What they don’t say about “the hottest ever year” — 20 year warming trend is one third of what models predicted

Don’t mention the trend

The warming in the last two decades is 0.06C/decade not 0.22C.

The hottest ever year tells us nothing about the cause of global warming, but the 20 year trend does — and the message from the trend is “the models are wrong”.

Despite the Chinese releasing gigatons of coal fired CO2 into the air,  the warming that has happened has been tiny compared to what their models predict. It is so low the Global Worriers won’t talk about the trend. Gone are the days when they would discuss degrees per decade. Meh! The same people who scoffed at skeptics for mentioning one freak season are now reduced to picking on one freak El Nino, and pumping annual tiny fractions of “record” after “record”. If the sun caused global warming (the evidence is there) we’d still be getting warm records, especially in El Nino years. What’s amazing is that after a record El Nino the world hit pretty much the same temperature as it did in 1998.

Dr David Evans has just recalculated the warming trend for the last two decades and found that the warming effect is a big six hundredth of a degree per decade, about one third the rate the expert climate models predicted. If the “best” models we have were right, the world would have warmed by around 0.22C per decade, not 0.06C.  The current warming trend is equivalent to less than one degree a century, which is just like last century. Whatever.

CO2 may have done all the warming the models predicted, but all it takes is one dang feedback loop that they forgot, which reroutes that energy to space and CO2 becomes irrelevant.

If the ABC science team were skeptical instead of gullible, they’d know to ask Will Steffen and others about these trends. And if we use the trends from the entire satellite record since 1979 the warming still only comes in at 0.12C — half the rate those models predict. Far from accelerating as our emissions increased, the observations don’t fit the theory. Something else is more powerful than CO2 and the modelers don’t know what it is.   — Jo


Guest post by Dr David Evans

Temperature spin: World temperatures hit new high in 2016 for third year in a row, NOAA and NASA say, by the ABC.

World temperatures have hit a record high for the third year in a row in 2016, creeping closer to a ceiling set for global warming with extremes including unprecedented heat in India and ice melt in the Arctic, US government agencies say.

No technical lies there, but it is misleading.

People keep asking me, so here is the truth as measured by our best method of measuring temperature globally, the satellites:

Global Temperature Trends, 2017. Climate Model comparison. UAH, satellite data.


I chose the start date as just after the warming of the mid 1970s to mid 90s was petering out, at a nice round 20 years, because it best makes the point that global warming has more or less stopped. Download the data yourself.

Until global warming slowed dramatically, the warming crowd always loudly told everyone to ignore individual yearly temperatures and to focus instead on trends. So I put in a couple of trend lines on the graph.

The current estimate of sensitivity to increasing carbon dioxide by the IPCC* corresponds to an underlying warming rate of 0.22 °C per decade, but for the last 20 years it has only been warming at 0.06 °C per decade, as shown.

Given that it’s for a period of two decades now, that’s pretty much a FAIL for the big computerized climate models. The first prediction by the IPCC, in their first Assessment Report in 1990, was even higher at 0.30 °C per decade (and they said up to 0.50 °C per decade, but definitely not lower than 0.20 °C per decade), an even bigger FAIL.

We recently discovered that all the climate models have an error in them, subtle but important and baked into the cake for decades. The book I am writing is almost ready, stayed tuned at sciencespeak.com. The major influence on the global temperature is the Sun, which indirectly influences how much incoming radiation from the Sun is reflected back out to space by clouds without warming the Earth. The next climate trend is cooling.

The large upward spikes in 1998, 2010, and 2016 are El Ninos, which technically warm the surface of the Pacific ocean but do not change its heat content (lower winds means the colder water below the surface layer does not mix the surface as much) — so they are pretty much irrelevant for climate trends. 2016 was just warmer than 1998, and the spike went higher. The low spikes are La Ninas — when extra wind cools the ocean surface by mixing it more with the cooler water below — and are also short term phenomena that are not directly relevant to warming or cooling trends.

According to the data used in the graph above, namely the NASA satellite data processed by the people who invented measuring temperatures from space at the University of Huntsville in Alabama, the warmest four years since 1979 when satellite monitoring began were, in order:

2016, at 0.504 °C

1998, at 0.483 °C

2010, at 0.333 °C

2015, at 0.259 °C

(all temperatures with respect to the same arbitrary baseline)

* An ECS of 3.0 °C.

UPDATE: Someone asked about the entire satellite record, which goes back to late 1978 and includes most of the recent warming spurt (mid 70s to mid 90s):

UAH Global Temperature Trends, 1978 - 2017. Graph. Dr David Evans.

9.3 out of 10 based on 76 ratings

141 comments to What they don’t say about “the hottest ever year” — 20 year warming trend is one third of what models predicted

  • #

    When you finish an ice age – even a Little Ice Age – the climate, by definition, gets warmer.




    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Oh great! I suppose that we are now going to be pestered by the moronic non-scientists claiming that SUV’s, and long-haul passenger aircraft, ruined the pristine and unique Little Ice Age.


      • #

        Not in c. 1830… Unless you want to blame George Stevenson and his “Rocket”.

        We’ve put 60% of the man-made CO2 into the atmosphere since 1970’s and the temperature hasn’t moved – not a good look for the half-baked AGW theory advocates.




  • #
    Peter Miller

    The first and most obvious comment about climate models is that if your political masters want global warming or Thermageddon, that’s what you give them, that’s if you want to maintain your comfortable lifestyle.

    I will never forget a day in July, about 20 years ago, when I was in the southern USA, when I saw the weather forecast predicting a high of 58 degrees F. That obviously had to be wrong, or so I thought. Around 10.00am, this huge thunderstorm started and down came the temperature to the point where we were all shivering with cold.

    I believe the models are totally unable to predict the effect of clouds reflecting more sunlight back into space and the cooling impact of greater amounts of rain, if global humidity rises in response to rising temperatures.

    Put simply, our planet has its own very complex thermostat, which we are a long way from beginning to understand, let alone model. If it didn’t have this thermostat, none of us would be here and it is doubtful if life could have advanced much beyond single cell organisms.


    • #
      Eric Simpson

      I was driving in the desert one day near Palm Springs, California. My car thermometer was reading ~ 95°F. Then out of the blue a bunch of clouds came over and it started pouring. I looked at the temperature and it was like 62°. Yes, rain cools.


  • #
    el gordo

    They are all playing down the importance of El Nino for the spike, nevertheless its still relatively flat, margin of error and all that.

    ENSO remains neutral and according to BoM produces ‘weather extremes due to the influence of secondary or local factors.’

    Such as blocking highs and a wayward jetstream.

    Theoretically, temperatures should fall in 2017 and without the assistance of La Nina.


  • #

    Take out the El Nino/La Nina and all that’s left is trendless thermal noise. Not that a trend can be reliably extracted from such a short period of time.


    • #

      Thanks tom0 🙂

      I have shown this fact many times.

      Let’s also consider what will happen to the trend even including the 2015/2016 as temperatures either level out or, more likely, start to trend downwards slightly over the next several months.

      The trend including the El Nino will drop down closer and closer to ZERO, until the 2015 Elo Nino is nothing but a transient blip.


    • #
      Peter C

      What is the noise in the UAH temperature graph?

      There are lots of little ups and downs. It is hard to accept that the massive thermal mass of the Earth responds in such a fashion. Are these measurement errors?

      UAH does not give error bars (as far as I know)/


      • #


        The error on each monthly data point in UAH is about 0.1C (it ‘s roughly that for all the major temperature datasets, except of course the ocean ones, which are vastly less uncertain!!!).

        So that “noise” would appear to be genuine fluctuations in surface temperature — also they mainly correlate well between surface thermometers and satellites.

        It’s probably important, but no one is quite sure how yet, AFAIK.


        • #

          David, The error on GISS, Had etc would be far, far greater than 0.1ºC

          Many of the individual surface sites will have errors of +/-2ºC, maybe even as high as +/-5ºC.

          Because they are not measurement of the same place, object, time, type etc, the error calculation of large samples does not hold true.

          The error of the so-called global average, is the average error of the individual measurements.

          Throw in the fabrication of temperatures for nearly half the land surface area,
          and GISS temperature could easily be anywhere from -1ºC to +3ºC from reality.


        • #

          “except of course the ocean ones, which are vastly less uncertain”

          ??? hey ??? MORE uncertain.

          Before 2003 the measurements were so sparse as to be a joke.



          • #

            Andy, the uncertainty advertised on ocean temperature data points is about 0.002C, and the warming since 2003 (when Argo began) is about 0.06C. Isn’t is amazing that we can measure a 3-D volume (the oceans to 700m or 2000m) so much better than a 2-D surface (surface temps)! And there is no satellite coverage to sweep through the volume the way there is with satellites and the lower troposphere.

            This suggests we need an “Argo of the air”, using those super accurate sensors they use for ocean temperatures, mounted on dirigibles or something that randomly sample the near-surface air temperatures.

            More seriously, the situation is not credible. It is an abuse of statistics. To lower the ocean uncertainties so spectacularly the climatologists assumed that the individual ocean stats were independent and identically distributed (iid), but of course they are not.

            And yes, the situation before 2003 is a total joke coverage wise. Good reference.


            • #

              You cant smooth a time series (although its more a trendline but anyway). The plot y=.0123x-24.. is meaningless. I dont trust NASA data one bit anyway. Whos to say what it really is knowing all their ‘adjustments’ on land based thermometers.
              Oil is good. Yep 20th-21st century technology relies on it regardless of what the ‘green eco-nutters say’

              With White House “climate change” page now removed, a pledge to increase drilling has been added as part of ‘An America First Energy Plan.’

              Oil is not a fossil fuel. Coming from depths that are well below any sedimentary fossil layers by modern drilling techniques. (search Abiotic oil and gas.)


        • #
          Peter C

          Thanks David


  • #

    Just in case a few here; ie particularly red thumbers in their ignorance, haven’t got the message as yet on the IPCC’s very specific agenda driven role in the pursuit of a human influence on the global climate, this is a couple of paras from the IPCC’s charter.

    And it really has very little to do with real science and real scientific research as it should be practiced as understood by most of us on Jo’s blog.

    The URL for this copy of the IPCC’s basic charter principles is ; https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf so it is from the official IPCC source.


    1. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as the IPCC or, synonymously, the Panel) shall concentrate its activities on the tasks allotted to it by the relevant WMO Executive Council and UNEP Governing Council resolutions and decisions as well as on actions in support of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change process.

    2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

    3. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process. Since the IPCC is an intergovernmental body, review of IPCC documents should involve both peer review by experts and review by governments.

    From the statement of the IPCC’s Principles above;

    a / the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change,

    Highlighted by myself as being very specific about the aims of the IPCC which limits and cancels out any research which suggests and even proves that human beings are not involved or responsible for the variations and changes in the climate, both local and global;

    b / and review by governments.

    Highlighted as bringing the review by governments into the so called IPCC climate research which immediately politicises and politically fouls the entire IPCC research nest.

    Governments and the hordes of lobbyists and scammers and the intellect free clapping green claque all have a major say and influence on the entire science of the climate as it is promulgated by the IPCC through the overweening influences of the political manipulators of the IPCC and its science.

    [ Remember the IPCC is a UN controlled and created body so what else would one expect! ];.

    Which we see when we look at the IPCC’s Summary for Policy Makers report which is very heavily modified by bureaucrats and governments in a political negotiating round before release.

    And then the actual IPCC “Scientific Report” which deals a lot more honestly with the science of the climate and for the most part leaves out the political’s influences on the science of the climate as far as that science is “known”.

    The “known” part of the science of the climate so far is about the equivalent of climate scientists walking across a vast landscape blindfolded and then writing up voluminous papers on how the aforesaid landscape looked based entirely on how they felt when they took that walk.


    • #
      Peter Miller

      Your last paragraph sums up the current situation incredibly well.

      It reminds me of the great alarmist claim/BS that “we can predict the weather two days from now very well, but our 14 day forecasts are not so good, while we are excellent in predicting climate 50 years from now.”

      Yeah, right.


  • #

    I hate noisy graphs where you have to squint to see that the trend line is reasonable and where a horizontal line is as good a fit as any except that people expect a line going up. It all assumes there are no larger natural oscillations on scales of 10,50,100,200 years and there is no reason to believe that.

    As Murry Selby says, there is no connection with steady CO2 growth, even if that steady growth was man made which it is not. This is sort of analysis is closer to a Rorschach test with inkblots. You could imagine it was a dragon at rest or just random noise as much as a graph of some significant change. It is in fact remarkably steady. There is no 1C per decade rapid, runaway, tipping point, end of world warming, 5C per 100 years end of world man made heating. As for what the temperature was 100 years ago, I doubt that could be projected to better than +/-1C, so there just is no demonstrated problem and every age of man which has prospered has been slightly warmer anyway. Now about those 300,000 windmills?


  • #

    Another “blast from the past”.

    Another way of looking at the last 150 years of temperature rise.


    In answer to Richard,

    You mentioned 1850; supposedly the starting date for us humans to have begun : “global warming”.

    This is a look at the “quantitative” possibility of man made CO2 being a Force for evil: it uses the start date of 1850.

    From 2011



    October 24, 2011 at 9:10 am

    Every “Climate Scientists” presentation I have seen tells lies by omission.

    For example we are told that “Carbon Dioxide will blah, blah, blah ….. and if CO2 doubles then … blah, blah, blah ”.

    They will Never separate out the Human effect of CO2 from the Total CO2 effect.

    They will never acknowledge the presence of water vapour in the air because as a Green House Gas it wipes the floor with CO2.

    So, as a last post, I felt it important to give examples of how the CO2 we produce really influences the climate and will use a very

    concrete example of a real measured period from our recent past.

    With apologies to Rudyard Kipling.


    Active Carbon Dioxide Distribution is:

    a. 98% of Earths ( active ) CO2 is dissolved in the oceans.

    b. 2% of Earths ( active ) CO2 is in the atmosphere.

    c. 97% of atmospheric CO2 is of Natural Origin.

    d. 3% of atmospheric CO2 is Human attributable.


    e. Atmospheric H2O is about 95% of the total greenhouse effect.

    It would seem then that if we want to control CO2 levels we need to control three items:

    1. The oceans and 2. Water vapour 3. Natural CO2 emissions.

    Logically the Atmospheric CO2 and Ocean origin CO2 interaction needs serious study and Human CO2 emissions are rendered insignificant by

    the sheer weight of the Water GHG effect and natural origin CO2.

    So the Total GHG effect is

    1. Water about 95%

    2. Total CO2 about 4% of GHG effect

    3. Human proportion of CO2 is 3% of the above 4% or, from another viewpoint, 0.12 % of all GHG effect.


    If world atmospheric temperature rose by 0.6 C degrees over the last 150 years from 1860 (maybe).

    And if Greenhouse gases are the only cause of this rise (very debateable).

    And if human origin CO2 is to be taken into account.


    Our part of the world’s green house gas effect is 0.0009 C degrees of the temperature rise of 0.6 C degrees.

    (calculated as a min). (Approx 0.0016 C max)

    The rest is nature.

    Likewise we are responsible for 0.0048 mm (max) of the annual 3mm ocean increase.

    Over 100 years WE would cause 0.48 mm sea rise.

    Holy Crap Batman.

    We’ve been had by the IPCC, WWF and many politicians.

    The “revelation” above is simply confirmation of the real science.

    When you quantify the “Green House” ( if I can use that term) effects:

    • we have a major winner in Water

    • followed by Natural produced CO2

    • and way behind both in magnitude, Human Related CO2 struggling to make any visible impression on the system.

    So CCS and Carbon Abatement, Carbon Footprint, Responsible Energy and other catchphrases of the Church of AGW may now be consigned to
    the sin bin where they belong.

    This has been my last post.

    Good luck.

    Also because of the log effect of CO2 we humans will provide even less bang for the buck when next the atmospheric CO2 increases

    by the same amount as from 1850 to now. (if there was any actual increase after the fudging is removed.



  • #

    It’s reasonable to criticise current models, but why do it in a way that is misleading?

    Why compare a lower troposphere product (UAH) with model estimates of “an ECS of 3.0 °C”? ECS is equilibrium climate sensitivity: this describes the near surface warming expected after a doubling of CO2 (ie at 560ppm, not quite there yet).

    Why chose a start date “after the warming of the mid 1970s to mid 90s was petering out”?

    The UAHv6 LT you use has a maximum weighting at about 4km above the surface, and includes some of the stratosphere (where there should be cooling). Using the previous dataset UAHv5.6 LT, which has different ‘adjustments’, you get a trend over the same period (1997-2016) of 0.16, almost triple your presented observed trend. Why use V6 which hasn’t been published yet? And why use a lower troposphere product at all if you’re comparing to near surface estimates?

    If you want to compare surface estimates, try this blog: like for like, over longer period, mutliple datasets and with all models results shown. There is still a sizeable difference for trends, just nowhere near what you present above.

    If you want to compare troposphere estimates, try this paper.


    • #


      It sounds like you are new to this?

      An ECS of 3.0C implies a sensitivity to increasing carbon dioxide, and when combined with the observed carbon dioxide increases to date gives a rate of warming. Currently, that is 0.22C per decade. Don’t have to wait for carbon dioxide to actually double.

      You asked “Why chose a start date “after the warming of the mid 1970s to mid 90s was petering out”?” I said in the post “I chose the start date as just after the warming of the mid 1970s to mid 90s was petering out, at a nice round 20 years, because it best makes the point that global warming has more or less stopped.” Hidden in plain sight.

      Changes in LT match changes in surface temp, so it is an accepted method of measuring near-surface air temps.

      More details on the carbon dioxide modeling:

      The carbon dioxide model used to generate the warming rate uses a step response that rises exponentially to 80% of the ECS over the first 50 years (front-loaded so most of the response occurs sooner rather than later) (for the fast feedbacks), then rises exponentially almost asymptotically to the full ECS after 1,000 years (for the slow feedbacks). This step response gives the same ramp response as the GCMs canvassed in the IPCC’s third assessment report (TAR) in Figure 9.1 (see http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/345.htm). The ramp response is the rise in surface temperature if carbon dioxide increases by 1% per year until it doubles (which takes about 70 years).

      AR5 mentions the possibility of a thousand years or more to reach the full effect of a new carbon diox-ide level, so the step response of our carbon dioxide model is chosen to last over 1,000 years.

      In AR5 the values from the GCMs give rise to basic physics values by which the basic physics estimates an ECS of 2.4 °C. Yet the AR5 ECS is 3.0 °C, which suggests than an 80% warming due to the fast feedbacks, then 20% due to slow feedbacks. Thus we set the first, quickly rising portion of the step response fraction to 80% of the ECS.

      With the settings above, for the ramp response to hit 2.0C at 70 years as in Figure 9.1 of the TAR requires that the quick time point be at about 50 years. This also gives a transient climate response (TCR) of 2.0 °C, also agreeing with Figure 9.1.

      The step response thus obtained for our carbon dioxide model reaches 15% of its final value after 1 year, about 30% after 5 years, 50% after 10 years, 68% after 20 years, 76% after 30 years, 79% after 40 years, 80% after 50 years, and 100% after 1,000 years. The effect of fiddling with the shape of the response curve on the current decadel rate of warming in Figure 25 are almost unnoticeable, so don’t get too uptight about the precise shape of the step response.


      • #


        Please, please, please stop talking about the “sensitivity to increasing carbon dioxide” as if it has any validity whatsoever.

        There is simply no atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect. None. It does not exist.

        If we argue about the degree of warming caused by CO2 we are playing in the alarmist sandpit under their rules and that is a battle we can never win.

        Energy is not Heat. A transfer of radiative energy does not necessarily mean that there is a heat transfer. You do not have to conserve energy flux in a system only the total energy of that system.



        • #


          One of my greatest concerns about this whole mess is that there has never been a listing of all factors and mechanisms involved in producing the Earths “temperature”.

          As we both know, there are very good reasons for this: the truth would be too obvious and the scam would collapse.

          Even if the meme of “death by incineration due to CO2 induced global warming” was in some way real, the human contribution is irrelevant.

          My other comments in this thread address that issue.

          Human origin CO2 can do nothing and is irrelevant.

          We need to begin to address the very real issue that the ,”science” behind the global warming claims is false and lies more appropriately in the realms of religion and politics.

          In other words, we have the same understanding of things.

          As a trained scientist I feel great discomfort in discussing something called the “global temperature”.
          The term is scientifically meaningless.



      • #

        FAR dates from 1990. The temperature trend since then is 0.19dC /decade (UAH 5.6 and the same for GISTEMP). Temperature forcings are not isolated to CO2 alone, despite your simplistic contrast to that effect. Also, the FAR demonstrated that response to the ECS of CO2 is not lineal, again an incorrect assumption on your part.
        And it is you dropped that silly solar forcing model, every scientist since Usoskin has nailed that coffin.


        • #
          el gordo

          Silly could you give us that Usoskin link?

          In the meantime, there were more than hundred papers last year connecting our star to earthly climate.



        • #

          I have studied science, modelling and statistics at university level.

          Never heard of a thing called a “forcing”.

          It is a political term that might be used by film stars like Leonardo.

          Incidentally, any IR picked up by CO2 is immediately redistributed to other gas molecules in the vicinity; thus restoring equilibrium.

          At 11,000 metres altitude the air temperature is about minus 38 degrees Celsius.

          The radius of the earth is about 6,370,000 metres and you can see that the biosphere is a very small part of the whole.

          This thin skin of gas is all that keeps us alive so just hope and pray that it doesn’t lose too much of the Sun’s energy, we need to hold on to as much of that energy as possible, or we cease to be.



    • #

      moy-who?: Unreliable.. rabid alarmist, always bends to the AGW meme.

      Santer: one of the alarmista priests.

      You are being conned, Mat !!


    • #

      Thanks for your detailed response David.


    • #
      Peter C


      I clicked on your reference:


      but I did not understand it. Can you elaborate?


      • #

        Hi Peter, happy to.

        I’ve linked to an image produced by Dr Roy Spencer, the man behind the UAH satellite dataset. Satellites infer temperature from radiances in various wavelength bands. Using different weightings of bands, temperatures of different layers of the atmosphere can be inferred (after a whole lot of different algorithms – hence the difference between satellite datasets). It’s a complicated process that I don’t completely understand myself, but there is more information here, here and here if you’re interested.

        Basically UAH v6.0 has a weighting that is higher up in the atmosphere than previous “lower troposphere” products, and it shows by far the lowest trend over the last 20 years. Hence, it’s a controversial dataset to use, especially if comparing against surface temperatures.


        • #

          Just where has ‘Dr Roy Spencer, the man behind the UAH satellite dataset’ ever given the measured Balloon born data versus his nonsense calculation of temperature of some altitude at some location?

          These calculations from the radiance of atmospheric oxygen at several microwave frequencies can and are repeatable for such measured remote radiance, but not for any claimed “temperature” at such location! Intervening absorption from both airborne water vapor and airborne water colloid, of unknown amount, make such guesses of temperature worse than useless! Dr, Roy’s average temperature or ‘global temperature anomaly’, can be nothing better that ludicrous!! Would be accptable if such were used only to calculate atmospheric path water!
          All the best! -will-


          • #

            It isn’t difficult to calculate the temperature required from a black body to radiate at the level detected by the satellites. Since the satellites’ orbits cover the whole Earth, they can measure the temperature of every point on the Earth quite quickly.

            In any case, the satellites’ measurements are much more reliable than the Earth-bound thermometers in a white wooden box. There are lots of reasons for this, from poor siting, urban build-up, etc. These reasons are given by the warmists to justify fudging the temperature record to create a nice hockey-stick increase even in the presence of no warming.

            The idea of a “global temperature” is more problematic. Many people have suggested that you can’t just average them and call that the global temperature. I agree with them.

            However, in order to make statements such as “the planet is warming at an alarming rate”, the alarmists find it necessary to create this thing. In order to counter it, thinkers (skeptics) as opposed to believers (warmists) have had to adopt the same terminology.


            • #
              Harry Twinotter


              “Since the satellites’ orbits cover the whole Earth, they can measure the temperature of every point on the Earth quite quickly.”

              No, they do not cover the whole earth.

              They do not even measure temperature. If they did, can someone tell me the satellite temperature average for Sydney in 2016 and where I can find the raw data? I know the “temperature” is of a column of air 0-10km high, I want to compare it to the surface measurements.


            • #

              “Since the satellites’ orbits cover the whole Earth, they can measure the temperature of every point on the Earth quite quickly.”

              They measure what\where about the Earth quite quickly? Certainly nothing about ‘temperature’. Do you or anyone else actually know? How?

              “However, in order to make statements such as “the planet is warming at an alarming rate”, the alarmists find it necessary to create this thing. In order to counter it, thinkers (skeptics) as opposed to believers (warmists) have had to adopt the same terminology.”

              Very bad move to allow the opponent to set any rule!! Best to insist on some proof from the CAGW Clowns that a “global temperature” has any rational meaning whatsoever!


          • #

            Hi Will,

            I think that I get the gist of your comment and my summation may agree with recent comments by Andy and Truthseeker.

            It seems that atmospheric measurements are given to great accuracy and maybe that claim of accuracy is justified, I really don’t know.

            What is apparent is that what is actually being measured may not be the thing claimed; as you say, claiming you are measuring only oxygen radiance when in fact your results include a contribution from water is not good science.

            As a matter of curiosity, would the O2 radiance “temperatures” have been confirmed by actual thermometer measurements to ensure equivalence?

            The problem with “measuring” atmospheric temperature is that the situation being measured is so transient and the “result” a fraction of a second later may be quite different.

            What is given as a result may be very accurate,: the big question is WHAT was measured.

            In my backyard I got these temperature results from my digital IR gun.

            Pointed at the:

            Sun. 52.5 & 58C.
            Dirt in shade. 35.4C
            Concrete deck. 49.2
            Black plastic garbage lid. 77.7
            Grass. 50.5
            Brick wall
            Sun. 41.5
            Shade. 36.4
            30° from Sun. 4.3 C
            45° from Sun. 6.9

            How accurate are these results?

            What do they mean? What would I get if I used a bulb thermometer?



            • #

              “How accurate are these results?”
              I know not the manufacturer of your gun. The equivalent bb ‘brightness temperature’ over the range of wavelengths measured by your gun (generally 3-8 microns) can be quite good. This is the way they were calibrated. This is a poor band for atmospheric work. 3-5 microns is quite transparent to WV but 5-8 microns is mostly opaque with moderate relative humidity. With clouds all is opaque, so the temperature of cloud bottoms should be quite good. To get some idea of how poor such measurement can be; go to some still pond on a clear night. Water temperature will be constant. Compare your readings at strait down (nadir\normal) and 75° from normal, 15° incidence to the surface where reflectivity maximizes, (do not run out projected surface area). Why are they so very different?
              For actual thermometric or thermodynamic ‘temperature’ calibrate thermistors to a lab grade bulb thermometer, or use the TI 3 legged devices for 0.1° accuracy from 200K to 400K.

              “What do they mean? What would I get if I used a bulb thermometer?”
              Those numbers ‘mean’ that narrow band radiance while accurate as ‘thermal radiance’ has little to do with thermometric ‘temperature’. To be fair, when one increases so does the other!


              • #

                Thanks Will

                The big issue is having a clear understanding of what is being measured.

                It is all very well to get a satellite reading or a screen reading from my “gun” but that doesn’t guarantee you are measuring what you think you are measuring.

                If I have your comment correctly you are saying that, at best, satellite values are possibly a proxy for some sort of heating event near or at Earths surface.



              • #

                Sorry couldn’t find anything rational in that comment Will.


              • #

                TedM January 23, 2017 at 2:17 pm

                “Sorry couldn’t find anything rational in that comment Will.”

                What may you mean by your word ‘rational’?
                Please identify any ambiguity of any word of my post of Will Janoschka January 22, 2017 at 11:27 pm.


      • #

        Just a pretty picture to mat..

        Just pretty colours and lines.


  • #

    19 Jan: GWPF: David Whitehouse: 2016 Global Temperature: The Pause Never Went Away
    The Met Office yesterday confirmed that the warm record of 2016 was mainly driven by a very strong El Nino.
    Not that you would have heard this fact in the news. But Peter Stott, Acting Director of the Met Office Hadley Centre, said in no uncertain terms that, “a particularly strong El Nino event contributed about 0.2°C to the annual average for 2016.”
    By removing this temporary El Nino contribution from the Met Office’s 2016 data, it becomes obvious that global average temperatures would be essentially identical to where they were in 2014 (see fig 1)…READ ON

    19 Jan: RealClimateScience: Tony Heller: Scam Over In 26 Hours
    Global warming is indeed man-made. By fraudsters at NOAA and NASA who keep changing their data to make the past cooler and the present warmer. Based on the NASA temperature data from the year 2000 and satellite data since then, there has been no more than 0.6C warming since the middle of the 18th century. NASA shows more than twice that much warming now, due to their abuse of data…


  • #

    19 Jan: CarbonPulse: Davos: World needs $50-100 CO2 price, ***non-elite “ambassadors” to relay that message to a distrusting public
    A global carbon price of $50-100/tonne is needed to incentivise cleaner investment, but ***“trust-worthy ambassadors” need to be recruited by governments and companies to convey and explain this message amid rising populist movements and the public’s growing distrust of experts and ‘elites’…

    19 Jan: HuffPo: Message from Davos: Carbon pricing is back
    by Paul Simpson, CEO of CDP (Carbon Disclosure Project)
    As Stuart Gulliver, CEO of HSBC said in Davos, “Carbon disclosure and pricing are two sides of the same coin, together they enable an assessment of risk and where required a reallocation of capital.”…

    (GOBBLEDYGOOK?) In a session in Davos on the TCFD there was general consensus that consideration should be given to evolve the scenario analysis recommendation to agree reference scenario, for example those of the IEA or the reference scenario emerging as part of the corridors initiative…

    The Carbon Pricing Corridor offers a Paris-compliant reference scenario; which can serve as a guide for investors to help them monetise transition risk, updated twice a year, by a panel of business CEOs and investment insiders. There will be two publications a year, the first of which will be coming out this Spring, to tie-in with the G20 finance ministers meeting in Baden Baden, Germany and the IMF Spring Meeting in Washington DC…

    The Carbon Pricing Corridor, facilitated by We Mean Business and CDP, will also feed directly into the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition (CPLC) facilitated by the World Bank Group. It will complement the work of leading economists such as Joseph Stiglitz and Nick Stern who will also be reporting on needed carbon price levels in the Spring of 2017, focusing on the social costs of carbon, among other topics…READ ON

    how convenient?

    19 Jan: CarbonPulse: Brisbane City Council buys Chinese offsets to go carbon neutral
    Brisbane City Council in Australia has bought and cancelled nearly 400,000 UN-issued carbon offsets from Chinese wind projects to cut its emissions to zero.


    • #

      Brisbane ratepayers need to boycott this expense, deduct it off your rates bill and tell them why.


    • #

      “…to cut its emissions to zero.”

      That’s just an accounting transfer. The council still consumes as much fuel, as much electricity, produces as much waste which decomposes into methane, etc.

      The Americans have a saying, “No taxation without representation.” Did the council go to the polls with this stupid policy? No, I didn’t think so.


  • #


    19 Jan: CarbonBrief: Robert McSweeney: High temperatures to hit staple crops in the US this century, study says
    Staple crops grown in the US could see their yields drop substantially by the end of the century as daily temperatures regularly soar past 30C, a new study finds.
    Annual yields of maize, soybean and wheat could decline by 49%, 40% and 22%, respectively, compared to yields under today’s temperatures…
    But yields of these staple crops are threatened by climate change, says the new study published in Nature Communications (LINK). The researchers look specifically at the impact of days where temperatures exceed 30C…

    The research team used a collection of crop models to assess the impact of rising temperatures on the three crops by the end of the century. Their simulations assume a business-as-usual scenario, called RCP8.5, where emissions aren’t curbed and global average temperature rise is likely to hit 5C by 2100…
    ***Note, the study only considers temperature; it doesn’t factor in changes to rainfall or the frequency of extreme weather events…
    The findings do not suggest that high atmospheric CO2 cannot boost crop yields, the paper notes, but that it has only a limited potential to buffer against the negative impacts of high temperatures…

    19 Jan: Nature Communications: Consistent negative response of US crops to high temperatures in observations and crop models


  • #

    Poll: CNN Least Trusted Cable News Network
    Washington Free Beacon-10 Jan. 2017


    19 Jan: CNN: Trump doesn’t represent American views on climate change: a visual guide
    By John D. Sutter
    (John D. Sutter is a columnist for CNN Opinion who focuses on climate change and social justice)
    Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists say we’re largely to blame for global warming, according to peer-reviewed research…
    Seventy percent of Americans say climate change is happening; compared to only 13% who say it’s not real, according to a national poll of Americans released Wednesday by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and the the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication. (The remaining percentage of respondents either said they did not know or did not answer the question)…
    The researchers interviewed 1,226 adults between November 18 and December 1, after the US presidential election. The percentage of Americans who say climate change is real is generally up from a low of 57% in 2010…
    More than half of Americans think global warming is mostly human-caused…
    The Yale and George Mason researchers found 55% of Americans surveyed “understand that global warming is mostly human caused, which is the highest level since November 2008,” when the group started conducting comparable surveys. That compares to only 30% of those surveyed who said, ***incorrectly, that climate change is “due mostly to natural changes…”…

    ***The fastest growth in understanding? That comes from conservatives, said Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. “The real movement is coming from Republicans and in particular among conservative Republicans,” he said. “The percentage [of conservative Republicans] is up 19 percentage points in the past couple years. That’s kind of remarkable.” (OR UNBELIEVABLE!)***

    2016 likely the warmest year on record …
    Meanwhile, an even larger majority of Americans — 69% — say the US should support the Paris Agreement…
    And nearly 80% support taxing and/or regulating carbon pollution…
    The Yale and George Mason researchers found a stunning 78% of registered voters “support taxing global warming pollution, regulating it, or using both approaches.” …

    ***A Pew Research Center survey from May and June 2016 found that only 36% of Americans care “a great deal” about climate change — with 72% of them identifying as Democrats and 24% as Republicans…

    CNN’s Sean O’Key contributed to this report. Correction: An earlier version of this story mischaracterized a study on how opinions about global warming are formed. When people are exposed to the fact that nearly all climate scientists agree humans are causing climate change, their own estimates about the level of scientific consensus increases by 19 percentage points, not their belief in climate science.

    Climate Change in the American Mind: November 2016
    The report includes many other interesting results, including measures of public feelings of anger, fear and hope about global warming and the frames by which Americans conceptualize the issue (e.g., as an environmental, scientific, political, moral, or religious issue). Download the report here.(LINK)


  • #
    el gordo

    The satellite graph (979 -2016) shows no pause, why is it so?


    • #

      Because the 1998 El Nino caused s step change. There are actually 2 pauses with a step between

      Putting linear trends across step changes is a monkey’s game.


      • #

        Yes Andy, I’ve seen this for a decade, each el nino produces an up step (resets the baseline earth energy) each la nina produces a step down resets the baseline energy down. Between the steps if solar input is enough (cloudiness is low enough) the temp trends up from that new baseline. If the solar input is low (cloudy) then it trends down. Given that incoming energy is pretty balanced with outgoing, any steps due to el-nino and la-nina tend to be preserved (Once the baseline energy goes up then there is enough sunlight to maintain it). This can’t go on forever though because F = σ T4 as the surface temperature rises the power emitted increases to Temp ^ 4. Adding 3 degrees to surface temperature causes 16.5 Watts per square metre more EMISSION. This is what sets the upper limit of earth’s temperature.


        • #

          Actually bobl.. only major EL Nino seem to cause a step up.. sudden discharge from ocean to atmosphere.. NOTHING to do with CO2

          La Nina tends to give a gradual trend downwards, barely detectable, as extra solar energy acts as a recharge. again.. NOTHING to do with CO2


      • #
        • #
          Peter C

          Very droll.


        • #

          Proof that Andy thinks.. and that Mat is a monkey

          Well done.

          I want to see you slide down that smooth trend of your, Mat 😉


        • #

          Mat must have a very difficult life, not knowing the difference between a set of stairs and a slippery slide.

          How do you cope under a high ball when trying to catch it, Mat.

          Do you still think its trending upwards as it scones you between the eyes?


        • #

          Amazing what a 5 year old can do when he puts is mind to it, isn’t it.

          (Stop making unproductive snide comments) CTS


        • #

          Regardless Mat.. you still have to use the steps to get to the top. 😉


    • #

      Doesn’t look like a true pause to me. A 0.12C is pretty miniscule though.

      I’ve asked here before. How is the so called “average” determined? I believe in climate, there is no such thing!


      • #
        el gordo

        A world average is meaningless, we need to look at regions to gauge what is happening. Winter temperatures in the continental US have been on the slide throughout the pause and fiercer blizzards are implicated, but what are the mechanisms?



        • #

          YOu want a list.. here is a start.. time periods and places with no warming

          1. No warming in the UAH satellite record from 1980 to 1998 El Nino

          2. No warming between the end of that El Nino in 2001 and the start of the current El Nino at the beginning of 2015.

          3. No warming in the southern polar region for the whole 38 years of the satellite record.

          4. No warming in the southern ex-tropicals for 20 years.

          5. No warming in Australia for 20 years, cooling since 2002

          6. No warming in Japan surface data for the last 20 years, No warming from 1950-1990.. ie, a zero trend for 40 years through their biggest industrial expansion

          7. No warming in the USA since 2005 when a non-corrupted system was installed, until the beginning of the current El Nino.

          8. UAH Global Land shows no warming from 1979-1997, then no warming from 2001 – 2015

          9. Iceland essentially the same temperature as in the late 1930s as now, maybe slightly lower

          10. British Columbia (Canada) temperatures have been stable, with no warming trend, throughout 1900-2010

          11. Chile has been cooling since the 1940s.

          12. Southern Sea temperatures not warming from 1982-2005, then cooling

          13. Even UAH NoPol shows no warming this century until the large spike in January 2016.

          There are probably many more one could add to the list

          Basically , any time period or region not directly affected by EL Nino or ocean oscillations .. is NOT WARMING.


          • #
            el gordo

            Thanks for that list.

            Assuming climate is not totally chaotic, is there any time in the past that the earth has experienced the present conditions ?

            This is an intellectual exercise and not to be taken lightly.


            • #

              I’m sure there would be other periods with this sort of climate stability.

              Obviously, and very thankfully we had the climb out of the LIA, but since 1940 all we have had is dip of about half a degree, then a couple of fractional degree step changes up to the very slightly warmer period we are now in, probably a bit above or below 1940 depending where you are.

              Extraordinarily stable from well over a century.

              If one were to look for similar conditions further back, probably look at the cooler end of the Medieval Warm Period as it started to dip into the Little Ice Age.


  • #

    getting down to the nitty gritty:

    19 Jan: BloombergNewEnergyFinance: India May Be a Bright Spot for Global Solar Markets This Year
    India is expected to add nearly twice as much new solar as last year, outpacing once-booming Japan, according to forecasts by Bloomberg New Energy Finance. China, the world’s largest renewables market, will see solar growth dip by about a fifth after peaking in 2016, London-based BNEF predicts.
    Bolstered by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ambitious clean-energy goals, India’s rising appetite for solar power spells good news for Chinese solar cell and module manufacturers including Trina Solar Ltd. and Hanwha Q Cells Co…

    Japan’s solar installations for 2016 are estimated at 8.6 gigawatts to 9.2 gigawatts, lower than in 2015, according to BNEF’s forecast. The drop comes as the country scales back generous incentive tariffs…
    China and Japan are now planning to adopt auctions. While India has conducted auctions since 2010 to build solar projects, Japan has promised to introduce the mechanism this year in a bid to lower the subsidies developers receive…READ ALL

    18 Jan: BloombergNewEnergyFinance: The shift to ‘base-cost’ renewables: 10 predictions for 2017
    By Michael Liebreich, Chairman of the Advisory Board and Angus McCrone, Chief Editor, Bloomberg New Energy Finance
    When Christopher Columbus and the other great explorers undertook their epic voyages of discovery in the 15th and 16th centuries, they navigated a world of extraordinary risks. Buffeted by the worst storms the great oceans could throw at them, ravaged by illness, under constant threat of attack. On they sailed, eyes on the horizon, sustained by their dreams of discovering new lands. Welcome to the world of clean energy in 2017!…

    At the beginning of 2016, we listed some of the grave threats facing clean energy, but we felt that the sector was well-placed to withstand them. “Clean energy,” we said, “is now a third-of-a-trillion-dollar industry, with a strong cadre of competitive suppliers, enjoying a generally supportive policy environment – now underpinned by the commitments made in Paris.” …
    Nevertheless, when BNEF published its full-year investment figures earlier this month, they were down a significant 18 percent on 2016, to $287.5 billion…

    At the start of 2017, it is again easy to list the potential storms that might disrupt the smooth sailing of the good ship clean energy. First and foremost, of course, the potentially tempestuous consequences of Donald Trump’s arrival in the White House. Another is Brexit, which has been generating severe hurricane warnings, though no actual wind, for some time…READ ALL


  • #

    Let’s say I have a theory. I think this coin I have is double headed. I toss the coin a dozen times and get a dozen heads. This supports my theory but it doesn’t PROVE it. On my next toss, I get a tail. This is enough to prove my theory is wrong.

    If I predict that rising atmospheres will result from higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and if I see CO2 concentrations rise from by about 10% over a period of nearly 20 years, without any statistically significant change to global temperatures, then this theory is also proven wrong.




    • #

      That is actually a very simple and good analogy. Thank you for relating it.


    • #
      Phil C

      Just a minor tweak speedy- throwing a dozen heads in a row does not support the hypothesis “the coin has two heads”. It only doesn’t DISprove it. You can only disprove a hypothesis.

      The oft seen activist statement “this evidence is consistent with” is a fancy way of saying “I have no evidence, but I haven’t proved my hypothesis wrong”. Consistent with means nothing as to evidence.

      Unfortunately these days very little that is published gets retested by someone else and the results they get, disprove or not, rarely get published.


  • #
    Lawrie Waller

    Hopefully not OT.
    Question for Dr. Evans.
    In your first graph above you show a red (IPCC) line trend of 0.22 equivalent to an ECS of 3.
    Is it reasonable to assume some linearity here and take the black (empirical) trend of 0.06 as equivalent to an ECS of about 0.82? [(0.06/0.22)*3]?
    If this is anywhere near the mark(and yes I am flying by seat of pants here)
    would this not indicate the absence of feedback so beloved of the modelers; the temp increase being due solely to the greenhouse presence of CO2?


    • #


      Yes, it’s close enough to proportional/linear. To use the next significant figure from the LMS line of best fit (to be taken with a grain of salt, btw) 3.0 * .064 / .22 is about 0.9, so yes you are quite correct, if the observed trend was entirely due to increasing carbon dioxide then that would suggest an ECS of about 0.9C. But of course the trend is mainly due to solar modulation of the albedo, some CO2, and maybe some aerosols, maybe.

      The warmists would say the trend is not visible in only 20 years, and usually nominate 30 years as the minimum time for a trend. As if happens, 30 years is the length of the main ocean half-cycles — see Akasofu.

      The CO2 theory of global warming is wrong because all the climate models omit the rerouting feedback, which is NOT a feedback to surface warming and therefore has been systematically overlooked. As far as I can tell, the feedbacks in the climate models are correct and probably abut correctly parameterized. Book coming soon.


      • #

        On the other hand the 40 Years trend is only 1.2 deg per century anyway! Since the trend from 1850 to 2015 was around 1.4 deg per doubling, what we have seen recently is actually below the long term trend out of the LIA.

        Also David I have a bothersome problem you might address.

        The SB Theorem says F = σ T4 I put this in a spreadsheet and at 288 Deg a 3 deg rise in temp (an IPCC CO2 doubling) increases overall surface emission by 16.5Watts most of which goes out the IR atmospheric window yet the “forcing” from AGW for a doubling is only 3.7Watts. That’s overunity in my book, they are inventing energy!

        The basic model in the feedback term sums temperatures does it not, but the actual feedback is power (T^4) the feedback term is not stationary or linear!

        Also the loss ( That is surface emission ) is a function of temperature, that is at say 321 deg or the IPCC guess for a 100% CO2 atmosphere 3 degrees increase causes 22 Watts extra surface emission.

        Please comment?


        • #


          Good point: Only 1.2C per decade over nearly 40 years is getting pretty substantial — corresponds to an ECS of about 1.6 C. No wonder the warmists are nervous. AR5 lowered the minimum estimated ECS from 2.0C to 1.5C, I think.

          Applying SB to the surface of the earth tells you almost nothing, because only about 20% of the earth’s outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) is from the surface (or actually near the surface from water vapor mostly, the water vapor continuum). Most comes from cloud tops (20%), tropospheric CO2 (17%), stratospheric CO2 (3%), upper tropospheric water vapor (33%), and ozone, methane etc (7%). Applying SB to the whole earth, the effective radiating temp is 255K.

          There are four major emitters, and their temperatures are linked but do not change by the same mounts as the surface warms.

          I’ve been over it pretty carefully and the books all balance in their models. They are not inventing energy.

          All their feedbacks are in extra radiation imbalance per degree of surface warming. Fair enough. But they omit one of the two large water vapor feedbacks, the rerouting fb, which sucks all the power out of the increasing CO2 — while doubling Co2 reduces OLR by 3.7 W/m2 in the absence of rerouting, with rerouting it drops to only bout 0.8 W/m2 — so no need to get alarmed about increasing CO2.

          In the warmist models, one adds radiating forcings (imbalances), not temperature changes caused by the various climate drivers. The idea is that roughly one can compare and add the effects of different cliamte drivers via their forcings.


        • #

          “On the other hand the 40 Years trend is only 1.2 deg per century anyway”

          CANNOT linear extrapolate much beyond base data level.

          40 years you can only use trends up to a decade. Do not use “/century”.


  • #

    Global temperature, if it can be calculated, is a slow two-horse race between Warming and Cooling. Except for some buzz during the Younger Dryas-to-Optimum, the molasses-paced race for the last 15000 years has consisted of Warming and Cooling exchanging the lead very slightly. Not even worth lifting the binoculars.

    Don’t like a dribble of sea level rise? Get yourself an Ice Age.


  • #

    O/Topic – ABC hits new low? The Trump inauguration is almost on us and they think that is an appropriate time to put up an opinion piece by a guy from the ironically named Center for Public Integrity, which in the first paragraph references the Russian-prostitute hoax:


    You just wonder what kind of brainf@rts are happening at the watermelon ABC.


    • #

      I have no idea how good this bloke Trump is going to be, but I know the diff between six figures and the seven and eight figure sums the Clinton’s were taking from Gulf monarchies and arms manufacturers like Lockheed-Martin and Boeing. And there was that handy little sum paid in by Algeria just before Hillary took it off the terrorist watch list. (Actually, the money was paid into the Haiti relief fund, so it may have funded some tennis courts or Clinton crony factories or posh hotels somewhere before cycling back into the Clinton maw.)

      Of course, Australia gave them over 80 mill…and you never Oz on any terror watch lists. Thanks Hill ‘n Jules.


  • #

    The good doctor knows the meaning of ‘misleading’. By cherry picking only the last 20 years he can truely show a mild increase, but as we all know you have to look at the big picture and go further back – and what do you get ? – a much more rapid averaged increase with the last 3 years being successive records. This is what scientists have been repeatedly saying for years.
    Empirical data rules !


    • #
      llew jones

      The Hottest Yeah Evah! Really?
      Or a yet another example of activism masquerading as science?

      By William M Briggs Published on January 19, 2017



      • #

        So the facts are irrelevant to you ? .
        [You are being disingenuous Frank. Llew referenced an article, by a well respected statistician, that explains how your “facts” are generated out of nothing. You are also projecting, Frank. It is you, who treat the facts as being irrelevant. And you certainly have none of your own] Fly


        • #

          You haven’t produced any facts.

          You never do.

          The last three years HAVE NOT been successive records.

          You are, as usual.. misinformed.


        • #

          “Empirical data rules !”

          Yes it does.. that is why the AGW anti-CO2 scam is destined to die an un-natural death, (hopefully, sooner rather than later, so that world progress can be re-established)

          And by the way.. you do know that you have never actually produced any empirical data, don’t you.!


        • #

          Lieu references an article by ONE statistician going against the overwhelming number of scientists who think otherwise, yet you uncritically uphold it as true – very poor scientific standards.
          No, I don’t have my own data. For this I’d have to generate them which I can’t do, the same with you.
          I rely on the existing measurements produced by the World’s scientific bodies which they used to reach their conclusions – it’s called science.

          If you don’t like it the burden of proof is with you and so far you’ve come up with nothing .


    • #

      Going to hilarious next year isn’t it, Fronk 🙂

      El Nino transient.. all gone !!

      No more warming… RSS has the transient already decayed to just below the prior ZERO trend.


      “we all know you have to look at the big picture and go further back”

      …… then we are very much at the cold end of the current interglacial.


      Or did you want to cherry-pick a shorter period, hey Gronk


    • #
      Dave in the States

      The hottest year ever claims are tiny fractions of a degree, well within the margin error, and that’s assuming the data is even robust. Who is misleading who?

      Actually, these hottest ever claims apparently depend on inferred made up data for the Arctic regions. Made up data because there just isn’t very many data collection stations throughout that vast area. See here:



  • #
    Robert Rosicka

    I’ll trade the Labor party ,the Greens and most of the Liberals for one Trump .


  • #

    It was really REALLY hot here in Newcastle on Tuesday/Wednesday, over 40C, yesterday not so much, and today it has been raining and 25C.

    Summer, as normal.

    People with 5min iPhone attention spans worry me. They are politicians and public servants.


  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    Great blog Jo and David. Simple and honest truth without the smoke and mirrors we are used to from NOAH, NASA & the ABC.


  • #

    SOROS: Trump is an impostor, con-man and would-be-dictator. only ran for the presidency to embellish his brand, had no policies whatsoever until Putin won the race for him.
    Brexit is a disaster. Theresa May must go. then there can be a long divorce til perhaps 2020, by which time voters will have second thoughts about leaving the EU.
    we could then have Brexit on a Friday, negotiations over the weekend, and Britain back in the EU by Monday.
    lots about “Open Societies” being the best.
    but because both are attacked by Trump, EU and China should forge a really close relationship.
    B’Berg’s Francine never questions anything Soros says, and the audience silently hangs on to his every word, apart from a little applause here and there:

    VIDEO: 43mins47secs: 20 Jan: Bloomberg: In Conversation With George Soros at Davos 2017
    Soros Fund Management Chairman George Soros weighs in on the danger of a disintegrating European Union, and how markets are reacting to President-Elect Donald Trump. He speaks with Bloomberg’s Francine Lacqua from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland …

    19 Jan: UKTelegraph: Europe’s ideological civil war laid bare in Davos
    By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, in Davos
    “The whole idea of an ever-closer Europe has gone, it’s buried,” said Dutch premier Mark Rutte, dismissing calls for full political union as a dangerous romantic fantasy.
    “The fastest way to dismantle the EU is to continue talking about a step-by-step move towards some sort of superstate,” he said at the World Economic Forum…
    His comments went to the heart of a fierce battle under way for control over the EU project, and provoked an impassioned counter-attack from Martin Schulz, the European Parliament’s president.

    Mr Schulz called it profoundly misguided to give up the dream of political union and retreat to the nation state. “If it’s Angela Merkel, or Mark Rutte, or whoever else, they must have the courage to say that we need ever-closer union more than ever in the 21st century, and without it the EU has no future,” he said.
    “We have some members sitting inside the European Parliament trying to destroy the EU from within. They are drawing EU salaries, and one of them is running for the presidency of France,” he said.

    Professor Hans-Werner Muller from Princeton University said the EU was unlikely to disintegrate in any formal sense but there was a real risk that it will instead dissolve from within. “We will still have the Treaties, but they will not be observed,” he said.
    He accused Hungary and Poland of acting like rogue states inside the EU, abusing the rule of the law with a “brutality” not seen in democratic Europe since the Second World War…

    Emma Marcegaglia, head of the pan-EU federation BusinessEurope, told the Telegraph that it sticks in the craw to hear some countries talk about EU rules. Germany has been running a chronic current account surplus of 9pc of GDP in open breach of the EU’s ‘macro-imbalances’ edict, damaging to the cohesion of monetary union. Nothing is ever done.
    Why isn’t Germany being punished? We can’t go on like this, it’s not sustainable. Some people say Germany should leave the euro,” she said.”


  • #
    Mark M

    2014, 2015, 2016 = 3 Hottest Years Evah!

    Wait. What?
    Gavin Schmidt now admits NASA are only 38% sure 2014 was the hottest year
    . . .
    Did anyone check the fine-print for 2016?


  • #

    Dr Evans, the UAH6 dataset trend is further below the UAH5.6 dataset trend than the UAH 5.6 trend is from any of the other trends.


    Surely this must make you suspicious of the adjustments made by UAH in their latest beta version.


    • #

      Not at all.. Roy has fully justified the CORRECTIONS to the data.

      If one finds a KNOWN error, and can show how it should be fix.. then it should be fixed.

      Sorry you missed out on understanding the concept in your dubious education..


    • #

      David R, AFAIK UAH is the best dataset on global surface temperature change, the only one left standing after removing datasets that come from surface thermometers (HadCrut, GISTEMP, NOAA) or are knowingly including data from a satellite that is known to be trending too high (RSS).

      I don’t know the details of UAH 6 versus 5.6, but trust Spencer and Christy have good reasons publicly stated.

      All datasets are imperfect and come with a certain amount of trust.


      • #

        I saw discussion of the paper explaining the reason. They were very solid reasons.

        Unfortunately the AGW gatekeepers are STILL holding up its publication, which is stopping UAH from switching completely to V6.


  • #
    Robert Rosicka

    ABC has sunk lower , just flicked over and they’re talking up a nuclear war with China because of Trump .


  • #

    calling Trump a “denier” is sure to win him over, Al:

    20 Jan: Yahoo: Reuters: Al Gore rouses Sundance with climate film on eve of Trump induction
    By Piya Sinha-Roy
    Gore received a standing ovation after the premiere of “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power,” which opened this year’s Sundance Film Festival, as he encouraged audiences to place hope especially in solar power to tackle global warming.
    “Whether or not Donald Trump, inaugurated tomorrow, will take the kind of approach that continues this progress, we’ll have to see, but let me reiterate, no one person can stop this,” Gore told the audience…

    Gore never names Trump in the film, but the president-elect is seen on television during his campaign saying climate change was low on his list of priorities. After the election, Gore is seen entering the Trump Tower to meet the president-elect.
    When asked by an audience member if he could reveal what happened in the meeting, Gore declined to divulge details but said “it’s not the last conversation.”
    “There have been a lot of people who’ve started out as deniers and who have changed over time. Whether he will or not remains to be seen,” he said…

    young Josh has been an entertainment writer for years, and covered Sports for a year, but he’s the veritable climate expert in this absurd piece at Mashable. read all for more stuff caused by CAGW, according to Al “007” Gore:

    20 Jan: Mashable: Josh Dickey: Al Gore is a climate change James Bond in urgent, exhilarating ‘Inconvenient Sequel’
    PARK CITY, Utah — Al Gore is angry. Really angry. He’s also swathed in burning hope.
    With uncharacteristic fire and brimstone — but also steely resolve and a concrete plan — the former vice president opened the Sundance Film Festival on Thursday night with An Inconvenient Sequel, a daring, urgent and exhilarating follow-up to his 2007 film An Inconvenient Truth…
    “Climate-related events have gotten so much worse in the 10 years since,” Gore argues at the top of Sequel — and the evidence is splattered all over the screen…

    Where Truth was a wonky if ultimately startling slideshow on the bigscreen, Sequel plays more like a taut political thriller with an apocalyptic streak, interlacing heart-stopping cinematography, adrenalized music cues and a dashing main character — Al Gore 3.0 — that you’ll wish had been president for oh, about eight years or so…

    Gore, for his part, is a joy to watch. Yes, he stands on stages and stiffly clicks through PowerPoint presentations here and there — but at this point in his third act as a climate-change superhero, he’s also jet-setting around the world, observing atrocious evidence that the planet has long since teetered toward catastrophe…

    The former VP is a central figure in each of these scenes, tirelessly flying around in helicopters, boats, planes, cars (in one case ditching traffic for a subway to make a meeting on time) because this is what he does now.
    And these are no empty gestures. He’s a climate change James Bond, using his wits and gadgets and sheer will to save the day at every turn…

    Standing on various stages before his armies of global acolytes, he passionately tears through the facts: 2016 continued the trend of hottest years on record, giving strength to cataclysmic storms, devastating droughts and raging fires. Desperate conditions give rise to desperate acts of violence and atrocity. It’s a lot…

    “Future generations will look back,” Gore growls, “and say ‘What were you thinking?’ Couldn’t you hear what the scientists were saying? Couldn’t you hear Mother Nature screaming at you?”…

    Solar and wind power, in particular, play the film’s strongest grace notes; despite mighty opposition from the oil/coal/gas industries, these renewable energy resources have seen staggering, exponential growth since Truth, and by the sound of it, they’ve done so largely on their own merit. They’re just good business, and good business seems to prevail…


    • #

      ““Future generations will look back,” Gore growls, “and say ‘What were you thinking?’”

      Yep, bigAl.. they will be wondering how the heck you CONNED so many people, just to line your own pockets…. and you didn’t end up in jail.

      What were AGW believers thinking, indeed. !!


  • #

    Well if the alarmists are right (which of course they are not because we all know they are telling us fibs) then all the effort in moving to renewables has been proven to be a total waste of time and money. What will we do if we managed to reach almost 100% renewables and the world according to the global warming alarmists is still warming? Do we start paying a Sun tax so we can reduce the Sun’s emissions? What a bunch of fools.


  • #

    ***the real Al Gore, who couldn’t care less about the poor:

    19 Jan: NewsNextBangladesh: Hasina defends Rampal power plant at WEF
    Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has defended her plan to construct a coal-fired power plant near the world largest mangrove forest despite the green activists’ outcry.
    Hasina said the proposed power plant will no way harm the Sundarban forest, a world heritage site, as the government ensures maximum caution keeping in mind the issue of environment.
    According to state-run Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha news agency the issue was raised by former US vice-president ***Al Gore in a plenary session of the 47th Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum being held in Davos of Switzerland.
    Hasina has been attending the session on special invitation…

    Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg, CEO of the HSBC Stuart Gulliver, Cofco Agri CEO Jingtao Chi also took part in the plenary session titled “Leading the Fight against Climate Change” at Congress Hall on Wednesday.
    Hasina criticized those who are staging demonstration over construction of the power plant saying a quarter was creating an “unnecessary issue”.
    “I don’t know exactly what they want and what their intention in mind . . . maybe they have a different intention in their mind,” she said.
    Hasina said that the people who were opposed to Rampal project could not point out any logical reason for why and how the plant would affect the environment and even did not respond to her call to visit the plant site either…
    Moreover, she said, Rampal power plant was going to be a “clear coal” plant where “supercritical modern technology” was being used…


  • #

    20 Jan: Breitbart: Weather Channel Founder: Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Sequel’ Another ‘Scientific Monstrosity’
    by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D.
    “Thousands of scientists have debunked the horrid science fiction in his first film, An Inconvenient Truth. Gore keeps making billions and mis-educating millions and the media keeps spreading wild science-fiction claims on a daily basis,” said John Coleman, who founded the Weather Channel in 1980…
    Coleman, a meteorologist for over six decades, has called global warming “the greatest scam in history” and a “manufactured crisis.”
    “I have studied this topic seriously for years,” Coleman said. “It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid.”…

    Coleman said he was “horrified” that Gore’s first climate documentary has been presented as factual in schools and media throughout the world while the contrary position has been ignored or silenced.
    “For years others and I begged Hollywood to give a scientifically accurate counteract on Gore’s sci-fi film a chance,” Coleman said. “We were totally ignored.”…
    “We will continue to battle this non-science beast of Goliath. And we hope that like David did in that wonderful old tale, we will eventually win the war,” he said.
    “There is no significant man-made climate change now, there has not been any in the past and there is no scientific reason to fear any in the future,” he said.


  • #

    Really, looking at the graph again, what is the explanation for all the noise? All the ups and downs? In normal data you this would be noise and picking a trend would require a hypothesis that it was all simple, but without detailed explanations you would have to take these variations as unexplained noise, error bars.

    So unless you were looking for a needle in a haystack, it would be unlikely that you would have a single explanation for any suggested trend. An hypothesis sure, but no confirmation from this. When you compare it with the relatively simple and smooth graph of CO2, you have to admit that most of it is not understood let alone correlated with CO2, the only hypothesis on the table.

    I just cannot believe that this sort of noise is interpreted as warming or that a few years in a row which differ by 0.01C is presented as continuing rapid warming instead of nothing happened, again. It makes you wonder how hard everyone worked to get +0.01 instead of -0.01, a PR disaster. It’s like arguing 1c in the bank means you are not broke, yet.


  • #
    Oliver K. Manuel

    Yes, Dr. Evans, the climate models are obviously wrong but Dr. Tim Ball, a Canadian climatologist, faces a jury trial in one month for publicly challenging the veracity of evidence for CO2-induced global warming (See Mann vs Ball jury trial in Vancouver, BC beginning 20 February 2017).

    May the innate human capacity for logical analysis that decided the most recent US Presidential election also decide the verdict of the Mann vs Ball jury trial that begins in Vancouver in one month.


  • #
    Richard Ilfeld

    Arguments between the left, who live in a narrative, and the right, who live in the real world, have taken on the characteristics of a debate between Don Quixote and Albert Einstein. Thanks David, for ably pinch hitting for Albert here. I see a shift coming — and expect the debate to bifurcate. As the fruit of the public money tree become smaller and scarcer, climate folks actually subject to argument and reason will morph towards reality, leaving behind only the zealots of the green religion. Judith Curry and her ilk will find a congenial home to do science; those left behind will be pleading with budget committees to preserve their sinecure. And a cabal of the left (in the US) trying to save planned parenthood, PBS, The National Endowment for the arts, the diversity bureaucracy, and other cherished causes in the face of budget cuts, may well arrive at the usual conclusion of that type that climate science can join the STEM folks, (who have never been part of the tribe) and share the hard science budget. And selection by Merit. David, it would be great to see your research accepted back into “normal” science, rather than funded by chocolate money.


    • #

      Richard, you may well be correct. It seems to be the direction the world is headed. I hope so.

      Regardless of one’s political beliefs, when it comes to climate science I was fearful of a Clinton presidency because it would so have cemented the temporary victory for the slightly soft, weak science crowd who run climate science currently, and delayed the outcome you outline. Trump’s election may be crucial to a timely resolution of the climate imbroglio.


      • #
        Lionell Griffith

        Trump is now President of USA.

        He gave an inaugural speech worthy of a CEO of a multi-trillion Corporation: US of A. While I wasn’t impressed with its religiosity, it was necessary because the vast majority of the US Population believe in their particular religion. If We the People are truly to be the rulers of the government, this belief has to be taken into account.

        From the election of our previous president, I was concerned that a peaceful transfer of power from him to the next president would not and could not happen. Thankfully, enough of We the People cared enough to make it happen.

        Our work is cut out for us. At least, now we have a chance to make it work. This is the first day of the deconstruction of the effort to fundamentally change the character of our nation. It almost makes me want to believe that there is a god looking out for us but not quite. Thankfully, the sense of life of the American people and their common sense prevailed.

        Now to continue the work of putting reason to work for out own individual rights and interests rather than faith in the false god of a government.


  • #

    […] also : What they don’t say about ‘the hottest ever year’ – 20 year warming trend is… […]


  • #

    All of this sturm and drang and angst are based on our knowing the temperature of the earth, that is, even how to measure it; and the past? That’s not measurement, that’s dowsing!


  • #

    Some here may be interested to look at what the current solar coronal hole is doing to our weather system.

    This hole is modulating the solar winds arriving at the earth and causing real weather effects as the highest parts of out atmosphere is warmed. Sudden stratospheric warming at the North pole has recently precipitated the very cold snap we have experienced, as it affects the jet-stream.
    February looks to have another one albeit a weaker one.

    HERE is a UK based weather obsessive showing what some of the weather models interpret as likely from the solar wind blast from a week or so ago.

    “It’s the sun what done it!”


  • #

    The large upward spikes in 1998, 2010, and 2016 are El Ninos, which technically warm the surface of the Pacific ocean but do not change its heat content (lower winds means the colder water below the surface layer does not mix the surface as much) — so they are pretty much irrelevant for climate trends.

    To highlight that, this is a plot of RSS (two extra months of data in woodfortrees.orgfrom 1997 with linear trends for 1998-dec 2016 and 1999 – 2015. The slopes were 0.045K/decade and 0.035K/decade. A few more months and I expect the trend from 1998 to the present to be even negative.

    PS from 1999 to 2016 was 0.06K/decade, the same as 1997 to the present.


  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Nothing is causing global warming. What warming that is observed is simply the Earth system settling down to a new physical equilibrium state after the last “ice” age event.

    It’s like being rescued out from an icy lake that you believed had a thick ice cap, but didn’t and you went through the ice. Removal out of the ices simply means that the cause of the freezing has been removed, and your metabolism is working to return to thermal equilibrium.

    Nothing is causing you to warm up. It’s the absence of the cooling force that occurred.


    • #

      Good perspective.

      In the past 7,000 years the sea level has oscillated from its post glacial max of about 7 m above present then down to zero, then 4m , 2m and finally has fallen 1.2m over the last 2,000 years.

      This pattern suggests that any future oscillations will be maybe half a metre but more likely there will be a drop associated with the next ice age.

      Concerns about rising sea levels fail to appreciate the known history of the system and of the true science.



    • #

      Nothing is causing global warming. What warming that is observed is simply the Earth system settling down to a new physical equilibrium state after the last “ice” age event.

      In the short term, shorter term and very short term.
      This is not a flat line.
      The solar wind alters as well. It does not seem to be a coincidence that the Greenland ice mass balance anomaly shot up as the solar wind speed shot up. It does not seem to be a coincidence that the SORCE TSI was at its highest for the longest time on that record just before the recent ElNino.
      Suddenly we have a few spots on the sun. So am keen to watch all these synchronous coincidences over the next few days. The sunspots should cause the SORCE TSI to dive faster.


  • #
    Mr Farnham

    You need to put an “s” on the end of “hundredth” in the original post


  • #
    Harry Twinotter

    [No reference, therefore irrelevant. More care, and less urgency, may result in you offering something worthwhile.] Fly


  • #

    It is interesting to note that 0.06 degrees by decade is the multi-centenary trend that Syun Ishi Akasofu highlighted in goo.gl/a4koop.
    As long as this trend continues, it is ridiculous to claim that any ‘year is the hottest on record’ because mathematically nearly one in four of them will.


  • #

    Where could I find a table for the last 15 years showing world temperatures- also hottest and minimums please? Satellite and land based. And error ranges.


  • #
    Don Gaddes

    ‘Tipping the Albedo Balance

    When the effects of temperature rise and ‘Dry’ Cycle influence (caused by the ‘X Factor’ induced upper-atmosphere loss of cloud/water vapour albedo,) is surpassed by an increase in other albedo, (eg, effects of increased volcanism and wind-blown dust,) the planet is subject to a ‘cooling’ phase, (less snow/precipitation – but more sea-ice.) This ‘cooling’ state becomes self-perpetuating with the overall Albedo increase.
    This appears to have happened in the recent past – and would seem to be continuing, at an increasing rate.
    In the ‘Wet’/Normal Periods between ‘Dry’ Cycles, the ‘cooling’ would be exacerbated, (fall in temperature and increase in albedo produced by cloud/water vapour.) ‘Tomorrow’s Weather 20 years on…’ p138.

    The next ‘Wet’ ‘X Factor Year starts over China (110 degrees East Longitude,) in mid February 2017 – and reaches Australia’s East Coast in early January 2018.
    If the current marked increase in Volcanism,(since 2010) continues, 2018 may be very wet in Australia.
    Nothing to do with ENSO.