Last 8 Years Were the Hottest on Record

News Brief by Kip Hansen — 10 January 2023

Yet another lesson in how to write a good-news story as a Climate Crisis story.  One has to hand it to the Climate Crazies – particular in journalism.  In my favorite once-a-world-class newspaper, the New York Times, this story.

“By Henry Fountain and Mira Rojanasakul

The world remained firmly in warming’s grip last year, with extreme summer temperatures in Europe, China and elsewhere contributing to 2022 being the fifth-hottest year on record, European climate researchers said on Tuesday.

The eight warmest years on record have now occurred since 2014, the scientists, from the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service, reported, and 2016 remains the hottest year ever.”

This is the entire story in three images:

The left-hand image appeared in the New York Times article.  The right-hand image is from NOAA’s Climate at a Glance Global Time Series page.  Clicking the link will bring up the charted image (NB:  I have reduced the horizontal size to match the Times’ image). 

Compare the two images, and except for some minor differences in the 2015, 2016 and 2017 numeric values, they are quite similar. 

But (always a but), the NOAA graph can show, in the upper right-hand corner, a trend line for 2015-2022, the “last 8 years”  being highlighted in the NY Times piece.

Here is the blow-up of that corner, with text re-typed for clarity).

Adding this trend line is an option on the original official NOAA page – see for yourself. (repeating the link for your convenience).

The New York Times’ authors, Henry Fountain and Mira Rojanasakul, simply do not mention the positive story that the last eight years have a trend of minus 0.87°C/century. 

So, the good news story that could have been written based on the same facts – the same data – is that NOAA’s calculated Global Land and Ocean  January-December Temperature Anomalies have been sharply down-trending since 2015. 

And that’s the brief.

# # # # #

Author’s Comment:

My long-term advice is “Don’t draw trend lines on graphs.”  The slope of a trend line always depends on starting and ending points.  It is [almost] always more informative to look at the data itself, in many differing graphic forms than to draw lines on top of the data.  The trend line is not the data – it is an “opinion” of whoever is drawing the trend (or the programmer of the graphing software) concerning start and end dates. 

This is true even of data that seems to have an obvious start date or a temporally very long data set such as modern global thermometer temperature sets.  Global temperature did not begin the moment it started being measured.

It should be noted that two El Niños occur in the period in question:  2014–16 and 2018–19.

Journalism, by its own standards, is meant to give a dis-interested, well-rounded, balanced view of the topic of a news story.  The eight-year downtrend certainly warranted at least a mention in this story of the last eight years of “global” temperatures.

# # # # #

5 36 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 10, 2023 10:04 pm

I do not consider NOAA’s temperature data record factual. That is unless it is unadjusted raw data from the USHCN.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  rah
January 11, 2023 3:24 am

Treating the bastardized global temperature record as legitimate is a disservice to the truth and to the public.

How do the Temperature Data Mannipulators explain the fact that the 1930’s was the hottest decade in the United States since the Little Ice Age ended in the 1800’s, and yet their global temperature chart shows the 1930’s to be *much* cooler than today?

And it’s not just North America that shows the Early Twentieth Century as being just as warm as today. Unmodified, regional charts from all over the world show a similar temperature trend to the North American temperature trend where it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today.

None of the written, historical unmodified, regional temperature charts show the “hotter and hotter” temperature profile of the Bastardized Hockey Stick global temperature chart. The Bastardized Hockey Stick chart is the OutLiar.

The truth is the Official Keepers of the Data are lying to us about the Earth’s past temperatures.

Here is a comparison of the U.S. regional temperature chart with the Bastardized global temperature chart. All the regional charts have a similar temperature profile to the United States where it was just as warm in the 1930’s as it is today. None of the regional charts have the “hotter and hotter” temperature profile of the Bastardized Hockey Stick chart.

comment image

And here is a sample of unmodified regional charts from around the world. See it you can find a Hockey Stick profile among them.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 11, 2023 4:43 am

If you compare the “Global Temperature” graph above with the rise in CO2 they correspond very well in the trend. I believe that is because the liars are doing what ever it takes to adjust the temperature data they publish to correspond with the rise in CO2.

I also believe that before too awfully long that scam is liable to collapse by it’s own weight if CO2 levels continue to rise at the same rate. The temperature data they publish will diverge so much from the actual temperatures that its inaccuracy will become evident to even some of the dimmest bulbs.

Richard Greene
Reply to  rah
January 11, 2023 7:53 am

CO2 and average temperature
1940 to 1975 = negative correlation
1975 to 2015 = positive correlation
2015 to 2023 = no correlation

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 11, 2023 8:56 am

Tony Heller did this work showing the correlation for the US.

comment image

comment image

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 12, 2023 2:50 pm

Dick here is what you said in another post, “More greenhouse gases increase the greenhouse effect.”

