The climate warming pause goes AWOL – or maybe not

By S. Fred Singer

Oh boy! Get ready to watch yet another big fight about climate change – this time mainly among different groups of climate alarmists. Is there a “pause”? Did global climate really stop warming during the last dozen years, 18 years, or even 40 years – in spite of rising levels of the greenhouse (GH) gas carbon dioxide?

Science mag is publishing a blockbuster paper today, on June 5. The renowned National Climate Data Center (NCDC), a division of NOAA located in Asheville, NC, claims that the widely reported (and accepted) temperature hiatus (i.e., near-zero trend) is an illusion – just an artifact of data analysis – and that the global climate never really stopped warming. If true, what a blessing that would be for the UN-IPCC – and for climate alarmists generally, who have been under siege to explain the cause of the pause.

This paper is turning out to be a “big deal.” The publisher of Science has even issued a special press release, promoting the NCDC claim of continued slow but steady warming.

Of course, NCDC-NOAA and Science may end up with egg on their collective faces. It does look a little suspicious that NCDC arrived at this earth-shaking “discovery” after all these years, after “massaging” its own weather-station data, just before the big policy conference in December in Paris that is supposed to slow the rise of CO2 from the burning of energy fuels, coal, oil, and gas.

Now watch the sparks fly — as there are two major constituencies that have a vested interest in the pause:

There are at least two rival data centers that may dispute the NCDC analysis:
the Hadley Centre in England and the NASA-Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). In fact, Hadley’s partner, the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, was the first to announce, on the BBC, the existence of a pause in global warming.

Then there are also dozens of scientists who have published research papers, purporting to provide an explanation for the reported pause. Yours truly turns out to be amongst these. They will all be mightily disappointed if their intellectual efforts turn out to be for naught.

But hold on. NCDC may turn out to be quite wrong. Not surprisingly, they used the surface temperature record, with its well-known problems. Not only that, but a look at the detailed NCDC evidence shows that much depends on polar temperatures — which are mostly guessed at, for lack of good observations. If one uses the (truly global) satellite data, analyzed either by UAH or by RSS, the pause is still there, starting around 2003 [see Figure; it shows a sudden step increase around 2001, not caused by GH gases].


Not only that, but the same satellite data show no warming trend from 1979 to 2000 – ignoring, of course, the exceptional super-El-Nino year of 1998. This finding is confirmed by other, independent instrumental data — and also by (non-instrumental) proxy records (from tree rings, ice cores, lake sediments). This leads to important far-reaching consequences that are more fully discussed and referenced in the reports of NIPCC (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change) [search, esp. the CCR-II report of 2013].

UN-IPCC claims for AGW undermined

IPCC-4 [2007] and IPCC-5 [2013] both present claims for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) that are based mainly on reported surface warming from 1979 to 2000. In the absence of such a warming trend, the IPCC claims become invalid; there would be no human-caused greenhouse warming in the 20th century – and certainly not earlier.

It is worthwhile, therefore, to re-examine carefully the absence of warming in the last two decades of the 20th century.

The satellite results of near-zero warming trend are fully backed by radiosonde data from balloon flights — notwithstanding spurious claims by Santer et al [in Int’l J of Climatology 2008; see full discussion by Singer in Energy&Envir 2013]. The absence of a tropical “Hotspot” (a once-controversial upper-troposphere warming trend) “makes the cheese more binding.”

Sea-surface temperatures (SST) show only a slight warming – as do night-time marine air temperatures (NMAT), assembled by the Hadley group. Data on ocean heat content before 2000 are spotty and not very useful. In any case, the interpretation of vertical temperature profiles would require factoring in ocean circulation at different levels.

Proxy data of various types, assembled by Fredrik Ljungqvist in Sweden, and independently by NOAA scientist David Anderson, generally show no warming; Michael Mann never released his post-1979 proxy data, and has even denied their existence (in a personal 1990 email); one suspects that the reason is they show no warming.

A quick word about the observed (and genuine) warming interval 1910-40. It can be seen not only in surface thermometers at weather stations, temperature records from ships, but in all published proxy records. Alas, I could not find any atmospheric temperature data for that period. It is generally agreed, however – including by IPCC –that this warming is of natural origin and not from GH gases.

Thus there is no evidence whatsoever of any GH warming from human-released CO2 — during the whole of the 20th century or earlier.

The bottom line

One can certainly argue about whether the NCDC results are correct –and I expect many months of back-and-forth. So, has global warming really stopped? We will know for sure in just a few years.

There will certainly be debate also about my proposition of no evidence at all for AGW. We will need a persuasive answer to the puzzle — why do land thermometers show a warming before 2000, but not after 2000? I may have an answer, but must first try to convince my colleagues.

One thing is quite certain, however: Current IPCC climate models cannot explain what the observations clearly show. This makes the models unsuitable for climate prediction – and for policy purposes generally.


This article originally published on American Thinker

S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and a founding director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project; in 2014, after 25 years, he stepped down as president of SEPP. His specialty is atmospheric and space physics. An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere. He is a Senior Fellow of the Heartland Institute and the Independent Institute. He co-authored the NY Times best-seller Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years. In 2007, he founded and has chaired the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change), which has released several scientific reports [See]. For recent writings see and also Google Scholar.

300 thoughts on “The climate warming pause goes AWOL – or maybe not

  1. Get ready to watch yet another big fight about climate change – this time mainly among different groups of climate alarmists.

    I think the best thing the UAH and RSS camps can do is make some popcorn and enjoy the show. This has the potential to bring Multi-Decadal Discord among the surface temperature camps.

    • I disagree. Sitting on the sidelines will let others control the conversation. The more voices, the better; especially when those with a broader understanding of the factors affecting climate change speak reasonably and clearly. They have to be consistent in rebuking the name-calling too.

    • Consider this it may be much more than a simple pause or hiatus, What we may be experiencing now is Earth’s PGW (Peak Global Warming).

      • We are most definitely going into a cold cycle now. It always shows up first in Hudson Bay and New England and then the rest of the world gets it. All ice ages started this way, too.

  2. In another forum, someone made the claim that the adjustment to the buoy readings just _coincidentally_ happened to match the error bars of those same thermometers. In other words, they got their warming through assuming that 100% of the reading errors from those buoys were maxed in a positive direction.

    • I’m not sure they have to assume. The modern temperatures are always adjusted right to the top of their error bars and then, on reflection a few years later, adjusted right to the bottom of the error bars. That way, every year is the “hottest ever”, and the trend is always up.

      I first noticed these manipulations back in 2010. The newest readings are always adjusted up, only to be retroactively adjusted down a few year later.

      • We call this ‘cooling the past and heating up the present’. It is a game they love to play. Eventually the 1998-1999 super el nino will shrink to ‘coldest year EVAH.’

  3. I have posted the following on one of the many threads here!

    The FACT is that warming IS continuing, it is! It’s just nothing, nothing at all like we were told it would be. I know Moncky boy likes to use RSS, but if you choose HadCRUt4, the warming IS continuing.
    Until that warming stops, and it actually starts cooling (which I think it will), then we don’t have much of a case. And we are in danger of pissing on our own chips if asked to justify the ‘pause’. 21st century warming is still on an upward trajectory. UAH shows this too.

    We are missing a trick here. PLEASE, people, we should be banging on about the IPCC’s projections, and how far out they were/are. We should be arguing that spending trillions is unnecessary and futile – howsoever the warming is caused.

    Yes, I know even HadCRUt4 isn’t very good, as I believe it too extrapolates for the Arctic, but look, even UAH is showing continued warming. To justify our argument, we need to see those lines in those graphs above level off – minimum. WHEN, and only when, the 21st century shows a downward trend, then we should set up a fund to pay for full-page advertisements in all the big global dailys, with a simple graph and a footnote, telling the public that they are being conned by their own governments, and by silent scientists. But I say again, the FACT is that warming IS continuing…it simply is. Deal with it. Let’s just wait, and watch

      • Bruce, don’t be absurd. Anyone here will testify that I am as much a warming sceptic as anyone here. ALL date points are cherry-picked – all of them. The IPCC ‘cherry-picks’ theirs and we pick ours. My point, (and congrats on missing it, jeez!) is that much is made of 21st century ‘warming’ or lack of it. But it is still warming.

      • Ghost, you can’t come on here and suggest using HadCRUt4. The group of commenters here know all too well that all the ground based teperature records are hopelessly flawed to the point that they are unusable. If you want to use UHA, fine, we can use that, but that is as far as we are willing to go.

      • Try changing the start point of your graphs to 2002. You will then see your cherries picked.

      • Oh dear. I have to say I’m very disappointed. I’ve been visiting wuwt for many years, I’ve argued points on climate science, and been educated. I’ve found Willis’ threads very enjoyable and hugely informative. I’ve also liked reading Bob Tisdale’s graph-filled posts. However, much as I enjoy it here (as a die-hard warming sceptic), I may have to evaluate if I join in, in future. Reading some of the comments, it’s quite clear that some people really can’t comprehend very basic stuff. I don’t mean that in a condescending way. But we have people here who JUST want to use RSS because that shows them what they want to see. I find that truly incredible. It reminds me of the warmists I used to argue with on the old BBC forums 12 years ago. How can you take such a position as that!!?? ‘RSS shows what I want to see, so I’m not looking at anything else, so there.’ Someone even wanted to only use data since 2002!!! Amazing. As I explained, I know all too well that HadCRUt4 is flawed, but on balance it is the best surface temp record we have. The satellite data is flawed as well – do some of you even know that it doesn’t actually measure temperature?

        I want to make one final attempt to get some of you around to the idea that we can’t pick and choose stuff that suits us, or our argument. Having been arguing with warmists since 2003, the vast majority of those arguments have been about the data since 1980ish, but also, very often, since 1998 (for obvious reasons). The years after 1998 did not see the continuation of that year’s ‘The Great El Nino’ warming. And is VERY clear that models and projections of warming have been pathetic up against reality. BUT, like it or not, a meta study of all data shows that warming is still on the rise – and yes, slowly; within error bands, noise, blah-de-blah.
        You just have to suck that up. You can ignore it if you wish, but that’s for your mind to wrestle with. I’m not going to name-names, but many of the posts below don’t even warrant a reply, such is the ridiculousness of their position.

        wuwt has always been a great place to come and talk to like-minded people about warming, or lack of it. But if our argument has become as silly as some of those shown on skepticalscience and realclimate, where we (or rather, some) will only use RSS because it shows what they want, then wuwt has taken a wrong turn, and that’s a great shame.

        As long as this green line…
        …is still upward, then we have to argue on that, on its cause. We CANNOT pick and choose datasets that support our position. To do so is fraudulent, and it’s arguing from a point of weakness.

      • Reading some of the comments, it’s quite clear that some people really can’t comprehend very basic stuff.

        Totally. Like presenting a single line representing a “global temperature”. Only a moron would do that.

      • Jeff, you genius, you. The graph I linked to is a meta study – it may be the best thing we have to the global anomaly. The green line is an aid to indicate where it is going. But of course, you’d know that, what with you being a genius, and all. Nighty-night, you’ll be going back to kindergarten on Monday.

      • The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley: “But we have people here who JUST want to use RSS because that shows them what they want to see.”

        Whereas you refuse to use RSS because it shows you what you don’t want to see, perhaps?

        Actually, most informed sceptical commenters use RSS and UAH satellite datasets because they judge them to be the least interfered with or “homogenised” and to have the most universal Global measured – as opposed to Kriged or whatever – coverage compared with the terrestrial datasets.

        Why do you pretend to have such extraordinary difficulty appreciating that?

    • UAH 6.0 has made the difference between RSS and UAH very tiny. UAH 6.0 is not showing continued warming.

      So far, the MSM has pretty much ignored Karl et al.

      “Let’s just wait, and watch”

      I’ll agree with that, for now. I’d go for some pointed questions to alarmists, though. I think my observation that Karl et al’s warming rate means it will take 200 years to reach the magic +2C° rise may be a good needle.

      • Well Ric, I just use woodfortrees for the convenience. I saw the new version on Roy Spencer’s own site, don’t know why it hasn’t made it to woodfortrees yet.

    • But Big Jim, Hadcrut 4 has only just been adjusted to show warming to bring it in line with GISS & BEST, so why would you use it?

