Confidential: How to Hide the Pause

Guest essay by Iain Aitken

Dear Colleagues – As President Trump hints at the withdrawal of our country from the Paris climate accord there has never been a greater threat to the Cause of saving our planet from catastrophic man-made global warming – so now, more than ever, we must be adroit in all dealings with the media. Whilst it is true that the climate models are obviously running hot and we appear to have assumed far too high a value for climate sensitivity and have obviously grossly underestimated natural climate variability we can rest assured that these highly damaging facts are far too arcane for the scientifically illiterate public, journalists and politicians; fortunately it is only the climate change sceptics who understand how all this undermines our great Cause – and happily we continue to be highly successful in discrediting and silencing them. But should the global warming Pause ever be publically acknowledged this could destroy us – it is our Sword of Damocles. Therefore I would urge you to study and memorise the imaginary interview below setting our clear steps that you should follow in any dealings with the media to help ensure that this potential disaster does not befall us.

Interviewer: Hello and welcome to the Science Spot! [applause] Tonight we have a treat for you as we welcome to the show none other than one of the top scientists saving the planet from catastrophic man-made climate change, Professor Pete Pecksniff, Head of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Ford, England, Europe! [wild applause] Great of you to take time off to talk to us, Professor.

Pecksniff: It’s my pleasure to be here, Bill. They do let us out of the lab for short periods! [laughter]

Interviewer: So, first up, Professor, I’ve heard that when you set aside last year’s extreme El Niño weather event there has been about twenty years without any statistically significant global warming, something they call the ‘Pause’. Given that about a third of all man-made greenhouse gases in history were emitted over that period can that really be true? I mean, if that’s true then doesn’t that blow out of the water any belief in dangerous man-made global warming?

Pecksniff: I’m so glad you’ve brought that up, Bill. These days we seem to be swimming in a sea of Fake News and I’m delighted that your show is bringing this disgraceful practice to the public attention.

Interviewer: Right. So what you’re saying is that the Pause is Fake News?

Pecksniff: What I’m saying, Bill, is that there are Facts and then there are Alternative Facts and I applaud you for helping educate the public to recognise one from the other.

Interviewer: OK. So what you are saying is that the Pause is actually a lie?

Pecksniff: Look, let’s be absolutely clear about this – any suggestion that we are experiencing global cooling is total nonsense and can be discounted out of hand.

Interviewer: Well, yes, Professor. But the thing is I didn’t actually ask you if we were experiencing global cooling – I asked you if there had been a Pause in global warming which, you know, isn’t really the same thing?

Pecksniff: Exactly. There is no reason whatsoever to think that global warming has stopped and I can assure you absolutely that no climate scientist in the world believes that it has.

Interviewer: Right. Yes, I’m sure that’s true. But, you see that doesn’t really answer my question?

Pecksniff: [sighs and puts head in hands] Look, I don’t know how to be any clearer about this. The fact is that we are experiencing global warming – the scientific evidence of that is unequivocal! Furthermore 2014, 2015 and 2016 have all, successively, been the warmest years since records began. And ten of the warmest years since records began have all fallen in this century! How much more evidence is needed, for goodness sake?

Interviewer: Yes, well, I kind of get all that. But, and I hate to press you here, Professor, but it sort of seems to me that everything you’ve said so far could all be true – and yet the twenty year Pause in global warming could also be true. Couldn’t it? I mean the trend from 1950, say, could be up but the trend since 1997 could be flat. And all those warm years this century could be warm and yet the trend could still be flat. Er, couldn’t it?

Pecksniff: Bill, I really hate to have to do this because I have no wish whatsoever to embarrass you in front of your audience but I have here a graph that should answer your question once and for all [takes paper from jacket pocket, unfolds it and shows it to the camera] Can your camera catch that? As should be abundantly obvious we see a dramatic global warming trend over the last twenty years.



Interviewer: [squirming] Well, you certainly can’t argue with that. My apologies for pressing you on all this, Professor. At last we have the absolute truth that the Pause is just a myth.

Pecksniff: [gracious patronising smile] You said it, Bill.

Should anyone be concerned that the Interviewer might realise that the graph is based on only the terrestrial temperature datasets and pull out his own graph based on the far more accurate RSS/UAH satellite datasets, so revealing the Pause, rest assured that this has never happened. Indeed the chance of the Interviewer getting beyond the second or third question before giving up is remote. Consequently, provided we are all careful to stick closely to this script, which, remember, sticks to the literal truth and does not require that any explicit lies be told, the Pause can be kept hidden. Whilst I appreciate that many of you may have qualms about employing such blatant obfuscation and dissimulation always remember that the end, in service of the Cause, justifies the means.


194 thoughts on “Confidential: How to Hide the Pause

  1. Most of the interviewers, and essentially all working for the MSM, do not even know what questions to ask. The “producer” never gets past the first page of results on Google, and comes up with questions assuming the warmist narrative.

    • … comes up with questions assuming the warmist narrative.

      The ‘good’ interviewers are mostly committed to CAGW. They ask softball questions designed to let the interview subject get out her talking points designed to debunk the skeptics.

      The CBC (Canadian Broadcorping Castration) has done a few interviews with Katharine Hayhoe. She gets to spend a lot of time telling about her problems dealing with skeptics. The interviewer is very sympathetic. The question never comes up about whether the skeptics might be right.

      It does seem to me that often reporters and their subjects have prearranged the questions. link

      • I agree with commieBob on this. Ms Hayhoe is a very frustrating person to listen to because she slides so easily back and forth between faith and advocacy. I think she thinks she is talking to young teenagers who have been indoctrinated without yet learning the fundamentals of argument and reason.

        The long interview with her on CBC last week was sophomoric. It was like, ‘If we all pull together and really believe, it will be true.’

        The CBC’s empty-headedness on this topic is ever in evidence. Who runs that show? Seriously, how was the CBC captured? How can the public broadcaster be so against the public interest?

      • “Public brodcaster” is really just a euphemism for “State propaganda organization”

        Governments rarely operating in the public interest, their propaganda outlets spew out a lot of junk designed to fool the population into believing that which is not so.

      • You could try looking at Hayhoe’s “Global Weirding” series and actually become informed instead of denigrating a great scientist. Rather than some obscure “sceptic” looking for a bit of notoriety. Hayhoe tells you why the “sceptics” are not right. Not that any informed person should need to be told. Any possible reason for dispute ended decades ago.

      • John Peate, I like to sing this song in the shower.

        You say po-TAY-toe, I say po-TAH-toe
        You say great scientist, I say government funded toadie protecting her own rice bowl
        po-TAY-toe, po-TAH-toe, great scientist, government funded toadie protecting her own rice bowl
        Let’s call the whole thing off

        ps. John, global weirding is just a way for Climate Scientologists to claim bad weather is climate change.

      • John Peate May 7, 2017 at 10:03 am

        … denigrating a great scientist.

        1 – You’re saying she rises to the level of Newton, Maxwell, Planck, etc. She’s not even close. Even she wouldn’t call herself one of the great scientists.
        2 – Calling her wrong is not denigrating her.
        3 – The skeptic community is actually better informed than the alarmist community. link
        4 – In the light of 3 (above) you are denigrating us.

        If you want any kind of respect on this blog, try modelling yourself on folks like Nick Stokes (and several others) who have the guts to show up here and argue facts.

      • commie Bob and Crispin

        Re: Health & CO2 emissions

        UNEP & UNEA, Canada & U.S.

        ‘Multistakeholder Dialouges in preparation of UNEA 2

        From the Canada Dialogue:

        UNEA/United Nations Environment Assembly, Ottawa, March 23, 2016

        From the PDF link:

        Page 3, “Connecting climate change and its impacts on health can make the issue more immediate and personal, helping to drive action to combat climate change.”

