Cooling Down the Hysteria About Global Warming

Guest essay by Rich Enthoven

Recently, NASA released its annual report on global temperatures and reported that 2018 was the fourth hottest year on record, surpassed only by three recent years. This claim was accompanied by dire predictions of climate change and for immediate action to dramatically curtail CO2 emissions around the globe. Like every concerned citizen read this report with interest. I also read it as an informed and trained climate analyst – and I can tell that there are some serious problems with the report and its conclusions.

For starters, I can assure my readers that I am not a climate change “denier.” No one doubts the climate changed when it experienced the Ice Age that ended 12,000 years ago. I have read enough scientific literature to believe the well documented view that the planet experienced the Medieval Warm Period (950 – 1250 AD) and Little Ice Age (1550 – 1850 AD) when global temperatures changed materially. I have also read enough scientific literature to understand that solar and ocean cycles affect global climate.

NASA is now reporting significant changes to the global temperature. According to NASA (and others) the entire globe experienced a persistent warming trend in the early part of the 20th century (1911 – 1940). Then, this trend reversed, and the globe cooled until the 1970’s.[1] Now, NASA is reporting that the global temperature increased .31° C in the last 10 years and that this trend is different than the .31° C increase NASA reports for the 1930’s[2]. But, a closer look at the data and methods used by NASA should make any reader skeptical of their results.


Land Temperatures

It turns out, that over long periods of time it is actually quite difficult to measure temperature changes from climate consistently. The problems arise from changes in measurement technology (mercury bulbs then, semiconductors now) and changes in the sites surrounding the measurement locations. A good way to think about this problem is to consider Dallas Love Field Airport where average temperatures have been reported monthly since 1940. During that time Love Field transformed from a tiny airport near a small city[3] – to large urban airport with 200 daily flights. These changes have generated massive heat at the airport. It is no wonder that the reported temperatures at Love Field have trended up by approximately 2.9 ° F since 1940. [4]


But, when we look at the temperatures in Centerville, TX – much less affected by land use changes – we see the opposite trend. The average reported temperature in Centerville has been on a declining trend and now averages (on trend) .3 °F less than it was in 1940.[5]

As a result of this urban heat effect, scientists around the world have been identifying (or constructing) ‘pristine’ weather monitoring stations to get a clearer look at temperature changes. These stations are located in areas where urban development has not occurred and is not expected. These locations do not show any meaningful change in reported land temperatures. The best data comes from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) which set up 114 rural temperature monitoring stations in the US in 2002 (USCRN). When we look at these, we see no persistent increase in US temperatures.[6] In fact, 2018 was .3°F colder than the first two years measured. February and March 2019 combined to be the coldest two-month period (temperature anomaly) ever recorded by the USCRN.



And it is not just the US rural temperatures that are stable – all around the globe, temperature growth is eliminated once land use changes are eliminated. Shown below are temperature graphs from rural areas in Netherlands, Ireland, Chile, Antarctica, Japan[7], and China[8].



Further calling into question the global land temperature data used by NASA are climate scientists themselves. Seventeen leading climate scientists (including scientists at NOAA) recently co-authored a paper calling for a new network of global weather stations in which they lamented the “imperfect measurements and ubiquitous changes in measurement networks and techniques.”[9]

Even these efforts to measure temperature change may not be enough – even the ‘pristine’ USCRN temperature measurement locations continue to biased towards warmer temperatures from land use changes. For example, a parking area and road was built next to the USCRN weather station[10] at the University of Rhode Island leading to a .34 ° C increase in measured temperatures at that location.[11][12]


Ocean and Satellite Temperature Measurement

The NASA global temperature estimate also relies heavily on estimates of temperatures in the ocean and air above it. Ocean temperatures have been measured over the years with highly inconsistent methods (buckets off ships; water flowing through ship engine rooms; buoys; and lately, satellites). In addition to technology changes, there are short term annual ocean cycles such as the well-publicized El Nino/La Nina and long term (multi decade) cycles such as the Pacific (and Atlantic) Decadal Oscillations which affect ocean temperatures at many depths over decades. A recent report out of UC San Diego described the problem “Determining changes in the average temperature of the entire world’s ocean has proven to be a nearly impossible task due to the distribution of different water masses.”[13]

Respected climate scientists are tackling the ocean measurement challenge and come up with results very different than the NASA report. Satellite measurements from University of Alabama show atmosphere temperatures over the ocean increasing since 1980 (end of the last cooling period per NASA) but only at .13 ° C per decade.[14] Both major satellite measurement groups report temperatures are lower now than they were in 1998, although by different amounts.[15] Harvard University oceanographer Carl Wunsch estimated the average temperature of the ocean grew by .02 degrees during 1994 – 2013.[16] Scripps Institute of Oceanography recently estimated the ocean temperature growth at .1 ° C total over the last 50 years. The science and history of measuring ocean temperatures is far from ‘settled’ and there are plenty of credible estimates that ocean temperatures are not changing rapidly or at anywhere near the rate that NASA is estimating.

Back to the NASA Temperature Estimate

To come up with their global temperature assessments, NASA faces all these problems and more. For starters, there is very little reliable global scale land data before 1940, and there are still shortages of reliable data in many parts of the world. (Africa, Middle East). Most of the historical data has been affected by land use changes and measurement technology changes. As they have tried to deal with these problems, NASA has dramatically changed the locations and methods that they use to assess temperatures over the last several decades.[17] Some observers question whether the new locations and technologies have the same pattern as the old ones would have had.

Not only have they adjusted the locations they take land measurements from, NASA adjusts the data that goes into their estimates[18]. Here are examples from the NASA website for Darwin Airport, Australia and Reykjavik, Iceland that show the liberal data changes adopted by NASA.[19]



Readers should note several problematic elements of these graphs:

1) The unadjusted data does not indicate warming at these locations over the last 80 years.

2) The unadjusted data is shown in such a faint outline that its hard to see. Why would NASA present it this way?

3) As NASA changed each data set, they made the past appear cooler – the “adjusted, cleaned” data is cooler than the “unadjusted” data – and the “homogenized” data is cooler still. A cooler past allows NASA to claim current temperatures are dramatically higher.

The NASA has “adjusted, cleaned, and homogenized” the data from these locations along with thousands of others to make up the data set that NASA uses. They then add data from satellites and use data grid methodology to come up with a final temperature change result.

Needless to say, the NASA changes have been the subject of considerable debate – within the climate scientist community, the climate “skeptic” community, and even NASA itself.[20] The “unadjusted” raw data has been adjusted meaningfully over the years as NASA recalculates.[21] The satellite measurements are very controversial according Zeke Hausfather, climate researcher at Berkley Earth – “If you don’t like adjustments, you really shouldn’t use the satellite record.”[22] A major problem is that the average adjustments between raw and final data average strongly in one direction – the adjustments tend to cool the past – which makes the present temperatures seem warmer by comparison.[23] NASA itself is apparently unhappy with their current formulas and plans to release version four of their “adjustments” soon.[24]

Other Indicators of Global Temperatures

The debate about the temperatures adjustments and estimates used by NASA can quickly get in to mathematical manipulations that are well beyond the level of this article. Scientists are arguing about changes in the global temperature that are on the order of one percent of one degree centigrade. Fortunately, we can look at a variety of other climate indicators in an effort to verify whether temperatures are changing. According to the theory endorsed by NASA, humans have been increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere for more than 70 years[25] – and this increased CO2 has led to demonstrably higher global temperatures which affect major aspects of global climate.

Fortunately for the planet, there is no evidence of change in large scale climate indicators that should be changing with the temperature. Here are some notable examples:

· US Land Temperatures: In 1986, James Hansen testified to congress that rising CO2 levels would cause US temperatures to rise by three to four degrees by 2020. [26] This prediction was spectacularly wrong – US land temperatures have moved at most a fraction of that amount since 1986.[27]


· Sea Level Rise: NASA (and later Al Gore) have made it clear that a warmer planet would cause ice to melt and the seas to expand – rising by up to four feet in 2050[28]. An accelerating trend in sea levels would potentially inundate lower elevation cities. But, NOAA data makes it clear that there is no change in the rate of sea level increase since measurements began.[29] If the warming globe would accelerate sea level changes, and we don’t see acceleration – it seems reasonable to suggest the globe isn’t warming.



· Hurricanes and Other Adverse Weather Events: By the early 2000s climate scientists told us to expect an increase in hurricanes due to higher temperatures in the ocean. Instead, the US experienced a major hurricane drought from 2006 – 2016.[30] In fact, global hurricanes/typhoon activity have shown no up trend in frequency or severity for the last fifty years.[31] The IPCC also reported in 2013 that there was no change in frequency of other adverse events such as droughts, floods, and tornados.


· Glaciers: Observers often become concerned as they see glaciers melting and blame it on global warming. It is certainly true that on average glaciers in the northern hemisphere have been retreating lately. But, glaciers have been retreating since the end of the Little Ice Age (1850) and numerous studies point out that many glaciers were actually melting faster during early 1900’s than they are today.[32] Glacier Bay in Alaska is a good example of the long term melting trend.


· Snowfall: In 2001, the scientists at IPCC (worlds global authority on climate change) said that rising global temperatures would result in a reduction in snowfall and even the end of skiing industry.[33] However, according to both NOAA and Rutgers University, snowfall has been trending up across the northern hemisphere since 1970. If less snow is expected from higher temperatures – is more snow an indicator of lower temperatures?[34]


These are large scale indicators that should not be subject to much measurement debate. They are not subject to “adjustments.” They all tell me that the NASA report is hopelessly biased in favor of reporting a temperature increase that is not happening.

Motivation for NASA to Report Higher Temperatures

Why would NASA come up with results so different from those of other climate observations? Consider the history of the NASA global temperature estimates. In 1986, James Hansen broadly publicized his global warming theory in testimony before the US Senate. For the next 27 years, Mr. Hansen was the chief scientist at NASA in charge of preparing and presenting those estimates. Is it unreasonable to suggest that the “adjustments” and formulas he used after his Senate testimony were biased with an effort to make his predictions turn out to be correct? How much of the NASA estimate is a simple self-fulfilling prophesy?