      • HADCRUT4 V HADCRUT3 October 10, 2012
        By Paul Homewood
        12 month average anomaly
        Dec 1998 0.55 0.52
        Dec 2011 0.34 0.40
        Increase/Decrease -0.21 -0.12

        The new version increases warming (or rather decreases cooling) since 1998 by 0.09C, a significant amount for a 13 year time span. Whilst the changes should not affect the trend in future years, they will affect the debate as to whether temperatures have increased in the last decade or so.

        Thru 2011 it was showing a decrease, just not as large as the pre-massaged HADCrut3.

        What to use? Why not NCDC. From their yearly summary

        (1) The Climate of 1997 – Annual Global Temperature Index = 62.45 °F [16.92°C. ]

        (2) 2014 annual global land and ocean surfaces temperature = 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F) = 14.59°C (58.24 °F)

        Which number do you think NCDC/NOAA thinks is the record high. And do you consider this proof that cooling is going on?

      • Both UAH and RSS show 1998 as SIGNIFICANTLY warmer then 2014 or 2015 YTD. It is not even close. Clearly the bulk of the atmosphere has cooled since 1998. It helps to see this visually…

    • Amen Big Jim.
      The slight, but continuous, warming affirms the position of those skeptical scientists.
      The longer it goes on the more confidence we can have in the direct logarithm greenhouse effect from CO2 of 1C for a doubling of CO2. The evidence of the speculation for the additional so-called “positive feedback”, “amplification” etc (or whatever they wish to call it) starting with the Charney report in 1979 just doesn’t exist.

      • It is impossible for theoretical CO2 impacts to be anything other than logarithmic. Linear and compounding claims project surface temperatures surpassing those of the planet Venus with less than 5% of its CO2 concentration.

      • Wicked,

        Good point. During the Phanerozoic Eon, ie the past ~540 million years, there are only been two brief excursions in average global temperature over about 22 degrees C.

        If IPCC’s fantasy of 4.5 degrees for doubling of CO2 holds then we have this:

        280 ppm: 13.7 C
        560 ppm: 18.2 C
        1120 ppm: 22.7 C
        2240 ppm: 27.2 C

        Not going to happen. Didn’t happen when CO2 concentration was 7000 ppm in the Cambrian Period. The sun’s power then was over 95% of present. Didn’t happen at 5000 ppm in the Ordovician, when there was an ice age, with solar output at 96% of current. Didn’t happen in the Silurian, Devonian or Early Cretaceous, with CO2 still in the thousands of ppm and solar radiation at 97%.

        Thanks to another, longer ice age, CO2 dropped in the Late Cretaceous and Early Permian, but recovered before the End Permian Mass Extinction Event. CO2 levels were again in the thousands rather than hundreds during the Mesozoic Era, with solar power at 99% of now, but again no runaway warming. Ditto during the early Cenozoic, despite the peak warmth of the PETM.

      • The 1 C is, however, the change in the equilibrium temperature and unobservable. In view of the unobservability, belief in the existence of a linear relation from the change in the logarithm of the CO2 concentration to the change in the equilibrium temperature is pseudoscientific.

    • If the tenth of a degree warming this century is within the margin of error, then you can’t honestly say that “the warming IS continuing” can you?

    • Speaking of missing the point, isn’t the skeptical view less about warming and more about “is man causing it” as claimed by the warmist propaganda. If skeptics get too picky about the fine points their message can get lost on the average Joe!
      Carbon is not a pollutant and temps are not going up in sync. Isn’t that our case!!!

      • X100.
        This is what Lindzen has been saying for years.
        Does C02 contribute to warming?
        How much does it contribute?
        Almost immeasurable.

      • The problem with that argument is that if they can show a graph of steadily rising CO2 and steadily rising temperature, the average LIV sees it and says “it’s warming now, and CO2 is the cause OMG PONIES!!1!”. If they see a graph of steadily rising CO2 and temperature meandering up and sideways willy-nilly, the implied causation isn’t speciously evident.

        This is a propaganda war, and yes, this is, in the words of the most brilliant VP ever, a BFD.

      • To Harold:
        The problem is nobody can find a graph showing a positive correlation between increasing CO2 from the beginning of reliable measurements at Mauna Lua in 1958 and ANY temperature anomalies data set from that date up to now. None exists. So such cannot be shown for claiming that CO2 is responsible to temperature anomalies increase.
        The best you can find is from 1959 to 1978 (or so) CO2 was increasing while temperature anomalies were decreasing.
        Then from 1978 or so until 1998 or so, both CO2 and temperature anomalies were increasing, good correlation for this phase.
        After this, the third phase (the pause, hiatus you name it) shows CO2 continuing to increase to this day while temperature anomalies, again pick your data set, are barely doing anything.

      • The problem is nobody can find a graph showing a positive correlation between increasing CO2 from the beginning of reliable measurements at Mauna Lua in 1958 and ANY temperature anomalies data set from that date up to now. None exists.

        I think that can be accounted for by PDO flux. But it is only in line with Arrhenius (1906), and that means we top out well within the “net benefits” zone.

    • RSS shows cooling since 1997, even more since 2001.

      UAH has been updated and is now very close to RSS.

      So there’s your cooling this century.

      As for Hadcrut4 and all the other mutilated products of Mosh/Zeke/Gavin etc. etc….

      So when you post “But I say again, the FACT is that warming IS continuing…it simply is. Deal with it. Let’s just wait, and watch”, I think perhaps it is YOU that is missing a trick.

    • We are obviously continuing to warm since leaving the Little Ice Age which is said to ended by 1850.
      But the warming has little to do with CO2 levels, though warming causes some increase if CO2 levels. Though it seems the human activity has added
      a considerable amount to increasing CO2 levels.
      Or increasing CO2 levels probably have mostly been caused by human activity, though the increase in temperature is unlikely caused by CO2.
      What increasing CO2 levels have caused is a global greening of deserts, and increase plant growth in general and a significant increase in crop yields.

      So the measure of warming world is gradual warming of oceans with result of slow increase in global sea level. And seems likely in coming centuries sea levels will continue to rise, and mostly from the ocean slightly warming.
      So in another 100 years we could see rise temperature by as much as 1 C, though probably closer to .5 C. And within 100 years we might see a ice free
      Arctic ocean by late summer and it seems the expansion of sea ice in southern ocean will stop and possibly retreat.
      But tend to agree that in short term of couple decades, temperatures may lower a bit [that doesn’t mean warming since time of Little Ice Age has stopped- it’s natural variability].

      • If we see an ice free Arctic in the next 100 years, it certainly won’t be any time in the next 15-20 (and certainly won’t be the first time this has happened either) as once the AMO flips to the cool cycle the story will stop being a melting Arctic and probably then we’ll start hearing the alarms about the Antarctic melting away since the 2 poles are in opposite cycles. As for any warming, is anyone here that’s commenting an actual climate scientist or met? Seems no one is mentioning the AMO & PDO and the fact that the AMO is nearing the end of its warm cycle. With the sun continuing to be unusually quiet, we’re headed for some brutally cold winters over the next decade+ and maybe some chilly summers in some places as well. And even during the coldest PDO cycles, there are always a few years thrown in that have a bounce of warmth.–just as in the current cycle of the cooler PDO, there have been a couple of years thrown in that have been quite warm (but still nothing that hasn’t happened before). To keep talking about CO2 is simply ridiculous. If you want to talk about it at all, why not mention the fact that CO2 continues to rise even though our cars are now expelling very little CO2 and power plants & industry are also expelling less CO2 than say even 20 years ago. The rise in CO2 also is nothing that hasn’t happened before. In fact, we’ve had periods when we’ve had much higher CO2 but lower temps as well as periods when we’ve had lower CO2 but warmer temps so how anyone sees any correlation between CO2 & temps is beyond me and not based on actual fact. It’s kind of the same AGW argument–they see temps going up from the late ’70’s through the 90’s and see CO2 rising during the same period and are naive enough or dumb enough or simply disingenuous enough to say that the increase in CO2 caused the warming. So, what was the excuse during the previous warm period of the late teens to late 30’s? Or what was the excuse for rising CO2 during the 60’s & 70’s but dramatically cooler temps?

      • @ gbaikie

        But the warming has little to do with CO2 levels, though warming causes some increase if CO2 levels.

        And just why are you arguing with yourself?

        Though it seems the human activity has added a considerable amount to increasing CO2 levels. Or increasing CO2 levels probably have mostly been caused by human activity,

        The above is simply a mimicking of a “figment of the imagination” of the vocally avid proponents of CAGW ……. which is attested to by the fact that there is NO “human signature” recognizable in the past 57 years of atmospheric CO2 data as per recorded by the Mauna Loa observatory.

        So the measure of warming world is gradual warming of oceans with result of slow increase in global sea level.

        YUP, and that same “gradual warming of oceans” also confirms your above claim that “warming causes some increase in CO2 levels” ……. which is attested to by the fact that atmospheric CO2 ppm has been “steadily & consistently” increasing an average of 2 ppm each and every year for the past 57 years as per the Mauna Loa record.

        Just like the past 57 years of “steady & consistent” bi-yearly cycling of atmospheric CO2 ppm as per the seasonal temperature change in the ocean waters of the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.

        There is nothing else in the natural world that is precisely yearly “cyclic” …… other than the seasonal equinoxes and solstices,.

        Human activities = NO, …… local/regional weather events = NO, …. near surface land temperatures = NO, …… volcanic eruptions = NO, ……… El Ninos/La Ninas = NO, ……… NOTHING.

      • My understanding is that UAH v6.0 is still beta. It was released to it could be scrutinized. Roy said it will go ‘final’ when yheir paper on the algorithm revisions is published, although he has explained them in some detail on his blog.

    • Dear “The Ghost of Big Jim Cooley”,
      The expression you use in your comment (Moncky boy) is not necessary and it is insulting.

      You will use that person’s correct name in future. Think on.

      • Dear “The Ghost of Big Jim Cooley”,
        I agree with Warren Latham but I ask, rather than demand, that you use that person’s correct name in future.

        Please do not denigrate anyone by mocking their names.

        It doesn’t help address the issues.

      • Wickedwenchfan, It is not political correctness that Warren has an issue with. He is simply urging the use of common courtesy/civility, something that you seem to have a problem in understanding. Please play nicely!

    • There is so much wrong with HadCRU that it is worse than worthless garbage. It’s anti-scientific, as totally unverifiable, its underlying “data” having been “lost”. And that’s just for starters.

      All the “surface record” sets are pack of lies.

      RSS shows no 21st century warming and neither will UAH after its needed adjustment.

      So far in this century, the globe has cooled and it will probably continue doing so for at least two more decades.

    • The big picture… This is like picking up the imperfections of a slate pool table with a microscope. Crazy how much time and resources have been wasted on the natural weather.

    • HadCRU 4 is over adjusted HadCRU 3 which is over adjusted hadCRU2 which is over adjusted ………….

      So plenty of accuracy there to 0.0001 °C

    • Jim. Isn’t the UAH sync’ing their V6 dataset with RSS and it is now showing similar lack of warming?

      I disagree with using HadCRUt4 alone. I’ll take the 2 satellite datasets for 2 reasons:
      1) Coverage. They cover more of the globe than any other.
      2) Dissenting views of the lead scientists. RSS is pro CO2 controls the climate and UAH is skeptical. I like that. It keeps them both honest and I’d love to hear a civilized discussion between the 2.

      I’d also be happy to take an average of terrestrial and satellite data. Either way I agree that a temp increase of 0.7 to 1.6 per doubling of CO2 with no positive feedback is to be focused on as it needs no measures and will be beneficial.

      • Not synced at all, at least we shoild hope not. UAH finally went and changed the way they deal with the aperture issue (essentially, Earth’s curvature as seen by the satellite sensors), from their original quick and dirty but good enough method (validated by radiosondes) to the ‘correct’ 3D geometry way. Roy explained this rather nicely on his blog. Also gives UAH better vertical resolution, and guess what? No tropical troposphere hot spot seen by the satellites, just as none has been found by radiosondes. Nice replication of a result that, BY ITSELF, falsifies the CMIP3 and 5 climate models relied on by the IPCC.
        The fact that two different groups are separately processing the satellite microwave data and coming now to almost exactly the same results is good science, called replication.
        That NCDC and HadCRU do not agree is bad science, called lack of replication.

    • HadCrut, as is any government number, totally discredited in my eyes. From economic performance to unemployment to global temperature. all numbers today are corrupted by politics.

      • Robert, thanks. It is hard to trust big government when you see they are so far left and getting more so. With each step we lose individual freedom and history is something to be re-written to correspond with leftist orthodoxy. And that includes historical weather and climate data.