        Page 5, Participants list for Canada include:

        Health Canada
        IISD/International Institute for Sustainable Development.
        And others

        See this UNEP webpage of where other Dialouges were held, including New York.

      • John, ah yes the faithful fall back. The debate is settled so you all just shut up now.

      • UN/United Nations

        Partnership For Action On Green Economy

        Short biography: Scott Vaughn, Pres. and CEO of IISD, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

        “At UN Environment, Vaughn initiated the UN Environment Finance Initiative and UN Environment’s work on trade and development.”

        IISD/International Institute for Sustainable Development.

    • MSM just wants to ID and define “the bad guy” in any issue with two side and stage the conflict for the spectacle. Even *if* MSM *wasn’t* stupid, it wouldn’t have the necessary time to ask multilevel-deep questions needed to root out the lies, misdirection and omissions. Interviewed alarmists always have the handy talking points boilerplate answer cheatsheet ready for incantations. If things go off-script there could be problems, so MSM makes sure they don’t.

      • With the press, I am reminded of that comment by Napoleon that one should not assume malice for that which can be accounted for by incompetence. The on-air fluffheads and the producers are mostly English Lit or Poli-Sci or Women’s Studies majors, and do not know they are both ignorant and being used by zealot advocates mot of the time.

      • I say, one should not assume incompetence for that which can be accounted for by malice . . because I haven’t forgotten the vast genocides of the twentieth century . . among a great many other things, kiddies.

  2. In the satellite data, there are actually two pauses,

    One from 1980 – 1997 (yes a slight linear trend, but that is purely a remnant of how the cyclic nature starts and ends.)

    And one from 2001 – 2015 and a bit.

    It remains to be seen if the 2015-2016 is just a transient effect in that 2001-2015 flat trend

      • Andy,

        The period you’ve removed to account for El Niño in your second chart doesn’t look quite right. You start it in May 2001, as far as I can see. In fact by then we’d already been through an extended period of La Niña conditions stretching roughly from July 1998 to Feb 2001 according to NOAA:

        You’ll also notice from that ENSO chart that the most recent El Niño ended around May 2016 and there has been a period of La Niña conditions since then. The chart below shows UAH v6 with the the two El Niño periods, as defined by NOAA, removed. Just for clarity, the periods removed are May 1997 to May 1998 and November 2014 to May 2016. Barring those periods I have used the entire UAH v6 data set, including the period Nov 1978 to Dec 1979 which you do not include in your top chart, and ending at April 2017.

        The trend in UAH v6 global is 0.12 C/dec warming. Removing the 2 big El Niño periods you refer to (and leaving the La Niña periods in!) makes practically no difference to the long term warming trend. It remains at 0.12 C/dec to 2 d.p.s.

      • Its interesting that the only real bet going at the moment is based a linear trend less than 0.13 is a win for the sceptic and over 0.17 for warming due to emissions to be real. Its based on GISS and made before the Arctic infilling and Karling but looks safe anyway.
        The first 2000 is up for grabs soon an even with the large El Nino, it looks to be in the bag.

      • DWR54, there wasn’t a real La Nina after the two year El Nino (2014-2016). The surface anomaly was as high +2 C in the Nino 1+2 region during that time while never reaching -1 C in Nino 3.4. Just because NOAA declares something does not make it real. After all, what we are trying to understand is whether this region is having a temporary warming/cooling effect on the rest of the planet.

        Obviously, there could not be a cooling influence in the tropical Pacific if much of it was well above average. However, there does appear to be something forming now in the Nino 1+2 that could turn into a full La Nina later in the year.

      • I have to agree with you. For the period up to 1997 the slope of the lower portion was 0.08 K/decade.

        I just went though the latest RSS data and I went through a procedure to determine where the “pause line” would be placed. It simply picks the point with the lowest slope. The slope is not zero but it is around 0.05 K/decade. I intend to keep doing this. It may get back to zero in time.

        There is more on this chart than you bargained for but I furnish it anyway. When I started this I did not include any contribution from CO2. I eventually wanted to learn how much of contribution from CO2 there can be and still accurate represent the measurements. Dispute what I present all you want but the climate models are nowhere close to this.!AkPliAI0REKhgZFWBGjZb41vBhWHHw

        If I put the line on the chart for those earlier years it would look like a stair step in 1997.

        How I determined where the minimum slope was located.!AkPliAI0REKhgZFXwaUhB0IyB84HjA

        There may be more here than expected but there are others that believe that the contribution from CO2 is quite small. What I show is the result of analysis.

        I spent 35 years as an engineer and I fail to understand how anyone could possibly use the GCMs to make policy decisions. Can we really be that daft or blind?

      • Charles the linear trend you find with trend calculators is purely a remnant of the cyclic nature of the data.

        If people don’t have the mathematical nouse and education to see that…. not my problem.

        I’ll try to point you in the right direction.

        What is the linear trend of this curve?

      • There were two linear trends on the graph. One duplicates the overall trend that you will find with the raw data. the other was to indicate that the pause line is not too far from being flat again.

        The fact that you sent me a picture of a cycle seems to me to indicate that you missed the other point I was trying to convey and that is the RSS dataset is made up of a number of cycles. Look at the cyclic analysis result curve on the plot. I have a high correlation coefficient with the measured data using those cycles.

        I thought the linear trend line was a simplified way of determining where I started and where it ended.

        I don’t need to be convinced of the importance of natural variability. That is the purpose of the cyclic fit I came up with.

        Perhaps, I am missing something in what you are saying.

      • To look for any CO2 signature you have to avoid the NON-CO2 El Nino effects.

        When you do that in the satellite data, as in my graphs above, you get two essentially zero trend graphs.

        CO2 has very little warming effect, if any..

        End of story.

      • DWR54

        Love your TOTAL RELIANCE on the NON-CO2 El Nino steps too illustrate a trend. ;-)

  3. Re: “Whilst I appreciate that many of you may have qualms about employing such blatant obfuscation and dissimulation always remember that the end, in service of the Cause, justifies the means.”

    Add to that: And in the end, The Pause justifies the schemes.

  4. “Pecksniff: What I’m saying, Bill, is that there are Facts and then there are >>Alternative Facts<< "
    and that's probably why we don't hear from kellyanne so much now

    • Gnomish, I went to another news website and encountered, in the second level of news on the first page, the following “Conway: Clinton’s return shows Democrats have no game”. There was a stock picture of Kellyanne Conway with the headline. I will at this point resist further comment.

    • Kellyanne ison TV this morning and has been on all week. What have you been listening to, the view?

    • “there are Facts and then there are “Alternative Facts”

      Wouldn’t that mean both sides are right and there is a conclusion and and “alternative conclusion” Facts are facts—if there are two sets, then both sets are true.

      • No, what that means is that out of the complete set of facts relating to a subject, one can cherry-pick certain ones to support a theory, or cherry-pick others to challenge it. But if a single fact exists which falsifies the theory, then it is false.

      • skorrent1: If in the subsets that were cherry-picked, there are no facts that contradict, then the facts are true in that case. Rarely, if ever, does one find a complete line from the first recorded instrumental records through 2017. Even skeptics truncate that set.

        I don’t think that’s what’s actually being said. I think these people believe there are two sets of real facts and they are holding the “true” ones. Facts, to them, does not mean truth in an absolute way, because truth is situational and not absolute. If all the authorities and government believe the “real facts” of the warmists, then the “alternative facts” of the skeptics are wrong because in this situation, the “real facts” are the most believed. Science has become situational in its findings so to the warmists, all of this makes sense and is evidence that they have the “real facts” and are doing “real science”.

