that’s a much more complicated thing to do. There are also, I believe, nonlinearities around coastal regions and the arctic that may affect the viablility of the adjustment.

      • Sparse regions (e.g. the arctic) are of course an issue. As is the 75% of the planet covered by water with no station data.

        I was objecting to Dr. Ball’s characterization of the algorithm.

    • Even the claim that the anomaly is representative out to 1200 km is extremely shaky if you actually go back to the 1987 Hansen paper where the claim was originally made. 1200 km is the range where correlation has dropped to 0.5 (not very impressive) north of 45 degrees latitude in the the northern hemisphere. Everywhere else it is worse. In the tropics there is practically no correlation even a few hundred kilometers away.

      • In the vast majority of cases, the trend used for adjustment comes from within a few klicks. The only place that 1200km would be used are in the arctic, generally, if even then.

      • Joe Kbetcha
        In the vast majority of cases, the trend used for adjustment comes from within a few klicks. The only place that 1200km would be used are in the arctic, generally, if even then.

        Regularly up in the Arctic rather. And, more importantly, regularly out across the Arctic Ocean for 1200 km for most of the Arctic.

        But, the DMI daily summer temperatures for 80 north – you know, the time of the year when the sun is actually visible up there – shows 0.0 change in temperature since records started in 1959. (A very slight decline actually.) But Hansen/GISS absolutely needs (craves ?) higher RED zones all across his Mercator projection of the Arctic, so they will continue projecting one station across 1200 km of ice and snow.

        Is the tundra getting warmer? Most likely: EVERYTHING growing across the tundra is growing 12% to 27% faster, taller, longer, deeper, stronger, more drought resistant, with wider deeper greener leaves and far more branches and shoots and twigs. Of course the tundra (Arctic land area between 60 deg north and 70 deg north) is warmer! It is 25% darker now for longer periods of the year.

  4. anyone that looks at an ice core..and can’t figure it out…..to quote Steve….is a moron

    “I think we risk becoming the best informed society that has ever died of ignorance.” -Reuben Blades

  5. “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams

      • By the way, pages 19-20 seem to be referring in particular to WUWT, Jo Nova, and Bishop Hill. The geography is identified elsewhere. Also annoyed by skeptical Canadians.

      • Wow….what a pretty graph.
        Did you make it with Excel ?

        Your “facts” don’t point to a source.

      • More ^impotent nonsense^ from D. Socrates.

        If sox could deconstruct that graph, he surely would have done so, no?

        Instead, he emits his nonsense pixels as usual. So the chart stands… unfalsified. And as usual, Socks has no data of his own.

        A new Ice Age could descend on us all, but Socrates would still be looking for ways to keep his alarmist faith in man-made runaway global warming alive.

        Religion is a great comfort, isn’t it? Socks has it in abundance.

      • One cannot falsify or verify a chart that comes out of thin air.

        You do realize that you should cite the source of the chart so that we all know where it came from. It’s a lot like the list of references in a scientific paper. Ever see them?

      • The work-shy Socrates says:

        One cannot falsify or verify a chart that comes out of thin air.

        Wrong once again. Further, the only thin air is between socks’s ears. That chart has a provenance that I can supply. But why bother? Socks cannot accept anything outside of his cult’s teachings.

      • “David Socrates January 21, 2015 at 12:33 pm

        One cannot falsify or verify a chart that comes out of thin air…”

        You are a real piece of work, socpuppetry!

        You have yet to falsify anything! You have also indicated absolutely zero verifications!

        You do throw nitpicks, irresponsible claims and nonsense around; a tactic that reminds me more of an immature pubescent girl trying to be catty without the wit necessary.

        When your specious claims are rebutted, you ignore the science and logic and instead focus on triviality as if your rep depends on having a rejoinder no matter how useless those words are.

        So it isn’t that you post a legitimate comment, just that you manage to throw enough words into a comment framework that people almost understand.

        It isn’t that your arguments are easily torn to shreds with observational evidence. Just that you pretend to be superior, aloof and oleaginously quick to post a shallow response with another misdirection or false claim.

        Responses with all the illogic, opaqueness and tortured dreamworlds of Lewserandbaddoodlowsky and his irresponsible melting oleaginous buddies…

  6. What is great about this point in time is going forward we are going to have prolonged solar minimum conditions versus an increase in CO2 and we will see which way the climate goes.

    My bet is with solar.

    • My “little voice inside” keeps saying that Spaceweather makes Earthweather. the Heliosphere is much more energetic than the Atmosphere. Be thankful for the Magnetosphere.

  7. The plot presentes af figue 10 here looks strange. It must be Alley’s gisp2. The one Latitude has plotted here.

    It still has not dawned upon Ball that this icecore proxy ends in 1855. But it is worse than that. The plot here ends with LOWER temperatures to end. That is not the case for the data from gisp2. What is this? Has the data been brought up to date with lower temperature after 1855?

    Anyone can understand that is just …. wrong. Will Tim Ball correct that graph (figure 10)? Too much to ask?

    And then he can explain his method for extrapolating that proxy to represent the whole earth.

    • Rooter, you are not making any sense. Perhaps you should be a bit more self-editorial (just a suggestion) before pressing ‘post comment’. It doesn’t become you (or maybe it does) to lurch into the debate with a poorly-composed set of questions, when the person you are trying so wisely to undermine has taken the time to be concise.

      • Show what, rooter? That the temperature hasn’t risen to as high as 1300 BC? Nice try at a puny hockey stick. You misconstrue the points being made in Dr. Ball’s post. I don’t have to “show it”, you already did. Bravo!

      • rooter at 9:47 am: Here is measured temperature in Greenland after 1855:
        LOL, not only does that graph appear to graft proxies and instrumental but the proxies eyeball at around 100 year resolution (or more) while what looks like instrumental notes 10 year averages.

      • Look how the graph that rooter links to shows peaks right at the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval Warm Periods, with the last peak being the Modern Warm Period. Although the last peak looks contrived.

      • I would be careful with infilling the whole globe from one proxy record.

        How about you mpainter? Ok for you?

      • rooter says:

        I would be careful with infilling the whole globe from one proxy record.

        Yes. Like YAD061, for example?

        That single proxy record — one tree in one location — changed a boring record of natural climate variability into an alarmist scare. Sort of like using the GISS record to scare people.

        That is how desperate they are. And you? You are so in need of validation for your beliefs that you constantly cherry-pick similar examples, trying and resuscitate the dying climate alarmist scare.

        It isn’t working, rooter. The man-made global warming scare is a hoax, and it needs shenanigans like YAD061 and the GISS record to keep it alive.

      • icouldnthelpit

        Using the word “hoax” when discussing the climate is also a good indication of an ulterior motive.

      • “Ulterior motive” is what’s called ‘projection’. The entire alarmist crowd posting here has ulterior motives.

        Let’s look at some global T records from other sources:



        Planet Earth is telling a completely different story from the alarmist cult’s. Which one should we accept? Planet Earth’s record, or the propaganda emitted by the handful of climate alarmists here?

        Me? I think the planet is correct. The alarmist clique thinks the planet is lying. Which?

      • Dbstealey….

        Examine your chart very closely

        Notice the label on the y-axis. Now look at the label on the x-axis.

        Too funny!!!!

        You must be suffering from chart-dyslexia.

      • Dbstealey..
        From your chart

        Can you tell all of us with inquiring minds what a “sector” is ?