    • I like the advertisement idea. I would contribute. It is going to be hard to wait and watch. I’m afraid it is going to be like acid rain, ozone, polar bears, DDT, rain forest and many other scares that just disappeared .

      Take a look at this which I start in 2001 to avoid both the 1998 El Nino and the subsequent 1999/2000 drop off.
      HadCRUT4 and UAH show very similar trends but I would like to see the new UAH data before drawing any firm conclusion. RSS for the same period shows a decline.
      Note that HadCRUT is about 0.4 wamer than UAH, possibly (probably?) due to its Arctic smearing.

    • The trick you are missing is that worry over global warming cannot be reversed. In addition , you’re not going to convince those who believe their is no warming to concede anything. However, I believe both these passionate movements can be redirected to their mutual benefit. What is needed is for billions (rather than trillions) to be spent on converting the world’s primary source of electric power to next-generation nuclear.

      It would meet the Left’s stated goals of reducing carbon emissions, while accomplishing the greatest economic, environmental and social benefit ever provided by government intervention in the economy. Nuclear waste can and should be used as fuel, it should not be stockpiled until it leaks into the environment. Electricity would be inexpensive and virtually unlimited. High paying jobs would be created both for construction and ongoing operation of these plants. Worldwide poverty would be drastically reduced by a global economy unencumbered by high energy costs.

      The only drawback is activists on both sides would have to get off their high horses, and agree that regardless of who’s right, nuclear power can meet the needs of everyone on the planet with no downside (if the proper technology is employed). The billions invested would yield trillions in economic and environmental benefits.

      • I’ve been on board nuclear power since I was 10, figured we’d have to stop burning hydrocarbons this century, but still believe surface data shows no warming from Co2 (which is not the same as it not warming at all).

  4. Its the rolling wave technique. Temperatures today will be lowered in the future to show future warming trends.

    • yeah when they “adjust” data they always lower temps in the past and raise temps in the present and near past. It must be a coincidence. How many adjustments now? I have heard of 3 major adjustment for past temp data. I must just be prone to paranoid conspiracy neurosis. Pretty soon the first part of this century is going to be a little ice age if they keep this up.

      • Where can you go to get a degree in Data Manipulation? The way things are going, I would think such a degree would be in high demand.

      • And ancestors will freeze to death, which means we will never be born. It’s worse than we thought.

      • It was some years ago that the 1930s temperatures had been adjusted a dozen times! Of course, all these adjustments cooled the 1930s.

    • Sorta like the economic stats, huh?

      Then ***unexpectedly*** the numbers are revised downward.

      • Trenberth used that analogy as well, and I disagree with it for this reason.

        When economic data is first published, not all data has been [received] and analysed yet. So subsequently, when the remaining data is [received], an “actual” number can be published.

        With climate/temperature data, it’s not that they’ve [received] the rest of the data and can now issue the REAL number. They already HAVE all of the data.

        That’s why the analogy fails.

      • More like the story of the plane crash in Mexico with 20 million in cocaine, 8 million in heroin and 4 million in cash ….. I mean 10 million in cocaine, 4 million in heroin and 2 million in cash …. wait it is really 8 million in cocaine, 2 million in heroin and zero cash …. wait there’s an official count now …


  5. OK So NOAA took data that was reliable, but not valid and attempted to make the data valid. Then after this, they try to make a claim about the interpretation of that data, contradictions with other data sets notwithstanding.

    Curry is right. This has little or no scientific value.

  6. Well it’s not like we didn’t see this coming. They know the temps aren’t going to trend up anytime soon so 19 years was where it was go all in with the scam or let it die. This little budge here might buy them another 10 years if the public doesn’t wake up.

  7. It is the job of climate alarmists to manipulate/distort/terrorise the real data to justify the insanity of their cause, or rather to justify the insanity of shutting down the western world’s economies in order to try and solve a non- problem.

    This ham-handed attempt to try and change the data to impress the gullible and stupid that the ‘pause’ never existed is clear proof of the typical integrity of today’s ‘climate scientists’, or rather it demonstrates their complete lack of integrity.

    Well, this is the year of Paris, so anything is acceptable – the end justifies the means, so telling lots of porkies is a perfectly reasonable strategy. Too many of these guys seem to have taken the practices of the great George Orwell novel 1984 to heart.

    • Don’t forget this is on top of all the other “Quality Adjustments” over the last few years.

  8. “Has global warming really stopped”? Yes, it really has stopped. That in no way implies what the temperature will do in the future, unlike the words “pause” or “hiatus”.

      • Ghost,

        Gotta call you on that.

        Why did you pick HadCRUT4? Satellite data is the most accurate for measuring global T. So let’s just change your links to RSS instead of HadCRUT4:

        It was arch-Warmist Dr, Phil Jones who stated that 1997 must be the start year for determining if global warming has stopped. That’s why skeptics use 1997 — it was the Warmist side that suggested it (back when they believed global warming would resume with a vengeance; but it didn’t. It stopped.)

        So here is what happened starting from Dr. Jones’ year of 1997:

      • The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley: “Nope, still rising.”

        Only if you cherry-pick from the “homogenised” databases.

        Now why – when there are more reliable databases available – would you persist in doing that, still claim to be a sceptic, and accuse anyone who tries to put you right of cherry-picking, I wonder?

      • @joel jackson:

        The entire debate is over global warming since 1997. That year was specifically designated by Warmist scientist Phil Jones as THE start date. Both sides use it.

        So take your cherry picking elsewhere, please. Because global warming stopped after 1997.

      • Joel D. Jackson:
        “Statistics 101 will teach you that the more data you look at, the more accurate your findings will be.RSS clearly shows over it’s entire lifetime that warming has been happening.”

        And yet you posted: So what’s that “2000” doing on the end?

        In any case, nobody has “denied” that there hasn’t been any warming since the beginning of the RSS data, we are discussing the existence of the “pause/hiatus/plateau/etc.”, which is commonly regarded as commencing in 1997, so keep your sarcastic comments about Statistics 101 to yourself, why don’t you?

      • j jackson says:

        I am not cherry picking anything.

        Of course you are. I explained, you just don’t want to listen. Argue with Dr. Jones if you don’t like his start year.

        The same Phil Jones shows that the rise in CO2 has had exactly no effect on natural step rises in global temperature since the LIA:

        Jackson also falsely asserts:

        RSS clearly shows over it’s entire lifetime that warming has been happening.

        It’s entire lifetime? Wrong, as usual:

        Jackson is out of his depth here. ‘Skepticalscience’ is really where he would be comfortable. Here, we have verifiable facts and evidence. Commenters can’t get away with bogus statements like that.

      • Dbstealey.
        The RSS database starts at approximately 1979
        Why are you cherry picking 1997?

        Here is a plot of the entire lifetime of RSS

        Notice how RSS clearly shows us the global warming signal.

        You want to ignore all the data from 1979 until 1997?
        Why do you want to ignore that data?

        Do you need me to school you in sample size when doing statistics?

      • J Jackson says:

        Why are you cherry picking 1997?

        *Sheesh* If I was a quitter, I’d give up. I’ve explained at least three times here, and dozens of times in other threads, that Dr. Phil Jones is the one who in 1999 explained in an interview that we could not be sure statistically that global warming had stopped in 1997 until 15 years had passed.

        Well, guess what? It’s been 18 1/2 years now with no global warming. And that is why everyone uses 1997 as the start year.

        But J. Jackson simply will not listen. His mind is made up, and closed tighter than a submarine hatch. Science is all about keeping an open mind, and letting observations, data, and evidence show the way. Pseudo-science is deciding what you want to believe, then torturing the data until it gives the answer you crave.

        Jackson is cherry-picking the time frame that gives him what he wants to see. That is pseudo-science. The discussion is about the fact that global warming has stopped. Not whether there was no warming, ever.

        Once again, here’s some good advice for Jackson: if you don’t like what Dr. Phil Jones said, complain to him. The rest of us understand. Global warming stopped after 1997.

      • Look dbstealey…..

        You need to get over your fixation on Jones.
        In order to make sure that no one cherry picks anything, you need to examine and analyze the entire RSS database.

        When you look at ALL the RSS data this is what you see……..

        You are correct about satellite data, it’s the best. And the best data shows us the continual warming trend that is happening.

        Furthermore, you pictures of chimpanzees are nothing more than ad-hominem blather. When you grow up and begin acting like an adult, maybe you can learn something.

      • Joel D. Jackson: “No sir, I am examining the ENTIRE RSS dataset”

        You may well be, sunshine.

        But everyone is discussing the portion post-~1997, generally considered by most authorities to be the commencement of the “pause”.

        And the reality of that “pause” is what the whole thread is actually debating.

        Live with it.

      • dbstealey June 5, 2015 at 11:07 am

        It was arch-Warmist Dr, Phil Jones who stated that 1997 must be the start year for determining if global warming has stopped. That’s why skeptics use 1997 — it was the Warmist side that suggested it (back when they believed global warming would resume with a vengeance; but it didn’t. It stopped.)

        stealey, Jones did not say what you claim, in an interview in 2010 on the BBC he was asked:

        “BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”

        Note that the BBC chose the time span. He answered as follows:

        “Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

        BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

        Phil Jones: I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.”

        A year later Jones reported that the additional data caused the trend to be significant at the 95% level.

      • You prefer the entire RSS record? Fine! 1998 is still the warmest year by a long shot. Current temperatures is about the same as in 1982. The real problem is not cherry picking the data, but cherry picking interpretations of it!

      • “Now please explain to me why 1997 is preferable to 2011 as a start point. I prefer to look at all the data, why do you wish to exclude all of the data before 1997 ?”

        Because, despite whatever preferences you personally might or might not have, on this particular blog we are discussing a specific, apparently controversial phenomenon – generally referred to as the “pause” or ‘hiatus”- that most authorities agree commenced on or around 1997, and that has a duration of approximately eighteen years, as you would be aware had you read – and understood Dr. Singer’s explanation above.

        What is it about that you are having trouble comprehending? You have been informed of this on several occasions, both by myself and by others, quite succinctly. Do you suffer from difficulties comprehending basic English? How many times do you have to be told a simple piece of information such as that before it penetrates your consciousness?

      • Several definitions of “global warming” are in common use. I submit that none of them hold up to logical scrutiny.

        Until recently, the “global warming” was the change in the global surface air temperature at equilibrium. This definition had the shortcoming that the “global warming” was not observable. Thus claims regarding the “global warming” of the future could not be tested. Thus, these claims were not scientific.

        Recently, in conjunction with the “pause,” a definition of “global warming” has come into use in which it is the change in the global temperature along a trend line when this line is fit to time-temperature data in a specified period. This definition has the drawback that unlike a change in the global temperature, the change in the global temperature along a trend-line is generally multivalued. Thus the proposition that there has been a “pause” can be simulataneosly true and false violating the law of non-contradiction.

        dbstealey suggests that we modify the latter definition of the “global warming” by nailing the point in time at which the fitted data start at 1997 following a suggestion of Phil Jones. This suggestion has the shortcoming that the “global warming” is undefined in periods preceeding 1997. Also, there is the possibility that in a segment of time following 1997 the “global warming” will be multi-valued violating non-contradiction.

        Before meaningful research on global warming can be conducted we must provide a logically sound definition for “global warming.” In arriving at one such definition one would define a partition of the time-line into segments. An average temperature would be computed for each segment from the data in a specified global temperature time series e.g. the UAH time series. The “global warming” would be defined as the difference between two of these averages. Defining the “global warming” in this way would facilitate an act that is currently impossible. This is to provide policy makers with information about the outcomes from their policy decisions. Absent this information the climate is uncontrollable.

      • Terry Oldberg,

        I agree that no currently used definition of global warming is adequate. Also, 1997 was not my suggestion. I was pointing out that Phil Jones (and others) designated the 15 years following 1997 as the time necessary to determine statistically if global warming had stopped.

        Now they don’t like it. I think they truly believed they were on safe ground when they made those statements. They fully expected global warming to resume.

        But it hasn’t. Rather than admit that the real world is telling them something very different than what they believed, they’ve gone into their ‘say anything’ mode. We see it in all their comments.

      • Phil.,

        You’re wrong again:

        Phil Jones, from the Climategate emails:

        “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”

        Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009:

        ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

        Global warming stopped after 1997 (“from 1998”). Jones said that had to continue for 15 years before it is statistically significant. Since 1998 there has been no global warming. None.

        The only Authority that matters — the real world — is debunking the endless predictions of runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. I have no doubt that Jones really believed that he was on safe ground, and that GW would resume within his 15 year window. But it didn’t.

        A few more:

        Dr. Jochem Marotzke – 19th November 2009: ”We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.”

        Dr. David Whitehouse: Statistically speaking it is accurate to say that according to HadCrut3 the world’s temperature has not increased for the 16 years between 1995 and 2011, though many prefer the more conservative ten years post-2001. This is not a ‘sceptical’ claim just a straightforward description of the data.

        And the famous quote:

        Question: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

        Dr. Jones: Yes, but only just.

        Let’s forget the backing-and-filling “but only just”. That’s trying to rationalize the fact that the alarmist clique was flat wrong. And Jones refuses to give a straight answer here:

        Question: Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

        Dr. Jones: No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

        The real world is going in the wrong direction to suit Jones. And get this tail tucking:

        Q: If you have confidence in your science why didn’t you come out fighting like the UK government’s drugs adviser David Nutt when he was criticised?

        Jones: I don’t feel this question merits an answer.

        Instead, Jones whined that he was contemplating suicide! But as I specifically predicted at the time, Jones was on a full-pay timeout, and would shortly return to his old job. That’s exactly what happened.

        Jones is just typical of that pseudo-science crowd. They have no understanding of what it means to be a skeptic. No one on their side of the fence does.

      • J. Jackson says:

        Now please explain to me why 1997 is preferable to 2011 as a start point.

        This has been explained to you so many times that you are either not able to comprehend the answer, or you are being deliberately ornery because you’ve decisively lost the science debate.

        Question: How many years has it been since global warming stopped?

        Answer: about 18 ½ years. Subtracting that number from this year, 2015, takes us back to 1997.

        Everyone else understands that simple arithmetic.

      • Jackson sez:

        Per Karl et al., published in the issue of Science

        And dbstealey says: Read the climategate emails. You will clearly see that climate peer review is totally climate ‘crony review’. Pal review. It isn’t science, it’s propaganda. Thus, it is worthless. Verifiable facts, measurements, and observations are what matter, not self-serving, sciencey-sounding spin.

        Re: Tom Karl, see here. If you want to argue in support of Dr. Karl, that’s the place to do it. I wouldn’t recomment it though, if you want to keep any credibility. Take a look at the comments, you’ll see. Karl has been ripped to shreds — just like your own comments there.

        Re: GISTEMP: they are the outlier. Their numbers are far different from all the other temperature databases. Thus, they should be rejected. NASA/GISS is not credible. They should stick to their primary mission: Muslim outreach.

        As for your last chart, UAH and RSS used to be slightly different (by a tenth or two of a degree over many years). Buth they have been converging. At the current rate, UAH is going to show more cooling than RSS.

        Satellites provide the best, most accurate global temperature measurements. Within the margin of error, there has been no global warming for almost twenty years now. Those who predicted runaway global warming (the original scare) were flat wrong. But like the self-serving rent seekers they have become, they won’t man-up and admit it. Instead, they do an Orwell-style language change. Now “climate change” is the old “runaway global warming”.

        Honest folks admit it when they’re proven wrong. You might give that some thought.

      • “Read the climategate emails”

        The emails don’t mention the “pause” so they are not relevant to this discussion.

        Your link to Monckton’s article is “opinion” not a research finding. You do realize that WUWT doesn’t even have an impact ratio.

        “Satellites provide the best, most accurate global temperature measurements”

        You know what the senior scientists at RSS said about the reliability of his data? If not I’ll post a link to it.

        Isn’t UAH satellite data?

      • J. Jackson says:

        The emails don’t mention the “pause” so they are not relevant to this discussion.

        They are certainly relevant to your claim about peer reviewed papers, so, wrong again.

        Your link to Monckton’s article is “opinion”…

        Christopher Monckton is a published, peer reviewed author. Thus, his analysis is much more than an ordinary ‘opinion’. That’s your class of commentary; while his is credible.

        Your “senior scientist” is an ethics-challenged, self-serving wannabe. He is not credible, because no one is credible who peppers his comments with pejoratives like “denier” and “denialist”. That alone proves that he is not a worthwhile scientist; rather, he is an ambitious, lowlife name-caller.

        People call other scientists names like that because they’re losing the science debate. That sissy doesn’t have what it takes to accept a challenge to debate skeptic scientists in a neutral venue with a mutually agreed moderator. No alarmist has the cojones to debate any more. That’s because they have lost every debate with skeptics. So now, they sit in their ivory towers and call names. If people like that impress you, they don’t impress most folks.

        Finally, you were the one who said you could find anything by cherry-picking WoodForTrees. So taking the past decade, we see that global T has fluctuated within only one-twentieth of a degree. Hey, where’s that “runaway global warming and climate catastrophe”??

        Face it, the climate alarmist crowd was flat wrong. By continuing to dig their hole deeper, they just look like a bunch of grifters pushing a hoax. There is nothing either unusual, or unprecedented happening with global temperatures, or with Arctic ice, or Polar bears, or ocean “acidification”, and there is no acceleration in global warming, or sea level rise, or anything else. The alarmist crowd has been wrong about everything.

        The whole ‘global warming’ scare is a giant head fake, kept afloat only by a mountain of taxpayer money and the mindless lemmings who believe in it. Take away the money, and the bubble would deflate in about two microseconds. I understand what the grifters are getting out of it. But what are you getting out of promoting the fake “dangerous man-made global warming” scare? Anything?

      • “Your “senior scientist” is an ethics-challenged, self-serving wannabe.”
        Good one… time you post a link to RSS data, I’ll remind you of what you said about the guy that is responsible for it.

        “they don’t impress most folks.” ……but his data impresses YOU !!!!

        “He is not credible” ….. Is his data credible?

      • J. Jackson:

        a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.

        Lots of folks are scientists. It does not require a PhD, or a published paper, or anything else, other than studying or expert knowledge. For example, Lord Monckton has more expert knowledge in this subject than 97% of those on the UN/IPCC.

        The owner of this site who you constantly denigrate is a scientist, too. And there are other differences between scientists. Someone like Michael Mann is an ethics-challenged charlatan, IMHO. To this date he has never provided his complete data, metadata, methods and methodologies that went into fabricating his Hokey Stick chart, to other scientists requesting them. So even though he’s a scientist by definition, he’s not any more credible than your “senior scientist”. (Once again: it’s not “his” data.)

        I asked before: what do you get out of promoting the misinformation that supports the “dangerous mann-made global warming” scare. Anything?

      • db,
        Not to speak for Joel, but I’ve worked with people with PhD’s (or in some cases engineers) who either felt like they were better than others, or didn’t like letting people without degrees in their club, or they don’t know anything and don’t think anyone else without a degree can know anything either.

        What they both don’t get are the scores of people with fewer qualifications who don’t let that stop them from changing the world.

      • “No need. It’s already been done here, and very thoroughly:”

        Really? If you think for one minute that an article published on a “news & commentary” web site refutes a peer reviewed scientific paper published in Science, you don’t have a clue how science is done. The topic of the “news and commentary” might be science here, but real science gets published in science journals.

        ” one of several senior scientists at RSS”

        Again you display your lack of investigative skill. You’ll find that in addition to being the senior scientist at RSS, he is also the VP. A serious investigation would have revealed to you that the only person at RSS that has a higher ranking than Mears is the president of RSS, Mr. Frank Wentz/ Now Frank may have studied science, but he did not reach the level that Mears has with a PhD.

        Mears is responsible for the data at RSS, a fact that you’ll have to accept since you consider the man to be “ethics-challenged, self-serving wannabe”

        Please tell all of us what does Mears wannabe?

        I like the fact that you think the data coming from an ethics-challenged person is the best.

  9. The bottom line: even if there wasn’t a pause, it still wouldn’t prove anthropogenic causation. Just warming. Like all the other Holocene warm periods.

    • Absolutely, 100% correct. I’ve been reading and waiting to see if someone – anyone, was going to state the obvious: Any warming since the end of the LIA is natural variability, unless the alarmists can prove CO2 usurps that natural variability.

    • Correctomundo, Blackbeard. It’s the classic fallacy: ‘It’s happening, so it must be due to X (CO2) even though we can’t back that assertion with any credible evidence, and a lot of evidence flatly contradicts it.’ One uncomfortable fact is the lack of any global warming this century.

      The day someone is able to produce a verifiable, testable measurement quantifying AGW, I will sit up straight and pay attention. I will change my mind if it’s warrented by new facts and evidence.

      But so far, there are no measurements quantifying the fraction of man-made global warming, out of total global warming (MMGW) from all causes. The entire ‘carbon’ scare is based on evidence-free assertions that MMGW is happening, and that it will cause big problems.

      But there is no supporting evidence for any of those claims.

      • “I will change my mind if it’s warrented by new facts and evidence.” ~dbs

        Spot on. This is the essence of science.

        “… The entire ‘carbon’ scare is based on evidence-free assertions that MMGW is happening, and that it will cause big problems. …” ~ dbs

        Again, spot on. The entire edifice of alarmism is built upon the idea that “back radiation” drives the climate and warms the surface some 33 degrees. This is entirely a hypothesis and I have seen no evidence of it. The evidence we do have says that the planet warms first and then CO2 concentrations rise after the warming.

        ~ Mark

      • When they can prove “back radiation” on Venus, then I will consider it on Earth. First they have to disprove that atmospheric mass and gravity have no effect on temperature and that ideal gas laws only apply if ‘P’ is placed on its own on one side of the equation.

  10. So,,,, the A in AGW really means “Adjusted” via Anthropogenic means ?

    What is the total contribution of the cumulative adjustments made by human hands in any given temperature data set? .8-1.2C?

    C’mon, somebody must know this.

    It even sounds right. Adjusted Global Warming!

    • A recent article by Monckton posted here had that information. I think the number was about 0.5°C, or in other words, 1/2 of all 20th century warming was caused by Anthropogenic adjustments.

    • Ossqss, in Arts of Truth the adjustments to the historic record were examined, and I found that of the ~0.76C since 1900, ~0.45 is probably real and the rest comes from anthropogenic data homogenization. Too complicated to explain in a comment. Now, those estimates are without uncertainty error bounds, which even Gavin Schmid says are on the order of plus minus 0.1C

    • I have been testing K band thermocouple drift compared with RTD’s today in the lab in Yogyakarta. The drift over periods of a few minutes is about 0.3 degrees C up and down, depending on the manufacturer. Calibration offsets needed ranged from 0.15 to 5.0 degrees.

      The RTD’s drifted from each other by up to 0.004 C.

      So what is the importance of finding a quarter of a degree change in a value that has half a degree of drift?

    • I and a few others have been banging on about this for years.

      The problem is the straight line linear plots/trend lines that the warmists use. But there is no mathematical justification for using such a linear trend line.

      When one looks at the satellite data, temperatures are flat from lauch (1979) through to the run up to the 1998 Super El Nino, then there is a step change in temperatures of about 0.2degC, then following the Super El Nino, temperatures are flat to data.

      It is clear that there are two pauses, not one. There is no first order correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. It would appear that there is simply a one off and isolated warming event of natural origin, namely the Super El Nino of 1998.

      We are unable to detect the signal (if any) to CO2 from the noise of natural variation bearing in mind the limitations and errors imposed by our best and most sophisticated measuring devices.

      Does that mean that CO2 does not cause warming? Well no one knows. Possibly it does cause warming but it is subortinate to natural variation and swamped by it, and the signal (if any at all) would appear to be rather small unless the error bounds of our best and most sophisticated measuring equipment are large. The smaller these error bounds are, the smaller Climate Sensitivity to CO2 must be.

      The more interesting question is why was the heat that was released from the ocean into the atmosphere by the Super El Nino of 1998 not yet dissipated? When will it dissipate?

      It is difficult to see how the cult of AGW can enjoy the support or passive support of genuine scientists if cooling over the coming decade occurs.

  11. The alarmists are running around in a panic and in ever decreasing circles, because they know that Paris is their last chance to destroy the world’s economy and condemn us all to living a feudal existence.
    In my mind there are two major flaws in their thinking:
    1) The Pause should not be happening yet it is, if they can massage the data it may go away;we need as much pre-massaged data as we can get
    2) The world has had much greater concentrations of CO2 in the past, without climate change going into positive feedback and with CO2 levels being out od sync with raised global temperatures. These facts needs to be widely publicised.

  12. Rather than strengthen the arguments of the Warmbots, this NCDC paper that “disappears” the Pause just shows what complete pandemonium they are in.

    • And what scoundrels too, to take taxpayer funded public property and abuse it for nefarious personal reasons.

  13. The worst part of all this is that it was entirely possible temperatures could have risen by as much as a degree or so over that time simply due to natural variation, and the models would still be just as wrong.

    The fact we even have to have a debate with these lunatics given that there’s no warming is a depressingly familiar sign of the decay of society.

  14. NCDC evidence shows that much depends on polar temperatures….

    Global warming makes older thicker ice at one pole….and a hell of a lot more ice at the other pole
    ….while at the same time breaking record high temperatures at both poles

    It’s magic……

  15. I think the most effective way of dealing with this is to fan the fire…. aka use the “new” their was never a pause fake data and say the IPCC which confirmed a pause is wrong. Since the IPCC is wrong all of global warming as it is known is wrong and should be sent back to the drawing draw…. even the cultists should be able to grasp that concept.

    • O just to further add in on this if someone wants a personal project. 1998 is a very key year… as anyone following the adjustments knows 1998 keeps being adjusted down heavily. A great project would be to compare the temp release in 1998 of 1998 vs the current temp for 1998. Goddard’s site has been watching it for awhile however I think with these adjustments a key line has been breached… aka they have adjusted 1998 more then the margin for error for both the 1998 data and the current data…. which means both the past and current data sets are debunked because the margin of error is completely wrong.

  16. Keep pushing and promoting both RSS and UAH while at the same time fully vet the ” agendas ” morph of version 3b to 4.

  17. I find it interesting that the warmists are now spending so much time trying to re engineer the pause as in fact continued warming. If what we are suffering from is climate change why should it matter if its getting warmer or cooler. The reality is that the lack of major weather events, tornados etc is making that argument also difficult. There is no doubt that the only way they are going to keep the scare going is to somehow change the past so their constant narrative of Armageddon is not debunked. If they didn’t have such a compliant media and a corrupt political class this fight would’ve been over years ago. All we can hope is that we can continue to win some key battles so that eventually the war will be won.

  18. I bought another bag of Budda Popcorn yesterday evening!

    Looks like NOAA GS-15s really know how to cook-the-books (look over at Wa-Po). The fellow working at Silver Springs engineered a cushy consultant job, then retired, then next day walks back in his office and begins AS THE CONSULTANT. With a “housing allowance” of $50,000 per year he managed to walk away with about $500,000 before being fired after about 24 months.

    Hats off the NOAA, the Fed at its best.

    Ha ha

  19. Hold steady. The premise is that change is accelerating, and is unprecedented. That leads to “action required” mentality. Is temperature change accelerating…sea level rise…first day of spring…coral reef decline…ocean acidification…glacier retreat…??? Make them say, “Oh yes, change is accelerating, but it’s too small to see that acceleration just now.” Right now they only have: “Things are changing…OMG!”

    How can we measure or calculate acceleration when the primary values are so uncertain? So-called positive feedback is the lynch-pin to the CAGW hypothesis.

    • Yeah NOAA is packed with the usual government types. You have to hope that there are at least a few straight scientists in there to keep them a little in check.

  20. So basically Tony Heller aka Steven Goddard was right from way way way back 2008? Maybe WUWT should have concentrated on the issue at hand which is massive fraud a long long time ago. FIFA has been caught out. Once Obama is finished and the Republican president M Rubio is elected (my Guess LOL), this will be the same for NCDC, NOAA, AMS, APS, IPCC will be prosecuted by the FBI and Interpol for massive fraud and misrepresentation.

  21. Motl in support of Singer:

    As per Motl’s nine-year graph, note that the decade 2005-14 may well have been cooler than the prior decade 1995-2004, despite the allegedly “warmest year on record” of 2014 (actually seventh in RSS).

    The gatekeepers will find it necessary to cool the recent past when we reach the decade 2007-16, since 1997-2006 is likely to have been warmer.

    Instead of a running average, we may find that, while 2001-10 was warmer than 1991-2000, the present decade 2011-20 will be cooler. The cooling pattern of the late 1940s to ’70s, following the warmer 1910s to ’40s, appears to be repeating.

  22. So let me get this straight:

    1. Hansen – if the pause goes 10 years, the models are invalid
    2. NASA – well…actually, 15 years
    3. Santer – well…. actually, 17 years
    4. Dozens of scientists publishing papers explaining the pause
    5. UN-IPCC AR5 says the models probably are wrong (due to the pause), substitutes “expert opinion” for sensitivity instead of using the models.
    6. NCDC says, never mind, if you take out the satellite data, put buoy data in instead, adjust the buoy data upwards to match the admittedly less accurate ship data from previous years, then weight the upward adjusted buoy temps to be a bigger part of the over all trend, and poof, the pause never happened at all.

    So is there one model. any model, the predicted the temperature rise in the areas of the world that this new analysis shows to be warmer than previously thought? I bet not one, because if ANY of them got it right, they would have predicted this specific analysis. So, EVEN IF this analysis is right, the modes are STILL wrong.

    Not that this will stop these results from being quoted by Obama the moment it becomes convenient.

    • Prior to 1., all warming was solely due to CO2, which trumps all, and none attributable to natural variation.
      4A. Ur . . . Em . . It would have warmed if it weren’t natural variation which now trumps CO2.

      They flip flop more than a politician, but then again this is really about politics and has nothing to do with science.

  23. Bonjour Fred
    Do you remember the meeting in Paris in the Procop restaurant; it was 7 years ago and I never thought that the climate problems would take such an importance in the political and economical world; I think COP 21 would be the opportunity to try to make such a meeting in october in Paris ; I know a lot of people asking in the same way
    Frederic Sommer

  24. The reason we can say the warming has stopped for over 18 years is that that is how far back you can go from today and still get a trend of 0, using satellite data. There is no cherry-picking, although it is a construct. It’s significance lies in what it says about the GCMs; that they have failed miserably. They are fundamentally flawed. Another important point is that, to Warmists horror, the Halt just keeps getting longer, although there might be a hitch if El Nino strengthens in coming months, and that’s a big if. By Paris, it will likely be in the vicinity of 19 years.

  25. It appears that even Science magazine are running scared about Karl et al. They’ve just let through a bunch of comments:

    Robert Matthews

    The authors state: “It is also noteworthy that the new global trends are statistically significant and positive at the 0.10 significance level for 1998–2012”.

    It’s certainly noteworthy for sceptics, as so high a p-value is usually interpreted as meaning the null hypothesis (here, that there is no temp trend) has not been ruled out. Perhaps the authors could explain why this interpretation does not apply here ?
    Submitted on Fri, 06/05/2015 – 10:04


    John Torres

    So basically, if you don’t like the “pause” in global warming all you have to do is fiddle with the numbers until you get the result you want.

    Guess the “debate” is finally over.

    Thank you, science.
    Submitted on Fri, 06/05/2015 – 09:18


    Adolf Stips

    The authors write in SI: “Previous versions of our SST analysis included satellite data, but it was dis-included in a 71 later release because the satellite SSTs were not found to add appreciable value to a monthly 72 analysis on a 2° grid, and they actually introduced a small but abrupt cool bias at the global scale 73 starting in 1985 (30)”

    Satellite SST has global coverage (including the mentioned under sampled arctic regions) but as these data do not fit with message given by the authors, they with just one sentence of justification exclude 30 years of satellite observations from their analysis. I cannot believe this to be true.

    Is this serious science?
    Submitted on Fri, 06/05/2015 – 06:07


    Megalith Megalith

    So, you found a way to fudge the data that proved anthropogenic global warming was a hoax. I’m sure Obama and the Democrat party will reward you with more of my stolen taxes to support your continuing charade.
    Submitted on Fri, 06/05/2015 – 01:54


    It doesn’t add up

    This study has already been debunked by Richard Lindzen: Tisdale and Watts:… Judith Curry:… Ross McKitrick:
    Submitted on Thu, 06/04/2015 – 22:20


    Larry Evans

    “Adjusted” = Fake.

    Submitted on Thu, 06/04/2015 – 17:15


    William Adams

    There are a lot of genuine criticisms of the methodology used here. One such article is here:

    Even after reading all the texts and looking at the data, many data scientists as well as climate scientists are questioning if this is a case of adjusting the data to meet the desired conclusion.
    Submitted on Thu, 06/04/2015 – 16:09


    Ted King

    This article seems to do nothing more than demonstrate the sheer malleability of these data to fit a politically-driven narrative.
    Submitted on Thu, 06/04/2015 – 15:50


    Not a single message of support.

      • Yes.
        For the sake of logic.
        If we let this pass we let anyone set contradictory principles to be accepted in any fields.

    • Don’t forget, Science is in part a news magazine. For years they promoted interest in the concept of AGW in order to promote their mag. Now they sense an even bigger story developing — that AGW may be controversial. One begins to see this in some other news services.

      • The alarmists don’t know it yet, but there’s gonna be a BRIC fight in Paris. Some media may sense the aura of not yet shed blood already.

    • This is hopeful information. Thanks for posting it. Elsewhere, I speculated that Karl’s paper was blatantly tone deaf, and could backfire. Perhaps it now is. Opens up not just the pause/model discrepancy (which the paper does NOT eliminate), it opens up the whole past adjustments can of worms. Perfect timing, six months formit to fester before Paris.

      • This is the first of many papers in the next few months that are going to conclude that there’s no pause. I’ve seen this movie before.

    • Not a single message of support.
      Someone needs to ask what’s going to happen to all those hundreds of papers, by climate scientists, explaining the ‘pause’…….

  26. It’s amazing most of the leftist or environmental publications will have an immediate warning in the first paragraph that the “deniers” will try to refute this adjustment and that they are all liars or idiots. Talk about a guilty conscience and protesting too much. Can this scam be any more obvious? Do people have any common sense anymore?

    • Charlie, there was an employee of the dental college where I worked who was stealing aluminum ADA signage and cashing in the aluminum. His cover move (MO), was to be the first to report the theft as they were under his union jurisdiction for installation. He was eventually caught stealing and his position was abolished and assigned to other craftsmen. I sense the same sort of CYA is going on when they talk about going after skeptics as racketeers!

      • Reminds me of the old tale about the ex-con workman who wheeled out a barrow covered with a tarpaulin from his workplace. He was stopped by security, who whisked off the tarpaulin, and found nothing underneath. They asked what he was nicking. “Wheelbarrows, of course!” came the reply.

    • Common sense vacated many people about the same time computers became ubiquitous in the western countries.

  27. Can they say truthfully that both moored and drift buoys have increased global coverage of temperature data by 15%? That seems like a very large percentage.

    • But if the number is small to start with, it won’t take as much additional coverage to increase by a given percentage. The sum will not be that large either.
      Perhaps a several hundred percent increase might give the coverage necessary to really see the big picture…

  28. I’m just a regular bloke whut got interested in climate science
    … so they reconfigured data in order to disprove something that they previously claimed did not exist in the first place?
    science seems really different now from what I remember in school
    but I only made it through 15th grade
    kinda glad I bailed out early

    • uh … may I rephrase
      so the reconfigured data clearly shows that what was clearly not there before is still not there?
      at a melting glacial pace

    • You have the right suspicion.
      Who cares when you or anyone quits formal learning?
      You have learnt how to spot rubbish.

      • Thanks, my friend! I quit college too, but I earned a pension and I get to satisfy my mind before I die (I hope).

      • actually I have a PhD … no, just kidding
        isn’t this phase 2 of the walk back?
        as in…
        1 your’re nuts and you’re seeing things
        2 ok, there’s something there, but we can explain it
        3 oops, we can’t explain it
        4 we told you the whole time flying saucers were real
        seriously, tacit admission that there is something in the observed data that must be explained away
        this is gonna be a great show

  29. Original title of the NOAA study: “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus”

    NOAA website [Updated at 3:45 p.m. ET: Headline truncated; no longer refers to original study title. Title was revised today by the journal Science at the time of publication]

    Possibly the use of “possible” in the original title was a Freudian Slip?

  30. My take is that this may have the opposite political effect of want was intended. After years of telling us how certain scientists were that the earth was warming a certain amount per century and that it was due to manmade carbon and that it was going to be catastrophic….97% sure….warmest year ever etc….now they are telling us that they don’t even know what the global temperature was for the last couple of decades and whether or not it was rising.

    TLDR – After posturing so much certainty, this study introduces uncertainty in the most basic element of the hypothesis….

  31. So it would seem Tom Karl’s credibility just ran off with Trenberth’s missing heat, and they’re both hiding at the bottom of the ocean until this all blows over.

  32. Individuals at NCDC are getting carelessly reckless(and desperate)
    in their old age.

    Very bad.

  33. Not only that, but a look at the detailed NCDC evidence shows that much depends on polar temperatures — which are mostly guessed at, for lack of good observations. If one uses the (truly global) satellite data, analyzed either by UAH or by RSS, the pause is still there, starting around 2003

    However UAH and RSS are not truly global, they don’t cover the poles either (or high areas like the Himalyas). RSS TLT from 70S to 82.5N,

    • True, they don’t.
      So perhaps the heat is missing where the satellites can’t chase it (my, how coy).

      But if it is hiding where there happens to be ice then… so what?
      The heat used in phase changes of ice to liquid water means that the temperature won’t change – no AGW!

      OK, maybe albedo changes. But little light reaches the Poles anyway.

      This is, therefore, trivial.

      • Correction.(help mods)
        True, they don’t.
        So perhaps the heat is missing where the satellites can’t chase it (my, how coy).

        But if it is hiding where there happens to be ice then… so what?
        The heat used in phase changes of ice to liquid water means that the temperature won’t change – no AGW!

        OK, maybe albedo changes. But little light reaches the Poles anyway.

        This is, therefore, trivial.

      • So you agree that Singer was mistaken in his original post? Plenty of light reaches the polar regions in summer.

  34. A rule the NCDC and Karl apparently never learned: never defend the indefensible. Taking satellites out of your data does not make them go away.
    A rule for skeptics to follow here: Napoleon’s dictum, never interrupt an enemy in the process of making a mistake. No retraction request. Let this blatant nonsense hang out there and fester. The stench will reach Paris.

  35. What’s all the fuss about? IPCC lead author Phillip Lloyd has a 2015 study of the ice cores that shows that the normal temp difference over 100 year intervals is about 1 C. This is for the last 8,000 years.
    We’ve had about 0.85C warming since 1880, so what is unusual about this warming for the last 135 years and at the end of a minor ice age? NOTHING. Here is the abstract————-


    There has been widespread investigation of the drivers of changes in global temperatures. However, there has been remarkably little consideration of the magnitude of the changes to be expected over a period of a few decades or even a century. To address this question, the Holocene records up to 8000 years before present, from several ice cores were examined. The differences in temperatures between all records which are approximately a century apart were determined, after any trends in the data had been removed. The differences were close to normally distributed. The average standard deviation of temperature was 0.98 ± 0.27 °C. This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations.

    • I agree. Is climate 30 years, 300 years, or much larger cycles? We are apparently naive by nature as our species’ residency on the planet is relatively recent and our verifiable records are quite small.

  36. out with the D word and in with the Cs: Cranks and Contrarians
    How global warming cranks influence legitimate science.

    and the whiners –

    Kevin Trenberth – “Yes, I have certainly been influenced by deniers and their commentary, and I have written several articles rebutting flawed articles. … It is indeed very annoying when the media pick up on one denier point that has no basis and gives it great attention. So I have no doubt that “seepage” occurs”.

    Michael Mann – “The whole concept of a “pause” or “hiatus” arose because of a concerted framing effort by climate change deniers and contrarians, and many in the climate research community fell victim to that framing all too predictably”.

    my bolds

  37. Not surprisingly, they used the surface temperature record, with its well-known problems.

    Our team is going to have fun with this one!

  38. Will any of this slow the deployment of the windmills ?
    At some point someone has to say,…. enough already !!!!
    Think of the legacies being left to the children of the proponents.

    • Another big wind installation has recently been erected in one of the last vestiges of the continent’s tall grass prairies, in Osage Co, OK. The political shenanigans which secured approval for the project were a sight to behold, with cash payments to local town council officials for “beautification” projects, etc. The Osage Nation owns all mineral rights on their Osage County reservation lands and sued the wind utility for failing to pay for onsite limestone excavations used to make concrete foundations for the towers. A judge actually sided with the wind utility with one of the most pretzel- logic decisions ever handed down, saying that he didn’t see any reason that the company should have to pay since the stone was just going to be put back in the ground, anyway. One might suspect that the judge is financially a lot closer to retirement now, since the issue threatened to halt the project worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
      When it was pointed out that nearby Kaw Lake is a major winter roost destination for our nation’s symbol, the Bald Eagle and eagle deaths by bird slicer were sure to follow, Pres. Obama intervened and gave the windgen operators permission to kill 3 eagles a year. When it was also pointed out that this area is also home to rapidly diminishing numbers of Prairie Chickens, who have no tolerance whatsoever for any building or artifice made by man within their breeding territory. The answers from the Green wind supporters were the typical “but cats kill birds…” and such. One Osage tribal member said “I’d like to meet the cat that can kill an Eagle.”
      Any number of laws governing Osage Indian rights were swept aside and ignored, to get approval for the project.
      The windy operators made great inroads against local opposition to the project with not only a campaign of rhetoric about clean energy and saving the planet, but they also told great tales about how the local school district would benefit from million$ of annual ad valorem tax payments, the facts of which were later unhappily discovered by the locals that the company had secured a 5 year moratorium of said tax payments.
      BS, greed and corrupt power from top to bottom.

  39. The weakness of the efforts of Karl, et al, is best illustrated by accepting, for purposes of argumentation, that all their data manipulation has been done well. Then by their own Figure 1, the box-plot showing temperature data in the period labelled “hiatus” included the value 0.0 trend in the confidence interval (CI) of the old data, and now still includes the value 0.0. And this is using the 90%, which has the smallest CI one can plausibly use.

  40. it may be Aussie weather, but surely this attempt to wipe out the Pause couldn’t have come at a worse time!

    5 June: ABC: Alkira Reinfrank: Canberra’s extreme run of overnight lows ‘only seen every 10 to 15 years’
    Since early Monday morning Canberrans have spent more hours in temperatures below zero than above.
    Overnight, Canberrans shivered through a low of -7 degrees, with mercury only climbing above zero after 9:30am.
    This follows Monday’s cold temperatures which saw 20 centimetres of snow fall on the New South Wales ski resorts and Canberra region, the -7C lows experienced on Tuesday morning- which matched temperatures in the Snowy Mountains, and Wednesday’s -5C lows…
    Bureau of Meteorology forecaster Sean Carson said temperature lows seen this week, along with last August’s extreme run of lows only occurred once a decade.
    “August last year saw a pretty impressive run of overnight lows, where we saw eight consecutives nights below -5C, with the lowest night in that sequence getting all the way down to -8C,” he said.
    “But prior to that it is probably something we only see every 10 to 15 years where we get such cold minimums.”…
    Mr Carson said this “impressive” run of temperatures was more common in the 1970s.
    ***”It used to be fairly regular before the 1970s, before we saw a lot of development across Canberra, which did give Canberra a little bit of heat coming from industry,” he said…

  41. I firmly believe that using the term “pause” has problems. Pause infers that the previous trend upwards will continue once the ‘pause’ finishes. The is exactly the inference the warmists want.

    I prefer the term “plateau” since that accurately describes the near horizontal time period without any inference of which way it will go next – up or down.

    We could well be in for a downward trend when the plateau ends and there are many at the pointy end of this debate suggesting that outcome. We are in fact in an interglacial phase of unknown duration.
    We could have indeed reached peak global warming!

    So let’s all begin calling it a PLATEAU from now on. Keep the debate focused without unnecessary concessions.

    • john soldier,
      You’re right about the connotations of the word “pause”, but I don’t like your solution.
      I don’t know much about the art of war or the Chinese dude that everyone likes to quote but I think he’d be with me on this one.
      “Pause” is their word; we can either launch a frontal assault on its spurious semantic significance or we just co-opt the word and serve it back to them with whatever inflection we choose.
      (on a more awkward note; it would be worth looking up the difference between infer and imply.)

  42. A lot of discussion about the slope of the temp v. year trend being dependent on the start point. What if the current date was the start point and we ran it backwards in time? Legit?

  43. I’m thinking this ‘paper’ may be the worst thing that has ever happened to the AGW argument. For the first time the ‘fellow traveler’ media are actually looking at the way surface temperature measurements are taken (and adjusted), not just blindly accepting it. Even they can’t buy the projection of surface temperatures over land being projected out over the ice in the Arctic. If they don’t buy that, then the entire record falls apart because most of the ‘warming’ comes from that area. It looks to me like this paper is drawing attention to the fact that the emperor has no clothes.

  44. The atmosphere can hold only 1% of global energy increase and can therefore be thrashed around by every little hiccup of the ocean oscillations. We can now stop obsessing about surface measurement as an indication anything other than very long (multi-decade) climate. We can now take the temperature of the only accumulator of global climate accumulation, the oceans which show very little warming for the first decade of ARGO data. It smooths out all the noise and lets us stop bickering about every weather event driven by ocean energy cycles. By the way if anyone is still interested it shows 1/3 or less warming predicted for CO2 and 1/10 of that required to reach the vaunted 3 C/century.

  45. Global Warming has been happening for the last 18 years. The only problem is that it has been happening in computer models, corny Hollywood sci-fi movies and TV miniseries, and not it the real world. Nothing new here – just a new model with massaged data. Meanwhile, back in the real world, nada……

  46. No comment, but a question. Everyone (I think) agrees that we have been in an interglacial period since at least the little ice age. Tell me, please, what the earth’s temperature does during an interglacial period. Seems to me that the earth warms until it doesn’t, then back into an ice age. Am I correct? If so, all this hysteria over “the warmest month ever” etc needs to be analyzed against typical interglacial behavior.

  47. just a rumour on the internet…

    5 June: The Weather Network: Scott Sutherland: Global warming ‘pause’? New study shows it doesn’t exist
    Despite evidence to the contrary, there’s been a persistent rumour floating around on the internet and on certain media outlets about a global warming “pause” or “hiatus.” In response to this rumour, scientists have been ***quick to point out that, although surface air temperature records might show that the rate of warming has slowed somewhat over the past 15 years or so, this does not mean that the Earth is no longer accumulating heat from global warming…
    And what of the research that’s been done over recent years, to account for how a “pause” could develop? Karl told the Washington Post that the phenomena discovered in the research are very real and they did cause cause a slowdown in warming – just not to the point where the rate of warming actually slowed…
    As Penn State climate scientist Michael E. Mann noted in an article on EcoWatch…etc

  48. For anyone who already suspected that temperature records may be subject to an excessive amount of guesswork and potential bias, this following paper is a shocking eye-opener.
    It’s pretty clear that the best thing that could have been done with “bucket measurements” would have been to throw them immediately over-board.
    Back where they came from.
    The total sum the imposed guesswork is in some instances of the order of several whole degrees C.
    And even all this analysis charitably assumes that sailors in the open ocean were diligently performing the task, as instructed.
    Rather than just picking reasonable sounding numbers from the top of their head.
    The reality of human psychology is that when required to fill out seemingly useless data on a form, non-scientists prefer to just scribble down a number that looks plausible and tus save themselves the trouble of completing the task.
    Anyone who thinks that sailors could be relied upon to diligently complete this task is a gullible fool who clearly knows nothing about the mentality of low-wage workers.
    And Karl et al. and “Science” are placing great reliance on this utter hogwash.
    Then they are imbeciles of the first order.

    • What you say, tireless amphibian, matches exactly the experience of my errant youth; in mines, mills and airports, I have witnessed creative recording of weights, temperatures, pH, and just about everything else.
      It’s not always indolence, though frequently it is; sometimes it’s things like frustration with the instruments, which won’t say the same thing twice.
      I would add that the problem is not remedied by high wages; people soon become habituated to the good wage and the immediate tedium of the task determines their behaviour.
      Of course, people in elevated positions are unfailingly sedulous in all things! Or, they can’t imagine that their underlings are as lax as they are.

  49. Jim Brock: Tell me, please, what the earth’s temperature does during an interglacial period. Seems to me that the earth warms until it doesn’t, then back into an ice age.

    No – it does the reverse. Typically temperatures are warmest at the start of the interglacial and that period of warmest temperatures is called the optimum. There is then a cooling trend throughout the interglacial. However this is irregular so that you will see warm and cold periods superimposed on the overall cooling trend. Eventually it gets cold enough to hit the tipping point where land based ice does not fully melt over the Northern summer, and back into the freezer we go.