It’s not just NASA that is subject to significant pressure which likely introduces bias into their results. Climate scientists may be in the same position as those in other fields (i.e. nutrition, pharmaceuticals, psychology) where the desire to produce a pre-selected result influences the inputs, methods, and findings of their science. Alarming results (“hottest ever!” “disaster predicted” “urgent action needed”) all generate headlines; speaking engagements; trips to climate conferences (IPCC); and additional funding for more research. When scientists find opposite results (“nothing is really changing” “it’s just weather” “random events as usual”) they get no publicity; no funding; and instead are attacked (“pro big oil” “anti-environment” or worst of all, a “climate change denier.”)[35] There are indeed thousands of scientific papers that are at odds with NASA, but they don’t get nearly the media coverage and they are not included in NASA’s estimates.


It is time for a much more open and fair reporting and debate about global temperatures and climate change. Every time an adverse weather event occurs, we have news media blaming it on climate change that isn’t happening. We now have people marching in the streets over a non-existent crisis. All around the globe, trillions of dollars are being spent to avert a perceived global temperature crisis that is not happening. These energies and funds could be spent on far better uses to protect our environment, educate our people, and actually help the planet. We could be spending money on keeping toxins out of our ecosystems; keeping our oceans clean and healthy; improving sustainable farming techniques; expanding and protecting our natural habitats. Its time to take real action to protect and improve our planet – and stop the misplaced worry about climate change.



[2] Temp anomalies per NASA site: 2018 +.82 ° C less 2008 +.51 ° C =+.31 ° C. 1939 -.03 ° C – 1929 -.34 ° C =+.31 ° C

[3] Dallas population 400,000. Love Field had three daily flights. Wikipedia

[4] Data per Authors trend analysis – least squares regression.

[5] Authors trend analysis – least squares regression.

[6] See also for discussion of this data series. Trend is not significant at any reasonable level of certainty. Measurements themselves are subject to +/-.3°C at source.

[7] Temperatures from Japanese Meteorological Association.


[9] Journal of Climatology 3/1/18 –

[10] Data available at:


[12] Moose, Wy in Grand Teton National Park is experiencing record park visitors. Are they affecting measured temperatures at the USCRN site there?


[14] Note this is closer to one third of the NASA estimated increase.






[20] Sample paper on the debate from Journal of Geophysical Research – “There remain important inconsistencies between surface and satellite records.”





[25] CO2 has risen from 315 ppm to 380 ppm per Mauna Loa Observation 1960 – 2018.




[29] NOAA Tides & Currents –

[30] US Hurricanes:

[31]Global Cyclone activity:



[34] In 2019, Mother Nature is making this point emphatically with at or near record snowfall and cold temperatures across North America and Europe.

[35] Prof. Ross McKitrick and Judith Curry are well known commentators on this phenomenon.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 21, 2019 12:37 am

Well said but nothing new.
You can’t cure mass stupidity and in recent decades the decline in intellectual rigour in education has accelerated in the western democracies .

William Powers
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
April 21, 2019 3:52 am

The truly frightening aspect of your point is that it is not by accident but by design.

So we are left with only one REAL question. Why? When, by all accounts, intellectual rigour should be advancing by leaps and bounds, yet we are taking Orwellian steps backwards in societies collective understanding and ability to reason.

Reply to  William Powers
April 21, 2019 4:27 am

The whole key to the answer to your question, “Why”, lies in the words, “societies collective understanding and ability to reason”. There is no collective ability to either understand, or reason. The ability to reason is strictly individual, as is the ability to understand. Society is a shorthand for a bunch of individuals. The bunch, or group if you prefer, has the same intelligence as a group of rocks. The individuals are a different story and there will be wildly varying levels within the individuals.

If you want to understand behavior, you must understand individual behavior. There are those individuals who want to control, to drive, per chance to rule. There are those who want to be left alone and try to achieve that by just going along. There are those who are mesmerized by the controllers, and there are those who understand the attempts to control and want part of the action. Lastly there are those who neither want to control, nor are willing to be controlled. They are the natural enemy of the rest.

Most of the readers, contributors to this website are of the latter group of individuals.

Bryan A
Reply to  WSBriggs
April 21, 2019 9:03 am

Or as the Sage Agent K informed us…
A person is smart, People are dumb, panicky and dangerous animals

Berndt Koch
Reply to  Bryan A
April 21, 2019 9:29 am

During the 1950’s the USAF tried a long term experiment, they figured that the Cold War could be won over time by making the enemy dumber. So they came up with the dumb bomb ( not the opposite of Smart Bombs that don’t actually make you smarter, just deader). So they tested this bomb several times..

Apparently the USAF is overjoyed with the results, which have exceeded even the highest predictions of effect.

Larry in Texas
Reply to  WSBriggs
April 21, 2019 9:38 am

Boy, Stephen, isn’t that the truth. I saw the signs of some of that in a paper my son askedme for comment on. The writing was execrable, the thinking contained by slogans, politically correct observations that sounded like he was mimicking his professor, poor grammar. Yet, I was told later that he got an “A” on that particular paper. At the University of Texas-Austin, yet.

Keeping kids dumb is what the totalitarians want.

South River Independent
Reply to  WSBriggs
April 21, 2019 1:14 pm

In his book Hive Mind (which I have yet to read), Garrett Jones argues that the average national IQ matters more than any individual’s IQ. The dumbing down of education explains what is going on. An ignorant, misinformed population can be persuaded to believe almost anything.

Berndt Koch
Reply to  William Powers
April 21, 2019 9:18 am

See the documentary “Idiocracy” for answers..

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
April 21, 2019 6:33 pm

I hope the author will forward this article to the attention of President Trump. Very good concise, clear, non-jargon laden, perfect for the non-specialist reader. While you’re at it, please send it to the House and Senate, too!

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
April 22, 2019 11:17 am

I have not read the article
or any of the comments … yet.

But I bet the most important point
has been overlooked:

Even if the measurements are precise,
and 2018 was the fourth hottest year
on record, that means almost NOTHING,
because the “record” ONLY includes
a warming trend that started in 1850.

Frequent record highs are EXPECTED until that
warming trend ends, and a cooling trend begins.

Ice ore studies strongly suggest that mild,
alternating, warming and cooling trends,
each lasting hundreds of years,
are perfectly normal for our planet.

If I invented a new stock market average
just after a bull market started, kept
announcing EVERY record high during
the bull market, and declared that stock
prices NEVER go down, people would
reject that.

They’d tell me bear markets
have not been eliminated.

And cooling trends have not been eliminated
from climate change, just because we
happen to be living in a warming trend
(and it IS a pleasant climate),
doesn’t mean there will never be
another cooling trend in the future.

If nothing else, the Holocene inter-glacial will
eventually end, and people will look back
at the global warming years, with fond memories.

A one degree C. temperature range,
from 1880 through 2018, is not abnormal,
although perhaps abnormally stable,
and pleasant.

My climate science blog:

Steven Mosher
April 21, 2019 12:47 am

“Needless to say, the NASA changes have been the subject of considerable debate – within the climate scientist community, the climate “skeptic” community, and even NASA itself.[20] The “unadjusted” raw data has been adjusted meaningfully over the years as NASA recalculates.[21] The satellite measurements are very controversial according Zeke Hausfather, climate researcher at Berkley Earth – “If you don’t like adjustments, you really shouldn’t use the satellite record.”[22] A major problem is that the average adjustments between raw and final data average strongly in one direction – the adjustments tend to cool the past – which makes the present temperatures seem warmer by comparison.[23] NASA itself is apparently unhappy with their current formulas and plans to release version four of their “adjustments” soon.[24]”

1. Nasa ingests ADJUSTED data from NOAA.
2. the ONLY adjustment NASA does is for UHI, using nightlights. That adjustment cools the record
a very small amount.
3. NASA is NOT releasing a version 4 of the data, NCDC ( NOAA) is in charge of data.


we fought to get Hansens code.
A review of that code SHOWS.

1. NASA ingests ADJUSTED data from NOAA ( NCDC)
2. Nasa does a UHI adjustment ONLY
3. That adjustment cools the record, slightly.

Further, Adjustments to individual stations are both postive and negative. About 50/50

1. Anyone who only shows you the adjustments that go in one direction is fundamentally dishonest.
2. when you weight all the adjustments the effect on the LAND TREND is to slightly increase
the trend.
3. Adjustments happen THROUGHOUT the record, not just “cooling” the past.

Finally, as Zeke notes ( uncontested ) the satellite records contain more adjustments, and larger adjustments
than land rceords.


when you look at global records.. adjustments COOL the recrod reducing the trends.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 21, 2019 6:13 am

“That adjustment cools the record a very small amount.
That adjustment cools the record, slightly.
adjustments COOL the recrod reducing the trends.”

“the ONLY adjustment NASA does is for UHI, using nightlights. That adjustment cools the record”

Mosh, by exactly how much?…and exactly how is it done?

Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 21, 2019 6:32 am

Any chance Berkely Earth can make the contiguous US raw data available. Thanks

Reply to  Nelson
April 21, 2019 5:40 pm


You can get the unadjusted monthly TAVG summaries, about 40M, here:

If you want the daily data, that’s big — about 3.3G — and is here:

Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 21, 2019 6:49 am

Also, when I look at the land raw vs adjusted, the adjusted data has a cooler past. There is almost no difference between the 2 series after WWII. I find this a bit strange.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 21, 2019 7:08 am

So, Mosh, do you believe that the Climate establishment back in the 1970’s went VIRAL about a threat from climate cooling based on a nearly level temperature trend for 30 years?

Maybe folks all over the place forgot how to read thermometers sometime between 1940 and 1970. And the forgetfulness grew linearly from 1940 to 1970. This was a period of time during which very rapid urbanization was occurring (at least in the US), and I don’t believe they were making UHI adjustments during the same period.

Just asking if maybe it’s not entirely “off the wall” to question at least some of NASA’s recent adjustments.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 21, 2019 7:33 am

Mosher said:
**Further, Adjustments to individual stations are both postive and negative. About 50/50

1. Anyone who only shows you the adjustments that go in one direction is fundamentally dishonest.
2. when you weight all the adjustments the effect on the LAND TREND is to slightly increase
the trend.
3. Adjustments happen THROUGHOUT the record, not just “cooling” the past.**

Who is dishonest?
50/50 – show us the proof. The two stations noted above are nowhere near 50/50.
Look in the mirror.

You just need to look at several of the graphs Tony shows here and the 50/50 goes out the window:

Reply to  Gerald Machnee
April 21, 2019 12:41 pm

In addition, I would expect the vast majority of adjustments to be as a result of increased uhi, it seems improbable that many sites experienced de-urbanisation. In consequence I would expect the vast majority of adjustments to be negative. A 50/50 split implies a warming bias over reality.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 21, 2019 8:25 am

Dear Mr. Mosher,


Another comment like that, and you’re banned.

