Updated Global Temperature: No global warming for 17 years, 6 months – (No Warming for 210 Months)


By: - Climate DepotMarch 4, 2014 9:20 AM with 312 comments

Special to Climate Depot:

By Lord Christopher Monckton

Seventeen and a half years. Not a flicker of global warming. The RSS satellite record, the first of the five global-temperature datasets to report its February value, shows a zero trend for an impressive 210 months. 

The graph below shows no global warming at all for 17 years 6 months:

clip_image002

Monctkon analysis:

1: This graph is highly topical. It is right up to date. Remote Sensing Systems, Inc. (RSS) is one of the two satellite-based datasets (the other is the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). And RSS is one of the five standard global temperature datasets, which include the two satellite datasets and the three terrestrial datasets – Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS); the Hadley Centre/CRU dataset, version 4 (HadCRUT4); and the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). As this month, RSS is usually the first to report, and its latest monthly value, for February 2014, became available just hours ago. 

2: The satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers, which not only measure temperature at various altitudes above the Earth’s surface via microwave sounding units but also constantly calibrate themselves by measuring the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which is 1% of the freezing point of water, or just 2.73 degrees above absolute zero. It was by measuring minuscule variations of the cosmic background radiation that the NASA anisotropy probe enabled the age of the Universe to be determined: it is 13.82 billion years.

3: The graph is accurate. The data are lifted monthly directly from the RSS website. They are read down from the text file by a computer algorithm and plotted automatically using an advanced routine that automatically adjusts the aspect ratio of the data window at both axes so as to show the data at maximum size. The latest monthly data point is visually inspected to ensure that it has been correctly positioned. The light blue trend line plotted beneath the dark blue spline-curve showing the actual data is calculated by the method of least-squares linear regression, which determines the y-intercept and slope of the line via two well-established and functionally identical equations that are compared with one another to ensure no discrepancy between them. Least-squares linear regression is used by the IPCC and by most other agencies for determining global temperature trends. Interestingly, it is recommended by Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia in one of the Climategate emails, so no one on the true-believing side will challenge its appropriateness. The reliability of the trend calculation by the algorithm was verified by Dr Stephen Farish, Professor of Epidemiological Statistics at the University of Melbourne.

4: The graph is news. Not only is it very recent: it is also something that the mainstream news media very seldom reveal. They tend to keep the now embarrassingly long hiatus in global warming secret.

#

Related Links: 

Climate Depot Analysis: ‘There have been at least nine  ten separate explanations for the standstill in global warming’ – 1) Low Solar Activity; 2) Oceans Ate Warming; 3) Chinese Coal Use; 4) Montreal Protocol; 5) Readjusted past temps to claim ‘pause’ never existed 6) Volcanoes 7) Decline in Water Vapor 8) Pacific Trade Winds 9)  ’Stadium Waves’ 10) ‘Coincidence’

Update: Excuse number 10 for the global warming ‘pause’ — ‘Coincidence!’, according to NASA scientists: ‘Coincidence, conspired to dampen warming trends’

Greenpeace Co-Founder Tells U.S. Senate: Earth’s Geologic History ‘fundamentally contradicts’ CO2 Climate Fears: ‘We had both higher temps and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today’

 


  • Ojebuss

    Well it looks like you are using the TTS data that averages the troposphere and stratosphere. The problem is we don’t live in the stratosphere. I would use the TLT data.
    http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

    • Guest

      Um. That’s the same graph, with an earlier start date. The last 17.5 years still trends identically to the one above.

      • Ojebuss

        Ummm no, you need to click the link i posted also.

        • RSpung

          the link you posted does not use the correct time scale

          • Ojebuss

            you are correct I read the above date on the graph as 79 not 97

      • Kyle Allen

        Omg its the fact that you use a linear regression with DECADES worth of data. It´s called statistical significance instead of cherry picking one minute time frame. Using more that 1.75 decades SHOWS the overall upwards, never ending increase in global temperature. Physics and the greenhouse gas phenomenon clearly explain this. And the feedback mechanisms reverberating throughout the ecosystem.

        • Squidly2112

          “never ending increase in global temperature” … ROFLMAO …. hahahaha

          Are you really this daft? … or just plain stupid?

          • Kyle Allen

            OMGGGG LOOK AT THE GRAPH ok it will end one day but wtf everything comes to an end you imbecile. Wtf is your point in life right now. Listen, this scope of our teeny little lifetimes is irrelevant. It is a blip in time. yet we have somehow burned all of life that ever existed and put it in our atmosphere. Now durin g our entire lifetime, yes there will be a never ending TREND of increasing temperautre and increasing, drastic climate shift. THE WHOLE PROBLEM is that this is DRASTIC and RAPID, in which LIFE cannot adapt. YOUR FOOD YOU SELFISHLY STUFF YOURSELF WITH will be gone haha. Through a PLETHORA of interconnecting phenomena that is the intricate system of our ecosystem.

          • Squidly2112

            wow … done here … need not say anymore

          • Kyle Allen

            You never started with literally anything.

          • Kyle Allen

            lol squidly I think you created your own account just to upvote your shit. But either way, I do understand the like-minded people infiltrating/creating these websites obviously probably agree with your random ass, logically lacking statements.

    • vaterator

      It IS the TLT data. The graphic above says so.

      • Ojebuss

        The graphic lies… click the link that i posted. use the drop down box to compare the 2.

        • RSpung

          you lie. the graphic is correct. the data confirms it.

          • Gankfest

            You’re retarded kid… Sorry to the world we didn’t get the contraception pamphlet to your parents in time. -_-

            Anyway… Now for a little science! :D

            The data is based off the Stratosphere and Troposphere anomalies… It’s right there on the left side of the actual graph which is here.

            http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

            The full report can be read here that shows rising global temps. *cough

            http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2014/20140121_Temperature2013.pdf

            What NASA has to say on the subject.

            http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20140121/

            More on TLT data and you being wrong…

            http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature

            Climate Depot is back by oil companies… Read a book sometime!

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_a_Constructive_Tomorrow#Funding

            Would you like to continue…? -_-

          • RSpung

            dumbshit

          • Gankfest

            lol The sound of a failed argument… Thanx for agreeing with me! :D

          • RSpung

            you’re a dumbshit. the ipcc used rss satellite data, specifically tlt data, to claim global warming exists. now, the same data shows a pause of almost two decades and NOW you claim it doesn’t count? lol…

            another reason why you are a dumbshit is the article you linked as proof of oil company funding. It PROVES a lack of such funding for the LAST EIGHT YEARS.

            and the third reason why you are a dumbshit is you used giss data, which is known to be bogus due to constant historical adjustments. the 1930s are known to be warmer than the present decade, according to raw data, but the giss is constantly revising upwards old data to give the false appearance of present-day warming.

            and finally, the fourth reason why you are a dumbshit is because you still believe in global warming, despite a mountain of evidence that disproves it.

          • Gankfest

            No evidence backing all that bullshit…

          • RSpung

            that’s fine, go ahead and ignore everything that conflicts with your fantasy. doesn’t bother me.

          • Gankfest

            Thanks for the show! :D

          • RSpung

            http://www.remss.com/blog/rss-contributions-ipcc-wg1-ar5-report
            hey dumbshit, here’s the ipcc using rss data. you’re welcome.

          • Gankfest

            None of these links prove your failure to be correct. Lol at using wordpress as a source! :D

            Would you like to continue failing all over your retarded self, and keep calling me stupid in the process…?

            <— Grabbing Popcorn! :P

          • RSpung

            you’re right! none of those links prove my failure to be correct. ever heard of a double negative, dumbshit?

          • Gankfest

            The argument isn’t about how much you don’t know about double negatives, but how much you don’t know about global warming. Which at this point you don’t know anything about climate science in general. All you have done is call me dumbshit, while looking like a complete idiot. On top of that you post links that don’t back your failed ass claim, or are failed sources such as wordpress… -_-

            Would you like to continue looking like a jack ass on the internet?

          • RSpung

            lol, I couldn’t look like a bigger jackass than you if I had the next century to try. only a dumbshit thinks an entire universe of blogs constitutes a “source”. especially a dumbshit that uses Wikipedia, only to find out that the article actually proves him a liar.
            there hasn’t been any global warming in almost 18 years and nobody cares about it any more. have fun with your failed theory. meanwhile, the rest of us are enjoying a snowy winter, record-high ice coverage at the poles and the knowledge that nothing you say or do matters. now if you’ll excuse me, your mother has a dick to suck and I can’t keep her waiting any longer.

          • Gankfest

            We can sum up all your fail into one picture…

            Thanx for the laughs kid! :P

            Would you like to continue failing further?

          • Kyle Allen

            you literally look like an idiotic child who lacks critical thinking and has an extremely hateful, sad outlook on the world. I’m sorry you are so depressed but go take a science class or two and get back with us

          • RSpung

            I am a patent-holding chemical engineer who graduated from the highest ranking undergraduate engineering college in America. I know more about science than you could ever hope to.

          • Kyle Allen

            well that’s interesting, you sound like you would promote climate skepticism with whatever Monsanto-funded, oil company funded work you may be apart of. Haha either way, your use of the word “dumbshit” makes you sound very reputable and knowledgeable, as well as persuasive (this is sarcasm). So all-knowing chemistry understand-er, is the greenhouse effect a hoax? Does the physics behind it not exist?

            Obviously your patent-shit made you a horrible, ugly person who doesn’t care about anything in the world. But you sir do look like a complete piece of shit. But please, relay your complete science understanding to me. Apparently you have great depth in the biology, ecology, microbiology, and physics sectors.

          • RSpung

            congratulations, dumbshit. you just proved you know absolutely nothing about anything. for example, microbiology has absolutely nothing to do with climate.

            if you had bothered to read my patent, you would have realized that I developed a wastewater recycling process that removes heavy metal pollutants such as arsenic, lead, chromium and others from process wastewater produced by normal chemical manufacturing processes. do you have any idea what I am talking about, dumbshit? I CLEAN UP POLLUTED WATER. there, is that simple enough for you to understand?

            with regards to the greenhouse effect, of course it exists, but it is overshadowed completely by other factors, including solar cycles and water vapor feedback loops. this is why you and your brain-dead global warming believers are losing the battle- you can’t wrap your tiny heads around the fact that history has already proved over and over again several simple truths:

            climate cycles naturally between cold and warm periods
            the earth has supported a co2 level five times today’s readings without a tipping point
            solar cycles in the past have been directly linked to warming periods such as the mwp, when temperatures were higher than today
            atmospheric levels of co2 have been conclusively proven to LAG temperature changes, rather than PRECEDING them
            every climate temperature prediction computer model created so far has FAILED miserably to predict temperature changes
            government money has just as much, if not more, power to corrupt research as “oil-company” money
            alternative energy will NEVER be more cost effective than oil, gas and coal
            global warming ranks dead last on a list of issues that average people care about
            Europe, Australia and Asia are giving up on green strategies after losing hundreds of billions of dollars on worthless projects

            the game is over and your side lost. deal with it.

            I could go on, but if you have any brains at all you understand the facts now. if you don’t by now, you are irrelevant and aren’t worth any more of my time. stay in your fact-free, science-free fantasy world, while the real people live out their lives actually ACCOMPLISHING things.

          • Kyle Allen

            haha, and apparently like you I have a B.S. in Biology at one of the TOP undergraduate schools in the land between the seas, Miami University of Ohio. I intricately know science and am attending medical school. water vapor feedback loops are stagnant for all intensive purposes. solar cycles vary and give us varying temperatures, absolutely right, which is why altogether looking at a data set of yearly temperatures does not display the true properties of what is happening in the ecosystem; some days, months, years, etc we receive more or less energy depending upon what amount of electromagnetic radiation the sun spews out at us (mostly visible light enters). Now we have physically ALTERED the carbon cycle, filling up the sinks and thus creating constant addition to our atmosphere from otherwise liquified carbon substances.

            yes, climate does cycle over periods, periods in which are GIGANTIC time frames in which SLOW GRADUAL climatic shifts occur. Day to day temperatures is not CLIMATE. By what MISERABLE FAILURE have predictions been, 30 degrees warmer in two weeks? ten degrees warmer in 10 years? yeah sorry scientists are not GOD and do not know a precise amount of change, but temps HAVE RISEN a significant 2 degrees over the last several decades. This is A RAPID GLOBAL CHANGE, a rapid retention of heat. If this scale continues, life cannot ADAPT.

            Now I dont give a shit about politics or economy or if alternative energy is less cost effective; that’s not the dilemma dumbshit. Your progeny, my proegny the progeny OF LIFE depends on our actions to reduce this massively inevitable problem that has been creted. THIS POSITIVE FEEDBACK reverberation through the ecosystem that we are creating.

            If you just want to play games and think your words are so amazing and calling people dumbshit flys, go back and learn some science on how the world works. You need some up to date info on the INTRICATE, COMPLEX problem arising in a blip of time.

            As a final statement, wanna know how microbio affect climate? well let’s agree to disagree but say that global warming does exist, and as warming occurs the arctic tundras begin to warm, and permafrost layers begin to thaw. There are microorganisms termed METHANOGENS that are currently dormant, but will come out of dormancy when thawed. Now, when they RESPIRE….as in do METABOLISM and break down MATTER around them for food, they RESPIRE methane as their byproduct just as carbon dioxide is ours. now METHANNNNNEEEE is several times more potent in magnitude of a greenhouse gas in which is like a HUGE FUZZY, INSULATIVE BLANKET that will form around our snow globe of a world. THIS is just one POSITIVE FEEDBACK MECHANISM in which this so called hoax conspiracy global warming UNFATHOMABLLLLLEEEE phenomenon will create.

            For the sake of your kids, your kids kids, your neighbors, your pets, your lawn……get your head out of the conspiracy laden clouds and think with your chemistry-backgrounded brain…..about how this whole shenanigan can be a problem.

            I could end with your oh-so-persuasive, friendly, and contributive “dumbshit” name calling, but I’ll just leave you to think. I hope you “accomplish” some alternative fuel sources and or reverse any ill effects caused by human intervention.

          • RSpung

            the arctic is not thawing. the global temperature is not rising. you live in a fantasy world.

          • Kyle Allen

            Here’s for some microbio awareness: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YegdEOSQotE

            But alright my all-knowing acquaintance, you are better than science.

          • Jacob3904

            damn you all are delusional. how can you not fathom our current situation and understand that critically thinking scientists actually do know what is happening. It is currently a cumulative process

          • planet8788

            God. Remind me to make sure you are never my doctor…

            Climate change is always slow and gradual? Really?
            Why do we occasionally find flash frozen animals from 1000′s of years ago?

            You know nothing.

          • Kyle Allen

            hahah omggg your comments are so ignorant and you severely lack critical, logical thinking. wtf, the globe is not just going to spontenously have a ridiculous amount of heat in 10 years (UNLESS we were bruning methane or something). you have no understanding my man, haha I don’t understand how you think you know everything.

            THE FEEDBACK LOOP HAS JUST STARTED DUE TO A PROCESS NEVER BEFORE SEEN IN THE LIFE OF THE GLOBE…….burning of fossil fuels. deforestation. seeping of other gasses that normally are not created.

            do you really expect it to happen overnight? systematic effects slowly trickle through and begin reverberating back. Your points are literally the most daft on here lmao. I don’t know how I’m such an idiot when I apparently know enough physics, biology, inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, and english to apparently pass the MCAT with flying color. How about you look at some MCAT questions planet boy because apparently you should ace it with all of your interference in the scientific community you are causing….with your apparent knowledge of how the past cyclic events of ecology has happened and how human interference causes no alteration in our world now.

            I know nothing HURRAYYYYYY all knowledge and critical thinking is a hoax

          • planet8788

            Last i checked we are burning methane… and coal, and petroleum… artificially creating heat… or does combustion not create heat?

            Agreed, it’s a process we have never seen before… so why are you so sure it’s going to result in catastrophe? We don’t know that it will… We don’t know how the greenhouse effect increases with CO2 concentration? Do we? Mr. scientist/doctor/idiot? No we don’t. We don’t know what feedback effects there will be…

            But we do know we’re overdue for an ice age… so let’s hope it’s prevented.

            CO2 levels are is rising quite substantially, so yes, we should be seeing the affects. The fact that we’re not… you should be paying attention to that.

          • Kyle Allen

            lol ok dude, it’s simple physics of the world

            so your belief in climate science is we will have an ice age in the near future? like….hundreds of years or what? lmao. all of these are slow processes, but we are retaining more heat energy due to the blanketof gasses over us. you can experimentally test gasseous emissivity so yes we do understand the greenhouse gas phenomenon, it’s just re-radiation of infra-red wavelengths=heat. so as you do increase this gas yes we do know the effect increases through the transitive property.

            we do understand feedback loops of air circulations and ocean circulations and pH alterations and sea level differences. We will see these changes as we already have started to see over the last 50 years. ALL of this is a short time frame but climates, biomes, will shift. I know you don;t know science, it is clear to me, but it is still interesting to see your non-astounding points. your “WELL WE STILL HAVE ICE IN THE ARTIC……ITS NOT 150 DEGREES IN ARIZONA YET…. YOU’RE WRONG YOU KNOW NOTHING” logical fallacies and ill-understanding of cumulative effects.

          • planet8788

            Where is your proof that all of these are slow processes? That, my friend is an assumption? There aren’t strange events that happen that cause sudden changes?

            Do you have any basis for that statement?

            I don’t know what the future holds…Each interglacial period usually lasts about 10,000 years… that’s about where we are in this one… Do your homework.

            So where is the graph… where is the data, that shows the “emissivity” of the atmosphere with different levels of CO2… If we know it, show me the chart, show me that data. Where is the paper?

            If we understand all of these things… why have all the models been wrong?
            Why?

            Why can’t you answer any questions?

          • planet8788

            But it’s your “scientists” that have made those outrageous claims… not me…

            Why are the models wrong? Why can’t you answer it?

            Simple… You are idiot who just worships at the feet of your prophets and listen and obey whatever they say.

          • Jacob3904

            What source of knowledge gives you such an elitist view point? You are the severe minority.

          • planet8788

            I don’t have an elitist view point. I see the self-named elite… keep failing at making accurate predictions.

            Oh and some common sense… The world was much warmer 1000 years ago… that’s why 1000 year old forests are coming up in Alaska as the Mendenhall glacier melts.

            I good at recognizing bullsheet.

          • planet8788

            If the “physics of the world” is so simple, why are all the models wrong… Be careful,,, your arrogance and ignorance are showing.

            The fact that you would call anything about this universe “simple”. Proves you are an idiot… Please, do not operate on me if you are ever a doctor.

          • Jacob3904

            Physics is factual and non-alterable. The fact of the matter is is that the ecosystem is complex and can’t be explained by mere single measurements since it fluctuates naturally anyway. But, there is a clear recognition that greenhouse gasses have built up and thus larger amounts of heat are being retained over the last century.

          • planet8788

            Agreed…but that leaves two questions.

            How much? and
            Is it all that bad since we’re overdue for an ice age anyway. Especially since we were warmer 1000 years ago and it didn’t go runaway.

            That and historically, CO2 lags temps… it doesn’t lead it.

          • planet8788

            Your so stupid. How did the earth ever get cooled 5 million years ago if the feedback loop is so strong?

            But it sure makes you feel good to think that you can save the world… doesn’t it. LOL… What a joke.

          • planet8788

            Water Vapor Feedback loops are stagnant for all “intensive” purposes…

            Tell me… how and why do clouds form?
            What are “intensive purposes.”

            You can’t even write… you want to be a doctor…. god help us all.

            I’m sure you believe in Obummer Care and or socialized medicine too.

          • planet8788

            Your own climate “scientists” admit rapid temperature changes have occurred in the past… You really don’t know anything about what you speak…

            You are a young punk fool. Arrogant and obnoxious.

            “The most pronounced climate shifts besides the end of the ice age is a
            series of climate changes during the ice age where the temperature
            suddenly rose 10-15 degrees in less than 10 years. The climate change
            lasted perhaps 1000 years, then — bang — the temperature fell
            drastically and the climate changed again.”

            http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100830094922.htm

          • Kyle Allen

            Also, it’s not about sides jesus. It’s not about democrat or republican. This shits all fake and making us diverge from one another. Damn I’m not trying to win an award just save my gene line and mother earth. you have some pent up sadness and hatred to act the way you do. You lack critical thinking and cannot see the grand-perspectives in place here.

          • planet8788

            Evidence is everywhere…. Look at the first IPCC charts and compare them to the current ones. The past keeps getting colder and colder… and you so brainwashed, you can’t even do your own research.

          • Gankfest

            You’re an idiot… Thanx for the laugh! I just woke up. -_-

            Anyway whenever you wanna provide links for me to debunk let me know. :D

          • planet8788
          • Gankfest
          • planet8788

            What? You make no sense. Your reply regarding cherry picking is irrelevant and nonsensical.
            Goddard shows the first IPCC chart is warmer than the current NASA one.

            Total non-sequitir!!!
            Is that because you are a dunce or a shill? Or is the reading too hard for you to understand..

          • Gankfest

            “What? You make no sense. Your reply regarding cherry picking is irrelevant and nonsensical.”

            Obviously you don’t even understand the data you’re presenting… -_-

            “Goddard shows the first IPCC chart is warmer than the current NASA one.”

            How to White Knight failure starring you…

            “Total non-sequitir!!!”

            More of what you don’t understand.

            “Is that because you are a dunce or a shill? Or is the reading too hard for you to understand..”

            More of how to fail faster than the speed of light starring you… -_-

            GL on being a complete idiot… Hope that works out for you! :D

          • planet8788

            Whatever you say king of non-sequitur’s

          • Gankfest

            Just trying to teach you noobs science! ^^

          • planet8788

            Don’t see any substance from you.

          • Gankfest

            That’s because you’re retarded… I can’t fix stupid, so I can’t fix you! :D

          • planet8788

            Sorry, you and kyle are the only retards here.

          • Gankfest

            Sorry… You feel small for getting shot done with your crankery… Sounds like a personal problem.

            (•_•)
            ( •_•)>⌐■-■
            (⌐■_■)

          • Kyle Allen

            lol well my retardation is not hindering my real world production

          • planet8788

            Of course not, You are a student, you aren’t producing squat.

          • planet8788

            How stupid is this?
            This is what you guys call science?

            The Great Lakes are currently covered with record ice for March, and
            reached the second highest coverage on record. Yet through 5 degrees of
            data tampering, NCDC has made Michigan’s winter only their 10th coldest.

            http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/another-smoking-gun-of-fraud-at-ncdc/

            Your “scientists” don’t even have common sense.

          • Kyle Allen

            Hey you’re using my terminology that I prescribed to you!

    • planet8788

      So we’re at the exact same temperature we were at in 1990. 24 years without warming.

  • Allegro

    Fine, use the TLT dataset, looks like same conclusion for past 17 years: trend is flat.

    • Ojebuss

      didn’t click the link I posted did you….

      • Allegro

        Sure I did. Your graph has the 35 year trend line. The last 15 to 17 years is statistically flat. Me thinks increasing CO2 doesn’t exlpain that.

        • Ojebuss

          not my graph… its RRS’s graph. but you are right. theirs starts just before 1980 I read the graph above wrong thinking it was 79′ not 97′

          • clown face

            …infact that’s why statistics were invented as it’s common knowlege graphology is poorly interpreted!

        • Kyle Allen

          Here everyone, watch what NASA, an actually reputable, scientific, and climatological organization has constructed in which displays heat retention not over just 17 years, but since the dawn of the industrial age.

          http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-temps.html

          thanks, and feel free to read my explanations of this greenhouse phenomenon below in as much detail as you would like to understand.

          • planet8788

            You claim NASA is reputable? But you have no idea who Jamen Hansen is?
            You are funny…. Too funny….
            Stupid young punk… brain filled with a bunch of socialist mush.

          • Jacob3904

            When almost all scientists agree, whatever source of knowledge you scavenge on the internet seems meaningless.

          • planet8788

            That’s such a canard…
            97% of them agree the earth is warming and man contributes something to that…
            They don’t all believe it’s a crisis…

            And when all their predictions continue to fail…. Time and time again… that tells you they don’t know squat.

          • Truth_in_Defense
          • Truth_in_Defense

            They don’t only believe its not a crisis, but may not be actually happening either, (so it is not 97%) check the REAL scientists, 31,487 have rejected Global Warming: see http://www.petitionproject.org/

          • http://www.MyGauntlet.com Diane Merriam

            Actually, the petition is against AGW, Anthropogenic Global Warming, as in caused by man. There is no question that there has been a warming trend over the last 150 years or so ago. That’s what happens when you come out of even a “Little Ice Age.” The general agreement on when that ended was the mid 1800′s.

          • Rthuba

            97% of the Climate models predictions are already wrong. (Easy chart to review).
            your 97% on “scientists agreeing” Might want to look that up: It was debunked long ago.

          • Kevin

            Yeah, agreeing that it’s less than a degree warmer now than it was 130 years ago, and that man is very likely contributing to this, and that *gasp* it might be upwards of 2 degrees warmer in 85 years, isn’t the same thing as agreeing that we face a catastrophe in the near future.

          • Truth_in_Defense

            You are wrong, and so your canard needs redaction:
            Check these out, and prove they are “meaningless”:

            NASA confirms 1930s highest temps:
            http://www.epa.gov/climate/cli

            No warming:
            http://www.climatedepot.com/20

            Denial of Pause Debunked:
            http://wattsupwiththat.com/201

            NOAA proven fraudulent:
            http://stevengoddard.wordpress

          • bmfliveson

            You know I don’t like to start fights or be mean but I’d like to as you a question. Do you honestly put 100% trust in fed gov that you’d believe any and all they say? Honest question that’s all I’m asking.

          • Kevin

            So it’s .8 degrees warmer now than it was in 1880. Why is this the worst thing that has ever happened? Aren’t sea levels rising at a rate of 2-3 mm per year? Isn’t this also not a problem? I’m sure glad I don’t live in a coastal city in the year 4000 C.E. that has taken no precautions, you know, assuming all of the predictions that keep outpacing reality come true.

          • planet8788

            There is a some conflicting data on how fast sea levels are rising…. Satellites report quite a bit different numbers than tide gauges… And they were rising long before 1880. We were warmer 1000 years ago…. Go look in the first IPCC report in the late 1980′s early 1990′s…

            The MWP has been revised colder to make the Mann-made hockey stick.

          • Kevin

            Exactly. I’m sorry I replied to you by mistake. Forgive me.

          • Eric Haulenbeek

            Hey planet… these fruitcakes will continue to throw this kind of junk science against the wall (though they’re quickly running out of walls), while hoping some of it sticks, yet complaining loudly about how stupid we “deniers” are when we show them even more proof of their folly. If common sense was generally available to everyone around the world, there would never have been any of this silly talk about “global warming”… ever!

          • Kevin

            So it’s .8 degrees warmer now than it was in 1880. Why is this the
            worst thing that has ever happened? Aren’t sea levels rising at a rate
            of 2-3 mm per year? Isn’t this also not a problem? I’m sure glad I
            don’t live in a coastal city in the year 4000 C.E. that has taken no
            precautions, you know, assuming all of the predictions that keep
            outpacing reality come true.

          • planet8788

            Don’t waste your time… He’s a one article person on Disqus.

          • Kevin

            Yeah, I guess I just feel like I have to yell at someone. Even if 100% of the extremely modest warming we’ve seen is caused by humans, which doesn’t seem likely, I can’t understand why people think we need to literally tear down the way the entire world works in a matter of 10 or 20 years in order to prevent some exaggerated catastrophe. These aren’t stupid people, they just have no common sense. Cut off your legs to save yourself the burden of having to walk in a drizzle. Maybe they’re stupid after all.

          • Josh

            lol you guys are fucking annoying as hell, go study some chemistry and ecology

          • planet8788

            Yep… we are annoying… the truth often is to people with a. agenda.. and so is the raw data that shows there is no significant warming.

          • Alan

            NASA is waaaaay too busy with NOT getting astronauts to the ISS and the Muslim Outreach thang to worry about gettting it right on the weather.

          • RSD

            Why stop at 17 years. Let’s go back 10,000 years – that definitely proves global warming or we’d still be in an Ice Age. it must have been all the fossil fuels we started burning 10,000 years ago that started the global warming. I remember back in the 70′s that everyone was predicting the next ice age was coming. It’s cyclical people – global warming or climate change or whatever they want to call it this week – it’s all cyclical. Temps will rise and fall over time and man has very little control or impact on it.

          • CMB

            Hi. I looked at the NASA graph and the data are not clear. From 1880 to 1920 the trend is flat. From 1920 to 1940 there is an uptick. From 1940 to 1980 it’s flat again, then shows the same uptick for the next 20 years to approx 2000. Based on this limited information one might speculate there is a 40/20 year cycle and that we should expect 20 years of temperature stability. Anecdotal evidence from my own experience and relatives from Australia to Germany indicates temps are actually steady or colder for the last couple of years.

          • Edmond Dantes

            Amazing how a government agency that has been politicized comes up with this stuff! My favorite quote from the article is when they say that the GISS started recording atmospheric temperature starting in 1880! Because we all know in 1880, the computers and satellites they used were super reliable! lol! To somehow think that putting carbon and other chemical compounds into the BIO-sphere of a planet that we have and nature won’t find away to chemically break them down to restore the norm is beyond me! Funny the same satellites are now showing ZERO temperature change in the last 17 years (despite much much higher Co2 levels over that time period), that both poles have expanded to record levels and that more cold temperature records have been broken in the last few years than at any time since its been recorded!

            You people are full of crap – and this is the same nasa that can’t even put space-shuttles into outer space anymore! They have been hijacked by you wackos to push this global warming bs to the point where nasa isn’t about space anymore, its about growing government! You are a pariah and a cancer to society where you take human advancement and you hijack it to create more human enslavement! We are on to you and every day you lose more and more support!

  • NoMoreGore

    give it another 5 years and the coming decline should be obvious.

  • sactomike

    Something is terribly wrong with the link. When I “like” it on Facebook I get a very different looking graph with the last few years showing and extreme upward tilt. Please check into this. I would love to share this with all my confirmed AGW believer friends, but posting in this form is…embarrassing. You need to fix it now.

  • Kyle Allen

    please explain your vast and undeniable scientific and environmental background that explains how the 100+year usage of fossil fuels does not have an obvious impact/change on our world. ALL OF THE ANCIENT, DEAD material that we have decided to burn and turn into a gaseous state now inhabits our atmosphere. These mostly carbon-based gases RE-EMIT RADIATION that normally leaves our atmosphere. This is called physics and logic. Now when we INCREASE the amount of a substance that is a verynon- heat energy transmissive substance, doesn’t it make logical sense that our snow globe of a world will increase in temperature not on the course of natural tendencies.

    Now that graph above that climate skeptics love to look at is of 17 years, a very narrow and unmeaningful scope of time. Looking at a longer spectrum, an overall increasing trend is evident. You can find downard or 0
    trends depending on what miniscule years you look at. This is called manipulation and a false reality. You can connect dots in any shape and fashion you want. But when you look at let’s say 150 years WHICH IS STILL A LUDICROUSLY SMALL AMOUNT OF TIME IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS, during our over consumption of fossil fuels temperatures have risen RELATIVELY dramatically. CO2 LEVELS have increased, one of the more potent greenhouse gasses, and you can SEE this obvious change in atmospheric concentration through the use of ice cores, dating back MILLIONS OF YEARS worth of atmospheric composition.

    Now to end, please understand that we all need to be on the same page. That this currently is a viscous, cumulative and exponentially increasing cycle. That let’s all say GLOBAL WARMING DOES EXIST and the permafrost layered tundras begin to thaw. And the methanogen bacteria laying dormant within the frozen soil become reactivated. And METHANE begins now to be exponentially increased within our atmosphere. That is the greenhouse gas to worry about. That is several magnitudes more potent of a greenhouse, re-emitting gas. Add this exponentially increasing heat to the acidification of our oceans (carbon+water=carbonic acid, acid rain, etc). The industrial age has been great, but now we need the energetically clean age….or nothing at all unfortunately.

    Ponder that my climate skeptic friends, and please feel free to converse about how humans during this age have not fucked up the environment.

    Gracias

    • Kyle Allen

      Can someone please debate me, I invite the productive discussion.

      • Squidly2112

        It is well known that the volume of dog crap in my backyard strongly correlates to global temperatures. If I can just keep my dogs from shitting in my backyard, we would all be safe from “Global Warming”, errrrr… “Climate Change”, errrr…”Extreme Weather”, errrr… or something.

        • Kyle Allen

          lol yeah dude you are literally a waste of time to converse with if all your going to use are obvious logical fallcies and stupidity. cool man, I do have a bachelor of science in biology but you go ahead and make your non-existent case on why global warming is a big, bad mean scary hoax.

    • Dorian

      Your not only ignorant, but irrational.

      Lets take your first ignorant statement:

      “ALL OF THE ANCIENT, DEAD material that we have decided to burn and turn
      into a gaseous state now inhabits our atmosphere. These mostly
      carbon-based gases RE-EMIT RADIATION that normally leaves our
      atmosphere. This is called physics and logic. Now when we INCREASE the
      amount of a substance that is a verynon- heat energy transmissive
      substance, doesn’t it make logical sense that our snow globe of a world
      will increase in temperature not on the course of natural tendencies.”

      It is well understood that Man causes about 30 million tonnes of CO2 every year to put into the atmosphere, reference here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions. As ONE, and I place here just one for there are many others, counter example are volcanoes. Now most global warming fools will immediately state that volcanoes only give off about 1% of the CO2 that man does for a year. As shown in this colourful but misguided website page http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm. Why misguided? Because like all global warming fools, they do what you, yourself have claimed about the skeptics, I quote YOUR very words “trends depending on what miniscule years you look at”. I will accept that Man has put more CO2 in the atmosphere in these past few decades than volcanoes, but you can not be serious about too, for if you are then you are a village idiot, that Man has been doing this for no more than a few decades. Now I am prepared to GIVE you, this for 100 years. Lets say Man has been dumping CO2 into the air for the past 100 years 100x more than volcanoes! SO WHAT!! Volcanoes have been dumping 1/100th the amount of material of Man for the past 100 million years! AT LEAST!. This means what ever Man has done for the last 100 years, and even if it is 100x more than the volcanoes, which it isn’t, but means that Man has put more CO2 in the air than volcanoes than volcanoes for the past 10, 000 years. That’s of course if we assume 100x effect more than volcanoes for 100 years. Which is rubbish. The truth is much closer to about to an average about 30 years at 10x, see http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html, thus means about 300 years of output greater than volcanoes. So in effect, volcanoes for that last 1000 years have put out more CO2 than all of all Mankind! And as I said, this is just volcanoes, then there are other natural effects like bush-fires. In short, Allen, you are guilty of the very same short sighted, ignorant and twisted thinking that you are accusing of rational, competent, sane scientists that don’t believe in your stupid religion. Furthermore, this is not to only forget that for many 100′s of millions of years, this planet has had CO2 levels far far higher than they are now, when Man didn’t every exist, take a look here http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=29. Are you blaming Man today for CO2 levels 500 millions ago? Doesn’t that tell you, LOGICALLY, that there are processes that allow for CO2 levels and temperatures rises on this planet that can go far higher than they are today, without any involvement from Man? How can you dismiss this. It is this, and LARGELY for this reason, why for 17 years and 6 months, Man has got it wrong about global warming because we DO NOT KNOW nearly enough to even suggest a theory about climate change. It has nothing to do with “how humans during this age have not fucked up the environment”, as you so poorly put it, but everything to do with HOW IGNORANT MAN IS STILL.

      Now for your Methane nonsense. Lets look at this statement:

      “And METHANE begins now to be exponentially increased within our
      atmosphere. That is the greenhouse gas to worry about. That is several
      magnitudes more potent of a greenhouse, re-emitting gas. Add this
      exponentially increasing heat to the acidification of our oceans
      (carbon+water=carbonic acid, acid rain, etc). The industrial age has
      been great, but now we need the energetically clean age….or nothing at
      all unfortunately.”

      What an interesting phrase, “now we need to [sic.] energetically clean that [sic.] age”. Allen, industrialization is not to blame for most of the methane in the air, take a look here, http://epa.gov/climatechange/images/ghgemissions/gases-methane.png. Are you suggesting we should wipe out all of Asia? You are promoting genocide here you know? As you can see it is very easy to exaggerate or extrapolate nonsensical arguments. Or are you serious? As you can see natural gas production produces some 30% of the global emissions on the planet. Where as food production and human requirements like clean water, accounts for some 50% of methane, have a read here http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=10382. In fact, food yields increase with more C02 in the world. Allen, you have no idea what you are asking for, you have a very hateful personality, are you a racists? Since after all, you seem to be attacking indirectly Asians.

      Go do some proper research, you might one day learn something real.People like you, Allen, that is, misanthropes, have only agendas, you do not learn, sane, illuminating thoughts and science based on facts and reality are beyond your hateful desires. Why do you hate humanity, why are you a misanthrope?

      People like you Allen, want Man to go back to the stone-age, wear no clothes, eat only things that are already dead, live in caves, hate every one else, and just be a new evolved troglodyte. Seriously, Allen, you need help. Get some professional psycho-analysis. Or better yet, go back to school, obviously during the first time you didn’t learn anything, lets hope the second time round, something will stick. But at the very least, stop twisting facts and the truth, STOP BEING A DENIER.

      I don’t know if you are to be pitied or institutionalized. You are a very disturbing something. That ‘something’ is very scary, I dare not write it, and I fear for the world with people like you around.

      • Kyle Allen

        haha dude, I couldn’t read all of that. Volcanic activity does not happen on a daily basis, on a yearly basis. It is sporadic, yet sometimes profuse, but man has continually and incessantly burned all of life there ever was and placed it into our snow-globe of a world. IN A BLIP OF TIME.

        methane is a positive feedback mechanisms that i am alluding to due to global warming, due to the greenhouse effect of the more dense, infra-red emitting gas currently in the atmosphere. As the planet SLOWLY, GRADUALLY warms, tundra biomes begin to thaw and permafrost layers recede, allowing methanogen bacteria to spring to life and respire methane as their byproduct of respiration. Methane is a very POTENT infra-red emitting molecule; it is the epitome of the greenhouse effect. It’s all about physics and blatant logic. It’s chemistry and biology and ecology. It’s a very complex SYSTEM, just as your own body is. It is also a FRAGILE system; it will not stay the same. But the entire problem here is that in this 100 year time span we are DRASTICALLY CHANGING the environment and over this blip of a time fragment life WILL NOT be able to adapt. Oceans and soils acidify, warmer climates hinder plant life that simply can’t get up and move away in a few decades. The entire problem is the TIME SCALE in which is happening that does not allow ADAPTATION of life. Humans are not meant to be in this world forever; there will be at ime where the env. is unsuitable. But not in mere CENTURIES such as our problem is alluding to. If this tehcnology and industrial boom happened during the age of the mayans, the world and environment right now would be a DRASTICLY different place, just as it most definitely will be in 300 years…..you will begin to see obvious and unstoppable environmental changes here in the near future. It’s not just ONE EVENT that signifies this or that or proves that or disproves this. It’s the FACT that human intervention has CHANGED the composition of environment and through many INTRICATE, FRAGILE mechanisms it is going to change the landscape of life.

        Please explain to me, since I apparently lack proper schooling, what credits you for such knowledge? Your wikipedia sites? I have taken ecology courses. I have heard scientists and climatologists explain their understanding of the world. Their rational, logical viewpoints of the world and how man has obviously by the casual observer shifted nature. Now I do NOT hate humanity; I wish humanity to prosper LONGER than the time frame currently scheduled. Please be prepared to tell your children and your children’s children why your unwavering, illogical mind hindered the ability to produce a global shift in mentality.

        Skepticism is great in life and in a world filled with lies, but you my friend have no validation to say I need to be institutionalized. I am competitively preparing for medical school and I will become a doctor and a fine one at that. I currently rank TOP in my classes, I have professors bleeding their acknowledgement that I am suitable for the medical, scientific world. I understand the human body immensely and I also have had the time to learn and contemplate the ecology of our world. And for the sake of the generations to come, investment in CLEAN energy, renewable energy…needs to be done. Big, greedy oil has corrupted your mind because they control the world. OIL is money, in is this fake, man-made thing we call economy. This enslaving economy. Go ahead and go tap dance around the keystone pipeline with joy as it exports out of America, but mark my words you need to alter your mentality for the better before your grandchildren look at you with disgust and despise.

        • Kyle Allen

          You use such logical fallacies like my hatred for humanity and racism toward Asians that it is mind boggling you think you are making an intelligible argument. I am ignorant, I lack knowledge. THE COLLEGE WORLD is a scam and produces no learning, just more ignorance. We all just sit in a box all day and fear the world around us. And listen to the TV and wikipedia about how the world really works around us.

          • Kyle Allen

            Last comment, you are the denier. The denier of logic, synonymous to science, synonymous to rationality. And the methane point was giving you information that you obviously don’t understand in which as the tundra biomes thaw, methanogens (bacteria that RESPIRE methane as their byproduct from metabolism) become activated and thus exponentially add this potent greenhouse gas methane into our world that was otherwise not there.

          • Kyle Allen

            Shoot gotta put some more input in, this self employed cartoonist has a pHD in ecology and teaches at Miami University. Now those points of DATA are not developed by this said cartoonist……they are developed by the same system utilized in the manipulative graph this web page shows.

          • WalterHorsting

            You are a denier of natural climate cycles and our sun is entering its 200 year cooling cycle

        • Kyle Allen

          Let’s also look at the big pic shall we. The “big” picture being a mere century. NOW AGAIN, the ecosystem does, as you probably use as your only amplified point, change on its own in a very intricate way. But as you look at this ENTIRE DATA SET and set a LINEAR REGRESSION between more than a simple 17.5 years (which is displayed there) you can SEE the gradual increase. You can see DECLINES IN TEMPS if you just want to look at 10 year here and there, but the overall increase of CO2 and the PHYSICS BEHIND IT has yielded an overall retention of energy, of heat. Now it seems gradual to us, but 2+deg celsius is a big deal in whatever small time frame our short lives have to look at. These changes should occur of MILLENIA, that’s why they are called AGES of time. It’s a problem my friend. I WANT to work together, to work with you, to transfer knowledge. It’s not going to be a problem today, or tomorrow necessarily, or this year or in 10 years exactly, because it is an intricate system that is currently becoming corrupt. You have to critically think and see the big, long term picture. For humanities sake

          • Squidly2112

            Seriously .. hahaha .. you’re gonna use a graph from a self employed cartoonist? …hahahaha… show me an ACTUAL data set that displays a graph ANYTHING like this. This SkS (cartoonist’s) graph is completely made up rubbish. Try again Kyle…

          • Kyle Allen

            …its the exact same graph above just extended beyond the scope of 17 years doofus. The randomly dispersed linear regssion lines shows that you can make ANY TIME FRAM seem decreasing or stagnant in magnitude but uhhhhhh its called statistical significance when you use a LARGER data set. Look below for an even LAGER one posted by a fellow rational thinker. Now you show me YOUR data my all-knowing being.

          • planet8788

            It’s not the same graph… does your religion really make you that blind?

          • Kyle Allen

            The data (green) are the average of the NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4
            monthly global surface temperature anomaly datasets from January 1970
            through November 2012, with linear trends for the short time periods Jan
            1970 to Oct 1977, Apr 1977 to Dec 1986, Sep 1987 to Nov 1996, Jun 1997
            to Dec 2002, and Nov 2002 to Nov 2012.

            Now create a CONTINUOUS linear trend and voila!

          • planet8788

            Now go back 10,000 years.

          • planet8788

            And it’s not the same graph… Your graph has the hottest temperature in 2006…The orignal peaks in 1998… Your religion blinds you.

          • Kyle Allen

            Yes its a combo of different satellites, not just one biased company. But it utilizes the data on this site. Either way, go find this data and pan it out 50 more years.

          • planet8788

            So I was right, it’s not the same graph… Thank you.

          • planet8788

            Biased company… who are you accusing of bias? a satellite?

            Without any basis?

          • planet8788

            Actually, it’s mostly a bunch of doctored data…

            Here’s the history on Hansen and NASA/GISS….

            http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/hansen-the-climate-chiropractor/

          • planet8788

            Nice… but we’re still cooler than during the MWP 1000 years ago when there was no manmade CO2.
            Your theories fail every day… It’s only your religion that prevents your from seeing it.

          • Eric Haulenbeek

            You left us with the impression that you were finished with this debate Kyle. What drew you out from underneath your rock?

          • josh

            you contributed nothing to this past conversation Eric, only random belligerent insults that have no place.

        • planet8788

          And yet temperature remains flat… What’s the scientific method?
          Your hypothesis is proven wrong every day and yet you keep sticking to it.

          • Kyle Allen

            It does NOT REMAIN FLAT, but when you CHERRY PICK A 17 YEAR TIME FRAME STARTING WITH AN EXTREMELY HOT YEAR it is statistically insignificant.

          • SchmidtyFi

            I’ve seen you repeat this bizarre argument several times on this thread. You seem totally baffled by what Monckton is, and is not, trying to show.

            You (and the other fellow, Remme) appear to be interpreting his chart as, “the last 17 years have no warming trend, therefore there is no long term warming trend.” That would, indeed, be cherry-picking. But, that is NOT the point of his chart and he never even implies that argument.

            He is very up front with what his argument is: there has been no warming for 17.5 years. He is simply looking at trend-lines originating from historical points in time, to the present, and picking the oldest one that demonstrates a <= 0 trend. That value, today, is 9/96. That's why he shows the period from 9/96 instead of the peak 1998 months: He's not generalizing a trend from his starting point, which appears to be the windmill against which you are tilting. He's interested in how far back you can find a 0 trend. Surely, you can see the difference and why the latter is NOT cherry picking.

            And, contrary to your protestations, that question IS interesting, for a couple reasons:

            First, the sample period we have for temperature records concomitant with non-trivial CO2 emissions is, itself, so small that 17.5 years represents a substantial part of it. In fact, as I mentioned elsewhere, the only period that could possible be used to argue the existence of an AGW signal is ~1975-1998 — in all other periods, either there wasn't much CO2 or there wasn't warming.

            Second, small as it is, 17.5 years of no-trend drops the observational record out of the error bands of AGW model predictions. This is especially damning to the models because CO2 emissions are strong, and rising.

            Finally, you've argued over and over again that the zero trend is due to the outliers in 1998, near his starting point. One would think you'd have looked at the data before you kept using that as your purported trump card. In fact, the trend is zero *because there simply hasn't been any warming in the recent past*. The trend is 0 or negative pretty much without interruption from starting points in mid 1999 to the present.

          • Kyle Allen

            Stagnation for this 17.5 year “nill trend time line” is insignificant due to complex behaviors of our ecosystem and the physics that alter it naturally. The intent of this article, and all others on this one sided web site/chain of sits, is to disprove the idea that the overall globe is continually becoming more susceptible to heat retention. If you examine the last 100 years, a stair stepping, constantly increasing pattern of temperature increase is evident. This coincides with rising CO2 levels. Now, some golden ration of heat retention:CO2 particles cannot be construed in our world because a multitude of effects leads to how much heat we actually retained…..our distance from the sun, solar output, ocean currents, atmospheric currents, other reactions…etc I’m not god now an all-knowing all powerful scientist so I can’t begin to explain the complexity of climatic schemes.

            But, our world….due to the obvious greenhouse atmospheric effects, is more susceptible to heat retention due to increased CO2 levels and thus a reverberating positive feedback mechanism which perhaps you have seen my wording in other comments. Our atmosphere is more dense, thus it is more insulative, thus gradual warming of the globe is imminent and ever increasing.

            We are currently at the highest temperatures in the last 150+ however long years, but most importantly since the dawn of the industrial age.

          • SchmidtyFi

            CO2 most certainly is a greenhouse gas. That physical chemistry is well known and well accepted, other things equal. (Although, it should be pointed out, that CO2 only blocks a tiny spectrum of radiation and it’s marginal impact is logarithmic and almost non-existent at today’s saturation).

            Which brings up to the positive feedback” mechanisms you mention. It’s upon these the catastrophic models entirely depend. But, they are unobserved and speculative. That science is, most assuredly, not settled and it is intellectually dishonest, in the extreme, to suggest otherwise.

            17.5 years IS relevant because it’s unexplained by the supposedly sophisticated models that CAGW is built on.

            Your point about temperatures being the highest in 150 years is pure propaganda for 2 reasons. First, we weren’t putting much CO2 up into the atmosphere until after WW2, so attributing warming 150 years ago to AGW is pure sophistry. Second, yes, temperatures today are the highest in the last 150 years, but so were temperatures 15 years ago (because we haven’t warmed since then) and so were temperatures 85-90 years ago (because the 1930s were warmer than today).

          • planet8788

            Excellently summarized.

          • ezra abrams

            uh, the relevant conc of CO2 is the conc in the upper atmosphere where the optical depth <1
            lets assume that the models are guesswork; the question is, IF they are right, then what are the consequences of non action ?
            its like pascals's wager; the cost of cutting CO2 is low; the cost of not doing it, if extreme models are right, is very high

            just like fire insurance

          • SchmidtyFi

            Uh…the cost of cutting CO2 is low? Are you mad?

            The crucial factor in any insurance is *expected* cost, not *maximum* cost. Your argument would serve equally well as justification for spending trillions in preparation for an alien invasion (just think of the cost of THAT!)

          • Johnny Illiterate

            Wasn’t the price per bbl of oil falling and the nominal price per gallon of gasoline falling when George W. Bush took office? Then we invaded Iraq. $2.2 trillion later and several thousand dead and wounded (not including Iraqi military and civilian casualties) the price of oil has increased from $27 bbl to $100 bbl or more? Sure world demand has increased, but for several years Iraqi oil was off-line. I may have no idea what I’m talking about, but I don’t know where to look to verify this. However, I do remember that gasoline was $1.17 per gal in my area when Bush took office.

          • SchmidtyFi

            I’m confess I’m not entirely sure what your point is.

            I think it was to suggest that global-warming policies that are *designed to intentionally raise energy prices* aren’t bad because…because…George W. Bush…?

            Here’s data for Iraq and global oil production since 2001: http://1.usa.gov/1hB5eeR. Here are oil prices since 2001: http://1.usa.gov/1mzzWpv

            Here’s a chart, from the above, showing Iraq production changes being a rounding error on global production (briefly falling from 2.8% of world production to 1.5%, then back to 2.8% over Bush’s term): http://imgur.com/xSiSdrA

            Here’s a chart highlighting the irrelevance of the dip in Iraqi production changes on global production and oil prices since 2001: http://imgur.com/RPoQlfC

            Finally, here’s Wikipedia on the 00s oil spike: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_energy_crisis
            Spoiler alert: there’s one mention of Iraq, in reference to Hussein disrupting the market when he invaded Kuwait in 1990.

            You must look back with some nostalgia on the halcyon days of the 00s, when natural warming coincided with CAGW theory and everything could be blamed on Bush with impunity.

          • whe3

            What are the consequences of wasting the world’s wealth on ineffective CO2 reduction methods? The poor third-world population will continue to rise, causing plagues, genocidal wars, jihad, wildlife habitat destruction and poaching … OTOH, the wealthy nations are already breeding below the replacement rate and their air is getting cleaner. So we need more cheap energy for the third world, not less.

          • William

            And yet the doomsayers of 20 years ago predicted disastrous “hockey stick” rises in global temperatures based on the Keeling Curve (atmospheric CO2 increases). This model was achieved using factor adjustments which enabled high correlation in “back-casting” mode. In the last 20 years James Hansen has made multiple adjustments to his original 1988 model and resulting predictions BECAUSE THEY PROVED FALSE. The data in this article merely emphasizes the failure to make the one-to-one correlation between atmospheric CO2 ppm and global temperature. The basic question is not WHETHER man can effect the environment, but HOW MUCH?

          • Johnny Illiterate

            But isn’t this the scientific method? Making corrections as new data come in?

          • William

            Generally, Yes. However, when data consistently disproves your theory, you are supposed to question your theory, not just alter your model to blindly support your theory. The earth is not flat.
            The chicken littles ran around shouting out their predictions and demanding we take very expensive actions which apparently would not have effected the outcome (i.e. slowed or stopped global warming which occurred anyway) they opened themselves to the risk of ridicule. Their arrogance looks rather foolish today.

        • WalterHorsting

          You are forgetting the 100,000+ undersea volcanoes along all tectonic rift zones. Please google sun cycle 25 and the maunder minimum climate is going deadly cool for the next 30-100 years

      • 7kidchaos

        Kyle, there is constant volcano activity around the world but volcanoes emitting CO2 are dwarfed by the oceans’ natural emission of CO2. Man-made emissions produce no more than 1 percent of Earth’s greenhouse effects’ 99 percent of greenhouse effects are all from nature.
        Radical climate alarmists are now wasting about $1 trillion per year funding faulty conclusions and scaring others in order to keep this money flowing to them. This money could be better spent on solving problems of hunger, poverty and disease. CO2 (water vapor) is very healthy and makes up only 4 of every 10,000 air molecules. More CO2 = more plant life = more worldwide food. CO2 is not pollution in any sense of the word.

        • Kyle Allen

          The natural process of ecology is a cyclic event in which everything is used and reused….it all nullifies and grants a net 0 build up of carbon. The oceans absorb CO2 as well. This is the sink and source phenomenon. Now when we fill up the sinks, CO2 builds up. 200 years ago whatever CO2 was being produced by the oceans was used by the trees, whatever CO2 was absorbed by the ocean was used by algea/bacterial life….etc. But when you BURN all of life in a non-natural process, you produce a new SOURCE of CO2 that has not currently been participating in the carbon cycle.

          We don’t have meteors of carbon falling onto earth supplying us new carbon…it has been a cyclic process. We are adding to this process, filling up sinks and thus filling up our atmosphere with excess CO2. That is how it works my friend. When you speak of food, mark my scientific, rational words when I say food is the major concern with climatic shift and the inability of life to adapt to it.

          Life, the ultimate property in this world, is the major concern. But you have to unselfishly and rationally think in the long term.

          • planet8788

            More nonsense from Kyle Allen, “The natural process of ecology is a cyclic event in which everything is
            used and reused….it all nullifies and grants a net 0 build up of
            carbon.”

            If that were true, CO2 levels would have been stable for eons… they haven’t been. You’re a moron.

          • josh

            you’re right, in which this luscious world we call life right now has not always been present. WE are currently in a delicate balance in which humans are continually counteracting.

    • ppiaseck

      this is from Professor Murry Salby

      we can measure man-made emissions reasonably well, but we can’t measure the natural emissions and sequestrations of CO2 at all precisely, the error bars are huge. Humans emits 5Gt or so per annum, but the oceans emit about 90Gt and the land-plants about 60Gt, for a total of maybe 150Gt. Many scientists have assumed that the net flows of carbon to and from natural sinks and sources of CO2 cancel each other out, but there is no real data to confirm this and it’s just a convenient assumption. The problem is that even small fractional changes in natural emissions or sequestrations swamp the human emissions.

      • ppiaseck

        and this backs Professor Murry Salby
        Swedish scientist replicates Dr. Murry Salby’s work, finding man-made CO2 does not drive climate change
        Swedish climate scientist Pehr Björnbom has recently replicated the work of Dr. Murry Salby, finding that temperature, not man-made CO2, drives CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Dr. Björnbom confirms Salby’s hypothesis that the rate of change in carbon dioxide concentration in the air follows an equation that only depends on temperature change, detailed in his report Reconstruction of Murry Salby’s theory that carbon dioxide increase is temperature driven [Google translation].

        Dr. Björnbom discusses his findings in this post from The Stockholm Initiative

        • Kyle Allen

          Thank you for your thoughtful input. I appreciate the non-attacking style of writing. Definitely the natural flow of the carbon cycle is relatively huge compared to the amount humans unnaturally release. This being said, with this relatively constant natural flow of carbon, the continual increase humans are creating is not getting cancelled out. It is exponentially accumulating. And each year we had to the GT amount of C02 being released and the average between 2000-2007 was about 7.5 GT. All of this is a cyclic event as you displayed but the sinks get FILLED. Trees use as much CO2 as they need…no more. Oceanic life and/or the ocean itself only absorbs a certain amount of CO2. All of the CO2 does not just drain away if it is in EXCESS. They cannot absorb anymore carbon. This is how the problem arises.

          And when you look at it, only .03 percent of the atmosphere IS CO2. But the problem is that CO2 acts as a pretty effective greenhouse gas. The natural greenhouse effect is about 945 w/m2….so 9.5 100 W heat lamps every square meter of atmosphere. Water (clouds/water vapor in general) does MOST of this effect, about 72 percent. Other gasses do the rest.

          Human activity has increased, SO FAR, the greenhouse effect by about 1.5 W/m2. About 58 percent of THIS is due to CO2 from fossil fuels, some is due to deforestation (since we decrease the sinks capabilities…we have destroyed some of the sink), and methane accounts for about 17 percent (since we don’t exhaust methane TOO often…which would be very devastating if we did).

          OK so 1.5 w/m2, big deal. But it ADDS up over time. So altogether CO2 concentrations have increased by 40 percent since the industrial revolution…now with only a 1.5 w/m2 increase it’s obvious that carbon dioxide isn’t an extremely POTENT greenhouse gas (which could start another discussion of methane and its positive feedback mechanism that IS arising from the tundra thawing and methanogens becoming un-dormant) but we do keep exponentially adding it. About 1/2 of this carbon is plugged into the carbon cycle (and gets absorbed by sinks) and plant/ocean/microbial life is happy as a clam. Now half of it accumulates in the atmosphere. I definitely think the 5Gt value has INCREASED over the last few years by a pretty good amount, but either way we will stick to the current dilemma with that value, PER YEAR. so per year, 2.5Gt of carbon dioxide is directly added to our atmosphere and not leaving.

          RIGHT NOW there has NEVER in the natural history that the deepest ice core in Antarctica (ice ore atmospheric bubbles) displays been THIS MUCH co2 in our atmosphere. These ice cores have granted us the temperature readings for the deep past as well using the isotope ratio of oxygen (heavier ones evaporate more slowly, etc).

          Now just looking at temperature, all facets have increased. Land temperature, oceanic temperature, etc. This is due to the physics of carbon molecules and infra-red radiation. It acts as a blanket over our world, which is great so we retain heat and have a relatively stable environemnt unlike our moon. SO the PHYSICS ( a 100% testable, unbiased, and reality-displaying property of our world; there is one inherent answer to a physical process), of CO2 re-emitting escaping infra-red wavelengths (which is heat, everything that has heat gives off this energy, everything that absorbs this energy heats up) has been heating up our globe.

          As shown by a statistically SIGNIFICANT graph I have presented above in another comment to someone arrogantly skeptic, the earth is warming at a rate of about 2 degrees every 20-30 years. Now this will increase as we increase emissions…….either way, CARBON DIOXIDE and the physics behind it is creating temperature increase. In no way does temperature spontaneously produce carbon dioxide; that point is nonsensical. But see to completely go back to your argument, the sinks and sources DO generally cancel out if human intervention is not considered. But year by year, it builds up in the atmosphere….which constitutes this whole phenomenon.

          People understand this. Scientists understand. Their lives have been built around the scientific process which is synonymous to rational, logical, critical thinking. The scientific process is UNBIASED, and the science displays global warming and thus severe, imminent climate change.

          If you would like to understand the drastic implications of global warming ON climate change, feel free to ask me. Or to counter my points, but believe me, as a scientist and a person trying to alter the view of just A FEW PEOPLE in this world to better humanity, this is the reality. This is crtically important for everyone to know and to try to make a difference in life…..for the sake of humanity and the rest of our living world. We can prolong our existence….we all WILL die one day and our species WILL die out. But it doesn’t have to be our own fault or in the relatively near future. Hey, we can just all blow up with these nukes we have, but we do have the remarkable abilities of compassion, rationality, logic, critical thinking, empathy and sympathy to continue our great legacy. But our mentality has to shift for the sake of your kids, my kids, your grandchildren, etc…..A long journey always has to begin with a simple step. And we need to unite in thinking to alter our projection.

          • ppiaseck

            Temperatures have not increased as you suggest, and besides we have been coming out of the little ice age since the 18th century, and H2O is a more prevalent green house gas by far than CO2, CO2 levels follow temperatures ice core samples have shown this. Sun Cycles have more to do with the cooling and warming cycles of earth.

          • Kyle Allen

            We don’t massively send tons of water vapor into the sky like CO2. But the linear trend over the last 30-40 years yes, temps have averagely increased 2 degrees C……I intricately explained how the CO2 situation currently is operating, elaborating on some of your correct points. It literally is blatant logic than anyone can deduce when you think about how no other life form on earth has had the ability to burn every dead carbon-based organism and throw it up into, again, snow globe of a world. My rhetoric is very valid in terms of the physics and ecology of our world.

          • planet8788

            If only the data supported your theory, you might have something.

          • Kyle Allen

            hmmmmmm again. the data you are looking at is 17 years. either way, the industrial age is STILL just a blip of time. But at least look at half of that age’s time frame instead of cherry picking insignificant data. take an ecology, chemistry, physics, biology, and statistics class and get back to me. unless all that is made up and a hoax as well

          • planet8788

            The only thing that’s made up is the data most of the warmists are basing this on.
            I’ve taken all those classes… Make predictions and test them…

          • Kyle Allen

            whatever information that shapes your brain into this way of thinking is run by big oil or propagated by like-minded conspiracy theory stricken, unscientific people such as yourself. People do spend their lives studying climate and understanding our ecosystem, so I am pretty sure they understand the physics of how slow build ups of this gas that is unbalancing the carbon cycle will retain heat within our snow globe of a world.

          • planet8788

            A lifetime isn’t enough you moron.
            Where do you think limestone came from?
            Why do you think the ocean can’t take any more CO2?

            Has anyone been down to the bottom and see what is happening there?
            No…
            WE DONT KNOW SQUAT.

            It’s arrogant chumps like you and the morons like you that are the problem. You think you know every thing… Even though EVERY PREDICTION turns out wrong. EVERY ONE.

          • josh

            ugh planet please. just stop. wtf kind of knowledge do you have? so this Kyle guys is a mornon but apparently you are very in tune with your scientific knowledge and have the ability to refute all scientists with their thinking?

            Science really is not a religion…people don’t worship meaningless words. They explore the world on their own and display meaning to those who don’t have time, desire, or decency to do it on their own.

          • planet8788

            You are correct. Realscience is not a religion. “Climate science” however most certainly is.
            Real scientists know what they know and they know what they don’t know… and when their predictions turn out wrong, real scientists adjust their hyptheses…. they don’t make up absolute BS things like heat “hiding deep in the oceans”. It’s clear you are a young simpleton fool.

          • planet8788

            Kyle writes, “We don’t massively send tons of water vapor into the sky like CO2.”

            Sure we do… combustion engines produce CO2 and H2O.

          • Kyle Allen

            lol yes but it’s part of the water cycle which doesn’t have filled up sinks in which it can no longer disseminate to. it’s a completely different cycle and cascade of events than burning liquid carbon molecules that otherwise would never become part of the carbon cycle in mere centuries.

          • planet8788

            Exponentially accumulating… yet temperatures remain fairly stable… Proof that CO2 isn’t a main driver. And again… the MWP… much warmer than today.

          • Kyle Allen

            hmmmmm it’s only been happening for a lifetime and a half, you obviously lack critical thinking. intricately read my physical, ecological, and biological descriptions of how this all works above.

          • planet8788

            Yess… and if true, it may be saving us from the ice age that’s overdue.
            Because if you have any perspective, you would know that this planet spends the majority of it’s recent time on /under ice.

          • cptwayne

            All you have to do is look at the darkside temperature of Venus. It’s no different than the lit side. Where is the GHE? I believe the rotation is equal to 224 Earth days.
            One would think that due to GHE, there would be some GHE induced difference in temperature on Venus. There is not!

    • planet8788

      You blather on and on.. and yet the real data suggests otherwise.
      Question: How cold would we be now if we weren’t at 400pm CO2 and we were at 300 CO2?
      Did we just prevent an ice age and not know it?

      • Kyle Allen

        you lack perspective and understanding of minute, gradual changes that build up. not in a day is it going to be a temp in which no crops can grow, nor in a day will glacial bodies scavenge the earth. Your “religion” bs is such a logical fallacy. please show me the graph presented by this website but with the earlier 60 years as well, creating a linear trend with all of that data not just from an abnormal starting point. One year may not necessarily be hotter in michigan or nicaragua, but the physics behind building up a gas and it’s heat retentive properties is blatant and very un-religious. thanks for your miraculously thoughtful input though.

        is all science a religion or just the parts you choose to believe is a hoax? I hope the science I use, which is the same in which I deduce the world around me and what is happening through carbon emissions, will enable me to be the doctor I am currently becoming. Definitely don’t come to me for med. advice, I obviously know nothing and you should go to the wikipedia doctor or conspiracytheoriesRus.

        • planet8788

          So where is the heat building up?

          • Kyle Allen

            you seriously don’t understand any of the logic behind it; the prediction behind global warming has not been changed. there have been radical interjections for a few years by others such as global warming, but climate change encompasses global warming. Climate change is the cause of global warming, but it is to express to people like you the severity of global warming in which climates are dramatically shifting.

            the severe problem you don’t understand is the scope of time in which this is happening, which seems long to you and I but our lives are a spec of time even on this problematic scale, but the future is the troubled factor. go scavenge NASA and other climatically aware, reputably scientific sites in which display the phenomenon occuring. I have learned this and seen real-world data from climatolgosits and ecologists and physicists in college. This short vid clearly demonstrates the heat retention in our world over the last century+. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-temps.html

            It’s really not that hard to believe or understand…..if you know the physics behind the greenhouse gas phenomenon. Even though it is not a very prominent gas, it nonetheless contributes and definitely builds up over time.

          • planet8788

            Definitely builds up over time.. where has that been demonstrated in the past?
            CO2 has been high during both ice ages and hot climates in the past…
            I’ve read more than you… I’m sure… and both side of it.

            Severe weather is on the decline. Temperatures were warmer in the MWP… This planet has spent the majority of it’s recent history on ice….

            The planet was much warmer 1000 years ago… and we did just fine.

            NASA’s climate division was run by a radical idiot for the last 30 years. Look up his predictions… he’s been thrown in jail three times. He wasn’t a scientist… Hansen is a loon.

            AND LOL at you… 17 years is insignifcant but 130 years…… *only a fraction of which we had satellites… yes… that’s really significant…. You have no perspective.

          • Kyle Allen

            CO2 has never been this high, look up ice core data.

            The whole problem is climatic shift in a relatively short time scale where life cannot adapt. That’s perspective.

            Lol you are seriously dumb as hell and so fucking annoying. At least you see that 130 years is a short time frame! But let’s at least USE all that time frame because hey guess what………..year to year, the climate (regardless of human interaction) is NOT stagnant so there ARE fluctuations normally due to solar shit, etc butttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt when you look at heat retention SINCE THE 130 years of the industrial revolution and you UNDERSTAND PHYSICS, GREENHOUE GAS EFFECTS, SINKS AND SOURCES AND THE CARBON CYCLE, AND ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONALITY, you will understand that you are a an incompetent, blabbering child.

          • planet8788

            Science is about making predictions… and all of the warmist communities predictions have been exaggerated… that proves their “science” is wrong…

            Yes it has been warmer, before humans inhabited the earth, it was much warmer and much more CO2… and it cooled down just fine to a level where we live in an ice covered world 80 percent of the time.

            We were warmer in the MWP, without as much CO2, therefore, CO2 isn’t the main driver…

            For claiming to be such a great scientist… you know so little about earth history. You really need to study some more…

            And the models that are claiming there is catastrophe ahead are the same ones that were predicting it heat up much faster… CO2 levels are rising exponentially and yet we’ve seen the largest period of stable temperatures since it started to rise…

            But I hope you are right… maybe we can avoid the next ice age which should be hitting us anytime.

            The climate hasn’t shifted that fast… it’s shifted much faster before… There’s no proof that the greenhouse affect from CO2 rises linearly with concentration.

          • Kyle Allen

            ITS THE TIME SCALE INWHICH IT IS OCCURING AHHHHH

            THE ICE AGE IS NOT JUST GOING TO HIT US. OUR WORLD IS NOT JUT GOING TO WARM UP 10 DEGREES IN A YEAR.

            BUT IF EITHER OF THOSE HAPPEN IN A 100-200 YEAR TIME SPAN IN WHICH LIFE CANNOT ADAPT. where our TREES and CROPS and FOOD cannot MOVE THEIR LITTLE LEGS NORTH and relocate their ENTIRE POPULATION to a region that they CAN GROW IN then ALLLLLLLL OF OUR FOOD, ALL OF LIFE’S INTRICATE INTERACTIONS WILL FAIL.

            alright I know your dense skull will not be penetrated by my words but hopefully someone scavenging this horrifically one-sided way of thinking website will understand that I actually do know science, I have studied science, and I have listened to people who spend their LIVES understanding science in which climatic shift is inevitably in the future.

          • planet8788

            Again, we’re already at 400ppm and it’s been stable for 17 years…. now we’re entering a Maunder Minimum…

            How do you know how fast the ice ages came in in the past… Are you making assumptions or do you have data?

            Science is not a study… It’s an approach… Maybe you know science… but all your spouting here are someone’s misguided interpretations of data.

          • WalterHorsting

            Wow all caps….sun cycles 21-22+ was the most active in 8000 years since the Holocene Optimum and the planet warmed. Now sun cycle 24 is the least active in 170 years and the planet is starting to cool and it will get colder in cycle 25.. Read up on the Maunder Minimum

          • Jacob3904

            Wow there is a multitude of possibilities available and underlying reasons for everything, but what is known is the greenhouse gas effect and that CO2 physically is a greenhouse gas. We are manipulating our ecosystem. The past does not predict our now quickly altered present and future.

          • planet8788

            And what is also known, is that this planet has tendencies that favor it being covered in ice. Perhaps a little manipulation will play to our benefit and not our demise.

          • Ronald Wright

            Kyle, I watched the video and it is obviously not from a data set which is measured. It is either extrapolated or made up. No offence to your point of view but we only really have reliable global data since the late 70′s. Even now all except for satellite data has numerous problems which I suspect are being fixed, but further back in history the less reliable is the data. Other than the trapped gas (not temperature) from ice cores we know little about the average or local environment’s parameters. I am not saying that it should be completely ignored but understand that it is not something that “a large wealth confiscation by world governments” can be based on (carbon credits, Kyoto treaty). The biggest problem I have with the discussion is that politicians are involved. Politicians lie incessantly based on what they think we want to hear – so they get elected. Never vote for a politician who is going to give you something or who is going to do something for you. Neither has “ever” been true and we are always worse off.

            I believe that you believe that the minor continual build up in CO2 will eventually cause a catastrophic effect in the attmosphere. It is a theory and I am sure there are coralaries. For example, gradual natural gas or oxygen build up in buildings eventually cause explosions.

            In my life I have been privilaged to observe data on the amount of CO2 which is consumed by various plant life. One of the striking things to me is that land surface vegetation, with the exception of some types of grass, contribute very little to removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Fresh water and salt water algae are the main consumers of CO2. When the level of CO2 increases in the attmosphere, so do the algae. I think that you are assuming that the CO2 consumption is a static value and not a dynamic value that really exists. Effectively CO2 is not an issue in the environment other than plant growth.

            There are also magnatudes in scale to consider. The sun provides greater than 99.99% of thermal energy in the attmosphere. Green house gases do not play a role at all. As a matter of fact surface solids like rock and concrete play many orders of magnatude more of an impact on local temperatures than gasses. If everyone were able to fly you could float up to about 10560 feet(2 miles) and find out that the temperature drops off precipitously. It is cold up there. Let’s keep in mind what the term green house means. It means a controlled, closed, environment. I was told in school that household glass has the effect of lengthening the wavelength of the sunlight towards the infra-red (700nm) like the attmosphere. I am fairly certain the this is not the case because I know of no way for glass or attmospheric gasses to absorb and retransmit light or EMR in general. The only thing they can do is seperate the existing frequencies like a prism and blocking some frequencies like a filter. Regardless, a green house will warm significantly with sunlight present. The surface of the glass is warm and tends to heat air contained in the building. The same thing happens to the energy striking other objects within the greenhouse. The air heats up and somebody eats for a while. If what you are saying is true about the long term build up, it can be tested in this type of controlled environment, except that there is no way to duplicate the open enviroment of this planet. “Myth Busters?” Even in a controlled environment I suspect (my theory) that in order to test the hypothesis about the build up of CO2 one would have to exclude any water or plant life present within, otherwise the CO2 would not build up. I am thinking about Jamie and company building very large spaceships to roam abouth the galaxy to find an exact replica of the planet earth and drag it to the same orbit as earth on the other side of the sun…

            On the otherhand the attmosphere is not a closed, controlled environment. And what is found in a greenhouse simply does not apply. One of the most telling differences is the movement of the attmosphere and the wide variations of temperatures between the poles. There is also no glass surrounding the earth. And there are large amounts of plants growing on, above and just below the surface. And one of the most obvious characteristics of green houses is the amount of watter vapor in the air which helps directly to transmit thermal energy,

            Also consider that if I am a scientist and i work at a university as a researcher, I have to compete for research $’s. If you think that ethics are higher in achedemia and govenrment than they are in the private sector, I have one question for you. It is a creepy old question that has extreme relavence to this subject. That question is “who watches the watcher?” Since the idea of climate change has become a political issue and research grants are supplied by governments, there is going to be a tendency to produce results that are acceptable to the granting party. There are some extreme cases in industry where the interpretation of the data was manipulated to support the person paying for it but they are being monitored by government (the justice department). Who is monitoring the government? It is supposed to be us, but given elections over the last 80 or so years I have to conclude that nobody is paying attention to what is going on anywhere except their immediate surroundings. This is not conspiratorial it is an exercise in understanding human nature.

            One last thing. I have seen websites where only the data between 2008 and 2010 was presented to prove the point that I must give up my way of life or really just die off because i am too stupid to live anyway, simply because I do do not agree with global warming.

          • Kyle Allen

            I skimmed through your vast comment and agree with minute points but you really do not understand the physics of our world. Without our atmosphere, we would have no heat whatsoever. The greenhouse effect insulates us from the outside environment; it is the skin of the earth. This gives us stability and heat retention, without it we would have the severely altering climate like our moon. Too much of it and we would have the inhospitable inferno of an environment like Venus. You are completely correct in saying that all energy on earth is derived from the sun. All of our heat is from the sun permeating our atmosphere.

            And no I understand that co2 consumption is not a static value. I understand that the entire system is intricate and ever changing. But if algae bodies increase, other sources of life can also increase which thus could perhaps produce CO2. Either way, CO2 is not the limiting factor of growth in plant life….its nutrients in their immediate surroundings. Plants are not lacking CO2 in this world to grow, it is generally other limiting nutrients.

            My words here are spawned from other intricate studiers of the world and its systems….from professors, doctors, and field experienced professionals. They understand what is happening and the consequences arising and it is not hard to fathom even lacking critical scientific knowledge. The greenhouse effect is a very real, heat intensive phenomenon that is being altered on a daily, continual basis.

            I understand corruption and greed and how politics is a joke and controlled by intricate, power hungry groups of people. That’s how the world has always worked. That’s why global warming, a scientifically understandable phenomenon, is trying to be downsized due to loss of oil revenues. The grant money scientists may “make”? off of promoting global warming is incomparable to the amount people are currently making off of possibly destroying our world for future generations. I know politics is complicated and I don’t understand how to solve the problem, but people promoting skepticism over a scientifically evident problem is not going to help our future.

    • William

      So in summary, earth gets hot, earth gets cold. Greenland was once green (that’s why the Vikings named it so) and Prudhoe Bay was once tropical (therefore a reservoir of fixed carbon) and the Great Lakes and Seattle were under thousands of feet of ice just a hundred centuries ago. Approximately 98% of all species on earth – are now extinct. We are mere humans. Just one of the current species living here. Hang on. Enjoy the ride. Be a good physician. (But please refrain from name calling. It is a truly sophomoric form of debate.)

      • Kyle Allen

        Well the cause of the recent rapidity of a myriad of extinctions is completely caused by us mere humans as well….which is an entirely different set of topical ideas. But the necessity is for us all to be conscientious about the world around us and think ahead to our future.

        I don’t go through life ever calling people names and if I have on this thread it was due to provocation. Yes climate naturally shifts, but it’s the current nature in which it is shifting and the quickness that it is happening that presents the problem. Thank you for your hospitable words though.

        • William

          Provocation? That is a weak excuse for referring to someone as a doofus. Probably not the kind of terms you used during your thesis defense.

          My primary point remains the same. You can infer that a geologically short period of temperature change is caused by some equally short-term occurrence e.g. increased atmospheric CO2 ppm. You can even create statistical regression models that show a strong correlation between the two events. Jim Hansen created a model that did it with adjustment factors which created an extremely high correlation when applied to historical data. He then turned that model toward the future and predicted a hockey stick increase in future temperatures and severe environmental disasters. As the actual measured data rolled in over the years, he was forced to adjust his adjustments and add a few more. Repeatedly. The alternative was to admit his past work was fatally flawed. He is not alone. The doomsayers are progressively losing credibility as their predictions (e.g. 17 years of flat temperatures right in the middle of their predicted hockey stick event) of anthropogenic global warming prove wrong. These zealots did not couch their predictions in cautious language – they demanded that the world drastically change its lifestyle. They had all the absolute answers. Al Gore was so adamant that he flew all over the globe in his private 737 to make sure we all got the message. The carbon footprint of just one of his mansions exceeds my total. Hypocrisy?
          You have also utilized the argument I used – i.e, that our ecology is more complex than simple one-for-one correlations between single cause and effect relationships. Let’s apply our concurrence on that point universally, not selectively. I posited 20 years ago that the simplistic GW models can’t sufficiently predict future global temperatures. So far my theory has been supported by incoming data. The predicted accelerating rise in temperatures has not occurred.
          As I said before: is CO2 a greenhouse gas? YES! Is man probably a cause in the measured increase of atmospheric CO2? YES! Is the increase in CO2 ppm the primary cause in the actual measured temperature increases over the last century? I AM NOT CONVINCED.

          My point with 98% of all the species that ever lived on this planet being currently extinct was meant to indicate that homo sapiens are merely part of the 2% that temporarily exist today and are equally as likely to be wiped out as our extinct evolutionary sources. BTW, your declaration that “a myriad of extinctions is COMPLETELY caused by us mere humans as well” (emphasis added) is COMPLETELY unsupportable in a scientific discussion. (When you use name-calling or sound like a zealot, your argument is diminished.) Most of those extinctions occurred before apes dragged their knuckles across the jungle floor. Frankly, if your view of mankind is truly so negatively biased, I withdraw my encouragement that you continue on your course to become a physician. You might not have the altruistic inclination that a caring, patient respecting health practitioner requires. (Yes, I speak from experience.)
          Finally, to your point about thinking about the future and concern over the problem posed by such rapid changes in our environment. I grew up on the shores of Lake Erie when raw sewage floated up on the beaches and the Cuyahoga river was a fire hazard. I am all for environmental awareness and working to reduce pollution. Just don’t send us back to the stone-age in your quest to achieve that. Lake Erie and the Cuyahoga are in great shape today. Without draconian restrictions. Rapid changes? Geologically speaking, we haven’t seen anything even interesting in the last century. I recommend that you calm down and work for improvements, not extreme and condescending hyperbole about Chicken Little scenarios.

          • Kyle Allen

            provocation as in I was previously provoked through generally worse name calling aimed in my direction. I don’t care if that is “sophomoric” in debate character to “name call” because this shit is some random internet site. If I need to actually perform for people who are genuinely going to listen and take into account all sides of some topic. I will more than happily engage in a more appropriate manner. I see your points and really lack the motivation to further continue my input on this site, but feel free to read my spontaneous comments throughout the page.

            I hope you are right in that our exponentially increasing technological and energetic world does not harm our natural one. I’m betting it does understanding physics and how a lot of our biology around us works. Unless my patients are going to verbally attack me and automatically criticize my repertoire of knowledge, I think I do contain enough empathy and altruism to better the world. I hope you do as well and utilize your “senior” form of debate for the better.

          • William

            Well spoken. Please keep in mind that you have the right to decline to continue a conversation in this environment, especially if someone becomes abusive or demonstrates a clear lack of knowledge. Based on personal experience, I can emphatically tell you that this is not the case if you pursue a career in medicine.

          • Eric Haulenbeek

            I really don’t think you’re as sharp as you’re asking us to believe Kyle. There’s a certain amount of personal trust that has to be communicated to any audience before you can expect people to find what you have to say even remotely interesting. You seem to lack this ability, and when someone even remotely disagree’s with you, you climb back up on that self-made ivory tower you’ve built to keep the distance you need from ‘everyone else’ in your little world. This isn’t the most mature place to be when you’re trying to take a stand on such a hard felt personal truth.

