GISS Shows No Warming Over The Last Decade

Even with Hansen’s phony Arctic pink, he can’t keep temperatures rising.

Had CRUT uses a more legitimate scientific spproach, and they show temperatures declining over the last decade.



About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

104 Responses to GISS Shows No Warming Over The Last Decade

  1. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    Had CRUT uses a more legitimate scientific spproach….

    Imagine that, the home of ClimateGate.

  2. Ill wind blowing says:

    I’ve got a snappy name for a new brand of cherry ice cream!

    Here it is: Party like its 1998!

    There have been two different rises since the mid 1970s followed by temporary flattening. Now we are just beginning the third one. So keep posting 1998, 2002 etc, as if they were the beginning of instrumental records.

    And as soon as the full context of at 40 years is emphasized the skeptics will dance the Orwellian foxtrot. They will emphasize centuries, milleniums and millions of years blissfully ignoring how that contradicts what they were doing just a minute ago. Skewing real trends with short term pseudo trends.

    • Dull-witted person. Hansen predicted that temperatures would rise dramatically starting in the 21st century.

      • Ill wind blowing says:

        “Dull-witted person. Hansen predicted that temperatures would rise dramatically starting in the 21st century.”

        Let us have a dull-witted test. Which of the below would a dull-witted person say?

        !. A dramatic increase in temperatures in the 21st century is definitely falsified by what has happened in the first 10% of that century’s progress.

        2. A prediction of a dramatic increase in temperature in the 21st century can only be determined as we approach the end of that century.

        Please tell me that doesn’t make sense. But not while I’m drinking any beverage over my keyboard. 😉

      • Ill wind blowing says:

        “Falling temperatures don’t get you to +4C very quickly.”

        You failed the test at

        There is NO MEANINGFUL drop in temperatures even from your ARBITRARILY set dates on those amputated charts. There is a definite increase in temperatures in the last 40 years which makes it obvious that a further rise in the next 90 years is not an unrealistic expectation.

        It seems that all the posters on this thread are going through an Alice in Wonderland experience. Their sense of space time stretches out one moment then shrinks the next. Whatever stretching and compressing goes on in the imagination, It is absurd to judge a 7.2F increase in the next 90 years by an artificially selected decrease from a cluste of cherry picked dates (1998, 2002 etc.)

      • Robert of Ottawa says:

        Why 40 years…why not 1000 years?

    • suyts says:

      lol, yeh….. climatologists don’t do that, do they?…… the fact is, in spite of the ever increasing CO2, temps haven’t risen in over a decade. If you don’t like 2002 or 1998, we can do 2001 with yet another data set…..

      We were told the warming in the 80’s and 90’s was due to our carbon emissions. If that was true, then it stands to reason, that we’d be seeing some more increases in temps. We’re not. Obviously, there is something else running our climate.

      Clearly, the simplistic view of the alarmists is in error. BTW, love the Orwell reference. That’s a hoot! Warmcold anyone?

      • Ill wind blowing says:

        “Clearly, the simplistic view of the alarmists is in error.”

        What is simplistic, Suyts is your assumption that temperatures have to rise exactly in tandem with an increase in any greenhouse gas. You’re obviously assuming a smooth gradual curve. That’s not the way nature works.

        The oceans have their own schedule in absorbing and releasing heat that produces a 30+ year time lag (Known as “Thermal Lag”). If we were to magically stop all fossil fuel emissions right this moment, we would still be due for another 1F increase over the next 30 years.

        Time for my lunch. See ya later.

      • Latitude says:

        That’s the same sad tale we’ve heard for the past 30 years……
        1/3 of that time, temps have gone down….
        …1/3 is more than enough to “null” anything

      • suyts says:

        lol, you’re right IWB…. now, go back and correct all of the psuedo-science blathering that was spewed back in the 80s and 90s. Us skeptics told you alarmists that decades ago, but, because there was a correlation for a very brief time in history, that’s what was sold as science to advance an ideology. Isn’t it funny how reality forces alarmists to re-frame the posit?

      • Ill wind blowing says:

        ” If you don’t like 2002 or 1998, we can do 2001 with yet another data set….. “

        I don’t know how often I’ve said this. 10, 12 even 15 year segments are useless in determining anything; ESPECIALLY when specific dates are singled out.

        If I were to play your game, I can show you on an UAH chart a rise in temperatures from the 2000 La Nina all the way to the 2008 La Nina (our current La Nina hasn’t run its course yet although I suspect that it could be warmer than 2008; which in turn was warmer than 2000).

        I would also show, simultaneously, an uprising trend from the 2000 El Nino to the 2010 El Nino.

