Temperature Charts Reveal Astounding Cluelessness Among Top Scientists On Real Global Mean Temperature!

We’ve got to keep the planet from warming 2°C since industrialization began, the AGW alarmist scientists warn us. So far we are told that manmade greenhouse gases have warmed the planet 0.8°C since about 1880, which means it must not warm more than another 1.2°C.

Hoffmann’s video shows that nobody has a clue as to what the real global mean temperature is. Estimates vary over a whopping 1.5°C range!

Rainer Hoffmann of solarkritik.de has put together an outstanding montage of video clips depicting various global mean temperature charts used by top scientists and media. What they reveal is truly stunning: the world’s top climate scientists have no clue what the real global mean temperature really is. As you will see, figures range from 14.5°C to 16.0°C!

First, it is important to know that according to scientists, the greenhouse effect adds 33°C to the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere near the surface. That’s the consensus that the first 8 minutes of the video clearly shows. Wthout greenhouse gases, the temperature of the planet would be a frigid -18°C (0°F). Thanks to the greenhouse effect, the planet’s surface warms to a mean of 15°C.

So using the 2°C target, the globe therefore should not warm up beyond 15°C + 2°C = 17°C. Over 17°C, all hell will break loose they warn us.

Most climate scientists agree that temperatures have risen 0.5° since the 1950s, and 0.3°C from 1880 to 1950. So that means the global mean temperatures should appear as follows:
Today: 15.8°
1950: 15.3°C
1880: 15°C

Right? Well, it turns out IPCC scientists are all over the board when it comes to these figures and nobody really knows. What follows next are examples of what the German public has been hearing over the last few years from leading scientists and media. Rainer Hoffmann put together a number of videos depicting charts used by scientists and media. Now hold on to your seat!

10:56, Hans Schellnhuber on German public television, 11/2009:
Today: 15.3°C
1950: 14.8°C
1880: 14.5°C

11:40, Stefan Rahmstorf, chart implies:
Today: 15.5°C
1950: 15.0°C
1880: 14.7°C

12:25, IPCC 2007 4AR (brace yourself!)
Today: 14.5°C
1950: 14.0°C
1880: 13.7°C

According to the IPCC, we still haven’t reached natural greenhouse temperature of 15°C! All those “weather extremes” we’ve had over the recent years occurred below the natural greenhouse temperature! So how could it be CO2?

14:20, ZDF German public television, 12/2009
Today: 14.5°C
1950: 14.0°C
1880: 13.7°C

15:31, IPCC lead scientist Mojib Latif, 03/2012
Today: 14.5°C
1950: 14.0°C
1880: 13.7°C

15:50, Book by Schellnhuber & Rahmstorf, 2006
Today: 14.5°C
1950: 14.0°C
1880: 13.7°C

Here we see that global mean temperature for Schellnhuber (see above) has gone up 0.8°C in just 3 years! Now that’s fast.

16:16, Der Spiegel, 1988
Today: 15.5°C
1950: 15.0°C
1880: 14.7°C

18:20, Ravenburger children’s book, 2010
Today: 16.0°C
1950: 15.5°C
1880: 15.2°C

According to Ravenburger, we’re now down to our last degree before we all die!

It gets even more bizarre. The video at the 20:20 mark shows Environment Minister Peter Altmaier saying in July, 2012, that the target was to limit global warming to 2 percent!

Finally at the 22:00 mark, Hans Schellnhuber takes the cake saying in 2008 that if the world’s population reaches 9 billion, the world will explode!

If anything, all this shows that leading IPCC scientists have no idea what the real mean global temperature is. They’re making things up. Hoffmann only looked at charts used in Germany. Imagine what we would find if looked all over the world.

Next time you see a temperature chart, check the vertical temperature axis. You may find more surprises.

Would somebody please tell me WTF the real global mean temperature is? This whole thing is just a total circus.

Hats off to Rainer Hoffmann for this observation.

49 responses to “Temperature Charts Reveal Astounding Cluelessness Among Top Scientists On Real Global Mean Temperature!”

  1. Pascvaks

    Climatology is a ‘psyentific’ means to a ‘political’ end, a beautiful, grand, New World Order with far less ‘people’ (especially less of the wrong, poor, stupid kind), far less use of ‘resources’ (especially less of the scarce, hard to get kind) and yucky, yucky pollution (especially less of the real yucky, yucky everywhere you look and breathe kind). Funny though, while the West is intent on destroying itself and letting India and China ‘pollute’ the planet, India and China are intent to letting them do it while they grow bigger and bigger and bigger… I’m telling you, someone put something in the water. The water of the West that is. You know, I’m starting to think the old Soviet Union is alive and kicking too, not sure where they’re hiding but I can still smell ’em and the stench is getting stronger by the day. You don’t suppose they’re hiding in plain sight, like maybe under some buildings, at Oxford, Hav’erd, Cambridge, Paris, Sydney, Berlin, Rome, Rio, … do you? Ok! Ok! No one’s that mean and smart! It’s got to be the water!

  2. DirkH

    Pierre, the science is settled. I am sure the upcoming IPCC report will give a definitive and sufficiently alarming number.

  3. thebiggreenlie

    “Finally at the 22:00 mark, Hans Schellnhuber takes the cake saying in 2008 that if the world’s population reaches 9 billion, the world will explode!”…………………………………There are studies by real scientists that state the world’s population is actually slowly balancing out and by 2050 the natural birth/death ratios will show a decline and the population of the world will more likely be around 8 billion and could be actually as low as 7 billion……………….nicely done Schellnhuber!…………..you were born too late!…………….you would have really been listened to back in the 1930’s!

  4. Rainer Hoffmann (@solarkritik)

    Thanks for publishing…my real great Video… ;-))

    1. DirkH

      Hilarious, Rainer, grossartig!
      I’ve given up on TV 10 years ago so I missed all the fun…

  5. GregO

    Pierre,

    What you are seeing here is a well-understood phenomena – as a matter of act there is even a scientific consensus…it is Man-Made Global Warming. It can be understood as a progressive alteration of the temperature record to better reflect the emotional truth of CAGW.

    /sarc

  6. Bob Armstrong

    Thanks . This is important data . ( However , I still feel I was right that it was not worth my time working to learn Deutsch by reading Faust in Gymnasium in Indiana 50 years ago . So the video is way too much work now . )

    I have long questioned if the global mean surface temperature was known to greater than the 0.3% precision which seems to be the agreed claimed warming since the industrial revolution .

    Equally importantly , that 33c value for the atmospheric effect on our mean temperature is maximally biased mathematically amateurish Scheiße . As explained and calculated at http://climatewiki.org/wiki/Category:Essential_Physics , the temperature of a gray ball , however light or dark , in our orbit is about 279 kelvin , + ( PLUS ) 4 centigrade . They have to assume an extremely skewed absorption/emission spectrum for the earth’s surface to even approach the minimum possible given our albedo wrt the sun : 255 . As I comment in my http://cosy.com/y12/NewsLetter2012.html , give me the spectrum of liquid water , which dominates our surface , and I will give you its equilibrium temperature . That sort of computation should be the absolute most basic calculation by any student planing to go into the field which is currently “climate scientology” rather than a legitimate branch of applied physics .

    Interesting that 8 estimates covering 5 different intervals should all have exactly the same 0.8 range .

    1. DirkH

      They probably had some psychologists running surveys and found that 0.8 works best with the audience.

    2. Bernd Felsche

      The filmmaker has been careful to stick to the “consensus” numbers and still managed to look the alarmists and accomplices look like donkeys; on the one hand stating that the global mean temperature for the greenhouse is 15°C; and then reporting that that temperature hasn’t even been reached after all that “catastrophic” warming.

      IIRC from my first study of (planetary) radiation physics in 1977 (Physics 110); the “greenhouse effect” of +33°C is based on the assumptions of a non-rotating, stationary, massless planet with a uniform solid surface and perfect conductivity and no capacity to store heat, surrounded by a perfectly transparent, uniform, inviscid atmosphere also with no capacity to store heat; all at a constant distance from a constant sun. Those are the main simplifying assumptions used to _teach_ radiation physics.

      And that appears to be where “Earth scientists” cease to understand thermodynamics. Never appreciating that the teaching model is nothing like any planet in the real universe could ever be. In their disappointment and driven by the urge to enhance their ignorance; they seek refuge in computer models.

      The greenhouse effect is actually the result of a classical fallacy: argumentum ad ignorantiam; argument from ignorance. “We can think of any reason why the planet is warmer than it should be by simple radiation physics so it must be the atmosphere.”

      Rainer Hoffmann’s concluding seconds are spot-on. Schellnhuber, etc. need to be laughed at. Loudly. Publically. They need to be laughed out of their comfortable chairs.

  7. DirkH

    Global Warming continues to be big business. The WWF offers you to become the “godparent” of an imaginary polar bear for only 10 EUR a month.
    Just saw this ad:

    https://eisbaer.patenschaft.at/de/eb03/?cf=lieb0404

    “Climate Change endangers the polar bears. Without ice they find no food! Sea ice melts ever sooner and becomes ever thinner. The bears must stay on land longer or swim 100s of kilometers. Frequently they nevertheless find no food – and must starve to death.”

    Maybe I’ll start a countercampaign to save the seals from the exploding polar bear population. If you donate for both you’ve got a perfectly balanced karma.

  8. Mindert Eiting

    “Would somebody please tell me WTF the real global mean temperature is? This whole thing is just a total circus”. That number depends on

    1. Quality of stations (see Watts et al)
    2. Homogenisations.
    3. Handling of missing data.
    4. Way of computing daily means.
    5. How stations are distributed over the earth.
    6. How regions are defined.
    7. Assumptions in estimation procedures.
    8. What spokesmen consider interesting numbers.
    9. What’s going on in reality.
    10. Else (because I wanted ten points).

    Have a good night.

    1. DirkH

      Wolfram Alpha says 14.3 deg. C.
      http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=mean+global+temperature

      If you have a new iPhone, ask Siri. It should say the same thing because Siri asks Wolfram Alpha.

    2. ArndB

      @Mindert Eiting „10. Else (because I wanted ten points).”

      10. The global air temperature is represented in a water volume of 12,900 cubic kilometers that is about 1‰ of the water volume holds with 1349,930 cubic kilometers (km3). The Baltic Sea holds almost the double volume water about (20,000 km³) as the atmosphere.
      11. If one wonders how “global average temperature” is generated, it seems hilarious how science discusses “ocean heat content” and includes SST into “global temperatures”.

      1. ArndB

        Judith Curry blog (Climate Etc, 31 July) informs about a Senate hearing on climate change:

        ___”At 10 am ET tomorrow, there will be a copy of James McCarthy’s testimony here. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists “he will explain that the ocean has absorbed more than 90 percent of the heat trapped over the past century by greenhouse gasses that have accumulated in the atmosphere, and that this heat is now penetrating deep into the ocean. According to McCarthy, this pattern cannot be explained by short-term natural cycles; it is a clear signature of climate change. He also will explain how what happens in the ocean affects the climate on land, including seasonal patterns of extreme weather events.” ”
        http://judithcurry.com/2012/07/31/senate-hearing-on-the-latest-climate-change-science-and-local-adaptation-measures/

        1. Bernd Felsche

          McCarthy is trying to heat the ocean surface with warm(er) air?

          Somebody lend him a hair dryer and and a bucket of cold water so that he can warm the water with the hair dryer by blowing warm air onto the surface of the water. (Don’t try it at home kids; it takes a speshull sciencetit to do this experiment safely.)

          When he’s finished doing that, he can reveal to us where the air over the oceans has been substantially warmer than normal, given natural, cyclic variations.

  9. Pierre Gosselin: Temperature Charts Reveal Astounding Cluelessness Among Top Scientists On Real Global Mean Temperature! | JunkScience.com

    […] No Tricks Zone […]

  10. August 2, 2012 | Another Slow News Day
  11. Rainer Hoffmann (@solarkritik)

    Here an actuallaly dokumentation about “non-exististing global warming” (german) :

    http://solarresearch.org/sk2010/INFO/Bundestag1992_KeineGlobaleErwaermung_20120806_15Grad.pdf

  12. Rainer Hoffmann (@solarkritik)

    Here another actuallaly dokumentation about “non-exististing global warming” since 20years (german) :

    http://solarresearch.org/sk2010/co2klima/recherchen/806-bundestagkeineglobaleerwaermung.html

  13. Why Pay Carbon Taxes when the ‘Official’ Scare is Over? – Data From Leading IPCC Scientists Show Global Temps Have DROPPED Unprecendented 1°C Since 1990! | Sovereign Independent UK

    […] More on this here. […]

  14. Johan

    I have searched the literature for any kind of scientifically based objective argument regarding 2 degrees warming meaning a catastrophic tippping point including the end of the world, but in vain. Then I came upon a quotation from Phil Jones. He says that the number is “pulled out of thin air”. So much for climate science.

    1. DirkH

      Jerome Ravetz, inventor of Post-Normal Science, never believed in an objective truth. He said so in a guest post at WUWT.

  15. Bill

    Of course – the fact your article uses 1990 – the hottest year on record (EVER) as the basis with which to “disprove” the warming isn’t misleading at all, right?
    Have a look here, and then tell me there isn’t a trend, no matter what the number is – and look especially at the last 50 years!
    http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/global-annual-average-temperature-deviations-1850-2004-compared-with-the-1961-1990-average-in-oc/

    1. DirkH

      Bill, you haven’t understood.

      What is the average temperature of the planet?

      Schellnhuber said 15.3 deg C in 2009. He knew the average temperature of the planet to a decimal.

      The IPCC said 14.5 deg C in 2007. They also knew the temperature to a decimal.

      One of them must be a liar, or wrong. And who is right? Schellnhuber? The IPCC? Who decides?

      Maybe you say “doesn’t matter”. BUT if an absolute temperature difference of 0.8 deg C does not matter to you, then why do you fear future warming? You don’t even know or care how warm it is now!

      Please explain.

  16. Bill

    Dirk – you are missing my point (and I understand yours full well). It’s not that the exact temperature doesn’t matter, and of course people are going to disagree on the exact temperature depending on how they measure it (you yourself have said you only believe satellites).
    The point is look at the graph I showed, it clearly shows the trend. Just as C02 measurements show the trend, lack of arctic ice shows the trend, mass global weather extremes show the trend, etc. etc. The trend is not debatable – the climate is warming very quickly and it is caused by human activity.
    The argument about climate change as a reality is, to thinking people who accept scientific proof, over – the argument about what we should do about it should be well underway, but it isn’t because of people like Paul Ryan.

    1. DirkH

      You sidestep my question, Bill, because you have no good answer. But here is my answer.

      The trend is only real if nobody tampered with the past.

      The fact that we heard a 15 deg C in 1990 and hear a 14.5 deg C now – while current charts show 1990 even colder than 14.5 C – is an indication that scientific fraud is committed, or as warmist scientists call it, adjustments, or as Jerome Kravetz, the inventor of Post-Normal science calls it, no objective reality anyway.

      James Hansen changed his mind about how warm the past is frequently, for instance – just one example.
      http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/tormented-hansen-in-the-months-before-he-corrupted-the-us-temperature-record/

  17. Bill

    That is simply not true- I answered your comments earlier:
    The data shows that yes, over the millennia there have been warmer periods, wetter periods, and colder periods. But, the key thing that is going on NOW is that in the last 50 years the globe has warmed considerably and the only logical explanation is human activity. I do not contend there is no natural cycle of warm and cold, and I know full well about medieval warming and so on – it is the SPEED with which the change is occurring now that is unprecedented. You want to have proof – it is there for the looking, and it overwhelmingly concurs with my statements. Your 15 degrees in 1990 is totally bogus – that is comparing ONE YEAR (the warmest on record, as in EVER) with the following years and stating that this somehow proves that we aren’t warmer now. Why didn’t you compare it with 1992 or 1993 when it was 14.1 ? The overall pattern of all temperatures and observations is the killer to your argument – all the data points one way. Sorry you don’t understand this !

    1. DirkH

      Was the temperature in 1992 14.1 degree C in 1992 or was it 14.1 degree in 2012?

    2. DirkH

      Another remark. The data shows that the MWP was warmer than today, that the Woman warm period was warmer still, that the Minoan warm period was warmer still, and that the Holocene climatic optimum was warmer still. Why is it called “optimum” if warmth is supposed to kill us all.

      A rethoric question. You don’t have to answer.

      1. DirkH

        “Roman”, not “Woman”, sorry, my psychomotoric memory…

  18. Bill
    1. DirkH

      that’s the data from now. What did NOAA say in 1992?

  19. Bill

    Dirk- You seem to be having trouble following what I am saying. I am stating I know all about the so-called MWP and the Minoans (just got back from a dig in Santorini in fact), but it is the SPEED with which THIS change is taking place that is worrisome. Read the NOAA charts – the 1992 is there (14.1) and so are the other years. Look carefully and you’ll understand (if you actually read it) what I am saying – the 20 warmest recorded years (and what temperature doesn’t matter as it’s all the SAME method) are ALL in the last 30 years (i.e. since 1983). Since the records go back to the 1930’s that should tell you something. We are not talking century long cycles of warming and cooling, we’re talking three decades and the temperature has risen a degree or so. Dispute the numbers, dispute the technique, the PATTERN is still valid. There has been NO TIME in history when there was that amount of change THAT QUICKLY!

  20. Bill

    Perhaps some others would be interested in the MWP, the Minoan andsome other information, just so we’re on the same page and you’ll get my point. The Vostok ice samples show that at times the globe has been warmer than now. These periods of warmth had the global temperature increasing by 2 degrees or so – over a 50,000 year cycle – this is regular, it can be expected. The Minoan warming, although it may not have been global, indeed raised the temperature in some areas by a degree or so – over a 300 or so year time frame (roughly 1550 to 1250 BC – and Santorini erupted, the largest eruption in recorded history, and cooled the entire planet quite quickly or the warm period might have lasted longer). Again, quite normal, but over several hundred years. The Medieval Warm Period is also not as consistent in results world-wide, but let’s say it was – the temperature raised about 2 degrees – over a 300 year period (roughly 950 to 1250 AD). Do you see the pattern?
    Today, we are seeing a 2 degree raise since 1880 (less than 150 years), and in the last 30 years a full degree rise – that is NOT normal, that is unheard of, and that is because of human actions. Look at that NOAA chart – it ends in 2005 or you’d see something else – the 2000’s have been the warmest on record since 1880, but also have had the most rapid rise in temperature EVER. That’s the issue.

    1. DirkH

      I very much dispute that the current temperature plateau of 15 years and counting represents a speed of change that is higher than zero.

      The temperature increase in the 80ies and early 90ies is in its speed comparable to the temperature increase in the eraly decades of the 20th century.

      After several falsifications of the GISTEMP record Hansen managed to flatten the early 20the century and make the late 20th century appear steeper.

      That’s why you’re scared witless.

      I don’t think believing Hansen is an intelligent idea.

  21. Bill

    “current temperature plateau of 15 years ”
    Well, that’s why folks that think as you are stating are called “deniers”.
    You obviously haven’t actually looked at any of the charts I’ve posted, or simply care to dismiss them as somehow manipulated findings. Fine – I prefer to look at factual information, including scientific opinion that may vary, and draw my own conclusion – like the absolute fact that the last 15 years have seen a rise in temperature of almost 1 full degree (and in the last 30 just over a degree), and the supporting evidence as I mentioned before. It isn’t one scientist, it’s almost all of them that are telling us this.
    Hansen, schmansen – I gave you many, many examples of historic LONG TERM climate warnings, and you give me the “information” that one scientist has “falsified” information.
    Of course, to you its all a great big conspiracy to…I don’t know what “they” (whoever the conspirators are) get out of it, but I’m sure you can enlighten me.
    Have a great day,
    Bill

  22. Bill

    “current temperature plateau of 15 years ”
    NOT:
    http://blogs-images.forbes.com/petergleick/files/2012/02/GlobalT-15yrs.png

    1. DirkH

      Peter Gleick has confessed to wire fraud. What kind of authorities do you listen to? Did he draw that graph himself? I see no attribution. Try this one.
      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997/plot/uah/from:1997/trend

      Panicking yet? If that negligible trend continues we’ll break through the 2 deg C warming that we allegedly may not cross in 300 years!

      1. Bill

        Gleick confessed to phishing Heartland to obtain information. That isn’t “wire fraud”, and makes me wonder when you generalize in that fashion… and the graph is from NASA and the Goddard information quoted in Forbes magazine, which, given your penchant for satellites is why I thought you’d be interested.

        1. DirkH

          “In the United States, mail and wire fraud is any fraudulent scheme to intentionally deprive another of property or honest services via mail or wire communication. It has been a federal crime in the United States since 1872.”
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_fraud

          Complain to the wikipedia.

          You said:
          “and the graph is from NASA and the Goddard information quoted in Forbes magazine”

          You might not know it, but James Hansen is a NASA employee, works at GISS and creates a temperature product called GISTEMP that does not use satellite data.

          Complain to NASA.

          1. Bill

            So, you’re honestly going to say that writing an e-mail to someone under an assumed name, because you know they won’t give you the information if you use your real name, is fraud? Sheesh…

          2. DirkH

            Yes.

  23. Bill

    …and 300 years would be normal – except – I find it ironic that every single scientist who has somehting to say that leans towards climate change being rapid is somehow suspect. So, let’s play your game – this one is from your own sources…
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best-upper/from:1997/plot/best/from:1997/trend

    1. DirkH

      “I find it ironic that every single scientist who has somehting to say that leans towards climate change being rapid is somehow suspect.”

      I didn’t hold a gun to Gleick’s head and made him steal internal Heartland documents. He did that voluntarily. You pick your heroes, they are crooks, that’s because most media warmists are crooks. Not my fault.

      Good to see you play with woodfortrees. It’s a great resource. My reservations about non-satellite temperature products still stand, of course.

  24. Bill