      • Socks says to Babsy:

        I appreciate the fact that you seem to feel the need to respond to my posts

        More projection. That is what socks does regarding my own comments: he endlessly bird-dogs them.

        I appreciate that sox feels the need to try and find anything he can in my comments that might be a misteak. And he found one! Apparently, whoever put together the chart with the min/max data made a typo, and mixed up the labels for years and temperature. Was anyone really confused about that?

        Since that’s what socks is complaining about, it is clear that it is the best thing he could find to criticize. But as usual, socks refuses to answer the important questions.

        Socks feels the need to respond to every informative comment I make. But socks is flat wrong, as usual: there is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening. But we all know why socks avoids discussing that fact: if he did, he would be forced to admit that the climate scare is a hoax. Yes, it is only a hoax, kept alive only by the immense taxpayer funds propping it up. It is not reality. Without money CAGW would be old news within 24 hours.

        Finally, here is another chart for socks to scrutinize, as he continues to post throughout everyone else’s work day. Find a reason for alarm here, socksie. If you can:

      • Dbstealey.

        I’m sorry, but your misteak is an obvious mistake.

        [Well, now that you addressed the meat of his comments … .mod]

        (Moderators, please do not delete comments or parts of comments that do not violate site policy. – sr. mod.)

      • dbstealey is consistent if nothing else. There is a pattern to his posts. It goes like this…
        1. Say nothing is happening, you can’t prove it, it’s all a lie.
        2. Get into a discussion and the facts start flying.
        3. Post a few graphs that look like they came out of the cornflakes packet (some good examples above).
        4. Get called on them.
        5. Say nothing is happening, you can’t prove it, it’s all a lie.

        Entertaining if nothing else.

      • Sockrates says:

        …your misteak is an obvious mistake.

        This tickles me no end! ☺ 

        Anyone of average intelligence can see that I was making fun of myself. If there is anything in which I am better than 99.9% of the population, it is in my speling ability.

        Socks needs to get a job. He’s too close to this debate; he can’t see the woods for the trees. But sometimes he does provide some amusement. ヅ 

        Thanks mr sox for a great example of being clueless. That made my morning.

      • @Simon:

        May I add you to the list of clueless commentators? Thank you. Added.

        Nothing in your post is anything other than a baseless assertion, criticizing links that I’ve posted. Therefore, you can be disregarded as trolling.

        If you wish to be credible, post some verifiable facts like I did, or discuss the links I posted. Anything less, and you are down to soxie’s level. No one wants that.

      • “Entertaining if nothing else.”

        Thank you Mr Simon, that about sums it all up in a few words.

      • “Where does that leave you?”

        It leaves me waiting for you to post more of your funny charts.

        I like the dyslexic one……

      • Simon sez:

        dbstealey is consistent if nothing else.

        Thank you. That is correct.

        Others are not consistent, however. Nor are they posting verifiable facts. Their opinions are constantly asserted instead. They simply David Socrates will not listen. Socks says:

        From your experience flying aircraft, please tell all of us…

        Cementafriend, please don’t bother with him. Socrates is the only reader here who is confused [OK, maybe Simon, too], and you will never be able to convince him of anything. He desperately combs through each and every little fact and every chart, hoping to find something to criticize. But Socrates asserts very little that is not simply his baseless opinion. Thus, his credibility is about as low as it can be. Nitpicking is his best and only argument.

        Socks always misses the Big Picture: the entire ‘man-made global warming’ scare has been so thoroughly debunked that people like socrates have nothing else to post but their baseless assertions. They must attack any minor non-events they can find, such as a chart with a typo — while completely ignoring the central fact that the chart deconstructs everything they believe in. That deflection is only a tactic, covering up the fact that they’ve got nothin’.

        When someone is desperately criticizing small, insignificant factoids — while completely ignoring the important information; the Big Picture — then they have hopelessly lost the debate. Socks and Simon are the only ones who do not realize how pathetic their arguments have become. But the rest of us see their desperation.

        Finally, socks’ endless complaining about ‘insults’ indicates a serious mental problem. It goes beyond being just a crybaby. Labeling someone an airhead is not a problem, so long as numerous examples support the adjective. In sox’s case, there are so many examples of confused thinking that labels like that are pretty much a requirement for expressing an opinion.

        If socks wants to see insults, he should read Michael Mann’s tweets. Skeptics regard being labeled as “deniers” living in the “denial-o-sphere”, etc., as insults. But Socrates has no problem at all with those insults, because Mann et al are his kinda people. So now socks is even cherry-picking his insults.

        Skeptics are not crybabies about comments like the alarmist crowd is. Socrates should visit Hotwhopper, or SkS, or realclimate, or Scientific American, or the Guardian to understand how badly scientific skeptics are treated. Or look at some of the vicious cartoons posted of Anthony. Then even the soxmeister might understand what a crybaby he has turned into. That is just another tactic that deflects from the fact that socrates has got nothin’.

        My message to D. Sockrates: grow up. Skeptics have been called worse; much worse. If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. There are thousands of blogs you can post at, they don’t need your schoolboy whining here. Suck it up, and do what I do: post verifiable facts. Quit deflecting. Stick with the subject of the discussion. And most importantly: when you have been proven wrong, man up and admit it. That would be a first for you.

      • Unlike you Mr Dbstealey, I will not call you names nor will I insult you. I will keep your feet to the fire whenever you post charts that are funny looking, or when you make your frequent errors.
        (Snip. Enough. – mod.)

      • Socrates, it insults me when you refuse to man up and admit it when you’re wrong — and you are wrong plenty. Most of the time, in fact.

        Your alarmist propaganda insults me. Stop it. Furthermore, you are convincing nobody here of your weird world view. Start discussing verifiable facts, or give it up. You aren’t going to change anyone with your Saul Alinsky tactics, so quit trying.

        Unless Planet Earth changes her ways, you have decisively lost the debate. That is what you should really be worrying about: the planet is making you wrong. She is debunking your beliefs.

        Skeptics are right about the man-made global warming scare. Quit deflecting, and admit that you’ve got nothin’. You were wrong. That’s all.

      • @D. Socrates,

        You have probably posted that link a half dozen times now. It appears to be one of your endless nitpicks, but honestly, I do not know why you have a problem with the fact that it is colder at night than during the day.

        I guess when you’ve got nothin’, anything will do, eh?

        I will admit that your mind is strange, and that you see something enormous there that no one else sees. I mean, it must be something *very* important for you to keep posting it. Or, maybe you’ve just run out of worthwhile arguments…

        Hey, I have an idea! Get a job.

      • Socks says:

        No, it’s Wednesday in Austrailia

        That indicates socks is based in Australia. And:

        …there are people in the world that have rich fathers that left them a boatload of money when they died.

        Then my advice is doubled and squared: get a job.

      • dbstealey thinks the Yamal treerings have been used in the same way as Ball uses the gisp2 or the grip borehole proxy.

        I think it is best for dbstealey to continue to hold that belief.

      • Simon says:

        1. Say nothing is happening, you can’t prove it, it’s all a lie.

        I don’t say it’s a lie, I say the onus is on the alarmist crowd to support their conjecture. Try to understand the Scientific Method, “Simon”.

        2. Get into a discussion and the facts start flying.

        Yes, I let the facts fly. Folks like you and socks just assert what you want to believe is true.

        3. Post a few graphs that look like they came out of the cornflakes packet.

        More than ‘a few’ graphs and charts. Literally, hundreds. And your only response is to try and denigrate them with comments like that. No wonder you’ve lost the debate.

