Where, Exactly, Is The Man-made Climate Problem?

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Posted without comment, except a hat tip to Dave Burton and Willie Soon …

hadcrut4 two-panel test.png

There is no statistically significant difference between the two trends. Well, I guess that qualifies as a comment …

Best to everyone on a day full of sunshine,


My Usual Request: Quote the exact words that you’re discussing, so we can all understand who and what you are referring to.

UPDATE: I’m sure Willis won’t mind that I added “Man-made Climate” to the title, because search engines aren’t as smart and interpretive as he and I – Anthony


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Dodgy Geezer

Ah! But somehow the top one looks…I don’t know… sort of scarier-looking…

Willis should perform a NEFINT, that statistical test for nefarious intent.


Taxation is the problem!
That trend is ever increasing!

AGW is not Science

Can’t argue with that!

Bob boder

Your analysis and methodology is way off and you don’t have any idea what you are talking about! (sarc)
Just thought I would put the ridiculous commentary up front and not wait for all the others.

Dodgy Geezer

…Your analysis and methodology is way off and you don’t have any idea what you are talking about! ..
That’s no way to argue in Climate Science! You’ll never become a senior climate scientist like me if you describe a technical disagreement you have with the paper.
No, what you want to do is explain that Mr Eschenbach is entirely the wrong sort of person to listen to, he is probably a white male s*xist mid-west Republican voter, he would have voted for the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei in the 1930s, his mother was a hamster and his father smelt of elderberries …
Then you should ban him from all the boards with no right of reply.That is the proper way to conduct a scientific discussion in our important Nobel-prize winning discipline.
/sarc in case anyone needs it…

Bob boder

see above

You forgot: He takes money from BIG OIL !!

old construction worker

“….we were baby oil …” Shame on you for taking Johnson&Johnson baby oil money.


Yeah sure.
Real science doesn’t hide it’s data.
Real science doesn’t need to alter data.
Real science produces ‘models’ which generate real, observable results.
Real scientists don’t get nailed in Climate Gate.
Real science doesn’t try to silence differences of opinion.
Real science doesn’t advocate the arrest of those that disagree with them.
NOAA 2.5 Degrees F Data Tampering – ‘Science Doesn’t Get Any Worse Than This’
100% Of US ‘Warming’ Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering
The Carbon Dioxide Word Game
Most Massive Scientific Fraud In Human History

Kristi Silber

Real science doesn’t listen to the ridiculous hyperbole of vehement partisan bloggers or those like Delingpole who are paid to support an agenda even if it means misrepresenting scientific research. I have plenty of experience researching his articles, and it made me biased against “skepticism.” I followed another link you posted. Sheesh. No wonder people are so full of hate and self-righteousness if they read that kind of stuff. I suppose there are liberal counterparts, and that’s just as sickening.
“Alarmists demand that the US and other Western countries unilaterally decrease their carbon dioxide emissions, while allowing unlimited increase to China and all other countries, which already emit more than 70% of carbon dioxide and almost 100% of other infrared-absorbing gases and soot.” LIES!!!
“Real science doesn’t hide it’s data.”
“Real science doesn’t need to alter data.”
WRONG. Scientists would be unprofessional not to adjust their data when there are systemic biases they can account for through knowledge of problems in collection.
“Real science produces ‘models’ which generate real, observable results.”
??? Models are models. What is “real”? A toy model plane is real, but it’s not a real plane. Climate models do not produce climate. They have produced predictions, and some have come to pass.
“Real scientists don’t get nailed in Climate Gate.”
WRONG. They do, whether they deserve it or not. Skepticism is one thing. Belief that 8 independent committees who investigated stuck their professional necks on the line in order to acquit Mann, etc. of misconduct is prejudiced, irrational conspiracy nonsense. Anyone who has read Tim Ball’s Climategate email article (posted here a few weeks ago) allowed a criminal hacker and his cohort to feed you select bits of emails and interpret what they meant, just to make sure you knew what to think. Oh, I know it sounded damning – especially the parts that were actually about maintaining the integrity of the peer review process.
“Real science doesn’t try to silence differences of opinion.”
RIGHT. It thrives on them…but it won’t respect those differences that don’t have to be meaningful because they are geared toward trying to influence public opinion. A scientific difference of opinion is not the same as announcing to the public that science is untrustworthy, nor advocating policy.
“Real science doesn’t advocate the arrest of those that disagree with them.”
There’s nothing here that warrants disbelief or vilification of mainstream science.


