New Paper: 1,407 Contiguous U.S. Temperature Stations Reveal NO WARMING TREND During 1901-2015

The Warming ‘Hole’ Myth

Non-Warming Regions Are More Rule Than Exception 

Earlier this month, the authors of a new paper (Partridge et al., 2018) published in Geophysical Research Letters promulgated the term “warming hole” to describe the cooling temperatures gripping most of the Eastern half of the United States from the late 1950s through 2015.

“We present a novel approach to characterize the spatiotemporal evolution of regional cooling across the eastern U.S. (commonly called the U.S. warming hole), by defining a spatially explicit boundary around the region of most persistent cooling. The warming hole emerges after a regime shift in 1958 where annual maximum (Tmax) and minimum (Tmin) temperatures decreased by 0.46°C and 0.83°C respectively. … [T]he seasonal modes also vary in causation. Winter temperatures in the warming hole are significantly correlated with the Meridional Circulation Index (MCI), North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), and Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). … We select only stations in the contiguous U.S. that have an 80% complete record from 1901-2015, resulting in 1407 temperature stations.”

Of course, by characterizing it as merely a “hole” in the global-scale warming over this period, this cooling has been portrayed as highly anomalous, an isolated exception to the trends that have encompassed the rest of the Earth.

But is this particular Eastern U.S. cooling trend truly an exception for this period?  From all appearances, no.  Large regions of the Earth have also cooled, or at least not warmed, in the last several decades.

Even a closer inspection of this “warming hole” paper (Partridge et al., 2018) reveals that not only did 124 temperature stations from the Eastern U.S. “warming hole” region show a cooling trend since the 1950s, but another 1,283 stations from the rest of the continental U.S. (mostly the Western half ) also did not collectively show a clear warming trend throughout the entire 115-year period.

In other words, 1,407 temperature stations from across the contiguous U.S. do not show any warming trend during 1901 to 2015.

About 1/3rd Of The Northern Hemisphere Cooled During 1990-2015

According to the IPCC, modern warming has a “global signature“, whereas past warming and cooling events such as the Medieval Climate Anomaly and Little Ice Age were not “globally synchronous”.

But if  modern warming truly is both global and synchronous, why are large regions of the Earth experiencing cooling — or at least non-warming — trends in recent decades?

In the Northern Hemisphere, for example, scientists (Kretschmer et al., 2018) have identified other “warming holes” in the temperature data for the 1990-2015 period.  About 80% of the contiguous U.S., Europe and much of Asia, including parts of the Arctic (Eastern Siberia), cooled during the 1990-2015 period.  These cooling regions may encompass approximately one-third of the top half of the globe.

“Despite global warming, recent winters in the Northeastern United States (US), Europe and especially in Asia were anomalously cold. Some mid-latitude regions like Central Asia and eastern Siberia even show a downward temperature trend in winter over the past decades (Cohen et al. 2014a; McCusker et al. 2016).”

In some regions that were depicted as warming overall during 1990-2015 in the graph above, there has been a cooling trend since the mid-2000s.

 Image Source: Smeed et al., 2018

Image Source: Cheung, 2017

Image Source: Yan et al., 2015

Much Of The Southern Hemisphere Has Been Cooling Since 1979

In the Southern Hemisphere, Antarctica has not warmed in the last 38 years.

Image Source: Climate4You

The Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica and extending into the South Pacific has been cooling since 1979 (Purich et al., 2018) .

Observed Southern Ocean changes over recent decades include a surface freshening (Durack and Wijffels 2010; Durack et al. 2012; de Lavergne et al. 2014), surface cooling (Fan et al. 2014; Marshall et al. 2014; Armour et al. 2016; Purich et al. 2016a) and circumpolar increase in Antarctic sea ice (Cavalieri and Parkinson 2008; Comiso and Nishio 2008; Parkinson and Cavalieri 2012). … The majority of CMIP5 models do not simulate a surface cooling and increase in sea ice, as seen in observations.”


So Why Do The Global Temperature Graphs Show Such Strong Warming In Recent Decades?

Global temperature graphs are made to look like they are burning hot all across the globe.

But the “data” that adds varying shades of red coloration to graphs of global temperature are largely just in-filled by computer models.  That’s a nice way of saying they’re mostly concocted, as there is no actual temperature data available in the regions of the globe (gray) where much of the Earth is allegedly sweltering.

Image(s) Source:

Southern Hemisphere Sea Surface Temperatures ‘Mostly Made Up’

Dr. Phil Jones, overseer of the Climate Research Unit temperature data, even admitted in an intercepted e-mail that the sea surface temperature data in the Southern Hemisphere temperature record are “mostly made up”.

The Leaked Hide the Decline Conversations With Dataset Overseers

 “…you really ought to replace the values from 1961 onwards with observed [instrumental] temperatures due to the decline.”
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were” …. “Also, we set all post-1960 values to missing in the MXD data set (due to decline), and the method will infill these, estimating them from the real temperatures – another way of ‘correcting’ for the decline, though may be not defensible!”

Dataset Overseers ‘Hide The Decline’ In Temperatures By Changing Data

It is likely that the reason why today’s global temperature reconstructions show such strong warming in recent decades (and rather unremarkable rise in the early 20th century) is that they have been heavily adjusted to match climate model expectations.  The adjustments cool the past and warm the present to fit with the explosive linear trend in anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

For example, the combined Hadley Centre and Climatic Research Unit (HadCRUT) data set — which is featured in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports — underwent a revision from version 3 to version 4 in March of 2012.  This was about a year before the latest IPCC report was to be released (2013).  At the time (early 2012), it was quite inconvenient to the paradigm that HadCRUT3 was highlighting a slight global cooling trend between 1998 and 2012, as shown in the graph below (using HadCRUT3 and HadCRUT4 raw data from WoodForTrees).