        4. Get called on them.

        If by ‘get called’ you mean more baseless assertions, then OK…

        5. Say nothing is happening, you can’t prove it, it’s all a lie.

        Repeating yourself does not make you right.

        Face it, you’ve got nothing. Really. You look at a completely normal situation, and see doom, disaster and despair. It must be hell living in your world.

      • rooter,

        I’ve treated you with respect because you at least try to discuss facts, unlike others who just emit their baseless opinions here. If you’re going to start acting like that, though, all bets are off.

        You say I used Yamal “in the same way” that Dr. Ball uses Gisp-2. That is wrong.

        I used YAD061 to show you that one proxy like that is no good. Do you really think YAD061 was a representative proxy?

      • dbstealey says:

        “That single proxy record — one tree in one location — changed a boring record of natural climate variability into an alarmist scare. ”

        Might I ask which record?

      • icouldnthelpit:

        You are correct. It is getting warmer. You are also correct that it is not unprecedented.

        Excellent! Maybe you’re learning after all.

        As we see in the chart above, global T has fluctuated by only about 0.7ºC, since the 1800’s. That panics some folks. They are either ignorant, or man-made global warming is their religion. Which one identifies you?

    • The source of the data appears to be: Dahl-Jensen, D., Mosegaard, K., Gundestrup, N., Clow, G.D., Johnsen, S.J., Hansen, A.W. and Balling, N. 1998. Past temperatures directly from the Greenland Ice Sheet. Science 282:268-271. I am afraid I can’t provide a direct link. It is likely pay-walled.

      This is not isotope data, as one usually sees from ice cores. It is based on temperature profiles. I am skeptical of the results since they say that temperatures at last glacial maximum were 23 C colder than present. That is 3 times the usual estimate. Also, the graph that Ball gives shows a much larger temperature range than normal estimates. I too wondered if the data could resolve the last century. It looks the authors claim they can and their Figure 4 shows a pronounced recent T increase that does not appear in Ball’s version of the graph and would seem to destroy his claim that current temperatures are in the lowest 3%.

      But this is from a quick scan. I have not yet given the paper a careful reading.

      Ball’s article appears to be intellectually dishonest. As others have noted, he disses the claim that anomalies correlate over perhaps 1000 km, while misstating what is claimed. Then he takes data obtained by an unusually methodology and blithely picks one of the of the two locations reported to represent the entire planet.

      • Dr. Spencer?

        Whenever did he enter this discussion? I am quite confident Dr. Spencer would not present 1855 as now. Or even worse like here: Present a downadjusted 1855 value as “now”.

  8. Not even wrong.


    in 2014 there are now 14,000 stations reporting.

    Whether you use 300 stations or 3000 or 14000 the answer doesnt change.

    You can eliminate all urban stations, stations with any population and the answer stays the same.

    You can compare the land surface record to a satillite version of SAT ( provided by AIRS ) and find
    NO difference.

    Yes its getting warmer.

    The LIA was real and we are no longer skating on the river Thames.

    Ball needs to stop denying the LIA

    • Hard to believe that, Mosher. Take the UHI out of California and report back with the results, please and thank you.

    • It is warmer only in a very narrow context of a few hundred years. When put into a thousand or ten thousand year time frame, it is not warmer — it’s even cooler than average. When comparing this Interglacial to the previous (Eemian), the overall behavior of the climate is not unusual, extreme, or abnormal.

      • It’s only warmer in specific locations, not everywhere. Mosher can only get his “same answer” by averaging temperatures from unrelated locations. Can’t do that. But everyone seems to insist on such idiocy.

    • Mosh

      I spent a lot of time defending you in the past even though your conclusions are not mine, but you have really lost my respect in the last few months.

    • I recall reading on Roy Spencer’s blog that at least one set of satellite data imply a trend about about 20% smaller than the surface T measurements. The reason is not understood and the satellite data sets do not all agree with each other.

      There do seem to be enough issues with the surface T data that it is plausible that the difference is due to an exaggerated trend in the surface T data. But a 20% difference does not change anything qualitatively. The real issue is not whether there is a warming trend, or whether CO2 can cause warming, it is how much of the warming is due to CO2.

    • Mosher are you then disputing the accuracy of Figs 2 and 3 above? If they are wrong what do your records show for identical breakdown?

    • Mosher

      LIA was a period of a few centuries long, not a year long period like the 2014, where actually your argument starts.

      I hope you “sober” enough to spot the huge difference on the two main terms of your argument.
      Climatically they can not be compared, especially not in your “sobber” fashion.:)

      You miss the point Mosh, as always, Tim is not talking about yearly cycles or weather or a year to year comparison or estimation….is actually addressing the issue by a climatic angle
      And yes, while considering it in climate terms, strangely enough, the 2014 ends up as colder than any year during the LIA, with a far much higher climatic cooling signal than any of those years then.

      Hard for some to really see the difference between weather and climate.
      The missing heat budget for 2014 will be much higher than for such budget in any one year during the LIA, and that makes it clearly colder in comparison while considered in climate terms.

      hope you understand the point.


    • stop denying the LIA…first they trick you into believing the LIA stopped in 1850..and 1850 was the perfect temperature

    • Mosh, get back to us when you figure out why you can’t average temperatures and come up with anything meaningful.

    • Apparently there were 7 major Frost Fairs and a number of minor ones on the Thames in the two hundred years between 1607 and 1814.
      There was a big freeze-up in 1947. The most recent was 1963.
      Removal of the old London Bridge, construction of embankments, effluent discharge conspire to reduce expectation of the Thames freezing now.
      Oh yeah! That and global back-radiation +.

  9. Sir Harry,
    as you are so informed, please explain to this ignorant fellow, why is it when driving into Hamburg Germany from the suburbs in the morning, within 3km there is a 2c in shift into a higher temperature ?

  10. Steven, read the article please and then advise again about “Ball needs to stop denying the LIA”.
    You need to stop denying the MWP and the fact that Greenland was green at that time and being farmed.

  11. Friends:

    Can anyone explain why this thread has been blitzed by a swarm of trolls throwing mud?

    Is it that the trolls have been hurt by the truth of the article from Tim Ball?
    Has ‘Troll Central’ issued an order?
    or ?


      • I have to agree. Whatever happened to the rational commenters who used to debate here using facts and evidence? Now they’re gone, and the ones taking their place are just trolling.

        I think I know why: they have run out of credible facts and evidence. Planet Earth is busy debunking their beliefs.

        A stand-up guy admits it when he realizes he was wrong. So the handful of alartmists posting here are ipso facto not stand-up guys, that’s all. Their tactics have devolved into trolling.

        That says nothing about scientific skeptics, but it says everything about them.

      • Actually it looks like WUWT was singled out for an AGW-faithful bombing run. Its rather like having earnest missionaries of (name your religious poison) knock at the door and then start screaming when you tell them you are interested/think their book makes no sense/are unwilling to cease eating meat/etc.

      • Much more like the false echo of an online list of rebuttals for non-entity trolls to try and use in climate discussions.
        One has to be amused by how they all show up at the same time. They couldn’t be working from the same location or school, could they?

        Terminally weak.
        Disastrously deployed, (for the alarmists)

        Along with long trails of silly posturing, ugly language and sheer bad science left forever on the Internet record of the extremes alarmist trolls go to.