    Transitions in and out of ice age are abrupt. There is a clear tipping point there which we should be wary of. There is no sign of a tipping point in the hot direction. In fact there are strong signs of a ceiling on temperature which rules out scenarios of runaway warming.

  50. IPCC AR5 acknowledges the pause/hiatus/lull.


    Box 9.2 | Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years
    “The observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years (Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.20, Table 2.7; Figure 9.8; Box 9.2 Figure 1a, c). Depending on the observational data set, the GMST trend over 1998–2012 is estimated to be around one-third to one-half of the trend over 1951–2012 (Section 2.4.3, Table 2.7; Box 9.2 Figure 1a, c). For example, in HadCRUT4 the trend is 0.04ºC per decade over 1998–2012, compared to 0.11ºC per decade over 1951–2012. The reduction in observed GMST trend is most marked in Northern Hemisphere winter (Section 2.4.3; Cohen et al., 2012). Even with this “hiatus” in GMST trend, the decade of the 2000s has been the warmest in the instrumental record of GMST (Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.19). Nevertheless, the occurrence of the hiatus in GMST trend during the past 15 years raises the two related questions of (1) what has caused it and (2) whether climate models are able to reproduce it.”

    And two very good questions.

    (1) Heat is absorbed/released by oceans, water vapor, clouds, albedo, etc. orders of magnitude greater than CO2.
    (2) Obviously no, no they haven’t and can’t.

  51. In summary – a bunch of self-described “scientists” decided to try and discern the temperature of the sea surface in the past, by collecting measurements taken by sailors with a variety of buckets and thermometers.
    The scientists recreated what they imagined the sailors would have been doing with the buckets.
    They recreated the buckets and measuring equipment. They even placed buckets in wind-tunnels to precisely investigate the cooling of the buckets in wind.
    I expect that they probably all wore sailors outfits and addressed each other in strong cornish accents whilst drinking rum and singing shanties.
    Having done all this and much else, they created a big heap of precisely measured terms.
    With such precision at their fingertips it escaped their notice, that nobody involved had got the vaguest idea what they were actually doing.
    Let them speak for themselves. This from our friend Phil Jones:
    “For the nineteenth century data, the evaporating bucket model produces results which are noticeably less internally consistent compared with those for 1905-40. Based on somewhat sketchy evidence, wooden buckets were probably dominant up to 1870-1880, with a transition to un-insulated buckets occurring between then and the early twentieth century. We have assumed that canvas buckets, or their equivalent, accounted for 25% of all buckets prior to 1880, and that this fraction increased linearly to 100% in 1905. For ship speed we have used 4 ms-1 prior to 1880, increasing linearly to 7 ms-1 in 1905, and assumed wind speed on deck to be 60% of anemometer speed. The exposure time was kept at 4.5 minute.”
    “Based on somewhat sketchy evidence” – never were these words more appropriate.
    You assumed rather lot of stuff there, didn’t you Phil? But a fantastic job of creating the appearance of cargo-cult “sciencey” precision imposed on the sketchy assumptions.
    No where have I seen that before?

  52. Leftists know CAGW is within 5~7 years of being disconfirmed if current flat/falling trends continue, as discrepancies between CAGW model projection means vs reality will soon exceed 3 standard deviations for more than 20 years, which is more than sufficient disparity and duration to toss CAGW in the trash.

    Obviously Leftists will do anything to avoid that eventuality, hence the continuos upward “adjustments” to keep this CAGW hypothesis going.

    As long as RSS, UAH, radiosonde data and the Scientific Method exist, CAGW will eventually end up on the trash heap of history.

    In he interim, we’ll have to suffer through Leftists’ feeble attempts to keep the CAGW gravy train chugging along…


      You write

      Leftists know CAGW is within 5~7 years of being disconfirmed if current flat/falling trends continue, as discrepancies between CAGW model projection means vs reality will soon exceed 3 standard deviations for more than 20 years, which is more than sufficient disparity and duration to toss CAGW in the trash.

      Obviously Leftists will do anything to avoid that eventuality, hence the continuos upward “adjustments” to keep this CAGW hypothesis going.

      Obviously Leftists will do anything to avoid that eventuality, hence the continuos upward “adjustments” to keep this CAGW hypothesis going.

      As long as RSS, UAH, radiosonde data and the Scientific Method exist, CAGW will eventually end up on the trash heap of history.

      In he interim, we’ll have to suffer through Leftists’ feeble attempts to keep the CAGW gravy train chugging along…

      I provide assistance by correcting your mistakes which – out of kindness – I assume to be typographical errors.

      Rightists know CAGW is within 5~7 years of being disconfirmed if current flat/falling trends continue, as discrepancies between CAGW model projection means vs reality will soon exceed 3 standard deviations for more than 20 years, which is more than sufficient disparity and duration to toss CAGW in the trash.

      Obviously Rightists will do anything to avoid that eventuality, hence the continuos upward “adjustments” to keep this CAGW hypothesis going.

      As long as RSS, UAH, radiosonde data and the Scientific Method exist, CAGW will eventually end up on the trash heap of history.

      In <bthe interim, we’ll have to suffer through Rightists’ feeble attempts to split opposition to the the CAGW gravy train chugging along…


      • Richard– It wasn’t a typo when I wrote “Leftists”….

        The CAGW political phenomenon is almost exclusively propangdized by and for Leftists’ numerous agendas.

      • RIchard, your comments are usually well worth reading and thought provoking but whilst some Rightists have naturally jumped on the bandwagon because they like the easy money of subsidies (big business will exploit anything on offer hence why BP, Shell, Swiss Re. Munich Re, the KMPG and the like, investment bankers such as Goldman Sachs all have depatrtments pushing the cAGW conjecture and carbon pricing/trading), it is clear that cAGW is a leftist big state intervention and wealth redistribution movement, promoted by leftist educationists.

    • SAMURAI and richard verney

      The untrue political propaganda that the global warming scare is some kind of left wing plot is divisive and damaging to opposition to the scare.

      The global warming scare is a bandwagon that always has been independent of left vs right political alignments except in the USA. Indeed, the scare was deliberately started by right wing Margaret Thatcher.

      We approach the UN FCCC COP in Paris this coming December. That meeting will attempt to revive the corpse of international political action on global warming which was killed at the Copenhagen COP in 2009.

      I am a socialist so very opposed to communism, but I assisted the communist Chinese in their successful destruction of the intentions for continuation of the global warming scare at Copenhagen.

      Actions to oppose the global warming scare at the forthcoming Paris COP are hindered by the ridiculous attempts of the American political right to pretend the scare is a left-wing plot. We need to maximise opposition and not alienate the majority of our potential allies in opposing to the scare.


      • sturgishooper

        You say and ask me

        However CACCA started, the ho@x has been embraced by the Left. Besides yourself, how many skeptical Progressives are there?


        Doubt that you wrote this, for instance:
        If UK Coal is on board with IPCC’s lies, what Progressive organization is opposed to them?

        Given the need of the world’s poor for cheap energy, there should be some genuine Leftists among skeptics.

        Taking each of your points in turn.

        The global warming scare was started by the right (i.e. Margaret Thatcher),promoted by the right (e.g. the UK Conservative Party), became a bandwagon and was joined by people of all political persuasions for reasons of personal self interest. Simply, the ho@x has been embraced by people of the right, middle and Left of the political spectrum.

        I don’t know how many “skeptical Progressives” there are. Indeed, I don’t know what a “skeptical Progressive” is. I am a left-wing socialist of the old-fashioned British kind, and many of us are opposed to the global warming scare.

        Importantly, the views of “skeptical Progressives” are a change of subject. I was objecting to the damaging falsehood that the global warming scare is a plot by “leftists”.

        The global warming scare is supported by many energy companies including large ones such as BP and Shell together with tiny ones such as UK Coal. So what? Are you trying to assert that these commercial companies are “leftists”?

        I don’t know what you mean by Progressives, but I do know that there are many more “leftists” who oppose the scare than there are “rightists” who oppose the scare. China is a communist (so “leftist”) country that opposes the scare and is totalitarian so it is both an organisation that opposes the scare and is 1.3 billion people who oppose the scare.

        Clearly, China alone demonstrates that there are more “leftists” than “rightists” who oppose the global warming scare, and China is building coal-fired power stations at the rate of two per week to provide cheap energy for millions of poor people.

        I repeat,
        Actions to oppose the global warming scare at the forthcoming Paris COP are hindered by the ridiculous attempts of the American political right to pretend the scare is a left-wing plot. We need to maximise opposition to the scare and not alienate the majority of our potential allies in opposition to the scare.


      • Richard,

        “Progressives” is what American Leftists prefer to call themselves these days, especially those who also identify as socialists.

      • sturgishooper

        Thankyou for explaining what you mean by “Progressives”.


      • Richard,

        You are most welcome. I apologize for using a term I wrongly thought with which I thought most politically active people in the English speaking world would be familiar.

        Progressives don’t find “liberal” to be Leftist enough, since after all there are classical liberals who today are in America conservatives.

  53. Fred Singer wrote, “Thus there is no evidence whatsoever of any GH warming from human-released CO2 — during the whole of the 20th century or earlier.”

    Didn’t he mean “21st century”?

      • But the way he wrote it implies a comparison to the 19th and 20th centuries, whereas I’m sure he meant the 20th and 21st.

  54. All this discussion about temperature is total wasted time and effort. The only so called ‘greenhouse gas’ that has any REAL effect on LOCAL temperatures is water vapour. Water vapour can CHANGE STATE between gas, liquid and solid (ice) IN THE ATMOSPHERE. Get enough of these effects during defined SEASONS in either hemisphere of the planet and you can record a ‘global temperature’.
    Carbon dioxide, CO2, cannot do anything like that. It acts as a thin dusty veil shielding the surface slightly from direct sunshine. In the dark CO2 can only continue cooling the local atmosphere until the temperature reaches close to around MINUS 30C. Then and only then can CO2 absorb any energy during the period of darkness but it will already be so high in the atmosphere that the so called RE-RADIATION escapes mostly to space.
    At my age I can only hope to live long enough to see justice brought to the perpetrators of this AGW farce.

  55. The efforts of GISS to “cool the past” continue. The Russian station of Ostrov Dikson has a temperature record stretching back to 1918. These rare arctic stations with a long record are having their past rewritten.

    In 2011 the GISS record for 1918, 1919, 1920 showed annual means of -11.9 -11.8 -10.3C.
    In 2012 these were amended to -12.6 -12.1 -10.7C.
    Today I see a further reduction to -13.2 -13.0 -11.7C.

    The artificial depression of early terrestrial records results in a spurious warming trend. This is how the claim of global warming is being substantiated.

    To access the current data set, here is a clickable map:
    Clicking on it takes you to stations nearest your click (many with a fragmentary record).
    In this blog I show how Iceland’s record has been fiddled:

    One other example. The Icelandic Met Office tell me that for Feb 1901 the Teigarhorn raw mean was -0.2C, adjusted to -0.3C for sound reasons. GISS publish this as -0.9C, “colding” it by 0.6C.

    For the record, Iceland have always taken the mean of temperatures at 08:00, 14:00 and 21:00. This is in contrast to the practice in many other countries of reporting the mean of daily max and min. The shift from -0.2 to -0.3 is thus legitimate homogenisation. GISS’s shift to -0.9C is barefaced tampering; an Orwellian rewriting of the past.

    • I’d like to know who is making all these changes all over the WORLD. Do they do it by computer? Does it start at NOAA? Or does it start at White Sands? Does it mean that our own government personel is involved or is it just a hand full of people with vested interest? Just like all the non-science activity going on, along with all the reports of “hiatuses”, they will probably just eliminate all the records and use the lacunas. That way no one in the future can do a papertrail. Maybe a plead to the rest of the employees would bring out a real American Whistle Blower!

    • Hopefully, the GWPF will get to the bottom of this.

      The more one reads, the more one gains the impression that the anomaly trend (or bulk of it) is simply an [artifact] of data adjustment/homogenisation.

      Personally, I consider that whenever an adjustment has been made to data, then the extend of the adjustment sets the minimum error bar. If past temperatures are being cooled by 2 degrees, this immediately means that the error bar for the temperature data set cannot be less than +/- 2degC since the possibility exists that the adjustment is wrong. Of course, the law of sample size has a bearing but how many station records are adjusted, and what is the maximum adjustment made to each station.

      Then of course, there is the problem of station drop out.

      Personally, I consider the land based thermometer record to be so horribly bastardized that it is worthless. It was never intended to perform the role to which it is now being put, and heck, it does not even measure the right metric; it uses temperature as a proxy for energy. It is far too crude and overextrapolated and should be ditched.

      We should simply accept [that] as far as ocean temps go, we have ARGO (that has its own issues not least short duration), and we have the [satellite] data set (again with issues) but reasonably good global coverage.

      Since the atmosphere and climate are on this water world controlled by the oceans. the only useful data set is ocean temperature. All else is largely irrelevant to the assessment of global warming, and measurements of ocean temperature at least measure the correct metric, ie., energy.

  56. “One thing is quite certain, however: Current IPCC climate models cannot explain what the observations clearly show. This makes the models unsuitable for climate prediction – and for policy purposes generally.”

    Welcome to the world of the engineer – where models are only models, theories are just theory and what really matters is what really happens.

    And that is why we have engineers who are trained to make decisions where the models don’t work and academics flounder. And if it hadn’t escaped anyone’s attention, the vast majority of sceptics are engineers or other types of practical real-world scientists, and the vast bulk of alarmists are public sector and/or academics.

    • “… And if it hadn’t escaped anyone’s attention, the vast majority of sceptics are engineers or other types of practical real-world scientists, and the vast bulk of alarmists are public sector and/or academics.” ~ S.S.

      Yes, I had noticed that. I hope you have noticed that those of us who teach math are also very skeptical since the entire edifice of “catastrophic CO2 induced global warming” is an exercise in ill logic. Extreme surface warming via “back radiation” does not pass the sniff test and never did. It is against all laws of thermodynamics to claim that CO2 heats the surface. I saw that in the 80s and nothing has come along to change my mind.

      For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. ~~ H. L. Mencken

      CO2 warming the surface is clear, simple to understand, and dead wrong.

      • Amen!

        Did you, by any chance, read my May 26th Guest Post “The Role of Sulfur Dioxide Aerosols in Climate Change?

        Would you say that it falls into the same category? It is supported by published data.

      • Burl,

        I missed that one. I just now googled it up and bookmarked it. I’ll read it later today when all the chores are done. I look forward to it.

        Thanks for the heads up.

        ~ Mark

  57. First the climate kooks claimed there was no pause (privately they knew it was happening) and ridiculed (publicly) those skeptics pointing out the pause.
    Then they claimed the pause was just normal variation.
    Then when it lasted longer than a normal variation statistically could happen with high sensitivity, they started waving their arms: Hidden heat and the deep oceans,
    Now they do as they always do and return to the earlier, failed excuse: It never really paused at all.
    This is what a failed, non-scientific circular reasoning faith based system does: Endlessly circulate between failed claims, putting off the inevitable while protecting their social position and financial capital.
    The corruption of climate science has nothing to do with the physics of CO2 and everything to do with human pride.

  58. All I can say is that I am flabbergasted …. having heard nigh on 60 different reasons to explain the ‘pause’, we are now being told its just an illusion. That’s what he says ??? Its just a f$%#ing illusion !! FFS ! Speechless !

  59. I was watching French reaction to the US prosecuting FIFA on France24 (in the US). One woman commented that the US is using RICO laws that brought down the mafia in the US. The scandal has spread to Latin America, and nations needing to fight corruption there, too. Thus, to bring down another mafia-like organization like FIFA using RICO – AGAIN – is only a very poetic outcome.

    Seeing that and reading this thread now, one wonders if the new Republican Administration (ie, President in 2017) will use RICO to bring down the mafia of climate science?

    We know that leeching on enormous sums of federal monies is involved, since “climate science” is funded the most, or rather second only to medicine in the US national budget. That isn’t in question.

    I can only wish that the new Department of Justice is headed by Senator Ted Cruz – who, as head of Texas’s justice won all his cases before the US Supreme Court! And at Harvard Law, Cruz won the admiration of Professor Alan Dershowitz best student. “Don’t mess with Texas.”

    So, Dershowitz’ attack dog is likely gunning for the climate mafioso! (Spread this meme to this paper’s authors – it’s time to see these frauds quaking in their boots! We know they do – the Climategate emails showed us that they will!)

  60. IMHO WUWT does the world a valuable service by examining claims for scientific validity, and may prevent some bad decisions being made at every level as a result. The latest article here is a good case in point.

    At the same time, the scientists who believe that human-caused warming is real do the world a service by raising the topic for inspection, so that there is awareness and investigation.

    Yes, there are some people with impure agendas on both sides of the debate, but it seems likely that most of the scientists in this discussion, regardless of their views, are sincere and well intentioned. (This comment explicitly does not discuss non-scientists; that is a very different topic)

    The whole name calling thing is unfortunate – “deniers” and “alarmists”. However, both sides seem to be passionate and sincere in their beliefs. And there is a third side which is not a side at all – the silent majority of scientists who have no position and simply seek the truth. So, this seems to be a healthy debate, where eventually the facts will, one would hope, win. Let the cards fall where they may.

    One thing that does not help is when either side look at the record, and then cherry pick to remove some data that does not support their position. The WUWT site frequently accuses the “alarmists” of doing this, which they do. But WUWT seems blind to when articles posted here do the same thing. e.g. a couple of the articles about 2014 being the hottest year (not) basically said you have to ignore all the stuff (Pacific warm spots ect) that made the average temperature warm, and after you do that it is not warmest any more. This is the same sort of nonsense that the “alarmists” are accused of, and is not credible when either side do it.

    I think I speak for may when I say that I hope that WUWT keeps up the good work, but also that it would be to the benefit of mankind if WUWT could take the high road, and adopt a scrupulously neutral approach, avoiding name calling and not publishing anything but the facts, or at least serious scientists’ sincere interpretations of the facts, and publishing anything which seems scientifically sound, no matter what its conclusions, without any bias in the filter. In that fashion, WUWT may help the world form a more accurate view, so we can feel our way as a species towards understanding what is going on.

    At present WUWT does do an excellent job of bringing relevant info to light, but it appears to be biased and does engage in publishing some name calling and other less than credible stuff on occasion. By removing that bias and being scrupulously neutral, WUWT can do the world a great service.

    Keep up the good work.

    • People misunderstand cherry picking.

      One cannot cherry pick data or scenarios to prove something.

      However, if a theory is universal, one can chery pick data or a scenario that shows a potential shortcoming with a universal theory. Indeed, that is precisely how most universal ‘laws’ are disproved, such as Newtonian Mechanics. This is fine in 99.9% of scenarios, one has to cherry pick the 0.1% scenario where the ‘law’ breaks down, and reveals a potential problem,

      If the the backradiation theory is sound, then any increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere MUST ALWAYS result in warming unless a saturation point has been reached or unless there is some opposing forcing cancelling out the warming which was otherwise caused by the increase in CO2 levels.

      This means that every year where CO2 levels have increase and where there was no corresponding temperature increase that year, an explanation consistent with the theory is required. If no explanation can be put forward explaining the lack of increase in temperature, the ‘theory’ is potentially invalidated.

      The explanation may be that there was a volcano resulting in aerosl particulate blocking, or the year was particularly cloudy, or there was a larger than average change in albedo, or there was a La Nina etc. Or of course, there may be no obvious explanation and those promoting the theory fall back on it must be natural variation that cancelled out the warming. If the latter is the explanation then it is known (if natural variation truly did cancel out the warming) that natural variation trumps CO2, and CO2 is not the paramount forcing controlling Earth’s temperatures. At most, it one of a number of factors but cannot trump natural variation. That has profound implications since the late 20th Century warming was claimed to be the result of CO2 simply because no other factor or explanation could be thought of.

      Of course, the more examples one cites which suggest problems/short comings with the ‘theory’ the more likely that the ‘theory’ is wrong, in whole or in part.

      I agree with you about the name calling, but all debate is useful. Unfortunately, it is human nature to have bias, and nothing would ever be published if the author was obliged to be wholly free of bias, That would immediately invalidate everything that the Team has ever published. It is possible to be biased and still be correct. What is important is for the reader and reviewer to be sceptical and unbiased or at any rate at least open to consider both sides and all arguments. I often say that I am sceptical of each and every argument in support of cAGW, but likewise sceptical of each and every argument that seeks to refute it. Sceptism is a two way street.

      We are adults on this site, and most of us ignore name calling and do not rise to the bait or jump on the wagon.

  61. After spending close to 5-6 years looking at the NCDC global summary of days data set, I can identify more than one kind of warming.
    1)The average temperature increase of the daily minimum temp.
    2)The average maximum summer daily temp.
    3)The integral of the average annual max temp.
    4)The integral of the daily min to max increase.
    5)The integral of the day to day change in max temp.
    6)The integral of the day to day change in min temp
    7)The change in the annual integral of max temp
    8)The change in the annual integral of min temp.
    9)The change in average temp (which for most surface stations is only calculated) as compared to a baseline of a multi year average of average temp.
    10)The difference between the average daily rising temp and the following nights falling temp.

    1 Is just slightly less than 18F, and has change some, but the processing I used (no infilling ) means the station list can changes some each year.
    1&2The slope of the daily change is a slight curve peaking at ~1999-2000.
    7, shows no Trend in warming since the 40’s.
    8, shows no trend, but fairly large regional swings.
    9, this is how the published series are calculated.
    10,shows an average excess of nightly cooling since the 40’s, excess cooling 50 of the last 74 years, and excess cooling 30 of the last 34 years.

    For Co2 to the cause of warming, 10 is not possible.
    8 shows surface temp changes are driven from changes in ocean temps upwind.
    9 allows any positive change in most of these to show up as warming.

  62. I see that the Climate Liars have the perfect excuse now for their previous “mistake” of accepting that there ever was a “pause”, or what they prefer to call it- “slowdown”, and for their failed multiple attempts to explain it; Toilet’s paper about “seepage”. How convenient. We made them do it.
    How pathetic.

  63. It is obvious that global temperature is not known. Not today’s, nor any days in the past. Is global temperature going up? Down? Sideways? We don’t know.

    The assertion that “it is Man’s fault” is therefore hilarious.

    Measuring earth’s temperature (fever?) is feasible, but it would be a massive undertaking. Our efforts to date are feeble.

    I, for one, see no value in trying to measure earth’s temperature.

  64. If the pause/hiatus/lull is “just an artifact of data analysis” then why should the preceeding “warming” be any different?

  65. Nice graphic.

    I notice it shows a pause in the warming between approx. 1880 and 1915, another pause between approx. 1945 and 1980, but for some reason it is virtually impossible that we could be in another one now?

    Do the Alarmist/Warmists even hear how downright dumb they sound?

    Just because a “consensus” says the Emperor has new clothes doesn’t mean that he does.


  66. JohnWho… you seem to be a “climate denier” such as John Steinbeck. We now “know” that the dust bowl era was not as hot as you “heretics” say it was, and that the “scorching” only began in the 1950s. You must hate my grandchildren for spreading such “filth”.

    Sarc off…

    • *hangs head in shame*

      I apologize for attempting to bring common sense into the discussion.

      As to your grandchildren: my feelings toward them are currently in a “pause”, primarily since I haven’t met them.

  67. In a letter to Tom Peterson A watts says:

    This will be NCDC’s Waterloo, and will backfire on all of you terribly on the world stage. Take a lesson from Yamamoto’s own observation after he bombed Pearl Harbor. Take a lesson from what is on WUWT today.!!!

    A threat!! – basically don’t publish you research or I’ll set the dogs of wuwt on you.

    Godwin’s Law with a touch of the oriental!

  68. “The satellite data is flawed as well – do some of you even know that it doesn’t actually measure temperature?”

    I presume this is true in the same sense as the following:

    A thermometer doesn’t actually measure temperature. It measures the height of a column of mercury in a glass tube.

  69. The article claims inconsistency in claims of no pause, and a pause. The science by NOAA only says that over the last 17 years there has been little slowdown, not no slowdown. Obviously the last ten years have been slow, and this is likely due to more heat sequestered in the oceans than normal.So explanations for slowdowns in temperature still apply.The point is there is not as much slowdown as previously thought, and clear explanations for what slow down there is.

    The article claims things like no increase in temperatures before 1998, after 2001 blah, blah. Looking visually at that satellite graph over the full period, there is an obvious upwards trend over the full period and it is roughly continuous, not some step change at 1998.

    The article claims no tropical hotspot. Recent research has found the tropical hotspot.

Comments are closed.