Graphs used by the IPCC depicting a slight cooling trend since 1998 would not be acceptable to policymakers wishing to emphasize the urgency of addressing dangerous global warming.  So, just in time for the 2013 edition of the IPCC report, about 0.1°C was added to the 1998-2012 HadCRUT trend.  The effect was to transform the slight cooling into what the IPCC called a “hiatus” from warming.  To achieve the removal of the slight cooling trend found in HadCRUT3, the more recent anomalies in HadCRUT4 were warmed up (by 0.1 to 0.2°C), whereas the past warmth (especially around 1998) was left intact.  The effect was to warm the present and cool the past.

Source: WoodForTrees

Artificially Removing 0.5°C From The 1880-1950 Warming

As recently as 1990, it was commonly accepted that there was pronounced warming of about 0.5°C between the data points 1880 and 1950.

Image Source: Pirazzoli, 1990

This 0.5°C rise in global temperatures between 1880-1950 (and 0.6°C between 1880 and 1940) can clearly be seen in the NASA GISS graph from 1987:

Schneider, S. H. 1989 Science 243: 771-81.

By 2014, the 0.5°C of warming between the years 1880 and 1950 had been completely eliminated.  There is now no trend between those two data points.

Image Source: NOAA (2014)

What Warming Hole?

The portrayal of a globally-synchronous warming of the Earth with only small pockets of “warming hole” anomalies  is not supported by local and regional data reported in scientific papers.

There are not tiny, isolated holes of cooling in an otherwise uniformly-warming world.  These are gaping expanses of cooling…or non-warming.

Yes, some regions of the globe have been warming.  Some regions have been cooling.  And some regions remain trendless.

But in recent decades, the warming has not been global in scope.

104 responses to “New Paper: 1,407 Contiguous U.S. Temperature Stations Reveal NO WARMING TREND During 1901-2015”

  1. SebastianH

    So you’ve gone full Tony Heller today. Noted 😉

    Have fun in conspiracy bubble land with all these made up claims.

    This is what no warming looks like?

    Before you ask, no you won’t get “counter points” from me (most of what is posted here isn’t new and has been discussed before, look it up). The expectation that skeptics can come up with anything and others have to spend time fact checking everything they say, is a bit ridiculous. A form of denial of service attack if you will.

    So long.

    1. Bitter&twisted

      More cognitive dissonance from our resident troll.

    2. AndyG55

      Berkeley is EASY to refute.

      They use as much JUNK DATA as they can get then use every trick under the sun to FABRICATE a warming trend

      That was their INTENT from the very start.

      To out-adjust the NCDC/NOAA/GISS troup.

    3. Steve

      I just do not get you SebH.
      Somebody has to be paying you to refute every article and comment that gets posted on NTZ.

      1. AndyG55

        “Somebody has to be paying you to refute…. “

        Then they are paying him for ABJECT FAILURE. !!

        With his IGNORANCE, and constant EVASION of BASIC QUESTIONS, seb has converted more people to “non-believers” in the AGW scam than any other mindless troll could possibly have done.

        His GROSS INCOMPETENCE and BRAIN-HOSED EMPTYMESS makes him a total laughing stock to anyone that wastes their time reading his ranting, incoherent, anti-science garbage.

      2. SebastianH

        Who is paying the authors and commentators posting here? I do that because duty calls, when I have time between more important stuff than jousting with skeptics:

  2. JL

    “Going full Tony Heller….”. Translated: I can’t refute Tony Heller.

    1. SebastianH

      Tony Heller is easily refuted. The translation is more like “the conspiracy theorist in you won”.

      1. sunsettommy

        Steve Mosher and Nick tried to take on Tony, only to get whacked so bad that they slink away. You never saw the refutations Tony made when I told him what they were saying about him at WUWT.

        You have not seen where I took down Nick Stokes in a thread last year where I could call him a liar to his face in the thread and not be stopped by mods. I gave overwhelming evidence that the USHCN data base was active and updated every day, while he kept saying it was obsolete and not updated.

        He was lying like hell.

        You have no idea how far off the mark YOU are on this since you have yet to acknowledge the obvious IPCC failure for PER DECADE trend, for their less snow forecast of 17 years ago. For increased severe storms predictions, etc…..

        You like Steve, Nick and yourself are too cowardly to visit Tony’s site to challenge him. Tony who has TWO College degrees, a long record of environmental advocacy and a former Forest ranger, is up to the challenge for debate.

        1. SebastianH

          Again, the idea that any nonsense that someone comes up with needs to be challenged or otherwise it’s true is ridiculous.

          But please, be non skeptical about anything he writes. If that makes you feel better 😉

          1. sunsettommy

            Ha ha ha,

            YOU, Nick and Steve among others NEVER visit Tony’s site to challenge him. You are too scared to challenge him there.

            You have never been there, you have no idea how he destroyed Nick’s bull crap. I was the go between two websites to help take down his lies and disinformation.

            I was the one who told Tony, what Nick over at WUWT was saying over Tony’s charts being adjusted presentations. Tony then over FIVE blog postings destroyed Nick, using Nick’s own convoluted words and the NOAA database. You speak from ignorance over this because you are uncritical and not skeptical about anything.

            Nick stopped his bullcrap when many others were noticing Tony destroying his arguments so well. Ever since then there have been a lot more people challenging Nick, since he pushes a lot of misleading baloney.

            He stopped suddenly when I gave him the “coup de grace” by PROVING that he is a flat out liar over something he kept saying was obsolete and out of date.

          2. AndyG55

            The EMPTY squirming non-entity that is seb.

            Cannot put up a rational scientific counter, because he doesn’t know what either “rational” or “scientific” even mean. !!

            I have regular checked all the data and calculations TH has done. He gives links to everything. He is rarely wrong, and will correct himself if he does make an error.

            Its called HONESTY.

            Again, another word that can never be used to describe you, seb.

          3. yonason (from my cell phone)


            Let’s have some fun.

            Maybe SebH would like to “easily refute” this Tony Heller?