        Eventually, someone will wise up (if that haven’t already) and start documenting the who what and where of CAGW activists.

        History will reveal the miscreants, their particular activities and methods, and brand them forever as either easily misguided gullible morons or terrible parasitic creatures of evil.

    • It will be ever so hard to do the Renewable Tax Credit and other EPA, Redistribution actions Pres. Obama plans with this site and others putting out the facts and proving it up. Myself and others in Texas have been in contact with a former House Member who is close to Ted Cruz for three years, That guy is out of the House now but he put us in contact with Ted Cruz’s people. (that and my wife has lots of contact around Texas where Ted’s father makes his talks). So Ted and his staff are way up to date on the truth more than almost any other in D.C..

      Obama and the likes of G.E. know they can not swing the graft unless they take on this site and others.
      They will stop at nothing as the Climate Change Lie is so easy to disprove and the R’s may just act.
      For sure if Ted takes it to the floor like he does and force hearings where the light can shine at last.

      So here they are. They will try to fowl the air and will if possible use the courts and or something like the FCC or Justice Dept. to side line any truth session.

      Greenpeace does not play by the rules, keep that in mind too.

    • Looks like “Troll Central” is just trying to apply the ‘extreme meme’ to win their arguments.

      Note that in the past, ‘climate’ meant ‘average weather’. So computing the ‘expected value’ for temperature, rainfall, etc was equivalent to averaging these values from weather reports.

      But apparently the warmists were not happy that mean temps didn’t rise in proportion to the Keeling Curve. The expected values for climate disappointed them because recent mean temps (over the last 2 decades) don’t support the CAGW Hypothesis (“Man-made CO2 causes climate disasters”).

      So they moved the goal-posts and changed the way climate is presented to the world (via MSM etc), from ‘expected values’ to ‘extreme values’. The ‘extreme meme’ has been quite successful I must admit. Everyone, including many skeptics, seem to have accepted this new way of defining climate blindly without questioning its validity.

      So, does the increasing variance of weather parameters (colder “coldests” and warmer “warmest” etc) mean the same thing as saying “the climate is warming because of man-made CO2”?

      Here’s a simple counter-example, graciously provided by Sir Harry in one of the posts above (thanks!):

      Note that expected value for temperature rose in 1976 and created a step increase in climate temperature. It’s slightly warmer, most likely due the combined effects of gradual warming since the LIA and the latest positive PDO phase change.

      But, using this newfangled ‘extreme meme’, I’ll bet we could fool some of the MSM gullibles into thinking it’s getting cooler, because the latter half of the graph has more frequent and deeper cold extrema (blue oval) than the earlier half (red oval).

      • I wasn’t clear:
        “… because the latter half of the graph has more frequent and deeper cold extrema (blue oval) than the earlier half’s (red oval) warm extremes. So, the warm extrema were less frequent and shallower (red oval) than the more frequent and deeper cold extrema (blue oval).

        Sure, it’s a bunch of hand-waving BS. That’s my point about this whole ‘extreme meme’ theme. :-]

      • Yet Another Update:

        It should be noted that the methodology differs from that used for CONUS states, in that the Alaskan value represents a gridded approach (the statewide values are the composite of a set of grid boxes), and that coverage is not as complete as that for the CONUS. Alaska Statewide temperature and precipitation anomalies are calculated with respect to the 1971-2000 base period.

        So we conclude that climate estimates computed from sampled measurements depend a lot upon which samples are used.

        All of these ‘updates’ are from NOAA.

    • These guy got their orders for sure. Start trolling en masse………..
      They are worse that the ISIS fundamentalists preaching their Sharia Law

      • Let’s not get carried away there. At least for the present AGW faithful only “wish” they could direct violent acts against dissidents.

  12. It would be nice if someone could force the “Goddard Institute for Space Studies” to go back to studying space sciences rather than wasting money on political activism.

  13. The trolls’ interest in sources of data strikes me as analogous to the interest shown by king Herod and his mates in the location of the Christ child.
    Happy hunting.
    No – you don’t like people making their own copies of climate data, especially palaeo data, do you?

  14. “Notice that only approximately 1000 stations cover 100 years.”
    Has anyone taken the average of these stations to see what their data shows. Perhaps they could be grouped by rural and urban. I would be really curious to see that.

  15. The IPCC removed this option when they set out to prove the hypothesis. It put them on a treadmill of fixing the results, especially the temperature record.

    Excellent! Well worth requoting! The tiger quote comparison is also very good.

  16. Thank you Dr Ball. Judging from some comments it evoked, we know now more what’s up with the alarmist sheep’s skin. Keep on the good work.

  17. So why don’t they just use the satellite data? Perhaps it is like the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Why collect an exact number for new unemployment claims when you can just do a sample. Probably because it is much easier to fudge. It is getting to the point that you can’t trust anything that comes from the government.

  18. Well, aside from all the whining and complaining, I believe this to be an excellent post pointing out that rarely quoted fact that we are in an interglacial warming period and it will hopefully continue for a while. Though it is comforting to see the confounding of the warmists with warming at a stop, it is also a little scarey, even should it only be something minor like the recent little ice age. Crops fail, disease takes over and wars occur when it gets cold.

  19. Walt D. January 21, 2015 at 4:43 pm
    “…..It is getting to the point that you can’t trust anything that comes from the government.”

    Somewhere I read a quote that essentially said ‘Believe nothing until the Government issues a denial’

  20. A couple of points about the Australian temperature readings shown above.

    There was indeed a warm period in Australia between about the 1870s to 1900s. Several severe droughts occurred, similar to the dustbowl droughts in the US in the 1930s.

    These high temperatures have been attributed to low rainfall at the time, e.g. by the CSIRO in the 1950s, and acknowledged by them then, before all the ‘adjustments’ began to be made. Australia actually cooled between about 1910-1940s and this was attributed to increases in rainfall during the time.


    These past temperatures have increasingly been ‘adjusted’ to suit an international agenda, to make Australian temperatures look more like the rest of the world, even though Australia’s climate doesn’t necessarily follow the rest of the world.

    Australia’s temperatures are very sensitive to rainfall, and rainfall is very sensitive to shifting climate zones. Remarkably, the raw data shows between ~1870s to 1940s Australia temperature trends did NOT follow world trends, largely as a result of changes in rainfall. These are currently being ‘adjusted’ due to ideological agendas.

