Satellites: Warming pause continues & 2014 not the hottest

There was nothing special about the temperature of the Earth in 2014.  In fact, there has been no meaningful warming since last century.

This is true no matter what set of temperature data you examine.

However, when you examine the data recorded from satellites, the flaws in the warming narrative become even clearer.

Satellites are considered by many to be the best available source of temperature data.  Local measurements are subject to many sorts of errors.  Temperature stations tend to be located near population centers where they are subject to the urban heat island effect.  Weather balloons, temperature stations and buoys leave huge gaps in coverage.  Climate researchers then fill in the their best guesses as to what temperature should be for the huge areas where no readings exist. This creates opportunity for honest error — or worse.

Satellites, on the other hand, record temperatures over the entire Earth.  Their coverage is more complete and the data they yield is much more difficult to manipulate.

RSS sattelite graph 2014 not the warmest pause continues

The graph above shows us that there has been no meaningful warming since the 1990’s.  Today’s school children have never lived in a warming world.

The graph below shows how badly 33 UN IPCC climate models fare when compared against actual measurements.  Keep in mind that the earlier period, when the models and temperatures appear to line up, is from before the models were created.

Hindsight we know is 20/20.

RSS satellites v 33 UN climate models

Share on Facebook

After the models were created, and we were told told the whole thing was settled, global temperatures inconveniently remained cooler than projected.

Go ahead, examine the data for yourself.  Compare it to the computer model projections.

That’s what the warming crowd fears most.





About the Author: David Rothbard

David Rothbard

David Rothbard is co-founder and President of CFACT.

  1. Will Watson

    No “meaningful warming”? That depends on how you define “meaning”, Dave.
    Left purely to chance, there’s only about 1 chance in 27, 000,000 that 13 0f the 15 the warmest years since 1880 have been since 2000. That seems pretty “meaningful” to me.

    The trend is up, there’s an extremely remote chance that human activity has played an “insignificant” role in that trend, and the global temperature record is hardly the only indication that human activity is changing the climate, the oceans, the cryosphere, the carbon cycle . . .

    • Scott

      And if the temperature remains the same for the rest of this century you will be able to say with even much greater certainty than 26,999,999 out of 27,000,000 that it warmed a quarter of a degree at the end of the 20th century. So what! Still, no change this century. You must be a mighty finicky person if your day centers around the “meaningfulness” of 1/4 of a degree.

      • Will Watson

        You don’t follow this topic, otherwise you’d understand that the rate of warming we’re seeing now is about 10x the rate of warming at the end of the last ice age.

        And it was Mr. Rothbard, the manager of this site, not me, who claimed that the warming is not “meaningful”.

        And the difference between an ice age and an interglacial is not all that much, maybe 5-6 degrees centigrade. Given the rate of increase, we’re on track for enough warming to make the planet unlike anything civilization has ever seen before.

      • Thomas

        Absolutely agree, Scott. The Global Warming myth has been disproven by the Warmer’s own predictions. There has been no shrinking ice cap. There has been no shrinking polar bear populations. The ice cap on Greenland is (unfortunately for Greenland) still there.

    • Thomas

      Actually there is NO chance that humanity played a part in any warming because there wasn’t any. You may want to read the article, Will. You make it sound like the reasons Warmers have given for there being concern in the past “global temperature record is hardly the only indication that human activity is changing” are not really that significant. If that is true, why do all this screaming and yelling?

      All of the so-called disasters predicted since Al Gore first made up this lie have fallen flat on their faces. Remember the prediction that he made that the polar ice caps would melt by 2012. The ice caps are now larger than ever measured before. Remember the prediction that polar bears would die off because of the melting ice cap? There are now more polar bears than ever counted.

    • Will Watson

      Wow! The Telegraph, the most rigorous of peer reviewed science journals. Oh, wait, your source is an op-ed in a newspaper. My bad. Consider the source, Zulu man, consider the source.

      • Isandhlwana79

        Why don’t you consider the FACT that the AGW proponents are fudging their data? What is so hard to believe about that?

        • Will Watson

          I don’t look for “FACT” in the same places you do, this website for instance. Or a British newspaper. What’s hard for me to believe is that so many people take sources like that seriously. I have no idea what you might mean by “fudging” data.

          The claims about polar warming that Booker alludes to–he doesn’t even cite them–are from a discredited paper by Christopher Monckton. Monckton misrepresented polar temps by cherry picking data from particular stations.

          • Isandhlwana79

            If don’t know what is meant by “fudging” data then there is no use even discussing it with you. You are so wedded to the AGW scam you can’t see how it could be in error.

            The climate is a chaotic system that is poorly understood at this time and CO2 is NOT the driver of it. Time and the climate itself is proving that.

            • Will Watson

              Climate is chaotic, but there’s NO doubt that CO2 dictates global temperatures. The evidence is solid. A chemist friend of mine calls it a “law”: CO2 reflects IR light back at its source.

              Which data are you talking about? There’s so much coming in that you’d have to specify which you’re talking about. Which do you mean? The NASA/NOAA GMT record? The extent of Arctic ice cap melting? What?

              • Isandhlwana79

                CO2 DOES reflect IR light back. So what? That one property does NOT mean that it is the driver of climate. The FACT that temperatures are NOT rising as predicted 20 years ago should show you that the premise is shaky at best. The FACT that temperatures are being adjusted to fit the narrative is another “tell”. Your chemist friend, even if he has a PHD, is offering just his opinion just as you and I are. The science is FAR from settled and anyone with an open mind should be able to see that. Evidently you can’t.

                • Will Watson

                  Why is CO2 a big deal? Good heavens . . . Solar light energy that is reflected off the planet’s surface is low frequency, long wave IR. When it encounters CO2, CH4, NO2 and other greenhouse gasses about half of it is reflected back at the planet’s surface, where it’s absorbed into oceans, forests, the surface, etc.

                  This is what keeps the planet warm. When more GHG enters the atmosphere, more IR is reflected back at the planet, warming the planet even more. None of this is even remotely in doubt. That’s why the impact of CO2 on IR light is important. You’ve never heard this before?

                  Which data are being “fudged”? When? By whom? The scientific study of mitigation and AGW impacts is still in flux, but there is almost no doubt in the scientific community that human-caused global warming is happening.

                  • Isandhlwana79

                    Read the article and try to comprehend it. Do it with an open mind. CO2 is NOT the driver of climate. Temperatures are NOT going up as claimed they would 20 years ago. What part of that don’t you get? There is plenty of doubt in the scientific community about AGW. All you have to do is look for it.

                    • Will Watson

                      In other words, all you’re doing is repeating the things you read in the Booker editorial in The Telegraph. CO2 is not “the driver” of climate, correct. Solar energy does that. But CO2 does regulate the temperature of the atmosphere, by trapping IR light/heat. It’s the changes in solar insolation that “drive climate”.

                      And I repeat my questions. You’ve made a whole bunch of claims about “fudged data”, disproved predictions and a whole range of other things. Who made the claims about temperature 20 years ago? Which data were “fudged”? By whom? When?

                      And there really ISN’T that much peer reviewed science being done that contradicts AGW theory. There may be individual scientists who deny it, but they’re not publishing peer reviewed studies that support their denial. You need to tell the difference between a scientist writing an op-ed and a peer-reviewed scientific study. This site will NOT help you do this.

                    • Will Watson

                      In other words, all you’re doing is repeating the things you read in the Booker editorial in The Telegraph. CO2 is not “the driver” of climate, correct. Solar energy does that. But CO2 does regulate the temperature of the atmosphere, by trapping IR light/heat. It’s the changes in solar insolation that “drive climate”.

                      And I repeat my questions. You’ve made a whole bunch of claims about “fudged data”, disproved predictions and a whole range of other things. Who made the claims about temperature 20 years ago? Which data were “fudged”? By whom? When?

                      And there really ISN’T that much peer reviewed science being done that contradicts AGW theory. There may be individual scientists who deny it, but they’re not publishing peer reviewed studies that support their denial. You need to tell the difference between a scientist writing an op-ed and a peer-reviewed scientific study. This site will NOT help you do this.

                    • Isandhlwana79

                      The Telegraph article addresses the issue. Look there. They aren’t the only ones with problems about AGW advocates “data”. Look for it, you’ll find it if you try. Peer review doesn’t mean squat. Foxes saying other foxes are all right would be a proper analogy. You aren’t a scientist. Neither am I. So you aren’t going to convince me of the scam known as AGW. I’m watching through the years the predictions made by those folks continue to fail. Why is that? Could it be that they have a very poor understanding of climate dynamics? I’d say so. The science isn’t settled, not by a long shot. I feel for you if you can’t understand that!

                    • Will Watson

                      You don’t have to be a scientist to understand global warming. Any halfway intelligent layman can understand things like greenhouse effect, de-glaciation, scientific method and consensus and such like.

                      But you haven’t been able to cite a single flawed prediction or instance of fudged data. I doubt that you could name a single climate scientist off the top of your head, other than Michael Mann, who’s named in the Booker article.

                      What part of “climate dynamics” do you think climate scientists don’t understand? You have no idea of any of this stuff.

                    • Will Watson

                      Actually, I do have a pretty sound understanding of climate dynamics and the field of climate science.

                      There’s no hubris involved in knowing these things, although there is in pretending that you do, as you have all day.

                      That simply won’t fly very far in conversations with real AGW activists. Only in this turgid netherworld of denialism can you hope to be taken seriously.

                    • Isandhlwana79

                      Keep deluding yourself about your understanding of climate science. You have no clue. All you have is arrogance along with a healthy dose of ignorance. Time and the climate itself will prove my case.

                    • Isandhlwana79

                      I think I will pay more attention to what these REAL scientists say instead of intellectual frauds like Will Watson (who is a joke BTW):

                      These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global
                      climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for
                      temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not
                      conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too
                      high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate
                      due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

                      David Bellamy, botanist.[14][15][16][17]

                      Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[18][19][20][21]

                      Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [22][23]

                      Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University[24][25]

                      Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[26][27][28][29]

                      Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[30][31][32][33][34][35]

                      Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)[36][37]

                      Garth Paltridge,
                      retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric
                      Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic
                      Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University[38][39]

                      Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science[40][41][42][43]

                      Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm[44][45]

                      Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[46][47]

                      Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [48][49]

                      Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee[50][51]

                      Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry[52][53]

                      Zbigniew Jaworowski, physician and ice core researcher.[54][55][56][57][58]

                      Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

                      Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record,
                      and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed
                      into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing
                      factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[59]

                      These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely
                      to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their
                      views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their
                      biographical articles.

                      Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[60][61]

                      Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[62][63][64]

                      Timothy Ball, professor emeritus of geography at the University of Winnipeg[65][66]

                      Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University[67][68]

                      Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[69][70]

                      Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[71][72]

                      David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[73][74]

                      Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[75][76]

                      William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[77][78]

                      William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[79][80]

                      Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[81][82]

                      Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[83][84]

                      William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[85][86]

                      David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[87][88]

                      Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri[89][90]

                      Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[91][92]

                      Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[93][94][95]

                      Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[96][97]

                      Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[98][99]

                      Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University[100][101]

                      Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[102][103][104]

                      Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo[105][106]

                      Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem[107][108]

                      Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[109][110][111][112]

                      Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[113][114]

                      Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[115][116]

                      Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center[117][118]

                      George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[119][120]

                      Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[121][122]

                      Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

                      These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to
                      the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.

                      Syun-Ichi Akasofu,
                      retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the
                      International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska

                      Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[125][126]

                      Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[127][128]

                      John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[129][130][131]

                      Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[132][133]

                      David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[134][135]

                      Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and a Nobel laureate.[136][137]

                      Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[138][139]

                      Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[140][141]

                      Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[142][143]

                      Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

                      These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be
                      of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.

                      Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [144][145]

                      Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[146][147]

                      Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[

                    • Will Watson

                      With the exception of Judith Curry–who accepts that AGW is happening–none of these people has published anything of note on climate science in a long while. Some of them are out and out hacks.

                      Two of them John Christy and Roy Spencer were party to one of the most egregious pieces of fraud in the whole saddenier saga, back in the 90’s. The same with the Idso’s who put their names to the whole Oregon Petition fraud, among other things.

                      Most of the other people who names I recognize have made their reputations as deniers writing op-eds in newspaper; none as researchers doing real science that calls AGW into question.

                      What you have here is the list from Wikpedia on the “Scientific opinion on global warming”. In the same article it will tell you that every single scientific institute, academy and professional governing body on the planet accepts that AGW is real. The list of these institutions is about as long as your list of individuals associated with AGW denial.

                    • Will Watson

                      You’re not arguing with me, Zuluman. You’re arguing with the entire scientific establishment

                      The names you listed are a combination of hacks, outright frauds and marginal figures. Mainstream science is elsewhere.

                      Isn’t your name a reference to a massacre? Change the date to ’15. You’ve been overrun.

                    • Isandhlwana79

                      The Telegraph article addresses the issue. Look there. They aren’t the only ones with problems about AGW advocates “data”. Look for it, you’ll find it if you try. Peer review doesn’t mean squat. Foxes saying other foxes are all right would be a proper analogy. You aren’t a scientist. Neither am I. So you aren’t going to convince me of the scam known as AGW. I’m watching through the years the predictions made by those folks continue to fail. Why is that? Could it be that they have a very poor understanding of climate dynamics? I’d say so. The science isn’t settled, not by a long shot. I feel for you if you can’t understand that!

                    • johndaddyo444

                      And have you read this anywhere, Will?

                      Total CO2 emissions by mankind (2014) = 36 Gt
                      Total CO2 emissions by nature (2014) = 820 Gt

                      Total CO2 increase (2014) = 2 ppm

                      Total Atmospheric CO2 = 3200 Gt (400 ppm)

                      Therefore, total CO2 increase (2014) = 16 Gt

                      Now, your Warmists will declare mankind caused the entire increase, because somehow, despite ALL scientific evidence to the contrary, they insist on claiming Nature was in “balance” before mankind started consuming fossil fuels.

                      What utter hogwash. ANYONE who believes this must be a complete and total ignoramus about science, or hasn’t taken a second to think about it. Since our Nobel-prize winning IPCC scientists cannot be complete and total ignoramuses, and since they have most certainly had more than a second to think about it, they must be both Liars and Political Activists.

                      Like the father of modern global warming theory, Dr. James Hansen. He’s a political activist who has gotten himself arrested multiple times for blocking the entrances to coal mines, and thereby keeping coal mining families from earning the money they need to survive.

                      Now, does that sound like the kind of “climate scientist” who you can trust to give you objective FACT?

                      Before I let this go, answer me one question: Why does the US government spend more than $2 Billion every year to “coordinate” the “message” about Climate Change between all scientific agencies on a national level? Google the budget for the USGCRP, and answer me, if you can.

                      If you gave me $30 Billion over 25 years to disseminate false information about ANY branch of science, I could have people believing there are diamonds buried deep within the Moon, and thereby obtain funding for NASA to go get them!

                      I could easily generate more than 30,000 papers containing false science, because I could afford to “hire” several thousand scientists to produce the papers proving I was right. They could even afford to buy the most expensive computers and program them to calculate the value of those diamonds, within an error rate of less than 1%.

                    • Will Watson

                      That’s funny! James Hansen is the “father of modern global warming theory”? You can’t really think that and actually understand anything about this topic. Look back a littLe further Daddy’O. LEARN . . .

                      As far as the proportions of natural and anthropogenic CO2 goes, you’re right about the amounts, but the planet can recycle ALL of the CO2 that’s produced naturally: it’s called “the carbon cycle”.

                      However, the planet’s natural carbon cycle CAN’T handle the extra amount produced by human beings. So this extra builds up in the atmosphere–where it can remain for a century–or saturates the oceans.

                    • Isandhlwana79

                      “However, the planet’s natural carbon cycle CAN’T handle the extra amount produced by human beings.”

                      That is pure BS! You have NO WAY of knowing that!!! Keep reading crap from your masters at the altar of AGW. Your ignorance is truly astounding. You are simply a lemming, unable to think for yourself. But then again, you’re a typical liberal. Spreading lie upon lie about something you know so little about.

                    • Will Watson

                      It’s actually pretty easy to calculate. As you point out, the amount of anthropogenic CO2 contribution is widely known. And the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has been tracked since the mid-1950’s. Plus the ice core data give us a sense of the range of atmospheric CO2 back about 650TY.

                      The CO2 imbalance, then, shows up in the concentration of CO2 ppm above the 650TY maximum baseline, which is 280ppm. The Mauna Loa records of atmospheric CO2 begin in about 1955, and they also show a sharp increase in CO2 ppm, about 25% just since then.

                      Oceanic pH also reflects human CO2 input. The ocean’s pH has dropped by 30% in the last 250 years, faster than at any time in the geological record. We know, however, that excess carbon emissions–from vulcanism, as in the End Permian, and other sources–resulted in a decrease in ocean pH in the deep past: CO2 makes the oceans more acidic.

                      Given the accurate measurements of anthropogenic CO2–as you yourself cite–there is no other way to explain the increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, 400ppm last spring–and the decline in ocean pH. Human beings are putting just enough CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans to overwhelm the carbon cycle, which is actually pretty delicate, despite being so large.

                    • Isandhlwana79

                      You think because you spout a few facts and figures that you have it all figured out. You don’t. You have no clue what mitigating factors offset additional CO2. NONE of the scientists studying the problem do either at this point in time. They have no real idea what feedback mechanism CO2 has! They admit as much.
                      CO2 levels have been MUCH higher in the past yet the Earth handled them quite well. Life existed just fine. .
                      You really know just enough to blow yourself up. Do yourself a favor and quit trying to sound as an expert when you clearly aren’t. You just look like a fool.

                    • Will Watson

                      CO2 levels have never been above 280ppm in the whole time our species has been on the planet. That’s significant because most of the life now extant on Earth evolved within the same climatic range as we did; it took a long time for all those evolutions to occur.

                      That’s why past mass extinction events appear to have occurred contemporary with disruptions in established climates.And our climate is changing much faster than at any time we know about except for the bolide forcing at the K-T Boundary 65MYA. .

                      None of this is even remotely controversial.

                      You are about half-right about CO2 feed backs, though. Scientists know that natural feedback occurs; the only uncertainty is in the GCM’s. Feedback is hard to model. The projections that come out of model runs simply neglect to account for it; this is one reason why many of us are skeptical of IPCC projections, for instance: modelers cannot account for feedbacks. So their projections for GMT increase, GHG concentration increase are inherently conservative.

                    • Isandhlwana79

                      “Feedback is hard to model”

                      That right there should tell you that climate science is poorly understood at this point in time. That is a FACT.
                      You have fallen for the scare tactics of 280ppm of CO2. There is NOTHING to show that 600ppm would be a problem. It is all SPECULATION.

                      Do you really understand how SMALL 400ppm is? Do you? I know you don’t. A proper analogy would be putting a drop of black ink in a 55 gallon drum of white paint. Did it change it so that you would notice? Hardly. That is the same thing an additional 100ppm of CO2 is doing to the climate. The climate ITSELF is showing EXACTLY that. Temperatures have been going up since the last ice age and CO2 has little to nothing to do with it. You have fallen for the scare tactics hook, line and sinker. Try using some reasoning skills for a change and stop being a lemming.

                    • Will Watson

                      Hydrogen Sulfide is lethal at concentrations of 550ppm. I know that much.

                      The relationship between CO2 concentrations and global temperature is about as solid as anything in science. A physicist friend of mine says we know less about gravity than we do about the greenhouse effect.

                      And yes, there are clearly perceptible changes in the climate that can be linked to changes in CO2 concentration, or rather to the increased warmth created by CO2 and the increased atmospheric energy that results.

                    • Isandhlwana79

                      H2S is not CO2. Good try though. Comparing gravity to CO2 is another nice try. Swing and a miss is more like it. None of the doomsday predictions have come to pass. That is a FACT. The AGW advocates have over sold their bill of goods and unfortunately you have bought into it. It is impossible to tell if the warmth the Earth is experiencing is due to CO2 or just natural variabilty. Anybody who claims so is lying. Simple as that.
                      Remember, modelling the climate has not been successful. THAT should tell you something (if you have an open mind, which I know you don’t).

                    • Will Watson

                      You’re a bloody idiot. My work here is done. I’ve disrupted the circle jerk among you harebrained deniers.

                      You guys’ ignorance is no longer safe, even here, in the heart of dumbness of the alternative universe of climate change denial.

                      People with good sense are watching and listening to your ranting idiocy. You can’t argue with the laws of nature, Zulu.

                    • Isandhlwana79

                      Hahahahaha……………You frustrated because you can’t prove your scam known as AGW? If you would like to see an idiot, walk into your bathroom and stare into the mirror……LMAO!!!!

                    • TruthTeller

                      Oh, Willie. You shouldn’t show so much anger. You work for a politician, and they don’t like conflict. It’s bad politics. And since you aren’t a climate scientist, you don’t have anything to fall back on if you get fired. Calm down. Breathe deeply.

                    • TruthTeller

                      Really, Willie? Hydrogen sulfide is at LETHAL concentrations? Then why aren’t you dead? The only thing at lethal concentrations is the BS coming from politicians, and the lackeys who work for them. By the way… aren’t you a secretary for a politician? You pretend to be a climate expert, but you are a shill for a politician? C’mon, Willie… tell these good people the truth.

                    • TruthTeller

                      Go get a degree in Climate Science, Willie. Right now you serve tea to a member of Parliament. You’re hardly the expert you pretend to be.

                    • Will Watson

                      Nothing that I’ve said is particularly hard to understand. Unlike you cretins, I actually study climate science before I try to discuss it. Any halfway intelligent layman can understand this stuff.

                      You need to face the fact that you are emotionally committed to remaining ignorant. It’s perfectly alright, you know. I understand. The world is not as you were conditioned to believe it was.

                      But you shouldn’t fool yourself, either, that the unmitigated crap that C-Fact pushes is in any way, shape or form the truth about climate change.

                    • TruthTeller

                      Willie, Willie, Willie. You’re a lowly secretary for a politician. You memorize this stuff, and then come here to try it out. You aren’t a climate scientist. You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. But, just like the politician you work for, you say it with such conviction. Poor little tike.

                    • TruthTeller

                      No, Willie… YOU are the one repeating what YOU have been told. Are you going to tell all these nice people that you are a secretary for a dmned politician? That you get PAID to say these things? Follow the money, Willie.

                  • TruthTeller

                    They are being “fudged” by NASA. If you read anything beyond the briefings by the politician you work for, you would know that. They were fudged by the University of East Anglia. You should know that, too. But, hey, why let facts get in the way of a good story? Isn’t that what the politicians always say?

                    • Will Watson

                      Which? When? By whom? Oh cripes, you’re referring to “Climate Gate”.

                      Climategate was a hoax. Mann and Jones have been exonerated of any wrongdoing by any number of independent commissions.

                      I can’t believe you denialist idiots haven’t gotten the memo on that one. What are you guys? In a time-warp or something? What’s next, references to the 30,000 signature petition?

                  • David Chorley

                    Water, you forgot water, which has the broadest spectrum of absorption of all. According to Heisenberg’s theory, an atom cannot distinguish between an incoming photon and an exiting photon. The Sun provides much more incoming energy than outgoing energy. You can experience the nightime warming effect of clouds versus a clear night.

              • johndaddyo444

                There is very real doubt that CO2 “dictates” global temperatures. This doubt is shared by the vast majority of scientists who have investigated the false, political activist claims of the UN IPCC’s policy board. (Which routinely subverts the actual science reported by alleged climate scientists)

                You seem to be completely ignorant about climate science, so I’d advise you to shut up now, while others might still credit you with possessing a modicum of intelligence.

                • Isandhlwana79

                  The clown is full of himself. He claims to have a FULL understanding of climate science!!! Imagine! He must be the only human on the planet to possess such knowledge.LMAO!! The reality is that he’s a fool, dumb as a rock!

                  • TruthTeller

                    Do they teach these techniques to you, when you work for a politician? It’s not cute. It’s not witty. It doesn’t work. You’re wrong on a daily basis, because you serve tea to a professional liar. Do they pay you extra to shill on these forums, or are you just polishing your skills?

                    • Will Watson

                      No “Truth Teller” I come on here so that the ignorati who frequent this noxious site will no longer feel safe to pat each other on the back in congratulation over shared ignorance and hatred of science.

                      Where ever do you get the idea that I work for a politician? That’s bizarre.

                      Oh wait, MOST of the ideas that are touted on this site ARE bizarre. Never mind. Carry on . . .

                • TruthTeller

                  No, Willie, YOU are completely ignorant. After all, you’re a secretary for a dmned politician. You already sold your soul. Nobody believes the politicians, much less their lackeys. But you still think you’re relevant.

                  • Will Watson

                    WTF? How did you get the idea that I’m a “secretary for a politician.” That’s a new one. I’m a college English professor at a big state uni in the South.

              • TruthTeller

                The records you refer to have been “altered”. If you want to use the REAL records, we’ll join you. If you want to use the ones that a politician ordered up, you’re on your own. We’re sick of shills for politicians (like you) trying to jam untruth down our throats. Be a good little boy and go pour some tea for the MP you work for.

                • Will Watson

                  Is there a “Will Watson” who’s on some MP’s staff or something? Weird . . .

                  Records are not “altered” you ranting jackass. They’re processed. Why do they have to be processed?

                  Because almost none of the records are continuous. Weather stations have moved, they’ve changed the
                  time of day where the temperature-of-record is taken, and they’ve replaced old thermometers with more modern equipment. All of these events create discontinuities in the record of each location, and the processing is used to get things into alignment, creating a single, unified record.

                  There have been so many confirming reconstructions of the GMT records that only someone living in a bubble–like C-Fact–could not know this. There’s a good discussion of all this here:


              • David Chorley

                CO2 “reflects” nothing: photons in a narrow band of infra-red cause excitation of the carbon-oxygen double bonds and as the bonds relax, photons of lower energy are re-emitted, in a statistically random spherical mode. Some chemist friend… maybe he sells ointment at Boots

                • Will Watson

                  You gotta put the hay down where the goats can get it Dave: I’m not dealing with rocket scientists here: “reflects” is close enough.

                  “Refracts” would be more accurate–that’s what you described you condescending shit– but most people don’t know what that means.

                  • Isandhlwana79

                    “condescending”…..did you call someone “condescending”?…..hahahahahhahaha oh my!!! Do you know the meaning of “irony”, there Professor? How about “Projection”?……It fits you to a Tee……………..LMAO!!!!!!
                    As your mentor Obama would say, you are punching above your weight…………..LMAO!!!

          • johndaddyo444

            This website can be easily “checked” by tracing to the sources of their information. Satellite data is published at various sites.

            Try finding original data on SkepticalScience (John Cook’s website disseminating climate misinformation) or RealClimate (Michael Mann, the hockey-schtick liar’s website, also disseminating propaganda and half-truths about climate).

            Oh, you can trace back to “scientific papers” all right – at both SkepticalScience and RealClimate. But, unless you are a scientist, you will be unable to ascertain that those “science” papers aren’t worth the computer bits used to store them on a server. The vast majority of the papers fail in three ways:

            1) No citation of raw data sources
            2) Inadequate description of method, which, if provided, would allow others to replicate the work done by the authors and check whether or not the work is valid
            3) Incomplete (understatement of the year) listing of sources for error and reasons to remain skeptical about the conclusions reached by the authors

            The last omission is the most damning, but is most helpful for those of us who are real scientists to separate real scientific papers from government-sponsored propaganda.

            • Will Watson

              Skeptical Science and RealClimate are NOT the original sources of anything. Those are not peer-reviewed scientific journals; they merely REPORT on it.

              If you want to critique the findings to which you allude–it’s not clear which–you can do so by sending a letter to the editors of the peer-reviewed journal where these errors were made.

              If the errors are as egregious and fundamental as you say, there’s no reason to think that journals like Science, and Nature, Climate Change will not recognize them if oyu point them out.

              • TruthTeller

                The politician you represent isn’t a peer-reviewed source, either, Willie. You have no degree that would allow you to judge climate science. You’re just another clown who wants to bully the public. Sit down, sir!

                • Will Watson

                  You don’t need to have a PhD. to understand and evaluate climate science, or any kind of science for that matter.

                  Like all scholarly publishing, climate science arrives at consensus through a rigorous and self-correcting peer review, where everyone who reads or reviews a given study has skin in the game of professional prestige.

                  I don’t represent any “politician”, although it’s hard NOT to bully intellectual midgets such as the deniers who frequent this site.

                  There was one guy on here who actually had no understanding of the impact of CO2 on IR light and thermal imbalance. His ignorance was truly breathtaking.

                  I’m no genius but even I know a lot more than that, and without some basic knowledge, you clowns here will remain totally in the dark. Sadly, this website has no interest in informing you. So midgets you will remain.

                  • Isandhlwana79

                    You still here trying to argue about something you have NO CLUE about? Talk about hubris!!! You don’t understand climate dynamics at all. It is clear. You are just another lemming, an idiot trying to impress people with your meager intellect. You are NO scientist so quit trying to come across as one. You are nothing more than an arrogant, ignorant troll. All you can do is regurgitate the garbage you read at the altar of AGW. You understand none of it and you’ve shown that over and over here. Now go take your crap back over to HuffPo where you belong along with the other liberal idiots. You fit in there.

          • TruthTeller

            You don’t look for fact at all. You work for a politician. You have NO credentials in the climate field, other than the fact that you represent a professional liar. Not exactly impressive, Willie.

            • Will Watson

              You have yet to engage a single thing I’ve said on the grounds of fact. I doubt you know a damned thing about climate change.

        • Jack Wolf

          Care to back that up with a credible source? I think the other environmental scientists and physicists would have responded if that were true. Unless of course, all the scientific and medical establishments were in on it. Yea, that’s the ticket – they are out to get us, lol.

          • Isandhlwana79

            We’ve had this go-around before. There is nothing I could show YOU that you’d believe. After all you are another “true believer”. Why don’t you try reading the article THIS comment section is attached to? Do it with an open mind for a change. I know I’m asking too much of you, Jack.

      • TruthTeller

        You’re a secretary for a crappy politician, Willie. Not a climate scientist. You’re an expert in make-believe – nothing more.

          • Robert

            Thanks for taking the time to learn and explain the basics on ACC.

            I notice a lot of empty claims and links to newspaper articles as their ‘proof’. Somebody should send them to the library:
            How to Evaluate Resources

            The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources.

            “CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!”

  2. echo sierra

    Once we got enough satellites up, there was an “unexpected” pause in warming. Amazing. Now that the Hoaxoligists can’t “massage” the numbers or make estimates about large areas that didn’t have observations, the trend went flat. Simply incredible.

    • Will Watson

      The raw satellite data are no less in need of processing than any other data used to calculate GMT. Your name should be “Bravo Sierra” or “BS”.

  3. Will Watson

    Here are the real NASA/NOAA globla mean temperature graphs. This site is basically lying to you, by cherry picking a limited trend length from the longer record.

  4. Will Watson

    Here are the real NASA/NOAA globla mean temperature graphs. This site is basically lying to you, by cherry picking a limited trend length from the longer record.

  5. Sull

    Hard for the cultists to bear, all these satellites giving real data. What will they do? Most rural folks figured this out long ago. Seems that most of the cultists were disillusioned city folks, out of touch with the everyday outdoor work that feeds them. Guess their leaders best get back to selling flowers at airports. 18 years now and its still unicorns and magic spells from the ipcc. Glad this is over.

    • Will Watson

      I’d be glad if it were over too. We all would. But it’s not. And wishing it was won’t change that.

    • Sull

      I didn’t wish for satellites, we all paid for them. The 1930s were just as warm, that is before the data was mann-ipulated. Unicorns and magic spells. lmao 30 years of raw satellite data verses everyone and their dog having a chart. No contest.

      • Will Watson

        Whatever . . . satellites are notoriously hard to calibrate for things like orbital decay, instrumental heat buildup, coverage overlap and a number of other factors.

        And the idea that they produce data that is “harder to manipulate” is sort of ridiculous. If there was conspiracy to exaggerate global warming–which is the only thing that makes any sense given your conclusions–the satellite records would be no harder to manipulate than than other records.

        And they show a warming that is consistent with the surface records, which don’t really resemble the description of them in the article. I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but our carbon-driven way of life is simply not sustainable. There are literally dozens of independent confirmations of the GMT data sets.

  6. Sull

    Hard for the cultists to bear, all these satellites giving real data. What will they do? Most rural folks figured this out long ago. Seems that most of the cultists were disillusioned city folks, out of touch with the everyday outdoor work that feeds them. Guess their leaders best get back to selling flowers at airports. 18 years now and its still unicorns and magic spells from the ipcc. Glad this is over.

  7. Will Watson

    Here’s the real data on global warming, not the cherry picked, short term temperature series C-Fact is using to try to trick you.

    • KelpieJethro

      This chart doesn’t contain satellite data (obviously there were no satellites in 1880). And if you look closely, it’s Fahrenheit and the degree difference between 1880 and 2010 is about 1 degree, -.25 to 1.25, 1 lousy degree since 1880. Come on people, the sun can burp 1 degree……

  8. Sull

    Everyman and his dog has a massaged chart. Guess they haven’t caught on yet. Research this graph and see how you are being mann-ipulated. Note they were caught lowering the past data. Funny when ever new technology challenges any religion, it takes years for them to find reality and except the truth. Satellites will prove this religion wrong, then we will see who the flat earthers really are.

  9. TruthTeller

    Hahaha – Will Watson is the “Office Manager to Baroness Verma “. The guy who posts hundreds of times as a climate expert is a damned secretary. Tell you what, Willie… when you get a PhD in Climate Scientology, come back. Until then, quit pretending to be an adult. You don’t have ANY more credentials than the average person on the street. You WORK FOR a politician, and so you think you’ve learned how to bully people. P*ss off.

    • Will Watson

      “Wiiliam Watson” is a common name in the Anglo-American world, TeeTee. I’m an American academic, living in the Sun Belt.

      You don’t have to have a PhD to understand science when the entire scientific establishment is saying the same thing.

      And it’s impossible NOT to bully the mental midgets, such as yourself, who frequent this noxious site

  10. MarkB

    Oh dear another rubbish denier site without one once of credulity. according to the Met office in the UK. NOAA and NASA 2014 was the hottest year on record. Those records include the central England record that goes back to 1659 (mean monthly) 13 of the hottest years on record are in the last 15 years. So much for a pause in warming! Your fabricated graphs mean nothing. How much are you paid to be a Kotchsucker?

      • MarkB

        Try using a reputable scientific site. Your information is wrong as is there’s if you investigate they are paid to dispute facts with lies. NASA’s latest report says they are 100% sure that it is the warmest year on record as is NOAA and more importantly the UK met office that has records going back 450 years. Also the Ice core records do not lie.

        • Isandhlwana79

          From NASA:

          “The satellite-based record dates back 36 years, and the University of Alabama group has ranked 2014 as the third warmest on that record, though only by a very small margin.”

          Even THEY admit that other data groups are different than theirs.

          Going back 450 years is a joke and YOU know it. England did not and does NOT constitute the globe.

          • MarkB

            I did not say it does simply that the Central England temperature record is a fact. So stop being an imbecile and actually look at the real peer reviewed facts, instead of the industry sponsored lies. The Kotch brothers should be in prison for environmental terrorism. By the way how much do you get paid to be an idiot. And do you think your grandchildren will thank you when you are proven wrong.

            • Isandhlwana79

              No more than you get paid, chump. You are too stupid to understand that the science is FAR from settled. Now, GFY.

              • MarkB

                Ah, the usual dignified reply from the Kotchsucker brigade. When you don’t have evidence based answers resort to lies and insults. For 99% of the scientific community that are not paid by the environmental terrorists of the carbon industry the science is settled. In fact the Intergovernmental report was quite understated to appease the more conservative members (paid by industry). Frankly it is probably to late to avert disaster.. With methane blooms appearing in a number of places around the world it mean Methane hydrates are defrosting. There is now an overwhelming amount of evidence that global warming is real and accelerating.

                • Isandhlwana79

                  Hey, numbnuts you called me an idiot first and as a typical liberal you can dish it out but you can’t take it. Grow a pair, boy.

                  • MarkB

                    Well sadly at 53 years old I am a bit old to qualify a boy any more.

                    I see you have expanded your witty repartee. Did you have to look up the big words or did you just ask the nearest 6 year old?

                    And who said I was a Liberal? Just because I am concerned: as we all should be: about climate change, does not mean I am a Liberal.

                    In fact it does not matter what your political or social leanings are you should be worried about climate change rather than spouting inane right wing propaganda. This sort of attitude will only benefit the 1% Who are pocketing vast sums of money out of the business of destroying our planet. The only one we have by the way!

                    Climate change is an established fact. The only argument is whether or not man is accelerating a natural process. This in itself is a red hearing and diverts attention away from the fact that the climate is changing moreover it is changing at a rate that science can not explain.

                    Pray that this does not turn out to be an El Ninio year, as the consequence with the pacific already 2 deg warmer than it should be, could well be pretty catastrophic for many country’s. Not to mention the bleaching of the reefs that support 25% of marine species.

                    • Isandhlwana79

                      Well I am considerably older than you, so you’re still a boy to me. What you have already written and how you write it indicates liberalism. The fact that you keep mentioning the Koch (notice the proper spelling) brothers confirms you are a liberal. So don’t deny it.
                      Climate change IS an established fact. The question is how much humans are affecting it. Thus far it is NOT proven that the miniscule amount of CO2 humans produce is changing anything. That is a FACT. The Earth is warming and no one can tell if it is natural variability alone. Just taking temperature measurements and declaring that it is settled is the shallowest form of inquiry. The FACT that AGW proponents want to stifle debate is another “tell’ about how precarious the premise really is. If you have an open mind, you’d read ALL the contrary evidence regardless who supplies it. But all I hear is a castigation of the messengers and not so much of the message other than to say it’s “wrong”.
                      This whole debate is more about politics than science. I am more than open to the concept of human caused change but at this point in time it is NOT proven despite what you and others say. You are engaging in group think and that is not an admirable trait.
                      Finally, I won’t insult you any further Mark. Just know that your arguments are unpersuasive to me. You can have the last word. Good night and take care.

                    • MarkB

                      Errm I live in the UK so No I am not a Democrat. I do not support not follow any party in the US. You only have one choice really anyway. That is 2 shades of right that both support the 1% over their voters.

  11. Will Watson

    Temperature data is not “the biggest scientific scandal ever” (Ars Technica, today)

    Over the weekend, another editor pointed me to this piece in The Telegraph
    in which columnist Christopher Booker calls scientists’ handling of the
    temperature data “the biggest science scandal ever.” The same piece
    also appeared in a discussion today and was sent in via the
    reader-feedback form. So, it seemed worth looking into.

    Doing so caused a bit of a flashback—to January 2013,
    specifically. That was the last time that the previous year had been
    declared the warmest on record, an event that apparently prompts some
    people to question whether we can trust the temperature records at all.

    The culprit that time was Fox News, but the issue was the same: the
    raw data from temperature measurements around the world aren’t just
    dumped into global temperature reconstructions as-is. Instead, they’re
    processed first. To the more conspiracy minded, you can replace
    “processed” with “fraudulently manipulated to make it look warmer.”

  12. Richard StJohn

    Wow, scrolling through the comments there is some serious disagreement among those with far more information and knowledge of the subject than I posses. I’m just going to try the common sense approach. The EPA won’t release its methodology. Studies can’t be confirmed. But they are the government and state we should just trust them. Global warming fail number one. The government constantly lies to us and has no credibility. Nobel Prize winner Al Gore who achieved this honor for his work on climate change said we would likely have no polar ice caps by now. They seem to be growing from the things I’ve read. Global Warming fail number two. Finally like most people who go outside I consider what the temperature is going to be. I live in Phoenix Arizona. A month ago we had snow flurries. We have frost forming on windshields. These things are unheard of here. I know that one small area does not a global image make. But it’s kinda hard to convince people the earth is warming when the opposite is visible. Global warming fail three.

    Then of course there is the real reason for the global warming concerns. The lying, delusional, psychopath in the White House wants to shut down all coal fired energy plants. he wants to make America weaker and has succeeded beyond imagination. He caused the last lead smelting operation in this country to be shut down. Why? So ammunition would become more expensive and less available. This is just one of many examples of this administration using different means to bring about a desired political result that cannot be made through legislation. To me that says it all. Global warming is bullsh*t because the UN and Barack Obama say it’s true.

    • Will Watson

      Seek professional help. You;re suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome, which CAN be treated. You don’t need to suffer.

    • Isandhlwana79

      Richard, pay no attention to Prof. Will Watson. He is simply a demented liberal college Professor (in English no less)………..LMAO

    • Jack Wolf

      I don’t think nature gives a hoot about who says what. She only responds to forcings, and our greenhouse gas forcings can not be denied. Hold on to your hat, cause her past response to such force has been formidable.

      • Isandhlwana79

        BS!!! Look at the article on Geophysical Research Letters posted above. Greenhouse forcings (the amount) is NOT really known precisely at this point in time.

        • Jack Wolf

          There is no link. I get the GRL and the AGU journals. Believe me, global warming is occurring because of our emissions and is sure to get much worse. Historic studies have shown that. And, BTW, the graphs above show the anomaly which is not the same as the actual temperatures. Anomalies show the difference between historic avg. temps and observed temp in a given year. The fact that the points in the above graphs are above the mean show the earth is warming.

          • Isandhlwana79

            Well if you get the journal read the article. They admit that radiative forcing may have been estimated too high. They also admit to there being a hiatus in temperature rises (as do many other climate scientists). The bottom line is that the premise that CO2 is doing much if anything to the climate is NOT settled. You should recognize that!

  13. Turboblocke

    Wow, mega cherry pick. Did you calculate the trend using more than one starting point? Of course not, because that wouldn’t give you the result that you wanted.

  14. Isandhlwana79

    For the dude who thinks newspaper articles are not “proof”. Here is a NEW article directly from Geophysical Research Letters:

    Article CategoryResearch LettersClimate

    The recent global warming hiatus: What is the role of Pacific variability?

    AuthorsH. Douville, A. Voldoire, O. GeoffroyFirst Published:10 February 2015

    Key Points

    Many models overestimate the Pacific influence on global mean temperature

    The recent hiatus is only partly due to the internal Pacific variability

    The TCR of CNRM‐CM5 might be overestimated


    Notice the last point where they admit that models might be too sensitive to the prescribed radiative forcings. In other words the science is FAR from settled and climate science itself is in its infancy. Also note how they recognize the “hiatus” or pause in temperature rises..

    But maybe THIS link is not sufficient to sway the true believers of AGW…..or is it ACC now???………………LMAO!!!!

    • Will Watson

      One study “proves” nothing. Are you suffering under the astounding delusion that AGW theory hangs on a thin thread of scientific studies?

      The world you idiots live in never fails to astound me.

      • Isandhlwana79

        Coming from a dumbass English Professor, I’ll take that as a compliment. Did you ever take a science course above 100 in college? Probably not. So who are you to lecture ANYONE about science?………LMAO

  15. George Clark

    Cooling yes warming probably not, however are we to trust humans to correct climate, especially politicians who always get it wrong and reap profit. No I don’t think so. What if the method they use pushes it the wrong way?

  16. Dano2

    Complete trends of all major measurement datasets, including satellites, show no cooling nor not-warming. Weird how none of them are brought up in the piece, except for the dishonest RSS graph (which the RSS people warn users not to dishonestly cherry-pick their data in just that way).



  17. jaytee

    The author does understand that these are measurements of the stratosphere? which have been scientifically accepted to have an inverse relationship with the troposphere? This is taught at basic university literature now, readings are linked below, its even mentioned on wiki, so really as a journalist, representing you think you could have figured that out with a bit of investigation, just look at this things inquisitively, its a good challenge, and your job

    Shine, Keith P has a lot of good work pertaining to this:

0 Pings & Trackbacks