            Courtesy of pmc47025.

        2. SebastianH

          I was the go between two websites to help take down his lies and disinformation.

          You have been a good boy. Here is a treat for you <o))–(–(c-<

          BTW: I have no idea who Nick and Steve are that you are talking about. But I doubt that this Tony Heller figure could "destroy" anyone. I mean look at what he posts, how he writes, his videos … it's laughable. But it's interesting that someone like that has fanboys like you. Enjoy the fish.


          I have regular checked all the data and calculations TH has done. He gives links to everything. He is rarely wrong, and will correct himself if he does make an error.

          Really, care to give examples of those instances this happened? I’d love to check them out …

          1. AndyG55

            So seb ,

            EMPTY of all refutation.

            Just EMPTY.

            You could find any check them for yourself, ..

            .. but you don’t have that ability, do you. !

      2. AndyG55

        You couldn’t refute a wet paper bag, seb !!

        Neither can Nick. Nick loves to “play” with numbers, but its easy to see through his dishonesty and twisting.

        1. AndyG55

          Come on seb,

          The Only graphs from TH above are the NOAA temperature charts.

          One shows NO DATA over a point in Africa, the other shows “record” heat on the same point.

          Do you DENY that this is the case ?

          Are you really that WILFULLY BLIND ?

          Is this your sort of “acceptable” science ???????

    2. yonason (from my cell phone)

      Don’t worry, JL. The resident activist chatbot troll will refute Tony Heller “easily,”
      …….any century now.

      lololol (but don’t hold your breath waiting)

      1. SebastianH

        Present one claim of his

        1. sunsettommy

          See! he is too scared to visit Tony’s place and challenge him there.

          It is easy to find it Sebastian, since he has been exposing it for several years now.

          Come on don’t be scared……..

          1. yonason (from my cell phone)

            Riiight, sunsettommy, and too bad there’s nothing in the above article for him to analyze, ….oh, wait.

          2. SebastianH

            Are you too lazy to find one thing he claims?

            There is nothing in the article, correct yonason.

            Let’s take this video second by second, shall we?

            0:55 – Al Gore didn’t predict that, he cited a scientist

            1:36 – Hansen used a climate sensitivity value that was higher than the actual one. It’s like those scenarios we use today for the different possible future emissions. If you care, read (it’s safe, but be warned, you could actually learn something).

            [skipping all the prophet/religion BS]

            8:00 – … the data and the algorithms are available. You can do your own calculations on them or you could just call it fake because you don’t like it. This paper describes the correction that he calls fake: … so please, tell us what is fake exactly? But then again, it is Tony Heller, who seems to be convinced that there is a conspiracy faking all the data 😉

            [skipping more prophet/religion/global cooling BS]

            Well I probably missed a few things, but I had to skip around … can’t stand the voice of Mr. Heller.

            Let’s look at his website, shall we?
            Science : UHI And El Nino Caused by CO2

            Besides their baseless flawed logic, their statistics are also completely fake. The frequency of hot days is down almost 50% since the 1930’s.

            He tries to refute a study that says mega cities experience an increase in short-term highest temperatures. “Hottest-day-of-the-year measurements for major cities such as Paris, Moscow and Tokyo climbed precipitously by as much as 0.60 degrees per decade during the period studied.” is a sentence from the study. Notice the names of the cities brought up?

            What does he present? The “frequency of hot days” which is quite different from the claim made and on top of that it’s from the U.S. only. Not even reduced to U.S. mega cities …

            It’s completely missing the point.

            As CO2 has increased, the frequency of hot days has decreased. The exact opposite of what climate experts claim.

            Well, since it is ok for this guy to use US only data, here is some China only data as “rebuttal” 😉

            He then uses the same argument Kenneth often employs: “it happened in the past in the same or much worse way, so today’s [whatever] isn’t special” …

            As far as I can tell, everything climate experts believe has no basis in reality.

            Does he implicate that he is no climate expert? Because he surely must thing that he is “based in reality”, right? But what do I know, I just see a guy who used the wrong set of data to refute something.

            Going further down on the first page of his blog I see the Acc. SMB graph for Greenland Kenneth so often uses to claim that Greenland’s ice mass is not decreasing. Apparently Tony Heller also ignores the other side of the equation:

            Both Greenland and Antarctica are gaining ice. How could sea level rise be “accelerating”, when the water us being removed from the oceans and added to ice sheets?

            Yeah, how could it possible “accelerate” (let’s put it in quotation marks, makes it sound less true, doesn’t it)?

            Well, for one ice mass is decreasing, they aren’t gaining ice: … and then there is the thing called thermal expansion and even he should know that the OHC is increasing … or is that fake too?

            He references this article. It tells a different story than the GRACE data from the same organisation and then there is this:
   (contains lots of paper links to studies with more recent data)

            That study ends with the year 2008, and we have more recent data indicating Antarctica lost way over 100 bn tonnes of ice per year between 2010 and 2013.

            Sea level rise is accelerating:

            Now go and comment about the emptiness of what I have written, how wrong I am just because and whatever you usually reply. Or begin see Tony Heller as what he is, fraud and kind of an attention whore. Someone who believes that because all radiation is already absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and increase of those gases can not possibly cause a change in the radiative balance. Someone who is very US-centric despite it being called global warming for a reason.

          3. AndyG55

            So much junk in one mindless seb ranting


            0.55.. Gore said it, he was wrong, that comes from citing idiot AGW non-scientists.

            1:36..Stop citing SkS , it is a puppet site. Meaningless.

            8:00 “found no evidence that the U.S. temperature trend is inflated by poor siting of stations” found no evidence that the U.S. temperature trend is inflated by poor siting of stations”
            Of course they didn’t.. they didn’t look very hard. Surface stations are a MESS and everybody knows it..

            China’s long term temperatures make a mess of any of your blank links.