  21. Based on my travel both developed and developing countries, I noted cold-island effect is under emphasized in the averaging of the global temperature with sparse network and over emphasized the .urban-heat-island effect is overemphasized in the averaging of global temperature. People started asking me case study. I used to quote the difference between Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere temperature differences. Now in the present report fig. 3 clearly show the trend of rural temperature, quite different from average temperature, Also, the other important aspect is network distribution with space and time. This is also seen from fig.7. These are the basic components that helped to show a rapid increasing in global temperature. If we counter this with homogenizing the space and time modules, we get negligible global warming component. This is in line with reality of greenhouse effect. But, people running after billions of dollars will never agree on this as they loose their bread & butter.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

    • Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
      I noted cold-island effect is under emphasized in the averaging of the global temperature with sparse network and over emphasized the .urban-heat-island effect is overemphasized in the averaging of global temperature


      1. Can you discuss the cold-island effect in more detail, please? I have not heard that term before.

      2. I suspect a typo (error) at the end of the first sentence. Can you phrase the two more clearly?

      • Thank you RACook1978– The correct first sentence is as follows: “Based on my travel both developed and developing countries, I noted rural-cold-island effect is under emphasized in the averaging of the global temperature with the sparse met network; and over emphasized the .urban-heat-island effect with the dense met network in the averaging of global temperature. ”

        Regarding the rural-cold-island” effect — which I coined and used in my publications including in my book “Climate Change: Myths & Realities” published in 2008, is exactly opposite of urban-heat-island effect. Luke Howard, an amateur meteorologist in England, first recorded the heat-island effect. This he wrote in his book “The Climate of London” in 1818. Metropolitan areas around the globe irrespective of developed or developing nations are growing at unprecedented rates, creating extensive urban landscapes; face the growing problems of urban sprawl, loss of natural vegetation and open spaces as well water bodies and converting these into concrete structures in both horizontal and vertical spectrum with roads. Thus the congestion with pollution created urban-heat-island effect at the surface and as well upto the level of skyscrapers through temperature inversions. Kenneth Chang presented a report in New YorkTimes, which was reproduced by San Jose Mercury News on August 22,200 “Urbanites feel the heat when cities replace trees and greenery with buildings and blacktop”. Similarly in rural areas the agriculture system changed to feed the growing population in to intensive irrigated agriculture with the construction of water bodies of different sizes. This reduces the temperature. This I termed it as rural-cold-island effect in rural areas. The met stations are mainly concentrated around towns and cities where the revenue officials have offices. In rural areas mainly rainfall started collecting to assess the agriculture. This lead uneven distribution of met stations in rural and urban areas. Though rural area covered more than two-thirds, the network is space while urban areas covered less than one-third has dense met-stations. This was a European legacy.

        Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

  22. “there’s no period in the historical record when CO2 levels have been as high as they are now”. If that is the case, where did all the carbon in the fossil fuels come from? (It not the same isotope as the carbon in the gas giants),

    • “Historical record”, ie human history. Not the entire time the planet has been in existence.

      • SHF says:

        “Historical record”, ie human history.

        You could not be more wrong. There are temperature records from ice cores going back almost a million years.

        Atmospheric CO2 has been almost twenty times (20X) higher than now in the ‘historical record’, without causing runaway global warming or any other problems.

        Now you’re going all Chicken Little over a change in CO2 from 3 parts in 10,000, to only 4 parts in 10,000 — over a century and a half.

        Get a grip.

      • “Atmospheric CO2 has been almost twenty times (20X) higher than now”

        Citation for your “assertion?”

      • Socrates,

        I gave you the rules, you can either accept them or reject them:

        I will post evidence showing that CO2 record. But first, you must acknowledge that you were wrong when you disputed it before.

        Too many times when I’ve posted what you demanded, you just MovOn to something else, or you don’t acknowledge it, or you deflect to something unrelated.

        I’m done with those games.

        So yes, I have a citation. More than one, in fact.

        You go first…

        Otherwise, my ‘assertion’ stands unrefuted.

      • Quite right, CO2 has been much higher, although not within the historical record. You leave out a couple of important points – when CO2 was much higher, radiative forcing was much lower. Periods when the earth wasn’t warm correlate with periods of high CO2 – see Royer, 2006. “given the variety of factors that can influence global temperatures, it is striking that such a consistent pattern between CO 2 and temperature emerges for many intervals of the Phanerozoic.”

        Besides that, it’s not the planet that we need to worry about, Earth will be fine, life on Earth will survive. BUt human civilization, carefully built to support 8 billion people in a relatively stable climate, would not survive a rise of 4C in less than 100 years.

      • The last time you made your “20x” assertion, I proved it was based on model output.

        You need to do better this time.
        Until you post a citation, your statement is nothing more than an assertion.

      • Socks,

        You “proved” nothing. Baseless assertions like that are your stock in trade, as is psychological ‘projection’ — which you employ again here. I very much doubt that you have any formal education in anything related to science, like a lot of us do [yes, including me].

        This is amusing. You are now in a very uncomfortable position: either you can agree that I’m right if I post a citation as you demand, showing that CO2 has been almost twenty times higher in the past — or you can argue incessantly, using your baseless assertions.

        This ia very amusing. A scientific skeptic would *love* to be presented with new knowledge, gratis. I would personally have no problem whatever admitting to you or anyone else that I had learned something new. I have learned a lot here, from people across the board.

        But you? Your mind is made up and closed tight, and with your confirmation bias you cannot possibly allow yourself to be put in the position of learning anything new. Rather, you presume that you know it all, and no one — especially a skeptic! — can teach you anything new.

        So while I larf out loud at your self-imposed predicament, my offer stands: I will post a citation showing that CO2 was much higher in the past. But first, you must agree that you learned something new — and you learned it from me. [BTW: I don’t know what your belief is regarding past CO2 levels. Maybe you believe they were about the same as now? Or, maybe you believe that current levels are the highest evah!! That wouldn’t suprise me].

        Anyone interested in new knowledge would jump at the chance to learn something. It costs nothing in this case. Not a penny. You can learn. Just admit that I posted a citation.

        But as I have pointed out for years now: the alarmist cult simply cannot admit that there are facts they don’t know. And especially, they cannot admit that scientific skeptics are more knowledgeable than they are — as is most often the case.

        That applies to you, in spades.

      • Since you refuse to present a citation, I will do it for you.
        The basis of your “20x” assertion comes from the GEOCARB III model
        Here is the paper

        Yes, your assertion is based on a “model.”

        There is no method known to science that can determine CO2 levels in the atmosphere going back beyond the range of 20 million years.

        See?….it’s easy to provide citations.

        The reason you didn’t is because the truth of the matter is that your claim isn’t based on evidence, it is based on a “model”

      • David Socrates
        Yes, your assertion is based on a “model.”

        There is no method known to science that can determine CO2 levels in the atmosphere going back beyond the range of 20 million years.

        See?….it’s easy to provide citations.

        The reason you didn’t is because the truth of the matter is that your claim isn’t based on evidence, it is based on a “model”

        So, because there is no evidence (other than what is projected/predicted from models) for ANY kind of anthropogenic global warming, then anthropogenic warming does not exist! That’s what we have been saying for several weeks now, and I’m glad you finally agree with dbstealey and the rest of us realists.

      • Mr RACookPE1978
        Please re-read the comment thread.
        I have made no mention of “anthropogenic global warming”

        Please try to stay on topic.

      • Sir Harry Flashman.
        The issue I’m concerned with is the claim that CO2 was 20x higher in the past. Even the data used in Royer 2006 shows (in figures B, C and D on page 5667 ref: http://openearthsystems.org/data/readings/Introductory%20Reading/Royer2006-CO2climatePhanerozoic.pdf ) that the CO2 levels never reached beyond 8000 ppm which is 20x present day levels. In fact if you examine those charts, you’ll notice CO2 levels never exceeded 6000 ppm. Also notice that the study also uses the GEOCARB model for analysis.

      • Socks, I don’t refuse anything. It is YOU who consistently refuses my kind offer. All it would cost is a simple acknowledgement that I was providing you with some knowledge. But in your particular case, that is much too expensive. So, as they say: take it or leave it. Because I have the links, and you need to learn. It’s up to you now.

        Next, SHF says:

        Quite right, CO2 has been much higher… Periods when the earth wasn’t warm correlate with periods of high CO2… but human civilization, carefully built to support 8 billion people in a relatively stable climate, would not survive a rise of 4C in less than 100 years.

        Yes, SHF, CO2 has been *much* higher in the past — close to twenty times higher, in fact. Further, it is not “modeled” that it was that high. Rather, verifiable empirical evidence indicates that fact. There is really no dispute about that question among mainstream geologists, but only among the ignoratii.

        I agree that a 4ºC swing in either direction would probably be catastrophic, if it occurred in less than a century. Also, a 4º cooling would be much more catastrophic than a 4º warming. Warming would cause sea levels to rise some, but that’s about all. But cooling of that magnitude would cause widespread, catastrophic famine. So you are right about that.

        Right now there are people trying furiously to spin the Narrative away from the global warming scare, and turn it into the new global cooling scare. They should have done that first.

        Too late, now. The internet remembers all their previous MMGW nonsense. So the alarmist crowd is stuck trying impotently to defend their original MMGW scare. That really sucks, if you’re one of them.

        Finally, the more time that passes, the more the climate Null Hypothesis matters. There are no climate parameters today that have not been exceeded in the past, and exceeded to a large degree. As climatologist Roy Spencer has pointed out, “the Null Hypothesis has never been falsified.”

        The follow-up to that is this: since the alarmist clique cannot falsify the Null Hypothesis, then the natural variability argument wins. There is simply no room for MMGW, as anyone who understands the Null Hypothesis knows.

      • Sorry Mr Dbstealey.

        “close to twenty times higher, in fact. ”

        Go check the Royer 2006 data……

        Look on page 5667

        10x might be a better “guess”….but your 20x is not supported by the data.

      • Soxie sez:

        The basis of your “20x” assertion comes from the GEOCARB III model…



        Yes, your assertion is based on a “model.”



        The reason you didn’t is because the truth of the matter is that your claim isn’t based on evidence, it is based on a “model”


        It is clear you do not know “the truth of the matter”. But your ignorance can be remedied by simply accepting my kind and generous offer to you.

        [Hey, if I’m making anything up, you can run around telling folks I was winging it. But of course the reverse holds true, when I provide you with verifiable links. But there’s only one way to find out…]

        It is becoming more clear by the comment that you are on a completely wrong track. Really, you don’t seem to have a clue.

        And the ball is still in your court…

      • dbstealey – “Yes, SHF, CO2 has been *much* higher in the past — close to twenty times higher, in fact. Further, it is not “modeled” that it was that high. Rather, verifiable empirical evidence indicates that fact. There is really no dispute about that question among mainstream geologists, but only among the ignoratii.”

        Why are you lecturing me on something we obviously agree on, since you said that in response to a comment where I acknowledged it? And since we also agree that a 4C swing in <100 years would be a wrecking ball to human society, the thing we actually disagree on is whether we're heading towards just that situation.

        But my belief is supported by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists (I've already read the WUWT posts "disproving" the 97%, no need to link) and every major scientific body in the world. Yours is backed by a handful of scientists, some sincere, others (though not all) funded by the fossil fuel industry, and others mad as a Monckton.

        But I hope you're right, Sincerely, not a word of sarcasm, I hope you are. But I have yet to be convinced.

      • Sir Harry Flashman

        “Rather, verifiable empirical evidence indicates that fact”

        Please help Mr Dbstealey out and post a citation that provides empirical evidence that CO2 was 20x higher in the past. He seems to be unable to provide me with a citation for that claim.

      • Lol, nah I’m gonna let this one go. Maybe 20x, probably more like 15 or 16x but either way my point is that higher CO2 concentrations don’t even come close to disproving the reality or the danger of AGW. The number is a bit of a sideshow.

      • Thank you Sir Harry, I guess I’ll have to wait on Mr Dbstealey posting a citation.

        If he said 10x, I wouldn’t have had an issue with his statement. 15x is a stretch, but I’m interested in the 20x claim.

      • socks says:

        If he said 10x, I wouldn’t have had an issue with his statement.

        Oh, sure. Who would believe that?

        You probably don’t recall my saying:

        either you can agree that I’m right if I post a citation as you demand, showing that CO2 has been almost twenty times higher in the past…

        I’ve mentioned that number with qualifiers all along. The point I was making, and which you will not face, is that CO2 was much higher at times in the past, without causing global warming, much less runaway global warming.

        Keep amusing me with your posts, please. We both know that the only way you’re going to get my citation is as offered. Deflecting from that only provides more amusement.

      • No, soxie, I made an offer that you can take or leave. It won’t cost you a cent either way.

        But either take it, or MovOn. You’re not getting it any other way.

      • [Snip. That link goes right back to this comment with no explanation. Always post some descriptive words with an explanation when posting links. Thanks. ~mod.]

    • Walt D.:
      That is an alarmist illogical cherry pick. Alarmists love to only identify sparse areas of data so that they can use over the top specious claims.

      Historical – record: Mankind’s actual recording of data and keeping the record. The alarmists then slip in various estimates of prehistory data as if that information was validly/verified/proved and honestly recorded.

      Mankind’s literacy period of history is like a flash of light in Earth’s physical geological record lifespan. CO2 is both a geological and atmospheric process; whether in solution, bound in molecular form or drifting free in the air.

      • Of course it’s been both hotter and cooler in the past, depending on various forcings and natural cycles.The point is that what happened before the human era is irrelevant because there was no human civilization to be at risk. Indeed, what happened throughout most of human history isn’t relevant, because the human population is much larger, and its dependency on a stable environment much greater than it has ever been before. Therefore while we remain at the mercy of nature to some degree, we’d do well to try and not make things worse for ourselves.

        Note use of facts and logic. This is not trolling. I am not part of a conspiracy and have no relationship or communication with any AGW proponents, beyond the occasional crossed comment. I have no interest in discrediting or disrupting this site for nefarious purposes; the regulars here seem to be doing a fine job of that all by themselves.

      • SHF says:

        Of course it’s been both hotter and cooler in the past, depending on various forcings and natural cycles.

        And that’s really all you needed to say.

        The onus of proving that “this time it’s different” is entirely on the alarmist crowd.

        But they have failed every step of the way. There is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening now. That is the Null Hypothesis, which must be falsified in order to make the alarmists’ claims of man-made global warming credible.

        But they have failed. Every step of the way.

        Maybe SHF can do better.

      • Your poor hands. Really flash man, you just can’t help yourself, can you?
        A warmer world is a better world. You seem to have swallowed the whole alarmist line
        Some people have a need to be frightened. Is that you?

  23. One graph of average temperatures vs. number of weather stations (Fig. 6 in Dr. Ball’s article) would suffice to debunk all CAGW claims. The essence of the alarmists’ nefarious scheme is right there, in our faces.

  24. One thing of note: This info about the Sir Harry Flashman in the book……
    “Flashman was in the British Army, acclaimed as a great soldier, while remaining “a scoundrel, a liar, a cheat, a thief, a coward—and oh yes, a toady.”
    That explains the posts here on WUWT

      • Read the books – while Sir Harry is all those things described, he is a strangely engaging and in some (very few) ways an admirable character. Although I’m really just a fan, I could not hope to emulate him :).

  25. Here is what did Ball do with his so called grip-plot.

    From here:


    He got this:

    And says:

    “Figure 10 shows the Northern Hemisphere temperature for the period variously called the Climatic Optimum, the Hypsithermal, and the Holocene Optimum.”

    Of course it is not. It is the gisp2 tempereature recontruction for Greenland (there goes the sparcity of measurments…). The one that ends in 1855. But this is with at twist. In this graph the last values are “modified” so that it ends with lower values to the end. A pure fabrication. Gisp2 as we all should know (including Ball) looks like this:

    One might ask, whatever happened to the warm 30-40ies? That did not happen i Greenland?


    “The red line, added to the original diagram, imposes the approximate 20th century temperatures (right side) against those of the last 10,000 years. As CO2Science noted from Dahl-Jensen (1998)”

    As Mike M noted. That is not the same reconstruction as gisp2. That is a borehole reconstruction. Not the same proxy. Here is that proxy from Dahl-Jensen:

    The grip-borehole and the dye3 borehole. Notice the difference between those two. We can compare with Greenland isotopes:

    From here:


    Well, well. Hockeystick. From isotopes that according to some here in this thread are the best proxies. For those who dare: compare the last values (up to about 1960 -1970) with MWP.


    “The GRIP borehole inversion is therefore the only data set suggesting significantly higher temperatures during the MCA than during the 1950s, lending further support to the speculation that the quite low accumulation rate at the GRIP drill site did hamper the inversion of this recent short-lived climatic warming.”

    So there we have it. Presentation of “modified” Gisp2 (some would call it something else) where the “modified” values are supposed to represent the present, mixing Gisp2 isotopes and Grip borehole, cherrypicking the proxy with lowest level to the end (the clearest outlier).

    Fool me once etc.

    • We are presently in the coolest part of the Holocene because the trend has been a cooling trend, with slight fluctuations. Recent warming does not alter the fact that temperatures are stepping down into a new ice age. We need the benefits of more warming. So far, CO2 has let us down.

      • The long term cooling trend of the Holocene since the Climatic Optimum (aka the Holocene Optimum) was an established fact even before alarmist lame brains tried to hijack climate science and turn it into a cult. Rooter, with his incoherent pseudo-science is a perfect example of that type.

      • How does mpainter know we are in the coolest part of the Holocene?

        By do a massive infilling from a “modified” proxy from Greenland?

        And do mpainter deny the warming in Greenland in the 20th century?

        mpainter will keep on avoiding that. Guaranteed.

      • Rooter
        You choose not to believe ice core d18O paleoclimate data. It is by far the best and it is the only proxy that is verifiably connected to global temperature.
        You need to get up to speed on the subject. You are making a nuisance out of yourself with your querulous ignorance.

      • mpainter:

        From where do you get the impression that I do not believe d180 proxies. Have another new look at this:

        Do you believe d180 proxies mpainter?

      • See d18O reconstructions for the Holocene. Read up on Climatic Optimum (aka Holocene Optimum).
        Read up on principles of climate i. e., warmer means wetter (the Holocene Pluvial), check out the climate history of N. Africa, other deserts.
        Study the temp. reconstructions of the Pleistocene; note the step down from the interstadials and interglacial. Everything points to a continuation of the cooling trend. Antarctic sea ice is growing, Arctic sea ice is rebounding, Greenland ice loss has reversed.
        A warmer world is a better world
        We are heading for another ice age and you alarmists with your bugaboos are a menace to society.

      • How long were the d180 proxies valid for mpainter?

        Until he saw more updated d180 proxies. At than point he started denying their validity and existence.

    • Thank you for putting this together, rooter. It is nice to see someone relying on data, rather than merely making vague assertions, as mpainter does.

      • Mike M.
        Please be kind enough to point out for me my vague assertions so that I can remedy them. If your have any difficulty in understanding or questions or need any clarification, why do you not ask?

      • Or you might study up on the topics which I have presented in my comment above. That should help your understanding of climate issues. Assuming you want to understand, of course.

  26. Why not check out Ball’s number 6 where he says:

    “Figure 6 shows that fewer stations are a contributing factor to higher temperatures.”

    Why not check what happens with increase the number of stations? From here:


    .. we can see what happens. First number of stations compared to GHCN M:

    Well. That was really something. Many more stations. Gridbox coverage increases too:

    And the result for a gridded temperature series:

    Wellwell. The effect of just adding stations and coverage is higher temperatures after 1990. Exactly the opposite of Ball’s claim. The effect of this increased number of coverage would of course be smaller with proper infilling.

    Anyone who believes Ball will change his mind because of this?

    • Dr. Ball’s link on figure 6 leads to complete information on sources of the data, specifically. Your link leads to no revelant information.
      Rooter, you fall far below Dr. Ball in the rigor and reliability of your science.

      • Also needs to be pointed out that ice core d18O temperature reconstructions are valid as a global proxy. This is because the isotope ratios depend on SST in large part.

      • That was a waste of time for me. No information that I could see. Neither do I visit SKS, another waste of time, nor HotWhopper.
        It is not a question of learning to follow links, but rather being able to recognize a dead end.

      • mpainter now thinks d180 are valid global proxies. Because of SST. Of course we all know that change in SST is the same all over the world. No difference between the South Pacific and the North Atlantic for example.

        And of course, why then does Ball use a cherrypicked borehole proxy?

        And if the d180 are global, mpainter should of course explain the differences between those proxies. Even from Greenland.

    • The big question is urban island effect. Do you have bar chart of the number weather station per year to correspond to this graph ? It is deceptive to say that 2014 was the warmest year as the interval is within standard error. To me this is all inconclusive and fails to provide evidence to control CO2. As for suspended particulates, SOX and NOx, that is an entirely different manner.

  27. I don’t think the climate argument will ever be resolved with graphs and their alleged quality or lack thereof.
    For the public weather is more about perception and unfortunately for our AGW adherents the weather just doesn’t seem to be cooperating right now.
    Where are those mild winters and those long brutally hot summers from a few years ago?
    If I were in the AGW camp I would be advising the president to schedule more of his talks under the noonday sun where there’s a good probabilty that sweat will form and there will be a better chance for taking off your jacket, rolling up your sleeves, brow mopping and so forth.

    • Yes, must be mindful of proper propaganda techniques. Very foolish of them to squawk about the “warmist evah” in the midst of a January blizzard.

    • If you live anywhere other than the northern part of the North American continent, your experience is very likely quite different. The United States is not the world.

      • No such claim was made, flash man.
        Wring your hands to your heart’s delight, fine. But you never have any other sort of comment, never make any contribution to understanding.

      • No handwringing here, mp. My first sentence was purely factual, the second a reasonably commentary based on my first observation – ie that the poster was referring to North America but implying that the situation reflected the whole world. If you disagree with my statement on global vs North American temperatures, explain why. If you don’t, your comment is pointless. I’m starting to think you’re the troll here.

  28. Sorry ladies andgents but please, please stop feeding the trolls. What possible purpose does it serve? you will not change their minds, they post anonymously and they are really not worth the time you see to waste on them.

    They seem to have some notification that stick them in as first commenter on each posting and I guarantee if we stop responding to them they will eventally sod off.

    • David Harrington

      You say of the trolls

      I guarantee if we stop responding to them they will eventally (sic) sod off.

      Well, I “guarantee” they won’t.

      Their purpose is to disrupt and to spread disinformation. Allowing their disinformation to remain unchallenged encourages them.

      Trolls cannot learn because they choose not to learn, but onlookers can be informed. Nobody refutes a troll in hope that the troll will learn. The disinformation from trolls is refuted for the benefit of onlookers.


  29. If the anomaly at the poles is 3 C, which IIRC is the generally accepted IPCC figure with polar amplification over the past 60 years (since 1950?) and the area of the earth poleward from the 60 latitudes constitutes~;13.5% of the globe, then this area is responsible for 0.135 x 3.0= 0.4C degrees contributed to global temperature anomaly. This suggests that the rest of the world is not warming much at all (Willis’s look at Argo data and his “governor” theory of climate suggests that equatorial temps haven’t warmed significantlyl.) Perhaps if we took 50 lats, the warming may virtually all have taken place in these larger polar “caps”.

    A simple engine model (nothing new here but simplification) with the firebox in, say, 20S to 20N and the exhaust 50-60Lat and poleward effected by air and water circulation (return circulation of cold for re- heating). Energy added at the firebox over time = work done by the kinetic energy of moving wind and water + heat at the exhaust end (amplification of heat at polar areas) plus heat radiated out to space. This simplified model suggests that even the IPCC is not expecting a significant warming where most people live, but rather a warming where it is cold by a few degrees. The average temperatures poleward of 60Lats then are still going to be cool and the rest of the world is not going to warm by much.

    If more heat energy comes into the firebox, the engine speeds up increasing work done by kinetic energy and an increase in polar areas warming and in radiation of heat out to space. If less energy comes in, the governor will try to maintain the energy flux into the system (Willis’s retarding the appearance of clouds) but once all stops have been pulled out (the sky is clear morning to night), then the engine slows down – slower air and water currents, less addition of heat to the polar areas, dissipation of what heat has accumulated by radiation into space and return cold water not getting the heating it formerly did. I think we can monitor the engine’s performance with a few good thermometers ringing the polar areas and around the equatorial band. Probably monitor changes in air and water flows and it would be pretty complete for forecasting where we seem to be headed.

  30. and when you take the Vostok ice core we’re in one of the 3% of the coldest years of…. the coldest interstadial… Anyone that reads a bit more in-depth in paleoclimatology knows that….

    the Emian interstadial was ways warmer then now (up to 6°C) To my knowledge the polar bears survived that too….

    i really wonder what we would say if we had 10000 years of reliable data i bet nothing special.

  31. The temperature-record adjustments will only serve to discredit the AGW extremists. They will have to live with the conditions of lower temperatures then and higher temperatures now. That makes it harder to show any increase in temperatures. They have about wrung the rag dry.

  32. Your graph in figure 10 shows a positive slope, but your graph shows a negative slope.
    What’s up with that ? I do agree that the warmest year is baloney and a statistical fraud.

  33. If Tim is correct, which I firmly believe he is, then could not the proponents of AGW be guilty of “Crimes Against Humanity” ? These false claims could cause the demise of the world’s economy and as a result death and disease in the Third World.

    • On what data do you base your premise that moving to a low carbon civilization would destroy the global economy?

      • When everyone freezes to death, it is bad for the economy. GNP goes way down.
        Greenland ice loss has reversed. Arctic sea ice is rebounding. Antarctic ice has been expanding for years.
        The Holocene is approaching its termination. CO2 is not working like it is supposed to, flash man. Do something
        Wring your hands.

      • Sorry, brother, everything you’ve said about the climate cooling is nonsense unsupported by fact. Show me otherwise, and not another link to this blog.

      • SHF says:

        On what data do you base your premise that moving to a low carbon civilization would destroy the global economy?

        He didn’t say “destroy”, that’s just your spin.

        And, you don’t need data for that. I certainly don’t, any more than I need data to know the sun will rise in the east.

        All you need is common sense. For the minority who use common sense, very little data is necessary to know that a “low carbon” economy is far less efficient than an economy run on fossil fuel energy [coal, preferably, because it is the least expensive power].

        “Carbon” has been demonized by the alarmist cult. But why? There is not one credible bit of evidence that CO2 is a problem. There is no ‘data’ showing that. More CO2 [“carbon”] is beneficial for the biosphere, and there is zero evidence showing that a little more of that beneficial trace gas is harmful in any way.

        SHF, you are the victim of alarmist nonsense, plus your own credulity. If you like the way it sounds, you will buy into it. You crave demonizing ‘carbon’, so you buy into that nonsense. Why can’t you think for yourself?

  34. David Socrates January 21, 2015 at 12:29 pm
    OK Mr acementhead

    ” the graph is not confusing ”

    From your experience flying aircraft, please tell all of us, what the dark ticks on the graph represent, and what the light ones represent. (hence the interval of each tick) Then, tell us when the graph starts and when does it end.

    David Socrates my apologies for not responding sooner.

    My ability to interpret the graph easily and correctly has nothing to do with my flying experience. My, unstated, point was that even a moronic lunkhead such as an airline pilot could instantly and easily understand the graph; it doesn’t take a genius ‘climate scientist’ to do so.

    The graph is labeled

    Temp Anomalies. rel to base 1979-2000, 1 year to Dec 2011

    so clearly it refers to the twelve months starting Jan 2011 and ending Dec 2011. Therefore it is obvious that each interval between the ticks is one month, so the bold ticks refer to end of Mar, Jun and Sept sequentially from left to right. Clearly the information refers to Average Anomaly for each month so it is not a continuous variable and would perhaps be better plotted as points rather than a continuous curve.

    I believe that an average twelve year old child could understand the graph.

    Hope this helps.

  35. colima just blew its top so warmers have a built-in excuse for 2015.

    they really need to tighten up the models to measure the effects of this volcanism thingy….

  36. 2014 being one of the coldest years on record in the last 10,000 years makes more sense to me, given how pleasant it apparently was in Dallas/Fort Worth during the summer (which I missed, because I was in pleasantly cool Europe during that time), which would make it the coolest summer we had since 1989, the year my son was born. Thank you, Tim Ball, for your scholarship and determination to get at the truth.

  37. I noticed that the map of Canada weather stations, in this Tim Ball post, those stations contributing to this “record warm year” were almost all located along the U.S Border. And why not, it is a well known fact that 90% of Canada’s population lives within 100 miles of the U.S Border – that’s where the urban heat islands are. Like the late John Daly noted, rural reporting stations show no warming trend going back 100 years.

  38. Robert, they vary. It’s up towards the authors. Many with the letters coming up are handwritten, or hand-notated, it’s about half and half. Though most on the first letters were typed. The fourth letter was a comic.

  39. I like nature and reality. They have a wonderful way of kicking the promoters of false science in the head. The AGW snake oil salesmen will still be promoting their lies when icebergs are sinking ships in the North Sea, blizzards envelope most of North America and frosts kill their summer crops. But by that time, apart from scaredy-cat politicians, no one will be listening because they will be too busy clearing their sidewalks and wondering how they will feed themselves.

  40. “…HOW…WILL THEY FEED THEMSELVES…”? no worries there, mate- they will already have fed all the zombie vibrants- and their bones will feed the soil- with a bit of carbon!! nice irony there, eh?

  41. “This chart shows Northern Hemisphere temperature changes over the last 10,000 years, based on ice core data.

    This chart shows central Greenland temperature changes over the last 10,000 years, up to 1855, based on ice core data at one point.”

    Apple: GRIP ice core data from one spot, in the middle of Greenland, above the Arctic Circle.
    Orange: Global temperatures derived from different kinds of proxies around the world.

    What has happened in central Greenland over the past 10,000 years is very interesting, but it has very little to do with global temperatures. Comparing the last 2000 years of GRIP with the 2000-year Pages 2K reconstruction.

    In addition, this ice core ends at 1855, 160 years ago.

Comments are closed.