There goes Kristi with her ubiquitous claims that anyone who disagrees with her religious beliefs is doing so because they are paid to.
I guess it’s better than actually coming up with an argument.
Speaking of ridiculous hyperbole of vehement partisans, I give you Kristi, who does it better than anyone.
The fact that China and India are not required to do ANYTHING about their CO2 emissions for 30 years, and only think about doing something after that is no lie. But then again, Kristi never bothers reading any of the original material.
Real science doesn’t hide it’s data, but in the words of one climate scientist “Why should I turn over my data to you, when your only goal is to find something wrong with it”.
For Kristi, truth is what she has been told to believe.
Once again, Kristi shows that here degree is worthless, when she declares that it is OK for scientists to fiddle with their data. No, if you know that your data has bias, then you do one of two things, get new data, or you increase the error bars to show the bias. Pretending that you have enough knowledge to perfectly remove any bias is hubris of the order that only climate scientists have been able to achieve
Only in the grossest form can the predictions of climate models be claimed to have come to pass.
What they do is produce regional forecasts, none of which are right, but they claim that if you average together all the wrong answers, they can get in the ball park of the right answer. That isn’t science.
Krisiti is apparently unaware of the many occasions where skeptics have had careers ruined for the sin of questioning the consensus. Kristi is either unaware or chooses to ignore the instances where papers have been refused on spurious basis, for the sin of questioning the consensus.
Nobody is vilifying mainstream science.
We are vilifying climate science which is so far out of the mainstream that they stopped doing science a generation ago.

Ian Macdonald

Surely these ‘adjustments’ should be easy enough to check out? If the USA warming has been faked then it ought to be possible to replicate that effect from the official data. At last it seems like we have something about climate science that can be definitely proved or disproved.
IF the claims are proven, then it becomes a question of finding out if temps for other regions have been similarly adjusted. Although in principle that is unnecessary since the rules of the game called science are that a researcher caught fabricating results gets the heave-ho, with no excuses.

Kristi Silber

There goes MarkW again, completely misconstruing much of what I said and making ignorant statements about what I believe. It’s like having a little dog following me everywhere, barking and nipping at my heels.
Go home, little dog.

Rob Bradley

Willis, facts are not debatable. For example you post: “that minor changes in the CO2 level ”
Right off the bat your bias is affecting your presentation. 400-280/280= .429. a 42.9% change in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is not MINOR. That is a simple observational fact your religion (ABCD) interferes with.
Secondly scientists disagree with one another, but they don’t and cannot disagree with the facts. Reputable scientists avoid this site for the simple reason is that the debate here isn’t about the facts, it’s about proliferating uncertainty in the established theories. “Punching holes” on this site has no effect on the actual science, as it has no impact factor. As tendered in the “About” write up, this site is for “news and comment.” As such, it is not a base resource for the publication of research.

And since you are so close to this site Willis, can you explain the recent drop off in ranking? https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wattsupwiththat.com

Hmm Maybe “Rob Bradley” can explain why he uses a fake name and a proxy server to make us think he can hide his identity.
One comment he’s in South America, the next he’s in Japan. Must be using fossil fuels to get around fast. Right David?
Per our site policy:
– Internet phantoms who have cryptic handles, no name, and no real email address get no respect here. If you think your opinion or idea is important, elevate your status by being open and honest. People that use their real name get more respect than phantoms with handles. I encourage open discussion by people that stand behind their words.
– Comments coming from proxy servers (to create fake identities) will be deleted.
And, so they are.
In this case the well-known troll poses as Rob Bradley of the website “Master Resource” who occasionally has guest essays here, even going so far as to steal his email address. He has such desperation to get his point across, he has to lie, steal identities, and cheat this website’s policy to do it.


True that CO2 has, according to the Mauna Loa series, has gone from 0.00028 of the atmosphere to 0.0004. But factor in also the fact that CO2 is only a minor component of the GHGs, the major portion of which is H2O, which shares most absorption bands with the much less significant CO2.
In the moist tropics, H2O is about 100 times more common than CO2, and globally around 50 times. The only regions in which CO2 can compete with H2O in the GHG Olympics are the polar zones. Yet the South Pole, where CO2 should have the biggest effect, according to AGW hypothesis, shows no warming at all.


Rob writes

You post: ” changed by one ten-thousandth ”

Nope, it changed by 42.9%

Your “understanding” is heavily influenced by your belief in, and the the non-fact that CO2 is the control knob of the climate.
If you disregard that belief entirely, the fact that CO2 has increased by 42% by increasing its concentration in the atmosphere by another ten thousandth puts the emphasis in a different place as to what importance should be placed on the CO2 concentration change.


But you did Rob, you said “nope”

You post: ” changed by one ten-thousandth ”

Nope, it changed by 42.9%

And yet, Willis gave the same fact expressed in a different way. One that lessens its importance without some other implication being present. The implication that a 42% increase was important.


Rob writes

Willis made a mathematical error. “one ten-thousandth” = 0.0001

We all know that 0.429 is not equal to 0.0001

Ouch. CO2 concentration is expressed in “ppm”, that’s parts per million.
So 400 of them is 0.000400 parts of the atmosphere (per volume), up from 0.000280. And represents a 0.00012 increase.
0.00012/0.00028 * 100 = the 42% increase
But at the end of the day, the increase is 0.00012 parts or a one ten thousandth increase as per Willis’ restatement of the fact.


The important point is that a 40% increase in CO2 is still only a tiny increase in GHGs.


Can you really be so scientifically illiterate as not to realize that the global average of H2O is around 30,000 ppm? Thus an increase in CO2 from 285 to 400 ppm means, besides a wholly beneficial growth in plant food of 29%, implies a gain in beneficial GHGs (ignoring CH4, etc) of ~0.33%.
GHG before Industrial plant food enrichment: 30,280 ppm.
GHG after wonderful human enrichment thereof: 30,400 ppm.


It can’t be simpler.
Yes, humans and other plants, animals, fungi and microbes need water, so indeed it is food. Or a vital nutrient in your alternative universe.
The fact is that more CO2 in the air means more vital nutrient for plants. They need leave their stomata open for less time to take in the vital nutrient CO2, which they need to make sugar, their food.
So CO2 v sugar as food is a distinction without a difference.
Here’s how it works: plants and other photosynthetic organisms use photons from sunlight in their light reactions to break apart water molecule into H and O. The oxygen they release to the air as waste, but we animals use it to live. The H they use during the dark reactions to attach to CO2 to make sugar.
What part of this scientific fact troubles you? More CO2 in the air means that plants need leave their stomata open for less time, hence less water, taken in from their roots, is lost. Thus more plant food in the air means less water lost, and plants can spread into previously too dry areas. Thus, the greening of the earth. Thank you, humans!


Rob writes

A one ten thousandth increase is 0.0001 times 0.00028 = 0.000000028

No Rob. Its a one ten thousandth increase in terms of atmospheric concentration. Not relative to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Chimp tried to put it in context for you. There is only a little CO2 in the atmosphere so if you increase it by 43% you’ve only added a tiny amount relative to the atmospheric makeup of gasses. To assume a 42% increase in CO2 makes a difference implies you believe that CO2 is mostly responsible for recent warming. And that part isn’t uncontested fact.


Rob writes

If you increase 280 ppm by one ten thousandth, 280 * 0.0001 = 0.028

So you end up with 280.028

I suggest that if you cant understand the difference between an increase in the concentration of CO2 with respect to its atmospheric concentration and an increase in the concentration of CO2 with respect to its relative concentration in the atmosphere then you’re not really in a position to understand climate science at all.


Rob writes

3) the change in atmospheric concentration between 1850 and today is 400-280= 120 ppm
Please show me where you derive “one-tenthousandth”

120ppm is 0.000120 or one ten thousandth. That’s the change in concentration relative to its atmospheric concentration. It is the same fact but puts it in the context of how small a change there is to the atmosphere as a whole.


Rob writes

Please note the “th” at the end of the word

The “th” implies a RATIO not an absolute value

And the ratio increase is the ratio of CO2 with respect to atmosphere.
Parts per million is with respect to the whole atmosphere so when you add 120 ppm then you add one ten thousandth more.


Rob. What can I say? If you cant accept that a concentration increase of 0.00012 represents a one ten thousandth increase then I cant make it any clearer.


120 ppm is an absolute value, and you think it is “one-ten-thousandth” when in fact it is one-ten-thousand.
Rob, No. Just no.
Suppose I had a bowl of fruit containing 9 apples and 1 orange. I’d have one tenth of the bowl as being oranges. If I added another orange I’d have two elevenths and the addition would be one tenth more fruit in the form of oranges.
You WANT it to be relative to the oranges so you can say 100% increase in oranges and that’s true but it doesn’t alter the fact its not the only way to express the increase and focuses on the oranges rather than the bowl.


Are they using the same base period for the anomaly calculation?

tom in lorida

Each has it’s own base period as noted at the top of the charts. The question is: which is which? the answer is: it doesn’t matter.

tom in lorida

Mistype there:
a. fat fingers
b. getting old
c. not enough coffee
d. all of the above

Duncan Smith

“It does not matter”, BUT ‘feelings’ matter. Apparently we’ve entered a new Epoch, the “Trumpocene”, where “the era itself is based solely on a few thoughts held loosely together with hyperlinks and a general feeling of malaise.”… “In the Trumpocene, the epoch-defining impacts of climate change are nothing more than a conspiracy. Even if these impacts are real, then they’re probably good for us.” – The Guardian.
Caution – do not click on the Guardian link within 1-2 hours after eating depending on your gag reflex.

Phil R

Duncan Smith,
I didn’t read the article. The title says it all as succinctly as possible: “climate change is just a big scary conspiracy”!

Duncan Smith, The reason why The Guardian posts a pledge to donate them some money to keep them going, is because they are losing readers and suscribers. Precisely this kind or reporting is the cause of their impending demise. The day The Guardian goes broke and out of the web and streets, I’ll be uncorcking a bottle of ‘good ole’ Dom Perignon.


You should have used one of the umpteenth climate models to re-produce these graphs 🙂

jJust a comment about today’s uk weather .It was reported to be the hottest April day since 1949 yesterday,in london ,but not as hot as then by a small margin .

I guess my only question is, do they have the same baseline–is zero in each graph the same?

Eyes Wide Open

There has been an infestation of liberals into western society since 1957. That’s why the second graph is a problem . . .


That’s exactly the question I keep asking & never see any CREDIBLE problem cited that couldn’t be natural.

AGW is not Science

I still haven’t seen a credible PROBLEM, period.

Had to repost this comment from Twitter, it’s a gem.
Dirk Deardorff @dwdeardorff
Replying to @wattsupwiththat
One trend triggered the war in Syria. The other trend triggered WWII.

Bob boder

i guess that means the earlier trend must actually be larger.


The earlier trend was global, Bob, thus a World War rather than a conflict in which militarily advanced nation-statest tried to bomb a developing country back into the stone age.

Gunga Din

Or, since WWII was much larger than the war in Syria, “Man-made Climate” has calmed things down?
PSI suppose, in keeping with the CAGW meme, we should start referring to it as “GWII”, Global War 2?

Bob boder

“a conflict in which militarily advanced nation-statest tried to bomb a developing country back into the stone age”
How exactly was Syria developing? You mean after ISIS conquered it or before?

Jeff Labute

I don’t see it like that. I think the rise in CO2 brought WWII to an end 😉 In the case of Syria, CO2 will rise a little more and their war will end as well.


Or the corollary:
The war in Syria triggered one trend. WWII triggered the other.
(Since forward-thinking CO2 always projects a future warming, just as CO2 does when interglacial periods happen.)

We need some reanalysis

Where, Exactly, Is The Man-made Climate Problem?

5. Hiding in the oceans along with Trenberth’s missing heat.
4. Hiding in HadCRUT4 after 2005.
3. In the GISS data.
2. In the noise level.
1. In the mind of Mann.

AGW is not Science

Not only isn’t there a “Man-made Climate Problem,” there isn’t even a “Climate Problem” without any qualification. Warmer is better! When it starts cooling enough to be noticeable, THEN we’ll have an ACTUAL “Climate Problem.” And THAT won’t be our fault, either, although the Climate N@zis WILL absolutely attempt to blame THAT on human fossil fuel emissions, too – guaranteed. Just like they did the last time around.

old construction worker

‘When it starts cooling enough’ When it stared cooling “Global Warming” became “Climate Change”.

6. In the broken definition of forcing.
7. In the broken definition of the climate sensitivity.
8. In the broken application of Bode’s linear feedback system analysis.
9. In the scientifically sloppy and politically irresponsible papers of James Hansen.

Alan Tomalty

Can anybody add to this list?
The inconvenient questions that the IPCC can’t answer.
1) Why did sea level rise faster in early 2Oth century than now and even now is not accelerating?
2) Why do only rural land temperature data sets show no warming?
3) Why did climate scientists in the climategate emails worry about no warming trends? They are supposed to be unbiased either way.
4) Why do some local temperature land based datasets show no warming Ex: Augusta Georgia for last 83 years? There must be 1000’s of other places like this.
5) Why do 10 of the 13 weather stations in Antarctica show no warming in last 60 years? The 3 that do are near undersea volcanic ridges.
6) Why does the lower troposphere satellite data of UAH show very little warming and in fact showed cooling from 1978 to 1997?
7) Why is there only a 21% increase in net atmosphere CO2 pppm since 1980 but yet mankind increased fossil fuel emmissions CO2 by 75%?
8) Why did National Academy of Sciences in 1975 show warming in the 30’s and 40’s and NASA in 1998 and 2008 not show nearly as much warming for tose time periods?
9) Why has no one been able to disprove Lord Monckton’s finding of the basic flaw in the climate sensitivity equations after doubling CO2?
10) Why has there never been even 1 accurate prediction by a climate model. Even if one climate model is less wrong than another one it is still wrong.
11) Why do most climate scientists not understand the difference between accuracy and precision?
12) Why have many scientists resigned from the IPCC in protest?
13) Why do many politicians, media and climate scientists continue to lie about CO2 causing extreme weather events? Every data set in the world shows there are no more extreme weather events than there ever were
14) Why do clmate scientists call skeptics deniers as if we were denying the holocaust?
!5) Why did Michael Mann refuse to hand over his data when he sued Tim Ball for defamation and why did Mann subsequently drop the suit?
16) Why have every climate scientist that has ever debated the science of global warming lost every debate that has ever occurred?
17) Why does every climate scientist now absolutely refuse to debate anymore?
18) Why do careers get ruined when scientists dare to doubt global warming in public?
19) Why do most of the scientists that retire come out against global warming?
20) Why is it next to impossible to obtain a PhD in Atmospheric science if one has doubts about global warming?
21) Why is it very very difficult to get funding for any study that casts doubt on global warming?
22) Why has the earth greened by 18% in the last 30 years?
23) Why do clmate scientists want to starve plants by limiting their access to CO2? Optimum levels are 1200 ppm not 410ppm.
24) Why do most climate scientists refuse to release their data to skeptics?
25) Why should the rest of the world ruin their economies when China and India have refused to stop increasing their emmissions of CO2 till 2030?
26) Why have the alarmist scientists like Michael Mann called Dr. Judith Curry an anti scientist?
27) Why does the IPCC not admit that under their own calculations a business as usual policy would have the CO2 levels hit 590ppm in 2100 which is exactly twice the CO2 level since 1850.?
28) Why do the climate modellers not admit that the error factor for clouds makes their models worthless?
29) Why did NASA show no increase in atmospheric water vapour for 20 years before James Hansen shut the project down in 2009?
30) Why did Ben Santer change the text to result in an opposite conclusion in the IPCC report of 1996 and did this without consulting the scientists that had made the original report?
31) Why does the IPCC say with 90% confidence that anthropogenic CO2 is causing warming when they have no evidence to back this up except computer model predictions which are coded to produce results that CO2 causes warming?
32) How can we believe climate forecasts when 4 day weather forecasts are very iffy?.
33) Why do all climate models show the tropical troposhere hotspot when no hotspot has actually been found in nature?
34) Why does the extreme range of the climate models increase as the number of runs increases on the same simulation?
35) Why is the normal greenhouse effect not observed for SST?
36) Why is SST net warming increase close to 0?
37) Why is the ocean ph level steady over the lifetime of the measurements?
38) what results has anyone ever seen from global warming if it exists? I have been waiting for it for 40 years and havent seen it yet?
39) If there were times in the past when CO2 was 20 times higher than today why wasnt there runaway global warming then?
40) Why was there a pause in the satellite data warming in the early 2000’s?
41) Why did CO2 rise after WW2 and temperatures fall?
42) For the last 10000 years over half of those years showed more warmung than today Why?
43) Why does the IPCC refuse to put an exact % on the AGW and the natural GW?
44) Why do the alarmists still say that there is a 97% consensus when everyone knows that figure was madeup?
45) The latest polls show that 33% do not believe in global warming and that figure is increasing poll by poll ? why?
46) If CO2 is supposed to cause more evaporation how can there ever be more droughts with CO2 forcing?
47) Why are there 4 times the number of polar bears as in 1960?
48) Why did the oceans never become acidic even with CO2 levels 15-20 times higher than today?
49) Why does Antarctica sea ice extent show no decrease in 25 years?
50) Why do alarmists resent skeptics getting funding from fossil fuel companies ( when alarmists get billions from the government and leftest think tanks) and skeptics get next to nothing from governments for climate research?
51) If in the spring the Bloomberg carbon clock is only growing .00000001 every 6 seconds and therefore at that rate in 1 year it is only increasing .05ppm and then in the fall and winter it increases at a rate of only 2ppm per year; then why do we have to worry about carbon increases?
52) Why arent the alarmists concerned with actual human lives. In England every winter there are old people who succumb to the cold because they cant afford the increased heating bills caused by green subsidies.
53) Why did Phil Jones a climategate conspirator, admit in 2010 that there was no statistically meaningful difference in 4 different period temperature data that used both atmospheric temperature and se surface temperature?


