Global Warming Is A Farce

ScreenHunter_166 Jan. 31 14.21

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

Global temperatures are cooler now than they were 30 years ago. But the farce is worse than it seems. Two large volcanic eruptions during the last 20 years of the 20th century made temperatures almost half a degree colder than they would have been otherwise. The graph below removes those records and shows that there has been almost no warming in the past 30 years.

ScreenHunter_166 Jan. 31 14.23

Alarmists are very lucky that there haven’t been any large eruptions in the last 15 years, because the depravity of their scam would be obvious to everybody.

About Tony Heller

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

232 Responses to Global Warming Is A Farce

  1. davidappell says:

    Can you explain why the oceans continue to warm? Or why the top layer (0-700 m) gained more heat in the last 16 years than in the prior such period?

    • sunsettommy says:

      First you state:
      “Can you explain why the oceans continue to warm? Or why the top layer (0-700 m) gained more heat in the last 16 years than in the prior such period?”

      Which you have yet to support meanwhile you suddenly want to go much deeper and blovate over 2000 meters deep all the while you still fail utterly to show clear evidence that it is CO2 doing the warming as YOU claim.

      Meanwhile you should look into the links Bill Illis posted here showing how much influence the trade winds have in moving warm water around into pooled areas.:

      Your flaccid attempts to make a case for CO2 ends in flames……. again.

  2. davidappell says:

    It seems most of my comments here are being blocked. I take that as a badge of honor, and a surrender on “Steve’s” part.

    I won’t waste any more time here.

  3. Appell wants to argue that *any* detectable warming vindicates his position. And of course, the only explanation is CO2. So if the IPCC climate models best guess 3-4C of warming and the long term trend is 1C per century he is still proved right. The fact that the “problem” was exaggerated 3 or 4 times over, doesn’t matter…

  4. sthelensoregon says:

    Steve is now banning my comments. I win.

  5. Brian G Valentine says:

    David, don’t you have some climate porn or something to entertain yourself with rather than saturate blogs with graphs that people repeatedly debunk for you?

  6. davidappell says:
    February 1, 2013 at 2:26 am

    I won’t waste any more time here.

    davidappell says:
    February 1, 2013 at 3:38 am

    davidappell says:
    February 1, 2013 at 3:39 am

    davidappell says:
    February 1, 2013 at 3:39 am

    davidappell says:
    February 1, 2013 at 3:40 am

    davidappell says:
    February 1, 2013 at 3:41 am

    davidappell says:
    February 1, 2013 at 3:41 am

    davidappell says:
    February 1, 2013 at 3:44 am

    davidappell says:
    February 1, 2013 at 3:45 am


  7. sunsettommy says:

    Appell now B.S’s openly here since Bob has stated causes of warming in his blog before:

    That was one example.

    “Tisdale offers no reason for ocean warming, except if you buy his book. (=suckers.)”

    He clearly shows that the RATE of warming has greatly slowed down at his blog and repeatedly show that CO2 is not a driver of periodic warming/cooling in the ocean waters.

  8. sunsettommy says:

    A stupid statement from David who fails to notice that hot and bright ball in the sky:

    “What evidence shows solar insolation is responsible for ocean warming?”

    The waters get about 99.9% of the energy from the sun and the other .01% from warmist bullshitters like you.

  9. sunsettommy says:

    David writes:

    “What is your evidence?

    Start here:

    Ah yes the one dimensional TSI numbers.


  10. sunsettommy says:

    What is so funny that David has not once showed any evidence that it is CO2 warming the oceans because he knows that IR radiation can’t penetrate past the surface waters but Visible and UV light goes well into the oceans depth of a few hundred meters which CO2 does not absorb or block at all.

    The fact that the Sun ITSELF provides about 99% of the energy in the oceans does not faze David at all and that is why I laugh at him for his abject stupidity.

  11. sunsettommy says:

    “Provide your evidence. Clearly, you have none.”

    It is in the moderation big waiting for Steve to approve it.

    You have yet to show that CO2 is warming the ocean waters and you have deliberately been ignoring Wills question about what caused the warming from 1650 to 1950.

    Since the entire global warming propaganda is built around the impossible idea that a trace gas with very limited absorption windows and beaten badly by water vapor in the tropics where the vast amount of the planets energy originates Warmist/Alarmists has to prove it is happening by the bullshit route and all David does here is babble about some short term warming of water and says NOTHING about CO2 causing it.

    Meanwhile here is something called a “peer reviewed” paper to mull over:

    New paper shows N. Atlantic Ocean cooled from 1953-2007


  12. sunsettommy says:

    Will writes,

    “Sunsettommy, but the atmosphere is kept slightly warmer. This extra heat can then be absorbed by the ocean, because the surface is choppy and churns a lot.”

    Not very much because it is always rising due to evaporation which carries the heat upward and that the Sun DIRECTLY provides 99% of the solar energy a few hundred meters below the surface and at higher energy levels than IR runs in.

    Keep in mind the level of heat capacity of the water and the air:

    Energy Content Atmosphere vs. Ocean

  13. sunsettommy says:


    David you just destroyed your earlier argument because of what you wrote here:

    “The ocean has 1000x the heat capacity of the atmosphere (mass x specific heat)

    Hence any energy imbalance will create more heat there than in the atmosphere, by a large factor.

    This is basic physics 101.”

    And where does most of the heat come from that is overwhelmingly powered by solar radiation that warms the atmosphere?

    Really how did you miss the obvious, one that has not changed for at least a billion years.The sun warms the oceans and the oceans warms the atmosphere.

    Carry on with your self inflicted damages.

  14. sunsettommy says:

    David now enters the twilight stupid zone because he tries to shoot down a chart I posted recently that actually supports his basic argument he just posted:

    “Provide data and calculations, not pseudoscientific gobblygook.”
    David just wrote:

    ““The ocean has 1000x the heat capacity of the atmosphere (mass x specific heat)…”

    The chart shows this:

    But as Jeff observes that ; “See the problem is that if CO2 is really trapping/retarding/backradiating heat, we would be able to see it in ocean temps more accurately than air. That’s because so much of the earth’s surface heat capacity is in the water.

    All the energy is in the water, whatever happens to air is moot. And the plot worth a thousand words from Roy Spencer’s post shows this:”

    The problem is that the Sun does about 99% of the ocean warming so that leave only crumbs for a few CO2 and extremely few CH4 molecules to do their impossible warming frolic.

    You are really messed up David.

  15. sunsettommy says:

    David with another pathetic response to my comment:

    “Interesting — you think that a little blog comment counters the careful work of professional scientists who spend all their time gathering and analyzing data.

    Have you written a letter to Nature with your valuable criticism of Harries et al? The world is dying to know, of course….”

    He he,but you can’t answer against it yourself with that PH.D in your back pocket.

    What I posted IS based on what scientists published but you are too stupid to notice because you are in love with Miss CO2 and her son CH4.

    David A. is a man who apparently thinks that a couple of trace gases is a more powerful driver of the climate than the sun he apparely hates since he is continually downplaying that hot and bright ball in the sky.

    I wonder what classification of mental illness does he fall under?

  16. sunsettommy says:

    Echoing Will N.

    Please explain what caused the warming trend from 1650-1950.

  17. sunsettommy says:

    David A. and his ever tightening circle of absurdity:

    “Blog comments are just blog comments — any monkey can write them. They mean very, very little in the pantheon of science.”


    “People like you quote blog posts because it’s really the only thing you have available to you. Imagine: Anthony Watts is supposed to be your savior.”

    The same meathead who has his own science blog where he comments in and quotes others.

    Do you have multiple personalities we don’t know about because you keep slapping yourself down.

  18. sunsettommy says:

    The chart Steve started this blog post that David A has avoided ever since with his meandering bull crap clearly shows NO warming trend since 1998 a 15 year run.That includes the ocean water surface too since this is from RSS.

    The IPCC has projected a .20C or even up to .30C warming for the first decade based on the AGW conjecture and we got ZERO! The second decade is also running well below the projected warming rate too.

    David you have nothing left to B.S. us with since we read the reports and see the problems all over it.

  19. sunsettommy says:

    David just does not know when to quit exposing his stupidity:

    “Why haven’t you written a letter to Nature, disproving the famous result of Harries et al? Too busy? Afraid?”

    Yawn what a feeble response to the well known fact that the Sun does 99.9% of the warming of the oceans which warms the air.

    Why haven’t YOU written a letter to Nature,exposing the famous numerous FAILED predictions/projections from 1990 onward of future temperature trends published by the IPCC all based on the AGW conjecture?

    Again and again you and your propaganda camp ignore the obvious that the SUN the freaking SUN does virtually all of the heat/energy input to the planets system.

  20. sunsettommy says:

    David says,

    “Your link does not work.”

    It works for me.

  21. sunsettommy says:

    My long post must be considered spam so I break it up into smaller posts:


    Here are a few “peer reviewed” science papers you never read:

    Paper shows solar activity at end of 20th century was the highest in 1200 years

    New paper finds another mechanism by which the Sun controls climate

  22. sunsettommy says:

    New paper finds significant, persistent influence of solar activity on regional cloud cover & climate

    Paper finds solar activity at end of 20th century was highest in 9,400 years

  23. sunsettommy says:

    New paper explains how the Sun controls ocean oscillations

    Paper shows solar activity at end of 20th century was near highest levels of past 11,500 years

  24. sunsettommy says:

    New paper finds climate responds to short and long-term changes in solar activity

    New paper finds solar cycle changes Earth temperature

    To name a few………………………

  25. sunsettommy says:

    Once again David shows what a poor reader he is as he whines:

    “Where, exactly, is the RSS ocean data?
    Link please?”

    I stated “RSS covers most of the Ocean surface and since it is about 70% of the planets surface and still no warming since 1998 anyway you are NOT doing well here.”

    and Will stated N:

    “If you follow the link it’s lower troposphere.” and it is the GLOBAL mean too.

    Steve posted that chart and the link to the data and you still did not know that it covers most of the planets surface area and I said Ocean SURFACE not the ocean as a whole.

    There is no warming trend since 1998 and YOU KNOW IT!

    You are hopeless.

    • I think Appell is getting confused over global SST data and temperature measurements at depth. Obviously RSS measures the atmosphere. The closest equivalent would be to use HADSST2, which only measures oceans surface temps. (Where the ocean makes contact with the atmosphere.) Which is – surprise surprise – in agreement with RSS broadly speaking, as one would expect… You can probably milk 18 years of cooling out of that particular data set…

      • davidappell says:

        You clearly do not understand why a volume measurement is far more instructive than a surface measurement or atmospheric measurement.

        You’ve become a waste of time, Will. Good night.

      • sunsettommy says:

        Oh he is more than confused Will.

        I never said RSS measured the waters itself just over the surface of it but that was enough for him to stumble over it like a drunkard:

        “Where, exactly, is the RSS ocean data?
        Link please?”

        I had written:

        “RSS covers most of the Ocean surface and since it is about 70% of the planets surface and still no warming since 1998 anyway you are NOT doing well here.”

        What can I say?

      • I understand perfectly well. Which is why a few years of ARGO data which shows flat ocean temps in the 0-700m range is hugely significant. You would need decades of atmospheric data to reach the same sort of conclusions about global energy balance.

      • davidappell says:

        RSS measures the lower troposphere and up. They do not measure the ocean surface.

    • davidappell says:

      The lower troposphere is not the ocean.

  26. sunsettommy says:

    David continues to manifest his confusion vividly:

    “You clearly do not understand why a volume measurement is far more instructive than a surface measurement or atmospheric measurement.”

    Good night David.

  27. Bill Illis says:

    Here a chart showing the relative warming of the oceans versus the warming that should be happening.

    10^22 joules people.

  28. Brad says:

    I’m sitting in the small regional Lafayette Airport laughing so hard my belly hurts. Mr. Will, you’re awesome.

  29. Glacierman says:

    “I want to produce that data and I can tell you’re drooling for it. I can sense the saliva.

    But.. first rule of dog training. Don’t give the treat until you get the trick.”

    But David is a Cat Person…….you probably won’t be able to train him, but if you leave the data in an open box he will probably hop in and sleep on it. The nap, however, will not help him grasp reality!

  30. sunspots says:

    Hello, its nice article on the topic of media print, we all be aware of media is
    a enormous source of information.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *