Collapse Of Global Warming Theory


Temperatures are running below Hansen’s zero emissions Scenario C, so the best propaganda the scamsters can come with is :

Temperatures have been above average for the past (insert number) years

The heat is hiding at the bottom of the sea

Pollution in Beijing is massively cooling the planet

We predicted this all along


About stevengoddard

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

79 Responses to Collapse Of Global Warming Theory

  1. If you ask me, it really can’t be long before they start publicly questioning the validity of RSS results.


  2. I had a discussion with a zealot along the lines of “the only people who got their predictions right were the sceptics”.

    They then asked: “so what was your prediction”.

    To which I replied “It was that you couldn’t predict the climate”.

    That shut them up.

    And happy 18th Birthday greetings to the Pause!
    Now children do not know what global warming is!

    • Ah, but they think they do! And that’s all that really matters, isn’t it??


    • RMB says:

      You can get heat into water by radiation. You can get heat into water by conduction simply float a metal vessel on the surface and apply the heat to the vessel. What you can not do is get heat through the surface of water by convection. There is no ADDITIONAL heat in the ocean.Try it for yourselves. One heat gun and one bucket of water is all you need.

      • Latitude says:

        RMB…..if the oceans could adsorb and store heat….then they would absorb all heat and not know when to stop
        …and we would be freezing to death

        • Gail Combs says:

          Latitude they do absorb ‘heat’ or rather the sun’s radiation warns the oceans who then act as giant hot water bottles. Think the UK and the Gulf Stream.

      • You just said one can get heat into water by radiation, and then you say to use a heat gun (radiation) to test whether one can get heat into water by convection?


        • Gail Combs says:

          Richart a heat gun is IR wavelength radiation. This is the radiation that goes into water.

        • “cannot penetrate the ocean beyond the surface ‘skin'”. This means it does penetrate the ocean at least somewhat, i.e. it’s not all reflected. The point was that he’s claiming this is a good way to test if water can be heated by convectional heating. Which, I’m sorry to say, is ludicrous.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Richard CO2 IR wavelengths do not penetrate beyond the surface skin.

          Dat verhoogde broeikasstraling door CO2 de oceaan opwarmt is een AGW-fabel, de langgolvige infrarood straling van de atmosfeer heeft een veel te lage energie (golflengte) een komt niet dieper dan een fractie van een milimeter (10 micrometer). Dit is veel minder dan de grenslaag waar verdamping plaats vindt (500 micrometer), en dat is het enige wat de infrarood straling dan ook kan doen; helpen om water te verdampen.

          Dutch ==> English

          That increased greenhouse radiation warms the CO2-AGW is a fable, the long-wave infrared radiation from the atmosphere has a lot to low energy (wavelength) is a no deeper than a fraction of a millimeter (10 micrometers). This is much less than the boundary layer where evaporation takes place (500 micrometers), and that’s the only thing the infrared radiation than can do; help in order to evaporate water.

        • mkelly says:

          I think RMB is talking about a industrial type hair dryer. It is blows hot air for removing paint or tile but is not an IR gun. Of course the heating elements glow but that is not the part that he is talking about.

        • gofer says:

          If you have ever swam in a creek on a hot summer day. The surface is very warm, but below that it is cold

        • Gail, RMB chose the topic, not me. He says water can be heated by radiation, and so it can. He says it can be heated by conduction, and of course it can. But he says that it cannot be heated by convection. Now perhaps some kind of hair dryer or convection-driven paint removing device is an acceptable way to test that. But really, convection is just a modified form of conduction. If a warmer solid in contact with the water can heat it, why can’t warmer air?

          As far as swimming on a summer day, I would attribute the rapid decline in temperature with depth to the high specific heat of water, not to any notion that the Sun and/or hot summer air cannot heat the water.


        • squid2112 says:

          Hmmm, I wonder why the sell solar blankets for pools. I wonder why they work so well. Take away the reduction in evaporation (greatest cooling mechanism for a pool), and I think you would still find that solar blankets work so well because they are able to convert SWR from the sun into thermal energy much better than the bottom of the pool can, despite being the same color. This heat, of course, is transferred to the water via conduction, which for dense materials is by far the most efficient.

        • Great, so … we’re in agreement …. Right?

        • There are no words to describe the stupidity of somebody who thinks that air can’t heat water by conduction without floating a metal object on it. Inconceivable. It simply boggles.

        • RMB says:

          I am the guy who said that you can’t heat water through the surface. For the first 68yrs of my life I believed that water would absorb heat through its surface no problem then I tried it. I urge you to do the same because unless somebody can get heat into my bucket AGW is utter nonesense. Oh and it means you can’t boil the ocean away.rgds

        • A few questions for you. I’m not trying to be intimidating. These are serious questions, which require answers to even begin to understand your claimed results. I suggest that if you choose to answer, you post the results elsewhere so as to avoid taking up a lot of space on this page. Then you can link to where they are posted.

          1. What is the exact temperature of the water before and after your experiment?
          2. What is the volume of the water you tried to heat, in liters or gal.?
          3. What is the exact temperature of the air you applied to the surface?
          4. What is the speed of the air at the moment that it contacts the surface?
          5. What is the approximate cross section of the air column that you applied, in square cm. or square in.?
          6. What is the estimated rate of air application in L/second?
          7. At what approximate angle was air applied to the surface?
          8. What is the depth of the sample of water you experimented on?
          9. What is the total volume of water experimented on?
          10. Did you have a control bucket of water, and were the two samples of water of identical volume, dimensions, and temperature before the experiment?
          11. What was the duration of the experiment in seconds, or minutes and seconds?
          12. What was the exact temperature of the control sample before and after the experiment?
          13. Was the experiment done indoors, so as to have control over ambient air flow?
          14. Was there any ambient air flow due to artificial climate control during the experiment?
          15. What was the exact temperature of the air around the buckets, before and after the experiment?
          16. What is your estimate of the amount of thermal energy, in joules, kW-seconds, or the like, that was applied to the surface of the water by your device during the experiment?
          17. Were the buckets plastic, and what was the thickness of them? Do you have an estimate of the insulating capacity of the buckets?
          18. How much and what sort of extra insulation, if any, was used on the buckets to avoid loss of any absorbed heat during the experiment?
          19. Assuming this was done on a floor, what was the temperature of the floor, before and after? And of what material was the floor made?
          20. How exactly were water temperature measurements arranged, so as to avoid heating the thermometer directly with the convectional heating device? For example, at what depth, and how was the thermometer placed at this depth? (Ideally, you’d probably want temperature readings at 2-3 different depths, each from a different thermometer.
          20. I throw this in just because of the expressed views on evaporation: what was the absolute or relative humidity in the room, before and after the experiment?
          21. Is it your belief that the surface skin of water is the only substance that behaves in the way you claim? Or is there any other substance that behaves (or may behave) in the same way … and why, or why not?
          22. With your exact setup for the experiment, if there were any heat transfer by convection, what is the minimum amount of temperature increase you would expect to have detected in the experimental bucket?

        • RMB says:

          This was headed Richard T Fowler in response to Richard T Fowler but I suspect that it was directed to me. I can answer most of your questions but it might be quicker if I tell you of a second experiment.
          I have a kitchen with 2 identical sinks. I filled both to the same level and stuck an aquarium thermometer to the sides one inch below the surface. water temp 52degsF. The difference between the two basins is that one was completely uncovered and one had a black metal baking dish floating on the surface. I applied the heat from the heat gun to each surface in turn for fifteen minutes. The temperature of the uncovered basin rose 6degsF to 58degsF. the temperature of the covered basin rose 48degsF to 100degsF. I suspect that the rise of 6degs in the uncovered basin is due to the fact that the heat is fan forced and simulates weight therefore small amounts of heat get past the surface tension.
          By floating a dish on the surface I have created an upside down pot and we all know that a pot will take through the bottom. The huge discrepancy in heat uptake between the two sinks I believe points directly to surface tension blocking heat.I can not think of any other explanation. I will leave the implications of surface tension blocking heat to your imagination rgds

        • I appreciate your response. Of course, it should be clear to you that your results are not conclusive, because there was a notable temperature increase in both water samples, and also because of a lack of quantification of various factors. etc. etc. But it’s an interesting experiment to mentally chew on. To really try to reproduce it, I would really want to know the details of your heating device, i.e. all the answers to the questions that I posed regarding it.

          Please keep in mind the concept of conductivity, and that this value is vastly different for metals than it is for water.

          Thanks again for the info. Hope you won’t mind my saying that you haven’t convinced me. But if you have more, I’m all ears. Please feel free to post on my blog if you want to. I’ll probably only check this page once more. I have e-mails of the comments that come in, but I am having some technical difficulty with accessing them at the present time.


        • RMB says:

          Just a couple of thoughts. I am not a scientist and do not claim to have proven that surface tension block heat, what I do claim is that it is the most likely answer to the problems everybody is having.
          In the experiment the two bodies of water are identical, the heat gun is used on both the only difference is the floating pan but that is a major difference because the pan cancels the surface tension underneath it and that accounts for the very large discrepancy in heat uptake 42degsF. The heat gun claims to operate at 600degsC on high setting.
          If you google “missing heat” you will find that just about everybody is looking for heat in the ocean and my proposition very neatly explains the “pause”.
          There is one more thing that suggests strongly that I may be right. If I am correct it would be impossible for anything other than the sun to make the oceans boil away. 60million years ago there was an volcanic eruption in the deccan in India that covered 500000 square kilometers and lasted for 30000 years and the oceans are still with us. rgds

        • But RMB, if you’re going to use a pan, you have to account for the different conductivity between the pan and water in order to be able interpret your results. You’ve attempted a scientific experiment; you can’t stop now. Get a book or go online, read about conductivity, and then do some calulations. At the very worst, it’s ninth-grade algebra, and more likely fifth- or sixth-grade arithmetic. If you have any questions, ask! But don’t just drop it. You’ve come this far; finish the job. Get it done. Don’t just speculate about what it means.

          As far as missing heat, the only folks who are looking for that are those who still buy into the delusional propaganda from Trenberth that there is any missing heat. Fortunately, a healthy proportion of the population now know or believes that much of CAGW is a hoax, and these folks are definitely not looking for any missing heat. For them, it is a huge joke, and that’s why they talk about it so much.


        • I should add that there is a certain percentage of lukewarmers who believe that the 0.6 (or whatever the number was) W/m^2 discrepancy is just a product of measurement uncertainty. So they may still be looking for evidence of whether there is any missing heat. But there’s no one like that who has commented on this page, as far as I can tell.


      • Gail Combs says:

        The illusion is caused by the much greater heat capacity compared to water plus evaporation.

        • Exactly, plus the fact that the water that you heat is the same water that evaporates. How would you know that you heated it, if it’s no longer in the bucket?

          If the blow drier doesn’t heat the water in your hair, then why not just use a cold blow drier?

        • David A says:

          I dislike that this particular debate (usually limited to LWIR can, or no it cannot, heat the oceans) is ceaselessly debated in absolute, ie, can so / can not.

          It makes sense that 10 watts of s/w radiation will more effectively heat water then ten watts of LWIR, which as Gail described, uses most, it not all its energy, in accelerating evaporation of the very top surface water. It makes sense that warm winds making contact with the surface would act similar to LWIR, that energy mostly going into evaporation. It makes sense that an three dimensional object, which does not evaporate and has depth below the surface, placed on and in the surface, would heat up upon exposure to warm winds, would then more effectively conduct to the water below the surface, and less energy would be lost to evaporation, and more warming of the water would occur.

          Would does not make sense is that after the US and word has spend hundrreds of billions on climate research, it had not conducted tests to quantify these processes, and discover ever more precisely how the operate in the real world.

        • RMB says:

          If the explanation for the temperature to not rise despite having 600degsC applied to the surface is that the surface of the water is evaporating at such a rate that it is not allowing the temperature to rise then my kitchen should be full of steam which it isn’t and it would still mean that you can not add to the heat in the water put by radiation. People looking for missing heat are still clots. I think your theory is improbable. the more obvious explanation is that everybody believes that water takes heat through the surface but nobody has tested the hypothesis.

        • 600°C is 1,112°F. Isn’t that hotter than an electric stovetop element reaches?

          You really believe that a handheld device from Home Depot is applying 1,112°F air to the surface of the water in your experiment?


        • And who here is looking for “missing heat” in the oceans, in your view? I don’t see anyone here who believes in that.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Richard T. Fowler says: “And who here is looking for “missing heat” in the oceans, in your view? I don’t see anyone here who believes in that.”

          You got that right. Any measurable change in ocean heat is thanks to the gigantic heat gun in the sky, the sun. ALL heat comes from there.

          In general the oceans are warmer than the air above so the net heat transfer is:
          Oceans ===========>Air.

          Even if there are occasions when the air is warmer, the heat capacity of the oceans overwhelms that of the air. It is like an ant trying to budge an elephant. You can say the ant is pushing on the elephant but you are not going to see measurable effects.

          Jeff ID explains it much better than I can. Energy content, the heat is on: atmosphere -vs- ocean

  3. norilsk says:

    There’s a good video at this blog hashing over Hansen’s failures.

  4. omanuel says:

    Global Warming Theory was a social engineering experiment to control the world by redistributing wealth.

    AGW is now collapsing, . . . but so are the western governments and their economies.

    • Robertv says:

      So the will take us to war or some sort of other disaster as a distraction like EBOLA and ISIS etc etc.
      They will declare a state of emergency ,martial law and Obama & Co will stay in power.

  5. tom0mason says:

    “Temperatures are running below Hansen’s zero emissions Scenario C, so the best propaganda the scamsters can come with is :”

    CO2 is your problem, now give us all your money!

  6. Send Al to the Pole says:

    Manbearpig is indisposed. He got a series on MSNBC. Maybe It really IS extremely hot, in a cold sortof way.

  7. richard says:

    Unfortunately the alarmists know all they have to do is hunker down, keep the alarmist stories going in the MSM, lots of stories with , might , may, could, until the temps start rising again and then watch the MSM have a field day.

    Expect big headlines of “GLOBAL WARMING CONTINUES”

    I think only if the temps start falling will it put this scam to bed.

    • rah says:

      Then again they are ASSuming they can predict how the climate will change. Who can guarantee that we won’t get cooler?

      • Gail Combs says:

        There are a lot of people (scientists) who thing we are in for at least 30 years of cooling if not more. That was why Nopenhagen was the all out push and that is why Climategate I was released just before.

        Now Al Gore has left the Greenies stage left. Al Gore Walks Away From Green Energy

        June 15, 2014: Warren Buffett Reveals His Big Bet on Renewable Energy

        …Buffett told attendees that his company has been pushing into the energy sector for the past 15 years as Berkshire Hathaway becomes less dependent upon its insurance-based businesses. He noted that the move has helped the company build wealth, even as he has “poured billions and billions and billions of dollars” into the investment….

        Considering the pace at which Buffett has been increasing his energy holdings, attendees were probably not too surprised to learn that bigger investments are on the horizon….

        Any bets that Buffet is ready to quietly dumb all the green energy stock after he finishes hyping it to the gullible fools?

  8. KTM says:

    Beautiful image, it belongs in an “Alarmist Misfire” collection with top billing. Too bad there aren’t “error cones” on the figure to show how badly the predictions missed.

  9. jigawatt says:

    Don’t forget this one:

    “It was really only a small contingent of rogue scientists and media personalities who were being all alarmist about global warming. The vast majority of scientists did not hype it up, so you can trust what we’re saying now.”

    Hey, it worked for our global cooling scare from the 70’s.

  10. Gail Combs says:

    I have lost two comments today to “Warning Website is undergoing Service Maintenance”

    Anyone else seeing this?

  11. Scarface says:

    “If it disagrees with experiment, its wrong. And that simple statement is the key to science.”

    Watch the AGW-theory and -scientists getting destroyed in only 1 minute by Richard Feynman:

  12. Mat Helm says:

    Another Philistine…

  13. Skynet says:

    The Hansen scenarios are a joke. Really only A should be eamined, that one is closest to the actual observed CO2 levels. If I had said there would be zero global warming I would be a hell of a lot closer than his number.

    Providing multiple ‘predictions’, then citing the observed one is an old trick.

    I have 3 scenarios for the football game tonight.
    Scenario A: Packers Win
    Scenario B: Vikings win
    Scenario C: Tie

    I’m fairly confident in my prediction.

  14. MrX says:

    We should make robots that just repeat over and over “It’s worse than we thought. It’s worse than we thought.” The alarmists would be out of a job.

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