      • This is arguing the dictionary against reality. The “fact” is that different people believe different “sets of facts” that authorities they trust have told them, and which they believe are correct. This happens all the time. Proving which is actually correct and which is wrong takes time and effort, often an indeterminate amount of time and effort (which means the argument may be “over” before you can do this), and it’s likely many people won’t believe you if you do. After all, they have other people telling them you’re wrong.

        None of this is original or astounding, but since it is vitally important to ideology to keep the arguments going and keep people on their own sides of the fence, people must be convinced that it is ridiculous to suggest this, even if that means rewriting events or the meaning of other people’s words.

    • gnomish…as I see it, there can be two sets of ‘facts’, especially in politics. Example, two generals look at a battlefield, one general say my cavalry is crushing the other side, I will win. The other general says, look my infantry is crushing the other side, I will win. Both facts are true! How those facts are interpreted can ‘alter’ the view point. We’re not talking about facts such as gravity, just perceptions or grey areas in this case politics.

      • Then there is the one that goes: “There we were, two against a thousand. Boy did we ever kick the stuffing out of those two guys!”

        There is a lot of this kind of news going on in post normal days. In climate science, warming proponents who burn up billions a year and maybe have done about a trillion or so in “mitigation” of a so far non problem use a variant of the above when they harp about the the huge cash support that sceptics get from big oil and gas. Hell if there is only 3% of us against 97% and these guys are calling foul and unfair because sceptics have been swaying the masses.

      • A “Fact” should be a piece of reality. Some persons are citing opinion as a fact. This is at the heart of the global warming scam, persons swell themselves with righteous indignation and spout opinion as if it were fact. Scientists should be reality-based and this requires introspection on an almost daily basis.

      • Climate Warriors…..CO2 Slayers….Social Guardians….(you can see the CO2 clouds in the pictures).

  5. That ‘skit’ reminded me so much of the recently late, John Clarke.
    He had about him the brilliant talent of sounding sincere and thoughtful, while talking the micky out of the topic, person, or both.

    Sorry if you don’t live in Oz or NZ…to know who John was.

    • It certainly does sound like John Clarke while mickey taking! Maybe his script writing friends could copy him.But he would never get on Fairfax TV.
      ( from NZ)

    • “… talking the mickey …”

      I had to look that one up …

      From Wikipedia: “Taking the piss is a Commonwealth term meaning to take liberties at the expense of others, or to be unreasonable. It is often used to mean (or confused with) taking the piss out of, which is an expression meaning to mock, tease, ridicule, or scoff.[1] It is also not to be confused with “taking a piss”, which refers to the act of urinating. Taking the Mickey (Mickey Bliss, Cockney rhyming slang) or taking the Michael is another term for making fun of someone. These terms are most widely used in the United Kingdom, Ireland, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia.”

  6. In the past 30 years I have experienced temperatures of -30 to +35 Celsius (-20 to 95 F).
    Plot that chart and then put the change chart on top with that scale needed for the actual measured temperatures.
    Ask an audience how scary that looked?

    [I have an old old copy of How to Lie With Statistics]

    • John,
      About 15 years ago, I made 2 trips in that year to Wisconsin to visit family. The last week of July, on a Saturday, it was 104F at Whitman Field – Oshkosh during the EAA fly-in, airshow, and convention. That same year, on Dec 28th or 29th, I was staying at my mother’s house near Neshkoro (about 45 miles west of Oshkosh) on a very cold winter night. I awakened at about 5:00 am and thought to check the outdoor thermometer, a large dial analog instrument attached to the clothes line post in the back yard. It showed -32F. That equates to a delta T of 136F that I experienced in central Wisconsin that year.

      On New Years day, I shoveled ~ 3 feet of snow off of my mom’s roof, just ahead of another incoming snow storm. The extreme temperatures and snowfall were neither global warming nor cooling, just weather in Wisconsin. We worked and went to the airshow when it was hot and worked and went cross country skiing and ice fishing when it was cold, because we were well adapted to seasonal weather variations in Wisconsin.

      • I’m about 100 miles south of where those stats came from, but we haven’t seen that sort weather extreme in a very long time, decades, well OK, we’ve had some years with near record snow.

  7. ” based on the far more accurate RSS/UAH satellite datasets, so revealing the Pause”
    Well, let’s see what those “far more accurate” datasets have said in recent years:

    The “accurate” UAH V5.6 agrees perfectly with GISS. UAH6 goes the other way, as does RSS V3.3. RSS V4 is in between.

    Or just listen to Carl Mears, the man behind RSS:
    “A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!).”

    • One must cow-tow to the alarmist meme, hey Nick.

      Poor Carl.

      His data tells him one thing, his religion tells him another.

      What is he to do.

      FUDGE. !!!

      • Kind of a funny reply when it is the operators of UAH who are fundamentalist Christians from the branch of a Church that denies climate change because “only God” can change climate. Mears was right and Christy and Spencer have had to recalibrate their satellites and revise their findings because they are very inaccurate,

      • Spencer and Christy are the very scientists that discovered that the microwave sounding satellites could be used to create a global temperature data set. The pounding of снг¡$т¡аи$ (and Jцdа¡$м) these days has become an acceptable pastime for nouveau monde types. Okay, they have broad shoulders, however, don’t poke fun at the scientific achievements of this group (check out the frequency of Nobel Prize recipients in hard sciences by this group before the revisionist historians hide it all away).

      • Kind of a funny reply when it is the operators of UAH who are fundamentalist Christians from the branch of a Church that denies climate change because “only God” can change climate. Mears was right and Christy and Spencer have had to recalibrate their satellites and revise their findings because they are very inaccurate,

        Please provide evidence for your bullshit.

      • Gary,

        Do you know of any Nobel Laureates who are fundamentalist Christian creationists, either Old Earth or Young Earth? I don’t, but of course I could have missed someone. I feel safe in stating that no one who imagines that Earth is 6000 years old has ever won a Nobel Prize, whether in a scientific category, economics, peace or literature. I’m also pretty sure that no one who thinks Earth is 4.56 billion years old, but that God has intervened in the creation of species during that interval has ever won one, either. I’d welcome being shown wrong.

        There have been Christian and probably other believers in other religions who posit a creator behind the universe, but Nobel Prize-winning scientists who think that the self-contradictory OT accounts of creation are even remotely related to what actually happened in the history of the universe and life on earth, I know of none. Jews are disproportionately represented among Nobel winners, but few, if any, have been devout, let alone fundamentalist.

        Some older physicists were willing to imagine a designed universe, but that belief is fading away with each passing Laureate. Nobel laureates in the life sciences, not so much. Even though there isn’t a Prize for biology, just Physiology and Medicine.

        Here’s one who was willing to consider design in the universe, while naturally, as any scientist must, rejecting the antiscientific, religious dogma of ID:

      • John,

        You grossly misrepresent Dr. Spencer’s position on “climate change”. He is an ID advocate, but doesn’t believe what you falsely claim.

        Dr. Spencer signed “An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming”, which states, “We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.”

        One needn’t invoke a god to observe the fact that Earth’s climate system is largely homeostatic, ie self-regulating.

      • Gee Chimp, I only said Christians and Jews, I didn’t divide them into hundreds of groups. If you want what would be a cuckoo Christian think Sir Isaac Newton (too early for NP) or most of the rest of the Golden Age of Science personae. Indeed the Jews are very well represented among N.P Laureates they are 0.2% of world population but have garnered ~20% of all Nobels. Pretty impressive. I’ve seen this attributed to the strong ethic of study and work which Christians also shared. Also, earlier generations of Americans were much more Christian than they are today (and I suspect Jews were much more religious, too in earlier generations).