So how did increasing CO2 not cause increasing temperature in 43 of the 83 years?

Maybe it doesn’t.

Richard Greene
Reply to  rah
January 11, 2023 7:51 am

You don’t trust NOAA in the first sentence
But then you do trust NOAA in the second sentence?
You just contradicted yourself

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 11, 2023 9:18 am

Unadjusted data from the USHCN is trusted. All other temperature data sets from NOAA, adjusted or not I do not. Really not hard to understand.

But they must be the unadjusted data as you can see per Tony Heller again:

comment image

And BTW nothing from NASA on US or global temperature do I trust.

Richard Greene
Reply to  rah
January 11, 2023 9:50 am

Absolutely flawed lack of logic.
An organization either has integrity or it does not
If you don’t trust their adjusted numbers, then why would you trust their ALLEGED raw numbers?

People and organizations who sometimes lie are liars
Liars do not always lie — maybe Biden does, but that’s not typical. Liars should never EVER be trusted. Otherwise character means nothing.

NAOO has a popular US temperature dataset (nClimDiv, derived from GHCN) used for the global average temperature. They also have USCRN. There is no logical reason to distrust their nClimDiv data, but trust their USCRN data. That makes no sense.

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 11, 2023 10:07 am

You know what they say about opinions. I trust unadulterated data. The way I see it, they have to keep a data set based on reality for the future, even if they try to hide it.

Explain the difference between raw and adjusted in the graph above.

Reply to  rah
January 12, 2023 9:34 am

rah said: “ I trust unadulterated data.”

You trust data that is known to be contaminated with the time-of-observation bias, the MMTS transition bias, station relocation bias, etc?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  bdgwx
January 13, 2023 4:42 am

Lol! I believe Tony Heller also debunks your TOBS claims. Heller essentially shows TOBS adjustments are uneccesary.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 13, 2023 5:58 pm

No he doesn’t. Stations really did change from PM to AM observations. And the bias has been known since at least the late 1800’s. See Ellis 1890, Donnel 1912, and Rambuagh 1934 for a small sample of the early literature on the topic.

Reply to  bdgwx
January 13, 2023 8:36 am

No, unadulterated meaning unadjusted!

Reply to  rah
January 13, 2023 5:41 pm

I get that unadulterated = unadjusted. But the unadulterated/unadjusted data is contaminated with the time-of-observation bias, instrument change bias, station move bias, etc. How are you dealing with that?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  rah
January 13, 2023 4:39 am

“Explain the difference between raw and adjusted in the graph above.”

I would be interested in hearing that explanation, too.

Obviously, NASA and NOAA are bastardizing the temperature data to make it appear that we are currently experiencing unprecedented warming, in their efforts to promote the Human-caused Global Warming/Climate Change scam.

The unmodified data tells the story: We are NOT experiencing unpecedented warming. It was just as warm in the recent past as it is today, even though there is much more CO2 in the air today than there was then.

Obviously, CO2 has had little effect on the temperatures. There is much more CO2 in the air today, yet it’s not any warmer today than it was in the past, with much less CO2 in the air.

That’s what the temperature bastardizers at NASA and NOAA don’t want you to know. But the chart above tells the real story about temperatures.

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 11, 2023 10:23 am

Show the evidence that the USHCN raw data are not actually raw data or give it up. I have seen none!

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 11, 2023 9:24 am

I assumed that the knowledgeable readers here would know that the USHCN data set comes from relatively pristine stations, located where UHI and other outside factors do not skew the readings, and having a consistent and relatively long record.

Richard Greene
Reply to  rah
January 11, 2023 9:57 am

You are repeating government bureaucrat talking points like a well trained parrot.

USCRN nearly matches the nClimDiv numbers, which makes no sense if one allegedly has pristine weather station sites with no adjustments (allegedly) and the other has perhaps 96% improperly sited weather stations, per articles at this website. The fix is in.

Do not trust NOAA or NASA-GISS.
Anyone who trusts those organizations is missing the entire problem of climate change scaremongering.

(1) Inaccurate historical data from government bureaucrats who can’t be trusted, and

(2) Always wrong predictions of climate doom since the 1970s.

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 11, 2023 10:13 am

Your writing this on a blog where the creator made his name by showing how a huge number of standard NOAA station sites are compromised by where they are located.

I don’t remember ANY of those compromised sites that Anthony exposed being part of the USHCN.

Reply to  rah
January 12, 2023 9:38 am

I think you’re confusing USHCN and USCRN. USCRN is the one that was designed to be “relatively pristine”. BTW…USCRN is a better match to USHCN-adj than USHCN-raw.