Larry in Texas
Reply to  Anthony Watts
April 21, 2019 9:44 am

You need a “Like” button for me to approve that comment. Lol!

Ron Long
Reply to  Larry in Texas
April 21, 2019 10:39 am

Yea, I was going to comment on that insult but it would have gotten me snipped, for the third time, and I don’t want whatever prize there is for that.

paul courtney
Reply to  Anthony Watts
April 21, 2019 10:43 am

Anthony: Please don’t over react. Speaking for myself, I’m pretty thick. For instance, I’m pretty stubborn about the cooling of the ’30s, and don’t think passing it off to NOAA is a good look for Mr. Mosher. He can talk about my thick head all he wants, it’s the other stuff he says that bothers me.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  paul courtney
April 21, 2019 7:17 pm

I do not really care if it is NOAA or NASA data or which one of them modifies it. If that is significant to Mosher, that is his problem. When I send comments to media or politicians I just say NOAA/NASA since they are both in it.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
April 21, 2019 11:53 am

Thank you Anthony. We do not need words like that.

S. Geiger
Reply to  Anthony Watts
April 21, 2019 5:10 pm

I would highly recommend you don’t ban him. Unless your goal is absolute and complete echo chamber. These topics (perhaps more than any other) need discourse and discussion. Mr. Mosher knows more about temp records, adjustments, etc., than any of the normal readers of this board, so its super valuable to have a voice (like in this thread) occasionally reminding folks of what the actual science is saying. I’ve enjoyed this site many times over the years, but you will lose me and likely many more like me if you censor the few knowledgable folks who do occasionally chime in.

Thanks for your consideration.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
April 21, 2019 5:44 pm

Don’t ban Steven. He and Nick are the best contrainterlocutors we have here on a regular basis.

Everybody gets a bit steamed every now and then. As far as insults go, “thick heads” is pretty low on the Internet scale of ad homs.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  James Schrumpf
April 22, 2019 4:56 am

“As far as insults go, “thick heads” is pretty low on the Internet scale of ad homs.”

I think so, too.

Reply to  James Schrumpf
April 22, 2019 10:53 pm


Reply to  Anthony Watts
April 23, 2019 9:23 am

Thick head Mosher ? That steel plate in his head isn’t thick at all !

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 21, 2019 8:39 am

You emphasized, “2. the ONLY adjustment NASA does is for UHI, using nightlights.” How is NASA able to do that for the period of time before satellites? How is it then justified to make adjustments to part of the historical record but not all of it? Because the lights are not the proximate cause of heating, and air masses move, shouldn’t adjustments be made downwind of the cities as well as in the immediate urban area?

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 22, 2019 9:55 am

Has NASA ever done a study that shows that nightlights are an effective proxy for UHI?
It’s easy to show that many types of UHI will not give off any light at night.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 21, 2019 9:44 am

. . . the satellite records contain more adjustments, and larger adjustments
than land rceords (sic).

What am I to take away from this? ==> Implied Ans: Satellite temperature should not be trusted.
The UAH global lower atmosphere temperature departure from ’81-’10
in Celsius degrees (C°) for March 2019 is +0.34.

But adjustments have been made in the satellite-base data, so the question is – –
“Is this a good estimate of the change, or not?”

Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 21, 2019 10:14 am

Steven Mosher

It´s your friendly tone which makes us to believe you.


Do you believe SHOUTING is convincing? It´s not, it´s stupid. Try to be like a grown up man. You behave like a sour loser. You don´t want to look like a loser, or do you?

Do you believe that cooling the past is convincing us to believe your believes, or are you just a lousy fake prophet?

We can see what you and yours are doing. We can see a joke when you write it. Maybe stand up would a very suitable career to you. Think hard.

Louis Hunt
Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 21, 2019 3:06 pm

“Further, Adjustments to individual stations are both postive and negative. About 50/50…”

What a deceptive statement! Mosher knows that cooling the past and warming the present can result in roughly half of the adjustments being negative and half being positive. It’s just that most of the negative adjustments occur in the first half of the graph, and most of the positive adjustments occur in the latter half. So even if the adjustments are 50/50, they can still increase the slope of the graph and make it look as if global warming is “worse than we thought.”

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Louis Hunt
April 21, 2019 7:25 pm

By 50/50 it appears Mosher is talking about Berkely adjusting the same NUMBER of stations up and down.
In other words he did not answer the question and changed the subject.
I refer him and others to the charts Tony Heller has done at:

Loren Wilson
Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 21, 2019 4:33 pm

While the size of the adjustments made to the microwave data are a concern, their bias is also important. As far as I can see from the data presented, the older data are biased colder. It is not 50/50 as you say. The author presented data from NASA and showed that the unadjusted data were then adjusted lower. You protest but do not present any data. I would like to see your data as well.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 21, 2019 5:34 pm

Steven: Would you agree that the trend for anomalies derived from the unadjusted NOAA version 4 GHCN-Monthly data is approximately 0.5°C over the last 120 years for the contiguous US? The equation for my trend was y = 1E-05x – 0.3543

The plot I ended up with looks like this:

comment image

I used the same methodology to reproduce BEST’s European Average Temperature May-October, and this was the result. (Mine in green, BEST’s in blue.)

comment image

April 21, 2019 12:56 am

Great compilation of facts. The USCRN data clearly shows that global temps do not mean that land temps are affected by “global warming”. Global warming is a matter of the oceans retaining more energy/heat than on average, but that does not mean that mankind is affected in any negative fashion by the oceans being warmer. The truth of the matter is that mankind benefits greatly from the warmer night temps which are a consequence of warmer oceans, as does all plant life.

Reply to  goldminor
April 21, 2019 4:55 am

Frankly, I don’t see the point. I certainly don’t have time to go through all that, however coherent it may be. Blog articles need to be elevator speeches, not the Encyclopedia Britanica.

Then, this trend reversed, and the globe cooled until the 1970’s.[1]

Well that is what happened and was the cause of the last climate scare: the on coming ice age. However, it the author looks at the NASA graph he is presenting he will see that the mid-century cooling no longer exists. It is now a “plateau”. Clear proof they are seriously rigging the data. No one was suggesting an on coming ice age because the early 20th c. warming had turned into a plateau.

Steven Mosher
April 21, 2019 1:00 am

Love feild?

you see

If you look at all the stations, you can adjust Love Feild down

Raw monthly anomalies 1.83
After quality control 1.79
After breakpoint alignment 0.70
Regional expectation during same months 0.82 ± 0.16
National average during same months 1.00 ± 0.11
Global land average during same months 1.15 ± 0.03

That is how adjusting works.

raw data Trend 1.83C
After QC Trend 1.79
After adjusting .7C

And how does that compare with the region?

The region is .82C

and how does that compare with the rest of the US and the globe

Adjusted to be lower.

The problem with skeptical “theories” about how adjustments work, they never actually
look for the cases that show the opposite of what tey want to claim.

With 43,000 stations I have about 28,000 that required adjustment

about 14,000 are warmed
about 14000 are cooled

I can spam folks with 14000 charts showing cooling, and call you liars,
but I dont think you are liars, I think you never looked.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 21, 2019 6:48 am

“That is how adjusting works.
raw data Trend 1.83C
After QC Trend 1.79
After adjusting .7C”

…adjusted down 7/10th of a degree

When UHI is much more than that….you can claim adjustments lower…and still used UHI to increase temps…

“and how does that compare with the rest of the US and the globe”

“An urban heat island is often thought to be a summer daytime event, but in reality its most
common occurrence is generally before sunrise (Figure 2). At that time, the difference
between urban and rural temperatures is often at its peak. There are two basic types of heat
islands: surface and atmospheric. Surface temperature differences occur primarily in the
daytime and can range from 18 to 27ºF. Atmospheric differences are primarily at night and
can range from 13 to 22ºF. A study of Dallas and Houston found that urban summer nighttime
temperatures (atmospheric) were almost 4ºF warmer than rural temperatures (averaged over
2000 to 2006). The greatest differences occurred around 6 a.m. During the day, urban
temperatures averaged almost 2ºF warmer.3
The same study showed that the Dallas daytime
heat island was more evident than Houston’s”


Prepared by
Houston Advanced Research Center
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
March 2009

Robert W. Turner
Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 21, 2019 7:15 am

Oh so our lying eyes are the only ones to see the final product change several times, each time the past is cooled. Stupid eyes, thinking they saw the 1930s considerably cooled over time via adjustments to the data decades after they were originally recorded. Glad you cleared that up by waving arms and throwing unsubstantiated numbers around.

Reply to  Robert W. Turner
April 21, 2019 7:41 am

Robert…it’s all a game…”how much do we need to adjust to show we, the hypothesis, and the models are right”

Mosh just proved it…..Dallas adjusted 7/10th of a degree C…when it should be closer to 2C

..with the added benefit they can claim adjustments lower temps

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Latitude
April 21, 2019 8:47 am

“Mosh just proved it…..Dallas adjusted 7/10th of a degree C…when it should be closer to 2C

..with the added benefit they can claim adjustments lower temps”

Yeah, those climate data manipulators are tricky fellows, aren’t they. Convincing on the surface, and not at all convincing when the details become clear.

We should go back to the original thermometer readings. We will have a much clearer picture of the Earth’s climate using the unmodified readings. The Modified temperature data is junk, unfit for scientific purpose. Modified temperatures are science fiction meant to defraud and scare the public.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 21, 2019 8:56 am

…and total dumb luck that 7/10th adjustment…showed exactly the temp increase they needed

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 21, 2019 8:18 am

**about 14,000 are warmed
about 14000 are cooled**

Which stations are used to show the graph to the public?
How many of those 43,000 stations were around 100 years ago?
What do the stations from 100 years show?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 21, 2019 10:02 am

S.Mosher: Pushing down the the 1930s-40s temperatures to get rid of an alarming (at the time) 35yrs of real cooling that otherwise made most if not all the warming to 2000 to have occurred before 1940, probably used up most of the 14000 stations that were cooled. The others were all pre 1920. This sleight of hand made the record steeper and straighter and more congruent with CO2 rise. 1998 didnt break any heat records at the time from the 30s until manipulation in the new millennium when forecasts in the late 80s proved to be 300% too high.

How could you sell alarming anthro global warming if we didnt surpass the highs of 1930s when emissions from human activity and out gassing has since raised CO2 by over 30%? That is a powerful, existential motivation to adjust.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 21, 2019 11:02 am

Steven Mosher

“”””I can spam folks with 14000 charts showing cooling, and call you liars,
but I dont think you are liars, I think you never looked.””””

