By Jo Nova
No wonder the climate experts are not that interested in the historic data.
You might think that if the world was going to hell in a handbasket, that climate scientists would want to get all the data they could and pore all over it carefully.
Kenneth Richard at NoTricksZone has found a study of 60 million temperature readings. It shows the world was warming faster in the first half of the 20th century even though there was 8 times less man-made CO2 around.
Man-made CO2 (black) can apparently cause big warming, big cooling, or anything it wants (orange).
You can’t look at the graph above and say: CO2 is Earth’s control knob.
And the table lays out the trends, and the cumulative CO2 emissions. It’s the simplest thing, and all the old data was there all along. Anyone could have done most of this in 1995, and saved us from wasting a few trillion dollars.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5395197
Critics will counter that these temperatures are only on land, and mostly in Europe and the United States.
However, it’s a global emergency you know and this is the best data we have. Shouldn’t the experts, at least, be interested?
Shouldn’t they be honest enough to have published this, and discussed it with those who pay their salaries? I mean, it doesn’t exactly fit with the 97% certainty thing, does it?
Bibek Bhatta tried versions of the 100 best stations, and also the full 1,622 station mix. They tried analyzing it by tight clusters, but it didn’t matter how he cross checked it — the answer came out the same. CO2 isn’t the controller.
REFERENCES
Anthropogenic warming shares commonality with certain other religions.
There is no historical reality existent prior to the faith.
270
This is why Australia’s BoM struck all pre-1910 data from the Official Record. It doesn’t agree with the Official Narrative. And then they “homogenise” the remaining data using a non-reproducible* and therefore a non-scientific method to further affirm the Official Narrative.
* https://joannenova.com.au/2015/06/if-it-cant-be-replicated-it-isnt-science-bom-admits-temperature-adjustments-are-secret/
421
But David M: pre 1910 wasn’t found by BOM therefore it cannot exist.
The same idea among most Geologists that life began in the Cretaceous period, as per Mawson rejecting the Eidiacarian fossils in 1946 (roughly).
Science is built on the remains of discarded ideas.
130
I expect you meant Cambrian – not Cretaceous ? The spread and range of dinos in the Cretaceous exceeds even Spielberg’s Jurassic Park Revisited 20 times
I’ve looked at the Emu Bay Shale deposits (South Aus) in absolute awe. Lower Cambrian. Flinders Ranges deposits also. Complex, multi cellular fossils about 500Ma, some with compound eye structures. Mind blowing.
We’ve certainly moved on from Mawson’s stubborness.
170
😂😂. Sounds to me like calling for a Royal Commission into more left wing BS.
We could be inundated with Royal Commissions for the next 2 decades with the amount of BS generated by the 2 mobs in Canberra.
It would appear we DO NEED A LOT OF “truth telling “!,
210
There is a retired geologist on X, I forget his name, but he happily points out that the planet has warmed faster in the past that it has warmed in the last hundred years or so. I wish I could remember the dates. Anyway, the rate of warming argument is the last argument for proponents of AGW. They have run out of beliefs to cling to.
290
After the previous Eemian warming the world temperature dropped 6C in 10,000 years despite the CO2 level remaining the same.
Seems that CO2 was resting on its laurels.
Graph from Energy Matters eaunmeans.com http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok/html
Probably deleted or altered over the years
120
I suspect the temperature data is reasonable but only for land and is more indicative of land clearing and farming practices than what the dominant climate driver, the Sun, was doing.
There was a strong decline in heating season solar intensity from 1897 to 1940 – NH down 1.26W/m^2 and SH down 2.18W/m^2.
The Australian temperature record certainly shows a corresponding decline. Here is Broken Hill as an example:
https://www.bom.gov.au/tmp/cdio/047007_36_13_3821162734403334048.png
The most recent upward trend is obviously driven by the Sun. The Heating season solar intensity from 1984 to 2025 increased by 1.82W/m^2 in the NH and 1.87W/m^2 in the SH. Clearly that difference in average solar intensity from equinox to solstice is going to drive strong increase in temperature in both hemispheres. Note the NH has a 3.3X temperature response to solar forcing compared with the SH so will have greater response despite slightly lower increase in solar intensity.
We are now on a down trend in heating season solar intensity till 2032. NH down by 0.93W/m^2 and SH down by 1.22W/m^2. Then there is a strong increase to 2037 that will marginally eclipse solar intensity of 2025 so likely a new temperature peak that year. There will be a sharp decline in heating season solar intensity after 2037 till early 2040s that may actually reverse the long term warming trend for a decade or more.
180
Much like our PM Albanese climate scientists ignore facts and find fiction. Both absolutely hate real data and other opinions. Both are cowards who refuse to debate. Both deflect. Both are dishonest. Both will fail.
Happy New Year. 2026 is the year in which the climate scam finally collapses.
340
Thanks again to Jo Nova for trying to educate us and Ian Plimer’s latest interview with Tom Nelson is also very interesting and full of data.
But we’re now living in the safest period for Humans over the last 300 K years and even Dr Pielke jr agrees in a recent interview that 2025 was the safest year.
Of course the last 60 years were easily the safest 60 year period as well. See OWI Data.
221
Here’s the latest interview from Ian Plimer with Tom Nelson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62ZmCl3GyoQ&t=1464s
100
RickWill:
Do you think that the extra solar response in the NH hemisphere might have been increased by the strong environmental efforts to cut atmospheric pollution?
50
My factor of 3.3X is in the annual swings in solar intensity and temperature. It is far more driven by the proportion of land in the NH compared with the land proportion in the SH and its location. Also there is not much land in the SH that has full linear response to solar forcing. Antarctic is an ice block so never warms much above 0C. The other large land masses of the SH are concentrated in the tropical zone so do not alter much from 30C throughout the year. Think Amazon, Northern Australia and central Africa.
41
Again, here’s the OWI Data link and proves we’re now living in the safest period in Human history.
And yet 8.2 billion Humans are at risk today and just 1.6 billion in 1900, 2.5 billion in 1950 and 3 billion in 1960.
So population increases by billions and yet the weather is more benign, or is it more wealth = more health and safety and better communication around the world to warn even poor countries of any imminent dangers.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/natural-disaster-death-rates?country=Flood~Extreme+weather~Wildfire~Drought~Extreme+temperature
50
Dr Pielke jr is correct and 2025 had flood death rates at 0.04 deaths per 100,000 people and all the rest were 0.01 deaths except extreme temperature deaths were 0.00 deaths or ZERO.
A very low yearly death count indeed.
So why do our extremist left wing donkeys want to WASTE TRILLIONs of $ for DECADES into the future?
51
This post needs some editing;
Should be 8 times less man made CO2 around.
Not shown in blue.
[Fixed, thanks Peter. I was thinking “8 times as much CO2 around in recent years”. Blue/Black was my mistake through the F.lux night filter. Sorry! – Jo]
130
8 times less takes you to -7 times the amount which is a clear absurdity; the correct approach is to refer to one eighth the amount.
The english language has been let go to rack and ruin in the last fifty years and as an honours English student from the early 1970s I can see that the battle for clear thinking is well and truly lost, entirely beyond reach now that education has been made a plaything of the crazed left.
30
” … now that education has been made a plaything of the crazed left.”
A plaything – or, possibly, a weapon?
Auto
10
From the Article and related to today’s Topic –
We have to keep fighting climate alarmism, calling out nonsense, be it scientific or political, when we see it.
Good News Everyone! We hit ‘Peak Climate’ – Media Articles are in Decline
Anthony Watts
“I know many of you have been feeling it. I certainly have, especially when I go look for stories to debunk from media outlets that take some press release and massage it so it reads like “turbo doom clickbait.” There’s less of those these days and the data suggests a downward trend.
Our friend, Steve Milloy of junkscience.com posted a very interesting plot on X yesterday. Given the clues he left, I was able to replicate it with Grok. It goes from 1988 (when Dr. James Hansen first testified before Congress about the climate scare,) to the present post-Biden era where Trump is effectively replicating Sherman’s march to the sea in the climate world.
Numbers are approximate and scaled to represent total articles across monitored sources, normalized for consistency across periods (e.g., fewer sources pre-2020 expansion).
The data comes from Media and Climate Change Observatory (MeCCO) which tracks media coverage of “climate change” or “global warming” in newspapers, radio, and TV across dozens of sources worldwide, with data starting in 2004 for global monitoring (and 2000 for US-specific). Pre-2004 data comes from earlier studies by MeCCO founder Max Boykoff and colleagues, which analyzed English-language newspapers from 1988 onward. Absolute article counts are not publicly available without accessing their datasets, but trends show low coverage in the late 1980s, spikes around key events (e.g., IPCC reports in 1990, 1995, 2001; Kyoto Protocol in 1997), and overall increases with major peaks in 2007, 2009, 2015, 2019, and especially 2021 (the highest since tracking began).
The peak around 2006-2007 is likely due to Al Gore’s climate movie An Inconvenient Truth gaining traction. The peak in 2009 is clearly due to Climategate, which as you may recall, WUWT broke that story. The plunge afterwards was the loss of faith in “The Hockey Team” of climate scientists. Since then, climate as a topic in media coverage has clawed its way back uphill, peaking in 2021 with Biden’s green agenda and EV mandate.
Coverage dipped during the 2018-2020 COVID-19 pandemic but has fluctuated with events like COP summits.
Whether this short down trend will hold depends on us. We have to keep fighting climate alarmism, calling out nonsense, be it scientific or political, when we see it.”
The Graph is in the Article at –
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/12/30/good-news-everyone-we-hit-peak-climate-media-articles-are-in-decline/
81
Good news.
The big fear is what is the next pseudo-scientific nonsense that the Left will promote? Or as Australian Skeptics say when they award The Bent Spoon Award, “preposterous piece of pseudo-scientific or paranormal piffle”.
And in Australia’s case, it appears that the fanatical commitment to the anthropogenic global warming scam remains, despite elements of science and reason returning to much of the rest of the world.
90
Bob Carter
“I am a scientist. I deal with evidence. Not with frightening climate models.”
For me there was always significant evidence, both new and old, to provide doubt to the AGW/ MMCC theory. Because that’s what it is still – a theory never proven.
Now, I’m not even interested in the “science”. The science is almost irrelevant, there’s too much money to be made from the whole charade.
It’s all been a long, well planned scam.
190
I think the term “climate scientist” needs revision, because it gives actual science a bad name.
It used to be called climatology, back in the day, but it got hijacked by the pseudo-scientists around the late 1970’s or so and they rebranded it “climate science”.
100
How about “climastrology” since it’s more akin to “reading” the planets than to actual science, or possibly something like “climate tarot”?
80
Case dismissed! Carbon dioxide is free to go back to its mates at Carbon Cycle Inc. Now, perhaps, Mr Sun can take the credit for driving the weather.
110
Lomborg talks about the MSM’s weather / climate porn at this link and calculates the latest death tolls in the early 20th century through to the present day.
This just supports my links to OWI Data and Lomborg also uses the best data and his group has access to the best maths gurus to carefully check the numbers before publication.
https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/bjorn-lomborg-weather-porn-obscures-110019410.html
21
This summary from the Lomborg link easily proves the case.
“In the 1920s, the average death toll from weather disasters was 485,000 per year. In 1921, the New York Herald headlined its full-page coverage of droughts and famines across Europe: “Deaths for Millions in 1921’s Record Heat Wave.“ Since then, almost every decade has seen fewer deaths, with 168,000 average dead per year in the 1960s and fewer than 9,000 dead per year in the most recent decade, 2014-23”.
“The 98 per cent drop in climate-related deaths is revealed by the most respected international disaster database, which is the gold standard in measuring these impacts”.
51
Forgive me if this has already been posted. This video clearly explains why Germany is going down the gurgle, economically. US$500billion wasted on the green energy scam. All Aussie politicians should be forced to watch it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLZZGjjuml8&t=195s
90
CO2 is not a temperature control knob, I like the simplicity.
Sky needs to pick this up and create a storm, red faces all around.
111
“Blue”? “Orange”?
Not on mobile they’re not! 😁
“Graph above”?
Not on mobile it’s not. 😉
Must speak to the proofreading dept…
[Overnight I work with the “cavelight” mode in a very low temp 1500K screen. Sorry, usually I check those colors. – Jo]
50
The reason CO2 has nothing to do with warming or cooling and temperatures, is because at the quantum physics level infrared radiation involving CO2 occurs at a very low level. After a CO2 molecule absorbs a 15 micron photon which is the predominant range, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, not by re-emission of another photon and hence infrared heating.
At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecules can transfer its energy is in the order of one nanosecond. ( a billionth of a second) whereas the mean time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is about one second, or a billion times as long. CO2 only absorbs infrared radiation in about four bands at micron levels up to about 15 microns and at 400 p.p.m the total photon density is only one photon in 158 million CO2 molecules. It is neglibleclimateauditor.com/co2-infrared-absorption/
We all exhale about 40,000 p.p.m. of CO2 every time we breathe so it is nonsense to keep inferring it and carbon are bad.
61
climateauditor.com/co2-infrared-absorption/ Link to CO2 data
31
cleaver that, taking a preprint, and pretending that it is peer reviewed and published
121
It’s all you have left isn’t it Peter? No content, no argument, just a hail Mary shot to defend the gatekeeper bureaucrats of science?
230
One study, very limited scope as you admit , ignore the vast amount of counter evidence and claim this is some sort of evidence ?.
This is not how science progresses.
14
Funny. When Jo references a peer reviewed study you, Simon, Ian, et al. all try and pretend it’s meaningless because, “But Jo, you don’t hold the peer review process in high regard”.
Now Jo references a study that has been put in the public domain for comment and you accuse Jo of pretending it is peer reviewed. Even though Jo made no such claim.
She can’t win with you either way.
Just retorts as a faux rebuttal without any actual comment on the merit of the study or the implications of the conclusions.
Humour us. Assume that the methodology and data is correct. What do you think are the implications for the CO2 narrative?
Or, tell us where this study has gone wrong.
190
The above information about CO2 came from answers to questions put to Prof.Will Happer, a real expert on CO2 and Emeritus Professor of Physics at Princeton. The link provided was in reference to the 158 million CO2 figure and is by another Professor W.J.Witteman of the Netherlands, a laser physicist. I am sure you are not ” cleaver” enough to understand their information
60
‘ … peer reviewed and published,’
It’ll soon be peer reviewed and published, better to get feedback first.
CO2 doesn’t cause global warming.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NASA_CO2_Chart.jpg
31
“Cleaver”????
Are you hinting that Jo has gone “full Somali”??
10
This “paper” would never pass a serious peer review. Cherry-picked 42-year periods and an unrepresentative temperature dataset.
Once again, you have been duped.
09
LOL, no one claimed it was a peer review paper, it is a domain paper in public.
Meanwhile as usual you bypassed the opportunity to post a cogent criticiam of the paper, maybe because you couldn’t find anything wrong with it.
50
The analysis contradicts every other temperature reconstruction in the public domain and the author makes no attempt to explain why even though the reasons are obvious.
01
‘This “paper” would never pass a serious peer review.’
Yes it will and you’ll have egg on your face.
10
“when man made CO2 was one-eighth as high”
Man made CO2 is 2% of both ocean and air. This has been known and proven science fact as the first use of Radio Carbon Dating in 1958. It was discovered accidentally as while radio carbon dates were very good, recent dates were off due to fossil fuel. This was labelled the Suess effect. Once corrected for this, the dates were accurate again but it has never exceeded 2.0% due to emissions.
Atmospheric CO2 is growing as a near static but rapid equilibrium exchange which is drifting slowly upwards, likely due to slight ocean warming. Fossil fuel CO2 emissions annually have just reached 1% of the atmosphere and 0.02% of the total. The increase in atmospheric CO2 of 0.4% per annum is linear and not from exhausts. To get to 3% will take another 100 years at the current rate.
As for the connection with ‘Global’ temperatures, it is pure conjecture that a ‘Global’ temperature is even meaningful in a period like a hundred years. The world is covered 74% with water (including frozen Antarctica) and there is no expectation the the temperature in South Africa or Chile is at all connected to that in Canada or Sweden. However temperatures have been perfectly explained on a smaller scale such as Europe using real thermometer data and without mention of CO2 and only using two of the main known cycles, the AMO/PDO and the solar De Vries cycle.
Still the foundational fantasy of man controlled CO2 continues. Without any evidence.
90
So the worlds supposed to be warming because of our increased use of Coal, oil and gas?
But look at the data since 1800 and tell us how TOXIC, unreliable, super expensive W & S could ever replace FFs? And by how much would we reduce the world’s temperature if we were stupid enough to try?
Just look at the tiny W & S energy sectors on the graph.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitution
20
Dr Koonin tries his best to explain the problems with climate models.
But it’s just more laughable lunacy and yet they insist we waste TRILLIONs of $ until 2050 because their CRAZY models might be accurate.
Just 5 minutes, but Steve does his best to enlighten and warn us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFGTfUC3P8I
20
The past 50 years have had more global warming by far than any 50 year period in the past 5000 years.
The false claim that warming was faster 100 years ago is absolutely ridiculous.
There are not even accurate global average temperature measurements for more than the past 75 years to make such a claim.
00
You claim to have temperature records for the last 5000 years?
Do share.
🙂
00