1. In the broken application of using temperature as a unit of energy
2. In the broken application of assuming energy and temperature have a direct correlation
3. Why does global average temperature vary from year to year more then the average increase for either period? If natural variation then natural variation can explain all temperature change.
4. How does a change in wind patterns change global temperatures more then CAGW(el-nino, el-nina)? Couldn’t the way the wind blows be the cause of GW?


1. Well, since the surface of the planet is 71% ocean and the tropics which receive direct or vertical sunlight on open water that has an albedo of app. .06, where else exactly would you expect to find any heat that may have gone missing? But…bu..but it’s the shorter most energetic wave lengths that penetrate deepest into the oceans before the energy is fully absorbed —— Ah, hah. It is the energy of the UV and xrays that has gone missing. But it shall return……..And it’s fate is still unlearned

While the clear sky surface albedo in the tropics is close to 0.06 (I get .06 for SH tropics and .08 for NH tropics based on the ISCCP satellite data). When you include average clouds, the tropical albedo is closer to about 0.23 based on the same data set.
Nonetheless, I do believe that the surface warming impacts of UV, the solar wind and other energy not deflected away by the Earth’s magnetic field are under appreciated, especially when absorbed by the water in clouds, even including visible photons, which owing to the relatively short time between evaporation and precipitation, can be considered the same as energy absorbed by surface water relative to the yearly averages representing the LTE thermodynamic steady state of the planet’s surface.

It would be fun to switch the date ranges, send the image to alarmologists, and invite comment.

David S

May I ask which graph is the more recent?

Bryan A

That would be the point of the entire exercise…to determine which is the former and which is the latter…and, since it can’t be readily determined which is which, it indicates that there is No Difference between the separate 48 year periods of warming.
Natural warming from 1895 – 1943 is identical to the proposed CO2 induced warming from 1957 – 2005
No scary increase
No boogie man
No excruciatingly dire CO2 forcing

Bryan A

Or as Willis so eloquently stated

The top one is the more recent. It contains the signatures of the 1970’s cooling period and the 1997/98 super El Nino.

Rick C PE

Now that I know that, the top one definitely looks much worse and clearly shows that the cause is human produced fossil fuel CO2! 😉


The top on is the newer one. (because I have good memory for graphs)

John F. Hultquist

Ideas are said to be stronger if there are multiple lines of evidence.
So, to the two trends (charts) provided, I add:
Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa ) and other plants, such as Arrowleaf balsamroot (Balsamorhiza sagittata) grow in my part of the world. Research shows this community of plants was here last century, and the one before that, and . . .
That’s a long term trend.
“a day full of sunshine,” means I get to catch up on the outside — lawn, garden, other — work.


Would have been funny if you had published this on April 1st, then on April 2nd “fessed up” that you had them reversed . . . .

Kent Noonan

It would be really helpful if we had a peer reviewed publication of this same information, for discussions with those that insist that is the only valid information.
Does anybody have information where to find this? Is there a formal paper presenting this problem?
Perhaps one of our noble contributors could get one published. It does seem obvious to me that the IPCC erred when saying this little detail makes no difference and attributed all causation to CO2. If we could point to a paper that says the opposite, the discussion has teeth. Seems there must be a paper already out there, since a casual observation of the temperature record reveals it.


You can tell the top one is 1957-2005 because you can see the big 1998 Nino. However ther was an exceptionally long and strong Nino in approximately the same place in the 1895-1943 series, but it is barely visible. Probably because there were hardly any weather stations in the Pacific in the 30’s.

AGW is not Science

Yes, which underlines the other problem – we’re not measuring the same thing at different times, so we could be measuring nothing more than an artifact of the changes in numbers, locations, and characters of the measuring “stations.”
IOW, the data is crap, and so is the climate pseudo-science.


Also because HadCRU systematically cools the past.


And, the graph of 1944-56 would also show that global average T declined during that interval despite rising CO2. That period too has been warmed by the gatekeepers, since the cooling was dramatic.
The cooling was even more pronounced when CO2 was higher than the 1940s and ’50s, during the ’60s and ’70s, until the PDO flip of 1977.

Stevan Reddish

While I see confirmation that CO2 emitted by humans will not cause unprecedented warming, I expect 2 responses from warmists:
1. We know that any point can be made if the time periods are carefully chosen.
2. Just imagine the ice age that was averted by rising CO2 levels. Now we need to reduce the rate of CO2 emission to avoid overshooting the ideal temperature. CO2 controls everything.


I can’t find the link I’m thinking about but Judith Curry has spoken about this.

Failure of climate models to provide a consistent explanation of the early 20th century warming and the mid-century cooling. link

In another place (which I cannot easily find) she commented directly that the early twentieth century warming was indistinguishable from that of the late twentieth century. As far as I can tell, there hasn’t been a convincing rebuttal.
We can’t distinguish the supposed anthropogenic signal from natural variability. In fact, there’s no reason, other than theory, to suppose that the anthropogenic signal even exists.

I would add a hat tip to Richard Lindzen, who has been pointing out the similarity of the rising portion of these two graphs for some time now.


Like the AGW folks who never leave and impose their will on others…
Chinese diplomats refuse to vacate rented consulate in Tahiti per owners wish after lease expired.

Bruce Cobb

The problem, dear Willis, is not in our climate, but in ourselves, that we are den++rlings.


They both need model modulation work to make them conform to Debate Has Ended quality standards. Such modeling is not available to FOI requests however.

Ed Zuiderwijk

Asking the question is answering it.


Not very original. This has been pointed out by numerous people over the years. Two examples from the top of my head:
In 2015 by Euan Mearns:
In 2017 by Rud Istvan:comment image

Bob boder

so what you are trying to say is its an oldie but a goodie?


I usually don’t attempt to say things. Rud Istvan cites Richard Lindzen as the first to point out this similitude. I can’t attest to that. I would say it is “vox populi.”


It happen long before the start of the industrial revolutioncomment image
(first posted on WUWT on February 20, 2015 here


El Chichon (1982) is also evident. While only rated a VEI 5, it injected seven million metric tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere.
There were also four VEI 4 eruptions in 1973-76. VEI 5 Mt. St. Helens (1980) had less global effect.


Iceland’s volcanoes proximity to England due the Arctic jet stream have significant effect on the CET.


The four northern Ring of Fire eruptions in rapid succession during the mid-70s were in Guatemala, Alaska, Kamchatka and the Kurile Islands.

Javier said (about Willis): “My opinion, is that your naive approach to science would benefit enormously from a little checking of what others have done and published before. That would prevent you from having “eureka” moments over things that are well known. But suit yourself.”
I almost never sense “eureka” from Willis. Instead, I sense “here is what the data says,” sometimes using others’ work(s) [and cited], but always more in a tone of educating and simplifying, which I find refreshing. He asks for feedback, and asks for others to quote from his post…how difficult is that? Javier, in this instance, I find YOU to to be the one who “can’t let it go,” who sounds “jealous,” and generally snippetty/unpleasant. Not that my input matters one iota to you, except that I’m publicly saying “I’m less likely to take Javier seriously going forward.” Just my personal opinion, of course.


I find YOU to to be the one who “can’t let it go,” who sounds “jealous,” and generally snippetty/unpleasant.

Everybody is entitled to his opinion. This goes a while back. People might disagree with the climate hypothesis that I present, but they are backed by tons of published peer-reviewed scientific literature, so disrespecting comments about me for holding them are out of place. Don’t you agree? If you have read enough of WUWT you should know that Leif and Willis show a lot of disrespect for anybody that defends an important role for solar variability on climate, and particularly for anybody that dares to defend the existence of long cycles in the Sun that affect the climate on Earth. But if anybody treats them the same way they complain loudly.

The 396 W/m^2 upwelling and net 333 W/m^2 GHG energy loop as shown on the K-T power flux balance diagram (Figure 10 Trenberth et al 2011jcli24) is calculated using the S-B equation with an assumed emissivity of 1.0 and an average surface temperature of 16 C, 289 K. Because of the conductive/convective/advective/latent heat participating processes of the atmospheric molecules the actual and correct radiative emissivity is about 0.16, i.e. 63/396.
This GHG energy loop is an inappropriate calculation with zero physical reality.
Without this energy loop the radiative greenhouse effect theory fails.
Without RGHE man-caused climate change does not exist.
It’s called “science.”
Don’t be frightened, spit out the Kool-Aid and give it a try.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Potchefstroom

Please note in Trenberth 2011 that the 333 Watts hitting the ground (he says ‘absorbed’) does not, in his cartoon, induce any warming of the air to create thermals, and doesn’t drive any evapo-transpiration. The energy absorbed from incoming insolation (168 Watts) does both.
It is remarkable that the surface of the Earth know which absorbed energy stream to turn into convective cooling and which to merely reflect.
If the amount of energy Trenberth says is delivered to the atmosphere by convective heat transfer is as low as he says, solar water heaters wouldn’t work.
According to Trenberth, back radiation, unlike direct radiation, is absorbed by the earth but doesn’t heat it (!) and is re-radiated in its entirety without warming the air in contact with it either. Amazing.


Geez Willis, it is right there in blue.
(See, this is just one more instance where crowd sourced “peer review” comes to the rescue.)

Pop Piasa

I think the climate problem started out “Strong”, but is mostly “Mann”-made of recent..

Pop Piasa

But then again, I don’t know Schmidt.

Julian Flood

Willis, could you please extend the graphs by four years each?
Why the blip?

Not only are the two trends similar – the higher frequency patterns too. And the trends are ~60 years apart. History rhymes.

M Courtney

I’ve been saying this for years.
I’ve even linked to the data and challenged other Guardian readers to explain why the rate of warming is the same before and after 1950.
Strangely, those comments breach Guardian guidelines and get deleted.

Joel Snider

In virtual reality.


What this comparative analysis shows is the effect of temporal-connection, the 4 dimensional climate science equivalent of a spatial teleconnections. We know from various studies that in climate science a temperature rise (the effect) precedes rising CO2 emissions (the cause) and here is the first indisputable evidence that the temperature rise in the first decades after 1900 was not a natural event. It was instead a precursor signal of the effective prior forcing temporal-connection of modern day industrial carbon dioxide emissions causing an abnormal temperature rise in the first decades of the 20th century.

meteorologist in research

Nonscientist – you don’t agree that warming factors increased the CO2, resulting in further warming that caused more CO2 to be released and so on: a positive feedback?


No. Feedback is time positive and relates to future warming whereas temporal-connections are defined as time negative phenomena. Clearly not the same thing.

Yogi Bear

Comparing the global SST 65 year trend from the coldest AMO phase years of 1910 and 1975, to a 65 year trend from the warm SST spike in 1945:


or in more detail
(from 2015)

… just an editorial comment:
Some might say that adding “Man-made” to Willis’ original title is sexist, since I know, for a fact, that there are lots of women drivers spewing much CO2 into the atmosphere. We, therefore, should choose a title that is INCLUSIVE of all gender identifications. Might I suggest the following:
What Exactly Is the Man-woman-human-gay-lesbian-bi-questioning-gender-neutral-…made Climate Problem?
This alone would add a note of “originality” to an article that one commentator obviously found bland. (^_^)
Side bar: Are people who drink coffee … every … single … day unoriginal ?


Humyn. Please!

Thanks, Chimp,
I was not up to speed on that word:
Humyn: Variant of human. Used almost exclusively by pompous feminists.

Then there’s “womyn” too. I guess that’s used by a REALLY pompous feminist.
Myn oh myn ! (i.e., Man oh man !) … all I see is the “my”, … which says it all without the other letters.


IMO “womyn” came before “humyn”, because radical feminists objected to the spelling of “woman”. They wanted no part of a beastly, testosterone-drenched, smelly, hairy, patriarchal, oppressive, probably heteronormative, sexist “man” in their word! When it was pointed out that “human” also contains “man”, the response was a given.

“Woman” should be spelled “woeismean”
What is the correct term for a person who fishes? If not fisherman, then fisherperson?, … fishermyn?
And, oh, what do do, … what do do … about problematic common words such as:
… and my favorite


Femin@zis have this all figured out. “Man” is OK if it doesn’t refer to a non-male person (although that word contains the problematic “son”).
Fisherman should be “fisher”. Mailman should be “letter carrier” or something of that ilk. Chairman of course is “chairperson” or “chair”. This even though the suffix “-man” is grammatically neuter.

Well, this is just English, of course.
What about words derived from Latin ? “Homo sapiens”, for example? It doesn’t have the word, “man” in ENGLISH, but it has the Latin word for “man”. Now what ?
If “homo” causes a problem, then certainly words like “homogenize” would cause a problem. And then there’s the modern problem of the “homo” part, which has come to mean something entirely different than Latin speakers intended. It can get crazy, if you let it. (^_^)
It’s like looking really hard at water stains, where you can find almost any shape you want, depending on how you look at it. The problem is in the looker, NOT in the word. Of course, I’m just stating the obvious that you already know.


Probably wouldn’t matter to a PC N@zi, but the “homo” in “homogenize” is from the Greek for “same”, rather than the Latin for “man”.

David S

Using the Wood For Trees website I plotted the linear trend line for both graphs. Then I pulled up the raw data. The slope of the earlier data is 0.00766983 per year. The slope of the later graph is 0.0113233 per year. That’s a 47% increase. Just saying.


Because the HadCRU Team members have systematically cooled the past, and pressed the present as much warmer as possible with the satellites watching.

0.0113233 – 0.00766983 = 0.00365347
And if instruments cannot measure to a thousandth of a degree, then the 47% is also statistically insignificant, right ?


Willis’ bottom plot is the 1895-1943 Natural trend. However, I can’t find anything unusual in the HadCrut data, just a lot of natural temperature cycles responding to oceanic and solar influences.


– Chimp (1:26 pm):
And, the graph of 1944-56 would also show that global average T declined during that interval despite rising CO2. That period too has been warmed by the gatekeepers, since the cooling was dramatic.
The cooling was even more pronounced when CO2 was higher than the 1940s and ’50s, during the ’60s and ’70s, until the PDO flip of 1977.

= = = = =
O substantiate that point…
“…the weather in the first part of this century has been the warmest and best for world agriculture in over a millennium, and, partly as a result, the world’s population has more than doubled. Since 1940, however, the temperature of the Northern Hemisphere has been steadily falling: Having risen about 1.1 degrees C. between 1885 and 1940, according to one estimation, the temperature has already fallen back some 0.6 degrees, and shows no signs of reversal.”comment image
Chilling Possibilities, Science News, 1975


But now of course the Team has so adjusted the “record” that the worrisome cooling after WWII has been flattened out of existence.
“Climate science” is not science but politics, misusing and abusing the prestige of science, to the detriment of real science, leading to the death of millions and squandering of trillions of dollars.


comment image
‘But how can you stop people remembering things?’ cried Winston, again momentarily forgetting the dial. ‘It is involuntary. It is outside oneself. How can you control memory? You have not controlled mine!’

John Dowser

Where is exactly the meaning of this article? The two graphs show both the standard Man-made Climate theory of the instrumental temperature records since the 1850’s, arguable the start of massive CO2 emissions although still a fraction of current scale and yet it’s not a fact that the atmosphere would somehow inhibit some simple linear response to emission in each multidecadal period.
Wikipedia spells out the common line: “Most of the observed warming occurred in two periods: around 1900 to around 1940 and around 1970 onwards; the cooling/plateau from 1940 to 1970 has been mostly attributed to sulphate aerosol.”.
The two graphs simply show the two known warming periods and the cooling/plateau stage as claimed already by Warmists! What is the point of showing them as having some “point” by just their similarity? That we should have panicked a hundred years ago? That the 19th century emissions somehow could not have any similar effect on global temperature records? Those would be very technical claims, if being made at all here. But yeah “no comment added” as there’s no actual point being made.

April 20, 2018 at 9:42 am
The earlier trend was global, Bob, thus a World War rather than a conflict in which militarily advanced nation-statest tried to bomb a developing country back into the stone age.
GK Chesterton said something like:
“Progress is a comparative for which we have not settled on the superlative.”
I believe in this case, the same could be said of your choice of the word “developing”


There is no statistical difference between the two trends.

This type of wording always annoys me. There is a statistical difference between the two trends. One is wamring about 50% faster than the other. What you should say is the difference between the two is not statistically significant.
The fact that whatever statistical test you used to compare the two trends failed to reject the null-hypothesis does not mean youve shown the two trends are the same.
Have you tried looking at different periods to see if you can find a statistically significant difference? Why not start by not stopping in 2005?

“There is no statistically significant difference between the two trends. Well, I guess that qualifies as a comment …
Tr1 = f(G,A,N)
Tr2 = f(G2,A2,N2)
why should there be a difference. I certainly dont expect one. In fact AGW tells me NOT to expect one.

As I was going up the stair
I met a trend that wasn’t there.
It wasn’t there again today;
I wish, I wish it’d go away.

Re: “…except a hat tip to Dave Burton and Willie Soon”
Thank you, Willis, but I believe that the comparison is from Warren Meyer via Burt Rutan and Anthony Watts at WUWT, back in 2013:

Those graphs are of temperatures, only. But in the fifty years covered by the 1895–1946 graph CO2 rose by 15 ppmv (5.3%), and in the fifty years covered by the 1957–2008 graph CO2 rose by 70 ppmv (22.5%).
I do not doubt that rising CO2 level contributed to warming, but the similarity of the two graphs, despite the dissimilarity of the two CO2-forcings, obviously doesn’t support the case for CO2 being the “principal control knob” for climate.