We know who the liar is. Look deep in the mirror, he´s there.

I know there is not 14000 charts showing cooling the past climate history every day. You and yours need very cool past to keep your salary running. If I were like you, I would call you a disgusting creature. But I do not, because I am very polite person. And you are not.

It´s always follow the money.

mike the morlock
Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 21, 2019 4:42 pm

Steven Mosher April 21, 2019 at 1:00 am

You could have shown some of charts that show warming. You did not. If you could why would you then call us liars?
Personally I think you are type of person who would glory in rubbing our noses in chart after chart that shows the past warming.
Yes you can say we should do the research. Or accept your pronouncements?
Yes today is Easter but you are not god, that we should put such faith in your dogma.


Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 21, 2019 5:00 pm

“If you look at all the stations, you can adjust Love Feild [sic] down”

Wrong. You can’t adjust one station based on others. The temperature at one station is an intensive property of that station. You can’t mash them all together and call it global. That’s just nonsense.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 21, 2019 6:26 pm

Here’s what Love Field looks like using the GHCN-M summaries. You can see where the trend changes from flat to the upward trend in the early 1970s.

I’m curious. Where did you get taught this was a good thing to do with raw data? You’re turning a measurement into a probability, which is useless from a scientific perspective. What good is a prediction that can never be verified? You can make all the adjustments you want based on good, solid, proven statistical techniques, but if you can never go to that site and magically make the UHI effect go away, you can never know if you’re right.

Another question, Steven: while looking at the Love Field page at the BEST site, I noticed off on the right where there were some metadata like latitude, longitude, etc. it listed the Most Recent Observation as being October 2013. What does that refer to, because the NOAA data has measurements from there up to March 2019.

April 21, 2019 1:03 am

I grew up reading and re-reading Carl Sagan books. I learned to be skeptical from him. If he were alive today, with the censorship, personal attacks, lack of debate and almost absolute hate directed at anyone with opposing views. He must be spinning in his grave at how science has gone down hill since his death. And he was a AGW believer.

David Blenkinsop
Reply to  Superluminal
April 21, 2019 6:55 am

I don’t want to solidly impose a negative impression onto Sagan, it being a point of fact that he passed away in 1996 — perhaps too early for some of the alarmist excesses to really be obvious to a left winger like himself. However, I have to say that the optics of how Sagan interposed his politics and his scientific assessments *do* look sort of bad! Had Sagan lived, would he have been prepared to deal honestly with the implications of Climategate, or, later, with the scandalous adjustments in the trend for the nine weather stations in Paraguay, say? For more background on the Paraguay thing, see

As far as Sagan is concerned, I can speculate negative *or* positive, I suppose. My strong negative impression is that when Sagan said “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” he really meant that dictum to *only* apply to fringe groups (UFO’ologists, ‘ghost house’ investigators, etc.). If Sagan *ever* meant his famous slogan to apply fair and square to any people in *authority* touting dubious claims, why, I myself certainly haven’t seen where he was ready to insist on “extraordinary evidence” with *them*.

On a more positive note, I know of at least one formerly alarmist scientist who *did* pivot away from alarmism during the Climategate era, and that is the father of the Gaia Hypothesis, James Lovelock!
See, for instance,
Connecting this up with Sagan, I suppose I can posit that Sagan might have done the same as Lovelock, had he lived longer? My big point here is that skepticism is well justified, given how many bad predictions have been made, sometimes even using “cut to fit” data. It is unscientific and hypocritical to apply skepticism *only* to fringe people in society and *never* to science authorities (even when the record shows they richly deserve it).

Speaking of climate hypocrisy, a family member recently showed me the following fun video, “How Parasites Work”. Thank you, ‘bye for now.

David Blenkinsop
Reply to  David Blenkinsop
April 21, 2019 7:04 am

Er, yes that YouTube video I mentioned does exist, I’ll try again,

Maybe it will “take” this time.

Steve Skinner
Reply to  David Blenkinsop
April 21, 2019 9:25 am

Don’t forget Judith Curry

Reply to  David Blenkinsop
April 22, 2019 9:59 am

Given how Sagan latched onto the nuclear winter nonsense, I am not confident that he would have taken a stand against the climate change nonsense.

April 21, 2019 1:21 am

This is a very comprehensive article and I thank you for posting this here Rich Enthoven.
I like your piece on Glacier Bay National Park in Alaska which I have visited and have also used it to demonstrate that a great deal of glacier ice melted and retreated before the early 1900’s.
The biggest problem that we climate realists have is that the general public have the impression that scientists can be trusted and would never fiddle the numbers and drop temperatures in the past to accentuate the recent increase since 1980.
It is a good move that at last some scientists are realizing that the urban heat affect is contaminating temperature records ,and are trying to create a rural temperature series that I have always argued will show that the earths temperature has really been fairly stable in the last 120 years with some rises and falls all within the natural climate variability .

James Snook
Reply to  Gwan
April 21, 2019 3:55 am

Yes, the public perception of scientists is that they swear an equivalent of the Hypocratic oath that ensures their integrity. They don’t . They are simply people trying to carve out a career, pay the mortgage, keep food on the table and bring up the kids. They have to follow the money and swim with the flow.

Reply to  James Snook
April 22, 2019 6:01 am

A dishonest scientist should be classified in the same category as a pedophilic priest.

John Collis
April 21, 2019 1:40 am

The bigger issue is not the paucity of data and information but the perpetual propaganda, for want of a better word, from the media.
The BBC and Netflix with David Attenborough films with questionable explanations through to fiction like “Madam Secretary” having storylines that have coral islands being drowned due to extreme weather events through to the activities of Extinction Rebellion being published on YouTube. Then there’s YouTube and Google changing their algorithms to boost AGW related content whilst minimising any contrary content. Wikipedia is doing similar.

April 21, 2019 1:44 am

The author states:

…NASA is reporting that the global temperature increased .31° C in the last 10 years and that this trend is different than the .31° C increase NASA reports for the 1930’s[2].

His rationale for this [2] is given as:

[2] Temp anomalies per NASA site: 2018 +.82 ° C less 2008 +.51 ° C =+.31 ° C. 1939 -.03 ° C – 1929 -.34 ° C =+.31 ° C

You’d expect “an informed and trained climate analyst” to know that this is *not* how you calculate the temperature change between 2 points in a time series. All that does is subtract one number from another without taking any account of what happened in between.

Estimation of change in a temperature time series is usually calculated using ‘least squares’ regression. It’s easy to do this using a spreadsheet, such as the ‘=linest()’ function in Excel. Just enter the data for the period in question between the brackets and multiply by the number of data points (in this case 132 months for each period, as the 2 periods cited by the author amount to 11 full years each, not a decade as stated).

For 11-year period Jan 1929 – Dec 1939 the full warming in GISS as calculated by linear regression was +0.24C (0.22C per year). For the 11-year period Jan 2008 – Dec 2018 the warming in GISS calculated using the same method was +0.42C (0.38C per year). Substantially different in each case from the +0.31C change the author attributes to both periods.

If you don’t have a spreadsheet program (or can’t be bothered to check for yourself) you can easily verify the figures quoted using the WfTs raw data page for both periods:

Reply to  DWR54
April 21, 2019 2:14 am

You can spin your numbers all you want. The graphs above show that land temp changes prove that global warming has not affected temps across the continents, with the slight exception of warmer night time temps.

Reply to  goldminor
April 21, 2019 3:45 am

They aren’t my numbers, they’re GISS numbers, which is the data set the author is citing. Whether you agree with GISS or not, the method the author of this article used to estimate warming between two remote data points, simply subtract one from another, is absurd and hardly indicates the skills one might expect from an “informed and trained climate analyst”.

Reply to  DWR54
April 21, 2019 9:32 am

@ DWR54 …My point still stands. The year 2018 may be the 4th warmest globally as is being claimed, but look what the USCRN is showing. The US as a whole is not affected in any way by the 4th warmest year globally.

Reply to  goldminor
April 21, 2019 1:42 pm


As I understand it, it was *you* who was answering *my* point; that point being that the author of this article, who describes himself (I’m presuming it’s ‘he’ because of the name) as “an informed and trained climate analyst” made a school-kid error in the way he calculated change in temperature over given periods.

That is *not* what one would expect of “an informed and trained climate analyst”, as I suspect you know as well as I do. Have you nothing to say about that?

Look guys, we’re supposed to be ‘sceptics’ (or ‘skeptics’) on this site. Yes, I am on the ‘warmist’ side, in broad terms; but I don’t rule out the possibility that I am wrong. I try my best to maintain my skepticism… hence my being here.

Too often articles like this get through WUWT without the slightest hint of skepticism from its readers.

Reply to  DWR54
April 21, 2019 3:16 pm

@ DWR54 …I wasn’t commenting on your view of the numbers, nor Rich Henthoven’s analysis, or how the numbers were processed in arriving at a conclusion. My comment is fairly straight forward. The USCRN graph is clear proof that global warming does not affect land temps across the US, with the exception of warmer temps in the evening. Although the above average night time warming is gone in some locations, or has lessened in comparison to the past several decades.

When observing other temp graphs from different locations around the world the same holds true. There is no steady increase in day time temps outside of localized weather phenomena where a heat wave affects an area/region for some period of time before dissipating. That leaves the oceans and the polar regions as the main recipients of warmer temperatures which we see as global warming. None of us live at the poles or on the ocean. The graphs displayed above by the author confirm exactly that as they show that global warming as the GISS graph shows bears no relationship to conditions that mankind faces on a daily basis.

Now if the oceans and polar regions continued to warm without end, then there would be eventual consequences for the planet. I do not see that occurring though. Which does raise questions as to the claims which GISS makes versus what either of the satellite data sites show, imo.

Reply to  goldminor
April 21, 2019 5:02 am

But increased night time temperatures are an inevitable consequence of the heat island effect. Man made heat has no effect on daytime temperatures because the sun dominates by far. But at night, man made heat is more consequential, hence higher night time recorded temperatures.

Reply to  DHR
April 21, 2019 6:15 am

The UHI does indeed have a daytime effect through changes in albedo and changes in airflow that impedes the wider distribution of accumulated warmth.

Reply to  DHR
April 21, 2019 9:22 am

The above average night time temps also shows up here in the mountains, and in other rural areas around the globe from what can be seen when using some of the weather sites. That is fine by me as the local low temp records for this county dip into single digits and minus territory during the cold trends of the past, mainly during the 1950s through the mid 1970s.