            Australian temperatures are subjected to the same “process” that was invented to “adjust data.
            Late 1800’s was the WARMEST time in Australia’s history.

            TOBs adjustment in the USA has been shown to be one of the biggest frauds perpetrated

            REAL data not some modelled garbage from NCDC.

            You really should be skeptical of ANYTHING NCDC put out, they are the very start of the AGW farce when it comes to temperature adjustments.

            Do you have any data for ice loss from Greenland, to balance the SMB GAIN.? Nope??

            You do know that Greenland’s ice area is only just a TINY amount down from its greatest extent in 8000+ years, don’t you..
            or are you wilfully IGNORANT there as well?


            GRACE data has been shown to be wildly inaccurate of volcanic regions, of which Antarctica, Greenland. etc are two main ones.

            Antarctica has been COOLING over any time period, so any measured or fabricated loss is NOTHING to do with global warming or CO2, could it be that it covers a highly active volcanic region ;-).



            Here is a graph of the Antarctic Total Ice mass since 1900, any changes are tiny as your mind.


            Sea level is DECELERATING. It is true ANTI-SCIENCE to splice fabricated satellite data onto real tide data, you KNOW that, why do you keep up with the mathematic deceit?


            Then you follow your ANTI-FACTS with a slimy hit-piece full of LIES written by some total moron unable to counter anything with actual science.. (a mate of yours no doubt)

            And as shown before, there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to call anything “GLOBAL WARMING” because for large parts of the globe.. IT ISN’T WARMING

            Only places that have some warming in the satellite era are those directly affected by ocean cycles and events.

            Only FRAUD around here is YOU, seb,

            All you do is PARROT, like a Norwegian Blue, presenting ALL the erroneous AGW crap you can find.

            You cannot even support the very basis of your brain-numbed AGW belief.

            All in you MINDLESS EVASION of the very central point.


            THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF CO2 WARMING oceans, atmosphere or anything.

          4. AndyG55

            “[skipping more prophet/religion/global cooling BS]”

            ie…. Evidence is TOO STRONG for even seb’s hallucinogenic fantasies. !!

            He has ZERO COUNTER for the facts.

          5. AndyG55

            ““Hottest-day-of-the-year measurements for major cities such as Paris, Moscow and Tokyo climbed precipitously by as much as 0.60 degrees per decade during the period studied.” ”

            The IDIOT here is Tim Radford (a mindless far-left journalist with basically ZERO EDUCATION in any hard science… just like seb) for pretending not to know anything about the LARGE Urban Heat Effect in LARGE cities.

            “especially in crowded cities that are home to more than 10 million”

            there’s a small hint there somewhere 😉

            Only 0.6C.. what the heck is keeping those temperatures down like that !!!

            Or is seb going to DENY UHI exists and is very strong over LARGE cities?

            Is seb going to DENY that the last 2-3 years has been a transient from a very strong EL Nino?

            Is seb going to continue to DENY that THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that CO2 warms oceans, atmosphere or anything.?

            IGNORANCE and DENIAL are seb’s only attributes.


            We already KNOW that there has been ZERO warming Japan since 1998


            And apart from a slight step around 1990-1998, no warming from 1950-1990


            So heat in Tokyo is NOT due to “global” anything.


            Let’s look at some real data from around Russia.





            OK, so NO SIGN Of any “warming”, let alone “global” there.

            Could it be that Moscow has a growing population of over 12 million ??

          6. Yonason (from a friend's comp)


            The activist chatbot troll wrote…

            “There is nothing in the article, correct yonason.” – SebH

            BUT, from the above article we have…

            “So Why Do The Global Temperature Graphs Show Such Strong Warming In Recent Decades?

            Global temperature graphs are made to look like they are burning hot all across the globe.” – from the article

            …insert NOAA MAP OF WORLD ON FIRE…


            after which we read…

            “Image(s) Source: , – TONY HELLER’S BLOG!!!!

            What it proves is…

            1. that the extraordinary heat NOAA shows for the area in the first image is based on…NO DATA. IT WAS MADE UP OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH. It isn’t real.

            2. there is nothing in the chatbot’s empty little head.

          7. Yonason (from a friend's comp)

            @Kenneth Richard 20. February 2018 at 3:13 AM

            Note that some of my “quotes” of him are paraphrased, but nothing is lost in so doing, since he never ends up saying anything worth remembering.

            Many of SebH’s arguments are boiler plate distraction. They go something like this… “A skeptic said such-and-such, but NOAA said the opposite, so why do you believe the skeptic?” No logic, just toxic smoke and broken mirrors. You can’t answer something like that with logic, or facts, because it is so deliberately vague. So that gives the naive ones the impression he’s made a point you can’t answer. But of course you can’t answer, because there is NO clear answer, and that’s the point of his arguments: to give the impression he’s said something important, when he’s said nothing at all.

            Then there’s his “NOAA has equations, and you can solve them for yourself.” Well, fine, but what he leaves out is that their models are equations that are always wrong, so why should any of their other equations help? He employs a pseudo-logic that always breaks down on close inspection. Never anything substantial.

            Oh, and here’s a real beauty – “0:55 – Al Gore didn’t predict that, he cited a scientist” LOL, so Al Gore AND “a scientist” were BOTH wrong. Now if that’s not getting to the heart of the problem, I don’t know what is. (rolls eyes)

            Nope, never anything substantial – just bluff, bluster and b.s.

            You end that comment by asking SebH “What is this doing for you?”

            I’m guessing he’s one of those people who just likes to be annoying (most activists seem to share that pathology). He is very good at THAT. He might be getting paid to, as well. After all, Soros is paying anti-Trump protestors, so why not anti-AGW trolls, as well? Or, he may just want to impress someone. Who knows? WHO CARES?!

          8. AndyG55

            “Hansen used a climate sensitivity value that was higher than the actual one”


            That is because the real sensitivity is indistinguishable from ZERO.

            There is NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that temperature sensitivity to doubling atmospheric CO2 is ANYTHING BUT ZERO.

          9. AndyG55

            “Or, he may just want to impress someone.”

            I suspect that the ONLY person he is trying to impress IS HIMSELF.

            And he keeps FAILING MISERABLY.

            ALWAYS coming up EMPTY or worse than EMPTY, like that parrot-like rant above.

            He is desperate that he cannot even produce evidence of CO2 warming.

            NONE, NADA.. EMPTY

          10. SebastianH

            Predictable replies …


            You know that nobody here is persuaded by your links to smear sites and blogs like SkepticalScience and mediamatters and carbonbrief.

            I know and that doesn’t invalidate the information provided there. Otherwise, what should we think of information presented on blogs like from that Tony Heller figure or notrickszone itself?

            I could easily take apart each and every one of your “arguments” above.

            You couldn’t and as AndyG55 demonstrates in this thread, it’s easy to miss the point. You are missing the point a lot, so I have no confidence in that. You’ll likely bring up some weird reconstructions or derail the conversation towards gravity causing warmer surface temperatures, not the GHE (one of Tony Heller’s other main talking points).

            Since then, you’ve posted dozens of times

            I sometimes have free time between making great software. And who could resist a sunsettommy/yonason challenge. They definetly succeed in trolling me nearly every time 😉

            Nice try … but you are missing the point on nearly everything I have written and you don’t even recognize it. I definetly love how you keep bringing up the past Greenland ice mass reconstructions. Whatever that has to do with what is happening today. Things like these demonstrate that you don’t really have a clue. You are just a pretender (as should be obvious when debates are about physics). Go back surfing or whatever it is you do. You are likely better at that than posting about climate science.

            You wrote that sea level is decelerating and posted an outdated graph made by “The inconvenient skeptic”. See if you can find any deceleration in the actual data of satellite measured sea level. Also, the recent finding of accelerating sea level rise includes the tide gauges …

            because for large parts of the globe.. IT ISN’T WARMING

            That is simply not true, no matter how often you and Kenneth and others repeat it here.

            And why do you keep mixing in that foul language and sentences in CAPS all the time? Do you think that makes what you say less incorrect?

            Evidence is TOO STRONG for even seb’s hallucinogenic fantasies. !!

            There is no “evidence”. Evidence of what anyway? What this video contains is a person trying to depict climate science as religions with prophets and stuff. What exactly does he think he is? Looking at the replies here, he is definetly the Messias for some here …

            We already KNOW that there has been ZERO warming Japan since 1998

            Sure, no warming in Japan … #facepalm

            Don’t call that “a step” and be done with it. This is how warming looks like, you can’t ignore steps no matter how hard you wish you could.


            What it proves is…

            1. that the extraordinary heat NOAA shows for the area in the first image is based on…NO DATA. IT WAS MADE UP OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH. It isn’t real.

            Same question to you, do you think writing in all caps makes your claim less incorrect?

            Those two images represent different interpolation levels of sparse data. You could also claim that we know nothing about temperaturein the area between two stations that are just a few kilometers apart. We really don’t. We interpolate.

            Calling that “fake” is really weird. As if someone else had different data that would definetly show a completely different picture from those interpolations. Also, the way these pictures are generated is well described. As with temperature adjustments, I dare you (or him) to make his own maps.

            Many of SebH’s arguments are boiler plate distraction. They go something like this… “A skeptic said such-and-such, but NOAA said the opposite, so why do you believe the skeptic?” No logic, just toxic smoke and broken mirrors.

            Oh you mean it’s “word against word”? Why do you believe the skeptic? You obviously can’t be bothered to actually check anything he says and believe it blindly? Why? At least the science community is open about how they arrive at there conclusions. It’s not just a bunch of wannabes screaming fake all the time.

            to give the impression he’s said something important, when he’s said nothing at all.

            That is exactly what Tony Heller does and the commenters here do it too. I am definetly guilty of doing that sometimes too, but the level of “saying nothing” is pretty high in your bubble. That’s one of the things I found out very early when I started reading this blog 😉

            Well, fine, but what he leaves out is that their models are equations that are always wrong, so why should any of their other equations help?

            You are missing the point again. The process of arriving at the adjusted temperature values is well documented. Examine it, improve it, show what exactly is wrong. Don’t just call it fake. That’s the point!

            Never anything substantial.

            You know, that one is getting old. You can’t just call everything you dislike “not substantial”.

            so Al Gore AND “a scientist” were BOTH wrong.

            We actually had a discussion about what Al Gore really said in that instance in the past. He cited a scientist that predicted XY if ABC. It’s not wrong to do that. It’s like you saying that blogger XY says there is no global warming / climate change if everything is fake. Problem is, it’s not fake (no matter how often you repeat that).

            You end that comment by asking SebH “What is this doing for you?”

            I’m guessing […]


            Keep your conspiracy theories to yourself. What is your motivation to post what you post? To not question anything that your “prophets” present you as their truth and then pretend on the other hand that you are a skeptic surely needs a motive, doesn’t it? How do you justify this cognitive dissonance? What do you get from it?

            P.S.: Until tomorrow. Have fun playing pretend-I-know-more-than-scientists …

          11. SebastianH

            My reply to this somehow vanished, if a moderator would be so kind …

          12. AndyG55

            “because for large parts of the globe.. IT ISN’T WARMING

            seb yaps….. That is simply not true,

            It simply IS TRUE, no matter how much you DENY the REAL DATA.

            All the rest of your mindless bluster is pure yapping garbage. with zero science to back it up.

            Greenland is only just a tiny amount down from its maximum in 8000 years

            Arctic sea ice extent is above what it has been for 95% of the Holocene.

            Tide gauges show deceleration of sea level rise. Get over it.

            Why produce an “enviro” page for Japanese temperature when the REAL DATA is available and is shown in the graphs I produced. You fool yourself, no-one else.

            NO warming from 1950-190 , slight step (not CO2) then NO warming since 1998.

            “Evidence is TOO STRONG for even seb’s hallucinogenic fantasies. !!”

            I rest my case.. just bluster in response.

            What is also true is that there is absolutely no empirical evidence that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes any warming of anything, water, atmosphere…. ANYTHING

            Your continue juvenile ranting diversions and EVASIONS of the central FALLACY of your mindless religion are getting more and more ridiculous. 🙂

            And as for me missing the point..

            Sorry, seb… It is YOU that is TOTALLY POINTLESS.

          13. AndyG55

            “(as should be obvious when debates are about physics). “

            You don’t even PRETEND to know anything about physics.

            You just MAKE IT UP as you go along.

            Its quite hilarious to see you floundering like a stunned mullet as soon as the level of understanding gets passed junior high level.

            You lack any comprehension to understand the Gravity-thermal warming effect, it is an anathema to you.

            You are totally oblivious to any sort of structural physics that allows for all design of all large structures.

            You really need to realise JUST HOW LIMITED and TOTALLY CONFUSED your fantasy phizzics really is.

            But your baseless ego and unwarranted arrogance will never allow that, will it, seb..

            Just keep looking in the mirror and giggling to yourself.

          14. SebastianH

            And it’s derailed …

            Can we assume you are also a believer in Hansen’s prediction that we will get 10 feet of sea level rise by 2065 due to the catastrophic melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets?
            You have never read the paper, right?

            But according to the very same scientist you are defending here (by linking to the blog of John Cook), we will get about 2.5 inches of sea level rise per year due to catastrophic Greenland and Antarctica melting

            You definitely haven’t. Here is a link:

            That’s the effect of urbanization. More roads, asphalt, buildings. Cities warm up a lot more than countrysides do.

            You are missing the point, Kenneth. That study clearly states “The researchers, from UCI’s Henry Samueli School of Engineering, highlighted an urban phenomenon known as the ‘heat island effect.'”
            But Tony Heller tried to refute that max temperatures during heat waves increase in mega cities by bringing up a graph of “Percent of Days Avobe 95/100 [degrees F]” for US only stations. How does that work exactly? Would you do that?

            Here are 15 graphs from 15 peer-reviewed papers from 2017 alone showing no warming in China during the era of AGW.

            So you try to “trump” my link by quantity over quality? Clicking on those graphs brings up mostly reconstructions. Where shorter time frames are used (that actually include modern times, at least I hope so … you wouldn’t bring up data that only goes to the 1970s/80s would you?), warming is visible.

            The paper I linked to is cited 114 times, btw. But again, this is missing the point. Posting papers about China and Australia was an intentional fake rebuttal to him missing the point. How could increases in heat wave temperatures in China possibly refute any data about the U.S.?

            You didn’t recognize it and blindly posted “corrections”. Have I mentioned that you missed the point too?

            […] (Fettweis et al., 2017). Greenland contributed just as much, if not more meltwater between the 1920s and 1940s as it has this century. Why do you fail to consider the long-term context of today’s GIS meltwater changes?

            First, your continued citation of that paper is strange, since it’s a model based approach. You have no problem with that?
            Second, you are missing the point again. Tony Heller writes that “Both Greenland and Antarctica are gaining ice. How could sea level rise be “accelerating”” It’s about the here and now. They aren’t gaining and sea level rise is accelerating. He tries to support his claim by posting that SMB graph without mentioning that this is missing half of the equation (as you did in the past).

            Oooh. 100 bn tonnes. That’s really scary. Do you know how to convert that into sea level rise meltwater equivalent? If so, what is it?

            Not doing your homework for you. 365 gt of water equal 1 mm of sea level rise. Greenland and Antartica together are losing slightly more than that per year. The main component is however still thermal expansion.

            The Southern Ocean represents 14% of the planet’s surface area. It’s been cooling since 1979.

            Turney et al., 2017

            Another model based reconstruction. I am impressed … models seem to be your favorite tool now. And you don’t realize what cooling the second half your quote from that paper talks about. The referenced figures show summer (December-Februar) trends and the temperature around an island.

            About 1/3rd of the Northern Hemisphere has been cooling since 1990…


            Those two blue areas are not a third of the NH. The one over Russia and Europe is above latitude 55N and may encompass a third of that area (around 6% of the planet’s surface). The lower blue area is half of the U.S.? So around an additional 1%.

            And now we are talking about completely different things again. Derailed, as expected.

          15. AndyG55

            “How could sea level rise be “accelerating””

            It’s NOT..

            Sea level rise is decelerating according to tides.


            Also decelerating in the satellite data


            Only a complete mathematical inebriate would splice the two together and “pretend” acceleration of sea level rise

          16. AndyG55

            oops , wrong graph for first link.


            And getting rid of the GAIA adjustment (GIA)


            Even decelerating around the German coast by tide gauges.


            WOW, a WHOPPING 30cm in 170 years. 1.8mm/year !!

            Run screaming and panicking like a headless chook, seb …. as is your meme. !!

          17. SebastianH

            And now this thread is again completely highjacked by you, Kenneth … have fun talking amongst yourselves. It’s fascinating how you effortlessly switch between the stages of denial.

            1. no global warming happening, look at my data
            2. it’s not caused by humans
            3. it’s not alarming at all

            When will the realization that what you believe in is nonsense hit?

            So what was this thread about again? Right, Tony Heller.


            I suspect when you look at the data you’ll imagine up a pause since early 2015. No acceleration at all, it just stopped rising. Right? 😉

          18. AndyG55

            “1. no global warming happening, look at my data
            2. it’s not caused by humans
            3. it’s not alarming at all”

            WOW, seb nearly got something right. small step forward seb.. don’t go and ruin it. !!

            1. needs correcting (seb’s ignorance again displayed)
            Only warming from ocean events and cycles.

            2. No sign or proof of an CO2 warming or anything other than NATURAL warming.

            3. Still rather on the COLD side of normal for the Holocene.

            You KNOW satellite sea level data contains several spurious “adjustments”

            And as you can see, no acceleration.

            I’m so glad that 3mm/year and DECELERATING (in real data) scares you seb. Its HILARIOUS.

          19. SebastianH


            I didn’t even mention Tony Heller other than to invite you to take your personal animus over to his site, since he’ll likely take you on. But I “highjacked” the comments on an article that I wrote?

            Just start using the comment system like the rest of us and you’ll understand. It’s different down here. We have threads that have comments aligned ordered by time and grouped by thread-levels.

            This thread was about challenging Tony Heller. You highjacked it, made it about something else.

            This happens a lot. Why? Because you only see a comment made by someone, not the whole thread, and then your reply directly to it (the WordPress system allows for that). Result: your new comment often appears in the middle of older comments and is often not related to the discussion in that particular thread.

            How does your mind work exactly? How do you come up with replies like these? Is there some kind of troll school that teaches these techniques?

          20. AndyG55

            “How does your mind work exactly?”

            WAY better than yours, that is for sure!!

            “How do you come up with replies like these?”

            I go with scientifically provable facts

            You should try it some time, instead of your mindless, EMPTY attention-seeking yaps. !!

            You use the comments as some sort of child-minded attempt to make a man of yourself, for self gratification…. and you FAIL MISERABLY.

          21. AndyG55

            ps. It is YET AGAIN noted that you have absolutely ZERO COUNTER for the facts 1,2 and 3

            It is also noted that you have ZERO EVIDENCE that CO2 causes warming of any sort, anywhere.

            You can’t support even the most basic facet of your brain-hosed AGW religion.

            Like a child just learning to walk, you took one tiny step forward, then toppled over and fell on your rear end just like you always do.

            “This thread was about challenging Tony Heller. “

            No, the Topic was “New Paper: 1,407 Contiguous U.S. Temperature Stations Reveal NO WARMING TREND During 1901-2015”

            You tried to change the topic into a TH bashing rant, but you FAILED MISERABLY as always, and turned it into yet another anti-science, anti-thought load of low-knowledge, attention-seeking seb BS.

        2. AndyG55

          “Present one claim of his”

          Ah , so you don’t even know any of what he discusses,

          …yet you think an anti-science, anti-knowledge non-entity, with very limited education, like you, can actually refute him?

          So hilarious. 🙂

          Heck you still can’t even refute this statement with one skerrick of real science, just mindless yapping:

          There is NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes warming of oceans, atmosphere or anything.

          1. yonason (from my cell phone)


            Above, the activist chatbot troll writes “Just start using the comment system like the rest of us…”

            “…like the rest of us…”


            Oh, Andy, look! FINALLY we have a champion to defend the oppressed among us. SebH, defender of the thread-hijacked masses by striking a blow against … uh, what exactly?

            Too amusing.

          2. yonason (from my cell phone)

            an Activist Chatbot Comic-Relief Clown Troll’s lament


            Pretty soon I’ll need a whole thread just to write an accurate handle to suit him.

        3. AndyG55

          ” let you feel like you have no opposition. “

          That’s how we feel when you are here seb,

          You are one of the most INEFFECTUAL AGW trolls I have ever come across.

          Just the mindless juvenile tantrum-like attention-seeking.

          Its all you have.

          Heck, you won’t even try to produce some empirical scientific evidence for the VERY BASIS of the AGW scam.

          There is NO EVIDENCE that CO2 causes warming of oceans, atmosphere or anything.

  3. R2Dtoo

    Golly Seb! I think those are actual original graphs from NASA. I bet they would like to disappear some of them.

    1. SebastianH

      Do you think it would be a good sign if an organisation couldn’t self correct and improve their data over time? Embrace change and progress, don’t hold on to broken old things that you imagine to have worked better. There are no “good old times”.

      1. sunsettommy

        You mean where GISS turned a .50 C Cooling trend into zero trend after myriad adjustments over a 25+ years time, from the 1940’s to the 1970’s.


        You are as usual ignoring the OBVIOUS statistical fraud GISS is perpetuating on their temperature dataset, since it was well known there was a significant cooling trend from the 1940’s to the 1970’s.

  4. yonason (from my cell phone)

    No data = Warming
    Cooling = Warming
    Warming = More Warming

    See how easy it is? Dr Keen fills in some important details.

    Note that Dr. Keen is also “easily refuted.” Just call him names and post a link to some echo chamber nonsense, and move on. But mostly just call him names.

    1. yonason (from my cell phone)

      Don’t know why my phone entered that link at that top, when I only hit “paste” once.

      Also, it replaced my first sentence.

      Just illustrating how NASA/NOAA “self correct.” …and how easy it is to show that the world is indeed warming OUT OF CONTROL!

      (Well, SOMETHING is out of control, anyway.)

  5. tom0mason

    Something of a ‘Warming Hole’ looks to be about to befall most of Europe starting by the end of the week, and maybe lasting as long as the first week of March (if weather models are to be believed) Here’s a snapshot of Friday 23rd February…
    500hPa geopotential hight

    Temperature at 2m above the ground…

    And then for a few days it gets colder….quite a bit colder.

    1. AndyG55

      Germany will be very glad for all that Solar and Wind power.

      Will help keep them warm. 🙂

      1. tom0mason

        Maybe “Fire-up the coal burners!” will be the cry before March arrives. 😃

        By the way the longer range forecasts from JMA and CFS are forecasting a cooler, and in many areas wetter, than normal Spring for most of Europe.

  6. Christopher Hanley

    Apropos the fact that the Antarctic shows no net warming for the entire record since the Geophysical year 1957-8, Prof Humlum @ climate4you-> Polar Temperature makes two points:
    # CO2 has greatest absorption of IR at sub-zero temperatures.
    # Antarctic is where CO2 would be expected to have the greatest influence due to the extremely dry atmosphere.
    The atmospheric CO2 concentration on Antartica is around the same as recorded elsewhere i.e. ~400 ppm.

    1. AndyG55

      Nothing much going on this century in the Arctic either .

      Just the El Nino transient that is rapidly disappearing.

  7. New Paper: 1,407 Contiguous U.S. Temperature Stations Reveal NO WARMING TREND During 1901-2015 | Un hobby...

    […] K. Richard, February 19, 2018 in […]

  8. vuurklip

    “Warming Hole”

    Anything to avoid words like “cold” or even “Cool”

  9. AndyG55

    Interesting the way that TH just NAILS the AGW farce with a single graph. 🙂

  10. tom0mason

    @pmc47025 20. February 2018 at 1:39 PM |

    Wow! You appear to have some talent there, you’ve managed to get seb off his enormouse lazy complacency and actually post some links. Well done!
    Mark this in history — this has been a VERY rare event.

    1. yonason (from my cell phone)

      Yes, and bookmark the link, too. It’s proof SebH isn’t stupid, but that he is well aware that everything he’s trying to sell us is as wrong as can be. How so? If it were correct, he wouldn’t be afraid to use the material and risk having it’s many errors exposed. It’s a pretty sad commentary on one’s case, when one’s “best” evidence has to be concealed, because it offers no support.

      So, yeah, that’s a keeper.

      1. SebastianH

        Wow, you manage to twist and turn everything around so it fits your perception … bravo. Living with that kind of cognitive dissonance can be a problem though, you should let someone check you, yonason.

        1. AndyG55

          “Living with that kind of cognitive dissonance can be a problem though,”

          You don’t have cognitive….. anything, seb !!

          And you obviously have deep-seated issues living with that lack of cognitive function.

          Lonely, juvenile attention-seeking… poor sad seb.

          1. SebastianH

            Will I find you in the Mensa register then, AndyG55?

          2. AndyG55

            yawn. yet another pointless EMPTY seb post. !!

    2. yonason (from my cell phone)

      “…proof by gesticulation.” – pmc47025

      Good one. I’ll have to “borrow” it, …with attribution, of course.

  11. New Paper: 1,407 U.S. Weather Stations Show NO WARMING TREND | Principia Scientific International

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

  12. sunsettommy

    Evidence of groupthink from Sebastian, who writes hypocritically since he is the same one who brought up Tony in the very first comment.

    Now he says lets drop him to pretend he sees it as a conspiracy over what I write when it is obvious that I never said anything about a conspiracy at all:

    “SebastianH 20. February 2018 at 12:43 PM | Permalink

    Honestly sunsettommy,

    who cares? What do you expect from me by telling this story? It doesn’t matter. Nothing of this matters. All you can think of is conspiracy here, conspiracy there. Who would want to engage you at that level?”

    This is example of groupthink since Nick and Steve Mosher said similar to what Sebastian said. They make initial attack on Tony, then spew out the defensive replies ever since.

    “A group of people come to share a particular view or belief without a proper appraisal of the evidence.”

    They like YOU avoid what Tony really says at his blog, which are based on the NOAA database. He used only NOAA temperature data, a reality you avoid like holy water.

    I wrote this,

    “You say this yet somehow you magically know Tony is wrong, despite NEVER being at his blog.”

    Sebastian replies,

    “I don’t have to religiously read his blog to know that. You (all) post links to his blog/videos often enough.It’s a joke. Seeing someone like him as an authority and then downplay anything real scientists say as fake.”

    Again he make clear he has this groupthink problem as well,

    “Because their belief is ultimately only subjective, resting on shaky foundations, they then defend it only by displaying an irrational, dismissive hostility towards anyone daring to question it.”

    You end with this howler,

    “That’s not the behaviour of skeptics.”

    You have ZERO skepticism in you as clearly evident that you made up your mind without ever making a proper assessment on the Nick Stokes/Tony Heller argument, you avoid totally yet somehow by magic you know he is wrong.

    You have nothing rational going for you here since you employ groupthink, misdirection, dishonest replies and no willingness to understand why people are skeptical since you go by this groupthink example:

    “This leads them to insist that their belief is shared by a ‘consensus’ of all rightminded opinion.”

    You are not rational at all.

    You do not debate honestly.

    You keep adding things I didn’t say.

    You are pathetic.

    1. AndyG55

      “Nothing of this matters. “

      That is correct seb.

      None of your mindless rants MEAN ANYTHING.

      There is ZERO SCIENTIFIC PROOF that the very basis of the AGW religion is anything but a fabrication

      There is zero proof that that the slight warming out of the coldest period in 10,000 years is ANYTHING BUT NATURAL.

      The whole stinking AGW edifice is based on EMPTY NOTHINGNESS.

      Until you can front up with empirical scientific proof that enhance atmospheric CO2 causes warming of ocean, atmosphere or anything…

      … then anything else you rant is just a mindless, meaningless, attention-seeking distraction.

  13. Tom Prendergast

    To mind this Seb character is nothing but a troll, why do you even give him the time of day?

    1. SebastianH

      Because they deep down know they are wrong and can’t leave something contrary to their belief stay uncommented on their blog.

      1. AndyG55

        It can’t even produce evidence of enhanced atmospheric CO2 causing warming of oceans atmosphere or anything.

        Stuck in its own little world of brain-hosed FANTASY science and fizzics. !

        Here! ‘gender non-specific ragdoll’…..

  14. Frederick Colbourne

    “We present a novel approach to characterize the spatiotemporal evolution of regional cooling across the eastern U.S. (commonly called the U.S. warming hole),…”

    Why stop at the northern border? The eastern part of Canada also demonstrates the same degree off cooling.

    This is not a “hole” but most of the eastern part of the North American continent, probably also central and western Greenland.

    1. AndyG55

      Much of Europe is also in a NOT-WARM hole.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy