4 New Papers: Modern Warming Is Substantially Artificial, Traced To Urbanization, Bias

Scientists: Temperature Data Contamination

Accounts For 33% – 75% Of Modern Warming

Urban heat from paved roads, buildings, and machinery can artificially inflate temperatures substantially above measured temperatures from non-urban areas.  This introduces a significant non-climatic warming bias into long-term records.

Heat from an urban (or highly populated) environment can artificially raise temperatures by as much as 3°C to 10°C relative to nearby rural locations.   This is true even for villages in the Arctic.


Imhoff et al., 2010     On a yearly average, urban areas are substantially warmer than the non-urban fringe by 2.9°C 

Konstantinov et al., 2015     This article presents the results of a study of the urban heat island (UHI) in the city of Apatity [Russian Arctic] during winter that were obtained according to the data of field meteorological measurements and satellite images. Calculations of the surface layer temperature have been made based on the surface temperature data obtained from satellite images. …  As a result of the analysis of temperature fields, an intensive heat island (up to 3.2°C) has been identified

Kim, 1992     The results indicate that urban heating is attributable to a large excess in heat from the rapidly heating urban surfaces consisting of buildings, asphalt, bare-soil and short grasses. In summer, the symptoms of diurnal heating begin to appear by mid-morning and can be about 10°C warmer than nearby woodlands.

Artificial Warming From Urban Bias A ‘Substantial Portion’ Of Overall Global Trend


Scientists were at one time concerned that artificial warming biases from expanding urbanization might contaminate the measured surface temperature record.

As recently as the late 1980s it was concluded that the “artificial warming” from urban heat could add an extraneous 0.1°C to 0.4°C of warming per decade in some regions, and that the non-climatic warming attributed to urbanization exceeds the observed overall long-term trends after the 1950s.  In other words, a substantial portion of the warming since the mid-20th century could be attributed to artificial heat.


Karl and Quayle, 1988     Karl et al., 1988) has shown that at some ‘sun belt’ cities in the West, the rise of temperature that can be attributed to the urban heat island is as much as 0.3 to 0.4°C per decade. In the East, the rise is over 0.1°C per decade. … The artificial warming in the primary station network, relative to the climate division data, is nearly 0.17°C over the past 34 years [1950s]. Such trends are at least as large as any of the observed trends over the United States (Karl, 1988) or the globe (Jones and Wigley, 1987).

Karl and Jones, 1989     Results indicate that in the United States the two global land-based temperature data sets have an urban bias between +0.1°C and +0.4°C over the twentieth century (1901-84).  … The magnitude of this urban bias in two global, land-based data sets was found to be a substantial portion of the overall trend of global and regional temperatures.

Modern Temps Rising 0.05°C – 0.12°C/Decade…Urban Heat Bias Rising Faster


The IPCC considers the year 1750 as the starting point for the radiative anthropogenic influence on climate, due principally to fossil fuel burning and concomitant CO2 emissions.  Since 1850, CO2 concentrations have risen from 285 ppm to 400 ppm.  During these ~165 years, the IPCC has concluded that surface temperatures have warmed by 0.78°C.  This is a warming rate of only 0.05°C per decade for 1850-2012 — which happens to be the same rate of warming over the 1998-2012 period.   Temperatures are rising at a rate of 0.12°C per decade during 1951-2012.


IPCC AR5 (2013):     The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85°C over the period 1880 to 2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist. The total increase between the average of the 1850–1900 period and the 2003–2012 period is 0.78 °C, based on the single longest dataset available 4 (see Figure SPM.1). … [T]he rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 °C per decade).

As suggested above, (a) non-climatic urban heating may artificially add 0.1°C per decade (or more) to the temperature record; (b) the overall surface temperature record is only rising at a rate of +0.05°C to +0.12°C per decade;  therefore, (c) this would imply that all or nearly all the warming since 1850 or 1950 may be attributed to rapidly expanding urbanization and measurement bias, not climate change.


4 New Papers Highlight Artificial Warming Bias, Adjustments


Four new studies can be added to a large collection of scientific papers documenting an accelerating artificial warming bias.


1. Urbanization Adds +0.13°C Per Decade To Temp Record


Liao et al., 2017     We examine the urban effect on surface warming in Eastern China, where a substantial portion of the land area has undergone rapid urbanization in the last few decades. Daily surface air temperature records during the period 1971–2010 at 277 meteorological stations are used to investigate temperature changes. Owing to urban expansion, some of the stations formerly located in rural areas are becoming increasingly influenced by urban environments. To estimate the effect of this urbanization on observed surface warming, the stations are dynamically classified into urban and rural types based on the land use data for four periods, i.e. 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2010. After eliminating the temperature trend bias induced by time-varying latitudinal distributions of urban and rural stations, the estimated urban-induced trends in the daily minimum and mean temperature are 0.167 and 0.085 °C decade−1, accounting for 33.6 and 22.4% of total surface warming, respectively. The temperature difference between urban and rural stations indicates that urban heat island intensity has dramatically increased owing to rapid urbanization, and is highly correlated with the difference in fractional coverage of artificial surfaces between these two types of stations. This study highlights the importance of dynamic station classification in estimating the contribution of urbanization to long-term surface warming over large areas.

2. ‘Very Likely’ GISS Artificial Warming Bias Of 0.65°C/Century (Globe)


Parker and Ollier, 2017     The global reconstructions as GISS (Hansen et al. 2010, GISTEMP Team 2017) are artificially biased upwards to reproduce the carbon dioxide emission trend, but the strong natural oscillation signal prevails. The very likely overrated warming rate since 1880 is 0.00654°C/year or 0.654°C/century. This rate increases to 0.00851°C/year or 0.851°C/century by considering the data only since 1910. The warming rate cleared of the oscillations is about constant since the 1940s.
As there is no way to perform a better measurement going back in the past, there is no legitimate way to correct recorded data of the past. Therefore, we should stick to the raw data.

2. Australia Has ‘Warmed’ By 0.04°C Since  1800s…BOM Artificially Inflated Temps


Parker and Ollier, 2017 (Continued)     Table 1 presents the warming trend for the 30 longest temperature records of Australia collected in a single location, with measurements started before 1900 and continued until after 1985.  … In the 30 locations, the monthly mean maximum temperature is warming 0.0004°C/year, or 0.04°C/century. That means there is no change within the limits of accuracy of the measurements.

A definitive statement about the BOM procedure is provided by Parker (2016). The Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) v2 temperature time series (GISS Surface Temperature Analysis, 2012) in Alice Spring and all the 36 other stations located in a circle of 1,000 km from Alice Springs do not show any warming.

There are stations covering different time windows having very close patterns of temperatures. In this circle of 3,141,593 km2 (roughly 50% of Australia) that is mostly underdeveloped, none of the stations […] actually has a warming trend. … It is therefore only an artefact by BOM to produce the warming. Homogenization is supposed to be used to account for upwards biases such as Urban Heat Island, not to introduce upwards biases.

As noticed by Parker (2015a), the ACORN adjustments of Australian temperatures are in the wrong direction, inevitably in the direction to produce a warming much larger than the legitimate. In the centre of Australia, all the stations available in a circle of radius 1,000 km were showing very little or no warming, as still acknowledged in the GHCN v2 data set up to October 2011 (Fig. 6). To move from a scattered population of stations with unequal time coverage and many missing data but both uniformly not warming to produce the largest warming trend for Australia as depicted by the BOM it only requires many administrative corrections and the development of an ad-hoc procedure to compute spatial trends.
We should also consider the role of the Bureau of Meteorology. The climate trend maps compiled by Bureau of Meteorology in their climate change section are completely unreliable, as the alleged increasing temperature is obtained by lowering temperatures of the past by “adjustments”.
The longest of the Australian temperature records that were considered the most reliable by Bureau of Meteorology on February 2009 (BOM 2009) are still available as raw temperatures in the climate data online section and consistently show no warming and no increased extreme events within the limit of accuracy of measurements.

3. Moving Stations, ‘Adjustment’ Bias Adds +0.47°C  To Temp Record Since 1800s


Dienst et al., 2017     We here assess these influences and demonstrate that even in villages urban heat island biases might affect the temperature readings. … Due to the station movement from the village centre to the outskirts, the net correction results in an additional warming trend over the past 155 years. The trend increase is most substantial for minimum temperatures (+0.03 °C /10 years−1) [+0.47°C over 155 years] . … An increase in trend is even more severe if the 20th century is regarded exclusively, displaying a rise in annual mean temperature trend by +0.03 °C /10 years−1 and +0.07 °C /10 years−1 in annual minimum temperatures, respectively.  … The adjustment of the Haparanda station record results in an increased warming trend.

4. Rapidly Increasing Urbanization To Add 2.4°C To Temps By 2100


Levermore et al., 2017     The urban heat island intensity in Manchester has a highly significant rising trend which by the end of the century could add 2.4 K to the average annual urban temperature, on top of the predicted climate change increase. An analysis of the urban morphology showed that the urban site had indeed become more urban over 9 years of the study, losing green spaces which mitigate against the UHII [urban heat island intensity].

Below are several more scientific papers supporting the conclusion that a substantial portion of modern warming can be traced to urbanization, bias, and measurement contamination.


‘Data Contamination’ Accounts For ~50% Of Warming During 1980-2002


McKitrick and Michaels, 2007     [E]xtraneous (nonclimatic) signals contaminate gridded climate data. The patterns of contamination are detectable in both rich and poor countries and are relatively stronger in countries where real income is growing. We apply a battery of model specification tests to rule out spurious correlations and endogeneity bias. We conclude that the data contamination likely leads to an overstatement of actual trends over land. Using the regression model to filter the extraneous, nonclimatic effects reduces the estimated 1980–2002 global average temperature trend over land by about half.

Urbanization Accounts For 65-80% Of Warming Trend Since 1960s


Ren et al., 2007     The annual urban warming at the city stations can account for about 65∼80% of the overall warming in 1961∼2000, and about 40∼61% of the overall warming in 1981∼2000.

Urbanization Adds 0.2 °C/Decade, Half Of  Athens’ Warming Since 1970


Founda et al., 2015     Highlights: UHI [the Urban Heat Island effect] accounts for almost half of Athens’ warming.
The study explores the interdecadal and seasonal variability of the urban heat island (UHI) intensity in the city of Athens. Daily air temperature data from a set of urban and surrounding non urban stations over the period 1970–2004 were used. Nighttime and daytime heat island revealed different characteristics as regards the mean amplitude, seasonal variability and temporal variation and trends. The difference of the annual mean air temperature between urban and rural stations exhibited a progressive statistically significant increase over the studied period, with rates equal to +0.2 °C/decade. A gradual and constant increase of the daytime UHI intensity was detected, in contrast to the nighttime UHI intensity which increases only in summer, after the mid 1980s.

A+217 to +562% Artificial Warming Detected In Western U.S. Due To ‘Artifacts’


Oyler et al., 2015     Artificial Amplification of Warming Trends …Western United States     Observations from the main mountain climate station network in the western United States (US) suggest that higher elevations are warming faster than lower elevations. This has led to the assumption that elevation-dependent warming is prevalent throughout the region with impacts to water resources and ecosystem services. Here, we critically evaluate this network’s temperature observations and show that extreme warming observed at higher elevations is the result of systematic artifacts and not climatic conditions. With artifacts removed, the network’s 1991–2012 minimum temperature trend decreases from +1.16 °C decade−1 to +0.106 °C decade−1 and is statistically indistinguishable from lower elevation trends. Moreover, longer-term widely used gridded climate products propagate the spurious temperature trend, thereby amplifying 1981–2012 western US elevation-dependent warming by +217 to +562%. In the context of a warming climate, this artificial amplification of mountain climate trends has likely compromised our ability to accurately attribute climate change impacts across the mountainous western US.

‘Half Or More’ Of Recent Warming Due To Urban Growth


Hughs and Balling, 1996     The long-term mean annual temperature record (1885 –1993) shows warming over the past century, with much of the warming occurring in the most recent three decades. However, our analyses show that half or more of this recent warming may be related to urban growth, and not to any widespread regional temperature increase.

24% – 44% Of Overall Warming Due To Urbanization


Yang et al., 2011     [R]apid urbanization has a significant influence on surface warming over east China. Overall, UHI [urban heat island] effects contribute 24.2% to regional average warming trends. The strongest effect of urbanization on annual mean surface air temperature trends occurs over the metropolis and large city stations, with corresponding contributions of about 44% and 35% to total warming, respectively. The UHI trends are 0.398°C and 0.26°C decade−1. The most substantial UHI effect occurred after the early 2000s, implying a significant effect of rapid urbanization on surface air temperature change during this period.

Long-Term New Zealand-Wide Temps Artificially Inflated By Factor Of 3


de Freitas et al., 2015     New Zealand’s national record for the period 1909 to 2009 is analysed and the data homogenized. Current New Zealand century-long climatology based on 1981 methods produces a trend of 0.91 °C per century. Our analysis, which uses updated measurement techniques and corrects for shelter-contaminated data, produces a trend of 0.28 °C per century.

60 responses to “4 New Papers: Modern Warming Is Substantially Artificial, Traced To Urbanization, Bias”

  1. richard verney

    I suspect that data contamination (by which I include not only homogenisation/adjustments, but also station moves, the change in distribution of stations away from rural to more urban, and to include ever more airport locations etc) together with natural multi-decadal variation accounts for all the apparent warming.

    I suspect that if we were to select say 150 of the prime stations in the Northern Hemisphere (ie., those best sited with no nearby change in land use/encroachment of urbanisation, and with no station moves and the best practices and procedures) and if we were to retrofit these with the same LIG thermometers as used by the station in question back in the 1930s/1940s and then observe measurements in accordance with the same practice and procedure at the station in question (ie., same TOB for that station) then (on a comparison of RAW data to RAW data with no adjustments)there would be no significant increase in temperature over and above that measured by the station in question in the late 1930s/early 1940s.

    In my opinion, it is no coincidence that the country where we have the most complete data and observations, the contiguous US, it shows no warming from the highs of the 1930s/1940s (in fact it suggest that there has been slight cooling since that time). There is no reason why given that CO2 is a well mixed gas at high altitude (ie., +/- 10 000m on ~395 ppm), the US should be an outlier and not typical of the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.

    this is particularly materially since about 95% of all manmade CO2 emissions have taken place since about 1940, and I suspect that there has been no significant change in the Northern hemisphere since that time suggesting that Climate Sensitivity to CO2 is zero, or close thereto.

    As Phil Jones stated in the Climategate emails, we have no real data on the Southern Hemisphere and SH temperatures are large made up, and Hansen in his 1981 paper accepted what PHil Jones said on the sparsity of SH data, we simply do not have the data to know what if any change has taken place in the SH (or for that matter global). We only have worthwhile data on the Northern Hemisphere and we know that the contiguous US, Iceland and Greenland all show the 1930s/1940s as being the same temperature as today.

    1. yonason
      1. yonason

        Oops. I see that BobW in NC 24. July 2017 at 4:17 PM has already posted the surfacestations link below.

      2. AndyG55

        And ocean temperature coverage was virtually NON-EXISTENT before 2003.

        https://s19.postimg.org/46xcg7377/figure-42.png

        Which makes a total nonsense of Ocean Heat Content graphs such as Levitus et al.

        1. richard verney

          You are absolutely right. The biggest problem in this science is the data, its poor quality, its sparsity and the way that it has been handled,

          I have spent about 30 years studying ship’s data. and the problem is twofold. First, ship’s data is extremely unreliable. Second, the shipping routes cover a very narrow band of ocean.

          On commercial ships I have seen the engine log book, the deck log book, the noon day report to charterers, the noon day report to owners, the reoports to weather routing agencies and the Chief engineer’s diary/personal notebook, all recording different data for the same momeent in time! Which one of these 6 records has the correct details? Perhaps none of them!!!

          Further, there are wide error margins on ship’s data and sometimes commercial reasons why ship’s data is not recorded correctly.

          This is one reason why there is no worthwhile information on the Southern Hemisphere which is largely ocean.

          The idea that we have any global thermometer details prior to ARGO is farcical. Even today, the lamd area of the Southern Hemisphere is sparsely sampled.

          Either one should look solely at the Northern Hemisphere, or one is left with the satellite data but unfortunately this goes back only to 1979, whereas it would be more interesting if it covered the highs of the 1930s/1940s.

          1. yonason

            Richard Keen discusses the paucity of data, as well as it’s distortion by adjustments, here.
            https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjHwujvvqPVAhUGWD4KHeizAyAQtwIIJjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DGmc5w2I-FCA&usg=AFQjCNExLAstYYpoc9nEjytphMg9mDRXzA

            Do you have any papers on the ship measurements, and what’s wrong with them (i.e., quantitatively)?

            Also, I read a while back that they were distancing themselves from the ARGO data, because it wasn’t validating their warming bias, but I can’t find references to that at the moment.

    2. Don from OZ

      Add to the discussion the fact that the measurements are all over the 30% land of the global surface and next to nothing over the 70% oceans of the global surface. And that the thermometers are not evenly distributed on the land masses.
      Very few are in the forests and sparsely inhabited areas and polar icecaps.
      How can the figures possibly be any where near a global average?

  2. tom0mason

    Ah, but maybe M. Mann and the 97% of Climate Scientists™ are correct, and all that non-urban countryside is cooling the temperatures too much. Thus these non-satellite records require curve fitting adjustments to correctly reflect the CO2 warming that is hiding there, and so the proper man-made warming is observed.
    Why else adjust historic temperature records?

    /sar-off

    1. Colorado Wellington

      The temperatures in the countryside are not natural. The forests, meadows, lakes, ponds, streams and marches are artificially cooling the environment but such features don’t exist in our cities and metropolitan areas. I would not report them at all but if you must, of course they should be adjusted upwards to conform to the representative temperatures measured in densely populated urban areas.

      1. yonason

        I agree. When we lived in Philadelphia we would sometimes go camping in French Creek State Forest, a few hours drive directly West. During the days the temps would be comparable, but at night the temps in the woods were unnaturally cold. While the asphalt and concrete of the buildings held the heat in the cities both day and night, a phenomenon warmists are much more comfortable with, the night time temps in the woods would plunge to become so uncomfortably cold that it was preferable to stay in one’s sleeping bag than to go out to relieve oneself. Very unnatural. So, yes, definitely purge the measurements of the rural areas. They are too negative an influence on the warming we all KNOW is there. //s//

      2. Don from OZ

        Colorado you have got to be joking. If you are just being sarcastic you should start with /sarc on/ and end with /sarc off/ or as yonason has done //s//.
        Or are you just trying to take the mickey out of us ‘skeptics’.
        Well I’ll bite ‘Temperatures in the countryside are not natural’. REALLY? How about you tell us what you think is natural then? Anything that isn’t hot perhaps? Should we accept that ‘The forests, meadows, lakes, ponds, streams and marches (sic- marshes) are artificially cooling the environment’ aren’t natural either?
        Please explain?

        1. yonason

          He’s just joking Don.

        2. AndyG55

          Don, you must realise…

          Colorado is even more cynical/sarcastic about AGW than I am 🙂

          1. Don from OZ

            Thanks Andy and yonason apologies to Colorado. I need to lighten up a bit do I?
            Here in New South Wales Australia we have just had a 20% increase in electricity charges with media reports of thousands of customers facing disconnection for being unable to pay their bill. ( De Ja Vous Germanies experience).
            Major factors – Subsidised wind and solar destabilising a once stable government owned generation, transmission and distribution system.
            Stupid, short sighted greed of State governments desire for immediate cash resulting in sale to private enterprise.
            Gaming by those private enterprises to raise charges for increased profits. (I guess if I was in their boots I would be inclined to do the same)
            Perhaps it is time to look at buying a diesel Gen set.

          2. AndyG55

            Just a note, Don.. I’m also in NSW. 🙂

          3. yonason

            Sympathies to you Don (and Andy) for being caught in the insanity of your watermelon “leaders.” Hopefully it won’t be long before sanity returns and prevails.

        3. Colorado Wellington

          Don’t listen to them, Don. I’m serious.

          1. yonason
          2. Colorado Wellington

            😡😷🤐

        4. Colorado Wellington

          Sorry, Don, I don’t use /sarc tags because I live among the watermelons of the People’s Republic of Boulder and they don’t use them either when writing things like my comment above.

          Warm greetings from Colorado.

  3. Modern Warming Is Substantially Artificial, Traced To Urbanization, Bias | Principia Scientific International

    […] Read rest at No Tricks Zone […]

  4. BobW in NC

    According to Surface Stations.org (http://www.surfacestations.org/), any adjustments of land-based temperature monitors should be down, if they are done at all:

    “Climate Reference Network Rating Guide – adopted from NCDC Climate Reference Network Handbook, 2002, specifications for siting (section 2.2.1) of NOAA’s new Climate Reference Network:

    Class 1 (CRN1)- Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19deg). Grass/low vegetation ground cover 3 degrees.

    Class 2 (CRN2) – Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation 5deg.

    Class 3 (CRN3) (error >=1C) – Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.

    Class 4 (CRN4) (error >= 2C) – Artificial heating sources = 5C) – Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.”

  5. SebastianH

    Are you guys absolutely sure about what the post is trying to say?

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1930/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1930/offset:0.14/mean:12/plot/rss/offset:0.30/mean:12/plot/uah6/offset:0.43/mean:12

    Why do satellite record the same increase as ground based temperature measurements?

    1. AndyG55
  6. sunsettommy

    Sebastian, incredibly writes this howler:

    “Why do satellite record the same increase as ground based temperature measurements?”

    Not from 1979 they do since their warming rate is .12C per decade,while the surface temperatures varies around.16C per decade,depending on which data source you use.

    But then when you go from 2001 to now it is around zero rate for Satellites while the surface temperature manage to find warming.

    Meanwhile you seem to be ignoring the well known Urbanization bias,as many of the existing temperature stations are being affected by cities and their heat increasing capacity of the buildings,Roads,HAV units and so on.

    1. SebastianH

      But then when you go from 2001 to now it is around zero rate for Satellites

      Then don’t start in about the only year where you can get such a result with a trend over a short time period: http://imgur.com/a/ctkRg

      Do you think UHI effect is unknown to those adjusting and quality checking the station data?

      1. AndyG55

        ROFLMAO.

        your puerile little graph shows you up, yet again, as a mathematically inept monkey at best.

        And I bet you don’t even know why. 😉

        So hilarious, so ANTI-science.

      2. sunsettommy

        Seb, you have been told before that starting at the first full year of the 21st century is relevant,because it was AFTER La-Nina faded away and to show that despite the significant addition of CO2 into the atmosphere since 2001,there is precious little warming.

        Virtually ALL of the warming has been from El-Nino events since the 1970’s.

        You have been told MANY TIMES now that the IPCC projected a .30C per decade warming rate,yet NONE of the data sets show this since 1979,1990,1997,2001 time frames.Heck it has been BELOW .20C per decade the entire time. The Satellite data has been below .13C per decade since 1979.

        You have NOTHING against this Seb,and you know it.

      3. sunsettommy

        SEb, your link doesn’t even help you.

        The RSS warming rate is still less than half the IPCC projected rate since 1979. Can you guess what it is,Seb child?

        It is clear you are STILL IGNORING the IPCC per decade AGW based modeling guesses,that are so shown by Satellite data, to be very wrong. The Tropical “hotspot” is still not there after decades of waiting. It actually cooled slightly at one level,warmed warmed a little in the second layer and about zero in the third layer.

        You call Dr. Lindzen names,but you can’t face the STARK IPCC prediction failures.

      4. yonason

        Without data tampering, there would be NO warming.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZWBFtukLyU

        All they have is lies, and all you are is an echo chamber for those lies, which are wonderfully exposed by Tony Heller. Here’s another.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZWBFtukLyU

        So, what’s the deal SebH? Are you a victim of their abuse of science? Or are you a willing accomplice?

        1. AndyG55

          seb-t = GULLIBLE, anti-science AGW parrot, with an underlying attention-seeking troll MENTALity

          1. yonason

            Apparently so.

      5. AndyG55

        And thanks for, YET AGAIN, proving me correct, by using the El Ninos as your prime source of trends.

        Can’t help yourself, can you seb-t.. because you KNOW that between those El Ninos, THERE IS NO WARMING

        You also KNOW that El Ninos are SOLAR driven, nothing to do with CO2.

        I don’t think you are so scientifically illiterate that you don’t know these facts…

        That makes you a deliberate, deceitful, AGW LIAR/SHILL !!

        1. sunsettommy

          Andy,

          He doesn’t want to face that obvious reality,which is why we get the run around from this silly man. He keeps avoiding answering a couple specific questions from Kenneth too,gee I wonder why……….

          Meanwhile he has yet to show by evidence,of postulated CO2 effect on the temperature since 2001.

      6. SebastianH

        It is impressive how easily you get triggered and need to present your beliefs about manipulated data and El Nino as the master of temperature increase as a response.

        Should stop commenting again so you can all calm down and reassure yourselves of your strange beliefs 😉

        Keep repeating your mantras, but don’t act surprised if you get called what you are.

        1. yonason

          Yeah. Shame on us for “needing” to respond to your lies with facts. Whatever were we thinking?!

          And getting called on telling the truth is just such a blow to our egos, too.

          Getting pretty desperate there, chatbot sebH.

        2. AndyG55

          Why are you still DENYING science and facts seb-t.

          You are a brain-washed parrot, desperately seeking attention, who’s only reason for being here is as a baseless, anti-science, AGW troll.

          And you calling any one out, on anything, is the equivalent of a chihuahua YAPPING behind a 6ft fence.

        3. sunsettommy

          Sebastian writes,

          “It is impressive how easily you get triggered and need to present your beliefs about manipulated data and El Nino as the master of temperature increase as a response.”

          It is impressive that you keep ignoring that obvious reality since it warms ONLY when El-Nino’s come along,otherwise flat to a cooling trend comes after it fades away.

          From Bob Tisdale,where he shows using the data that yes “global warming” are caused by ENSO events:

          Can El Nino Events Explain All of the Global Warming Since 1976? – Part 1

          https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of-the-global-warming-since-1976-%E2%80%93-part-1/

          Seb,

          “Should stop commenting again so you can all calm down and reassure yourselves of your strange beliefs.”

          When are you going to stop ignoring the failed PER DECADE projections from the IPCC reports?

          How much longer are you going to ignore well documented temperature data tampering?

          How much longer are you going to avoid Kenneth’s well documented massive station drop outs?

          How much longer are you going to ignore the Satellite data showing the failure of the Tropical Hot Spot and the less than 50% per decade warming as per the Satellite data rate of the IPCC projected rates?

          Seb ends with this childlike prose,

          “Keep repeating your mantras, but don’t act surprised if you get called what you are.”

          Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

          You ignore most of the official evidence right off the bat,then the occasional time you make a sourced reply,it gets a detailed reply, you quickly drop it,to go to a corner of the room and curl up into a fetal ball.

          Your whine about Dr. Lindzen,is a classic example of your low level behavior,who can’t provide a credible counterpoint to what he wrote,instead of the name calling you several times foisted on Dr. Lindzen. He has since been joined by many scientists who also show low to near zero CO2 sensitivity effect. You are indeed a cad!

          Many here long know that you are a glassy eyed,slack jawed warmist troll. You bring very little to the debate,ignore the many failed IPCC projections,ignore the obvious El-Nino effect on global temperature,ignore the hundreds of published science papers in recent years,that shoots holes in the absurd AGW conjecture.

          Why not surprise us with honest rational replies instead?

        4. sunsettommy

          Sebastian writes,

          “It is impressive how easily you get triggered and need to present your beliefs about manipulated data and El Nino as the master of temperature increase as a response.”

          It is impressive that you keep ignoring that obvious reality since it warms ONLY when El-Nino’s come along,otherwise flat to a cooling trend comes after it fades away.

          From Bob Tisdale,where he shows using the data that yes “global warming” are caused by ENSO events:

          Can El Nino Events Explain All of the Global Warming Since 1976? – Part 1

          https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of-the-global-warming-since-1976-%E2%80%93-part-1/

          Seb,

          “Should stop commenting again so you can all calm down and reassure yourselves of your strange beliefs.”

          When are you going to stop ignoring the failed PER DECADE projections from the IPCC reports?

          How much longer are you going to ignore well documented temperature data tampering?

          How much longer are you going to avoid Kenneth’s well documented massive station drop outs?

          How much longer are you going to ignore the Satellite data showing the failure of the Tropical Hot Spot and the less than 50% per decade warming as per the Satellite data rate of the IPCC projected rates?

          Seb ends with this childlike prose,

          “Keep repeating your mantras, but don’t act surprised if you get called what you are.”

          Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

          You ignore most of the official evidence right off the bat,then the occasional time you make a sourced reply,it gets a detailed reply, you quickly drop it,to go to a corner of the room and curl up into a fetal ball.

          Your whine about Dr. Lindzen,is a classic example of your low level behavior,who can’t provide a credible counterpoint to what he wrote,instead of the name calling you several times foisted on Dr. Lindzen. He has since been joined by many scientists who also show low to near zero CO2 sensitivity effect. You are indeed a cad!

          Many here long know that you are a glassy eyed,slack jawed warmist troll. You bring very little to the debate,ignore the many failed IPCC projections,ignore the obvious El-Nino effect on global temperature,ignore the hundreds of published science papers in recent years,that shoots holes in the absurd AGW conjecture.

          Why not surprise us with honest rational replies instead?

          1. Colorado Wellington

            “Why not surprise us with honest rational replies instead?”

            An honest and rational approach to observations, data and evidence fails to support the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. Fortunately, Marxism provides an alternative method:

            “Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

            Timothy E. Wirth, Vice Chairman of the United Nations Foundation

        5. AndyG55

          “manipulated data and El Nino as the master of temperature increase”

          FACTS, you really can’t cope with FACTS can you seb-t.!