Reply to  DWR54
April 21, 2019 2:25 am

There has been much discussion of the early twentieth century warming. WUWT has an excellent article from 2016.

From that article, here’s a quote from Dr. Phil Jones of climategate fame:

Question – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I’ve assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
I would suggest that this observational data itself suggests that Climate Sensitivity to CO2 in real world conditions of planet Earth’s atmosphere, if any at all, is low. Especially if one also considers the post 1940s cooling.

That’s interesting because Dr. Jones is usually painted as one of the alarmists.

Reply to  DWR54
April 21, 2019 2:34 am

Sloppy at best, but his main point still stands considering UHI effects.

Reply to  DWR54
April 21, 2019 6:25 am

And how does this relate to what an observation might be? None of the measurements provide a definitive answer. They are only rough estimates of what the actual daily averages might be. The error ranges are probably more than any perceived warming or cooling. In other words, the measurements have no value for determining annual average changes that are not substantial or more than 2 or 3 degrees.

Richard M
Reply to  DWR54
April 21, 2019 12:49 pm

DWR54, obviously, you have a problem with logical thinking. Let’s look at an analogy.

Say in 2008 you weighed 200 lbs. You gained weight slowly over the next 9 years and reached 300 lbs in 2017. Finally, you decided to get in shape and trimmed down to 190 lbs. What would your linear trend say? No doubt it would tell you you are still gaining weight and weigh a lot more than 190 lbs. Do you actually weigh more than 190 lbs just because that is what a linear trend computes?

The fact is the you lost 10 lbs and comparing the two numbers is more meaningful than the trend. A trend is useful when you don’t have good data to look at and don’t know how to compare data points. But, if you have solid data then using that data is far better than using a trend.

Of course, you have to recognize that there can be other factors that may be influencing the situation. For example, 2008 and 2009 were strong La Nina years and comparing that with 2018 is not going to provide a person with a anything of use. Neither is starting a trend in 2008 a good idea. Going back to 2005 would be a far better comparison.

While I don’t have GISS handy I can tell you that UAH data shows very little change over that period. Two comparable years and no warming whatsoever.

Reply to  Richard M
April 21, 2019 2:45 pm

Richard M

..obviously, you have a problem with logical thinking.</blockquote

Are you saying then that there was no warming during, say, the 20 full years between Jan 1981 and Dec 2000? By your reasoning (and by that of the author of this article) because the year 2000 was -0.02 C *cooler* in relative terms to the year 1981 according to GISS, then it follows that there was no warming in that period. Is that what you are saying?

Hold on then… even by your own preferred data set, UAH, there *was* warming over that period: at a rate of +0.163C per decade in the 20 years between Jan 1981 and Dec 2000. (Not quite yet statistically significant in UAH, but very close.)

What then are we to believe? That the GISS temperature data set shows cooling between Jan 1981 and Dec 2000, even though the linear trends in both GISS, and all the other data sets, including UAH, show warming?

Are we not into 'straw-clutching' territory here.

Johann Wundersamer
April 21, 2019 2:29 am

There are group excursions for women in some Mountain areas. The hatching through a rock cleft should support the wish for a complication-free birth course.


probably even works – placebo effect and pelvic floor training.

men’s shampoos get added coffee flavor, promotes hair growth, in black plastic bottles with the look of motor oil additive.

There are also hair growth-promoting shampoos with nettle additives: if the stinging nettles can producr fine hair “magically” why not on the smooth scalp.

don’t worry: when it comes to the real thing everyone awakes and decides for the right one. Hopefully.

still remains: to err is human!

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
April 21, 2019 3:08 am

“Kostadin Dimow erklärt diesen Kult und den Glauben an die heilenden Kräfte der Steine mit Orpheus, der sich bestens mit den heilenden Eigenschaften von Steinen ausgekannt haben soll, ebenso wie die legendäre Wahrsagerin Baba Wanga. Auch sie soll oft Kranke in verschiedenen Landesteilen geschickt haben, wo es diese mythischen Felsspalten gibt, damit sie dort von ihrem Leid erlöst werden.

„Die Traditionen in Bulgarien sind lebendig und so pilgern Tausende Menschen zu diesen Spalten, um etwas zu erbeten oder geheilt zu werden“, berichtet Dimow weiter, der sich selbst darüber wundert. „Die wohl bekannteste “Prowiralka”, durch die sich alle schon als Kinder hindurch gekämpft haben, um ihre Angst zu besiegen, ist die in der Nähe des Rila-Klosters. Eine andere sehr bekannte „Prowiralka“ befindet sich in Kribul. Sie soll Kranke gesund machen und kinderlosen Frauen helfen, schwanger zu werden“, behauptet der Hobbyforscher.”

– Another well-known “Prowiralka” is located in Kribul. It aims to make the sick healthy and help childless women to get pregnant, “says the amateur researcher. –

Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
April 21, 2019 5:30 am

johann, you dont really think those that are so daft as to already be gullible for such as you listed
and who are unable or unwilling(both) to do any real reading or study
but take msm their fave talking heads scripted twaddle as gospel,
will in any time short of icefall manage to wake up?
I guess we need our dreams.
I truly hope to live to see it all fall over and the worst offender be publicy named shamed and taken to justice.
presently trying not to have a stroke or heart attack in the meantime, is becoming more imperative daily;-(

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
April 21, 2019 10:28 am

oz, sometimes I’m gullible myself.

That’s why we need the scientific method.

2 – Ich bin in der Mehrheit – die Filter Bubble
Die Wahl von Donald Trump zum Präsidenten der Vereinigten Staaten kam für viele Amerikaner sehr überraschend. Wie konnte es sein, dass sie nicht bemerkten wie viele Sympathisanten er besaß? Dies endete gar in Proteste nach der Wahl und es kam zu Ausschreitungen, da die Amerikaner es nicht glauben konnten. Sehr wahrscheinlich sind viele davon Opfer der sogenannten Filter Bubble geworden. Du und ich sind es auch täglich, ohne es zu merken. Auch wenn wir aus dieser Opferrolle niemals komplett aussteigen können, ist es wichtig zu wissen worin man gefangen ist.

Filter Bubble bedeutet, dass das Internet von dir lernt und dir ein Leben vorgibt, welches du dir wünschst. Es spielt dir die Nachrichten und Informationen zu, die du höchstwahrscheinlich lesen wirst. Weiterhin verbirgt es viele der übrigen (wichtigen) Daten.

Ich merke dies täglich beim Besuch der sozialen Netzwerke. Es werden mir fast nur Inhalte zu meinen aktuellen Interessen angezeigt und meine Aufmerksamkeit wird dort hin gelenkt. Eingeblendete Anzeigen lassen mich alles über finanzielle Freiheit, Bloggen und Persönlichkeitsentwicklung wissen. Ich befinde mich in dieser Blase. Somit bekomme ich sogar das Gefühl, dass sich die ganze Welt für diese Themen interessiert. Dies ist nicht der Fall.

Die Überraschung über Donald Trumps Sieg war somit für alle Menschen, die in der Hilary Clinton Fan-Blase gefangen waren, ein Ding der Unmöglichkeit. Alle Nachrichten bis dato sprachen doch eher für den Sieg von Ihr.

Merke: Lasse dir nicht von gezeigten Inhalten des Internet das Gefühl geben, dass du richtig bist und einer Mehrheit angehörst, denn die Bubble könnte auch eher eine Minderheiten-Blase sein, welche blendet.

Ich binde hier einmal bewusst eine Google Adsense Werbung ein. Schau mal genau darauf! Bestimmt zeigt sie etwas, was du dir in den letzten Tagen bereits im Netz angeschaut hast. Und beim Klick darauf landest du im passenden Shop dazu.

April 21, 2019 2:29 am

“2) The unadjusted data is shown in such a faint outline that its hard to see. Why would NASA present it this way?”
A good example of the superficiality of this essay. So the tired old cherrypicks of Reykjavik and Darwin are trotted out for the umpteenth time. But someone who was really “an informed and trained climate analyst”, would know the answer to that question. It is an active plot, and NASA gives you the option on the legend to show what you want to appear. Whoever captured that image chose only the adjusted dataset. If you click on the unadjusted data, that too shows up in bolder color, as here.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2019 2:57 am

Nick why do they have an adjusted data set?

Reply to  Derg
April 21, 2019 3:32 am

They need to lower the past to raise the future.

Reply to  Derg
April 21, 2019 2:03 pm

From the school of:

‘Raw data can’t be relied upon because of UHI, (etc)…’ we now get:

‘Why do they have an adjusted data set?’

So how do you remove UHI (etc) without adjusting the raw data set?

This is the kind of circular argument that might phaze lesser sceptics (skeptics).

Tim Gorman
Reply to  DWR54
April 21, 2019 4:20 pm

DWR: If you are truly looking at only delta’s then why adjust the raw data at all? A change (i.e. delta) from 3degC to 4degC gives the same delta as a change from 1degC to 2degC. If the first set of data is from a UHI and the second is from a rural station the delta’s are still the same.

I sure looks to me like the whole methodology is a mess! We shouldn’t be looking at averages in first place. Plot the maximums and the minimums. The UHI’s and the rural stations will always have the same contribution weight when a linear regression is done on the totality of the stations across time. If the maximums are trending up then you’ll see it over time. Same for the minimums. If they are trending down you’ll see that as well. If a few UHI’s are trending up because of increased infrastructure around the measurement device their contribution will likely be swamped by the vast majority of devices where that isn’t happening.

This whole “adjustment thing” just seems like a way to make things come out the way the adjusters want them to come out!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tim Gorman
April 22, 2019 5:19 am

“I sure looks to me like the whole methodology is a mess! We shouldn’t be looking at averages in first place. Plot the maximums and the minimums.”

There you go!

And the TMax charts show the 1930’s as being just as warm as today. No unprecedented warming to be found. No need to blame CO2 for heating up the atmosphere, because Mother Nature has everything under control with no need for assistance from CO2.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 23, 2019 4:55 am

Tom: If the Tmax is no hotter than in the 30’s and the average has gone up that would indicate to me that Tmin values have gone up, e.g. night time temps are higher. That should be a boon to mankind since it would mean longer growing seasons and more food for humanity! If AGW is causing that then we should welcome it instead of being afraid of it!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  DWR54
April 24, 2019 1:14 pm

Tom Abbot
You said, “We shouldn’t be looking at averages in first place. Plot the maximums and the minimums.”
I completely agree with you!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 24, 2019 1:27 pm

It looks like I should have given Tim Gorman credit for saying it first.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2019 4:52 am

Nick Stokes, I am always listening (reading) when your critical points of views show up. But; may be it could be wise to explain to all of us WHY all this adjustments are done? What are the difference between adjustment and homogenization? I guess Watts as well admit that we have to make som changes to apple to apple comparison …

Rgrds. from Norway, enduring a major, blocking, long lasting high pressure in April (rare)

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2019 2:01 pm

Hi Nick ,
I see you are back pushing the heating earth story.You would most probably applaud a cartoon the appeared in our regional News Paper showing the world in a frying pan with out a caption .
Could you please attempt to explain the Ice retreat in Glacier Bay Alaska since it was first discovered and present .

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2019 7:38 pm

They may be tired and old but they are goodies and above all speak the facts. So why can’t you do it Nick???

April 21, 2019 2:38 am

What is the best kept secret in Climate Science? (Part 3)

Climate scientists want people to know how much they have warmed by.

But they don’t want people to know what real absolute temperature they live at.

Why would that be?

Real absolute temperatures are more fundamental than temperature anomalies.

Climate scientists have to use real absolute temperatures, to calculate temperature anomalies.

But the real absolute temperatures are never shown to the public.

Why would that be?

Could it be, that real absolute temperatures make global warming look less catastrophic?

Will many people discover that they actually live in cold countries? And that global warming might make their country nicer?

That couldn’t possibly be true, could it?

There is only one way to find out. Read the 3rd part of my series of articles on RATS – Real Absolute Temperatures

This article shows real absolute temperatures for the Northern Hemisphere Summer (the real “hot” places), and the Southern Hemisphere Winter.

Reply to  Sheldon Walker
April 21, 2019 2:46 am

“But the real absolute temperatures are never shown to the public.”
Complete nonsense. This very article shows absolute temperatures for Darwin and Reykjavik, courtesy of GISS.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2019 4:55 am

Thanks, Nick.

The exception that proves the rule.

If you look hard, and are prepared to do a lot of work, like I have, then you can find real absolute temperatures.

But compared to temperature anomalies, real absolute temperatures are rare.

You can see the average, winter, and summer, temperatures, for 216 countries, on one webpage, at:

Or you can look at 216 webpages, at berkeleyearth. One of the only places that you can find real absolute temperatures.

Would you rather look at one webpage, or 216 webpages? My data is easy to access.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Sheldon Walker
April 21, 2019 11:23 am

Thanks for the link.
But may I suggest , when you have a chart that is so vertically long you add another legend (or move the bottom legend) to the top so we know what we’re looking at from the start?
Just a suggestion on presentation. Not a criticism of what you’ve done.

Reply to  Gunga Din
April 22, 2019 4:49 am

Thanks for the suggestion.

I had to fit 3 long graphs, and a long table, into one webpage.

I put the X-axis at the top and bottom of each graph, because they are long.

Presenting all that temperature data, in 3 different orders, is not easy.

Reply to  Sheldon Walker
April 21, 2019 1:36 pm

“But compared to temperature anomalies, real absolute temperatures are rare.”
Can you find anyone showing anomaly temperatures for Darwin or Reykjavik? Anywhere at all?

Bryan A
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2019 9:22 am

Actually Mr Stokes, the charts provided do not indicate Actual Temperatures for either Darwin or Reykjavic but rather the mean temperatures at both locations

mean temperature
The average temperature of the air as indicated by a properly exposed thermometer during a given time period, usually a day, a month, or a year.

Granted, when dealing with daily measurements, it is far easier to calculate trends using mean averages.
But mean averages are still mathematical constructs based on actual measurements rather than actual measurements.

Reply to  Bryan A
April 23, 2019 3:09 pm

[T]he charts provided do not indicate Actual Temperatures for either Darwin or Reykjavic but rather the mean temperatures at both locations

Actually, the charts provided here are based on NOAA Ver. 3 data, which even in their “undajusted” form DON’T show the yearly mean temperature ACTUALLY recorded at the stations. One has to go to Ver. 2 data (or met service originals) to see that their NEGATIVE trends have been turned positive in the purportedly improved higher version.

Darwin and Reykjavik are not just cherry-picked exceptions . Such examples are legion throughout the globe. That’s why unvetted records are scientifically useless.

April 21, 2019 2:42 am

“These stations are located in areas where urban development has not occurred and is not expected. These locations do not show any meaningful change in reported land temperatures. The best data comes from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) which set up 114 rural temperature monitoring stations in the US in 2002 (USCRN). When we look at these”
In fact, if you look at the nClimDiv dataset on the same plot over those 13 years, you will see virtually no difference. But the nClimDiv is just the aggregate of all ConUS readings, airports, cities, the lot.

Ron Long
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2019 4:05 am

Nick, am I mistaken or are you denying the “Urban Heat Island” effect?

April 21, 2019 3:03 am

When we get the weather forecasts each evening, why do the forecasters usually say in conclusion that temperatures in rural areas could be 2 or 3 degrees Celsius colder than the main temperatures shown on the map?
Could it be they are showing the UHI temperatures in the main forecast?

April 21, 2019 3:10 am

“In 1986, James Hansen testified to congress that rising CO2 levels would cause US temperatures to rise by three to four degrees by 2020.”
No, he didn’t. The testimony is here. On p 20, responding to Sen Chaffee, he said
“In the region of the United States, the warming, 30 years from now, is about 1.5°C, which is about 3°F”
At that point, he was being queried about his scenario A. In his written tstimony, he shows a considerably lower increase expected for scenario B.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2019 3:26 am

“In the region of the United States, the warming, 30 years from now, is about 1.5°C, which is about 3°F”
At that point, he was being queried about his scenario A. In his written tstimony, he shows a considerably lower increase expected for scenario B.

What is the point Nick, about 1.5°C, which is about 3°F”

or better written a “considerably lower increase expected”. With models on supercomputers to the 5th decimal.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2019 8:47 am

And the Maldives were supposed to be under water by now:

FAIL: 30 year old climate prediction proves to be a load of bunkum
Anthony Watts / October 3, 2018

In 1988 there was this prediction via an article in the Canberra Times:

‘Sea level is threatening to completely cover’ Maldives’ 1,196 islands within 30 years —

Well, it’s 30 years later, and the Maldives is still there, all 1196 islands. Here’s the article:

Richard M
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2019 1:25 pm

Nick quotes James Hansen … “In the region of the United States, the warming, 30 years from now, is about 1.5°C, which is about 3°F”.

According to UAH data the US has warmed about .2 C since 1990 (first reasonably comparable year to 2018). This isn’t close to what Hansen predicted.

It’s about the same globally as well. When one uses satellite data and looks at comparable years the amount of warming is small. When you note the AMO went positive across this period you have a perfectly reasonable and natural explanation for this change.

Reply to  Richard M
April 21, 2019 1:33 pm

” This isn’t close to what Hansen predicted.”
Hansen was predicting temperatures at the surface.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2019 2:48 pm

he was also predicting a rate of increase

Larry in Texas
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 22, 2019 5:57 am

Uh, Nick, Fahrenheit is the standard reporting device for weather observations in the United States. And your rendition of the testimony only confirms Rich’s point. “Three to four degrees by 2020. . .” For a layperson like myself, that is pretty close. Or do you not think that Hansen was making an alarming statement? And of course, has “warming” in the United States, based upon mean average measured temperatures, risen by that much? I don’t think so.

Do you think, in the context in which the hearing was presented, that about 3º F as an average temperature increase was something that wasn’t considered alarming among the general public in the United States? Don’t try to argue that Hansen wasn’t trying to sound an alarm, that would be more disingenuous than you usually are. And I remember the context of that hearing. Tim Wirth admitted that he had the air conditioning shut off in the hearing room just to illustrate the point dramatically. Cold, paper transcripts don’t usually convey that to a reader.

Reply to  Larry in Texas
April 22, 2019 12:28 pm

“And I remember the context of that hearing.”
You don’t remember the context of the hearing. This one was, as the article says, in 1986.

“Uh, Nick, Fahrenheit is the standard reporting device for weather observations”
Every single temperature with unit stated in this WUWT article is in Celsius.

Eric Stevens
April 21, 2019 3:16 am

“… 2018 was the fourth hottest year on record, surpassed only by three recent years.”

Now that can’t be right. It seems to be saying that 2015 was the hottest year on record and that temperatures have been falling ever since. But if 2015 was the hottest year on record then temperatures before that must have been climbing from some lower values. Now, how far back you have to go to get a temperature lower than that of 2018 depends on how you measure it but say it climbed as rapidly as it has since been falling:.In that case the temperature in 2012 would have equaled the temperature in 2018. That would make 2018 the seventh hottest temperature on record or even maybe the eighth. But that doesn’t sound as good as calling it the fourth hottest year on record. Calling it the eighth hottest temperature on record sounds rather ho-hum in comparison.

April 21, 2019 3:41 am

The gold standard of temperature is supposed to be satellite data this shows warming – is it wrong?:

Tim Gorman
Reply to  ghalfrunt
April 21, 2019 5:19 am

If you look carefully at the graph you will see that in 1998 there appears to be a step function applied to the temperature records. Before 1998 the temperatures were pretty stable. After 1998 the temperatures are pretty stable. I have yet to see anyone explain that step function increase adequately. Is it a data artifact?

Reply to  Tim Gorman
April 21, 2019 9:34 am

1997-1998 Super El Nino

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Latitude
April 21, 2019 1:23 pm

‘97,98 is when the step function hsppened but a one time event wouldn’t move the mean temp permanently like the graph shows. El nino would be an impulse function, not a step function.

Richard M
Reply to  Tim Gorman
April 21, 2019 1:32 pm

My own opinion is the late 1990s is when the +AMO effects started to take place. It doesn’t happen instantly. It turns out that ENSO was also very active during that time making it difficult to look year to year and see what is happening. I think that is why it looks like a step change.

So, eyeballing the data is not going to help you much in this case. There is a paper by Santer et al that tried to eliminate the effects of ENSO. The paper showed almost no changes after 1995.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Richard M
April 21, 2019 3:57 pm

Richard M: Eyeballing the data may not be able to tell you exactly what the cause is but it sure makes the effect stand out. If the climate models can’t reproduce that step function and the resulting stability in the mean at a higher point then of what use are the models? If the model creators don’t know enough to understand the cause-effect relationship then their models are worthless.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  ghalfrunt
April 21, 2019 9:36 am

The UAH chart doesn’t show warming for the last three years, it shows cooling.

The trend is slightly up (I assume that is what you refer to) but the temperatures are definitely cooling from the peak warmth of Feb 2016. The temperatures are down about 0.6C from that peak. Many more cool years and that trend will be down instead of up.

Incidentally, 2016 was only 0.1C warmer than 1998 in the satellite record. The Dishonest Data Manipulators turned 1998 into an insignificant year with their bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick charts. And did it right in front of our eyes. The hubris is unbelievable!

They downgraded 1998 in order to enable their “Hottest Year Evah!” and “Hotter and Hotter” memes. If they had not, then the only year they could point to as hotter than 1998 is 2016, so they couldn’t claim that each succeeding year was the hottest year evah without eliminating 1998 from the mix.

Devious little minds..

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 21, 2019 11:05 am

“The trend is slightly up (I assume that is what you refer to) but the temperatures are definitely cooling from the peak warmth of Feb 2016. The temperatures are down about 0.6C from that peak. Many more cool years and that trend will be down instead of up.”

Well there are many “cooling periods” in the record, whether on UAH or the surface record.

That is NV, and UAH is still above the levels prior to the last EN.

And UAH is not the surface, where we live and where climate science is concerned about. It misses the source of greatest warming, that under nocturnal inversions over land.

It overdoes it’s response to atmospheric WV (why it’s record of it’s temp peaks durung EN’s is erroneous).

There will be more cool years of course, and more warm years. That is the nature of climate, however a LS regression will still give a rising trend, as it has since the start of the Sat temp record.

This study has confirmed surface via comparison with satellite observed skin temps….

“4. Conclusions
The GISTEMP data set, and the totally independent satellite-based AIRS surface skin temperature data set, are very consistent with each over the past 15 years. Both data sets demonstrate that the Earth’s surface has been warming globally over this time period, and that 2016, 2017, and 2015 have been the warmest years in the instrumental record, in that order. In addition to being an independent data set, AIRS products complement those of GISTEMP because they are at a higher spatial resolution than those of GISTEMP and have more complete spatial coverage, despite a shorter record. Differences in the products (and lower temporal correlations) mostly reflect areas without much directly observed station data (the Arctic, Southern Ocean, sub-Saharan Africa) suggesting that the fault lies in the station-based products rather than with the AIRS data. Notably, surface-based data sets may be underestimating the changes in the Arctic.”

Richard M
Reply to  Anthony Banton
April 21, 2019 2:06 pm

Anthony Banton, I loved all the caveats in your comment. There’s a word for that …. denial.

The reality is when you account for ENSO and AMO effects on the temperature the UAH satellite data shows no warming at all since the AMO went positive. That’s 25 years. Not looking good for alarmists when the AMO goes negative in a few years.

But hey, keep up the denial. It will only be tougher when the realization you were conned hits home.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Anthony Banton
April 22, 2019 5:39 am

AB wrote: “Well there are many “cooling periods” in the record, whether on UAH or the surface record.”

This is true, can’t argue with that. From the highpoint of 1998, it took 19 years to get back to that highpoint in 2016. I wonder how long it will be before we get back to the highpoint of 2016.

AB wrote: And UAH is not the surface, where we live and where climate science is concerned about.

Well, if you go to the UAH website it says the Satellites measure the temperatures from the surface. Another thing “the science” is concerned about is the atmospheric Hotspot that will supposedly be created by CO2 warming. UAH doesn’t see any hotspot.

The balloon data supports the accuracy of the UAH readings. The balloons also measure surface temperatures.

April 21, 2019 4:06 am

The NOAA ClimDiv data actual has a lower trend than the USCRN data, but I doubt that either trend has much statistical significance.

Richard M
Reply to  Tom
April 21, 2019 2:07 pm

Not really surprising given the short time span. UHI has probably not seen any major changes.

Johnathan Birks
April 21, 2019 4:11 am

Of course it’s a self-fulfilling prophesy. It predates Hansen by more than a decade, when Maurice Strong set up the UN Environment Program.

Fortunately, all this alarmist rhetoric and pseudoscience hasn’t budged public opinion. People are no more worried about climate change than they are about the national debt. The latter is real, and a serious threat to current and future prosperity.

April 21, 2019 4:34 am

Even if you just accept it is warming and it is all manmade, the world have already shown there is no way emission control is going to work. It is sort of like arguing which deckchair on the titanic has the best average view of the future 🙂

John Doran
April 21, 2019 5:00 am

A good article – as far as it goes, & it doesn’t go anywhere near far enough.

Dr. Tim Ball, climatologist, has presented the motives behind the completely unscientific insanities of the warming/climate fraud in his great little book:
Human Caused Global Warming The Biggest Deception In History

Page 114: “The real objective was to eliminate capitalism and its industrial engine while reducing world population. The proposed replacement was socialism and alternative energies – the Green Agenda. It fails everywhere it is tried because socialism fails even when it is presented as a plan to save the planet. To paraphrase H. L. Mencken, “The urge to save the planet is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” “.

The science & scandals, the politics & profiteers.
This book does the world a huge favour. Only 121 pages. Easy to understand layman’s terms. A list of further reading. A must read.

Dr. Tim bravely names the 1%s funding the insane agenda:
the bankster Rockefellers; their multi-billionaire cronies, Soros, Ted Turner & Maurice Strong. He names the bent politicians & the bent “scientists”.

I seriously reckon every reader on this site should buy two copies: one to keep & one for a friend. Plus one, possibly, for a politician. 🙂
Let’s have an article appraising this book, please Anthony, & arrange this site a sales commission.

John D.

April 21, 2019 5:15 am

Has the world gone mad?
comment image?itok=FG1VMqDD
Banks of fans blow air through a carbon dioxide–capturing solution in this rendering of a direct air capture plant. CARBON ENGINEERING

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Vuk
April 21, 2019 9:42 am

No, the whole world hasn’t gone nuts. We haven’t determined the percentage of nuts in human society yet. It’s significant, but hopefully it’s not fatal to society.

The upcoming 2020 elections ought to give us a good picture of the ratio of nuts to sane people in the United States. The Leftwing Media skews this perception to the side of the nuts (Left) in normal times.

We’ll see.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Vuk
April 22, 2019 10:57 am
April 21, 2019 5:22 am

Regarding satellite-measured atmospheric “temperatures are lower now than they were in 1998”: The choice of 1998 smacks of cherrypicking. 1998 has a temperature spike from an El Nino that is, by most measures and estimates, the greatest one in well over a century. There is nothing else special about 1998, especially considering that these satellite records started with 1979.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
April 21, 2019 9:46 am

2016 was also an El Nino temperature spike. It spiked 0.1C warmer than 1998. Pretty close to a statistical tie. I think that makes 1998 significant.

And how do you cherry-pick the satellite record when the whole record is displayed?

April 21, 2019 5:41 am

It must have.
Pacific ocean is in charge of global warming, when the ocean floor is at the rest global temperature goes up, but the major and frequent sea floor earthquakes causing large tsunamis bring huge volumes of cold water to the surface keeping Earth cool for decades.
data from The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
I wonder how many Hiroshima’s let of at the bottom of the Mariana trench might stop the catastrophic global warming forthcoming extinction.
This may not be as simple as you might think as this video shows
but it could be expedient ! and very effective !
Happy Easter to all sane Christians and anyone else, of course.

April 21, 2019 6:13 am

Excellent article. Too bad no one outside of WUWT will see it. Until we can widely disseminate the facts we are stuck in a holding pattern.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  F.LEGHORN
April 21, 2019 9:50 am

“Too bad no one outside of WUWT will see it.”

Well, that might amount to a lot of people. Even a lot of influential people.

I think Anthony said the other day that WUWT had over 50,000 people subscribe to being notified when new messages show up on WUWT. And no doubt, there are countless more who read WUWT but don’t subscribe.

This might just be the place to share the message.

April 21, 2019 6:45 am

This article actually provides evidence of human caused climate change. Millions of micro-climates like the UTIs must have some cumulative effect. Increased CO2 emissions might even have some tiny effect in crowded areas. There are cooling effects as well such as mono-culture changing the albedo of large areas to radiate more light although the heating effects are likely dominant.
Only one solution, kill everyone. Oh wait, that probably won’t work. Some other animal will just take over to create change, as has happened before in the planets history.

April 21, 2019 6:58 am

Mosher advocates that the US set an example for the rest of the world. Does he really think that the Chinese (!) are going to say, “well, hey, the US reduced its emissions dramatically, so why don’t we do the same!” That’s Kumbaya land.

What they’re really going to say is, “hey, those American morons have made themselves globally uncompetitive. We’ll take over more key industries and become the dominant global power. The Americans will bend the knee to us!”

Will the Indians say, “hey, those self-sacrificing Americans have reduced emissions so dramatically, we must do the same.” Kumbaya, folks. What they’ll actually say is, “Holy crap. Those nasty Chinese on our border and off our coasts are growing ever more powerful, and our American friends have ceded the field. We had better increase our pace of our industrialization to match the Chinese, or we’re going to be swamped!”

April 21, 2019 8:01 am

“”· Snowfall: In 2001, the scientists at IPCC (worlds global authority on climate change) said that rising global temperatures would result in a reduction in snowfall and even the end of skiing industry.[33] However, according to both NOAA and Rutgers University, snowfall has been trending up across the northern hemisphere since 1970. If less snow is expected from higher temperatures – is more snow an indicator of lower temperatures?[34]” – Article

Should I ask these “scientists at IPCC” to come and shovel the snow off my front steps when it snows 6 inches of white, cold stuff in mid-April? It was April 15, 2019 to be precise. I have photos. I always take them. Always. I also have the February snow and the January snow and the November 2018 snow, and I’m tired of shoveling this stuff. I think they should do it, instead of sitting in comfy offices, completely unimpaired by

If these smug desk jockeys plan to use the Bay of Fundy to prove that the oceans are rising, because the Fundy tidal bore can frequently be fierce, then they should have their funding removed for reporting baloney.

All those weather stations posted at airports, instead of away from anything that compromises real resulsts? ALL of them should be moved to non-urban areas as well as mid-city parks.

Frankly, everything I’ve found on the length of time for cooling periods and warming periods consistently shows that the warming periods are shorter than the cooling periods. And I think this one is getting ready to thump us but good.

Reply to  Sara
April 21, 2019 10:53 am

Everyone who has lived in the Sierras for any period of time knows that snow totals are going up, not down. I don’t have temperature data, but it’s definitely not getting warmer.

Squaw Valley intends to close on the unusually early date of JULY 7th!

Reply to  Sara
April 21, 2019 5:57 pm

No, not getting warmer here in the upper Midwest, either. We had a warm day today and will again tomorrow, and the buds are breaking on the trees and bushes, but it goes back to cold at night. Birds are still coming to my feeder because NO BUGS for the grackles, cowbirds and redwings are showing up just yet.

Reply to  Sara
April 22, 2019 7:23 am

We’re at 7500 feet, and I could still step out of the 2nd floor window onto the snow. When this stuff melts, Lake Tahoe levels will continue to rise because there’s only so much which can exit via Truckee river.

Ola Hall
April 21, 2019 8:44 am

The heat Island effect was effectively dismissed after aqua time series were released recently

Pamela Gray
April 21, 2019 8:45 am

The research design using plots with a sensor that measures that plot relies on the integrity of those plots staying in the same conditions in terms of number, location, and exacting control of disruptive influence from outside each plot. Any such disruption should result in that plot being eliminated from the study. So any plot that has been adjusted should go. Period. Else the study is lipstick on a pig.

April 21, 2019 9:12 am

I liked this article for its simplicity and general overview of issues even as it has been criticized for cherry picking. The one thing the article will not do is convince the general public to “cool down the hysteria”.

My kids are well educated as are my siblings yet none I contend can digest plots quickly and easily. They are smart enough to know they can be gamed by plots and also uncomfortable in digesting their meaning. My point is people’s concerns about climate change will not be challenged by scientific arguments, even as simplified as in this article. As an example, the IPCC says there is little confidence in increased severe weather events due to global warming. Yet, politicians in particular, tout this red herring as reason to reduce CO2 emissions by commanding we pay for more renewable energy infrastructure.

Like “Medicare for All”, people like it until they find out what they lose and how much it costs to make it happen. Renewable energy is great but renewable energy to replace most or all fossil fuels is very expensive and destructive. I suspect that until the pain of going green becomes unbearable there will be no change in direction. I am hopeful that in the US, the states that are going 100% green (electric grid only, not transportation), most by 2045 (CA,NY,HI,WA,OR) will expose the high costs of their efforts and people that vote will take action. Until then, scientific debates are fun but will have zero impact on our future. I am reminded of the quote that goes something like “you can depend on nations to do the right thing when they have exhausted every other possibility”.

April 21, 2019 9:15 am

Excellent and very illuminating analysis, Rich Enthoven!

Thank you.

ferd berple
April 21, 2019 9:57 am

“Don’t use fossil fuels” is no different than telling people “don’t eat fat”, it causes heart disease. Quie unforseen we ended up with an epidemic of diabetes and obesity that is killing large numbers of people.

“Don’t use fossil fuels” will also unexpectedly kill large numbers of people. We don’t know how it will happen. But we can be sure it will happen.

John Collis
Reply to  ferd berple
April 21, 2019 11:28 am

Actually fat doesn’t cause heart disease according to Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, although he too has been criticised as a sceptic for his hypothesis.

John Collis
April 21, 2019 11:32 am

Someone has informed me that AGW is 5 sigma science and is beyond reproach, if I understand 5 sigma correctly.

Reply to  Latitude
April 21, 2019 7:45 pm

Heck, every experimental result has a 5 sigma level. It might be hugely wide, but it’s there.

I wonder if the average person repeating the talking point that something about climate science has a 95% certainty. or a 6 sigma whatever even knows to what those values refer.

April 21, 2019 12:12 pm

This article and perhaps others like it should, in my opinion, be the first and stationary page when a newcomer first opens WUWT. I have linked to good articles for friends but when they first open the site it is not clear that this is a serious scientifically based site. Sometimes the leading article is a sort of spoof and we regulars all know it but an newby will not understand.
Perhaps better “marketing” will reassure the curious. Few will take the time to look through the reference pages for reassurance unless their first glimpse does the trick.

April 21, 2019 2:43 pm

A well written presentation. Anthony, why not ask Nick Stokes to provide a similar presentation. We need informed debate, not alarmist nonsense.

April 21, 2019 11:11 pm

I came across an article by Vikram Mansharamani in the Harvard Business Review titled “All Hail the Generalist”. I was looking for things on this topic because I am in a job hunt and very bothered by employers’ current emphasis on what I call hyper-specialization. We are forced into such narrow fields at work that when we lose our jobs, we can’t do anything else. Education is learning more and more about less and less until you know everything about nothing and nothing about everything. This topic has immediate bearing on the AGW debate. Modern climate scientists are highly specialized. Climate modeling is a refined art. Is it possible they are so specialized they fail to see anything beyond their models, and hence don’t even realize how far they depart from the real data, or even the desirability of model calibration (history matching)? Would they benefit from a more generalized background in meteorology, oceanography, geology, solar science to understand variables other than CO2? Climate scientists appear to be displaying the inflexibility and narrow-mindedness warned about by advocates of generalism. Their models don’t match the real world and they don’t seem to care. Is it a matter of not seeing the forest through the trees?

Reply to  Jim
April 22, 2019 10:05 am

+10 …fully agree with that thought. It is easy to end up not being able to see the forest for the trees, as that old saying goes.

April 22, 2019 9:46 am

It’s been cooling down since the end of the big El Nino. And people are surprised about that?

John Lynch
April 22, 2019 4:34 pm

I believe the Global Politicians encourage catastrophic climate change to justify the application of Carbon Taxes on the populace. Governments are collecting large sums of money from taxing carbon and little is spent on actually fighting climate change. Since the money is going into general revenues and not into a separate Carbon Account, transparent to the public, I can only suggest the money is being used to advance their political status.
Most people are easily led by catastrophic climate policies because most people read or listen to the headlines only. They will not take the time to read the facts. Climate alarmists know this and use it to further their cause.
Too bad as the real facts are easily and readily available. The pendulum will swing back to reality. Unfortunately by then the world economy will have been ravaged by the self serving politicians.

Tony Cooke
April 22, 2019 6:22 pm

I find it amazing that meteorologists would not know that temperatures and humidities vary on very small scales. I used to run in the early mornings and soon discovered that small hollows were often noticeably cooler than their immediate surrounds. I also lived in the country for some 12 years and observed on several occasions rain storms in adjacent fields that did not come into mine or went across only part of my fields. It is much easier to see this in country where vistas are long compared to cities where they are much more limited.
So I cannot see how one can accurately interpolate the average temperature of large areas from isolated weather stations, particularly given that measuring methods have changed as well the circumstances of the stations themselves.
I also wonder how it is possible to measure even average day or night temperatures in a particular location as it seems to me that any average will depend on the sampling frequency and on time of day or night when the temperatures are read. I also assume that it would be necessary to ensure that measurement are made at similar times in adjoining stations to determine regional averages. I do not know how these measurements are taken but assuming that these factors can be resolved we also should be aware that we are talking about changes in temperature of about 0.3% of the actual temperature (1K in about 300K) where daily variations may be 10% or more (30K in 300K).

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Tony Cooke
April 23, 2019 5:21 am

Tony: With the advent of electronic temperature measuring devices, you can collect data every 5 minutes (which is what I do) or even down to every one minute if necessary. With on-board memory that data can be stored for 24 hours or longer and then dumped via wifi to a distant location with connection to the internet using a high-gain antenna.

I participate in an amateur radio weather net for the state of Kansas. High and low temperatures across a county let alone a state can vary quite a bit every day. Taking an average at a station and then creating an average of those averages is pretty much meaningless in describing the actual environment across a wide geographical area. Doing it on a global basis is even more meaningless if that is possible, at least in my opinion. An average totally obscures what is actually happening in any case but I suppose that is the point for many of the AGW alarmists.

Lauchlan G Duff
April 22, 2019 10:35 pm

With due respect I think some of your conclusions from the USCRN data are erroneous. Yes the Feb/March 2019 conclusions are correct but the following “When we look at these, we see no persistent increase in US temperatures.[6]” I do question the no persistent increase conclusion. If one linear trends this data and extrapolates 81 years to 2100 the trend produces a temperature of 4.2 degC. That is quite some increase that would raise the hysterical mobs temperatures! (By comparison, plotting UAH USA48 LT data over the same period and extrapolating to 2100 produces a temperature of 2.8 degC.). Im yet to analyse the rest of your comments and data charts.

Reply to  Lauchlan G Duff
April 23, 2019 11:05 pm

Since when has the climate moved solely in a linear trend? Can you point to any linear trend in the existing temperature data over the last 10k, 100K, or longer period?

Lauchlan G Duff
Reply to  goldminor
April 25, 2019 7:19 pm

A trend is a trend. Of course there are massive swings around a trend but every single scientist still uses trends and trend extrapolations to infer something about the future, or indeed the past. Re trends over past 10k or > periods, we dont have the same temperature measuring data sets in order to compare. But clearly there are proven cycles of temperature increases and decreases over glacial-interglacial periods. For sure, based on temp proxies, clearly not the same as real temps, none of these glacial-interglacial cycles would show temp increases of 4.5C over 100 years (2000-2019 and then extrapolated to 2100). Whatever may or may not be driving this UCSRN data, it aint CO2. (nor CH4)

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Lauchlan G Duff
April 26, 2019 4:50 am

Linear regressions have a difficult time discerning when a trend changes from negative to positive or vice versa. Trying to use linear regression to forecast the future in a chaotic system like Earth is basically like saying things never change. “If the temperature is going up now then it will always go up!” True scientists do not operate that way. As they say in finance, “past results are not a guarantee of future performance”. Yet that is how the climate models all work.

Walt Puciata
April 23, 2019 11:19 am

I think the greatest irrefutable evidence for global warming are the now over 7.7 billion people on the earth, nearly all industrialized and all wanting to burn fossil fuels. This is unprecedented. Our world has never experienced anything like this in the past. That is the elephant in the room climate change deniers refuse to see. Also, our economy is now a global economy, so any measures to curb fossil fuel consumption continues to be met with opposition. Corporations obligations are to shareholders, not the health of the planet. Sure we have new, alternative energy technologies developed and developing, but my guess is that it’s a day late and a dollar short.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Walt Puciata
April 23, 2019 3:44 pm

Walt: You don’t think that when dinosaurs roamed much of the globe that they didn’t put out tons of CO2 in the atmosphere? Huge forests burned producing CO2. Volcanoes spewed CO2. Yet the Earth didn’t turn into a cinder then. It won’t turn into a cinder today either.

April 25, 2019 7:08 pm

The . National Tidal and Sea Level Facility (NTSLF) is the UK centre of excellence for sea level monitoring, coastal flood forecasting and the analysis of sea level extremes.

%d bloggers like this: