It’s Here: A 1900-2010 Instrumental Global Temperature Record That Closely Aligns With Paleo-Proxy Data

A global-scale instrumental temperature record that has not been contaminated by (a) artificial urban heat (asphalt, machines, industrial waste heat, etc.), (b) ocean-air affected biases (detailed herein), or (c) artificial adjustments to past data that uniformly serve to cool the past and warm the present . . . is now available.

Composed of 450 instrumental records from temperature stations sheltered from ocean-air/urbanization/adjustment biases throughout the world, a new 20th/21st century global temperature record introduced previously here very closely aligns with paleoclimate evidence from tree rings, ice cores, fossil pollen and other temperature proxies.

The Alignment Of Paleoclimate Proxy Data & Instrumental Records

The paleoclimate proxy data for the Northern Hemisphere (NH) consistently show an oscillation rather than a linear warming trend between 1900 and 2010: (a) a substantial warming trend between 1900 and the early 1940s, (b) a substantial cooling trend between the 1940s and 1970s, and (c) a subsequent warming trend since the 1980s that matches or comes close to matching the warming peaks in the 1930s and early 1940s (rather than greatly exceeding it).

In 2016, Dr. Pei Xing and co-authors unveiled a new method (MVDM) for calibrating low-frequency NH tree-ring data (utilizing 126 tree-ring records) for the last 1,200 years in  The Extratropical Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction during the Last Millennium Based on a Novel Method.  The proxy evidence shows an oscillation — including substantial cooling between the 1940s and 1970s — and no net warming since the early 1940s.

Image Source:  Xing et al., 2016 (MDVM Reconstructed NH Temperature)

Christiansen and Lungqvist (2012) utilize proxies from 91 locations across the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere to reveal no net warming since the 1940s.

Image Source: Christiansen and Lungqvist (2012)

Schneider et al., 2015 use proxy evidence from 15 IPCC-referenced locations in the Northern Hemisphere to document no net warming since the 1940s.

Image Source: Schneider et al., 2015

Stoffel et al., 2015 used proxy data from 22 Northern Hemisphere locations to illustrate there has been no net warming since the 1940s.

Image Source: Stoffel et al., 2015

A New Instrumental Record Of The Northern Hemisphere

In a ground-breaking new paper (Lansner and Pepke Pedersen, 2018) published in the journal Energy and Environment, an analysis of land surface instrumental records from across the globe’s ocean air sheltered (OAS) regions reveals that, like the proxy evidence presented above, most of the modern era warming occurred prior to the 1940s, and the there has effectively been no net warming since then.

Lansner and Pepke Pedersen (2018) point out that, due to the divergent rates of warming and cooling for land vs. ocean water, there is a significant difference in the range of temperature for the regions of the world influenced by their close proximity to oceans and coastal wind currents (ocean air affected, or OAA) and the inland regions of the world that are unaffected by ocean air effects and coastal wind because they are sheltered by hills and mountains or located in valleys (ocean air sheltered, or OAS).

The two authors acknowledge that it is “difficult” to isolate the influence of the ocean’s effects on temperature changes and the influence of climate- or radiation-induced changes in driving temperature change.  So the two authors chose to “retrieve temperature data where impact of the ocean temperature trends has been reduced as much as possible.”

The results they obtained in analyzing “thousands” of instrumental temperatures from across the globe are especially noteworthy.  To summarize, Lansner and Pepke Pedersen (2018) found that the OAS regions of the world reached annual temperatures that were just as warm or warmer during the 1920s to 1940s as they have been in recent decades.  There has been no net warming — and, in fact, an overall slight cooling — since the 1940s for the OAS temperature stations.

Lansner and Pepke Pedersen, 2018

“We found that in any land area with variation in the topography, for the period 1900-2010 we can divide the meteorological stations into the more warm-trended ocean air-affected OAA-stations, and the more cold-trended ocean air-sheltered OAS-stations. The methods used in this work are meant to give a rough picture of the large differences in temperature trends between OAS and OAA stations. … When we isolated temperature trends 1900–2010 with as little ocean influence as possible – the OAS areas – we found a warm period 1920–1950 with temperatures similar to recent decades for all investigated areas worldwide. We have not found any area with numerous OAS/Valley stations available where the majority of temperature stations show a different result.”
“In contrast, the OAA locations like islands, coasts, hills facing dominating ocean winds, etc., did not reflect the warm period 1920–1950 well. … Therefore, the lack of warming in the OAS temperature trends after 1950 should be considered when evaluating the climatic effects of changes in the Earth’s atmospheric trace amounts of greenhouse gasses as well as variations in solar conditions.”
“In locations best sheltered and protected against ocean air influence, the vast majority of thermometers worldwide trends show temperatures in recent decades rather similar to the 1920–1950 period. This indicates that the present-day atmosphere and heat balance over the Earth cannot warm areas – typically valleys – worldwide in good shelter from ocean trends notably more than the atmosphere could in the 1920–1950 period.”
1. “[W]e show in Figure 3 the results for the Scandinavian area where we have used a total of 49 OAS stations and 18 OAA stations. The large number of stations available is due to the use of meteorological yearbooks as supplement to data sources such as ECA&D climate data and Nordklim database. … For the years 1920–1950, we thus find temperatures in the OAS area to be up to 1 K warmer than temperature in the OAA area.”

2. “Another example is from Central Siberia (Figure 4), where a total of 18 OAS stations and 17 OAA stations were used. All data were taken from GHCN v2, raw data. … Again we find that the temperature trends from the OAS area show more warming in the 1920-1950 period with about 0.5–1.5 K higher temperatures than the OAA areas.”

3. “In the Central Balkan area [Poland, Slovakia, Austria, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Rumania, Greece, and Turkey] (Figure 5), 41 OAS stations and 25 OAA stations were used … data from meteorological yearbooks and statistical yearbooks supplemented with GHCN v2 raw (NOAA) and BEST raw data. … The temperature trends from the OAS area from the 1925 to 1950 period are found in most years to be around 1 K warmer than temperature trends from the OAA areas.”

4. “For the USA (Figure 6), we defined the OAS area as consisting of eight boxes, each of size 5° X 5°. … A total of 236 temperature stations were used from this area. … All data were taken from GHCN v2 raw data. … Again the temperature trends from the OAS area as defined above show the 1920–1955 period in most years to be around 1 K warmer than temperature trends from the OAA areas.”

5. “For Central China (Figure 7), 14 OAS stations and 12 OAA stations were used. All data were taken from GHCN v2 raw data. …The temperature trends from the OAS area show the 1920–1950 period around 0.5–1.5 K warmer than temperature trends from the OAA areas.”

6. “For the Pakistan/NW India area (Figure 8), 10 OAS stations and 8 OAA stations were used. All data were taken from GHCN v2 raw data. … The temperature trends from the OAS area show the 1930–1955 period to be around 1–1.5 K warmer than temperature trends from the OAA areas.”

7. “In the Sahel area (Figure 9), 34 OAS stations and 11 OAA stations were used. All data were taken from GHCN v2 raw data. The temperature trends from the OAS area show the 1930–1950 period to be around 0.2–1 K warmer than temperature trends from the OAA areas.”

8. “For Southern Africa (Figure 10), 13 OAS stations and 15 OAA stations were used. All data were taken from GHCN v2 raw data. The temperature trends from the OAS area as defined show the 1920–1945 period to be around 0.2–1.5 K warmer than temperature trends from the OAA areas.”

9. “For South East Australia (Figure 11), 18 OAS stations and 24 OAA stations were used and all data were taken from GHCN v2 raw data. … The temperature trends from the OAS areas show the 1925–1950 period to be around 0.3–0.5 K warmer than temperature trends from the OAA areas.”

10. “Finally, for Central South America (Figure 12), 17 OAS stations and 13 OAA stations were used. Data were taken from GHCN v2 raw data and also from the BEST raw data base. … The temperature trends from the OAS area as defined show the 1930–1965 period to be around 0.5–1 K warmer than temperature trends from the OAA areas.”

Global Temperatures In Non-Urban Areas Have Warmed By 0.375 K/Century Since 1900

Combining the OAS temperatures and OAA temperatures and using the century-scale trends for each identified in the paper (-0.03 K/century and +0.78 K/century, respectively), it may be concluded that instrumental temperature stations located in non-urban areas and not subjected to artificial urban heating bias produce an overall warming trend of just 0.375 K/century (0.038 K/decade) during 1900-2010.

For the OAS areas, we find a linear temperature trend over the whole period from, 1900 to, 2010 of -0.03 K/century whereas we find 0.78 K/century for the OAA areas.  We recognize the remarkable temperature increase in temperature in the years after the 1918/1919 strong El Nino. After this warming, the OAS temperature data appear to have jumped by around 0.5 K to a new level, indicative of a shift to a new climatic regime. The OAA data fail to show this abrupt change.”

This much milder rate of warming over the 20th/21st centuries underscores just how influential urbanization might have been in driving up warming artificially, or non-climatically, during the modern era.

The phenomenon of artificially-driven warming rates has been documented in many other analyses.

Parker and Ollier, 2017 

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 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.”
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. … 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.”

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.”

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.”

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.

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.”

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.”

Founda et al., 2015     

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.”

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.

99 responses to “It’s Here: A 1900-2010 Instrumental Global Temperature Record That Closely Aligns With Paleo-Proxy Data”

  1. Dave Andrews

    To a layman, like me, it seems that this shows there is virtually no CO2 signal in all of this. Is that fair to say? The steady rate of sea level rise over the past century or more would also seem to confirm that.

    1. AndyG55

      Yep. CO2 has been an immeasurable bit player at most when it comes to warming.

      Plant life, well that’s another matter 🙂

    2. richard verney

      I am frequently pointing out that there are multiple lines of evidence suggesting that the temperature today is probably no warmer than it was during the highs of the late 1930s/early 1940s, at any rate as far as the Northern Hemisphere is concerned (which is the only area of the globe where there is a reasonable amount of temperature data; the Southern hemisphere having very little historical data, little coverage and as Phil Jones candidly remarked most of the SH outside the tropics is simply made up).

      This is significant in that about 96% of all manmade CO2 emissions have taken place since 1940 so if the temperature today is broadly similar to that of the 1940s it suggests that there may be no sensitivity at all to CO2, or if there is some sensitivity then it is rather small.

      1. SebastianH

        Ah, the good old “it was warm before” argument. Why do skeptics always resort to this kind of flawed reasoning? Also, please present those “multiple lines of evidence” otherwise it shall be enough if I just tell you that it’s warmer now than back then. Because evidence!

        Here is a github repo with hundreds of climate related data series, have fun disputing the “evidence”:
        https://github.com/priscian/climeseries

        1. An Inquirer

          When the evidence comes from adjustments to actual observations, one must be careful about the evidence. Especially when the adjuster has a large stake in the game.

          I understand the rationale and desire for adjustments. But that does not mean that the adjustments are correct. Frequently, I look at the adjusted results vs. original observation and compare them to known meteorological phenomena. The unadjusted series often is a better indicator of reality. For example, the observed data in Great Lakes states showed much-below normal temperatures for winter/spring of 2014, etc. But the adjusted data showed normal. Yet, the Great Lakes set records for ice. Many other examples exist.

          So when “alarmists” send me to adjusted data, do not be surprised if I am not persuaded. In fact, back in my research days, I mentioned to fellow researches my hesitancy with certain adjustments. I eventually dropped out of publication activities because I did not think some adjustments could be justified. My colleagues assured me that the review would not be critical of the adjustments. It turned out that my colleagues were correct, but that does not make me feel better.

        2. AndyG55

          All horses from the same stable….. except the satellite data which shows no warming for 33 out of the 40 years, Just the El Ninos steps as discussed earlier.

          …and which you remain wilfully CLUELESS about.

          Reality of 1040’s peak erased by AGW-cult ordained MAL-ADJUSTMENTS

          1. AndyG55

            “Reality of 1040’s peak “….

            oops

            Reality of 1940’s peak

        3. Olaf Koenders

          Sebastian, you seem utterly convinced that man-made CO2 (still a tiny trace gas in our atmosphere at 0.04%) is going to burn the planet to hell tomorrow. Of course, when it comes to doomsayers, it’s always tomorrow, next week or in the future. That just continues until the next fearmongering “fad” comes along to be likewise always “predicted” in the future. Some questions for you:

          Every exhalation is around 4% CO2 (40,000ppm – atmospere now 397ppm). How is it you don’t burn your tongue in the sun when you exhale that ENORMOUS 4% of CO2?

          How is it that delicate aragonite corals evolved when CO2 was some 20x higher than today?

          With CO2 so much higher in the past and you expecting a LINEAR scale to CO2 heat trapping effect, why was there never a runaway greenhouse, ever?

          How is it that CO2 was many times higher than today even during deep ice ages?

          You understand that CO2 is necessary for photosynthesis and farmers actually pump CO2 into their greenhouses to increase yields, right?

          Do you know that Viking graves in Greenland now are in permafrost – something you can’t dig without hydraulics? Vikings colonised and farmed Greenland 1000 years ago, why did they leave 300 years later?

          The Little Ice Age is documented in paintings from the 1600’s where the Thames and Hudson rivers froze 10ft thick and the locals held fairs on them. Are you aware of this at all? Are you aware this was caused by the “Maunder Minimum”, a time when very few Sunspots and Solar activity occurred?

          Do you remember when an imminent “ice age” was predicted in the 70’s?

          Are you aware that Global temps rose sharply between 1910 and 1940, then fell sharply between the 40’s to the 70’s? Did Man have something to do with it or is my next question the answer?

          Do you understand the cycles of the oceans (PDO, AMO, ENSO) and their impact from warm to cool and back again over regular decadal scales?

          Why is it that in a desert, you can fry during the day and freeze at night, but not in the tropics? What magical atmospheric component is missing in a desert to cause this and therefore, is CO2 actually trapping any catastrophic heat at all? A clue – notice how the night is usually warmer when it’s overcast?

          Have you noticed that CO2 continues to climb but Global temps have flatlined for the last 17 YEARS? Why the disconnect?

          Are you aware that according to well understood physical parameters, the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas diminishes logarithmically with increasing concentration and from the current level of ~397 ppm, accordingly only ~5% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas remains beyond the current level?

          Do you understand that warm water outgasses CO2 – try opening a warm and a cold bottle of soda water. Do you now understand that the oceans could never become “acidic”, considering their pH ranges from 7.9 to 8.3, depending on where you measure it and, that the pH scale is also logarithmic?

          How do you explain the findings of ancient tools and tree stumps under retreating glaciers?

          Have you seen the geologic records that show CO2 rising AFTER temp rises by some hundreds of years?

          Have you discovered Milankovich Cycles – how the Earth has cyclical wobbles in its orbit being tugged on by other planets causing major changes in our distance from the Sun?

          Have you discovered that on very regular cycles, the Earth suffers a major ice age about every 100,000 years lasting many times longer than our current interglacial? Do you think that’s connected to my previous question?

          Why is it that some 90+% of species live around the Equator?

          Figures are readily available to show winters kill more people than summers – have you looked into them and why do you think retirees look forward to living in warmer climates?

          Are you aware that the Arctic ice extent is now the same as the 1979 annual mean? Do you really think it’s going to be “ice free” at all this NH summer?

          Does it make sense that “climate scientists”, being largely (if not totally) government funded, need to continue blaming Man for CO2 ills since governments want to tax us on it and, if they say it’s not, they’ll lose their job?

          Frankly, all of the tip-toeing, cherry-picking and completely unscientific (if not impossible) explanations I see on this site in support of AGW are truly far-fetched wonders of the age. You seem to suggest that surface winds are somehow stopping hot water from rising? Nonsense. All that rubbish and referencing to desperately try and explain-away the now 17 year warming pause.

          If you get all the charts and scale them by whole degrees (something we might physically feel – maybe) then they’d be a straight line not even resembling static.

          People, have a good look around and you’ll find there are more questions that require answering before spouting for certain that Man is to blame for climate change. It’s been doing it for billions of years and will continue to do so. There’s NO peer-reviewed study out there that can scientifically and unequivocally state that they can filter out Man’s warming signal from the natural noise.

          If you keep believing point-blank the government and the lamestream media, you’ll look like a fool (you’re rapidly getting there) and have a lighter wallet to boot. Don’t be a puppet or a parrot to them. Remember this:

          “When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic”.

          If you refuse to publish this post or delete it, the volumes about your “science” will have been spoken.

          1. Yonason (from a friend's comp)

            Nice compilation of facts.

            Unfortunately, it will have not effect on seb, who seems to be here just to harass and annoy. I can’t recall his ever having contributed anything positive to any conversation.

            But I don’t understand you final sentence. If Pierre doesn’t delete seb’s nonsense, I don’t see why he would delete your sense.

          2. AndyG55

            Olef, Seb has nothing to do with what gets published.

            He is, in fact, just an anti-science serial pest / parrot / AGW troll wannabe.

            I’m pretty sure he doesn’t believe even 97% of the crap he comes out with, he is rarely able to back up anything he says with actually empirical evidence.

            I think he is just doing it as some self-gratification, attention-seeking troll exercise.

            He serves no other purpose here.

          3. AndyG55

            Actually K, the wording is darn awful, but the current level, ie now, is actually ABOVE the 1979 annual mean.

            12.87 Wadhams now, versus the 1979 annual mean of 12.32 Wadhams

            But its not really a sensible comparison seeing as its only just out of winter up there.

            The real point is that the RECOVERY from the extreme highs of the mid/late 1970s seems to have levelled out over the last decade, as cyclic thing are likely to do.

            Where to now.??

            Well if the AMO has anything to say, it will probably start to expand again.

          4. SebastianH

            Olaf,

            Sebastian, you seem utterly convinced that man-made CO2 (still a tiny trace gas in our atmosphere at 0.04%) is going to burn the planet to hell tomorrow.

            Why would the planet burn to hell and why tomorrow? Don’t mix your fantasies with reality.

            Now off to your pretty silly (sorry mods, feel free to snip it if you think his questions aren’t silly) questions:

            Every exhalation is around 4% CO2 (40,000ppm – atmospere now 397ppm). How is it you don’t burn your tongue in the sun when you exhale that ENORMOUS 4% of CO2?

            As a gas CO2 mixes pretty well with its surroundings. There is no atmosphere column above your tonque that has a CO2 concentration of 40000 ppm when you exhale.

            How is it that delicate aragonite corals evolved when CO2 was some 20x higher than today?

            Anything can evolve to cope with the environment that it evolves in. If the changes happen too fast, the species go extinct.

            With CO2 so much higher in the past and you expecting a LINEAR scale to CO2 heat trapping effect, why was there never a runaway greenhouse, ever?

            For a runaway greenhouse effect (GHE) the conditions need to be very different from what we know about Earth’s past. I hope you don’t think that science is predicting a runaway GHE?

            And the scale is not linear, what makes you think that?

            How is it that CO2 was many times higher than today even during deep ice ages?

            Carbon is a pretty common element. Burning fossil fuel isn’t the only process that releases it into the atmosphere.

            You understand that CO2 is necessary for photosynthesis and farmers actually pump CO2 into their greenhouses to increase yields, right?

            Yes.

            Do you know that Viking graves in Greenland now are in permafrost – something you can’t dig without hydraulics? Vikings colonised and farmed Greenland 1000 years ago, why did they leave 300 years later?

            Because it got cold? Hence the permafrost expanding?

            The Little Ice Age is documented in paintings from the 1600’s where the Thames and Hudson rivers froze 10ft thick and the locals held fairs on them. Are you aware of this at all? Are you aware this was caused by the “Maunder Minimum”, a time when very few Sunspots and Solar activity occurred?

            Yes.

          5. SebastianH

            Maybe someone can lift the first reply to Olaf out of the spam thingy … next questions:

            Do you remember when an imminent “ice age” was predicted in the 70’s?

            No I don’t, same as nobody will remember when skeptics predicted a fast cooling in 2007/2008 which never happened.

            Are you aware that Global temps rose sharply between 1910 and 1940, then fell sharply between the 40’s to the 70’s? Did Man have something to do with it or is my next question the answer?

            Define sharply. The cooling is probably partly man-made, yes. Lookup the term “global dimming”. Something we gradually recovered from.

            Do you understand the cycles of the oceans (PDO, AMO, ENSO) and their impact from warm to cool and back again over regular decadal scales?

            Yes.

            Why is it that in a desert, you can fry during the day and freeze at night, but not in the tropics? What magical atmospheric component is missing in a desert to cause this and therefore, is CO2 actually trapping any catastrophic heat at all? A clue – notice how the night is usually warmer when it’s overcast?

            Humidity. That’s why the CO2 effect is comparatively larger than the H2O effect over desert zones.

            Have you noticed that CO2 continues to climb but Global temps have flatlined for the last 17 YEARS? Why the disconnect?

            They haven’t flatlined and one should never ignore the ocean heat content when talking about climate and whether or not it warmed.

            Are you aware that according to well understood physical parameters, the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas diminishes logarithmically with increasing concentration and from the current level of ~397 ppm, accordingly only ~5% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas remains beyond the current level?

            Yes, I am. You brought up that the scale would be linear or that I would somehow believe that. Remember?

            Do you understand that warm water outgasses CO2 – try opening a warm and a cold bottle of soda water. Do you now understand that the oceans could never become “acidic”, considering their pH ranges from 7.9 to 8.3, depending on where you measure it and, that the pH scale is also logarithmic?

            Perhaps you are unaware of this, but the Oceans are still a net sink for CO2. They are absorbing more than they outgas and thus the acidity increases.

            How do you explain the findings of ancient tools and tree stumps under retreating glaciers?

            How do you explain that glaciers are retreating to levels only seen in ancient times as per this “evidence”? Doesn’t this mean we live in unusually warm times?

            Have you seen the geologic records that show CO2 rising AFTER temp rises by some hundreds of years?

            Sure I have, that is perfectly normal since you know … warmer temperatures cause more outgasing of the oceans.

            Have you discovered Milankovich Cycles – how the Earth has cyclical wobbles in its orbit being tugged on by other planets causing major changes in our distance from the Sun?

            Your questions are cute and all, but what is the point of them? Will answer the rest in the next reply.

          6. AndyG55

            “They haven’t flatlined and one should never ignore the ocean heat content “

            They have flatlined, for 33 years out of 40.

            Just El Nino Ocean effects

            Poor seb has just ADMITTED YET AGAIN, the it is Oceans causing the warming, therefore SOLAR ENERGY, …

            …. and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with CO2. or any human influence.

            So glad you are FINALLY starting to comprehend scientific facts, seb

            Now try not to faceplant with your next comment.

          7. AndyG55

            “thus the acidity increases.”

            More anti-science BS from seb

            Just chant the mantra , seb

            So funny that you think the oceans are acidic. ! 🙂

            https://s19.postimg.cc/ewnhcf8bn/ocean_PH_all_surface_readings.png

            And that you think some tiny amount of CO2 change alter it.

            Your grasp of chemistry just nearly as bad as your nearly non-existent grasp of physics, maths, biology.. and everything else you rant about. !!

          8. AndyG55

            “How do you explain that glaciers are retreating to levels only seen in ancient times as per this “evidence”? Doesn’t this mean we live in unusually warm times?”

            OMG. seb thinks tree grow underneath glaciers.

            I know you are totally lacking in any biological knowledge.. but SERIOUSLY ???

            No, it indicates a very slight RECOVERY from an ANOMALOUSLY COLD period.

          9. AndyG55

            “Lookup the term “global dimming”. Something we gradually recovered from.”

            No seb , you are still as dim as you have always been!!

            The globe must be about the same “brightness as in the 1930s, 40s , hey seeing its about the same temperature.

            Seas and oceans are thankfully a bit warmer, due to the strong solar cycles over the last 60-70 years.

          10. AndyG55

            “Because it got cold? Hence the permafrost expanding?”

            WOW. seb FINALLY acknowledges that the LIA was ANOMALOUSLY COLD.

            And as that permafrost is still there in Greenland, encasing buried people, it must have been a LOT WARMER only 1000 or so years ago

            Hilarious to watch seb starting to trip himself up and land in faceplant after faceplant of his own BS. !!

          11. AndyG55

            “… warmer temperatures cause more outgasing of the oceans.”

            Well done, seb.

            You are finally starting to learn.. taken a LONG time hasn’t it.

          12. AndyG55

            “If the changes happen too fast, the species go extinct.”

            Roflmao. More idiotic FANTASY from seb.

            Nowhere near the aCO2 level when these plant and coral evolved.

            Still woefully LOW in the grand scheme of history.

          13. AndyG55

            “That’s why the CO2 effect is comparatively larger than the H2O effect over desert zones.”

            RUBBISH !!!

            Do you have any empirical measurements of CO2 warming deserts at night, seb ??

            Or are you just FANTASISING.. as always. !!

          14. AndyG55

            “The cooling is probably partly man-made, yes. Lookup the term “global dimming”. Something we gradually recovered from.”

            So the warming since the cold trough around 1970 is because we cleaned up the atmosphere of REAL pollutants.

            Thus allowing more SUN in to warm up the oceans.

            Is that what you saying ? 😉

            seb faceplants yet again. 🙂

            Its hard for you to keep your misinformation and unawareness straight, isn’t it seb.

          15. SebastianH

            You are the only one “faceplanting” here …

          16. AndyG55

            poor EMPTY attention-seeking seb. !!

          17. SebastianH

            Kenneth, please try to reply at the end of threads/conversations and not inbetween. It’s difficult to find those comments and reply to them (in case you were wondering why some of your questions stay unanswered).

            So then why have the Earth’s deserts been cooling/not warming as CO2 concentrations have risen?

            Do I need to remind you about the Schmithüsen 2015 paper (the one with the negative GHE in Antarctica)?

            Figure 4: https://wol-prod-cdn.literatumonline.com/cms/attachment/1fbf787f-b86a-42e0-b43d-f4369f598959/grl53769-fig-0004-m.jpg

            Notice where the CO2 GHE is highest?

            So as ocean temperatures warm, they outgas more than they absorb CO2. And yet today, they don’t outgas more than they absorb…because…fossil fuels.

            Did you just admit that you still don’t know how this works? The oceans are just one side of the equation, the other is the atmosphere. With a constant CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, the ocean temperature more or less controls how much outgases (towards the equator) and gets absorbed (towards the poles). With a constant ocean temperature, varying CO2 concentration controls how much the oceans absorb/outgas. With both being variable it gets a bit more complicated, but as long as the concentration in the atmosphere increases faster as the concentration in the oceans, the oceans will be a net sink. Understood?

            On the other hand, scientists admit that we don’t know how the carbon sink “works” and an anthropogenic signal in CO2 uptake cannot be detected because “it is not yet possible to directly confirm from surface observations that long-term growth in the oceanic sink is occurring”.

            Another instance of you denying how physics work just because it hasn’t been measured in the oceans? (well, it has as the first two sentences of the abstract of that paper clearly say).

          18. AndyG55

            “Another instance of you denying how physics work just because it hasn’t been measured in the oceans? “

            ROFLMAO !

            seb’s fantasy fizzucs at it again… so funny ! 🙂

            Can’t be measured, only exist in cult-washed imaginings and models.

            “With a constant ocean temperature,”

            But you keep telling us they are heating up. DOH !!!

            Still with the manic cognitive confusion, hey seb. Can’t keep the misinformation straight.

            The oceans will be a net sink while-ever ocean plant life keeps munching on the CO2 plant food, seb.

            One day you will grow AWARE enough to realise that our highly beneficial atmospheric CO2 contribution has “kick-started” the carbon cycles to a more fertile abundant level.

            THANK GOODNESS, otherwise we couldn’t feed the world.

            “(the one with the negative GHE in Antarctica)”

            And what the **** does that have to do with CO2 over deserts.

            Are you saying that because its so dry over deserts, CO2 has a negative GHE.?????

            HILARIOUS. !

            “Notice where the CO2 GHE is highest?”

            Nothing on that chart to indicate what it is even a model of. Its a NON-chart full of NON-information. A true seb-type chart.

            Just a kiddy’s smearings.

          19. SebastianH

            Thanks AndyG55 for demonstrating just how hard one can “faceplant” himself. Not a single reply to what I wrote makes sense, it’s as if you are replying to a completely different version of my reply that only exists in your mind, not the actual one …

            It’s not even a good troll attempt :/

          20. SebastianH

            It’s highest in places where it hasn’t been warming, and its lower in places where it has. That’s why I asked my question.

            You’ve been at this climate thing how long? Do you really think the CO2 greenhouse effect of the atmosphere column above an area directly sets the temperature in that area?

            Perhaps you can explain why scientists have found the oceans to be a net source of CO2 in recent decades rather than a net sink. For example:

            Well, read the paper again. Then try to find out where the ocean absorbs CO2 and where CO2 is outgasing. Then come back here and demonstrate that you understood how it works.

            P.S.: And once again you made this generalisation error, you wrote “the oceans” while quoting from a paper about an area of the Carribean. Nope, warm patches that are of course outgasing CO2 aren’t “the oceans”.

          21. yonason (from my cell phone)

            @AndyG55 8. May 2018 at 1:07 PM

            I don’t know what seb thinks the image in his link means, but it’s supposed to represent a yearly averaged GHE, computed based on TES IR spectra.

            See legend under the image, here.
            http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/CO2-W-m-2-Global-Smithusen-2015.jpg

            Note – the legend is absent in the image he linked to.

          22. AndyG55

            “Not a single reply to what I wrote makes sense,”

            Poor seb, still suffering basic comprehension issues.

            It was YOUR post that makes a mockery of commonsense.

            Please stop these pitiful pleas for attention. seb..

            Still EMPTY of all science

          23. Kenneth Richard

            Do you really think the CO2 greenhouse effect of the atmosphere column above an area directly sets the temperature in that area?

            No, but that’s because I’m not a believer that CO2 is the temperature-setter for surface temperatures. You do, obviously. That’s why I asked you why deserts — where the CO2 GHE is supposedly dominant vs. the H2O GHE — have not been warming. I’ve asked you this question twice now, and each time you’ve failed to respond. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

            Well, read the paper again. Then try to find out where the ocean absorbs CO2 and where CO2 is outgasing.

            Isn’t it your claim that 100% of the rise in CO2 concentration is due to humans? Yes, it is. So here we have a paper that says 72% of the rise in CO2 is due to temperature rise in this region of the ocean in recent decades. This contradicts your claims of 100% attribution. In fact, the paper never even mentions anthropogenic influences in the CO2 change, insisting that the other 28% of the change in concentration comes from natural processes too. In other words, these scientists claim that 100% of the change in CO2 for this region is due to natural processes, not human activity.

            This is consistent with other analyses from scientists with whom you disagree.

            Ahlbeck, 2009
            http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/095830509789876772
            The increase rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide for the period from 1980 to 2007 can be statistically explained as being a function solely of the global mean temperature. Throughout the period, the temperature differences seem to have caused differences around a base trend of 1.5 ppmv/year. The atmospheric CO2 increase rate was higher when the globe was warmer, and the increase rate was lower when the globe was cooler. This can be explained by wind patterns, biological processes, or most likely by ,the fact that a warmer ocean can hold less carbon dioxide. This finding indicates that knowledge of the rate of anthropogenic emission is not needed for estimation of the increase rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide.”

            Quirk, 2009
            http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/095830509787689123
            “The results suggest that El Nino and the Southern Oscillation events produce major changes in the carbon isotope ratio in the atmosphere. This does not favour the continuous increase of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels as the source of isotope ratio changes. The constancy of seasonal variations in CO2 and the lack of time delays between the hemispheres suggest that fossil fuel derived CO2 is almost totally absorbed locally in the year it is emitted. This implies that natural variability of the climate is the prime cause of increasing CO2, not the emissions of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels.”

          24. AndyG55

            “Do you really think the CO2 greenhouse effect of the atmosphere column above an area directly sets the temperature in that area? “

            Oh look, more seb gobbledygoop

            What are you trying to say, seb??

            That areas of less CO2 GHE warm more than areas with more GHE.

            “Nope, warm patches that are of course outgassing CO2 aren’t “the oceans”.”

            Ahh.. so now the ocean only has warm “patches”, and isn’t warming as a whole. Ok. 😉

            And those warm patches aren’t actually part of the ocean.

            WOW.. bizarro logic there, seb. !!

            Your cognitive mal-functioning is really quite hilarious

          25. AndyG55

            “but it’s supposed to represent a yearly averaged GHE, computed based on TES IR spectra”

            So, from that kiddy smear.. GHE is highest where there is less moisture.

            Making a TOTAL MOCKERY of the mythical H2O positive feedback suppository.

          26. SebastianH

            Yonason:

            I don’t know what seb thinks the image in his link means

            Then why repeat the caption as if it would say something different than what I intended to show by linking to this image?

            AndyG55:

            Poor seb, still suffering basic comprehension issues.

            Oh yeah, then maybe you should read what I wrote and compare that to your replies above. It’s pretty obvious that you didn’t reply to what I wrote, but to what you imagine I wrote.

            Sames as in the current reply here.

            What are you trying to say, seb??

            That areas of less CO2 GHE warm more than areas with more GHE.

            How is it even possible to understand it this way?

            Ahh.. so now the ocean only has warm “patches”, and isn’t warming as a whole. Ok. 😉

            Same here, willfully misunderstanding what I wrote or genuine comprehension issues?

            Finally Kenneth:

            No, but that’s because I’m not a believer that CO2 is the temperature-setter for surface temperatures. You do, obviously. That’s why I asked you why deserts — where the CO2 GHE is supposedly dominant vs. the H2O GHE — have not been warming. I’ve asked you this question twice now, and each time you’ve failed to respond. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

            Firstly, should I tell you about my internal counts of how often you evaded a question? Secondly, nobody is saying that CO2 sets the temperature. You really need to learn how the GHE (that you don’t believe in) works. Then we can argue about it. Before that everything you write to argue against it sounds a little silly.

            To answer your question: the deserts are warming.
            https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281371291_Warming_trends_Saharan_desert_warming
            http://i43.tinypic.com/if1oh5.png
            http://mathyear2013.blogspot.de/2013/04/climate-data-sahara-desert-1955-2010.html

            Anyway, let’s assume the deserts aren’t warming (as you claim). How does that fit into the “it’s the Sun” claim that skeptics so often make?

            Isn’t it your claim that 100% of the rise in CO2 concentration is due to humans? Yes, it is. So here we have a paper that says 72% of the rise in CO2 is due to temperature rise in this region of the ocean in recent decades. This contradicts your claims of 100% attribution.

            You seem to always find the papers that are the most ridiculous versions of climate science 😉

            Sorry, if you don’t understand why a paper like this is pure nonsense, then you can’t be helped. I don’t want to discuss the causes for the CO2 concentration increase with such a person.

            Continue to believe what papers like these say and see where it gets you. Just don’t be surprised when people think of you a certain way though, if this is what you are basing your arguments on 😉

            because CO2 does the warming at the poles…where its effect is “weak“…

            Either you know how it really works and try to mock it with this “simplification” or you don’t know how these mechanisms work. Which is it? Both possibilities are equally bad if you really want to show the world that AGW isn’t real …

          27. AndyG55

            ” It’s pretty obvious that you didn’t reply to what I wrote”

            I highlighted and corrected all your erroneous thinking. Sorry you were unable to comprehend.

            You had ZERO substance anyway.

            There is NOT ANY provable warming from CO2, seb

            If you have any empirical proof… then produce it.

            Or just remain your normal ranting attention-seeking empty space.

            Sorry that can’t understand or comprehend the substance of the paper, but it is a well known fact that your basic comprehension of actual science and physics is minimal at best.

            Sorry that you don’t understand that basically EVERYTHING you type is pure fantasy and mindless nonsense.

            How can there be anything more RIDICULOUS in climate science, or any science for that matter, than the manic brain-washed anti-science mantra you keep chanting ? !!!!

            But that is unfixable.

          28. AndyG55

            “willfully misunderstanding what I wrote “

            You are the one said that warm patches were outgassing. So those that aren’t outgassing, must not be warm.

            Try to fix your cognitive malfunction, seb.

            “Just don’t be surprised when people think of you a certain way though,”

            You mean like we think of you as a [snip]… attention seeking in a vain attempt to boost your empty self-esteem and find some purpose in your life. ?

            Nobody reading your posts could come to any other conclusion.

          29. AndyG55

            “Do you really think the CO2 greenhouse effect of the atmosphere column above an area directly sets the temperature in that area? “

            Given that the mean free distance of that frequency emissions in the atmosphere is some 11-15m, you mean ???

            Or is what you are trying to say is that it doesn’t warm up where the CO2 GHE is greater…

            … but it warms up “somewhere-else” just by magic.

            (maybe in La-La-Land, because there is no proof it warms any REAL place).

            What FANTASY realm do you live in, seb ?

          30. SebastianH

            Ok AndyG55, I’ll bite …

            “Another instance of you denying how physics work just because it hasn’t been measured in the oceans? “

            ROFLMAO !

            seb’s fantasy fizzucs at it again… so funny ! 🙂

            Can’t be measured, only exist in cult-washed imaginings and models.

            You didn’t recognize it as sarcasm.

            “With a constant ocean temperature,”

            But you keep telling us they are heating up. DOH !!!

            Still with the manic cognitive confusion, hey seb. Can’t keep the misinformation straight.

            You didn’t comprehend that this was an explanation of the mechanism not an actual claim.

            “(the one with the negative GHE in Antarctica)”

            And what the **** does that have to do with CO2 over deserts.

            Are you saying that because its so dry over deserts, CO2 has a negative GHE.?????

            You didn’t recognize an often quoted paper (by Kenneth) and one of its claims. Instead you somehow thought that the part of the sentence you cited has something to do with deserts.

            “Notice where the CO2 GHE is highest?”

            Nothing on that chart to indicate what it is even a model of. Its a NON-chart full of NON-information. A true seb-type chart.

            Failure to understand a chart and to lazy to read the provided link to the paper.

            “Do you really think the CO2 greenhouse effect of the atmosphere column above an area directly sets the temperature in that area? “

            Oh look, more seb gobbledygoop

            What are you trying to say, seb??

            That areas of less CO2 GHE warm more than areas with more GHE.

            You didn’t understand the sentence and made up your own straw man.

            “Nope, warm patches that are of course outgassing CO2 aren’t “the oceans”.”

            Ahh.. so now the ocean only has warm “patches”, and isn’t warming as a whole. Ok. 😉

            And those warm patches aren’t actually part of the ocean.

            This is one of the strangest comprehension issues you are displaying. You didn’t understand that it was about Kenneth claiming that results from a paper about a patch (or small area) of the sea surface, would valid for “the oceans” (as in ALL of the sea surface).

            You then somehow thought I was saying those patches aren’t part of the oceans. Really weird.

            ” It’s pretty obvious that you didn’t reply to what I wrote”

            I highlighted and corrected all your erroneous thinking. Sorry you were unable to comprehend.

            No, you didn’t. You either tried to mock me by willfully misunderstanding everything I wrote to get me to reply (= trolling) or you really didn’t comprehend what I wrote. Which is it?

            “Do you really think the CO2 greenhouse effect of the atmosphere column above an area directly sets the temperature in that area? “

            Given that the mean free distance of that frequency emissions in the atmosphere is some 11-15m, you mean ???

            Or is what you are trying to say is that it doesn’t warm up where the CO2 GHE is greater…

            … but it warms up “somewhere-else” just by magic.

            Has it ever occured to you that the planet has a transport system that moves air and water from one place to another? I find it strange how you could come to the conclusion that I am saying what you wrote here.

          31. AndyG55

            Poor seb

            Where to you get the time to waste on such mindless prattle.

            I assure you, I understand all the balderdash you keep coming out with.

            Its arrant nonsense and blatant attention seeking.

            If you have a problem with people interpreting verbatim what you wrote.. That is a problem for you to get your fantasy story-tale straight.

            I don’t need to mock you.. you do an excellent job of doing that yourself, in every post.

            “Has it ever occurred to you that the planet has a transport system that moves air and water from one place to another?”

            Yes seb , its called WEATHER, and it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with atmospheric CO2.

            Still waiting for some empirical proof that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes ANYTHING other than enhanced plant growth.

            Such a pity that you are INCAPABLE of spending so much time writing arrant nonsense, and so little time actually trying to produce basic science and physics to support you brain-washed cult beliefs.

          32. AndyG55

            “seb’s fantasy fizzucs at it again… so funny..
            ….Can’t be measured, only exist in cult-washed imaginings and models.!”

            No that was not sarcasm, seb.

            “You didn’t comprehend that this was an explanation of the mechanism”

            Yet another failure from you, then.

            Warmer water outgasses.. oceans are getting warmer.. therefore more outgassing

            Not outgassing, must not be getting warmer.

            Its basic logic, seb.

            Something your seem to be devoid of.

  2. AndyG55

    The oceans COOLED remarkably during the Neoglaciation leading eventually to the LIA Cold Anomaly.

    Thankfully, the SUN has been slowly doing its warming thing , especially during the Grand Solar Maximum of the latter half of last century.

    Little surges here and there as ocean energy gets a little bit out of balance with the incoming SOLAR radiation.

    The oceans contain a HUGE amount of water, takes a LONG time to warm up….. and hopefully to cool down.

    And, oh look, a STEP CHANGE at the 1998 El Nino.

    Well who knew! 😉

    And just at the end of the Grand Solar Maximum…

    … purely coincidence of course. 😉

    (I would have said only about 0.3ºC though)

  3. SebastianH

    So now global warming since pre-industrial times never happened, it just warmed until the 1940s (totally natural of course) and the current warming is merely the recovery from the cooling up until the 70s.

    Good to know. Thank you for overturning centuries of science and showing us how it really is!

    1. AndyG55

      “So now global warming since pre-industrial times never happened, it just warmed until the 1940s (totally natural of course) and the current warming is merely the recovery from the cooling up until the 70s.”

      YIPPEEE.. seb finally see the truth !!!

      No-one is overturning anything seb.

      Just CORRECTING the mal-adjustments of the AGW-cult.

      Its always been known that there was natural warming up to 1930/40s which was a time of similar temperatures to now.

      …and that the was a dip down to a minimum in the mid-late 1970s.

      What you are seeing is CORRECT data.

      So of course it bares ZERO resemblance to the farce that is GISS or anything from the mal-adjusted NCDC stable.

  4. AndyG55

    Slightly OT

    UAH April 2018 +0.21ºC… (SCARY HOT !!)

    7th warmest April in UAH record

    Year to date.. I make 2018 in 9th place,

    … (but its nearly midnight here. I’ll check again in the morning !)

    1. Yonason (from a friend's comp)

      Rather than compile a list of seb’s blathering, I’ve found what appears to be an illustration of what such a list might look like.

      1. SebastianH

        Well aren’t you a nice person. Here, have a fish …

        1. AndyG55

          AGW parrot wanna cracker?

      2. Bitter&twisted

        Nice work Yonason.
        But DNFTT

    2. AndyG55

      RSS April 2018. +0.274C

      Now in 11th place, down from 8th for March

  5. garyh845

    “Land only.” Hmm . . isn’t that all that matters; after all, that’s were all the humans live.

    1. Yonason (from a friend's comp)

      Precisely, garyh845!

      And IMO they if they want to record ocean temps, and I think they should, the two should be kept separate. That way we would be better able to see any dynamic relation between sea temps and land temps, which might lead to a more complete understanding of climate dynamics. But that’s a bonus. Bottom line is, as you write, that is “all that matters.”

      But then, it would probably be much harder to sell their junk warming nonsense.

      1. SebastianH

        If only a separation by land and sea temperature would exist in any major temperature database. Oh wait, it does exist. What was your point again?

        1. AndyG55

          Seb has ZERO counter, as always..

          … just empty yabber. !!

          1. SebastianH

            A counter for what? Land and sea data is kept separate in almost all temperature data series. How should one “counter” a request to do just that?

            You can also use gridded temperature data and filter out certain locations, etc … nobody is stopping anyone from doing just that. What Yonason requests is what already exists.

            But since you aren’t able to understand sarcasm and keep failing the Turing test, there is only one conclusion, isn’t there?

          2. AndyG55

            Poor EMPTY seb. LOSER at every point.

            Ocean warming gradually from increased SOLAR input.

            Land shows world temperatures higher than now in the 1930s, 40s.

            Absolutely ZERO evidence of human influence on temperatures anywhere, anytime.

            That must hurt having to ACCEPT the facts.

        2. AndyG55

          OK seb, which of the so-called “major” temperature data bases has a separation of OAS and OAA sites?

          1. SebastianH

            AndyG55, that is not the topic of this thread. It’s about land vs. ocean/sea temperatures. And as you might have seen from the link above (https://github.com/priscian/climeseries) almost all climate data series differentiate between both.

          2. AndyG55

            No seb, the topic is not land/ocean temperatures

            Try reading it again.!

            Your comprehension level is abnormally low today… even for you.!

  6. EdB

    Continuous, world wide ocean data is not available prior to the satellite era, let alone the high Arctic, Antarctic, etc. Thus it is simply not scientific to assert knowledge of measured global average temperatures prior to the satellite era.

    Yet climate science as reported in the Press routinely say “warmest ever”, which begs the question of “warmest since when?”, and “what data do you have?”, and “what are the data uncertainty ranges?”.

    The above published papers do a great service by using best practices to determine what recent global temperatures likely were.

    1. AndyG55

      And basically ZERO ocean data was available before 2003 for the southern oceans. Even the AGW cult leaders have said it was “mostly made up”

  7. Dmh

    I didn’t know about the strong El Nino of 1918/19 and the step change of temperatures that lead to the “warm years” of the 1930’s and 40’s.

    As an advocate of the influence of the Sun on climate, I’m a little impressed to see 1930’s and 40’s as possibly even warmer than now, because solar activity – grand maximum – reached it’s peak in the 50 years after that.

    I believe, as AndyG55 remarked above, that *the oceans* are the great reason why world’s temperatures didn’t get much warmer in the late XX century, in comparison with the 1930-1940 period.

    The oceans are cooling now and solar activity is reaching levels similar to the Dalton minimum (or possibly Maunder minimum levels).
    This looks like a certain recipe for strong cooling in the coming decades.

    1. AndyG55

      The real question is how long the oceans can retain the energy gained during the Grand Solar Maximum.

      Some estimates are 15-20 years.

      Only time will tell.

    2. SebastianH

      The oceans are cooling now

      No, they aren’t …

      1. AndyG55

        Southern oceans are cooling.

        So is the North Atlantic.

        1. SebastianH
          1. AndyG55

            MODELLED AGW BS vs
            measured

            https://s19.postimg.cc/u9nwbyrxv/NOAA-CPC-EquatorialAverageSeaTempUpper300m.gif

            http://wetter-observer.de/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/OceanTemp0-800mDepthAt59Nand30-0W.gif

            http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Holocene-Cooling-Southern-Ocean-1979-2011-Fan-2014.jpg

            And as soon as you see the names Trenberth and Abraham, you KNOW there is some serious scam “adjustments” going on.

            Its what they do.

            And some people still “believe every bit for farce they produce. So GULLIBLE.

          2. AndyG55

            And of course, even you would know that the slight rise in MODELLED OHC since the LIA has been TINY compared to the drop in OHC down into the LIA.

            Equivalent of a fraction of a degree compared to whole degrees

            https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/two_millennia_annotated.png

          3. Yonason (from a friend's comp)

            @Kenneth

            “Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) drives the ongoing global warming…” – the paper, for which Trenberth was an author.

            Whoa, Nelly!

            Given the uncertainties in all the parameters, and given that no direct measure of said “imbalance” can be made, it seems pretty arrogant of them to take it for granted.

            Actual facts…

            “No part of the earth ever has an energy “balance”. There is excess energy in daytime and in the summer and a deficit at night and in the winter. The imbalance can change with every breath of wind, every cloud and every change of weather. The earth has a large thermal capacity, so it could possibly absorb surplus energy or lose it for very long periods. Geologists know that this has happened many times in the past. The periodicity can be short or long.

            Most of the averages are either unknown or not known to a satisfactory level of accuracy. The distribution curve of
            each quantity is even less known. The impossibility of measuring the average temperature of the earth’s surface has already been mentioned, but almost all of the others are equally unknown or uncertain. Kiehl and Trenberth (1997) claim they know the average radiative intensity of the sun, but the accuracy of current measurement is low and the future is unpredictable. All the quantities have skewed distribution curves, making an averaging exercise impossible. The diurnal cycle, where the sun disappears at night, influences almost everything else. The diagram cannot cope with seasons, or local or regional changes. The computer models do, however, claim to provide for latitudinal differences. ” – Vincent Gray
            https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/GlobalWarmingScam_Gray.pdf

            Typical warmists don’t need no stinkin facts, though. Assume the effect. Assume the cause. Adjust data to fit.

            I’m sick of them and their annoying sycophants.

          4. Yonason (from a friend's comp)

            my response to Kenneth, re the paper cited by you know who, is disappeared.

          5. SebastianH

            Interesting that you have decided to show a graph with a trend that starts in the year 1960 […] Your graph begins during the much cooler 1960s. Therefore, it is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

            Why the red herring again, Kenneth? Not seeing the whole thread? This was about “the oceans are cooling now” and they clearly aren’t in this graph.

            Please stop trying to distract from the topic. You just provided the “entirely irrelavent” part to this “discussion” …

          6. SebastianH

            I don’t know if this is the language barrier, but:
            “I believe, as AndyG55 remarked above, that *the oceans* are the great reason why world’s temperatures didn’t get much warmer in the late XX century, in comparison with the 1930-1940 period.”
            The OP believes the oceans are buffering the heat from the Sun (solar maximum 50 years after the 1930s/1940s), preventing Earth from getting much warmer. I don’t think he meant the ocean temperatures with the remark that the 1930/40s were warm. Then the OP mentions: “The oceans are cooling now”

            I replied, that they aren’t cooling now and added a graph that shows just that.

            You go on and on about 1960 as the beginning of the graph and some warming I am dismissing. It’s a very big red herring … your usual distraction strategy. Or maybe it is indeed the language barrier and either I or you misunderstood what the OP was really writing.

            Maybe I should stop replying to you too then if you continue to resort to this tactic to derail discussions.

            Instead of replying to anything I actually wrote substantively, you decided to fabricate a complaint about me tossing out red herrings and distracting from the topic when I clearly did nothing of the kind.

            Why should I reply to anything you throw into a thread that has little or nothing to do with what I was critizing? That’s a distraction and I fell for yours way to often in the past months.

            P.S.: No, the warmth of 1930/40s did not superseed the warmth of recent decades. That happened only in the skeptics fantasy bubble.

          7. AndyG55

            Major parts of the oceans ARE starting to cool.

            Any deep warming in the modelled and adjusted OHC must be from the Sun, atmospheric CO2 cannot and does not warm the oceans in any possible way.

            https://s19.postimg.cc/u9nwbyrxv/NOAA-CPC-EquatorialAverageSeaTempUpper300m.gif

            http://wetter-observer.de/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/OceanTemp0-800mDepthAt59Nand30-0W.gif

            http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Holocene-Cooling-Southern-Ocean-1979-2011-Fan-2014.jpg

          8. AndyG55
          9. AndyG55

            “No, the warmth of 1930/40s did not superseed the warmth of recent decades. That happened only in the skeptics fantasy bubble.”

            Nope, warmth of 1930/40s DID supersede recent decades in all REAL in-adjusted data.

            REAL DATA shows that to be a fact, especially in the NH.

            Sorry to burst your brain-hosed bubble, seb

            I know its all you have in your life.

          10. SebastianH

            Any deep warming in the modelled and adjusted OHC must be from the Sun, atmospheric CO2 cannot and does not warm the oceans in any possible way.

            *Yawn*, how often do you have to repeat this nonsense to yourself until you can finally fall asleep? I wonder how someone can become like this and at the same time pretends to base his/her opinion purely on facts …

          11. AndyG55

            Poor seb.. It seems things need to be repeated a LOT of times before they can get through your manic AGW brain-hosing.

            Do you have ANY empirical evidence that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes ocean warming??

            NOPE… seb = ZERO facts.

            Have you figured out that DWLWR cannot warm oceans , especially in the piddlingly small amount that might come from a 0.04% trace gas.

            Your whole premise has ZERO reality in any sort of science or physics.

            That hose must have been on ultra-high pressure.

            Its the only way you could continue to just “BELIEVE” despite ZERO scientific evidence.

            Just your continued desperate trolling for attention.

            How does a human being become so pathetic.!!!!

          12. AndyG55

            oops early morning here.. forgot to close the bold after one paragraph. !!

  8. Yonason (from a friend's comp)

    “I’m a little impressed to see 1930’s and 40’s as possibly even warmer than now, because solar activity – grand maximum – reached it’s peak in the 50 years after that.” – Dmh

    I think that needs to be addressed, but higher temps appear to have been a reality, at least on the land.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Or5K-_JDPlc

  9. Tom Anderson

    That is a great collection and one to save!

    “Composed” of 450 …, not “comprised.” The whole comprises the parts, not the other way around. “Comprised of” is bureaucratese, a fancy way to get it wrong.

    Sorry to be today’s Mrs. Grundy. The graphs are superlative and stunning. Good work.

  10. Stephen Richards

    I guess that just about finishes the CO² scam except it won’t. There is clearly no signal of co² warming in any of these data

    1. AndyG55

      The anti-CO2 scam is NOTHING to do with temperatures or climate.

      Its a political construct.

      Stated as such by the AGW-cult leaders.

      https://s19.postimg.cc/s5eqnxsfn/endenhofer.png

      https://s19.postimg.cc/h4qhxvt2b/Figueres.png

  11. goldminor

    Thanks for sharing all of the great regional graphs. That will keep me busy for some time.

  12. David

    Relevant data. Unfortunately, these authors are considered infidels by the Church of Global Warming.

    1. SebastianH

      Ok, I’ve read the paper now …

      They write:

      For all individual stations, we have aimed to use yearly averaged unadjusted temperature data. […] Since we do not expect that temperature adjustments have a bias toward OAS or OAA stations, we do not expect that working with original temperature data will introduce a bias in the present results when evaluating differences between OAS vs. OAA trends.

      So it’s unadjusted temperature data they are suing, but they seem to be well aware of the problems resulting from that. Comparing trends between OAA and OAS should still be possible, but of course the trend of either series is that of unadjusted data.

      Near the end they present one of their findings as:

      The global OAS temperature data reveal a period 1920–1950 with a warmer temperature over the Earths surface than the OAA data affected by ocean air trends show. The warm OAS temperatures during 1920–1950 resemble OAS temperatures of recent decades.

      Well, surprise surprise. OAA data doesn’t have as much variation in it because of the oceans. OAS data is far more volatile and the time of day the temperature was measured matters more. So it’s basically an artifact of using unadjusted data.

      Therefore, the lack of warming in the OAS temperature trends after 1950 should be considered when evaluating the climatic effects of changes in the Earth’s atmospheric trace amounts of greenhouse gasses as well as variations in solar conditions.

      What they should rather ask themselves is why their OAA and OAS data doesn’t differ after the 1950s. I wonder how raw and adjusted temperatures differ before 1950 vs. after 1950: https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/564921572096348160

      The reconstructions you present here, well … we discussed them before, so I won’t repeat myself.

      Nice try, but nope … it’s once again skeptic wishful thinking. Not the one flaw that would once and for all debunk AGW.

      1. AndyG55

        “So it’s basically an artifact of using unadjusted data.”

        Unlike GISS, you mean, which is PURELY and TOTALLY an artefact of ADJUSTED data.

        Working with ORIGINAL data will always be the downfall of the AGW fantasy.

        “we discussed them before, so I won’t repeat myself.”

        And you made a fool of yourself then, totally empty, as I recall.

        The thing that really debunks the AGW cult religion is the TOTAL ABSENCE of any evidence that CO2 causes warming of anything, anywhere, anytime.

        Temperatures unaffected by SOLAR warming of the oceans, show the 1940s warmer than now.

        Them’s the FACTS, seb, no matter how much you rant and rave.

        1. Yonason (from a friend's comp)

          @Andy

          translation… “so, basically, it’s an artifact of reality.”

          1. AndyG55

            Yep.

            Reality BITES the AGW meme. !!

      2. AndyG55

        “What they should rather ask themselves is why their OAA and OAS data doesn’t differ after the 1950s.”

        That’s patently obvious to anyone with a functional brain.

        So .. not you.

  13. David

    Climate science needs to be outsourced to the Danes.

  14. Isolating the Impact of CO2 on Temperature Reveals No Warming over the Past 100 Years – CO2 is Life

    […] Continue reading […]

  15. Another Day, Another State Reduces Costly Solar Industry Subsidies – Newsfeed – Hasslefree allsorts
  16. Alan Tomalty

    Even the GHCN data put out by NOAA shows no warming for the US for the average daily maximum temperature from 1895 to 2018 based on the varying number of temperature stations ~1000 stations (maximum no.of stations was the year 1990)

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

Close