Climate: In Case You Were Wondering

Guest opinion by David Archibald

The global warming hysteria was reaching a crescendo in the lead up to the climate confab in Copenhagen in 2009 when a civic-minded person released the Climategate emails, deflating the whole thing. Those emails demonstrated that the science behind global warming was more like science fiction, concocted from the fevered imaginations of the scientists involved.

Nigh on 10 years have passed since then and we are currently experiencing another peak in the hysteria that seems to be coordinated worldwide. But why? Why now? The global warming scientists have plenty of time on their hands and plenty of money. Idle curiosity would have got some to have a stab at figuring out what is going to happen to climate. Do they see an imminent cooling and they have to get legislation in place before that is apparent?

The passage of those ten years has given us another lot of data points on the global warming. There are now 40 years of satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature and this is how that plots up for the Lower 48 States:

clip_image002

What the graph shows is the departure from the average for the 30 years from 1981 to 2010. The last data point is February 2019 with a result of -0.03 degrees C. So we have had 40 years of global warming and the temperature has remained flat. In fact it is slightly cooler than the long term average. Is it possible to believe in global warming when the atmosphere has cooled? No, not rationally. Is it possible for global warming to be real if the atmosphere has cooled? Again no.

Now let’s look at carbon dioxide which is supposed to be driving the global warming, if it was happening. A lab high up on Mauna Loa in Hawaii has been measuring the atmospheric concentration since 1958. As it is the annual change in concentration that is supposed to be driving global warming let’s see how that plots up:

clip_image004

What it shows is that the driving effect has been in a wide band from 1979 when the satellites to measure temperature went up but the trend is flat. Think about that – 40 years of forcing and no result in the actual atmospheric temperature. If it was ever going to happen it would have happened by now.

The opposite of global warming is global cooling. What are the chances of that? Pretty good in fact. Only one graph is need to show the potential for that – the aa Index which is a measure of the Sun’s magnetic field strength. Records of that have been kept since 1868:

clip_image006

The second half of the 20th century had a solar magnetic field strength that was 50% higher than that of the last 60 years of the Little Ice Age. That ended in 2006. We are now back to the solar activity levels of the 19th century and that may bring the sort of climate our forbears had then.

And so it has come to pass. January-February had record cold over North America. Seemingly the polar vortex was everywhere because Japan also had record cold.

Waiting for global warming to happen is like Waiting for Godot. It is never going to happen and the wait is getting beyond tedious.

In the meantime there is no evidence for global warming and the opposite is happening, as shown by the record cold we have just experienced. It is time to stop giving global warmers the benefit of doubt – they are loons. That includes Rick Perry.


David Archibald has lectured on climate science in both Senate and House hearing rooms.

Advertisements

141 thoughts on “Climate: In Case You Were Wondering

  1. Quite a few ground based Weather Stations show the same thing.
    It is definitely the case that Global CAGW doesn’t mean what we think it means.

  2. Do they see an imminent cooling and they have to get legislation in place before that is apparent?

    Lots of us think that’s why they lowered the bar to 1.5C.

    By the time CAGW has been unwound, most of the guilty parties will still be alive and can be held accountable for their fraud.

    • No accountability as they can claim they acted in good faith according to the best scientific knowledge at the time. They’ve got the reports and articles to prove it.

    • Commie, they didnt just lower it to 1.5C. They also moved the starting gate from 1950 to 1850 to bankroll 0.8C. They really reduced it to 0.7C to 2100. This came about when their 1988 forecasts for 20 yrs hence proved to be +300% greater than observations and we were well into a 2-decade “pause” in temperatures with 30 % more CO2 having been added to atmos.

      Basically they are seeing about the same rate as the past 150yrs. They had to make another 0.7C look dangerous, though. Archibald is onto something here. They are desperate to get some savage legislation on CO2 so if cooling is in the cards, then they can take credit for saving us using global gov by elites.

      • Is it actually possible to lower CO2 emissions within the next decade without causing global economic catastrophe? I don’t think so.

  3. Now we all know that the heat is hiding deep down in the vast Oceans, just waiting to pop up and prove to you deniers just how wrong you are.

    There is far too much money for this scam to quietly fall over, so expect lots of excuses, and there will be plenty of politicians who will want to continue to scare us, with the usual, “”Only we can save you” mantra. Just keep voting for us of course.

    MJE VK5ELL

    • “””””Now we all know that the heat is hiding deep down in the vast Oceans”””””

      Yes, and it´s a travesty we can´t find it.

      • If the “missing heat” is getting sucked is into deep oceans we can safely stop worrying about. It will make an infinitesimal change to vast body water and it really does not matter to any one or anything.

      • Lots of luck in finding the heat since 90% of ocean water is below the thermocline. Could claim some latent heat if they ignore tide gauge data and use satellites to measure sea level.

    • The oceans hold about 99.9% of the enthalpy of the air-oceans system. The energy content of the atmosphere is inside the error bars. The contribution of CO2 is therefore 0.0004 of the total. I.e. indistinguishable from Zero.

      Yes, the heat is in the ocean. All of it. Nowhere to go, nothing to hide.

  4. The oceans are still warm. I think it will take a few years before they cool to declare in fact the warmer period is over. The North Atlantic is turning colder already but the current El Niño will keep the Pacific warm for a while. Since the oceans contain all the heat so to speak, when (if) they go cold we are there.

    The big part of this is when the oceans go cold and if the Sun remains in a weaker state, it will take decades to warm back up after the Sun inevitably cycles back in strength. Then we will see the real meaning of “Climate Change” and not the hothouse Earth it means now.

  5. The day there is accountability for hoaxes is the day people will stop creating them, so like never.

        • Who the hell knows what ‘obsfucation’ is?

          Typical – a couple snarky, badly- spelled posts with grammar consistent with about one drink too many.

          Kinda makes you wonder if the rest of his work is that sloppy.

      • From which Weed Patch did you make that observation, Mr. Mosher. The one that says “the U.S. is not the world?” The one that says “CO2 is not the only consideration?”

        Come clean, Mr. Mosher. Drive-by comments are just teasers to you, aren’t they?

          • Thank you Ron. I used to say Elvis has left the building after a visit to the smallest room in the house but now a more definitive name has surfaced (I dont like insulting people but I also believe in give and take).

      • To be fair, the temperature graph is for US. While the global temperature isn’t -0.03°, it has also cooled off a lot from the El Niño highs of 2016.

        While CO2 concentrations continue to increase, temperatures are positively blasé.

      • Well you guys can control the weather with your little tool box. If stations start showing cooling, they can simply be “moved” – yeah, I get it that there can be good reasons for moving stations but after having many criticisms of the record simply countered by “moving” I came to the understanding that this makes a great guise for also moving stations or removing stations reas9ns that aren’t good. A good lie should have some speckles of truth.

        The algorithms used by tempkeepers that make what the avg temperature in the future will be for 1950 more of a mystery than the same for 2100 is another. Apply it to the entire Holocene and the Younger Dryas disappears.

      • Obfuscation: the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.

        I guess in your case, Steven, it means looking at the sacrosanct “settled science” of anthropogenic catastrophic climate change. To the true believers, a skeptical approach is “obfuscation”, also “blasphemy” and “heresy.”

    • And David never insulted(or attempted to insult) anyone. This is the type of sunologist to whom I like to listen.

        • David,

          His tolerance toward Willis’ and Leif’s insulting antics makes me doubt this notion.
          I always read your articles with interest and sympathy.

    • Ditt, Bob Hoye!
      I like the Occam Award… How about a razor paring a hockey stick mounted on a steam table…or a Carnot cycle?
      Cheers
      Mike

  6. Can I ask why you chose the North American part rather than the UAH global data?

    Just curious. Thanks

    • It does appear to be a cherry pick. However, it is possibly the first major land area to see the impact of the changes in geomagnetism. Time will tell.

      • With the post 2006 time frame we can verify the UAH dataset by comparing it with the CRN was one possibility I was thinking of but didn’t see in the article. The CRN is quality data.

    • A good analyst would look at all the data to diagnose warming.

      1. OHC first and foremost as that is where 90% of the heat would go.
      2. Global land
      3, Global Ocean
      4. Then move up in the atmosphere.

      Plotting % change in c02 is also a physical joke

      • Steven

        1. Why is that? Exactly how would the OHC rise prior to the atmospheric temperature?

        I have heard many explanations of how CO2 can cause oceans OHC to rise but none that explain how that can happen prior to the atmospheric temperature increase, so if you could please explain the process.

          • A joke that needs an explanation reflects more on the teller than the listener. For the first time in a long time I am actually curious what he has to say.

          • I’m not sure what the ‘joke’ is – but I guess the punch-line is ‘obsfucation’.

        • Bob

          He is telling a physical joke. And the way he sees causality, he needs the explanation.

          And you are right, he is twisting causality, as “they” always are. First comes warm, then CO2 rises.

          He´s doing his “hit and run” again, and he never explains nothing.

        • Bob: The atmosphere and the surface of the ocean are exchanging heat at a rapid rate. An average 333 W/m2 of downward LWR vs 390 W/m2 of upward LWR, 80 W/m2 of latent heat, 20 W/m2 of sensible heat. To some extent, the temperature of the atmosphere and the ocean reach a steady state relationship. The warmest and coolest temperatures over land away from the ocean typically occurs in July and January, about a month after the maximum and minimum solar irradiation. This is because it takes some time for the mass of the atmosphere and the land beneath it to warm given its heat capacity. In the case of ocean SSTs the lag is modestly greater and seasonal changes in temperature penetrate down to roughly 50 meters due to mixing by winds. In the presence of a 1 W/m2 radiative imbalance, the atmosphere and the top 50 m of the ocean – if isolated – would warm 0.2 degC/year. So, from a climate change point of view (ie a decadal time scale), the atmosphere and the surface of the ocean warm and cool in parallel.

          However, there is a massive amount of cold ocean below the surface “mixed layer” that is slowly and chaotically exchanging heat with the surface. A slowdown in this exchange will produce warming at the surface and in the atmosphere and a speedup will produce cooling – all without any radiative imbalance at the TOA. This is called internal or unforced variability in climate. One simple way to look at an El Nino is as a slowing down in upwelling of cold water off the coast of Peru and of subsidence of warm water in the West Pacific Warm Pool. This internal variability can warm global temperature 0.3 degC in six months! And none of it is driven by a radiative imbalance at the TOA.

          Of course, we are all smart enough not to confused the rapid warming and subsequent cooling associated with a major El Nino with the slower warming expected from rising GHGs. Slower changes in exchange of heat between the surface and deep ocean could appear to be the warming expected for rising GHG or overwhelm the warming expected from rising GHGs. The 65-year AMO appears to be associated with changes in the Gulf Stream (part of meridional OVERTURNING circulation, but we haven’t seen enough of these oscillations to know how much they change global surface temperature. Until the ARGO buoys were operational for about a decade, we weren’t absolutely sure that rising temperature at the surface (in the atmosphere, at the surface of the ocean and in the mixed layer of the ocean – that all move in parallel) wasn’t at least partially the result of a slowdown in heat exchange with the deep ocean – which would become slightly colder, without subsiding warm surface water. Now we see consistent (though steadily decreasing warming) down to 2000 m, we can be sure that the surface warming we have observed is not due to internal unforced variability in ocean overturning.

          So Mosher is telling you to look FIRST for the warming effect from rising GHGs (which reduce radiative cooling to space) in the warming of the bulk ocean.

      • I agree that plotting annual percent change in CO2 is ridiculous. The total change in CO2 concentration since 1958 is more than 30%, a fact that he appears to be trying to hide. If we are arguing about “global” warming, then we should also use global temperature datasets, otherwise the argument is meaningless.

        If we let authors like this cherry pick to their hearts content we skeptics will have lost the scientific high ground.

        • How is it that the U.S. has not warmed over a 40 year period in a warming world? Could there be glitches in the AGW theory? ‘An inquiring mind wants to know.’

          If you don’t have an inquiring mind, there is always the GND.

          • Well, the US cooled over the past 40 years, therefore “global warming” wasn’t “global” at all, therefore the CAGW hypothesis (because, let’s be honest here, it doesn’t rise to the status of a theory… a theory is backed by corroborative evidence, and the CAGW hypothesis has none) is nullus resultarum.

            Of course, we could explain to the Chicken Little idiots that CO2 (in its degenerate bending modes) is one of very few molecules (nitric oxide being another) which can emit infrared radiation, and therefore one of the few molecules which can *cool* the atmosphere by radiative transfer of energy out to space.

            We could also explain that the *only* way the planet can shed heat is via radiative transfer to space.

            O2 and N2 can’t do it… they’re homonuclear diatomics, thus have no net magnetic dipole, and thus cannot emit radiation. Without CO2, the planet would *heat* *up*.

            This is why CO2 cools off the upper atmosphere. But what very few people know is that CO2 also cools the troposphere (graphic below), except it’s difficult to measure because water vapor (which condenses out of the atmosphere above the tropopause) swamps CO2’s effects.

            Here’s the long-term stratospheric cooling caused by increasing CO2 content:
            https://i.imgur.com/6On8cBR.png

            That’s why NASA has stated that space junk may stay in orbit for as much as 50% longer than anticipated… the atmosphere has cooled and contracted, reducing atmospheric drag on space junk.

            https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/03/05/dr-fred-singer-co2-no-longer-affects-the-climate-all-co2-effects-are-overshadowed-by-climate-oscillations-and-changes-in-solar-activity/
            —————
            The non-warming of the climate has become a topic much discussed since about 2005. John Christy has testified to Congress about the “gap” between IPCC climate models, which are based on steadily increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 and observations of atmospheric temperatures, measured by both satellites and radiosondes, 1978-2015 (see Christy fig. below).

            There have been many attempts to explain this discrepancy, ranging from a flat denial that such a gap exists (Tom Karl, Science, 2015, pp. 1,469-1,472, doi: 10.1126/science.aaa5632) to attempts to account for the “missing incoming energy.” For example, Kevin Trenberth has proposed that the missing energy, instead of warming the atmosphere, “hides” in the deep ocean, to be released later.

            Based on all the foregoing discussion, of the log-dependence of CO2 forcing (Myhre et al., GRL, 1998, vol. 25, doi: org/10.1029/98GLO1908) and its possible climate-cooling effect, I have a simpler hypothesis on the ineffectiveness of CO2 in warming the climate. I realize that this explanation is unacceptable to the IPCC and to many climate-warming advocates. I believe that the “gap,” now 40 years long, according to Christy, has existed throughout the Industrial Revolution — and probably during the whole of the Holocene. In other words, I consider that the “pause” may be permanent.

            I also believe that the gap will continue to grow in the future and demonstrate a convincing empirical argument supporting my explanation — namely, that CO2 no longer affects the climate, except perhaps at the slow level of its log-dependence.

            This log-dependence has to be modified (1) by CO2 cooling of the climate and (2) by possible positive feedback from water vapor, as assumed by the IPCC.
            —————

            —————
            Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
            http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.306.3621&rep=rep1&type=pdf
            “Abstract: The writers investigated the effect of CO2 emission on the temperature of atmosphere. Computations based on the adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect show that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere results in cooling rather than warming of the Earth’s atmosphere.”

            How increasing CO2 leads to an increased negative greenhouse effect in Antarctica
            https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL066749

            Why CO2 cools the middle atmosphere – a consolidating model perspective
            https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/7/697/2016/esd-7-697-2016.pdf

            Observations of infrared radiative cooling in the thermosphere on 2 daily to multiyear timescales from the TIMED/SABER instrument
            https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20100011897.pdf
            “Abstract:. We present observations of the infrared radiative cooling by carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO) in Earth’s thermosphere.”

            A Guide to CO2 and Stratospheric Cooling
            https://climatephys.wordpress.com/2015/05/22/a-guide-to-co2-and-stratospheric-cooling/

            Climate “Science” on Trial; Evidence Shows CO2 COOLS the Atmosphere
            https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/29/climate-science-on-trial-evidence-shows-co2-cools-the-atmosphere/

            A graphic of spectral cooling rates:
            https://i.imgur.com/9BvEQTX.png

            Note the CO2-induced spectral cooling rate (positive numbers in the scale at right) extend right down to the surface of the planet, whereas CO2 shows just a slight bit of warming (negative numbers in the scale at right) only at the tropopause (ie: just above the clouds, where it absorbs a greater percentage of reflected solar insolation).
            —————

            So yet again, the leftist alarmists have taken reality, flipped it on its head, then tried to claim their ‘mirror reality’ is actual reality… they tend to do that a lot, then they double-down until they’re cornered by facts and reality, whereupon they scurry back into the shadows.

            They’d best get to scurrying. Scientific reality is against them, and we’re pushing hard for felony litigation against those responsible for the CAGW fraud.

          • I heartily agree. It’s a pretty large landmass with a lot of data. Other parts of the world are poorly represented by local weather stations. If CO2 is “the control knob” it should be strikingly clear that temperatures have risen over that time, even only in North America. If indeed it’s hidden in the oceans, the Atlantic and Pacific, it should be showing up in temperatures in North America by now, shouldn’t it?

          • Dave: The temperature of the troposphere is highly variable and that above the US is even more variable. The troposphere above the US has warmed 3 degC and cooled 2 degC at various times in the past. Global warming is occurred at a rate of about 0.2 K/decade. So it doesn’t matter much what the most recent monthly temperature was. The only thing that matters if the long-term trend. Use you eye to estimate the long term trend – which David omitted because he doesn’t want you to think about that. Is your estimated trend distinctly different from 0.2 K/decade. Mine is, but it looks a little higher than 0.1 K/decade. The UAH global trend is about 0.14 K/decade (+/-0.4), modestly lower than most other global records suggest.

            As best I can tell, there is no special absence of warming over the US, just deception by the author of this post.

      • So, CO2, a molecule that :
        – absorbs / emits in the 15µm band from a cooler environment than oceans,
        – can’t penetrate more than 5 to 10 µm in the 4000000000 µm mean deep oceans before being re-emitted,
        – can’t even cause evaporation (15µm photon energy is 16 times less than the latent molecular evaporation energy and due to photoelectric effect there will be no water evaporation from 15µm photons whatever is their flux intensity),
        can nevertheless significantly contribute to the OHC … 90%

        I presume that OHC is for Ocasio Head Content …

      • Indeed! The author seems to think that the sun ain’t gonna shine anymore (with applogies to the Walker brothers) .. on other areas of the globe except the US! As a German I’m able to report that this is not the case! There is global warming since 1980! And: after 1960 or so the solar activity declined albeit this warming. What climate sensitivity vs. GHG is to estimate IF the sun has bigger influence than thought?? It woul be a nice excercise for the author to recalculate the TCR IF the solar forcing is to say 10 times bigger than estimated in the latest forcing data ( see https://www.nicholaslewis.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/LC18-AR5_Forc.new_.csv ) for the time frame after 1960! Good luck!

      • 4. GHG theory starts in/with the atmosphere.
        1. Show accurate long-term OHC measurements. To the 100 thousandths of a degree C?!? ARGO results seem to contradict alarmism.
        2. I might, just might, trust the new U.S. CRN data. It seems to contradict alarmism.
        3,[sic] See 1.

        The joke’s on you, Mr. Mosher.

      • Before someone tries to tear me a new one. I am commenting on the %change of CO2, only. I too find that to be a useless metric. There is simply no point to it.

      • Let everyone know when we have some meaningful ocean heat content data and then we can make an informed judgement on the “oceans ate the heat comment”.

      • Steven. A good analyst would look at the current observations in light of previous observations, such as the higher temperatures of previous warming periods compared to the current modest warming. A comparison with the Holocene Climactic Optimum would be a good place to start. A comparison of the Holocene interglacial period to the Eemian interglacial would be a productive way to place current warming in a context of natural climate change. You can’t know “now” if you don’t understand “then.”

    • That seem like a difficult choice to justify given the UAH data for the lower atmosphere is available for global measurement and doesn’t suffer from some of the problems land based measurements have in terms of geographical coverage. In fact He published the updated global lower temp from UAH on Mar 1 at his page [and I think it was cross-posted here]. I don’t think that would have quite the impact of the lower 48 graph, but if you are going to write “Is it possible to believe in global warming when the atmosphere has cooled?” then it seems incumbent to match the ‘global’ in the beginning of the sentence with global atmosphere data. As here; [hope this image link works] http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2019_v6-550×317.jpg

      • The UAH Global lower atmosphere temp, while not as compelling at -0.03°, still shows little (i.e. not significant) warming.

        You are correct though, I believe David should have used the global data. If anything, by limiting to US, he took away from his argument.

    • Because 330 million Americans live in the lower 48. Global warming as a lived experience. Nobody in the lower 48 has lived global warming. Not one of the 330 million. You are expected to believe in something that nobody, not one soul, has experienced. It is a theoretical abstract notion. I was originally going to write this describing global warming as an imaginary friend that people have despite no evidence for his existence. That they talk to and he tells them wonderful tales. And 40 years now! 40 years! That is close to two generations. Belief in global warming is being handed down from one generation to the next without any evidence it exists. It is like those cults that have a particular day for the end of the world so they sell their possessions and go to the field where the rapture is going to happen and then nothing happens. After 40 years it is time to say that it is not happening.

      • Can anyone post a location/region where Global Warming is being lived (outside of urban areas??). USCRN says no warming in Continental US. NASA says big warming around the globe. So, where is the rural location that shows the warming? Surely somewhere its getting hotter??

        • Here: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pushchino,+Moscow+Oblast,+Russia,+142290/@54.83613,37.5882447,12521m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x41350ec6cdc92c5f:0x71cd8fe533f67c85!8m2!3d54.8395772!4d37.6258923

          In the 30 years I had lived there (1960s – 1990s), I saw Global Winter Warming of several degrees. Ice on the river changed from 1m thick in January to non-existent or fringe-only. Schools stopped getting closed for weeks on end to protect children from frostbite. Plant and animal populations have changed. Migratory birds stopped migrating. The last time I visited in 2010, the winter was still mild and short, with only a few days of snowfall.

          I could stop right there without telling you of multiple confounders. That’s what people pushing global warming do when they stoop to pointing out facts instead of modeling or simply lying.

          I’ll just name a few confounders that come to mind:

          * Continued dam construction and deployment on upstream tributaries, resulting in a more stable and warmer water flow, due to buffering behind dams. That alone could delay the start of ice formation by several weeks.

          * The cessation of industrial navigation and dredging in late 1980s. A shallower and faster water flow reduces ice thickness and coverage, with all other conditions being equal.

          * Temperature is not the only factor that compels birds to migrate. Ducks will overwinter if there is open water year-round; even better if it is surrounded by extensive fields of ice. They feel safer that way. Rooks decided to stop migrating when the town’s population surpassed 15000 and could reliably offer enough edible trash in winter. They even moved their rookery into town from a dilapidated farm nearby that they inhabited previously. Interestingly, the year when they decided to stay was not the coldest ever, but was probably the coldest in a decade, with substantial snowfalls still happening in May.

          * While winters undoubtedly became warmer and shorter, summers have also changed. They became cooler and wetter. In 1960s, the only places where one would find moss were by permanent water streams in the deep shadows of a forest. By 1990, moss was growing everywhere, even on masonry and competing with grasses in the meadows.

          As far as I could tell (and I did keep records), there was no change in multi-year average temperatures, even though the extremes have changed dramatically. Because the range of temperatures is never zero and changes are stochastic, one can always pick a moment and location with a higher temperature than a year or ten years prior and claim Global Warming.

      • But … but … but CO2 has been increasing rapidly throughout that 40 year period! That just can’t be; all the models (except for those from the hacking, non-colluding Russians) tell us it has been warming significantly throughout the U.S.! Burn Christy and Spenser! Heretics!

      • David,
        That is nonsense. Are you seriously claiming that only things experienced by inhabitants of the US
        (or to be more precise those in the lower 48 states) are real. People living in Australia for instance have just experienced the warmest summer on record. It was 2 degrees over the long term average and 0.6 degrees higher than the previous record. Are you going to deny their lived experience?

        Also what about gravitional waves or neutrinos? Billions of neutrinos pass through every person in the US every day but no-one experiences them? Does that make neutrinos a “theoretical abstract notion”?

        • Izak, none other than the great Gavin Schmidt said something like: Any given temperature is not important; it is, rather, the change one experiences over time. [He used it to justify the radically different average global temperatures in the various UN IPCC climate models.]

          It is a fact that over 300 million CONUS-residing people have experienced no change in temperatures over a 40-year period. Get over your pique, Izak. It doesn’t really matter that the globe has slightly warmed over that period; there has been no measurable change in negative climate metrics.

          The real concern is that UN IPCC climate models’ temperature trends run 2 to 3 C hotter than that measured. Those faulty models are being used to hype hysteria. Such hysteria is being used by Globalists/Socialists/Progressives (whatever name fits) to gain control over free peoples. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

    • According to the UAH data, the US land area has warmed at 0.18 deg per decade since in the past 40 years. David Archibald has used the greater volatility in regional data to mask the actual increase.

  7. “Do they see an imminent cooling and they have to get legislation in place before that is apparent?”

    Speculation of this nature legitimizes speculation on the other side and that confuses the issue. Shouldn’t fight speculation with speculation.

  8. David, good posting, as usual, but “deflating the whole thing”? Yes, deflating the science by showing the null hypothesis, however I just watched a trailer on breitbart.com that shows this: (a young girl speaks and is accompanied by text) I am 13 years old, I am in the seventh grade, and I am a Climate Scientist”, and then she goes on to say how she and other like-minded Climate Scientists will save the world (presumably from the likes of “deniers”?). The issue of CAGW has such deeply-embedded political implications that actual removal of the issue from the culture will be a long task. That having been said, PRESS ON!

    • Her age is in very good level to be climate”scientist”.

      This whole episode has been like pre-teenage dream.

  9. I try to see a bigger picture. One of the great accomplishments of the modern West is a focus on science: rigorous attention to detail, seeking to prove testable hypotheses, transparency and replication, etc. Many intelligent people now apparently can’t be bothered with that, and to make it worse, they chant, meditation-style, “I believe in science.” (See the great Judith Curry on this mantra). If they are not going to follow science, where are they going to go? Where does their agenda lead? An optimist might say nature will teach them some lessons, and they will change their ways. But if they are half as noble as they think they are, they will be willing to “pay a price” for their cause–or force the poor to do so.

    • I don’t see it as a recent phenomenon that science has political aspects. This is the way it has been for a long time. In the next century, schoolchildren may learn how science used to be done in the backwards days of the 20th and 21st centuries.

  10. Boo and hiss. NEMS and SCAMS were measuring the temperature in the atmosphere since the very early 1970s. No get off your rumps and read all those NEMS 7 track 556BPI tapes and reanalyze the data. At least SCAMS was 9 track 1600 BPI. SCAMS was basically the fore-runner of the AMSU. 5 Channels, 3 temp, 1 window, 1 water vapor resonance.

    There is about 50 years of sat record for those folks that can pry the data loose.

  11. “Surplus production has been repeatedly dumped onto neighboring markets and resulted in massive disturbances for the respective national power grids.”

    This dumping take the form of putting the power into the European Grid. When they do that, another distributor in, say, the Czech Republic, can but from the grid well below the cost of the local generation plant which burns coal.

    So the effect is subsidized wind driving unsubsidized companies out of business. Because that is illegal, the Czech Republic is suing Germany at the WTO. It is dumping, plain and simple.

    If Germany bankrupts the Czech generating station they might end up subsidizing them to keep it going to fill in the gaps, inefficiently of course.

    • Sincere question: Would it be correct to say increased OLR would be predicated on increased SW reaching the earth? The various impacts of different clouds and their differing global distribution?

      • I think the OLR changes observed are due to increased/decreased total solar insolation, TSI. Climate warming and cooling happens. Look how the OLR increases track El Nino with a slight delay. You can also see the pause before the most recent El Nino.

        This warming, of course, violates another commandment of the “climate consensus” : that 90% of modern climate change is man-made.

  12. Think about that – 40 years of forcing and no result in the actual atmospheric temperature.

    I’m sorry for flamebaiting, but this is just drivel in any larger scope. We have to agree to disagree, because there’s no common ground.

  13. The real issue is control, isn’t it? If “we do this”, then “that will happen”, so “TAX, TAX, TAX” and make it a financial burden for the average person.

    The more disturbing aspect of the CAGWer scam, in my view, is the refusal to admit that there are natural cycles taking place on a recurring basis, shows up in all the physical stuff like tree stumps from Greenland and above the current snow line in the Alps, and geological evidence that places like salt pans in deserts are evidence of being under water a long time ago.

    These cycles are irregular, and we puny humans have no control of them, never have and never will, and this is just to difficult for these control freaks posing as science peeps to admit.

  14. Only one graph is need to show the potential for that

    But that graph is miss-labelled deceptively and on purpose as the Little Ice Age ended in the first half of the 19th century and should not appear in that graph. To defend that the Little Ice Age extends to 1935 is ridiculous. There goes David Archibald losing more points in credibility. Then he goes to defend that there is a cold period since 2005. Really, David? A cold period since 2005? In which global dataset?

    • Climbing up from the bottom of LIA is still LIA until “normal” is reached. Whatever the “normal” is.

      • “Climbing up from the bottom of LIA is still LIA until “normal” is reached. Whatever the “normal” is.”

        In that case, I would say 1934, and 1998, and 2016 are “normal”. They are the three warmest years in the US temperature record (20th and 21st centuries), and they are all fairly close in temperature. 1934 was 0.5C warmer than 1998, and was 0.4C warmer than 2016.

        And today, March, 2019 is about 1.0C cooler than 1934.

        Yes, this means we have been in a temperature downtrend since 1934. There is no unprecedented heat to fear.

      • There is no normal. The LIA ended around 1840. Glaciers have been melting in earnest since 1850. If you say the LIA ended in 1935 you make a fool of yourself. Or worse, you can be accused of lying to people.

        • “There is no normal. The LIA ended around 1840. Glaciers have been melting in earnest since 1850. If you say the LIA ended in 1935 you make a fool of yourself. Or worse, you can be accused of lying to people.”

          Well, that’s why I put “normal” in quotes.

          I don’t assume 1935 is the end of the Little Ice Age. That’s something you dreamed up for you to criticize.

          Could be accused of lying? It looks to me like you are accusing me of lying, in a rather cowardly way. Do you think I’m lying? Come right out and say it if you do and then give the reason why you accuse me of lying. You up for that?

          • No, I am not accusing you of anything, except perhaps not being very bright, because I was obviously referring to David Archibald, author of the article where in one of the figures the LIA ends around 1935.

    • As I say, it’s drivel. I don”t understand why it was published here, though this site is like Lutheran church: roof so high and walls so wide anything goes, just anything.

  15. Just saying North America and Japan were cold does not equate to global cooling.

    Western Europe has been relatively benign this winter.

    What Russia from the Baltic to Vladivostock?

    How about Kazakhstan, China, Mongolia etc?

    I am not saying warming is happening, I am saying simply report on the whole world before drawing global conclusions.

    • Everybody should use same methods that IPCC use. And this report is better than IPCC´s because it doesn´t twist climate history.

  16. I would speculate that Trump, the French yellow vests, and nature not cooperating, with the cooling since February 2016, have created a sense of urgency. The last thing they need is skeptical governments pointing to a new lack of warming, like the Pause so well described by the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.

    James Hansen et al. are already on record with their “Global Temperature in 2017” report saying:
    “because of the combination of the strong 2016 El Niño and the phase of the solar cycle, it is plausible, if not likely, that the next 10 years of global temperature change will leave an impression of a ‘global warming hiatus’.”
    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2018/20180118_Temperature2017.pdf

    So they are aware that after the sweet 2014-2017 years that ended the Pause, a new or renewed Pause might be coming, and therefore it could be now or never to push the Western World towards decarbonization.

    • Yes, they know the public is catching on and that warming has been nothing like they predicted.

      They are now getting more and more desperate to get something cast into legally binding treaties and national laws before the bottom falls out of the whole damn thing.

      That is their “urgency”.

    • Looks like a March temperature spike is going to cruel any talk of a new hiatus, anyway I still like the old one.

    • Javier: A “new Pause” can’t be coming soon. According to models, there is about a 25% likelihood that any five-year period will show no warming merely by chance. So lack of apparent warming from now until 2022 won’t have any scientific meaning. The last slowdown wasn’t called a hiatus or slowdown until it had lasted for 10 years. So we could have a “new Pause” by the late 2020’s. As for a “renewed Pause” (extending the Pause begun in 1998 or 2001), even another 10-year pause won’t create an extended Pause more than two decades long. According to HadCrutT4, the average temperatures in the 2000’s was between +0.45 and +0.5. If you do a 13-month smooth, temperature since the last El Nino descended to +0.60 K, still 0.15 K warmer than the 2000’s. To extend the former Pause, temperature needs to DESCEND another 0.15 K and remain there for most of another decade. Since temperature never returned to the pre-2013 baseline after the last El Nino, all trends since any time during Pause are significantly positive.

      Barring another LIA, the only reasonable argument is that projected warming is grossly exaggerated, not that warming isn’t occurring.

  17. David. I have gotten older. If you were to see a graph of my hotflashes, which are starting to cool now, I could say, sans plausible mechanism, that my combined cohort around the world today, is responsible for warming, and present slight cooling of Earth’s land temperatures. Geez! I know you have at least some science acumen but you sure didn’t show it in this post. Any more than I just did.

      • Not an on topic response to my comment made in gest. You speculate that the sun’s magnetic component has something to do with weather here on the ground of Earth So I speculated, simply because the wriggles match, that my hot flashes and those of countless women my age, could be the cause of climate change. Neither has a plausible mechanism. And neither can hindcast.

  18. If mankind is substantially responsible for all the warming, how much is it responsible for the recent pause?
    A: The cooling is due to natural forces that suppressed the overall warming trend.

    So, there are natural forces that affect the average global temperature?
    A: Of course. I just said that.

    So why couldn’t natural drivers be the cause of the previous warming if they are the cause of recent cooling?
    A: We have math that shows how much is contributed by man and nature. After we calculate mankind’s contribution, the remainder is the natural contribution. We know it’s correct because when we add the two together we get exactly the total amount every single time. It even works after we adjust historical temperatures, so the models are very robust.

    • So it works when you adjust inputs to be zer from man, all natural?
      If not, why not.
      Answer some tough basic questions?
      Geoff

  19. “40 years of forcing and no result in the actual atmospheric temperature. ”

    The idea of forcing caused by CO2 is in opposition to specific heat. Thermodynamics says an increase Q, any form of energy, will cause an increase in temperature. Climate science says if the energy includes an IR component then you must throw in the forcing formula.

    Q = Cp * m * dT does not depend on whether the input has an IR component. That would be double counting.

  20. The last data point is February 2019 with a result of -0.03 degrees C. So we have had 40 years of global warming and the temperature has remained flat. In fact it is slightly cooler than the long term average. Is it possible to believe in global warming when the atmosphere has cooled? No, not rationally. Is it possible for global warming to be real if the atmosphere has cooled? Again no.

    That is a pretty silly and disingenuous argument.

    Saying “the atmosphere has cooled” based on one month’s average and that we can draw conclusions about AGW based on that is a ridiculous idea.

    I follow WUWT to keep abreast of news and SCIENCE about climate. Making it a place for alarmists to point to for stupid and disingenuous arguments by “climate deniers” is not a good idea. Please stop it.

  21. 1979 when the satellites to measure temperature went up

    NO, the satellites where sent up to measure cloud and rain. It was John Christy who realised, years later, that there was a means of extracting a “brightness temperature” from the microwave soundings.

    As it is the annual change in concentration that is supposed to be driving global warming let’s see how that plots up:

    No again. It is the log of the ratio of the total CO2 to the fictional “steady state” level of the pre-industrial optimum climate for the Earth which is supposed to drive warming. Who ever suggested it was the annual increase.

    This is one of most silly and ill-informed articles I have seen on WUWT in a long time.

  22. Scafetta & Wilson, 2019, Comparison of Decadal Trends among Total Solar Irradiance Composites of Satellite Observations
    https://www.hindawi.com/journals/aa/2019/1214896/
    discussed here:
    http://notrickszone.com/2019/03/25/satellite-evidence-affirms-solar-activity-drove-a-significant-percentage-of-recent-warming/

    “In a new paper, two astrophysicists shred the IPCC-preferred and model-based PMOD solar data set and affirm the ACRIM, which is rooted in observation and shows an increase in total solar irradiance (TSI) during the 1980-2000 period. They suggest a “significant percentage” of recent climate change has been solar-driven.”

    Once again a good case is made that (yet another) sattellite dataset has been massaged into oblivion. Correction shows a very different picture.

  23. Somehow my previous post disappeared. Second try.

    http://notrickszone.com/2019/03/25/satellite-evidence-affirms-solar-activity-drove-a-significant-percentage-of-recent-warming/
    Scafetta and Willson, 2019
    In a new paper, two astrophysicists shred the IPCC-preferred and model-based PMOD solar data set and affirm the ACRIM, which is rooted in observation and shows an increase in total solar irradiance (TSI) during the 1980-2000 period. They suggest a “significant percentage” of recent climate change has been solar-driven.

  24. Nigh on 10 years have passed since then and we are currently experiencing another peak in the hysteria that seems to be coordinated worldwide. But why?

    Because over the last two decades, free-freer markets have reduced global poverty to new historic lows and a rising standards of living and new middle-classes are evolving in places that were only a generation ago considered terminally, hopelessly impoverished.

    Affluent and self-sufficient citizens have limited desire or use for totalitarian government and in supposed democracies will resist socialism in its various forms. So those with statist ambitions need to create a crisis to goad citizens into acquiescing their freedoms to the state. And if the citizens refuse to vote to acquiesce, they’ll eventually use the impetus of a crisis to eliminate the need for a vote.

    Since for the last 20 years, the climate has not cooperated with with the models said it should be, the advocates of this agenda feel as though they are running out of time. On the other hand, as more people become more affluent, they are beginning to realize that they have to loose and will fight back against this agenda.

  25. David Archibald:

    “The passage of those ten years has given us another lot of data points on the GLOBAL warming. There are now 40 years of satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature and this is how that plots up for the Lower 48 STATES:”

    Are you critiquing global temperatures via comparison with the Lower 48 States? (rhetorical)

    This is the plot for the GLOBE……
    http://iwantsomeproof.com/extimg/uah_global_temps.png

    Which is of course what needs to be used when talking of AGW.
    The “G” bit.
    Seems like a steady rise in a linear LS fit trend.
    And of course that is not the surface, where most warming is occurring nocturnally over land.
    It is also by far the coldest outlier of any global temp index.

    “Is it possible to believe in global warming when the atmosphere has cooled?”

    It is when you compare satellite measurements of the whole GLOBE (as seen in my above link).
    And not just ~1.5% of it.

    “No, not rationally.”
    You got that right.

    “January-February had record cold over North America. ”

    No.
    Only some of it.
    For part of the time ….

    Jan:
    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/index_v3.html

    Mmmm not Jan at all then.
    In fact a large area of the highest warming percentile in the far NW

    Feb:
    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/index_v3.html

    OK so the NW states and W Canada.

    On the warm said in the E/SE states.
    A good bit of E/N Europe, an a big chunk of Siberia.
    Plus the Arctic was a tad less cold than normal.

    https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/national-climate-201902
    “The winter (December–February) average contiguous U.S. temperature was 33.4°F, 1.2°F ABOVE average, ranking among the warmest third of the record. ” (my caps)

    So the point of your post seems a tad elusive to anyone who examines the claims you make.

  26. The graph of the ‘Lower 48’ is interesting but it is not clear that it is indicative of anything except that this very small region’s temperatures show no trend one way or the other. I wonder what all of North America looks like. Likewise, this current winters extreme cold and snow establish cold weather but in no way a cooling climate. Wishful thinking will not slay the AGW dragon; lets not fall into the selective sample trap.

    • Whole dairy herds froze to death in the Yakima Valley in February. Nature’s warning.

  27. With limited attention to all this, I have heard something to the effect we have not warmed to within 2 degrees of the stated high during the medieval warming period.

    Odd we started with a narrative that says we need to maximize spending and reaction cuz, 2 degrees is the end…
    End of the cycle if it is the same as the last one? End of opportunity? Look how long it took to determine that cigarettes are or are maybe bad? So it will take like 20 or so years of cooling or non warming for one side to notice..

    Over such short time frames as 100 years compared to 1000 years, with warming and cooling cycles of in some cases 25 to 40 years, it seems easy to show graphs covering a cooling then warming amo. Not sure but are we at the endish of that cycle now?

    I am just saying, if they no longer believe we will make it the next 2 degrees, setting the bar lower to 1.5 would be expected. If we really don’t ever get to the same temps as the last cycle, I wonder what that means going forward.

    Don’t greenhouses pump in co2 up to 1000 ppm or higher, since many plants benefit greatly from that? If I warm up water on the stove in a covered pan, won’t the co2 levels relative to oxygen increase dramatically, and then if I turn off the heat fall as the water cools? So was it co2 that warmed the water, or…?

    I wish we had some sciency people explaining these things in ways non sciency people would find accessible.

  28. Can someone post a comparison of the USCRN data through current and the UAH Lower 48 Sat data along with the following:
    1) Regression results and confidence intervals for slope since 2004.
    2) To what extent are they measuring the same result? How well does UAH Lower 48 Sat predict USCRN and vice versa?
    3) Variance of UAH Lower 48 with NASA GISS Land?
    4) How does USCRN compare to NASA Giss Land?

    We should get a lot more statistics out there before we argue about what these results tell us. My feeling is that USCRN is pretty good data although there is still a tiny bit of warming bias in it due to land development and more people at the sites. USCRN shows no meaningful change in US temps since inception.

    • David writes: “What the graph shows is the departure from the average for the 30 years from 1981 to 2010. The last data point is February 2019 with a result of -0.03 degrees C. So we have had 40 years of global warming and the temperature has remained flat. In fact it is slightly cooler than the long term average.”

      Please! Aren’t we past cherry-picking. One can pick starting and ending dates in your UAH data that produce 5 degC of warming or 4 degC of cooling. For the global UAH record, the OLS 40-year trend is +1.3 +/- 0.4 degC/decade or just over 0.5 degC of warming, Eyeballing the data suggests a similar trend is present in the data for the US alone. Of course, the temperature in any one month can be more than 1 degC warmer or cooler than expected assuming a long term linear trend. So the relatively cool temperature for Feb 2019 has no significance.

      RSS produces a trend of +0.20 +/- 0.3 degC/decade from the same satellite data. Surface records show warming similar to RSS. Radiosonde records also show warming. IMO, saying that the atmosphere has been cooling (or “not warming”) for 40 years hurts the reputation of responsible skeptics.

      Everyone else says the Little Ice Age ended before 1850, not in the 1930’s. As for your “New Cold Period”, the UAH trend for the last 10-years has been +0.27 degC/decade. It is greater than +0.20 degC/decade and statistically significant for all starting dates back to 2005. The trend approaches the 40-year trend as you incorporate more of the Pause.

      There is some evidence that changes in non-TSI solar “activity” can influence climate, but even another Maunder Minimum probably wouldn’t negate the warming of the last half-century, much less the coming warming from 2XCO2. And no one knows when another Maunder Minimum might arrive.

    • Real Entropy: You ask some really good questions about USCRN. Unfortunately, too little time has passed to provide any answers. USCRN covers only the continental US. US temperature has risen an fallen more than 2 degC at various times. US land temperature is much more variable than global surface temperature. If we look at the latest 15-year trend for GISS land surface temperature, the trend is 0.27 +/- 0.11 degC/decade (95% ci). For the US alone, the uncertainty will be much greater, say ? +/- 0.25 degC/decade. In other words, US climate is so variability, we might not know if it is warming or not. Looking for a DIFFERENCE IN TRENDS with this much uncertainty to see if the USCRN trend is lower will almost certainly not show a statistically significant difference.

      So someone will need to look to see if there is a TREND IN THE MONTHLY DIFFERENCE between what USCRN and other indices report for the US. That would be a non-trivial task with numerous questions. Do you correct for break point in non-USCRN records? How do you ensure both records cover the same areas.

  29. My maxim is that:

    “The only warrant for government action is existential peril.”

    So, if you seek political power and there is no existential peril in sight, you have to make it up.

  30. The opposite of global warming is global cooling. What are the chances of that? Pretty good in fact. Only one graph is need to show the potential for that – the aa Index which is a measure of the Sun’s magnetic field strength. Records of that have been kept since 1868…

    The aa-index was devised in 1969 to track hourly disturbances in the Earth’s magnetic field. It does not measure the “Sun’s magnetic field strength”. In fact, the aa-index is computed from the geomagnetic K-index, so it only produces a non-zero value when there is a _change_ in the horizontal component of the Earth’s magnetic field over a 3-hour period. Think of it as measuring tiny “geomagnetic quakes” in a compass needle.
    http://isgi.unistra.fr/indices_aa.php

    It was devised by Mayaud in 1969 to track long-term global geomagnetism activity. It makes use of geomagnetic readings going back to 1968 mainly recorded by Greenwich Observatory in the Northern Hemisphere the Melbourne Observatory in Australia. It measures disturbances in the geomagnetic environment, and yes, all of the geomagnetic indices, including aa-index, do show correlation to sunspot activity. No huge surprise there.

    But does it affect weather/climate measurements in the Earth’s troposphere? Archibald seems to be claiming (in his aa-plot above) that the aa-index supports a “cooling period” since 2008.

    But Svalgaard and others have pointed out that the aa-index suffers from an unstable calibration. So why doesn’t Archibald just use sunspot records or TSI to support his claim? The answer, of course, is that the climate record shows no overwhelming correlation to solar magnetic activity because TSI varies only by 0.1% over solar cycles. Not enough to make any significant (or even measurable) change in temperature.

    So I think he espouses the aa-index, merely because it is more cooperative towards his wishful thinking of a cooler Earth.

    • Is nothing sacred? First of all Svalgaard came after the sunspot record and hammered it flat. Now according to your report he wants to fiddle with the aa Index. Next you are going to tell me you have a problem with the F10.7 flux. You are shameless.

      • @Archibald
        “You are shameless”
        I think you are the one who should be ashamed, pretending to be a solar scientist, yet ignorant of how the geomagnetic indices work, and failing to understand the basic issues involved with sunspot counts that necessitated a recalibration to make them more consistent with itself and other time series, F10.7 flux for example.

        Leif submitted a letter to Geophysical Research Letters almost a decade ago, where he asserted the primacy of F10.7:

        Waldmeier [1971] found a very tight relationship between the F10.7 solar radio flux and the sunspot number and suggested using the flux for an objective calibration of the sunspot number. He suggested that if this relationship changed later on, the sunspot number should be recalibrated, assuming that the calibration must have drifted with time

        https://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.4832.pdf [Aug 2010]

        Yes, the SSN recalibration generated some criticism (i.e. it was real science). Some of the biggest complainers were either those who thought sunspot counts were outdated, or those whose pet theories were demolished by the recalibration.

  31. @Archibald
    “The two are incompatible.”

    Actually these are two different kinds of “prediction”. The red curves are the “standard curves” (looks like a simple cubic extrapolation or such), whereas the yellow (only shown for sunspots) is “combined methods”.

    Perhaps Leif can fill us in on the details of these two methodologies.

  32. “Nigh on 10 years have passed since then and we are currently experiencing another peak in the hysteria that seems to be coordinated worldwide. But why? Why now?”

    They see the AMO heading towards negative territory?

  33. David Archibald

    “Next you are going to tell me you have a problem with the F10.7 flux. You are shameless.”

    AsJohanus told you: you are the person behaving shameless, because you are merely guessing about the work done by Leif Svalgaard instead of presenting us a scientifically valuable contradiction of his work.

    What now concerns F10.7 cm flux vs. SSN, Mr Archibald: here are facts vs. guessing.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ShXgzae4Fr_fOs9kWJiSzD8yXkcewQZY/view

  34. Real Entropy

    Can someone post a comparison of the USCRN data through current and the UAH Lower 48 Sat data along with the following:
    1) Regression results and confidence intervals for slope since 2004.
    2) To what extent are they measuring the same result? How well does UAH Lower 48 Sat predict USCRN and vice versa?

    1. I didn’t process USCRN yet. Here is a recent graph comparing GHCN daily (thousands of US stations) and UAH 6.0 LT for CONUS+AK:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/19lNw8xq4H6IDqwfoq8nHXMaxoiOhsI_8/view

    Linear estimates for 1979-2019 in °C / decade
    – UAH49: 0.18 ± 0.02
    – GHCND: 0.20 ± 0.03

    2. While GHCN is a surface measurement and UAH measures in the lower troposphere at about 5 km altitude, the two can’t have much in common, their respective trends and amazingly similar running means excepted.

    • I was looking for comparison to USCRN because I believe the data there is better, even if the time frame is shorter.

      • Maybe one day I have time and interest enough to start CRN processing, in order to compare it with GHCN (V3, V4, daily). That might lead to a strange surprise for you… who knows.

  35. The suggestion by David Archibald that the USA48 hasn’t warmed is nonsense. The linear trend of 0.18 deg per decade is included in the UAH dataset. Regional temperatures tend to be volatile which makes it harder to detect a trend by visual inspection.

    https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

    The bottom line is that the USA has warmed around 0.7 degrees C over the past 40 years.

    • John Finn. Many cities here in Northern California showed a cooling trend for a century per NOAA until 2012 – Santa Rosa and Ukiah were two of many – and then “homogenization” changed significant cooling to warming. Climate change with the stroke of a pen.

  36. Anyone who thinks any warming 1979-2019 is significant is in error. It covers just over a full (warming) half-cycle of the basic solar system mechanics cycle of c.63yrs. The cooling half is now in progress, but starts from the recent high point. Nothing to see there for those without an axe to grind, except normalcy.
    The ‘Quiet Sun effect’ now in play however, may be a fish of a different scale…….. Brett

  37. The temperature record since 1880 clearly shows a pattern of temperature change consisting of about 30 year periods of alternating steady increases in temperature and pauses in the rise. This appears to be a better tool for predicting future temperature levels than the many studies that have been “concocted” for that purpose. The use of portions of the temperature record as done in this article to prove a point is usually a prop for an invalid assumption. I am continually surprised at how little attention is paid to the importance of the pattern of change shown in the temperature record. It is an important argument against atmospheric CO2 being the cause of global warming and should repeated over and over at every opportunity instead of being diluted by other discussion.

  38. “Waiting for global warming to happen is like Waiting for Godot. It is never going to happen and the wait is getting beyond tedious.”

    Never really understood what is “Waiting for Godot” good for.

    Thanks!

    What was waiting to get understandable was

    “Biedermann and the Arsonists”:

    “The play shows how “normal” citizens can be taken in by evil.[3][4] As a parable, in a more general sense it may be considered to be descriptive of the gullible and easily manipulated aspects of the German Biedermann – the Everyman – who yearns both for a sense of shallow propriety as well as for a deeper sense of belonging, even if it comes at a great price, including that which is sensible or even necessary for his own survival.”

  39. “Biedermann and the Arsonists” reminds on the cheers for the heroic tenor in Italian opera concert halls: bravo, assassino –

    brave, murderer!

Comments are closed.