    • Maria Sanchez

      The real issue is that no climate models predicted the pause and 10 competing theories attempt to explain it. The fact that you “feel” that emmisions cannot help but causing warming isn’t science, it’s intuition. Finally, you abandoned global warming and opted for climate change. Now you label those who don’t believe in imminent catastrophe “climate change deniers.” But there are no climate change deniers, not one. Everyone knows that they climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. So called skeptics simple don’t agree that returning to the dark ages, literally, in order to prevent possible warming of .02 degrees makes any sense.

    • Eric Haulenbeek

      That’s a lot of hot air Kyle. I’d like you to show me how you support your theory. I’d like to see some hard scientific truth. I’m not interested in models that have to be continually changed to account for the real world weather in which we live!

      • josh

        Eric you are obviously like 80 years old and as stubborn, intellectually, as an Ox.

  • Jack Mott

    Anyone curious about this result, note that the RSS product chosen was one TTS data, which spans both the troposphere (which is warming) and the stratosphere (which is cooling). Greenhouse gasses cause warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere, so this result is expect. This handy tool lets you brows through the different elevations of our atmosphere to see the trend: http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html A great confirmation of basic greenhouse science.

    • Squidly2112

      HAHAhahahah… ROFLMAO …. “greenhouse science” …. This truly has become “The Twilight Zone” …. Just can’t make this crap up anymore… “greenhouse science” .. hahahah .. I gotta remember that one…

      • Kyle Allen

        ………….omg you keep becoming more incompetent in the view of the world lmao. Like you obviously have no science education so shut the hell up and go back to school.

        • Squidly2112

          Riiiight … ROFLMAO

          • Kyle Allen

            LOLOLOLOLOLOL

            I can virtually laugh too,

  • Thomas Remme

    To “interpret” data in this manner is blatant cherry-picking.
    Next time include in the graph, the previous decades.

    1998 was an anomaly, and using that as the “norm” is dishonest, to say the least.

    • Kyle Allen

      Look at my graph above, cherry picking can be done along any miniscule time frame. Thanks for the awareness

      • Thomas Remme
        • Kyle Allen

          Nice one indeed

        • Joe A Gonzalez

          Looks to me that every thousand years or so the planet slightly warms,

          • Kyle Allen

            If it showed the correlating trend in carbon dioxide at the end of that graph, it is drastically ABOVE what it ever has been before. That graph isn’t the best to deduce much information from because the increase in temp. has occured over a very quick time frame (the black line showing that most clearly), but even that temp. increase isn’t THAT much in magnitude. But in such a quick fashion, and one that will likely not end with the amount of carbon in our air as well as still being produced into our air, our greenhouse atmosphere will only retain more and more heat energy

          • planet8788

            Such a quick fashion that it’s stable for 20 years?

        • planet8788

          THE MWP was warmer in the First IPCC report. The past keeps getting colder and colder…. I wish I could go back in time.

    • Squidly2112

      “Cherry Picking”??? Really? … You must be daft or simply an idiot. How can you “Cherry Pick” this? It is a measure of how long it has been since the satellite data has shown a warming trend. You have to be a member of the 1% stupidest people on the planet.

      • Kyle Allen

        ….you have bad grammer. You have ad hominen logical fallacies. You have just blatant idiocy in your text and have no substance in your straight up opinions. You my friend are purposeless in debating this information that you apparently have none of yourself. Just absorb the greenhouse effect knowledge sir….just look it up, take it in and think about our world. Have a good day

        • Kyle Allen

          Also is the most interesting word you know daft? Mannnn you done seem so smart with your words and such.

          • Squidly2112

            What are you .. like 9 mannnnn?

            Seems perhaps it is YOU that needs to get back to school

          • Kyle Allen

            …..haha my comments thus fas, diregarding the one you replied to blatantly and sarcastically calling you out for your insipid language, constitute a 9 year old mentality? Such fallacious arguments.

          • Kyle Allen

            Yourrrrr comments exemplify a nine year old mentality you troll. You say nothing and just bicker like a small child. Ad hominen argument, look it up. You are a prime example.

        • jeff

          It’s spelled ‘grammar’ braniac.

          • josh

            oh damn he must be absolutely retarded now, just disregard all of his information. *insert sarcasm flag here*

      • Thomas Remme

        The cherry-picking done by the author is to start the graph with a year that was way above normal, a statistical anomaly. Use a graph showing the previous decades and it will become apparent.

        By the way isn’t it kinda DAFT to say “no changes in 17 years” and then use a graph showing only 17 years??

        • planet8788

          1998 would have been a better place if he wanted to cherry pick.

          • Kyle Allen

            that is exactly what happened jesus christ, 1998 is one of the beginning statistical data points, creating this flat trend. apparently I have a religion in statistics as well to understand that this is an insignificant scope of data. You have no understanding and you refuse to attempt to. You know nothing of how this works

          • planet8788

            The last 150 years is insignificant compared to the last 500,000. Most of which have been spent in ice ages.

          • Jacob3904

            wow

          • planet8788

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

            The Earth has been in an interglacial period known as the Holocene for more than 11,000 years. It was conventional wisdom that the typical interglacial period lasts about 12,000 years

          • SchmidtyFi

            He is simply answering the question, “for how long has there been no statistically significant warming?”.

            The answer is 210 months.

            Is that consistent with warmist models? No, it is not.

          • SchmidtyFi

            Consider, also:

            Of the CO2 gas emitted by humans, more than 97% has been done since 1950 [http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2010.ems].

            Got that?

            Now, realize there was effectively no warming at all in the 50s and 60s:[http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/web_figures/hadcrut4_annual_global.png].

            So, where is your AGW signal? 1975-1998. 23 years.

          • Kyle Allen

            How do you see 97 percent being emitted only since 1950 in that link you provided. Because it didn’t list per capita usage??

          • SchmidtyFi

            Crap, I have to apologize, I transcribed the wrong column. It’s actually 83.4%, not 97%. The 97 (97.5%) is just the percentage of “gas” fossil fuel burning since 1950 (natural gas, methane, etc). We’ve burned 94.9% of all liquid fossil fuels since 1950, but only 70% of all solids (which makes sense — we’ve been building coal and wood for a long time).

            But, I think my basic point holds: before 1950, our CO2 impact was de minimis.

            I am only looking at the totals, not per capita. I’m confused by your question…just add up the relevant columns from 1950->present and divide by the relevant column total…

          • SchmidtyFi

            Let’s play your game and only consider data after 1998. Guess what? No warming since 11/1999.

        • Aztecbill

          Yes, just like starting Arctic sea ice at 1979. 1979 was a recent peak of sea ice in the north. The first IPCC report in 1990 showed satellite data starting in 1975. All the years before 1979 were way below 1979 in sea ice. It was changed to kill those prior years in subsequent issues and all reports from the true believers now start in 1979. Numerous reports detail that 1974 had at least 15% more sea ice than recent years prior. That was why they were so worried about “the coming ice age”.
          210 months of no temperature increase is the story. Notice that graphs to disprove this by true believers posting here start at the height of the “coming ice age” scare. Why is this? Because that is a relative low in the data. If they started in the 1930s, again the data would show little increase in temperatures.
          We are coming out of something called “the little ice age”. Wouldn’t you expect increases in temperature from something like that? Or do you believe the “little ice age” could end with temperature being flat?

    • windy2

      Cherry picking has been the life blood of climate science. James Hansen testified before the US Congress with only ten years of trend based on minimal data and an exaggerated model that had TCR and ECS wrong in 1988. Yet every Progressive and far left radical under every rock came out claimed it to be climate gospel from the mouth of a climate god and the beginning of the end for humanity.

      • Thomas Remme

        Hansen has been doing a lot of work, and most of it has turned out to be spot on. Some of the errors has been that he UNDER-estimated the changes….

        Using science is not religion. You may be more familiar with gospel than I am, perhaps look in the mirror before you throw the first rock.

        • planet8788

          Examples? Links?

          Temps are below his best “C” case, I think published in the late 1980′s…

          • Kyle Allen
          • Kyle Allen

            read and absorb, just as the earth is doing with electromagnetic radiation. Hopefully you can retain it just as well

          • planet8788

            Your the one who needs to read.

          • planet8788

            Sorry… where is the example of UNDER-estimation? I missed it… Can you be specific?

            In fact… that’s just another example of another wrong prediction by Hansen? Why don’t you go read what that idiot said in the late 1980′s… And yet you think he is credible.

            “Hansen said he expects record-breaking global average temperature in the
            next two to three years because solar activity is on the upswing and
            the next El Niño will increase tropical Pacific temperatures. The
            warmest years on record were 2005 and 2010, in a virtual tie.”

            Hansen proven WRONG,… AGAIN…

          • Kyle Allen

            I know you didn’t mean to reply to me reading these random ass website articles/comments, I have not had the urge to look up who hansen is, even if he “agrees” with my point of view or not. But really………..it’s just the logical understanding of physics, ecology, etc. that will point you in the right direction.

          • planet8788

            You don’t know who Hansen is? LOL… LOL…
            It’s not a random ass website… it references the first IPCC versus some of the latest data… They keep revising the history colder? Why do you think that is?

            Logical understanding… maybe…. but wholly incomplete… which is why every prediction is wrong? Yet you still believe…

            What would it take to disprove global warming/climate change?

          • R L Morris

            Or you.

          • zzz05

            A thirty plus year old model, from the absolute infancy of the field, is not 100% accurate? Heavens! Did temperatures rise however, just not as high as the model predicted? Have things like volcanos and Pacific ENSO osciallations occurred since then? And, most importantly, has there ever been any climate model without an anthropogenic CO2 warming factor which has had any accuracy at all, let alone better than Hansen’s? If not, then the best model wins. As scientists know, no model is ever 100% correct; but the ones which are better, happen to be better.

          • planet8788

            ALL OF THE MODELS have overestimated the warming. ALL OF THEM.
            Fact: At least an 18-year pause.
            Fact: RAW Temperature readings show the US Cooling since about 2004. The only way you get the “hottest year on modern record” is from the “adjusted” data.
            The number of active weather temperature monitoring stations is decreasing drastically and NOAA just fills in the data with their estimates…

            They estimate the Urban Heat Island Effect as a mere 0.1C yet watch the nightly weather reports and you clearly see that outlying areas are almost always 5-10F cooler than the urban areas.

            It’s a manufactured crisis. Can anyone tell us what the temperature would be if CO2 levels were at 320 ppm according to the models? Ice age?

      • zzz05

        I think you don’t understand the meaning of cherry picking. For Hansen to have been cherry picking he would have to have had large volumes of data and chosen the only ten years which were warming; and however exaggerated his model may or may not be is not at all relevant to cherry picking. Perhaps you could come back when you feel less angry about what you see as your victimization.

        • windy2

          You apparently are unaware that Hansen excluded enormous amounts of data in his testimony. Why don’t you do your self a favor and look at the start date for Hansen’s paper and temperature graph used in his testimony. That way you will Know why I am laughing at your comment.

    • windy2

      Michael Mann ignored 20 tree ring data sets and cherry picked the only two tree ring data sets that would yield a hockey stick graph. He was instantly elevate to Grand Poobah status by far leftist and radical enviros.

    • windy2

      Phil Stott at thee MET Office chose 1998 (removing ENSO) and used 10 years of HadCRUT data to determine if IPCC models were exceeding their internal variability. He and several other climate scientists from MET found models had exceeded internal variability at the 90% confidence level, but cautioned that it would require 5 more years of data to attain a 95% confidence level.
      I contacted the MET Office to inquire when they would update their investigation into IPCC model integrity and I was told over 1 year ago it would be soon. I’m still waiting for the MET Office updated review of IPCC models but I have a feeling it won’t be updated because it would be inconvenient for the HadCRU team to validate their initial claim that 15 years of data is valid for a 95% confidence level.
      If 15 years was acceptable for the HadCRU scientists why is not acceptable to you?

      • Thomas Remme

        Using data from a year that differ a lot from trends and from previous (and following years) is sloppy science at best. Downright dishonest is what I call it.

        It isn’t 15 years if you interpret the data properly.
        Ask any statistician what they do with anomalies and outliers in the data.

        Looking at temperature records back to 1880, the trend is clear.

        • planet8788

          Why start in 1880?

          Why not go back to the MWP?

          Also, no significant manmade CO2 in 1880… So why start there…

          • Kyle Allen

            lmao who are you

          • planet8788

            Someone who is not blinded by their religion like you are.

          • Kyle Allen

            everyone on here has such errors in their logic and arguments. logical fallacy after logical fallacy that you hide behind. you obviously have the same, dead set way of thinking which I could randomly label as “religion” in whatever terminology you believe religion falls under! lmao

          • planet8788

            Logical fallcies like…. 97% of models have over-exaggerated warming effects, therefore the models are screwed up… therefore they are based on faulty “science”…

            Where exactly is the logical fallacy?

          • Kyle Allen

            you are better than all climate scientists, all hail your knowledge of internet, mind altering sources.

          • planet8788

            Not all scientists agree… But if the crisis goes away, what will happen to their funding?
            If there isn’t a crisis for them to analyze, how much will it hurt their fragile egos… much like yours…. Who has to keep bragging about passing a test?

            They will have wasted all that time and money agonizing over nothing….

            Noone is unbiased. And with funding and emotion come bias.

          • Jacob3904

            You do understand that what scientists make is a fraction of what oil companies and their associated partners make…..they control the world lol. money=oil

          • planet8788

            All the more reason “climate scientists” get into this good vs. evil mentality…

            It doesn’t change the facts…

            The facts are… their predictions are exaggerated… and grossly so…

          • planet8788

            So in summary, you can’t refute anything…

            All models are wrong, yet you keep your blind faith… you are a good disciple.

          • Tuckybuck

            Climate scientists budgets are dependent on them finding or shaping the data in some way to support the global whatever you call it now change. The Liberals in world governments send tax payer money to these scientists to support there cause. Its a racket man! Follow the money, that is how this world works. The fact that they have never claimed victory in any area of “global warming” should tell you all you need to know. When they could use plenty of data to say hey look we are making a difference lets do more! No, it’s not about fixing the problem because it’s not a real problem. It’s about control and the largest expansion of natural gas in the history of the world. It just so happens the liberals are in bed with natural gas industry (lobbyists). Every wind and solar plant built has natural gas built to the plant as a back up as they are not consistent sources and the grid needs consistency. Follow the money…

          • Nameless

            Because there isn’t any data.

        • Aztecbill

          But how did we effect the temperature from 1850 to 1940s? We didn’t. Yet the trend is about the same as it was after that. There is a slight underlying warming from 1850 that is overlaid by a 60 year cycle that has 30 years of warming and 30 years of cooling. It is so obvious that only someone who has an agenda can’t see it.

          • Thomas Remme

            Do you have a source for that theory? 30 year cycles of warming and cooling?
            Some scientific study agreeing with your view?

            It is the first time I hear about it, and I have debated climate change for some time.

          • Aztecbill

            You can find it yourself. Google – 60 year cycle climate. You will find about 10 million hits. I am surprised you haven’t read about it if you read about climate. The cycle is plain in the data and there are a number of theories about the cause. One of the more interesting is Jupiter and Saturn orbits coincide every 20 years or so but line up in the same spot every 60 years causing a repeated gravity pull that effects the sun and oceans. It is data that awaits a definitive cause.

          • Aztecbill

            60 year cycle would give us a valley in 1850, peak in 1880, a valley in 1910, a peak in 1940, valley in the 1970, peak in 2000, and a valley in 2030. The data shows this clearly, except that last part which we are well on the way toward.

          • Thomas Remme
          • Thomas Remme

            As reported on various debunk sites – and of course proven by several scientists – the suggested 60 year cycle has no merit.

            More info available with Google, and this time try to not cherry-pick denier blogs, but instead read the scientific response.

          • cptwayne

            This sounds like the well known and established Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), a Pacific Ocean water upwelling event resulting in alternating 30 years of cooling then 30 years of warming. This is plainly visible in the temperature charts raw data.

          • Thomas Remme

            Eh – no, it isn’t.

            This April was the 348th consecutive month (in a row) with global temperatures above average. And remember: Many years with higher temperatures drive up the average – so for each warmer year, the record is harder to beat and less likely to be a coincidence.

            348 months in a row of temperatures above average.

            Forest fires on the west coast is now no longer a seasonal event: It happens all year around, despite efforts to prevent it and combat it – more and more land and property is destroyed each year. The drought is so severe, many cities and entire regions have to consider if they should shut down and move…

            Open your eyes – or more importantly – open your mind to face the facts.
            Climate change is happening around us – it is happening NOW – and it is growing worse each year.

          • cptwayne

            Global temperatures are not a measure of global warming. They do not quantify the amount of heat.
            In other words, unless the total heat globally is quantified, you can’t state there is more of it. Higher temps do not necessarily mean more heat globally. In the US, there has been over two dozen “double record” temperature days. Both the coldest and the warmest temperature records were broken during the
            same 24 hour period. So, for these days, was there global warming or global cooling? You don’t know unless you calculate the degree-day. That is, how long and for how many degrees down it was cold vs how warm and how many degrees up it was. In this way, you quantify the amount of cooling or warming. Degree days, boys, that is what is needed.

          • Thomas Remme

            We have solid scientific evidence showing the increased amount of heat absorbed the the oceans, the air and the atmosphere.

            We’re losing BILLIONS of tons of ice every year (source, NASA’s GRACE project, among several) – and that alone is proof that we’re receiving and storing more energy from the sun than we used to.

            Melting a chunk of ice takes an enormous amount of energy – it is enough to raise the temperature of water (same weight) almost 80 degrees Kelvin / Centigrade. In other words: The melting glaciers and sea ice is sort of hiding the warming. That is – for those of us to refuse to face reality.

            This April was the 348th consecutive month (in a row) with global temperatures above average, and remember, the previous higher years are driving up that value. In other words – the records are harder to beat each years, which makes this double scary. yet again, for those of us who adhere to scientific methods and facts, and aren’t blinded by ideology or greed.

          • burble

            no ,no it is not Thomas,you wont like this and you will no doubt resort to ad hominem attacks ….but you should remember where this climate debate comes from you know the UN, and morris strong? ring any bells matey? and just how old are you ? how much of a change in climate have you personnally noticed or witnessed in your life ? personally I have lived in many places on this earth in my 50 plus years I have not noticed any overall temp increases….you need see this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YCatox0Lxo i urge you to do more research on the people that might benefit (monetarily) from climate change and Agenda 21 or are they part of the same scam (?) you seem to have done a bit of research already but were you aware of Strong ? gobachov,, soros gore

            mate, you just dont seem to be using the bullshit detector that you were born with …..so now you can offer abuse ,i can take it oh seems you forgot to tell us that climate change is going to kill us all yawn.

          • Thomas Remme

            The first time climate change was seriously discussed was in the late 60s. George Bush senior mentioned it in the 80s, even Ronald Reagan talked about it, but did less than Carter. Both scientists and politicians (and thus opinion) was in agreement up until around year 2000, By then, the fossil fuel lobby got nervous and started their billion dollar “lobbying” – aka. spreading fear and doubt, and then the people started to doubt. We humans dislike change or losing benefits, and accepting AGW would mean both. Ironically, our refusal to accept facts may have a much bigger cost than a few percent reduced annual growth. (the Stern report).

            Incidentally (but not coincidentally) it is the same people using the same tactics as when the Tobacco industry tried to claim that cigarettes wasn’t dangerous. People opposed to regulation and gov’t oversight, fearing loss of income.Naturally, big corporations see a way to keep paying ZERO taxes and doing more or less what they like, so they support it.

            By the way:
            Age doesn’t matter. And besides, you’re not that much older than me. Poor attempt at gaining the “high ground”, by the way. If you had really learned anything in your 50+ years, you would know that there’s no correlation between IQ and age, nor any guarantee of knowledge. Quite the contrary, actually. It is likely that you have forgotten more of the basic high school math and physics unless you’ve “stayed in the system” – and judging by how you write, I kind of doubt that.

            I’ve read about and debated Climate Change for 14+ years – and by the time I started my deep dive into the topic, I had finished College and served time in the Navy, as well as sailing around on the oceans for some time as a marine engineer. And I was a skeptic at first, but that soon changed.

            Referring to weird & vague conspiracies and linking to old movie clips is not enough to persuade me to change stance – I have quite literally seen glacier shrink considerably even in the last decade alone. And that is just one example. Spring arrives MUCH earlier for each year that passes. The weather patterns change, and extreme events are more common, and more violent – and they hit at different times and unusual places compared to the norm. That norm is 300+ years of weather observations. One of the benefits of being a seafaring nation – having neighbors with same interests – and a highly educated population.

            If there is a conspiracy going on, it is the richest 1% buying politicians and changing laws to preserve and increase their power and wealth. And these are often the same people that are heavily invested in fossil fuels.

            The US was recently declared to no longer be a democracy, but in fact an Oligarchy in a recent Princeton study. Economists the world over are warning about the increasing wealth gap and reduced social mobility – and in particular the steadily shrinking middle class.

            Open your eyes, and look into these issues – they are the REAL problems we’re facing.

            …in addition to man made climate change, of course.

          • TXhistorian

            so what’s “average”? An average of ten years? Forty? Four hundred? Four thousand? We’re talking climate here, not weather! What was average when the Vikings settled Greenland? Just sayin’

  • 7kidchaos

    Kyle, I can easily explain to you why 100 years of burning fossil fuels has not had an impact or caused any change in our world… Radical climate alarmists have fingered CO2 as the bad culprit emitted by man that has despoiled us and caused disaster. But only a sober, proper view of CO2 reveals that only 4 of every ten thousand molecules of air are made up of CO2, a trace gas that itself is a small fraction of less than 1 percent of the atmosphere. 78 percent is nitrogen gas and 21 percent is oxygen. The largest emitter of CO2 is , by far, the oceans and their emissions are thousands of times more than all of mankind. Accordingly, then, aside from dirty air in a few big cities that looks bad and is bad, man’s activities over past 100 years has had no effect because it’s not significant enough to have had any effect on the overall atmosphere. Normal volcano activity emits hundreds more times COs than man and always will. Remember, that climate is ever-changing. Human activity is not the cause of that change, the air isn’t getting any hotter than recent 1 degree averages per century and the supply of ice worldwide is also steady. Natural disasters such as big waves and big winds in high-population coastal cities always are bad because of the population and asset concentrations, not because of climate change.

    • Kyle Allen

      I copy and paste information of the real world carbon cycle I have explained previously. Sinks and sources my friend. We are only looking at CO2 which yes, is very small in conc. But if you sleep in bed at night and are cold and put a few sheets over yourself, doesn’t it make you feel warmer by retaining heat? the physics of CO2 molecules is that it re-emits infra-red radiation-clear and simple. If you have the time, read the following but if not that’s fine and go on not understanding the cyclic natural process of our world and how our human intervention causes shifts, and thus excess, in that cycle. Also the underlying but huge problem here is the scope of time this climatic change will be ocuring. Changes do not occur this quickly and thus life gnerally has time to adapt:not in this case as we progress. (sorry for the copy and paste below not formatting corretly, dont feel like altering it but feel free to look above for this same description obtained through my years of scientific study):

      Thank you for your thoughtful input. I appreciate the non-attacking
      style of writing. Definitely the natural flow of the carbon cycle is
      relatively huge compared to the amount humans unnaturally release. This
      being said, with this relatively constant natural flow of carbon, the
      continual increase humans are creating is not getting cancelled out. It
      is exponentially accumulating. And each year we had to the GT amount of
      C02 being released and the average between 2000-2007 was about 7.5 GT.
      All of this is a cyclic event as you displayed but the sinks get FILLED.
      Trees use as much CO2 as they need…no more. Oceanic life and/or the
      ocean itself only absorbs a certain amount of CO2. All of the CO2 does
      not just drain away if it is in EXCESS. They cannot absorb anymore
      carbon. This is how the problem arises.

      And when you look at it, only .03 percent of the atmosphere IS CO2.
      But the problem is that CO2 acts as a pretty effective greenhouse gas.
      The natural greenhouse effect is about 945 w/m2….so 9.5 100 W heat
      lamps every square meter of atmosphere. Water (clouds/water vapor in
      general) does MOST of this effect, about 72 percent. Other gasses do the
      rest.

      Human activity has increased, SO FAR, the greenhouse effect by about
      1.5 W/m2. About 58 percent of THIS is due to CO2 from fossil fuels, some
      is due to deforestation (since we decrease the sinks capabilities…we
      have destroyed some of the sink), and methane accounts for about 17
      percent (since we don’t exhaust methane TOO often…which would be very
      devastating if we did).

      OK so 1.5 w/m2, big deal. But it ADDS up over time. So altogether CO2
      concentrations have increased by 40 percent since the industrial
      revolution…now with only a 1.5 w/m2 increase it’s obvious that carbon
      dioxide isn’t an extremely POTENT greenhouse gas (which could start
      another discussion of methane and its positive feedback mechanism that
      IS arising from the tundra thawing and methanogens becoming un-dormant)
      but we do keep exponentially adding it. About 1/2 of this carbon is
      plugged into the carbon cycle (and gets absorbed by sinks) and
      plant/ocean/microbial life is happy as a clam. Now half of it
      accumulates in the atmosphere. I definitely think the 5Gt value has
      INCREASED over the last few years by a pretty good amount, but either
      way we will stick to the current dilemma with that value, PER YEAR. so
      per year, 2.5Gt of carbon dioxide is directly added to our atmosphere
      and not leaving.

      RIGHT NOW there has NEVER in the natural history that the deepest ice
      core in Antarctica (ice ore atmospheric bubbles) displays been THIS
      MUCH co2 in our atmosphere. These ice cores have granted us the
      temperature readings for the deep past as well using the isotope ratio
      of oxygen (heavier ones evaporate more slowly, etc).

      Now just looking at temperature, all facets have increased. Land
      temperature, oceanic temperature, etc. This is due to the physics of
      carbon molecules and infra-red radiation. It acts as a blanket over our
      world, which is great so we retain heat and have a relatively stable
      environemnt unlike our moon. SO the PHYSICS ( a 100% testable, unbiased,
      and reality-displaying property of our world; there is one inherent
      answer to a physical process), of CO2 re-emitting escaping infra-red
      wavelengths (which is heat, everything that has heat gives off this
      energy, everything that absorbs this energy heats up) has been heating
      up our globe.

      As shown by a statistically SIGNIFICANT graph I have presented above
      in another comment to someone arrogantly skeptic, the earth is warming
      at a rate of about 2 degrees every 20-30 years. Now this will increase
      as we increase emissions…….either way, CARBON DIOXIDE and the
      physics behind it is creating temperature increase. In no way does
      temperature spontaneously produce carbon dioxide; that point is
      nonsensical. But see to completely go back to your argument, the sinks
      and sources DO generally cancel out if human intervention is not
      considered. But year by year, it builds up in the atmosphere….which
      constitutes this whole phenomenon.

      People understand this. Scientists understand. Their lives have been
      built around the scientific process which is synonymous to rational,
      logical, critical thinking. The scientific process is UNBIASED, and the
      science displays global warming and thus severe, imminent climate
      change.

      If you would like to understand the drastic implications of global
      warming ON climate change, feel free to ask me. Or to counter my points,
      but believe me, as a scientist and a person trying to alter the view of
      just A FEW PEOPLE in this world to better humanity, this is the
      reality. This is crtically important for everyone to know and to try to
      make a difference in life…..for the sake of humanity and the rest of
      our living world. We can prolong our existence….we all WILL die one
      day and our species WILL die out. But it doesn’t have to be our own
      fault or in the relatively near future. Hey, we can just all blow up
      with these nukes we have, but we do have the remarkable abilities of
      compassion, rationality, logic, critical thinking, empathy and sympathy
      to continue our great legacy. But our mentality has to shift for the
      sake of your kids, my kids, your grandchildren, etc…..A long journey
      always has to begin with a simple step. And we need to unite in thinking
      to alter our projection.

      • cptwayne

        When a CO2 molecule absorbs and emits a photon, no heat is involved. Just an electron jump to a higher orbit then a fall from a higher orbit. It does this in a few nano seconds. Meanwhile, 370,000 collisions occur between photon events (at STP). So, most energy is transferred via collisions, which is occurring in all the air molecules. CO2, for the most part, doesn’t matter.

    • cptwayne

      It was 4.5 deg F warmer about 9000 years ago. The oceans were 2 meters higher. That’s 2000mm/4.5 deg F= 444mm/deg F. At our present SLR of 3.2mm x 100 years=320mm/444mm =0.72 deg F increase per century. Not much serious historical deviation here. Where is the catastrophic warming?

  • Will Haas

    The results are expected. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. None. If one believes in the greenhouse effect theory then one must realize that the primary greenhouse gas is H2O which provides ample negative feedbacks to the addition of any other greenhouse gas so as to minimize any effect that such greenhouse gases could possible have on climate.
    Actually the most ddominantheat trapping gas in the earth’s atmosphere is N2 which because of its abundance holds more heat then all the other gases and does not radiate LWIR energy to space nearly as eefficientlyas the so called greenhouse gases. Any gas that is a good absorber is also a good radiator. The idea that greenhouse gases absorb LWIR absorption band radiation and then immediately rre radiateit out in all directions so that half of the radiation is oabsorbedby the earth is not true. If the radiation is immediately readmitted then the gas acts as a ddiffusereflector and not an absorber. Greenhouse gas radiation is a function of the sensible heat of the gas and not how much radiation is being absorbed. Most likely the radiation is either lost to space or absorbed by other greenhouse gas molecules and not the earth’s surface. Actually an increase in greenhouse gases increases the effective eemissivityof the atmosphere in the LWIR which causes more energy to be radiated to space. The mechanism is called cooling so greater levels of greenhouse gases causes greater cooling, not warming.

    • Christine Guinn

      No, there is evidence that CO2 does effect climate, just not that man is the cause of that effect here on Earth. If you want clear evidence of CO2′s effects on climate, look at Venus. The atmosphere of Venus is predominately CO2, and it is the hottest planet in the solar system. Mercury is closer to the sun, but lacks an atmosphere, so Venus is actually hotter. The problem with the global warming alarmists is that CO2 is a MINUTE part of Earth;s atmosphere, which is primarily nitrogen.

      • Will Haas

        No, The atmosphere on Venus is totally different then that on Earth. The reason the surface temperature on Venus is so much hotter than Earth is primarily because the surface pressure on Venus is more than 90 times what it is on Earth. CO2 has nothing to do with it.

        • cptwayne

          Also, A Venus day is 224 Earth days long. So, on the shady side, you would expect a plunge in temperature. Not so! The dark side of Venus is at basically the same temperature as the sunny side. No GHE here. Go figure.

  • janderson4795

    Just a bunch of global warming posts with made up Agenda driven pseudo science. Don’t waste your time reading them.

    • Kyle Allen

      you tell ‘em. because climate skepticism has no Agenda, such as still using up and selling every fossil fuel known to man!

      • IDSprout

        Kyle, you seem to turn up everywhere with your militant intentions and shifty data sets – folks, this poor SOG has been trying to prove he knows more than the rest of the world for longer than I can remember. Despite overwhelming facts, he’ll keep screaming “prove it” and he does enjoy the CAP LOCK on his computer. Save time and just ignore him and his comments.

        • Kyle Allen

          prove it is the basis of climate skepticism, so as we wait and see what unfolds I’m sure you will finally get your proof. Too bad shit hits the fan because of people like you.

          also, I’m everywhere? or do you mean just on this one specific page. because I say the latter. I don’t waste my precious life stalking internet sites on the daily. I realize most people’s minds are unalterable on this same minded page. But I just wanted to quickly spout what info I have learned of the world through my collegiate time, which is obviously all a conspiracy filled with wrong and completely mind warping material. I’m glad your internet degree allows you to dissuade people for the better and I hope you do some good in the world with whatever undeniable knowledge you have sir. have fun

  • larry

    Right on, if CO2 levels were going up, then why isn’t the atmosphere’s oxygen content going down? We would all be more light headed or passing out. This is simple chemistry were talking about here. We should be measuring Oxygen content in the atmosphere rather than attempting to measure temperature. Sincerely, a Chemist.

    • Kyle Allen

      So explain to me in what type of equilibrium, balance of equations way of chemistry Oxygen content must be going down lol

      You are a chemist?? uhhhhh wat.

      Regardless of chemistry, CO2 levels going up is a hoax too? We don’t actually have carbon emissions from all of the dead matter we burn?

      • zlop

        Atmospheric CO2 and O2 is not a zero sum. Oceans absorb and release, and below the oceans, more variables.

    • Terry Field

      PPM cretin.

  • Terry Field

    If this sort of guff stuff were used in an answer to a statistical exam re a line of best fit over a relevant period of time – which would NT be such a foolishly short period as 17.5 years, the examinee would, and should, fail the exam, and have to retrain as a street-sweeper.

    • sactomike

      Apparently, you excelled at statistics, not English. The point is NOT that the graph disproves AGW theory. It is that AGW theory has not been proven. Big difference.

      • Terry Field

        I did fine at both thanks, and the ‘point’ is incorrect. AGW has been ‘proven’, to use your schoolboy language, by a great quantity of data and analysis from the world’s greatest climate scientists, of which you are not a member, old cocker!

        • sactomike

          OK, I admit to being old, but what the hell is a cocker?

          You got me there on the proven issue. Of course, nothing in science is actually “proven.” instead null hypotheses are either rejected or not, depending on the data. In the case of the (rather amorphous) AGW hypotheses, their various forms never seem to be couched in terms that are disprovable, in the sense that whenever the data seem to support not rejecting the null hypothesis, the darn thing changes form. Every time the various climate models fail to correctly predict the climate, they are “adjusted” and then still don’t fit subsequent data. We even witnessed the elimination of medieval warming period between the first and second IPCC reports.

          You are also right that I’m no climate scientist, nor any type of scientist at all. I therefore must rely on those who are. Unequivocally, they agree that test tube experiments verify that CO2 is a GHG. Beyond that, despite the 97% lie of the IPCC, they do not agree so much.

          So, I do not know whether the increase in CO2 will lead to a warmer climate, or if it does whether that will be “good” or “bad” for humankind and the larger ecosystem. I do know that no scientist can honestly tell you that, e.g., the Kyoto Protocol, if adopted would materially change the future climate, especially within the next few thousand years. But, any honest economist can tell you that there will be, at least short-term adverse consequences if it is adopted. Of course, any first-year political science student can tell you it never will be. Just imagine what would happen to the world’s economy and its people if we somehow stopped, then reversed the rise of CO2!

          But, here’s one I’m pretty sure you can’t answer. I assume you agree that the world’s supply of oil and gas is finite. If so, tell me the difference in the earth’s temperature in 10,000 years between two scenarios, one in which we burn it all up at currently anticipated rates, and two if we slow that burn rate by half, but assuming under both it is all gone within some period substantially less than 10,000 years and after that we survive on nuke, solar, etc.

  • Rudi Stade

    The chemtrails are working, both to reflect sunlight and get rid of the meddling humans

    • zlop

      Chem-trails were designed to warm. But the effect is overwhelmed by decreased Solar activity.

      • Rudi Stade

        The chemtrails were designed to Increase the earth’s albedo (reflectivity) and slow down the absorption of the sun’s infrared heat as well as poison the aforementioned meddling humans.

        • zlop

          Depends on timing, how and where the chem-trails are deployed.

          Insulating at night can raise the average temperature.

          “Aircraft Vapor Trails Responsible for 15-20% of Arctic Warming”

          Forcings matter, not a lot. A planets surface average temperature is accurately predicted by pressure and Solar Radiation (independent of chemistry)

  • ezra abrams

    IF, for instance, you go to the berkeley earth website, you see a graph like the one above, but with different x axis endpoints
    Looks different, don’t it ?
    And what you see is a lot of ~1 to 10 year variation on a long term trend.

    So, do you feel lucky today ? if you all are right, we don’t have to worry; if you are wrong, the results could be very $$ (what happens if we have to move the people in houston and miami and bangladesh…)

    So, how much risk should we tolerate ?
    surely you all will agree that , since this is science, you have to have some chance that you are wrong; place your bets

    • sactomike

      You have the burden of proof wrong. But, if you’re right what should we do? We now have a study that says that if we stop emitting CO2 altogether it won’t reverse “warming” for 2 thousand years or more. So, in other words, if we destroy the world’s economy and kill off most of the world’s humans, we won’t see any “benefit” for 2 thousand years. Worth it?

      • Kyle Allen

        so are you advocating use of carbon still or do you agree we need to quickly diverge from it an invest in other resources. I saw you said oil is finite, so either way the quandary is not difficult. And yes, reversal of any warming will not happen. But why keep saturating the world just because we can’t get any better, and only get worse? and i bleive it will get very noticeably worse if we do succeed in burning every ounce of carbon fuel because there seriously are positive feedback mechanisms ocuring in which the majority of the people on this page refuse to fathom.

        • sactomike

          I only said, let’s assume oil is finite. I imagine it is. I’m no expert. But, I saw a science show years ago on which they speculated that the microbes that are known to live as deep as many thousands of feet below ground, may be producing petroleum. I have no opinion on this, being no scientist, but I just assume you are in the camp of those who say it’s finite. I don’t dispute or endorse that view.

          Am I advocating we still use carbon? What an amazing question. Stop and think about how much of modern life depends on carbon. Just imagine we implement a world-wide program to stop using carbon based fuels within 20 years. Ask any scientist what that would mean for the world’s economy and the current human population. It would, of course, be disastrous. It is also politically unthinkable. It simply will not happen. If you want to be realistic, you certainly must acknowledge that. I mean, even Kyoto, which went into the dustbin of history before the ink was dry, did not advocate such a thing.

          So, the real world options seem to center around some very gradual shift away from carbon fuels, likely over multiple centuries. That means we are arguing about letting nature and the economy take their course or creating some sort of international regimen to drastically alter that course.

          What would it look like for nature and the economy to take their course? Presumably, after many decades of creating new access to carbon based fuels, the market would start to reflect a dawning realization that the supply was running out. It would search desperately, based on the most productive human instinct of all — the profit motive — for profitable alternatives. History strongly suggests that it would find them.

          But, what would the alternative be? You create this international regimen. It would do what unlimited governments do, aggrandize its own power and screw things up. Sure, it would likely move along and the world’s diminishing ability to support human life in the style to which we’ve become accustomed would become obvious to all, but no one would be able to do anything because the world government would prevent innovation outside its own prescriptive approach. Likely, the use of carbon would continue and the creation of alternatives would be slowed for lack of profit. But, maybe eventually, the carbon would be used up and the alternatives would be supporting some new, much diminished human economy.

          Does your settled science really tell you what the temperature of the earth would be under each of these alternatives? Of course not. So, you’re left with the only certainty on your side being that we’ll have a worldwide government with far more power than anything imaginable today. Frankly, I think that is actually the driving force behind AGW theory to begin with. History is with me on that, by the way. Remember the coming Ice Age of the ’70′s? Stopping that would have required a world government too.

        • sactomike

          I only said, let’s assume oil is finite. I imagine it is. I’m no expert. But, I saw a science show years ago on which they speculated that the microbes that are known to live as deep as many thousands of feet below ground, may be producing petroleum. I have no opinion on this, being no scientist, but I just assume you are in the camp of those who say it’s finite. I don’t dispute or endorse that view.

          Am I advocating we still use carbon? What an amazing question. Stop and think about how much of modern life depends on carbon. Just imagine we implement a world-wide program to stop using carbon based fuels within 20 years. Ask any scientist what that would mean for the world’s economy and the current human population. It would, of course, be disastrous. It is also politically unthinkable. It simply will not happen. If you want to be realistic, you certainly must acknowledge that. I mean, even Kyoto, which went into the dustbin of history before the ink was dry, did not advocate such a thing.

          So, the real world options seem to center around some very gradual shift away from carbon fuels, likely over multiple centuries. That means we are arguing about letting nature and the economy take their course or creating some sort of international regimen to drastically alter that course.

          What would it look like for nature and the economy to take their course? Presumably, after many decades of creating new access to carbon based fuels, the market would start to reflect a dawning realization that the supply was running out. It would search desperately, based on the most productive human instinct of all — the profit motive — for profitable alternatives. History strongly suggests that it would find them.

          But, what would the alternative be? You create this international regimen. It would do what unlimited governments do, aggrandize its own power and screw things up. Sure, it would likely move along and the world’s diminishing ability to support human life in the style to which we’ve become accustomed would become obvious to all, but no one would be able to do anything because the world government would prevent innovation outside its own prescriptive approach. Likely, the use of carbon would continue and the creation of alternatives would be slowed for lack of profit. But, maybe eventually, the carbon would be used up and the alternatives would be supporting some new, much diminished human economy.

          Does your settled science really tell you what the temperature of the earth would be under each of these alternatives? Of course not. So, you’re left with the only certainty on your side being that we’ll have a worldwide government with far more power than anything imaginable today. Frankly, I think that is actually the driving force behind AGW theory to begin with. History is with me on that, by the way. Remember the coming Ice Age of the ’70′s? Stopping that would have required a world government too.

  • jackdale

    Classic cherry picking that gives inordinate emphasis to the strongest El Nino event in the previous 50 years.

    According to Roy Spencer and John Christy RSS is spurious.

    “Anyway, my UAH cohort and boss John Christy, who does the detailed matching between satellites, is pretty convinced that the RSS data is undergoing spurious cooling because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit, to which they are then applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model, which does not quite match reality. We have not used NOAA-15 for trend information in years…we use the NASA Aqua AMSU, since that satellite carries extra fuel to maintain a precise orbit.”

    Their 17 year trend is up.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2013/trend/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2013

  • BobDow123

    If NOTHING has YET convinced you that the man-made global warming cabal has left the realm of science and is now firmly ensconced as a true-believer cult (often attended by an anti-capitalist, anti-growth, socialist political agenda), read the comments and responses below. MEANWHILE, real science marches on, complete with more accurate theories, models and data that challenges the anthropomorphic hypothesis. Of course, if you are a member of the cult (with the IPCC as High Priests), …… nevermind. Real science will march on without you just fine.

    • zlop

      Anthropogenic lies enhance
      UNelected UNscientific IPCC corruption.

  • progressivehead

    Funded by big oil…so much for credibility:

    ClimateDepot.com is being financed by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a nonprofit in Washington that advocates for free-market solutions to environmental issues. Public tax filings for 2003-7 (the last five years for which documents are available) show that the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the ExxonMobil Foundation and foundations associated with the billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, a longtime financier of conservative causes, including being the primary source of money used to fund attacks against Bill Clinton during the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky eras of his presidency [1]. According to a report issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists, from 1998-2005, approximately 23% of the total ExxonMobil funding for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow was directed by ExxonMobil for climate change activities [p. 32].

    • zlop

      Big Oil wants to raise the price of Oil,
      and is part of the Greenie warming CO2 scam.

      • josh

        omfg shut the fuck up, CO2 CAUSES HEAT RETENTION IT IS NOT A SCAM. IT IS PHYSICS.

        • zlop

          Arrhenius predicted, as high as, 7.2C for CO2 doubling. He was wrong. Greenhouse gases cool, only a little.

          • zzz05

            Greenhouse gases cool. Now there’s a novel hypothesis. One the Climatedepot folks apparently agree with, as nobody yet has seen fit to comment or question.

          • zlop

            It is simple physics. In still air, no convection, Energy/Molecule tends to the same value (kinetic + potentional + rotation&vibration) — Stratosphere has a lot more energy/molecule, therefore, atmosphere is warmed from above and cooled below — (Arrhenius warming, from the bottom, does not exist)

            Others come to the same Cooling conclusion.

    • planet8788

      Doesn’t change the facts. And the facts are. 18 years no warming. Probably cooling.

  • zlop

    Global cooling has started,
    as indicated, not only by the Actic Vortex,
    but also, by RSS http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20RSS%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20AndCO2.gif

  • http://www.roughscience.com.au Sean M Elliott

    Why 17 years and 6 months? Seems an oddly specific number. I suppose it’s because if you make it a nice, round 18 months, the trend goes up.

    • zzz05

      Exactly. The whole ruse depends on 1998 being an exceptionally hot year, and on linear least squares regression. If you run it from 1999 to date, guess what; it’s warming If you run it from 1997 to date but delete 1998, guess what; it’s warming. If you run it from farther back to date, it’s warming. Of course, the hardcore denialists will scream that by using the phrase “but delete 1998″ I have shown myself to be in favor of altering the data and therefore perverting true science; whereas anyone who has ever seriously done any linear regression will understand the complicated and far from cookbook procedures involved in reducing noise in the data, identifying outliers, etc., and anybody whose common sense is not overpowered by their predetermined conclusions has to admit that a trend or lack of trend which entirely depends on the existence of one single point out of many is nothing to hang your hat on. Particularly when the defining characteristic of that point is how unusually hot it was, not very many years ago. We often have days in June that hit 90 degrees; that doesn’t mean July and August won’t be warmer than June, even if I can find a string of dates beginning with that 90 degree day that fail to show a positive trend which is statistically significant. Just because one single test of your hypothesis fails reject the null hypothesis in no way is proof of the null hypothesis, for you philosophers of science out there who I am sure read this blog religiously.

    • planet8788

      At a whopping rate of .05C per century?

  • Its happening

    Look at this graph it start in 1850 and ends at 2013 it is a lot of years, but some where between the 1950′s and 2013 is began to get warmer. This graph is the average global temperature. So non-believers, believe it.

  • zlop

    Simple cloudy reasoning proves that,
    extra greenhouse gases will cool more.

    Below the clouds — radiative equilibrium.
    Above the clouds — extra radiation to space.
    Colder air above the clouds, lowers clouds.
    Lower clouds, lower surface temperature.

  • John Mackay
  • Seth

    if you go to http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html and look at the graphs, the TLT graph does not show a flat line, higher up in the atmosphere does, but not near the surface. Nice Try.

    • zlop

      Stratosphere is cooling. Net warming, of the atmosphere, is from high up, not from near the surface. Average cloud height decreased this century.

      Take a while for the Oceans to cool. However, we could have a Willie the Woolly Mammoth of a decline.

  • TymTrav777Karen

    I have read and am rereading Rescuing a Broken America by Michael Coffman, Ph.D. He has a whole chapter entitled, “Biodiversity and Global Warming”. He is a brilliant writer and has tons of footnotes which are also extremely informative. In this chap. he mentions in Nov 2009, 1000′s of emails were hacked or leaked to the public from the computer of Britain’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) which demonstrated that there was collusion, exaggeration, manipulation of data, conspiracy & possible illegal destruction of data by top people at the CRU re: that disprove man-made global warming!!! Here are some great references from his book:

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf

    http://www.petitionproject.org/

    http://www.nocapandtrade.us/clean_energy_is_pure_fantasy.htm

    http://trib.com/…/article_f137b016-446e-578d-aff6…

  • TymTrav777Karen

    I have read and am rereading Rescuing a Broken America by Michael Coffman, Ph.D. He has a whole chapter entitled, “Biodiversity and Global Warming”. He is a brilliant writer and has tons of footnotes which are also extremely informative. In this chap. he mentions in Nov 2009, 1000′s of emails were hacked or leaked to the public from the computer of Britain’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) which demonstrated that there was collusion, exaggeration, manipulation of data, conspiracy & possible illegal destruction of data by top people at the CRU re: that disprove man-made global warming!!! Here are some great references from his book:

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf

    http://www.petitionproject.org/

    http://www.nocapandtrade.us/clean_energy_is_pure_fantasy.htm

    http://trib.com/…/article_f137b016-446e-578d-aff6…

    • zlop

      Those were the days that Science died.

      Science has become an afterlife belief system.

      ““If you accept the science,” Kerry continued. “If you accept that the science is causing climate to change”

  • ethan

    im using this for school! =-] global warming fals

  • JezmundFamily

    How much more disingenuous can you get? If you knew what you were talking about, you’d know how small of a role surface temperatures play in determining global climate trends. The ocean is what matters most. And guess what? Warming has not slowed down in the slightest there. Atmospheric warming also continues uninterrupted. Surface temperature is subject to natural variation more than the ocean is. Between being at a solar minimum, La Niña and other factors, we expected to see surface temps plummet for a couple decades. The fact that they’ve stayed relatively stable shows how much overall warming has had an effect on temps even during a cooler period.

  • Steve Zakszewski

    For those of you who aren’t intellectually challenged, try imagining that blue line at 0, not at .25, and then ask yourself if that chart shows no global increase or if there was an increase and you were too lazy to actually look at the chart.