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 11, 2023 9:48 am

Steve McIntyre caught NASA making gross adjustments to global temperature data TWICE, several years ago.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  rah
January 13, 2023 4:55 am

NASA claims ten years between 1998 and 2020 were the hottest years ever, yet if you look at the UAH satellite chart, none of those years are warmer than 1998, which is statistically tied with 2016 as being the warmest year in the satellite era (1979 to the present).

So NASA is lying about the temperature record in their continuing effort to promote the human-caused climate change scam.

comment image

As you can see, no year between 1998 and 2016 is warmer than 1998. NASA Climate is lying to you for political/selfish purposes.

And keep in mind that in the United States, the year 1934 was 0.5C warmer than 1998/2016, according to NASA’s James Hansen.

Bastardizing the temperature record is the only thing the Alarmists have to use to press their case that CO2 needs to be controlled and eliminated. The ONLY thing they have. And all it proves is just how corrupt people in high places can be if it suits their personal interests.

January 10, 2023 10:26 pm

Temperature trend line: Starting at the formation of the solar system and ending when the sun engulfs the earth, will show show no trend whatsoever. This is good news, no?

Richard Greene
Reply to  vuurklip
January 11, 2023 10:21 am

We can only wild guess the global average temperature in the 1800s and you want to go back billions of years?

Dave Fair
January 10, 2023 11:05 pm

Notice the studious avoidance of UAH6?

The only datasets coming close to scientific standards are radiosondes, UAH6 and ARGO. None of the three show anything of concern going on.

Surface datasets simply reflect bad site issues and UHI on a massive scale. U.S. mostly rural sites show no significant warming over any meaningful timeframe. The fact that the CONUS temperature history (more rural sites) shows massively less warming (and an entirely different warming pattern) than the global land results tells us that UHI and land use changes are corrupting global temperature datasets. Everybody involved knows that, but the gravy train must roll along.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Dave Fair
January 10, 2023 11:39 pm

Lets not get upset with the historical global average temperature dataset inaccuracy and climate prediction inaccuracy, Both are good news. Here’s why:

(1) The arbitrary historical temperature “revisions” and infilling, especially the magical disappearance of most of the 1940 to 1975 global cooling, proves that government bureaucrat scientists can’t be trusted (that’s good to know), and

(2) The always wrong wild guess predictions of CAGW climate doom are NOT based on any historical climate trends — they are all new claptrap — CAGW is numbers pulled out of a hat, or from two feet below the back of the hat.

That’s good news too. Because the Climate Howlers do not control the actual climate, so there is a permanent gap between their CAGW scaremongering predictions and actual climate trends.

That climate predictions versus climate reality gap is our best weapon to refute CAGW predictions of climate doom.

If the official goobermint climate predictions were anywhere near reality, people might be fooled into thinking the future climate CAN be predicted. Climate can not be predicted, except by me: “The climate will get warmer, unless it gets colder”, I predicted in 1997.

Based on wrong predictions in the past 100 years, excluding my 1997 prediction, any apparently accurate climate prediction is really nothing more than a lucky guess,

Reply to  Dave Fair
January 12, 2023 9:42 am

UAH6 is one of the most adjusted datasets in existence. And their infilling goes out to 4100 km spatially and 2 days temporally as opposed to GISTEMP’s 1200 km limit with no temporal component.

Year / Version / Effect / Description / Citation

Adjustment 1: 1992 : A : unknown effect : simple bias correction : Spencer & Christy 1992

Adjustment 2: 1994 : B : -0.03 C/decade : linear diurnal drift : Christy et al. 1995

Adjustment 3: 1997 : C : +0.03 C/decade : removal of residual annual cycle related to hot target variations : Christy et al. 1998

Adjustment 4: 1998 : D : +0.10 C/decade : orbital decay : Christy et al. 2000

Adjustment 5: 1998 : D : -0.07 C/decade : removal of dependence on time variations of hot target temperature : Christy et al. 2000

Adjustment 6: 2003 : 5.0 : +0.008 C/decade : non-linear diurnal drift : Christy et al. 2003

Adjustment 7: 2004 : 5.1 : -0.004 C/decade : data criteria acceptance : Karl et al. 2006 

Adjustment 8: 2005 : 5.2 : +0.035 C/decade : diurnal drift : Spencer et al. 2006

Adjustment 9: 2017 : 6.0 : -0.03 C/decade : new method : Spencer et al. 2017 [open]

That is 0.307 C/decade worth of adjustments with a net of +0.039 C/decade. And that does not include the amount of the adjustment in the original version.

Dave Fair
Reply to  bdgwx
January 12, 2023 12:47 pm

And that justifies governments’ ignoring UAH6 while glorifying massively corrupted surface datasets? Explain the clear differences between CONUS dataset temperature results and those of global land datasets. Could it be the fact that CONUS has more rural sites than global datasets? Or could you just be a Leftist tool, bdgwx?

Reply to  Dave Fair
January 12, 2023 2:16 pm

My point is that if by “corrupt” you mean adjustments have occurred then understand that UAH is one of the most “corrupt” datasets available. And it doesn’t match radiosonde’s all that well either. And in terms of rural vs urban understand that USCRN is a better match to USHCN-adj than USHCN-raw which means the adjustments appear to be working correctly. And we already know we cannot rely on USHCN-raw as-is because of the time-of-observation bias, transition to MMTS bias, station relocation, etc. It’s unfortunate and it sucks, but bias correction must be performed on most datasets including and especially UAH.

comment image

And don’t hear what I didn’t say. I didn’t say UAH was corrupt. I didn’t say UAH isn’t useful or trustworthy. What I’m saying is that if adjustments and infilling are the rule for rejection then UAH should be the very first dataset you reject and not the one and only dataset you put all your faith in.

Reply to  bdgwx
January 12, 2023 2:40 pm

Yeah, and they published all of this over time as they appeared in time while many land based sets are contaminated by siting problems change in measuring equipment, location changes and more which are rarely published.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
January 12, 2023 4:28 pm

Those are problems with UAH too. The satellites drift thus changing the sites being measured, nevermind wide swaths never get observed at all on any particular day. And satellite measuring equipment has changed creating changepoints in the data stream that have to be homogenized.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  bdgwx
January 13, 2023 5:03 am

The weather balloon data correlates with the UAH satellite data.

Can’t say that about the bastardized surface temperature records.

January 10, 2023 11:21 pm

Well, I guess you could try to convince someone that a temperature chart that goes up steadily and dramatically for 50 years is good news because the last 8 years has a very slight cooling trend, but they aren’t going to buy it. All that scary red catches the eye. But what happened to the huge temperature spike in 1998 from the big El Niño followed by 18 years of cooling until the big 2016 El Niño as seen in the satellite-measured temperature?

comment image

Oh, wait, the NOAA global data is from terrestrial weather stations, most of which are in growing urban areas. They’re measuring the artificially inflated temperature of urban development in thousands of cities and towns around the world that cover about 0.3% of the land area of Earth. When you measure temperatures that way, it’s almost certain that every year will be warmer than previous ones as humans migrate to cities and pave more land.

Thanks to John Christy and Roy Spencer for producing a truly global temperature set that gives us the most accurate representation of global trends outside cities, the other 99.7% of the land area of Earth as well as the other two-thirds of earth covered by oceans.

Richard Greene
January 10, 2023 11:29 pm

This article misses the obvious: All global average temperature records were DURING a warming trend that actually began in the 1690s. Therefore, “hottest decade ever” claims tell us what we already know — the average temperature is still in a rising trend. That is the definition of a rising trend — new heat records are set regularly, or irregularly, until the warming trend ends, and a cooling trend begins. All warming trends in history have ended — none were permanent. We are actually very lucky to be living in a warming trend during an interglacial — the climate does not get much better than this on our planet.

The 2015 to 2021 trend is biased data mining. Hansen should know better.
There are many periods within the long term rising trend since the 1690s that were cooling periods or had a flat temperature trend. None of them predicted the future climate trend (the warming continued). Maybe 2015 to 2021 will be different — maybe it is the start of a change of the long term trend — but no one could possibly know that now.

The surface numbers are slightly different than the UAH numbers which show a flat trend since 2015. But if the past ten years of surface data averaged just +0.1 degree C. warmer than the prior ten years of surface numbers, then we have the hottest 10 years on record.

So what?
Those of us who love global warming are not happy about that — we want MORE global warming.

This article is a nothingburger. I recommend that the author stop subscribing to the New York Times. Which is the official leftist malarkey paper. And telling us how bad the NYT is — we already know how bad it is.

My Election Circus Blog has this motto:

“Is that true, or did you read it in the New York Times?”

I wouldn’t buy a New York Times if it was the last newspaper in the world and I needed a newspaper to line the bottom of my bird cage.

Election Circus

Ron Long
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 11, 2023 1:07 am

“…warming trend that actually began in the 1690’s.” Recovery starting from the irregular end of the Little Ice Age? OK, everything is normal until sea level, the best measure of the climate status of the earth – as long as there is continental mass in a polar area, recovers the 8 meters up to Rolman Warm Period dock levels. Until then, never mind.

Steve Case
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 11, 2023 1:34 am

 We are actually very lucky to be living in a warming trend …


Reply to  Richard Greene
January 11, 2023 3:56 am

New to this site? Hint: They re-publicise the most revolting crapadoodle, then sit back and smile as their readers rip it apart. Academic critique by knowledgeable, logical grown-ups, not a TwitFaceGramPost robot.

Ron Long
Reply to  cilo
January 11, 2023 5:24 am

Looks like cilo is an expert in crapadoodle. Just saying.

Reply to  Ron Long
January 11, 2023 12:00 pm

Yeah, well… not only was my post above accidentally to the wrong person, I tried three times to delete it.
But that’s the way crapadoodle follows me…not so much an expert, as a magnet.

Richard Greene
Reply to  cilo
January 11, 2023 7:57 am

I just wish Hansen would stop subscribing to the New York Times and criticizing their climate claptrap. Don’t give money to companies that hate you, is my thinking.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Kip Hansen
January 11, 2023 10:29 am

I know — I lose this argument with you every time.

You could steal a neighbors New York Times at dawn, if you had a close neighbor. And give it back soon after with all the climate articles cut out. If questioned, deny everything. I’ll be your lawyer if there is trouble. We will plead a fifth (alcohol intoxication interfered with your judgement). Your coming to court drunk will help my presentation. So steal that NY Times — don’t buy it.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 11, 2023 3:59 am

Despite the warming the world is still cold compared to the rest of the Holocene. The thought of UK winters like 1962/3 and 1946/7 every couple of years fills me with dread. The warmists nirvana is from the film Dr Zhivago – deep snow, cold winds, no fuel and transport by horse and Strelnikov controlling everything

Richard Greene
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
January 11, 2023 8:00 am

The 1970s were too cold in Michigan
Last winter had the least snow since I moved here in 1977
We want MORE global warming
Except the ski bums/

Richard Greene
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
January 11, 2023 10:34 am

The Holocene Epoch began about 12,000 years ago

It was slightly warmer 5,000 to 9,000 years ago during the Climate Optimum. Since then, the local climate proxies are not precise enough to know if any centuries were warmer than in the past 100 years. Maybe they were. I doubt it.

It was most likely slightly warmer for 4,000 of the past 12,000 years. The world today is NOT cold compared with the rest of the Holocene.

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 12, 2023 5:00 pm

I am unsure what you mean by “slightly warmer”, but it seems that up to 3 degrees is more than slightly. According to this Greenland ice core reconstruction the world is most definitely “cold compared to the rest of the Holocene”.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Kip Hansen
January 11, 2023 8:02 am

Let’s not forget the many benefits of “climate change”:

(1) Warmer winters

(2) Better plant growth from CO2

(3) Women wear fewer clothes as the climate gets warmer

What’s not to like?

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 11, 2023 9:01 am

Some places overseas that I went in the early 80’s they could hardly worn less clothes when sunbathing.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  rah
January 11, 2023 10:36 am

Living evidence for String Theory?

Richard Greene
Reply to  rah
January 11, 2023 10:38 am

What, no pictures?

97% of my climate science “research” is devoted to the proper women’s clothing for a warmer world. (these fashion photos, at the link below, can be viewed in any office, especially if you work for Bill Clinton):

Global Warming Fashion Show (

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 13, 2023 5:50 am

Sometimes it’s a good idea to read what your enemy is thinking.

January 10, 2023 11:49 pm

So, the good news story that could have been written based on the same facts – the same data – is that NOAA’s calculated Global Land and Ocean January-December Temperature Anomalies have been sharply down-trending since 2015. 

Why is this a “good news story”.

The climate will do what is has always done – change.

A good news story would be that the broad population now understand that “global warming” is not global and the prominent warming trend in the high northern latitudes in winter is a certain sign that the current interglacial is at its point of termination.

There is ample time to make the changes necessary to support human life through glaciation providing vast resources are not squandered on illusions like BEVs and wind and solar electricity generators.

Richard Greene
Reply to  RickWill
January 11, 2023 8:05 am

“There is ample time to make the changes necessary to support human life”

Every human has lived with, and almost everyone survived, climate change for his or her entire life. I would say the human race is well equipped for any climate change ahead.

Geoff Sherrington
January 11, 2023 12:15 am

Yes, Kip,
Amazing what can be done with lines drawn through graphs.
Here is UAH montly data for the lower troposphere over Australia, showin no positive fitted trend for 10 years and 7 months.
If the peak to trough difference is taken from the 2016 high and the 2022 low, this is a temperature difference of 1.88⁰C over 78 months, which mathematically equates to a cooling rate of 28.9⁰C  per century.
Compare that to the NYT report!
Geoff S

Uncle Mort
January 11, 2023 12:56 am

It’s a New York Times story aimed at its readership, not a story aimed at those strange folk who check data. The two groups are mutually exclusive.

Gen Chang
January 11, 2023 1:37 am

I think by now, most people understand that the leftist never tell “the story” but give you “A Story”
Their narrative, “the ends justify the means” is an ever constant tactic. Allowing willful blindness, & or outright lying.
They are Cultist to the end.
On this subject, they all belong to the
“Church of Climatology”

Reply to  Gen Chang
January 11, 2023 3:59 am

Climastrology. Bit of a typo there…

Steve Case
January 11, 2023 1:59 am

? ? ? ?

Drawing a trend line though the last seven years on the chart is ridiculous.
Here’s a link to the Escalator. from our friends at Skeptical Science.

The statement

     “The world remained firmly in warming’s grip last year…

is even more ridiculous. Winter’s grip is the common phrase.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Steve Case
January 11, 2023 4:01 am

Interesting that the chart stops in 2015,seven years ago?

January 11, 2023 3:17 am

Thanks for this article, it really helps me to get a more realistic view on climate. If only someone could send this to Justin Rowlatt at the BBC, he done another “authoritative” piece to camera again on last night’s main news bulletin about the weather in Europe with that “some scientists say” added for clarity.

Alan Welch
Reply to  galileo62
January 11, 2023 7:10 am

For the Non Brits Justin Rowlatt studied Philosophy, politics and economics at Oxford University so he must know what he is talking about!!!!! Er……….

January 11, 2023 3:31 am

I’ll repeat what I posted on an earlier article:

The scientific community need to clean up its act and begin suing media outlets for misrepresenting science itself.

Where are the Institutes and Associations who are supposed to represent science and its members when this junk is degrading the very principles of their existence?

Dave Fair
Reply to  HotScot
January 12, 2023 1:00 pm

But those Institutes and Associations have been taken over by Leftist ideologues, the same as for most all Western institutions and governments. Learn Mandarin. BTW, I saw this coming in 1988 and wrote a Masters paper on it.

Ben Vorlich
January 11, 2023 4:05 am

One of the latest scares that appears quite frequently at the moment is nasty viruses and bacteria escaping from frozen arctic and killing us all. I’m waiting for an explnation of how they got thereit it’s always been frozen solid

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
January 11, 2023 10:41 am

It hasn’t always been frozen. It was not frozen prior to the Pleistocene, and most of even Greenland thawed during the Eemian.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 11, 2023 11:48 am

I thought Ben was being sarcastic. After all, the alarmists keep telling us how the world has never been this warm.

David Dibbell
January 11, 2023 4:22 am

Kip, thanks for this post.
“But (always a but), the NOAA graph can show, in the upper right-hand corner, a trend line for 2015-2022, the “least [sic] 8 years” being highlighted in the NY Times piece.”

Please take another look at the NOAA page. 2022 is not yet given. You probably already know this, as the calculated trend is labeled 2015-2021.

But in any case, when these claims are made that the recent years are the warmest on record, I say, “That is exactly what you would expect from a warming trend of natural origin.”

Michael in Dublin
January 11, 2023 4:25 am

A headline today from South Africa:
Heatwave to hit four provinces, with temperatures soaring into the 40s
This is summer in South Africa.

If the journalist did her homework, she would wonder why this was not regularly reported virtually every summer for the past 50 years. Perhaps she would then be forced to admit this is nothing unusual but that the alarmism is.

January 11, 2023 5:57 am


The study, by researchers in China, the US, Italy and New Zealand, said that 2022 was “the hottest year ever recorded in the world’s oceans”.

Heat content in the oceans exceeded the previous year’s levels by around 10 Zetta joules — equivalent to 100 times the electricity generation worldwide in 2021, according to the authors.

“The oceans are absorbing most of the heating from human carbon emissions,” said co-author Michael Mann, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

… I thought Michael Mann was at Penn State (not UofP)

Dave Fair
Reply to  Neo
January 12, 2023 1:05 pm

It should be State Pen for Michael E. Mann.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Neo
January 13, 2023 5:20 am

““The oceans are absorbing most of the heating from human carbon emissions,” said co-author Michael Mann, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.”

We are back to that excuse again: the missing warmth is hiding in the oceans.

I wonder if Michael Mann has visited the Penn Biden offices?

There is a good book out about Michael Mann. It’s called “A Disgrace to the Profession”, and yes, it is referring to Michael Mann’s character.

January 11, 2023 7:31 am

>> My long-term advice is “Don’t draw trend lines on graphs.”
I am sorry to tell you that you just doing it wrong!

I am guessing that this line is a result of a fit where an uncertainty was also calculated?
It is unscientific to ignore that part of the result!
(drawing a line by eyeballing would equally be unsicentific)

Likewise it is unscientific to just ignore the UAH temperature product!
(The other way around is better justified as R. Spencer points out that the data you are showing uses the MSU chnnel of the NOAA-14 satelitte ..see figure 1 and a global temperature reconstruction should not do that after about 2005 when the better AMSU data becomes available!)
Until his criticism is addressed, you are facing a systematic uncertainty from two different methods, which your graphs incorrectly not showing, they are plain wrong!

Reply to  Kip Hansen
January 11, 2023 3:44 pm

That above was your post, right?
So you and not NOAA are responsible for the content!

And your graph does show questionable data and a line as a result of a trend analysis which neglects uncertainties.
That “dog ate my homework” excuse seems very lacking to me.

>> I have to use data sources that they can access and see
R. Spencer shows how the data set you used contains an artifact from that NOAA-14 MSU data.
Now that you know about it, you are obliged to discuss that or put a disclaimer on future posts and remind any other poster that they are doing it wrong, anything less would be unethical.
My guess is, however, that you already knew about that question and choose to ignore it, which of course disqualifies the content of your posts.

Dave Fair
Reply to  morfu03
January 12, 2023 1:10 pm

When the gambler was informed that the dice game he was involved in was rigged, he said: “Yeah, I know. But it is the only game in town.”

You prove yourself to be a ridiculous clown, morfu03. You have no place at the climate change (global warming) discussion table.

January 11, 2023 7:53 am

Journalism, by its own standards, is meant to give a dis-interested, well-rounded, balanced view of the topic of a news story.”

Changing the start year to 1880, makes it plainly clear that all of the heat prior to the modern era has been adjusted to the recent decades.

Those 1880s and 1930s heat waves that still hold records worldwide? Gone, completely erased

Reply to  Kip Hansen
January 11, 2023 8:59 am

“There simply weren’t enough thermometers in reliable weather stations on land, and no dependably-accurate sea surface temperatures at all.”

That cannot be said enough. The problem is in the media it is never said. Land coverage in SH pre 1900 about 12%. Give me a break.

As you have said, no dependably accurate SST. That means millions of square miles of oceans without real reliable data.

If others want to believe in 1850 global temperatures, have at it. The error bars ought to be very big. It’s an unknowable. Thanks for another great article.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  denny
January 13, 2023 6:35 am

“Land coverage in SH pre 1900 about 12%. Give me a break.”

Yes, but the coverage that was available shows the same temperature profile as the Northern Hemisphere, where it was just as warm then as it is now, which shows that CO2 is a minor player with regard to the Earth’s temperatures since there is much more CO2 in the air today than there was in the past, yet it is no warmer today than it was then.

I think even scant coverage of the temperatures is valuable especially when that coverage corresponds with the much better coverage available elsewhere, and those patterns all show that CO2 is not the control knob of Earth’s temperatures.

People in far away places can read a thermometer just as well as someone located in the United States. When they all show the same results (no unprecedented warming today) then I think we have something that refutes the CO2 scaremongering by alarmists.

The written record is the closest thing we have to the truth. The computer-generated temperature records are junk created for political purposes to promote the fear of CO2.

January 11, 2023 7:57 am

The annual average temperatures are presented with a precision of 0.01 degrees. The raw temperature measurement precision is on the order of 0.1 degrees. The annual averaging process also induces some error through though I am not sure what it is. The upshot is that the error of the annual average temperatures are greater than 0.1 degrees. If they are presented as such, many of the annual average temperatures are indistinguishable.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
January 11, 2023 1:41 pm

Well, I would like it to stop warming for maybe two decades or so, completely plateau, then it’s OK to start a bit of warming again if the ‘crisis’ is forgotten. My daughter might like it to continue warming then. I probably will no longer care. 😉
Wishful thinking, I know.

More Soylent Green!
January 11, 2023 8:11 am

If we used the Kelvin scale for these temperature charts and showed the changes in absolute numbers the line would be essentially flat for the last century.

Rick C
January 11, 2023 10:06 am

I don’t trust NOAA charts anymore due to all the manipulation that has been exposed. I also don’t think “global average temperature” is a well defined or meaningful metric. That said, a some observations regarding the two charts shown.

  1. Both charts conveniently start at 1940 and thus exclude the very warm 1930s.
  2. The NYT chart apparently selected a different baseline (pre-industrial) no doubt to avoid showing any cooling that occurred into the 1970s.
  3. Neither chart indicates uncertainty associated with the data which is surely very significant and probably equal to or greater than the magnitude of the anomaly data itself.
Clyde Spencer
January 11, 2023 10:29 am

The eight warmest years on record have now occurred since 2014, …

Monckton has made the case that there has been no statistically significant warming for over 8 years.

If the current situation were to magically continue for the next 42 years, the alarmists could correctly claim that “the last 50 years are the hottest on record.” That could be followed up by, “the last 100 years …”

The absence of a trend is not evidence for warming.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 11, 2023 1:52 pm

Monckton has made the case that there has been no statistically significant warming for over 8 years.

M<ore than that. But by the same token the warming rate for UAH hasn’t been significantly less than 0.3°C / decade for the past 20 years, and hasn’t been significantly less than 0.5°C / decade for the last 9 years. Significance doesn’t have much meaning when you are looking at short time periods with highly variable data.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Bellman
January 12, 2023 1:16 pm

There is only one question in climate science: Are UN IPCC climate models sufficient to fundamentally alter our society, economy and energy systems? Everything else is bureaucratic bullshit.

January 11, 2023 11:18 am

The world is still warming up out of the Little Ice Age. We still have a little ways to go, before we finish recovering from the LIA. A few more tenths of a degree will get us back to what the world enjoyed during the Medieval Warm Period. We have even further to go till we recover to the temperatures of the previous warm periods, and at lest 3C to go till we return to the temperatures of the Holocene Optimum.

Reply to  MarkW
January 11, 2023 12:12 pm

The world is still warming up out of the Little Ice Age.

There was zero global warming between 1850 and 1930. If the world really has been warming up since the end of the LIA then that really was a pause worth mentioning!

January 11, 2023 11:58 am

…It should be noted that two El Niños occur in the period in question: 2014–16 and 2018–19.

Then it should also be noted that four La Niñas have occurred since 2014-16, including one that is current and has been ongoing since the summer of 2020.

It is often the case that new global record warmest temperatures are set during El Niño years, when the natural warming they produce pushes temperatures above what would be expected from the long term warming rate alone.

It happened in 1998 and 2010 and it’s happening again now. The long term warming trend has remained largely unaffected.

For example, the 30-year (360-month) rate of warming in NOAA up to the end of 2014, before this period of ‘sharp down-trending’ since 2015, was +0.16C per decade. The 360-month rate of warming in NOAA as of November 2022 has actually gone up and now stands at +0.20C per decade!

There’s no mystery. It’s because, despite the slight cooling trend since 2015, temperatures have remainded at record-high levels. Linear regression picks that up.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  TheFinalNail
January 13, 2023 7:07 am

“temperatures have remainded at record-high levels.”

Not in the United States. In the United States, 1934 was hotter than 1998 by about 0.5C, according to the Climate God, James Hansen.

So the United States hasn’t been at record-high temperature levels since the 1930’s, despite all the additional CO2 added to the Earth’s atmosphere since that time.

Here’s the U.S. chart (Hansen 1999).

comment image

It shows the 1930’s as being warmer than 1998, and since 1998 and 2016 are very close in temperature, that makes the 1930’s warmer than 2016, too.

No unprecedented warming in the United States in the modern era.

Walter Sobchak
January 11, 2023 2:20 pm

If you want to complain about the graph, let us start with its biggest sin.

All of thermodynamics is based on absolute temperatures. The SI unit is the Kelvin where 0 Celsius is 273.15 Kelvin.

All graphs should be based on zero. A graph of global temperatures in K and showing zero whould show that the variations of the last 80 years are fluctions of less than 1 per cent of the base. It is all just noise.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
January 12, 2023 1:15 pm

I dislike “anomaly” even more as the reference base can move at any time. Worse the formula for calculating any reference base can change. °K or °C or °F merely need annotation and scale. °F is pretty handy. 0°F is dmn cold. 100°F is dmn hot.

If we are serious. Set modern temperature ranges from 20% below the lowest ever recorded to 20% above. That’s what -90°F to +160°F? Midway is 45°F not too far from expected.

January 12, 2023 2:40 pm

My long-term advice is “Don’t draw trend lines on graphs.” The slope of a trend line always depends on starting and ending points.

Nonetheless, I’m going out on a limb and state (in unison with Dr. Spencer) that the UAH satellite data 44 year long trend is a gradual warming of 1.3 C/ century.

As with Medieval and Roman warming, expect another 150 years of gradual warming followed then by a sharp cooling trend and after that, the end of the 20K year Interglacial, and the start of a new Glacial Cycle (though that could take another few thousand years, but maybe sooner). That’s the pattern in the past 100K years of modern climate. No reason to expect that to change. Deal with it.

Josh Scandlen
January 23, 2023 1:31 pm

could have sworn my granddad was born in 1927. I guess I was wrong, as according to NOAA humanity began in 1940

Verified by MonsterInsights