        I admit I assumed people would get my point that to discredit Roy Spencer as a scientist because he is a Christian is the hallmark of an idiot. Roy is the inventor of the procedure (used, too, by Mears I will deliciously add) for calculating earth atmospheric temperatures from MSU satellites. My much more subtle point, which you therefore surely will not have sensed, is if Roy wasn’t a member of the “Deplorables” defined by the left, he would have actually won a Nobel Prize for this enormous contribution (they were busy handing out prizes of lower quality than the fine prizes given freely in Crackerjack (TM) to a roster of clowns over the past number of years).

        With the social justice and PoliCorrect anti civilization warriors, the groups I honored above, who are (except for females and a variety of other genders) not included in the purview of “diversity”, will also not be included among future Nobel recipients either if the trend continues to its end game. Man, I might start wearing polka dot suits and my fedora on sideways if I get marginalized any further.

      • Chimp, penalty for moving the goal post.
        The original post said fundamentalist, nothing about creationists.

      • Nick Stokes May 6, 2017 at 11:45 pm
        Well, the pause is past.

        Yes, the pause that could never be was replaced by the dozens of explanations for why it existed and now has been replaced by insisting it never was. Carl Mears laments the inaccuracy of the data he is paid to accurately produce from multi billion dollar satellite programs in favour of land based records which are swiss cheese by comparison, and while contradicting each other, so so within limits of less than 0.6 deg c/Century, a number that should frighten only the illiterate.

        If there were cause for alarm nick, these things would no he happening,

      • Nick writes

        Well, the pause is past. I plotted the years people usually do.

        If the pause was only 13 years then it wouldn’t be such a problem to the AGW theory. It wasn’t, though was it.

    • Quote: The “accurate” UAH V5.6 agrees perfectly with GISS.

      Nick, in what way do the curves agree perfectly? You might like to start by discussing the perfect agreement of the amplitudes.

      • Nick, one is 0.506, the other is 0.547. That is more than an 8% difference.

        What is the margin for error for the two gradients? How far apart do they have to be before the gradients are statistically different?

      • Nick, it appears you’ve bailed out on this issue as well.

        Next time you are tempted to write something as stupid as “agrees perfectly”, take some time to think first.

        In fact, next time you are tempted to write anything, think first. You are plainly no scientist and no statistician either. You are way out of your depth.

    • The surface data sets all come from the same data lol Mears, lol ugh

      Funny how satellite data diverged from surface 18 years ago and now all of a sudden they agree.

      I smell lies

      • They are in closer agreement because the errors in the satellite data and the faults with the satellites have been corrected. They will never be as accurate as ground based apart fro measuring a different atmospheric layer.

      • In fact they removed the satellite data from internet as this data falls far below the ground based data and later they raised the satellite data and released new data set — I put this in my book as far as 2008 “climate change: Myths & realities”.

    • GISS is not a data set, it’s Gavin’s whim. How many times have they changed monthlies since 2002?

    • “which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets” Sounds like a personal opinion to me, not a scientific reality.

      • My how refreshing…a warmista who considers his own opinion to be “unusually relevant”!

    • You can always make two different lines look close, if you put the mean in the centre.

      Classic method to distort the differences so they look smaller than they really are.

      The really need to be pinned to the start of the data.

      And why stop in 2014 ???

      • Bill Illis
        “And why stop in 2014 ???”,
        Just following the head post
        ” when you set aside last year’s extreme El Niño weather event”

    • NS,

      I’m reminded of the old joke about how the man who only owns one watch always ‘knows’ what time it is; however, the man who owns two watches is never sure. The situation is even more problematic if someone owns 5 thermometers.

      A variant on that theme is that if there are many ‘standards’, there is no real standard.

      Your graph qualitatively reveals that there are common events with respect to global temperature variations; however, very little can be said with confidence about the quantitative differences other than perhaps assigning a ranking and a sign (+/-) to the event’s defining anomalies.

      • Clyde,
        “The situation is even more problematic if someone owns 5 thermometers.”
        The point of the graph is that if you own actual thermometers, you are much better off than if you don’t..

      • I thought the point was that the temperature has always been changing, but now the records of what the temperature used to be…well…they are changing too.

      • And the climate scientists with multiple data sets,ice cores and tree rings can’t find the temperature of their asses with both hands.

    • Nick, there were problems with UAH 5.6 as specified in peer reviewed papers. Why do you continue to dig yourself ever deeper in your bias hole?

      • “Nick, there were problems with UAH 5.6”
        Yes. I’m just reviewing the head post claim that the interviewer should
        “pull out his own graph based on the far more accurate RSS/UAH satellite datasets, so revealing the Pause”
        It seems they are only sometimes accurate. And when? UAH found problems and cooled (a lot); RSS found problems and warmed. Maybe problems are ongoing.

      • Mr. Stokes, please note that Mears has not been able to jigger lower tropospheric temperatures. (Yet?)

        I’m uncomfortable with spending trillions on minuscule jiggering of various data sets; much less on bunk IPCC climate models. Let the richer, more advanced future peoples decide what to do, if anything at all is needed.

    • Nick, take any point in time and all data sets are generally within 0.1C, pretty darn good for the job at hand. Oh and Mears appears to have caved in to the team who have been hit over the head with the satellite data sets and also limited the amount of jiggering of surface datasets, except, remarkably in the pre-satellite surface data sets. Carl also Karlized his data set (modestly) to be more in tune with Karl’s retirement present to the team. Alternative facts anyone?

    • The misleading graph is exactly why no one should try to plot short term graphs to analyze long term data. 12 years is just the right length to put that 400% swing just past the midpoint of the chart, resulting in big differences in short trends. You’ve just made a textbook example of what not to do and why regressions of averages are the wrong tool to use.

      Averages of hi-lo temperatures may be all we’ve got but that doesn’t make them good data.

  8. The problem with persistently referring to a “pause” of zero warming is that it allows the warmista to take a warming trend which is still very small and say “Look, it’s still warming. We are right.”

    It doesn’t really matter if the trend is zero, or slightly positive, or slightlynegative. What really matters is that the modelers claimed it should be warming a lot, but it isn’t.

    • It’s also 100% impossible to maintain when you hit an El Nino year or use a clever graph scale. Straight trend lines will keep going up for years, due to the nature of averages. Average 100, 100, 100, 100, 500, 100 and see how many “100’s” you need thereafter to reverse the upward “trend”. Averages are the most wonderful statistic in the world for hiding all variation and much of reality.
      (Even taking the series using 200 rather than 500 shows just how hard reversing an upward trend using averages is.)

      • Sheri.

        Take a series of 100’s as long as you like. Put in a 200 (or 500). Continue with 100’s. How long does it take to remove the positive slope? Well, going back from the very next 100 you have a pause of 2 data points. So the positive slope can be removed after one more point if you use the definition of the pause.

        If you look at the whole series it will take exactly as many points after the blip as there were points before the blip. From then on the slope will be negative forever more.

    • Now let’s all argue for decades and at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars about the definition of the term, “a lot”.

  9. …I’ve heard that when you set aside last year’s extreme El Niño weather event there has been about twenty years without any statistically significant global warming, something they call the ‘Pause’.

    The last big El Niño officially started centred November 2014 according to the NOAA ENSO index. So the previous 20 years, or 240 months, ranged from November 1994 to October 2014. according to the University of York’s Temperature Trends calculator (link below), temperature trends in the global databases covering that period are as follows (stated in °C/decade with 2σ error range):


    GISTEMP 0.136 ±0.093
    Berkeley 0.134 ±0.087
    HadCRUT4 0.109 ±0.093
    NOAA 0.125 ±0.085

    Lower troposphere:

    RSSv3.3 TLT 0.035 ±0.154
    UAHv6.0 TLT 0.016 ±0.154

    So it’s not strictly accurate to say there had been about twenty years without any statistically significant global warming before the 2014-16 El Niño. In fact all the surface data sets do show statistically significant warming over that period. The lower troposphere (satellite) data sets both show warming over that period, but not statistically significant.

      • This is perhaps the weakest straw man fallacy in the history of logical fallacies:

        So it’s not strictly accurate to say there had been about twenty years without any statistically significant global warming before the 2014-16 El Niño. In fact all the surface data sets do show statistically significant warming over that period. The lower troposphere (satellite) data sets both show warming over that period, but not statistically significant.

      • You do know DWR54, that the surface records were tilted upwards by Tom Karl weeks before he retired, as a gift to his heat colleagues because of the terrible devastation that the pause, after it was discovered by skeptics by about 2005, had been having on proponents for a decade after. In the climategate emails the two heavyweights, Phil Jones of UEA and Trenberth of UCAR expressed their puzzlement about the fact of the pause. Santer jumped in an said it was only significant if it lasted 15 years, then 17 years, then the big Karlization of ocean temperatures that made the pause disappear. You do know that a number of warmer climate scientists were put out of action permanently by so-called Climate Blues, a neurosis caused by the pause because of its meaning for weakness of CO2 as a central player in the two decades of warming closing the last century (of course they rationalized it in other ways, a reaction given the venerable diagnosis Dзиуаl in psychology). How would you feel late in your career that from your courses, to your thesis, to a large hunk of your career, you had wasted a life.

  10. What determines an atmospheric gas’ potential heat capacity?* Anyone know? Anyone take high school physical science or physics? What physical feature of a gas determines what the gas is capable of ingesting regarding heat? Don’t remember? Does VOLUME ring a bell? Ahhh…volume! Yes, volume. So let’s take a look at the volumes of carbon dioxide, oxygen and nitrogen …

    One pound of Carbon Dioxide has a volume of 8.7 cubic feet,

    Oxygen is at 12.1 cubic feet.

    Nitrogen is at 13.8 cubic feet

    With a smaller volume than either Nitrogen and Oxygen,
    Carbon Dioxide can only possess LESS heat than Nitrogen and Oxygen, and when more COOLER carbon dioxide is pumped into the Nitrogen-Oxygen based atmosphere (>99% of the atmosphere’s gasses), the result can only be a COOLING of the atmosphere.

    When the volume of any planet’s atmosphere is increased by additions of a cooler trace gas such as Carbon Dioxide is on Earth, the result can only be a cooling of the planet, all other variables remaining constant. And if other variables should increase the heat of a planet, such as increased radiation from the planet’s star(s), then the additional trace gas will have a RELATIVE cooling effect on the planet. To better grasp this fact, let’s use a more familiar everyday experience we witness involving water: When a small amount of cooler water is added to a larger warmer body of water, the result is a cooling of the water.

    So what is warming the planet, you ask? The heat obtained by both Nitrogen and Oxygen comes from thermals and latent heat from the surface, heat from man-made structures on the ground, and the heat produced by incoming radiation absorbed directly by the atmosphere, not solely from the absorption of outgoing IR. The warmth that blankets us each day is due to Nitrogen and Oxygen, not the puny amounts of the trace gas Carbon Dioxide, nor any of the other trace gasses.

    Regarding man-made structures on the ground, interestingly NASA’s ‘earth’s energy budget’ illustration fails to provide the data on the amount of solar radiation absorbed by those structures, and it is the massive growth of urban sprawl the last sixty years that accounts for the atmosphere’s warming, a warming that is being tempered by increasing amounts of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.

    That being cleared up, do you recall your high school chemistry teacher’s instruction on the high heating effect of Carbon Dioxide, where there’s two jars and a heater next to each of the two jars? Carbon Dioxide is pumped into the second jar, and the temperature rises faster than the temperature in the first jar, thereby proving that Carbon Dioxide is a warming molecule. What the teacher didn’t tell you is that by adding more Carbon Dioxide into the second jar, naturally the temperature within the jar will rise faster than the first jar because the atmospheric pressure in the second jar is GREATER due to the addition of the extra Carbon Dioxide!

    For those scratching their heads, forgetting their high school physical science class instruction, increasing atmospheric pressure increases heat.

    Now, a proper experiment, using the scientific method, would have included a third and fourth jar, where additional Nitrogen is pumped into the third jar, and additional Oxygen pumped into the fourth jar. But the scientific method isn’t used, because if it were the temperatures within the third and fourth jars would climb even higher than the second jar where additional amounts of Carbon Dioxide are pumped in.’

    * No, not ‘molar heat capacity’ as Tom Curtis informed us on an SKS thread…

    …since molar heat capacity tells us nothing about a gas’ heat capacity due to their EXPANDING WITH HEAT! Molar heat capacity measures the heat capacity of the particles that are in a gas, and since gasses expand due to heat, molar heat capacity can’t be used to solely quantify the heat of a gas. Molar heat capacity contributes to a gas’ potential heat in expanding a gas (as do thermals and latent heat), therefore one must add molar heat capacity AND specific heat capacity (volume) to obtain the correct temperature of a gas.

    When Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Carbon Dioxide are at 70 F (and 1 atmosphere), all three have the same temperature, but which molecule has approximately one-third less of the 70 F temperature? Carbon Dioxide, which proves it’s a cooling molecule in Earth’s atmosphere.

    • Dean Jackson – May 7, 2017 at 12:43 am

      AND specific heat capacity (volume) to obtain the correct temperature of a gas.

      The warmth that blankets us each day is due to Nitrogen and Oxygen, not the puny amounts of the trace gas Carbon Dioxide, nor any of the other trace gasses.

      I’m happy to know that at least one (1) more persons that reads WUWT recognizes the above fact.

      He should have also included water (H2O) vapor along with the other 3, ….. N2, O2, CO2 & H2O.

      And the primary question is, ……. when the near-surface atmospheric temperatures increase, which of those different atmospheric gases will have absorbed the greatest quantity of said “warming” thermal (heat) energy? To wit:

      SHC and percentages of Atmospheric gases

      H2O (vapor) —- Specific Heat Capacity – 1.930 kJ/kg K ….. 2-4%

      N2 ————— Specific Heat Capacity – 1.039 kJ/kg K ……. 78%

      O2 ————– Specific Heat Capacity – 0.910 kJ/kg K ……. 21%

      CO2 ———– Specific Heat Capacity – 0.844 kJ/kg K ……… 0.004%

      It is quite easy for an honest person to see via the above why water (H2O) vapor is the most potent of all per se “greenhouse” gases that does have a direct measurable effect on near-surface temperatures …… and why CO2 is utterly irrelevant of any measurable effects on near-surface temperatures.

      • Samuel, I intentionally kept water vapor out of my observation because it’s a result of heating, a heating that isn’t due to Carbon Dioxide, as my initial comment illustrated, but is due to the massive increase of man made structures on the ground the last 70 years.

        By the way, have you noticed ‘climate change’ frauds’ blatant lie that Nitrogen and Oxygen absorb zero infrared radiation? Not only do Nitrogen and Oxygen absorb infrared radiation, they also absorb gamma rays, x-rays, and uv light. Oxygen also absorbs visible light. The reason for the lie is to thwart any further investigation by the public into Nitrogen and Oxygen’s true warming qualities.

    • What a thoroughly foolish conclusion. It has been well understood for 150 years now that CO2 is a GHG and that it is the driver of temperature change.

    • Well, I’m a skeptic of CAGW, but you are missing the central fact that it isn’t the heat capacity, it is the long wave light absorptive behavior of GHG, like CO2 and H2O that is the centre of the debate. I see no harmful warming coming of CO2 and a lot of benefits. Skeptics harp on a bit too much about the ‘mere’ 400ppm CO2 as being too miniscule to have any effect on climate. Well ponder that the entire plant kingdom and some intermediate species are here on earth directly because of this little bit of CO2 and the rest of life forms couldn’t exist without this happy relationship. It’s this very fact that I have a good feeling about more CO2, which has already doubled crop production and greened the planet 30%. That’s heavy lifting for this little molecule.

    • “The warmth that blankets us each day is due to Nitrogen and Oxygen”
      A wet blanket has much greater heat capacity than a dry one. But people prefer dry.

    • Dean, this is one of the most confused comments I have seen.

      “With a smaller volume than either Nitrogen and Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide can only possess LESS heat than Nitrogen and Oxygen”

      The same volume of CO2 will heat up less than nitrogen if provided with the same amount of heat energy, largely because it contains more mass. The same weight of CO2 will heat up more than the same weight of nitrogen, because it has a lower Cp.

      CO2 can posses either more or less heat than Nitrogen, depending on the temperature.

      ” therefore one must add molar heat capacity AND specific heat capacity (volume) to obtain the correct temperature of a gas.”

      Heat capacity can be either at constant volume (Cv) or constant pressure (Cp). For atmospheric gases Cp is more appropriate, and these are the values given by Samuel below. It can also be expressed as molar heat capacity or specific heat capacity – the energy needed to heat 1 mole or 1kg by 1K respectively.

      Cv is lower than Cp because at constant volume all the energy goes to heating the gas. For Cp some of the energy does work to expand the gas, so more energy is needed to raise the temperature by the same amount. For a monatomic ideal gas Cp=5Cv/3.

      You do not add molar and specific Cp heat capacities. They are simply different units – either per kg or per mole. Volumetric heat capacity (e.g. J/cubic foot) is rarely used for gases, so we can forget that here.

      “When Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Carbon Dioxide are at 70 F (and 1 atmosphere), all three have the same temperature, but which molecule has approximately one-third less of the 70 F temperature? Carbon Dioxide, which proves it’s a cooling molecule in Earth’s atmosphere.”

      Not sure what you mean exactly, but since you refer to molecules, we need to use the molar heat capacity. These are CO2= 4.466 kJ/kgK, N2 = 3.503 kJ/kgK and O2 = 3.533 kJ/kgK.

      This means that at the same temperature, each CO2 molecule will have about 25% more energy than N2 or O2 molecules. This is because having 3 atoms rather than 2 it has more ways to “take up” the energy by vibration and rotation.

      % by volume is close to % by moles. So if we had 1/3 N2, 1/3 O2 and 1/3 CO2 by volume, we would have more energy in the CO2 than in the N2 or O2.

      None of this has anything to do with global warming because the level of CO2 is so much lower than the level of N2 and O2. The relative heat capacity differences are unimportant.

      • Error in my units molar heat capacities are in moles, of course, not kg. Should read “These are CO2= 4.466 J/mol.K, N2 = 3.503 J/mol.K and O2 = 3.533 J/mol.K.

    • The one I like is, …….

      If you never tell a lie then you will never have to un-lie it.

  11. Lower troposphere:

    RSSv3.3 TLT 0.035 ±0.154
    UAHv6.0 TLT 0.016 ±0.154

    When the error ranges are 4-9 times the size of the indicated change its not false to say that nothing significant has taken place.

    • Got to agree with Leo on this one, DRW. The warming, if it is there, is not statistically significant. Normally we don’t have to add the word ‘statistically’ as the term ‘significant’ is well understood. For the casual reader it is wise to add it for clarity.

      Any warming or cooling within the error bars is below the limit of detection. The detection limit does not mean ‘ability getting a different number’ it is a mathematically defined boundary. If a change is below the detection limit it does not provably exist.

      • Crispin,
        “Any warming or cooling within the error bars is below the limit of detection.”
        No, that’s wrong. It isn’t expressing doubt about whether the change occurred. It expresses variability in the underlying stochastic model fitted to weather variations. It tells the range of what you might get if you could somehow re-do the weather.

        If you want a measure of how uncertain they are in evaluating the weather that actually happened, a good guide is to compare UAHV5.6 (0.125°C/dec) with UAHV6.0 (0.015°C/Decade) for that period. Those are two numbers based on the same weather. So yes, there is a lot of uncertainty with satellite data.

    • Leo Smith and DWR54,

      From “An Introduction to Error Analysis,” (Taylor, 1982), he states that uncertainties should usually be rounded to 1 significant figure, although for high-precision work sometimes two significant figures are retained. More pointedly, he provides the following illustration:

      “…it would be absurd to state a result like (measured g) = 9.82 +/- 0.02385 m/sec^2. It is inconceivable that the uncertainties in the measurement can be known to four significant figures.”

      He also states “Rule for Stating Answers: The last significant figure in any stated answer should usually be of the same order of magnitude (in the same decimal position) as the uncertainty. For example, the answer 92.81 with an uncertainty of 0.3 should be rounded to 92.8 +/-0.3.”

      Basically, it makes no sense to state an uncertainty with more precision than the measured quantity. The lower troposphere temperature anomalies above can only be defended as being approximately 0.0 +/-0.2 or, at best, 0.04 +/-0.2 and 0.02 +/-0.2. Extra numbers look impressive, but are probably meaningless!

      Stating numbers with scientific notation (powers of 10) would help clarify the situation.

      • Not just meaningless. Extra digits are a statement that one is certain of the uncertainty! Ridiculous!

      • “The last significant figure in any stated answer should usually be of the same order of magnitude (in the same decimal position) as the uncertainty.”
        That is exactly what we have – e.g. RSSv3.3 TLT 0.035 ±0.154. UAHv6.0 TLT 0.016 ±0.154.

        3 decimal places each.

      • seaice1,
        You misunderstand! The values have 2 significant figures and the uncertainties have 3 significant figures. The second value is 1.6 x 10^-2 and the claimed uncertainty is 1.54 x 10^-1. That is, the uncertainty is an order of magnitude larger than the value and is presented has having an order of magnitude more precision. It is a demonstration of poor practice. Think about what the uncertainty means! You are defending a statement something like “I’m very confident that the number you are thinking of is between 1 and 100.” Does that really give any insight on the magnitude of the number?

  12. Surely the real question is, “Does this warming match the predicted warming that you’ve modeled?”

    Because if it doesn’t then we’ve no idea what is causing the warming or what to about it.
    And it doesn’t.

  13. Dear Professor Pecksniff, I was glad to see you on TV the other night but I am concerned that you fell into a few D enier traps. You simply must not use the phrase ‘global warming’. We have worked tirelessly to remove those two words from our lexicon and use the more flexible ‘climate change’. We do so because it can explain every eventuality. We are currently working on how to blame any cooling on CO2 and it is essential that the general public do not connect man made emissions with any particular effect. It’s enough for them to know that anything bad that happens is their fault. We need them to connect CO2 directly with hurricanes and droughts, without any messy temperature changes as the intermediate effect. Thus even if we have a ‘pause’, we can connect any weather events to CO2 anyway.

    • Cooling will be blamed of sulfate emissions from the huge increase in coal combustion. Warming, on the other hand, will be blamed on the huge increase in coal combustion.

      The difference is stark.

      • Don’t forget the Day After Tomorrow option, where warming equals cooling. And I’m sure that there will be other excuses in the pipeline.

      • Warming doesn’t equal c ooling. Warming causes cooling. They teach this stuff in first year acting school and social justice, along with remedial adding and subtraction. The actors usually memorize it as, “winter causes summer, and the other way around”.

    • On behalf of the Professor, I would point out that the entire theory rests on the PHYSICS (that is the emphasis of an true believer, by the way). Physics says CO2 traps heat, then re-radiates that heat at twice the rate the sun heats the earth. Arrhenius recognized that years ago. If one is to be taken seriously and not reject the science, CO2 does indeed warm the globe. It is important to stick closely to the science or one could fall into the contrarian trap.

    • “Thus even if we have a ‘pause’, we can connect any weather events to CO2 anyway.”

      Yeah, and that will allow them to more easily slip back into the human-caused Global Cooling narrative, if the weather actually starts cooling off significantly, and that way they can still make some money forecasting climate doom.

      Up or down, it doesn’t matter which way the temperature goes, they can profit either way if they work things right. Or at least they did in the past when they switched over from CAGC to CAGW in the 1970’s. A smooth, profitable transition, I must say.

    • Eggzactly!

      The statement from the article:
      “Pecksniff: Exactly. There is no reason whatsoever to think that global warming has stopped and I can assure you absolutely that no climate scientist in the world believes that it has.”

      Comes across so much better and more accurate when stated as:
      “Pecksniff: Exactly. There is no reason whatsoever to think that climate change has stopped and I can assure you absolutely that no climate scientist in the world believes that it has.”

  14. [takes paper from jacket pocket, unfolds it and shows it to the camera]
    Yes, laughable but typical tactics … especially if the warmist has been privy to the “spontaneous” audience questions before the show:

    With celebrity hacks like Brian Cox fighting for the cause, rather than the pause, you’d think empirical science would be on a winner. But alas, Jo Dumb Public will go for the one with the expensive set of teeth!

      • The great diesel swindle will hit lots of people financially. There have already been increases in parking charges – UK councils like Westminster are always quick to spot new ways of mugging the residents – emission zone charges, bans proposed. In addition, the value of your used diesel will be very low. You could probably only sell it to those of us who live in the country but then if they also start increasing diesel tax and tax on diesel vehicles that won’t work. Talks of scrappage payments using taxpayer cash yet again to cover up for their mistake. The whole reasoning behind the anti-diesel panic regarding pollution is likely flawed data anyway. But then we are only likely to see that when they are chased off the streets, the money all spent and nothing changes.

      • I do not see how the scrap-age scheme will worik.

        Who is going to scrap a newish car for just £2,000? And those that have old cars of that sort of value are not in a financial position to purchase a new car.

  15. Professsor Pete is not at East Ford. He is at the university of Bleak Hey Nook.

  16. Talking them around in circles. President Trump needs to do more than hint at leaving the Paris deal. Also disappointed that the recent budget deal maintained the green graft concenses. Hoped for a better result

    • Real budget changes will have to wait for a real budget. They are not likely to come in an emergency CR.

      “Oh, it’s a long, long time, from May to September…”

      • The problem isn’t at the WH. It is in congress. Too many Republicans that are swamp critters of the establishment for the POTUS to truly implement his agenda. Those that thought the POTUS could make the fundamental changes they wanted are bound to be disappointed because he will be thwarted by Republicans that are every bit invested in the DC establishment as the democrats they claim are the problem.

    • The Trump budget for the upcoming fiscal year (starts Oct. 1) will be his first budget. The budget just passed was already made up prior to Trump being elected, and at the moment Trump doesn’t need to be getting into extra fights over various aspects of the budget. He can get that all straightened out in the next budget, and in the meantime he can concentrate on more important things.

      Trump did get some things he wanted in the current budget. The Democrats and swamp Republicans had set up a deal where Congress had to increase domestic spending by one dollar for each extra dollar spent on national defense. Trump got rid of that rule in the current budget, and increased the military budget by at least $15 billion (there are other higher estimates, some as high as $21 billion).

      We all need to practice a little patience. I think Trump’s heart is in the right place policy-wise, and he is going in the right direction, and it just takes time to wade through all the barriers that are in his way, but he seems to be doing it successfully so far.

      No president has every faced the headwinds Trump is facing. It’s unprecedented in my lifetime and I’ve seen a lot of presidents and a lot of media coverage and Democrat comments over the years, and it has never been this bad. The opposition really is deranged over Trump. Yet Trump seems to be dealing with all of it effectively. Let’s give him our support and faith until he gives us reason not to.

  17. The “Pause” really threw the Climate Liars for a loop. They couldn’t decide whether to deny its existence, or to try to explain it away, so ended up doing both. The two claims (both lies, of course) being diametrically opposed to one another could only create further cognitive dissonance for True Believers, already heavily burdened with cognitive dissonance. It truly is amazing that the whole CAGW business hasn’t imploded by now, a testament to the size and scope of the Greatest Lie in History.

    • “It truly is amazing that the whole CAGW business hasn’t imploded by now”

      With the billions (trillions?) poured into it, it has sadly fallen into the “too big to fail” category. :-(

    • The CAGW narrative is a remarkable thing. It is an “innocent until proven guilty” entity when the scientific method requires it to treated the opposite. It even gets the double jeopardy treatment (the science is settled!!!) which is unheard of in science. Attacks against the narrative that are 100% true and contrary to the CAGW narrative can be repelled in a lawyerly fashion and the narrative can still remain intact. Even when a lie/problem with the narrative are exposed, like the 97% lie or lack of upper troposhere hotspot or the pause, it seems like it that evidence is dismissed by an invisible judge and ignored by the jury. But the important thing to remember is that a narrative, any narrative, is by definition, at some level a lie because it intentionally omits some things and embellishes others. The only way a narrative usually comes crashing down is when the lie is obvious to all. The Hiddenberg wasn’t safe because it used flammable hydrogen as a gas and thermite as its skin, but until it crashed in a flaming heap people rode the narrative that all was well. Hillary supporters were 98% certain of her being elected until 9:30 the night of the election when that belief crashed in a flaming heap. The moai on Easter Island didnt provide manna from the ancestors, and they came crashing down. I believe the CAGW narrative will endure and come crashing down only when it is obvious to all.

  18. I think that the satellite data has to be adjusted if it is found that a satellite has gone wrong and the correct values estimated but that is not what is happening with surface global temperatures where what is being measured and how it is being measured are always changing it is possible to start a new surface global temperature from today if you are not happy with what was being measured before.

    • If we are to start a new surface temperature record, could we possibly emulate the US CRN and do it accurately? “Enquiring minds want to know.”

    • We can’t wait that long. We must act now. It will be too late if we wait for more data. The data is good enough to know we cannot wait. Act now.


  19. Hate to Say I Told You So, But I Told You So

    Here on CO2isLife we’ve been making a couple of predictions. The first was that the record high temperatures that the climate alarmists were celebrating as proof of their theory, were, in fact, an anomaly caused by a natural phenomenon called an El Nino, and that once that natural event ended, temperatures would plummet. That is in fact what has been happening.

  20. I am not a scientist. I am still,interested in humans ,- I am one- , and from my experience it always pays to tell the truth!

    The climate is ” ever changing” and will continue on this Earth until our star ( sun) collapses.

    Once we state and illustrate fundamental facts, those ignorant , no deprecation for being ignorant, so little of the fabrication of lies for financial gain and Governmental autocracy, would have gained ground.

    In all humbleness, could I suggest that those who post such wonderful,articles could start with the answer:

    ” No, this not correct ……….” followed by the rationale and facts.

    I would hope this would allow all of us to move in the difficult task of removing a political subterfuge in extracting money from the providers of warped/scaremongering information.k

  21. I suggest we all take a short pause regarding this discussion and reflect on the fact that whether their was, is, or may be a continuance of, a “pause” in atmospheric temperature either increase or decrease, does not in any way directly imply or prove that human CO2 emissions had anything to do with it.

    A major coup of Pecksniff, et al is that they have effectively paused the conversation regarding what effect and at what amount human CO2 emissions may have on the atmospheric temperature.

    Even Nick Stokes can’t provide a graph that disproves this pause.


    • ” … they have effectively paused the conversation regarding what effect and at what amount human CO2 emissions may have on the atmospheric temperature.”

      Good observation.

      Most of what “science” tells us about CO2 and its effects on temperature is just WAG (wild ass guess) or even propaganda. I am of the opinion that CO2’s impact on temperature is zero (or so close as to be immeasurable) until someone proves it otherwise. This is the conversation that has been tossed aside.

      • ” I am of the opinion that CO2’s impact on temperature is zero (or so close as to be immeasurable) until someone proves it otherwise. This is the conversation that has been tossed aside.”

        I have to agree. I want real-world facts, not theories. Everything that has happened with the Earth’s climate so far, can be explained away as natural climate variablility. No humans required. Until, as you said, someone proves otherwise.

        And they haven’t been able to do that in all this time. They bastardized the surface temperature charts which kept them in the lying game for awhile but if the temperatures start cooling off, no amount of manipulation is going to cover that up. Their best hope to continue the CAGW argument is that the pause continues because it doesn’t look like an increase from 2016 is in the cards.

  22. Discussing Climate Change Policy isn’t “Hate Speech.”

    Ann Coulter offers some great ideas for the people engaging in the climate change debate. Frame it as a public policy discussion, not a scientific debate. It is the climate alarmist that has to defend killing coal jobs and not building roads, schools, and hospitals, not the climate skeptic. That is a discussion I would like to have and am sure I could win.

    • “Frame it as a public policy discussion”

      I agree. Tell the taxpayers just how much money the CAGW promoters want to waste in a futile effort that will ultimately not work.

  23. Alright. Adjusted the thermostat 0.2 °C cooler than in the last decade. Although this is the first year the heating has to be switched on at all in May. WUWT?

    • Approaching mid May and it’s too cold to do yard work without a jacket in the PNW.
      I’m not liking this.

  24. We all know how a “pause” can be hidden.

    Just change all the historic data and make 1998 colder and make 2016 warmer (as in throw out all the sea surface temperature measurements except those that from some obscure ship engine intakes).

    Here is how the original Land temperatures in the original 1990 GHCN V1 dataset compares to just one adjusted Land temperature dataset (Crutemp4). This is from Clive Best here.

    1878 for example is actually +0.5C in the original dataset – having come from the time of the biggest Super-El Nino in history. Now it is -0.1C.

    Now this only gives you a good comparison up to 1990. Just think of how much was adjusted after 1990 (another 0.3C I think), and then how much in 2016 with the new ship engine intake SST (another 0.1C). So how much does that add up to? 0.8C of adjustments just for the Land.

    We can exclude ALL of the data that is sourced from the NCDC, including GISS, Hadcrut, Berkeley, JMA etc. It is not the REAL temperatures. It is just people who believe so strongly in their theory and in keeping the grant money rolling in, that they have deliberately/accidentally on purpose, CHANGED your historical global temperature record. It should be yours. It should belong to all of us. Well you don’t own it because it is just a line going up now. It is not the real record.

    • It’s not just changing the number itself. It’s the psychological impact of the round number. Advertisers know about this and use the round number ($10 instead of $9.99) to get you to buy something. There’s a lot more than just the numbers to that, but the round number psychology is real.

      So in these bogus temperature records, if the actual shift is 0.4589679, the number isn’t going to be rounded to 0.46. It will be boosted to 0.5, which is a simple number and much more impressive, and more easily remembered than 0.4589679. And if the actual number shift is 0.39897, that’s boosted up to the 0.5 level because 0.3 anything is insufficient to do the job.

      The similarity of this entire business of promoting acceptance of bogus/altered results to advertising is behind it. It works on your emotions, your sense of wanting something, your need to belong to something, and definitely on your insecurities.

      The people who do this depend on the gullibility of the uninformed, just as someone marketing a pet rock depends on the sheer stupidity of people to fall for a sales pitch for a rock that you can find on a beach. The same stuff is going into promoting acceptance of these altered results as the effort that goes into a sales campaign. As long as it works, it will continue. When the sales pitch starts to fail, it may be bumped up to get results, but eventually, the effect will come to an end.

      I’ll let you know when I get to turn the furnace off.

    • “We can exclude ALL of the data that is sourced from the NCDC, including GISS, Hadcrut, Berkeley, JMA etc. It is not the REAL temperatures. It is just people who believe so strongly in their theory and in keeping the grant money rolling in, that they have deliberately/accidentally on purpose, CHANGED your historical global temperature record. It should be yours. It should belong to all of us. Well you don’t own it because it is just a line going up now. It is not the real record.”

      That sums it up perfectly. We are watching a phenomenon where hundreds of millions of people have been fooled into believing in something that cannot be proven to be real. Yet they believe. We know why. Certain people have gone to a lot of trouble and spent a lot of money to perpetrate this line, and that effort is ongoing even now. Propaganda works.

  25. I wonder how the alarmists are going to hide the pause from people who, just occasionally, go outside?

  26. When you understand this:

    1) Essentially all absorbed outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) energy is thermalized.
    2) Thermalized energy carries no identity of the molecule that absorbed it.
    3) Emission from a gas is quantized and depends on the energy of individual molecules.
    4) This energy is determined probabilistically according to the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution.
    5) The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution favors lower energy (longer wavelength) photons.
    6) Water vapor exhibits many (170+) of these longer wavelength bands.
    7) The Maxwell-Boltzmann energy distribution in atmospheric gas molecules effectively shifts the OLR energy absorbed by CO2 molecules to the lower energy absorb/emit bands of water vapor.
    8) As altitude increases (to about 10 km) the temperature declines, magnifying the effect.

    You should realize why CO2 does not now, has never had and will never have a significant effect on climate.

    Further discussion of this with graphs and links to source data are at which also identifies the factors which do cause climate change (98% match 1895-2016).

  27. The big question is , who is iain Aitken.” Is he the author of that obscure paperback with otherwise ni credentials to stack against the thousands of scientists who have “proved” Global Warming and its causes? Just another in the long line of fakers, Watts uses to tout his destructive messages.

    [??? .mod]

    • JP,
      Apparently you missed that the article is satire. It doesn’t matter if Iain Aitken is his real name or a nom de plume. The article stands on its own merit, not on the authority of someone you are willing to bow down to. I don’t think that you get the big picture.

  28. Yesterday the LA Times ran an article rest assuring everyone that Global Warming is still happening and man is the cause. They defended the “pause/hiatus” by saying the definition is wrong so therefore it never happened. “The hiatus was generally treated by climate scientists as a reflection of short-term variations that didn’t affect long-term trends.” blah – blah -blah and if you take all the factors that weren’t outliers the models were accurate. Lewandowsky and Mann were mentioned so you get the crux of the article. That’s what we’re fighting, not science.

  29. Here is my favorite hard evidence that climate has indeed been changing for a long time:

    These 50 million year old redwook log chunks were found at the 300m level of the Ekati Diamond mine at the Arctic Circle in Northwest Territories of Canada. The diamond pipe is a volcanic body that erupted with great explosive force (material ejected at 1200km/hr) in the midst of a redwood forest, broken trees and kimberlite volcanic material fell back into the hole and the final gasps of the volcano sealed off the mass. This is real wood, still red and with seams of crystallized amber (sap) in seams in the wood. Simply, there was a California climate back then in an area of today’s Arctic tundra. The location of this area was not far from its present latitude geographically at time of the eruption.

  30. “As President Trump hints at the withdrawal of our country from the Paris climate accord”

    Whose country?

    It may surprise you to discover, Mr. Aitken, that there are people who are not American, and some of them read this blog. If these instructions on how to hide the pause are for Americans only, it would be helpful to say so at the start.

Comments are closed.