        There you have it. Both the warm and cold phases of El Ninos/La Ninas are rising therefore Global Warming since 2000. Of course that would appear to be silly but I’m using it to show how one can skewer temperature trends one way or another in short term periods of 12 or so years.

        Keep studying the UAH chart on a 30 year time span. Here’s one with before and after 1995/1998 La Nina/El Nino ‘staircase’ jump. Focus on the green and pink lines.

      • Mike Davis says:

        30 years is short term weather. It does not even define most regional weather patterns that are from 40 to 80 years long.

      • suyts says:

        And I don’t know how often I’ve said that 20, 30 or 40 year trends are just as arbitrary. In fact, the longer the data set the more likely it is that you’ll miss a step change or cycle reversal. Its ridiculous to speak of warming as if it didn’t stop 10 years ago. And, yes, we can all play the cherry picking game, but a start date of Jan 1 don’t hold any significance temp wise as opposed to the Nina/Nino.

      • P.J. says:

        @IWB: “The oceans have their own schedule in absorbing and releasing heat that produces a 30+ year time lag (Known as “Thermal Lag”). ”

        I’m SO glad you said that, because on the “Cook Terrified ….” post, you said, “Why is no one aware of the fact that the sun entered a sunspot minimum as of 2002; but the temperatures remained flat?”

        The sunspot minimum didn’t actually happen in 2002 (the Sun only started to go quiet; the minimum was 2009, approximately). So, one would expect the effects of a quiet sun to not be felt for up to 30 years due to the thermal lag of the oceans … right?

  3. Mike Davis says:

    Try the 1930s or even show where there has been any warming since 900. Show me where the same plants are growing in regions that are now covered by ice.

    • Mike Davis says:

      Even GISS admits their temperature records are “Extrapolations” with little in common with reality. Sort of like fairy tales.
      They even admit to not knowing where the missing expected heat is. The Heat that was never there except in their imagination.

  4. Mike Davis says:

    You keep bringing up the issue of what if it warms at some time in the future?
    With a naturally variable regional weather pattern warming as well as cooling can be expected. Based on historic patterns of natural long term weather patterns cooling would be expected as there is NO evidence that CO2 can contribute enough to override natural weather patterns. If CO2 could do that amazing feat it would be a good thing for the planet as it would result in a more stable climate than what has been experienced throughout history.

    • Ill wind blowing says:

      “…there is NO evidence that CO2 can contribute enough to override natural weather patterns.

      In one word: WRONG

      Click to access cenozoicCO2.pdf

      “If CO2 could do that amazing feat it would be a good thing for the planet as it would result in a more stable climate than what has been experienced throughout history.”

      Some Geology lessons would be in order. When the temperatures were hotter in the past, the arecovered by the United States was dry. Do you have any idea what the US, with the exception of coastal regions, would look like if Alaska was tropical? What you’ll get is the “stability” of a mostly desert planet.

      • That study is junk science at its absolute worst.

      • Mike Davis says:

        You are living in a fantasy world. There was a time when the globe was warmer and the Desert Southwest was a temperate forest. There was a time when the globe was warmer and what is now the Sahara Desert was a grassy plain with streams running through it.
        Like I said: There is no real world EVIDENCE that CO2 can contribute ENOUGH to Over ride NATURAL climate patterns. CO2 is a part of the biological activity of this planet. CARBON BASED life forms got that name for a reason. In a warmer world one would expect to see more CO2 present in the carbon cycle.
        For evidence you provided WAGs. WAG does not falsify the NULL!

      • P.J. says:

        “What you’ll get is the “stability” of a mostly desert planet.”

        Life flourished during the time of the dinosaurs when CO2 levels were much higher than now. Where do you think all of our coal deposits come from … fossilized cacti?

      • P.J. says:

        You want a desert world? Try glaciation:

        P.S. The above site is run by a geologist.

      • When the temperatures were hotter in the past, the arecovered by the United States was dry.

        I thought the current warming was unprecedented. Is it not unprecedented, or is this another word you use that doesn’t mean the same thing as when everyone else uses it?

  5. Mike Davis says:

    I really like the “Thermal Lag” thingy because that is what nature does and we can expect another 30+ years of cooling just from the recent period of quiet sun. If the sun remains quiet it will delay any future warming just like it did in the past. Maybe a lesson in solar minimums would help you.

  6. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    There’s been cooling in the earth since 1998 and global warmers just hate that. They even try to think of something witty to say to cover it up. But Johnny Global Warming is a dull boy.

  7. Latitude says:

    Ill, there was a .6 degree increase from 1700-1800…
    …how do you explain that?

  8. Mike Davis says:

    I do not know about the others on this site but attempting to discuss weather with “Your Kind” makes me feel as if I am experiencing a trip through “Wonderland”. All the Fairy tales you bring to the conversation.

  9. Ill wind blowing says:

    Mike Davis:
    “30 years is short term weather. It does not even define most regional weather patterns that are from 40 to 80 years long.”

    Just as I predicted. The George Orwell dance. You insist on ridiculous short term pseudo-trends. Then, when you get irritated by the fact that 40 years of temps falsifies your “cooling trend”, you go on to avoid the subject by talking about even longer term temperature trends.

    Just ask yourselves, why are you diddling with 10+ years of cropped charts when you yourselves say that it’s the loooong term of 40 to 80 and more years that count? Won’t a 100 year chart indicate even more clearly that the Earth is-Ahhem-“cooling”? If course you don’t take a century long term perspective to verify your own so called cooling trends. That’s because there isn’t any.

    You want to know what is arbitrary? Saying in the same breath that:

    1. Our 10 year “trends” are useful.
    2. Your 30 year trends are arbitrary.
    3. Our trends of hundreds of years are not arbitrary.

    You never apply your own logic to yourselves. In any case, your 40-80 year cycles do not correlate with actual temps in the last as discernible on long term charts.

    A simple analogy to your reasoning can be found in George Orwell’s book Animal Farm. If you read the book I’m sure you can recognize the paraphrase:

    Short term good; long term bad.

    Short term good; longer term better.

    Back at the farm…

    • Mike Davis says:

      I DGAF about short term trends. Your mentor taught us that short term trends are the proper way to show what climate is doing. Big Jim used less than 15 years in his 1988 fiasco and the IPCC was formed the same year to study warming that had less than 15 year history. A minor point all this is overlooking is the cold period called the LIA that the globe has been trying to recover from. but not succeeding. There was the 30 years of cooling that preceded the climate shift in the mid seventies.
      WHAT TREND are you claiming exists? The trend is variable weather!

      • higley7 says:

        The IPCC was set up to produce propaganda, regardless of its “scientific” mission. It is the only science with a summary body which has the opportunity to politicize the science to fit its agenda. The top level politician editors have no compunction against using non-science sources to compose their reports—they consider the public stupid.

        Do not even begin to think that the IPCC is anything but a political propaganda machine with the mission of creating a case for Draconian interference in all levels of society, economy, the individual, and government to further the agenda of wealth and power shifting, radical environmentalism, and one-world government formation (necessarily totalitarian and socialist).

      • Rob Honeycutt says:

        higley7… What if you’re wrong?

      • Jimash says:

        higley7 is sadly, not wrong .

  10. Andy WeissDC says:

    There must have been a pretty large increase in temperature to melt the mile thick ice sheet that was down to Chicago and NYC around 15,000 years ago. Since manmade causes are far more important than natural causes, those cavemen back then must have been driving some awfully large SUVs.

  11. Mike Davis says:

    Speaking of Cherries

  12. P.J. says:

    @IWB: I posted this two days ago when you were yammering on about cherry soda and apple seeds and charts created by dendrochronology, but you didn’t respond. Here it is again:

    Since you/I/we don’t like tree rings, let’s put recent temperature rise into perspective using ice cores from Greenland:—where_does_it_fit_in_the_warmest_year_list-9099th.htm

  13. Mike Mangan says:

    Back at the farm we have an ill wind blowing out his ass. You have nothing. You are part of the 34% of the American public that has lost their minds. That’s the percentage right now of people foolish enough to believe that man is responsible for the mild and slight warming we have enjoyed since temperatures sucked back in the 1800’s. Public support for your insane religion dwindles each year as more and more people realize what unmitigated bullshit it is that you are spewing. Even with the most left-wing congress and president this country has ever seen, you’ve accomplished nothing. No legislation. No cap-and-trade. No mainstream Democrat who even has the balls to bring up “climate change” in a speech. You have no treaties. Your IPCC lies in tatters, its reputation shot. You have jack shit and you are in free fall.

    All you have is hate. Hate for mankind. Hate for freedom. Hate for capitalism. Hate for Christianity. You hate all the breeding and consuming that normal human beings do. I’m sorry so many of you are so totally brainwashed and have fallen so far from the values that carried this country for so long. Until you people stop being such a nuisance I hope everyone stays in your faces as loudly and relentlessly as they can.

    Have a nice day!

    • Brian Hall says:

      Don’t be too sanguine. The EPA and Obama still think they can back-door draconian carbon controls with regulatory fiats. Both need to be removed from public life.

  14. Perry says:


    Your outpourings are an outward sign of mental masturbation; a self destructive form of psychological displacement. Its cause is that you are so gullible, you choose to ignore rationality.

    The Saxum Tarpeium awaits.

  15. Sean McHugh says:

    Ill Wind Blowing said,

    . . . . . I don’t know how often I’ve said this. 10, 12 even 15 year segments are useless in determining anything; ESPECIALLY when specific dates are singled out.”

    I recall, that about 20 years ago, David Suzuki said we only had 10 years to act. He obviously thought that 10 years was enough time for Global warming to not only show itself, but to do its evil irreversibly. I also recall events like the Russian heatwave being “singled out” by the warmists. Did Ill Wind vent his methane then?

  16. Ken Gregory says:

    Ill Wind says:
    “I don’t know how often I’ve said this. 10, 12 even 15 year segments are useless in determining anything; ESPECIALLY when specific dates are singled out.”

    Ten years of temperature change are useless in determining future temperature trends because temperatures change for reasons that have nothing to do with the greenhouse effect of CO2 emissions.

    AGW alarmists are demanding major changes to energy policy due to their belief that man-made
    CO2 emissions are dangerously increasing the greenhouse effect. The obvious question to the
    AGW alarmists is “Has the greenhouse effect increased with man-made greenhouse gas
    emissions?” The greenhouse effect may be affected by CO2 emissions, but not by the Sun, PDO or other factors that may affect climate, so a few decades trend of the greenhouse effect is very meaningful.

    An analysis using a radiation code computer program shows that there has been no
    significant increase in strength in the greenhouse effect since 1960. Data before 1960 is
    considered less reliable. The greenhouse effect results in the upward surface radiation being greater than the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR). The global surface temperatures are directly related to the surface radiation.

    The best fit trend of the calculate OLR has increased by 2.4 W/m2 (almost 1%) in 49 years. Man-made
    CO2 emissions have not suppressed the OLR to space. The best fit line shows that the greenhouse effect (the fractional change of the surface radiation less OLR) linear trend has increased
    by 0.19% over the 49 years. The temperature change from 1960 attributable to AGW is less than
    0.1 oC, which is insignificant.

    Extrapolating the greenhouse effect change gives an estimate of climate sensitivity at double CO2 concentration of 0.26 oC.

    This is shown in detail in a study published by the Friends of Science, with a link to supporting data here:

  17. EEB says:

    Dear Ill,

    The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.

    Your Friend,

    Kevin T.

  18. Rob Honeycutt says:

    Show us a statistically significant cooling trend and you might get people’s attention. Anything short of that is cherry picking.

    • Mike Davis says:

      5,000 BCE to present represents a statistically significant cooling trend. 1 CE to present shows a statistically significant cooling trend. 1934 to present shows no statistically significant trend either way and anything less is weather.

      • Rob Honeycutt says:

        Not the same thing. We know what is causing the slight cooling over the past 6000 years. The question is what is causing the warming of the past 40 years.

      • Mike Davis says:

        Expected long term weather patterns!

      • Rob Honeycutt says:

        Mike… “Long term weather patterns?” Really? No mechanisms at all affecting those “weather patterns” at all?

    • Scott says:

      Rob Honeycutt says:
      June 20, 2011 at 1:17 am

      Show us a statistically significant cooling trend and you might get people’s attention. Anything short of that is cherry picking.

      Steve is attempting to falsify the predictions made by the IPCC and some scientists wrt global warming. However, he will always fail at this, even if the cooling trend was statistically significant. The reason for this is that the IPCC predictions don’t include uncertainties and thus are inherently unfalsifiable. We could have seen a 2 C drop in the last 3 years (without volcanic activity even) and it still would not falsify the projections if they don’t include uncertainties, because who knows…maybe they predicted 0.06 C +/- 3 C of warming.

      As soon as the projections start including statistical uncertainties, then we can start statistically evaluating them.


      • Mike Davis says:

        What the IPCC provides are Wild A$$ Guesses about “Possible’ futures. Science fantasy is not meant to be falsified. It can be shown to be what it is! Garbage!

      • Hansen says warming is unabated the past decade. I’m showing that his statement is incorrect.

  19. Rob Honeycutt says:

    Hmmm…. And how come UAH shows warming over the same timeframe?

    Why would you trumpet a short term cooling trend in two data sets (ones that you normally deride) and omit the data set that you normally hold up as accurate?

  20. Kelly Manning says:

    Hah, Denier claims that Global Warming has stopped are always good for a laugh. It is even more of a laugh when they have to keep upping the year in which which is supposedly stopped.

    Remember “Global Warming stopped in 1998”?

    Warmest years, as of 2011/Jan
    1st place tie 2010, 2005
    3rd place tie 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2009

    Earlier this year Deniers were using 1995 as their bench mark year for claiming that observations of temperature change since 1995 showed no evidence of warming that met the scientific standard of 95% confidence level. Apparently a 93% confidence level was proof of nothing as far as deniers are concerned.

    Adding the 2010 data raised the confidence level for observational proof since 1995 past the 95% level.

    Now Deniers want to try again beginning with 2002 data. Give it up before you look even sillier than you already do.

    More years, more warmth, more evidence that Global Warming is a real, observed, measured scientific fact.

    Even former denier USA Navy Chief Oceanographer Admiral David Titley now appears in uniform, stating his Name, Rank, and USA Navy Assignment, talking about how the USA Navy is planning for surface ship operation in an Arctic where bulk transports sail directly across the North Pole 3 months every year and where Sea Level Rise of 1 to 2 meters has affected USA Navy Short Installations, Naval shipyards, and Coastal Oil Refineries by the year 2100.

    • HadCRUT, UAH and RSS all show 1998 as the warmest year, Have you ever heard of those?

      Are you familiar with the tricky concept of a “decade”?

      Navy brass can certainly see the future.

  21. Latitude says:

    “The question is what is causing the warming of the past 40 years.”

    Rob, I’m so glad a literate person showed up!

    Please explain the .6 degree warming from 1700-1800, and the .6 degree cooling from 1400-1450

    • Mike Davis says:

      You are asking way toooo much!

    • Rob Honeycutt says:

      If you read the literature you can easily find out. Generally over the past 1000 years warming and cooling can be attributed to a combination of solar and volcanic activity. Both of these should currently be conspiring to generate some cooling but we see significant warming.

      • P.J. says:

        Fair argument, but I would argue that the decreased solar activity won’t be felt for a while yet, due to the thermal lag of the oceans. In terms of significant warming, if you have seen the discussion on this site lately, you would find that is a hard thing to define. From my own personal standpoint (if you look at UAH), the baseline is 1981. Currently, we are 0.13C above that. IMHO, 0.,13C in 30 years isn’t significant or anything to be worried about.

        P.S. Are you the same Rob Honeycutt from “Skeptical Science”? If so, glad to see you here and good to see more discussion generated.

      • Rob Honeycutt says:

        Yes, PJ. One in the same. But if you’re going to talk about thermal lag then you would have to accept that there is thermal lag embedded in the past 40 years of warming. Right?

      • P.J. says:

        Yes, but my understanding of solar activity is that most of the 20th century was essentially at a solar peak. I’m very interested to see what happens if the projections are correct and that we are entering into several decades of a grand solar minimum.

      • Rob Honeycutt says:

        PJ… We’ve already been in a deep solar minimum for a while. We would have expected that to produce some cooling but we’ve seen continued warming. What’s interesting is the radiative forcing of lowered solar output is easy to quantify. When those numbers get baked in there’s not a lot of difference because of the increased radiative forcing of increasing GHGs. It’s not expected to make much difference even IF this happens.

      • P.J. says:

        My understanding is that the solar activity started declining in 2002 and bottomed out in 2009. That isn’t all that long in terms of solar cycles. Also, a recent paper said the decreased solar activity would only produce 0.3C of cooling (ie: Georg Feulner and Stefan Rahmstorf to suggest that a solar mimnimum would reduce global temperatures by 0.3 degrees by 2100 … is this what you are referring to when you say it won’t make much difference?). If so, here is what Henrik Svensmark said:

        “I have had a fast look at the paper, and as far as I can see the authors are only looking at solar irradiance changes, and effects like the one that I have been involved in, like an amplification of the solar signal caused by clouds and cosmic ray modulation, is not taken into account. We known with good confidence that the terrestrial response to the solar signal is 3-7 times larger than from solar irradiance alone (see for example the work of Nir Shaviv, attached-Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing-doi:10.1029/2007JA012989). Now if such effects are taken into account the result would be very different (larger solar influence). So I do not think that the present work is the particular helpful in understanding the solar impact in near future. It is only an estimate of the impact of solar irradiance as determined from numerical modeling. In the coming years the sun will show by itself how important it is.”


  22. Andy WeissDC says:

    IWB, you are in love with saying that there has been warming for the past 40 years. Again, you are cherry picking a year (1971) which was in the middle of the abnormal cold period that basically lasted from the late 50’s to early 80’s. There was actually signficant cooling from the period 40 years prior (1931-1970). There was a chart recently posted on the site that showed almost no temperature change from 1931 to present.

    So the moral of the story is that there are warm periods and cold periods, but over the long term, they all come out in the wash. There is nothing going on to suggest that we are having warming outside normal historical bounds.

    • Rob Honeycutt says:

      But mid century aerosol cooling is well understood. The problem is that the other known forcings are operating in the cooling direction but we have seen warming over the past 40 years. Even at that you can pick any statistically significant time from the present back to any point to the start of the industrial revolution and you will find warming. To the credit of climate scientists the do not try to ascribe all the warming of the last 150 years to anthropogenic CO2. Early 20th century warming is believed to be a combination of solar and volcanic forcing but enhanced by some increased concentration of CO2. Mid century cooling is aerosol cooling. But the last 40 years has mostly been from increased anthropogenic GHGs.

      There very clearly is something to suggest that we are having warming outside the normal historic bounds. There’s just no way to get around the well understood radiative forcing of CO2. Natural variability means the numbers will bounce around a lot but with increased GHGs the long term trend will continue to be up. You can bet on it.

      • Mike Davis says:

        You use the same tired worn out excuses and wild ass guesses that have already been shown to be BS.
        No the Mid century Aerosol Cooling is NOT well understood because the type of aerosols contribute to both warming and cooling. You have not been able to define NATURAL WEATHER Patterns that are evident throughout history, both written and geologic. There was no magic bullet that stopped natural weather at some point to allow human induced GHGs to take over and do the same that has been observed in the past.

      • Scott says:

        Rob Honeycutt says:
        June 20, 2011 at 2:40 am

        Mid century cooling is aerosol cooling.

        Rob, can you please provide measurements and data confirming this statement? I’ve not seen anything solid in the past. Working in the aerosol field, I’m very much aware of how complex aerosols are and not even the direct effect is as certain as it needs to be, much less the indirect effect. Chemistry of the aerosols is critical to both, and I’m unaware of any chemical measurements of aerosols being made prior to the London Smog Episode (because few cared about aerosols until they were obviously killing people), much less the kind of large-scale measurements needed to evaluate effects of aerosols globally.



      • Rob Honeycutt says:

        Mike… If you consider the state of the current published literature to be the “same tired worn out excuses” then there is no way to even have a conversation. If I represent the position of the literature and you dismiss it with a wave of your hand then there’s not much point in being here.

      • Rob Honeycutt says:

        Scott… If you work in the field of aerosols then I would expect that you are familiar with the current literature on mid century aerosol effects. I suggest you look there. Those papers are going to do a better job of explaining it rather than me trying to interpret it for you.

      • suyts says:

        Rob, I think Scott was asking you to point him in the direction of your “current” literature. But, he’s quite capable of speaking for himself. If you would indulge me, I’d be happy to investigate your claims. Volcanoes are interesting critters in climatology. The only thing I know of that simultaneously produces two contradictory end results of both warming and cooling. I’m fairly certain there is little agreement with the net effect of aerosols in general and as Scott states, the chemistry if an important factor in determining whether the particular aerosol in question generally produces warmth or cooling.

        Given our level of knowledge today, the word aerosol is probably no longer sufficient in that different suspended particles will produce altogether different effects on the climate. But then, the use of “statistically significant” is abused to the point of ambiguity, too.

        I challenge anyone to describe “normal historic bounds”. And, many have bet on the warming continuing.

        The problem is, of course, the coincidence of events. The end of the LIA was marked by……. the industrial revolution. So, what’s is the long term gradual warming and sea level rise caused by? Natural variations, such as one would expect moving away from the LIA? Or the tiny contribution of A CO2? Or a combination of both? Either way, it doesn’t matter. The earth is a equilibrium seeking body. If we are causing it to warm a bit too much, the earth will engage a mechanism that moves toward the equilibrium.

  23. Mike Davis says:

    Weather is NOT well understood no matter what the modelers playing Sim Planet on their gameboys believe. The model hindcasts and projections are based on Garbage inputs and result in garbage outputs.
    The Sky is Not Falling!

  24. Ill wind blowing says:

    Can we post images with HTML? It would be nice if we could. In any case I took a good look at the usual cropped charts.

    “It isn’t warming the past decade. Deal with it.”

    Here’s something that some here find impossible to deal with:

    It is nothing other than Steve”s chart in broader context.

    • Mike Davis says:

      Do you want to discuss current weather or climate.
      The Chicken Little Brigade says the Globe is still warming! That is an obvious lie!
      You conveniently forgot about natural tipping points / climate shifts.

    • Ill wind blowing says:

      Here’s the appropriate way to do trends.

      Now the rest of the posters can drag their red herring across the trail and try to divert the hounds of truth.

      Who cares about thirty years! That is sooo arbitrary! Let’s point to hundreds and hundreds of thousands years temperatures. Now, did we distract you from our deliberately short and arbitrarily plotted charts?

      • The only appropriate way to do trends is to find a time interval which supports the CO2 religion.

      • Scott says:

        I’m curious, has anyone here ever argued that there hasn’t been warming in the last ~30 years?


      • suyts says:

        lmao….. so, you’re saying 1979 is not arbitrarily plotted? What magical thing happened in 1979 that makes it a reference point?………..

        You probably don’t see your circular logic, do you?

      • Ill wind blowing says:


        “lmao….. so, you’re saying 1979 is not arbitrarily plotted? What magical thing happened in 1979 that makes it a reference point?……….. “

        I already answered this in a previous post. That is the year that UAH data begins. The longer the time period the better. 1979 is as far back as you can go on UAH.

        On the site Wood for Trees where Steve got his arbitrarily plotted and short term graph there is an instructive section on how cherry picked dates for short terms can give you ANY RESULT you want. That is the first step one must learn before he fiddles around with charts. It’s obvious that some people here don’t even get to that stage.

        The link below shows a graph with phony trend lines, all based on the basic underlying the “technique” used on this site. Above and below the link is the text explaining how not to draw a trend line.

        Wood for Trees: Notes and Musings

        Depending on your preconceptions, by picking your start and end times carefully, you can now ‘prove’ that:

        •Temperature is falling!
        •Temperature is static!
        •Temperature is rising!
        •Temperature is rising really fast!
        Here are all four of the above trendlines plotted together

        What you find can depend on where (or when) you look!

        Personally, I prefer the long view, and now we have trendlines, and adjusted anomaly baselines, we can throw it all together into one monster plot:

      • Ill wind blowing says:

        stevengoddard says:
        June 20, 2011 at 3:42 am

        The only appropriate way to do trends is to find a time interval which supports the CO2 religion.

        Mirror, mirror on the wall.

        • Hansen said that warming was unabated over the last decade – so I plotted his own data from the last decade to show he was wrong.

          Please tell me you aren’t as dense as you pretend to be.

      • Duster says:

        Trends are entirely subject to starting and ending points chosen by whoever draws or calculates the “trend.” There is no way in which a “valid” trend can derived from short-term longitudinal weather data – even long term data. The globe has warmed since the Younger Dryas and cooled since the early Holocene. Trends are talking points. They aren’t substantive.

        In fact, we can’t even be sure that anthropic CO2 out put has any effect on atmospheric levels of CO2, except in so far as C isotope mixes are concerned. If you compare the temperature curves as derived from O-isotope mixes in the long-baseline ice cores such as Vostok, you see a lag between warming and a later increase in atmospheric CO2 on the order of 800 years. Eight hundred years ago the MWP was the climate effect of the day. Consequently, it isn’t at all impossible the current increase in atmospheric CO2 is anything but the expectable lagged changes driven by the MWP event. Until we really know the efficiency of the global carbon sinks, anything we say about human effects on the atmosphere and weather ought to be very carefully constrained.

      • suyts says:

        “Personally, I prefer the long view, and now we have trendlines, and adjusted anomaly baselines,….” ….. but not too long of a view……k, as long as I understand our start and ends are carefully chosen, while the time periods of coming out of the LIA and 1979 aren’t.

    • Jez says:

      A fuller version of the data series that Steve presents above. Feel free to draw your own conclusions.

  25. patrioticduo says:

    Why can’t warmista’s allow us “deniers” to use the same arguments to falsify their claims that they so often use to supposedly prove their arguments? I find this kind of hypocrisy particularly nauseating when I see it in this kind of thread. If I am reading Steve correctly, the principle argument Steve is using here is falsification. That is, if the global warming alarmists claims made in the past are true then we will show them to be false by demonstrating where their claims have been shown to be wrong. He’ll do that by offering up evidence that is in stark opposition to the claims that were being made. The claims being made in the 1980’s and more hysterical in the 1990’s and at fever pitch in the first half of this decade were that temperatures were to ACCELERATE upward and impending doom was to be replaced with present DOOM. DOOM did not eventuate but rather we find ourselves sitting in our cubicles posting comments on blog sites with global temperatures barely able to eek out a .1 maybe .2 (that is one tenth or two tenths) of a degree increase. The global warming alarmists past claims were that our human produced CO2 was going to cause a positive feedback loop in our climate that would dramatically increase global temperatures and by this time entire coastlines, islands and ecosystems would be under significant duress. Steve proffers a simple, straightforward and easy to fathom falsification of those claims. Simple as that. The Arctic ice is still there and any that was lost took a vacation to Antartica. The predicted rise of the oceans has not happened. The mass extinctions always turn out to be local die offs caused by local idiotic development or natural factors. Or, they turn out to be complete bunkum (think Polar Bear). Now I and so many others, look forward to the next ten years where the Sun gets to prove beyond all doubt that this whole “man made global warming” is one of the biggest scientific political frauds of all time. I look forward to the time where even the warmista’s like IWB will be eating crow! Ofcourse, if this UN fraud goes down the same road that say the Iraq Oil for Food Program goes, then I expect the whole lot of the crooks to rewrite history or otherwise send it all down the memory hole. But people like Steve and pundits like me will be telling our grand children and our great children how 30% of the Western world went ape mad with their nihilist and hubris thinking that they actually did in fact think that humans could control and influence the climate with an atmospheric trace gas because they hated capitalism and the modern world THAT much.

  26. John Haythorn says:

    Yet again you are making arguments that are entirely irrelevant from a statistical perspective. This tells us nothing about the temperature trend of the past, or the future.

    stevengoddard says:
    June 19, 2011 at 1:26 am
    You are putting me to sleep

    If analysis with a modicum of respect to scientific rigour bores you, then why are you running a science blog?

  27. “Alarmist”: There’s something happening here.
    “Denialist”: What it is ain’t exactly clear.

    Yet what IS abundantly clear is that every decade since 1980 has been warmer than the preceding decade. In fact, each has been (in its time) the warmest decade in the instrumental record. And there’s no evidence whatsoever suggesting that that’s going to change during the decade we’ve just began.

  28. Owen says:

    Please ignore this warmista propaganda:

    Decade Temp. anomaly
    (°C anomaly (°F anomaly) from 1951–1980 mean)
    1880–1889 −0.274 °C (−0.493 °F)
    1890–1899 −0.254 °C (−0.457 °F)
    1900–1909 −0.259 °C (−0.466 °F)
    1910–1919 −0.276 °C (−0.497 °F)
    1920–1929 −0.175 °C (−0.315 °F)
    1930–1939 −0.043 °C (−0.0774 °F)
    1940–1949 0.035 °C (0.0630 °F)
    1950–1959 −0.02 °C (−0.0360 °F)
    1960–1969 −0.014 °C (−0.0252 °F)
    1970–1979 −0.001 °C (−0.00180 °F)
    1980–1989 0.176 °C (0.317 °F)
    1990–1999 0.313 °C (0.563 °F)
    2000–2009 0.513 °C (0.923 °F)

  29. Ill wind blowing says:

    You keep cherry picking short term periods like 2002 and 2001. What is the relevancy of “the past “decade”? Reality doesn’t give a turd about a 4 year difference in time. Yet there is a difference in the angle of two trend lines even with a difference of only one year. This shows the worthlessness of any short, carefully chosen time period.

    The blue trend line is your cherry. The green trend line is my cherry. Ha, ha! My cherry goes higher than yours.

    Get a reality Steve.

  30. Brian Dodge says:

    I used the WfT “last” function to give the UAH trend for the last 20, 19, 18 etc years (e.g.,, where xx is an integer multiple of 12, from 36 – 3 years – to 240 – 20 years). They are ALL positive, and the average is close to the 20 year trend.

    # years annual trend start date (June)
    20 0.020870 1991
    19 0.0208267 1992
    18 0.0165397 1993
    17 0.0137427 1994
    16 0.0128061 1995
    15 0.0106864 1996
    14 0.00594293 1997 <– includes 1998 El Nino; no surprise here.
    13 0.0128117 1998
    12 0.0162600 1999
    11 0.00967192 2000
    10 0.00263393 2001 <– spike noted above; coincidentally about 10 years ago
    9 0.00539484 2002
    8 0.00774946 2003
    7 0.0129574 2004
    6 0.0143876 2005
    5 0.032438 2006
    4 0.0863044 2007 )
    3 0.0517236 2008
    average 0.0196526 (how many people know this is meaningless, and why?)
    Trend for full (from 1978.92 to 2011.5) UAH dataset is 0.01367

    Personally, I’m too lazy to go through month by month in start and end dates, to find how many pairs give an (insignificant) negative trend.

    Why did I use UAH? – it’s from skeptic Dr. Roy Spencer.

  31. Johnny cash says:

    Yesterday was cooler than today, so, by your logic, global warming is real. Use the data, like a scientist, to draw proper conclusions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s