Today’s Climate Fraudster Of The Day – Andrew Freedman

Screen Shot 2016-05-15 at 8.45.30 AM

Screen Shot 2016-05-15 at 8.45.48 AM

Earth just recorded its warmest April on record, and it wasn’t even close

More accurate satellite temperatures show that April 1998 was warmer, and this April was just another El Nino spike – which will quickly disappear. April temperatures have generally been declining over the past 18 years. Why did Andrew forget to mention that?

Screen Shot 2016-05-15 at 8.43.40 AM

RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.txt

Screen Shot 2016-05-15 at 8.49.43 AM

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

94 Responses to Today’s Climate Fraudster Of The Day – Andrew Freedman

  1. Andy DC says:

    Again, biased to start in late 1970’s, after almost 40 years of global cooling. Start the chart in 1938 or even 1958, it would show very little warming.

  2. R. Shearer says:

    I’m pretty sure that the earth experienced much hotter weather for equivalent periods in its orbit around the sun. It was probably even warmer since the time the Romans invented the month of April for their calendar, either before or after the invention of thermometers.

  3. My guess is: it was much warmer 135,000 years ago when the Ocean was 60 feet higher than today or 14 million years ago when the Ocean was 100 feet higher than today as we know it was much warmer 1000 years ago than today when Montana had California Climate for 200 years after 20 Ice ages in the last 2 million years of 4.6 billion years of very extreme progressive variable Climate Change for a dozen reasons as we have Ice core samples showing us Ice Ages with much higher level of CO2 in the Air than today ~ ignored by Climate Religion
    while ~ The first Atmosphere was ~
    Water vapor and Carbon based Oxygen = CO2 = Carbon dioxide
    causing = Nature = Environment = Carbon Cycle = all Carbon based Life on this Carbon based Earth ~ called Pollution by Climate Religion
    Bruce

  4. tomB says:

    All I know is on May 15 in southeast Wisconsin I woke up to an ice covered bird bath where’s the predicted warming? If I recall the most dire models said we’d be 5 to 8 degrees warmer by now. For sure that isn’t happening

  5. Justa Joe says:

    In Chicago land it’s been a decidedly chilly April. I’d hate to see what the coldest April “ever ” looked like.

  6. Justa Joe says:

    I hope that the more the warmists pull these hysterics the more the public will become desensitized to it as they see it’s BS.

    • Z says:

      I saw this article on google news last night.. Beyond the one troll commenting on everyone else’s comments and proclaiming “science”, there were reports from all over the country stating the opposite of the article.. From TX to NC reports of ice and not-hot “weather”.. A most refreshing change in attitude! You simply can’t convince a shivering person that it is hot out and maintain credibility..

  7. I just discovered a new climate moron who makes Bill McKibben and Jim Hansen look like deniers. Guy McPherson. Wow! What a maroon.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK3aVa6tMZE

    Wow. This guy’s brain is a tumor with teeth and hair.

    • Barbara says:

      Guy Mc Pherson! I had never heard of him. but Morgan Wright, good description of this man. I wish Tony would address some of his catastrophy nonsense. He is an embarrassment to science, his predictions are wilder than Ehrlich (current ones- not the ones which already have not happened), Hanson, Gore, etc. His tipping points are really over the top! I had to quit listening. He sickened me.

  8. gofer says:

    Here in Mid-Tn, the temperature dropped to low 40s on May 14, 15, and 16th. In 2014, temperature dropped to low 40s on May 15 and 16th. Some call it blackberry winter, but the weather seems pretty stable and predictable just like the final frost being around April 15th. This year it came on the 17th.

  9. AndyG55 says:

    OT.. but I hope you all enjoy this

    http://www.ebaumsworld.com/media/embed/84870597

  10. Kirye says:

    In Japan, April 1998 was the hottest April on record.
    The temperature for April in Japan has remained at the same level since 1989.

    http://kiryenet.up.n.seesaa.net/kiryenet/image/AprE697A5E69CACE381AE4E69C88E381AEE88BB1E8BF91E6B097E6B8A9E5818FE5B7AE202016E381BEE381A7.png?d=a0

    Data Source: http://www.data.jma.go.jp/cpdinfo/temp/list/mon_jpn.html

  11. Robert quell says:

    Your data is for the lower troposphere, which is warming slower than the surface of the planet. Not that any of your readers would notice that. Good job of perpetuating ignorance.

    • tonyheller says:

      Global warming theory says that the troposphere will warm faster than the surface. But thanks for being a moron.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Seems Robert has brought his own deep-seated ignorance with him, probably from newspaper gullibility like all the AGW trolls.

      Did you know that the only reason the surface is warming faster than the zero trend in the troposphere (apart from El Nino events) is because of the massive “adjustments” in the surface temperatures which basically creates that warming.

      There is NO WARMING in the satellite data except from El Nino events, which have absolutely nothing to do with CO2

      In the one country that has an untampered surface stations set, USCRN , the ZERO trend matches RSS and UAH satellite data almost exactly.

    • Sunsettommy says:

      Robert, does that mean you admit there is no “hotspot” after all?

    • Your brain is a teratoma.

      The lower troposphere absorbs all the upwelling IR in the 15-micron CO2 band, which it absorbs to extinction in the lower 100 meters, which is the cause of the greenhouse effect, which is the cause of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, which is why the surface would warm. But you say the lower troposphere is warming slower? Slower, really?

      Excuse me moron, but if the lower troposphere is supposed to warm the surface, moron, shouldn’t it warm first, moron?

  12. AndyG55 says:

    TH, You will like this.

    https://sunshinehours.net/2016/05/16/usa-noaa-april-2016-24th-warmest-max/

    real data and all.

    Even though 2016 was the warmest April in the much adjusted NOAA data-farce, ..

    … it appears that 1946 was the second warmest.

  13. Philip Shehan says:

    Looking at month by month figures is nonsense. It’s the statistically significant multidecade trend that counts.

    The trend and 2 sigma confidence limits for the entire RSS record since 1979 are

    0.130 ±0.064 °C/decade

    Over at Mr Bolt’s blog today someone wrote:

    “The last 9 years were not warmer than the 9 years before let alone the 0.2°C needed to convince people that temperatures would be an unbearable 2°C more in 100 years. How stupid would you have to be to still insist on “decarbonising” the economy.”

    I pointed out that:

    “The noise levels in such short periods makes any such comparisons meaningless, whether taking averages or trends.

    I will even use the “skeptics” favourite cherry picked data set, RSS.

    For the last 9 years (from 2007)

    Trend: 0.246 ±0.527 °C/decade

    For the previous 9 years:

    Trend -0.058 ±0.512 °C/decade”

    But a visual representation of this and other 9 year period demonstrates how flawed the case for a “pause” based on a cherry picked start point at the el nino event of 1998 is.

    http://tinyurl.com/j2hevoo

    I am told that while it is fine to begin with a data period with an el nino event it is unfair to end that period with the 2016 el nino event, but other skeptics have now begun affirming that el nino events have little or nothing to do with CO2 concentration.

    They have not gone so far as to say that applies to the 1998 event as well as the 2016 event. And indeed above it is noted that:

    “this April was just another El Nino spike – which will quickly disappear.”

    But people still want to cling to the 1998 el nino spike to claim a “pause”.

    When you break up statistically significant warming trends into short term periods, be they 9 or 15 years, the segments vary from the long term trend due to natural fluctuations.

    The confidence limits are correspondingly large so there is no statistically significant difference between any of these segments or the stistically significant warming trend for the entire satellite period.

    The “pause” was always a phantom. That applies to 15 year periods also.

    • AndyG55 says:

      The yawn that is the rabid alarmist, and mathematically inept, Dr Brainless returns !! Get over it yourself pestilent cretin.

      There is no warming before the 1998 EL Nino,

      • AndyG55 says:

        There is no warming between the 2 El Ninos.

      • AndyG55 says:

        The ONLY way you can show any warming is by including the El Ninos in your trend… as you have done on you feeble little graph.

        You are a mathematically illiterate FRAUDSTER Philip, and everybody knows it.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “But people still want to cling to the 1998 el nino spike to claim a “pause”.’;

      OMG.. you still want to use that.

      How F***ING DUMB are you !!!

      Its a BACK calculation.. and the 1998 El Nino is the ONLY thing stopping that ZERO TREND back calculation covering the whole of the satellite record.

      The El Ninos are the ONLY warming in the whole of the real climate data.

      That is proven by the FACT that the Antarctic has NOT warmed for the whole of the satellite record.

      The Southern Ex-tropics have not warmed for 20 years

      USA has not warmed since USCRN was introduced to get rid of TOBs mal-adjustments and UHI effects.

      As shown above , there was NO WARMING in Japan from 1950-1990, and none since the El Nino.

      This “warming” is meant to be global… but it only comes from El Nino events, and places where surface data can be readily adjusted.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “case for a “pause” based on a cherry picked start point at the el nino event of 1998 ”

      YET AGAIN, you show you abject ignorance on how the “plateau” is calculated.

      Your stock in trade.. abject ignorance.

    • Sunsettommy says:

      Mr. Shehan writes: “The trend and 2 sigma confidence limits for the entire RSS record since 1979 are

      0.130 ±0.064 °C/decade”

      Thank you for showing that the small warming trend since 1979 is well below the IPCC’s warming temperature rate projection based on the AGW conjecture.

  14. Philip Shehan says:

    Well I knew this would be the response from AndyG55. He cannot discuss scince without indulging in hysterical abuse.

    A typical denier l;oser.

  15. Philip Shehan says:

    It’s called anthropogenic global warming and it looks like this.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/AMTI.png

    Stand by for the hysterical spittle flecked denunciations from Andy.

  16. Philip Shehan says:

    Here is a shorter term view from 1970 with a linear temperature fit.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1970/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/from:1970/normalise/scale:0.95/offset:0.45/plot/gistemp/from:1970/trend

    The trend is 0.180 ±0.030 °C/decade.

    “the 1998 El Nino is the ONLY thing stopping that ZERO TREND back calculation covering the whole of the satellite record.”

    Well, no. As this data and that of the entire RSS record shows:

    0.130 ±0.064 °C/decade.

    Then there is the other satellite data set, UAH:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1958/mean:1/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/normalise/scale:0.65/offset:0.09/plot/uah/from:1979/trend/plot/uah/to:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:1999/trend

    The trend for the entire period is 0.149 ±0.065 °C/decade

    For the period before the 1998 el nino event

    0.034 ±0.178 °C/decade

    After the 1998 el nino event

    0.192 ±0.180 °C/decade

    The entire period and that after the el nino event of 1998 show statistically significant warming. The period before the el nino event does not but for both the short periods the confidence limits are very large.

    The fact is that there is no statistical difference between the long period and the two short periods.

    So there is no evidence that warming occurs only in steps with el nino events. or that twithout the el nino event there would be no warming at all.

    But if there was such evidence, would andy like to explain how there is an overall increase on the temperature of 0.130 ±0.064, 0.149 ±0.065, 0.180 ±0.030 °C/decade for RSS and UAH data from 1979 and Gistemp data from 1970?

    ENSO eventstransfer heat between the oceans to the atmosphere. They do not increase the overall heat of the earth-ocean system.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Yet there you go again, using the El Ninos to create the trend yet again.

      Its the only way you can, because without them, you know there is no warming.Pretend all you like, but you aren’t fooling anyone.

      Your trained monkey with a ruler hasn’t got any better… keep up the training.

    • AndyG55 says:

      And please.. GISS temp… roflmao

      Massive invalid adjustments… in a vain attempt to create something that doesn’t exist. A meaningless load of garbage.

      And so hilarious that you have now figured out how to tilt the CO2 trend to match the fabricated trend in GISS., or the El Nino step created trend in the satellite record.

      Mathematical nonsense at its most fraudulent…

      … brought to you all courtesy of the Dr Brainless’s monkey.

      Your monkey with a ruler might fool you, Phillip, but he isn’t going to fool anyone else.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “So there is no evidence that warming occurs only in steps with el nino events. or that without the el nino event there would be no warming at all.”

      Graphs above show clearly that there was no warming before the 1998-2001 El Nino, and no warming between the El Ninos.

      You always have to use part of the El Ninos to create any trend.

      That is what every one of your monkey’s graphs does.

      You should look at them before you post them for a change, see that you are not putting forward too much of the mathematical fraud that is been your meme over many years.

    • AndyG55 says:

      I really hope you come back with another attempt at data mis-representation toward the end of the year when the El Nino effect has subsided and temperatures drop back down to the level of the zero trend between 2001-2015, or quite probably even lower.

      It will be hilarious watching your monkey try to drag a warming trend out of that.

  17. AndyG55 says:

    Just for those who don’t know Dr Brainless’s (Philip Shehan) little tricks.

    First he creates trends in the satellite data by using the El Nino steps, (makes it all look mathematical to try to show how clever he is).

    … or uses data with a massively fabricated trend, like GISS or HadCrud.

    Then, by using the scaling function in wood for trees, he aligns the trend in CO2, which is actually pretty much linear, with the linear trend he has created in the data.

    Its a standard piece of sleight of hand statistical malpractice used in base-level propaganda to fool the unaware or to pander to the AGW brain-dead.

    That is what Phillip thinks he excels in, propaganda statistical malpractice

    …. but his attempts are really quite childish.

  18. Philip Shehan says:

    Andy. If you can manage to wipe the spittle of the screen enough to read this.

    I do not select el nino events to suit temperature trends. Your fellow “skeptics” do.

    They insist on starting their beloved “pause” with the el nino event of 1998. Then they claim that the existence of this “pause” disproves the connection between CO2 and temperature.

    I point out that el nino events have nothing to do with CO2 concentration but are a natural fluctuation.

    They ignored or ridiculed this objection, until the recent el nino event appeared which they wish to discount.

    They suddenly started telling me that el nino events have nothing to do with CO2 concentration but are a natural fluctuation.

    As you have here:

    “this April was just another El Nino spike – which will quickly disappear.”

    But being the fair minded guy that I am I took their cherry picked trend and a satellite data set (because like you they throw in the furphy that satellite data is unsullied gospel and surface data corrupted Rubbish. Even though the scientific director of RSS says that is rubbish.

    Here is the prisitne UAH satellite data and the “massively fabricated” Gistemp data I have used here:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1970/mean:12/offset:-0.35/plot/uah/mean:12

    Mathematically there is no statistical difference between the trends:

    0.149 ±0.065 and 0.180 ±0.030

    What you call my mathematical nonsense is the standard way we scientists evaluate data.

    And “skeptics” positively fell in love with the concept of statistical significance when Phil Jones “admitted ” that a 15 year warming trend was not statistically significant. Even if they did not understand the concept and thought that meant that the trend was “close to zero.” They were all over statistical significance like a cheap suit.

    Then another 18 months of data rendered the warming trend statistically significant and they lost all interest in the concept. (As I began up the top, short term data is almost never sattistically significant because the ‘noise’, the short term natural fluctuations dominate the ‘signal’, the magnitude of the temperature rise.)

    But start applying the concept to their beloved pause and the “septics” are suddenly utterly hostile to the concept.

    Which is why I have been showing this graph and the trend values for several years.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/to:2015.5/plot/uah/to:2015.5/trend/plot/uah/from:1999/to:2015.5/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2015.5/trend

    Just to keep the “skeptics” who tell me that whereas it’s fine to start there cherry picked data set with an el nino event it is unfair and unreasonable to end it with one, I have even left the latter out.

    And I have included your own cherry picked preference for data between the the el nino events.

    The trends from 1979 (the beginning of satellite data), 1998 (“skeptics” usual cherry picked starting date), 1999 (your cherry picked starting date) to July 2015 (the cherry picked end date for all those who find the 2016 el nino event inconvenient) are

    0.139 ±0.064 °C/decade

    0.076 ±0.189 °C/decade

    0.148 ±0.177 °C/decade

    So your cherry picked data set shows the largest trend value of the lot.

    And No “pause”. Just a non statistically significant reduction in warming trend for the “skeptics” chosen period, cherry picked within an inch of its life.

  19. Philip Shehan says:

    And about the relationship between CO2 and temperature shown here:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1958/to:2015.5/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/normalise/scale:0.6/offset:0.04/plot/uah/from:1979/to:2015.5/trend

    The choice of scaling is indeed arbitrary.

    Which is why I used that scaling to specifically counter claims that there was no correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature based on graphs with equally arbitrary scaling like this one:

    http://tinyurl.com/jgdjo26

    What is NOT arbitrary is the actual mathematical relationship between the the data represented on the graph.

    Now I am not using mathematics to show how clever I am. I have a PhD in Nuclear magnetic resonance, numerous publications in the scientific literature, awards and citations which demonstrate that. The thing is, you cannot do “Real Science” without using mathematics.

    If you find mathematics scary, go to the result at the bottom.

    UAH trend from 1979

    0.143 °C/decade

    The temperature change for the 37 year period is 0.529 C

    The change in CO2 concentration is from 338 to 400 ppm.

    0.529 = k log(400/338) where k is the proportionality constant

    k = 0.529/0.168 = 3.13

    The temperature rise for a doubling of CO2 concentration is therefore
    3.13 x log2 =

    2.2 °C

    This is within the predicted IPCC range of 1.5 to 4.5 C.

  20. Philip Shehan says:

    Morgan. People whinge and whine about all temperature data sets other than satellite being corrupted. Even Carl Mears of RSS rejects that notion but in order to keep the critics happy I use satellite data which begins in 1979.

    I have also used Gistemp data which Andy here goes feral about, even when as I show there is no statistical difference between the UAH and Gistemp data.

    I can repeat the calculation for the ECS using Gistemp temperature data going back to 1958 when Muana Loa CO2 data began to be collected.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1958/mean:1/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/normalise/scale:0.9/offset:0.35

    The ECS from this data can be calculated.

    Trend from 1958

    0.155 ±0.022 °C/decade

    giving a temperature increase for the entire 58 year period of 0.899 °C

    The change in CO2 concentration for that period is from 315 to 400 ppm

    0.899 = k log(400/315) where k is the proportionality constant

    k = 0.899/0.239 = 3.76

    The temperature rise for a doubling of CO2 concentration is therefore

    3.76 x log2 =

    2.6 °C

    The ECS from 1938 could be calculated but I would have to find CO2 data before 1958.

    I do not anticipate there would be any significant difference in the ECS as it is a parameter for global temperatures, not merely the arctic.

    • Philip Shehan says:

      Andy. I have gone along with the people who want to cherry pick satellite data because they claim that it is pristine and unsullied when even Carl Mears of RSS says that is not so.

      It does not extend to using the outlier RSS data which “skeptics” insist on using to the exclusion of all others , UAH satellite data included.

      I further not that my selection of dates which fir your criterion of being between the el nino events, 1999 to July 2015 is not sufficient for your purposes. You want to go from 2001.1 to 2015.

      can see why you are unhappy with the UAH data for that period because it leaves your claim in tatters:

      Trend: 0.148 ±0.177 °C/decade

      Gistemp data for that period:

      Trend: 0.156 ±0.119 °C/decade

      Well fine. The RSS and UAH data for your even more finely trimmed cherry picked period:

      Trend: -0.055 ±0.225 °C/decade

      Trend: 0.062 ±0.223 °C/decade

      Gistemp:

      Trend: 0.082 ±0.146 °C/decade

      It is clear why you wanted to shave your cherry picked data even further and insist on RSS over UAH satellite data.

      But the fact is that even looking at your very, very finely tuned cherry picked data, the 2 sigma confidence limits are so large that there is no statistically significant difference between the RSS and UAH data and Gistemp data for that period.

      Which is where I started.

      For short term data sets, the noise dominates the signal, making the error margins so large you can drive a bus between them.

      They are virtually useless as any sort of indication of the real trend.

  21. Philip Shehan says:

    Morgan. The data here gives a CO2 concentration of 307 ppm in 1938

    http://tinyurl.com/h8ne4lc

    The Gistemp temperature trend from 1938 is 0.105 °C/decade.

    This results in an ECS of 2.1 °C

    • David A says:

      Philip;

      Like always it depends on what data set you use and when or what years version of that particular surface set, as the past has been dramatically changed and there is no step by step accountability for how and why the disparate global data sets went from .3 plus degrees global cooling (.6 degrees N.H.) from the 1940s (with accounts of decreasing polar ice, to the ice age scare peak n the late 1970s. (with accounts of increasing polar ice and crop failures due to cold)

      You also ignore completely that surface warming is not tropospheric warming, so, as bad as the IPCC models are for the surface, they are far worse for the troposphere. (Expected to overall warm 20 percent faster then the surface.)

      The observed warming (with all its problems and adjustments) from about 1920 to about 1945 cannot have been CO2 induced. There was not a sufficient CO2 change. Even AR4 said so. The cooling from about 1945 to 1975 cannot have been CO2 induced since CO2 warms.

      The lack of temperature change this century, except for the 2015 El Nino spike, shows natural variation is still present since CO2 went up a lot and temps didn’t budge. The basic tuning period for CMIP3, and almost all for CMIP5 (1975-2005). Tuning assumed AGW, no natural variation. And that attribution issue is where the wheels fell off. And why models have so grossly diverged from reality. And their ECS is about twice what a century’s worth of observations produces, while the natural forcing potential (I have seen some pretty good charts on surface insolation and albedo that show this potential)could possibly explain all the warming coming out of the little ice age.

      The world has been a lot warmer and cooler in the past, long before we ever started burning fossil fuels. From about 900 to 1300 AD, during the Medieval Warm Period or Medieval Optimum, the Earth was warmer than it is today.

      Also, Kyoto activists’ wild claims of more extreme weather events in response to global warming are simply unsupported by science. Contrary to pro-Kyoto rhetoric, history confirms that human society does far better in warm periods than in cooler times.

      All the observational EBM studies say Earth says TCR is about 1.3-1.35, abd Effective ECS is ~1.5 to 1.8 (depending on aerosol values and the time periods studied). TCR1.3 versus no feedbacks ECS 1.2 just shows that there is some positive water vapor feedback plus/minus other stuff. But the big areas of poor understanding are likely overestimating w/v feedback.

      Consider, there are multiple observational lines of evidence (posted elsewhere this week) suggesting halving positive water vapor feedback is about right, via physical mechanisms like Eschenbach’s tropical T storms which remove humidity from the troposphere and more.

      Eschenbach’s thesis demonstrate that feedback are not linear, but may well ramp up from positive to negative very quickly. Willis notes the tropical limitation on T and water T due to negative feedbacks amplifying as T increases. it is certainly not just the eventual removal of W/V via precipitation that reduces w/v feedback. As w/v increases in the atmosphere, surface insolation decreases dramatically, and energetic S/W insolation into the oceans decreases due to W/V alone, (even in clear sky conditions) and then more dramatically as albedo affects kick in. What is the relationship between increasing w/v and increasing clouds, both low and high level. We still do not have cloud feedback nailed down. (The IPCC admits this)

      No one knows the residence time “within the oceans” of disparate solar input via wavelength, therefore no one knows how much additional energy enters the oceans during multiple decadal strong solar cycles vs. weak solar cycles, or during changes in Jet stream patterns, the cause of which is not well understood.

      This also means the negative cloud feedback parameters must include the reduction of disparate SWR into the oceans, (note, not the atmosphere) which may accumulate or decrease for decades, (isolating said energy input from the atmosphere) depending on the earth’s ocean system equilibrium response to long term flux in S/W insolation entering the oceans.

      Therefore atmospheric feedback is not the same as ocean influence feedback, which may well be a very lagged response allowing positive feedback to the atmosphere, but longer term negative feedback from the oceans where the vast bulk of solar energy within earth’s system resides. Ocean energy residence time is far greater then the atmosphere, therefore any change in input into the oceans can have greater long term lagged affects then atmospheric changes.

      The first 700 meters of the oceans contain hundreds of times more energy then the entire atmosphere, and their release and accumulation of energy likely wags the little tail of the atmosphere. The mean T of the oceans is warmer then the mean T of the atmosphere. Global and hemispheric mean T always follow ocean surface T. (See charts depicting hemispheric and global mean T following AMO and PDO cycles)

      It thus appears logical that the more the land T increase, thus reducing their historic difference between the oceans and the atmosphere, the more the ocean surface T will limit how much land T can rise. If cloud feedback turns out to be more negative (due to reduced ocean insolation and release in ENSO cycles) then W/V feedback is more negative then thought.

      Also not all energy input results in T increase. Some of the energy from increased GHG may simply accelerates the hydrological cycle, thus decreasing T feedback. Do we know how much energy input may not manifest as T, but simply accelerate the hydrological cycle? How much energy does it take to increase wind, convection, evaporation and precipitation means on a global basis.? Any increase in the above not only require additional energy not manifesting as heat, but is also an acceleration of energy leaving the system. These responses are not likely to be linear as well.

      The idea of a set C.S. to doubling CO2 does not appear logical to me, as I see no reason to assume linear feedbacks to any parameters.

      • Philip Shehan says:

        David. Yes with global temperature data there are a number of data sets but in fact there is no significant difference between them.

        http://tinyurl.com/l5ojm6b

        As I have explained to Andy there are indeed regional differences in climate but we are discussing AGW here. GLOBAL warming.

        Yes there variations in global temperature over due to natural forcings, superimposed on the anthropogenic warming signal. You mention the 1940’s peak. This is one of a number of inflection points in the temperature record:

        http://www.realclimate.org/images//TempCP3.png

        which correlate with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

        http://research.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/img/pdo_latest.jpeg

        This was not recognized in 1981 when Hansen et al produced a model based on only 3 parameters, volcanoes, solar and CO2. “At a time when the northern hemisphere was cooling and the global mean temperature still below the values of the early 1940s”.

        This makes their prediction that the anthropogenic signal would become distinguishable from the natural variation sometime in the 1980s even more impressive. That model has stood the test of time.

        http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/

        I have shown the claim that there was a pause in temperature rise this century and that temperature has not kept pace with CO2 concentration is not supported by the data.

        It is true that there have been natural climate and temperature variations in the past, generally attributed to variation in solar output.

        But even skeptic blogger Jo Nova endorses proxy data showing that the medieval warm period and Roman warm period were no warmer than the current temperatureand probably lower. You need to add another 0.7 or 0.8 C of steep instrumental warming on to the proxy data which end in 1950 here.

        http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/medieval-warm-period-found-in-120-proxies-roman-era-similar-to-early-20th-century/

        Over geologic timescales of hundreds of thousands or millions of years there have been very large variations in climate and CO2 concentration from snowball earth to forests and dinasaurs in antarctica.

        These changes are attributed to large variations in orbital parameters, solar output, the CO2/temperature feedback loop and even continental drift.

        Call me anthropocentric, but I am concerned with the blink of an eye in geological terms. The last 10,000 years when relatively stable climate conditions and sea levels which have led to major food producing regions, cities and other infrastructure being where they are.

        Regarding extreme weather. The predictions are not uniform, For example hurricanes and tropical cyclones will be less frequent, but those that make landfall will be more severe. But it is early days yet (0nly 1 C of warming from pre industrial levels) to see how such predictions pan out.

        I have already dealt with the ECS.

        This is already quite long and I will continue later.

  22. Philip Shehan says:

    Andy, I will go through this again. Pay attention.

    People put up arbitrarily scaled superpositions oF temperature and CO2 concentration data and say “You see! YOU SEE!! There is NO CORRELATION!!!! This PROVES that CO2 CANNOT BE THE CAUSE OF THE OBSERVED TEMPERATURE INCREASE!!!!!

    The FRAUDSTERS and SCAMMERS are BUSTED!!!!

    DEATH TO THE WARMISTS!!!!

    Chanting in the background: DEATH TO THE WARMISTS!! DEATH TO THE WARMISTS!!! DEATH TO THE WARMISTS!!!…

    (You seem to go in for this kind of hysterical hyperbolae.)

    Well, no.

    There are an infinite number of arbitrary scalings you can wack up and say the data does not match.

    You only need to find one scaling which shows that it does.

    But it’s not the graphical scalings that matter.

    The CALCULATION of the ECS from the TEMPERATURE and CO2 data is COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT OF ANY GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION.

    For three different periods of time I have calculated the ECS from this data as 2.2, 2.6 and 2.1°C.

    These values are within the predicted IPCC range of 1.5 to 4.5 °C,

    This is very good evidence that CO2 causes the temperature rise predicted by AGW theory.

  23. AndyG55 says:

    No warming in most of the SH.

    Since CO2 is “well mixed” in the atmosphere, that means the warming MUST be from some other cause.

    End of story..

    Come back at the end of the year after the La Nina has started to bit.

    That will be funny to see…. you will probably think its still warming !!

    • Philip Shehan says:

      Andy. It’s called GLOBAL warming.

      You not only want to cherry pick dates, you want to cherry pick regions.

      Of course there are regional differences. The Northern Hemisphere has most of the earth’s land mass. There is greater temperature variability over land compared to water.

      The distribution of the continents and oceans effects wind and ocean currents which carry the weather and in the longer term determine the climate in a particular region.

      The Southern Hemisphere is mostly ocean.

      The arctic is ocean surrounded by land.

      The antarctic is a continent surrounded by water.

      So the global temperature anomaly looks like this:

      https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/giss-loti-jan-feb-2014.gif

      And cherry pick pick picking away at those dates again.

      “Skeptics” insist that the time period for the alleged “pause” begin with the 1998 el nino event. Start one year later, 1999 and they howl “NOT FAIR That’s a la nina year”.

      Then they say “And it’s fine to START the time period with an el nino event (in fact we demand it) but it’s NOT fair to END the “pause” with an el nino event.”

      So only one of these trends is acceptable to establish the “pause.”

      http://tinyurl.com/zok76rt

      Except it doesn’t. It doesn’t even establish a statistically significant reduction in the warming trend.

      And note that there is very little difference between ending with the el nino event of 2016 or not.

      So I am prepared to put very large amounts of money on their being equally little difference in the trend when it ends on the next la nina event.

  24. David A says:

    Have you looked at how bad the models are at producing an absolute global Mean Temperature (GMT)
    https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/figure-52.png

    Ok wow, that is quite the range. It consistently shows results averaging over 3. C degrees different. At any period from 1880 to 2013 we could have been rushing into catastrophic warming and disaster, or fully leaving the current interglacial and freezing.
    It is very plain that we have no idea what the absolute MT was throughout the 130 plus year period, and using all the different ways of potentially justifying our data, we could produce any chart we wish. Massive data, combined with modern computers and confirmation bias, along with peer pressure monetary reward could easily generate an incredibly wide range of trends within the period.

    It is, IMV, not wise to claim that anomalies are much better as they are produced by using 1200km extrapolation for infilling land surface areas and areas with sea ice where there are no observations based data, and where we are constantly changing which stations we use, the number of stations used, and where we are constantly changing the past records based on infilling from areas 1200 km distant, and where we are increasing how much infilling we do, vs. using actual data in our network, and we are claiming accuracy of two or three hundredth of a degree, but claiming at the same time that the absolute GMT is not known within 1.5 C and the climate models clearly do not have a clue.

    • Philip Shehan says:

      David. I don’t know where Bob Tisdale gets his models or data but there is more information provided for Fig 9.8 page 768 here:

      http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

      The data there is only up to 2012 so needs to be updated:

      http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-observations/

      The ensmble of models runs represents a measure of the uncertainties in input parameters and theoretical considerations like the ECS.

      It can be seen that the data is within the 5% to 95% band of the model runs and within the most likely band.

      The models are therefore very successful.

      That will have to do it for this evening. I will get back to you and others later, but there seem s to be a lot to respond to.

      • The models are very successful. They convinced 97% of 1970’s environmental activist college students that they are scientists, and have given them jobs until they have become senile.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “It can be seen that the data is within the 5% to 95% band of the model runs and within the most likely band.

        The models are therefore very successful.”

        roflmao.

        If the spread was much wider, they would cover the coming cooling as well. !

        They have effectively got the side of a barn, and they still miss !!

        • Philip Shehan says:

          Andy, do you agree with “skeptics” who say that there is a pause in the 10 year period between 1998 and 2008 because there is a 95 % chance that the temperature trend is somewhere between a cooling trend of -0.37 and warming trend of 0.52 °C/decade, a range of 089 °C?

          If so, why do you rflmao about temperature data that for the 10 year period from 2006 to 2016 is within the 5% and 95% band of the models (all showing a warming trend) with a range of 0.5 °C?

          • AndyG55 says:

            Again, you use the start of the current El Nino to try to prove a point.

            Your insistence on doing this absolutely PROVES the fact that there is NO WARMING in the satellite data except for El Nino and ocean cycle events.

            THANKS for the confirmation.
            You are doing well today. :-)

          • Philip Shehan says:

            No Andy I use the start point choisen by “skeptics” for their beloved pause.

            Do you say there is no such pause?

            But you are slippery as an eel when it comes to answering a question that pins you.

            I will start with your exquisitley fine tuned cherry picked date. The 10 year trend from 2001.1.

            There is a 95% chance that the trend is between cooling of – 0.40 and warming of 0.40 °C/decade, a range of 0.8 C which you claim indicates no warming.

            So why do you rflmao about temperature data that for the 10 year period from 2006 to 2016 is within the 5% and 95% band of the models (all showing a warming trend) with a range of 0.5 °C?

            No doubt you will weasel out of a direct answer again.

            And still waiting for you to give given me a theoretical explanation for your stepwise warming due to el nino events hypothesis.

    • Philip Shehan says:

      “Massive data, combined with modern computers and confirmation bias, along with peer pressure monetary reward could easily generate an incredibly wide range of trends within the period.”

      Yes David, if you are a conspiracy theorist without any evidence, you can say that.

      • It’s no longer a conspiracy hypothesis, now it’s a working theory.

      • David A says:

        Confirmation bias, peer pressure, financial reward, all have exactly zero to do with conspiracy on the part of most scientists, but they can and do sway results.

        Many social studies have examined these issues in general. Government involvement and agenda driven research pollute science. Books have been written regarding the political influence on climate science. (I suggest you start with “Blue Planet in Green Shackles” for a start) The political corruption of the IPCC has also been well documented with books on that as well.

        So before you say there is no evidence of corrupt science, I suggest you read some books, gain an overall background, read the NIPCC reports using strictly peer reviewed literature to counter the corruption of the IPCC using WWF articles and selective peer review.

        Your assumption that human nature changes when anyone wears the label ”scientist” is simplistic at best.

  25. ClimateOtter says:

    Philip: highly anticipating your response to what David laid out in this comment https://realclimatescience.com/2016/05/todays-climate-fraudster-of-the-day-andrew-freedman/#comment-8801

    Will be back to see what your response is.

  26. AndyG55 says:

    Let’s sum up the facts,
    1. No warming in the UAH satellite record before the 1998 El Nino

    2. No warming between the end of that El Nino in 2001 and the start of the current El Nino at the beginning of 2015.

    3. No warming in the southern polar region for the whole 38 years of the satellite record.

    4. No warming in the southern ex-tropicals for 20 years.

    5. No warming in Australia for 20 years, cooling since 2002

    6. No warming in Japan for 20 years

    7. No warming in the USA since 2005 when a non-corrupted system was installed, until the beginning of the current El Nino.

    8. UAH Global Land shows no warming from 1979 – 1997, the no warming from 2001 – 2015

    9. Iceland essentially the same temperature as in the late 1930’s as now, maybe slightly lower

    10. Southern Sea temperatures not warming from 1982 – 2005, then cooling … (is this a CO2 thing as well?)

    11. Even UAH NoPol shows basically no warming from 2002 until the large spike in January 2016

    Points 3-6 are regions not overly affected by El Ninos, but since CO2 is meant to be well mixed, they should be affected by CO2…… But they are not.

    The ONLY warming is coming from El Nino events and ocean cycles.
    CO2 is not even in the picture.

    Any calculation of CO2 sensitivity that makes out that CO2 is responsible for any more than a tiny fraction of the slight warming since 1970 (after the peak in 1940), is very much based on ignorant and baseless assumptions.

    It is very obvious that CO2 has very little to do with warming, otherwise the bulk of the Southern Hemisphere would be warming, and there would be a clear steady rise in temperatures around the world… Neither of these things is happening.

    Unless one wants to pretend that EL Ninos and the AMO, PDO etc are driven by CO2, then the whole assumption of CO2 warming is arrant nonsense.

  27. Philip Shehan says:

    Just one fact matters Andy.

    You are very very careful about getting your cherry picking exactly right Andy, but I am simply not going to let you prune your inter el nino dates to suit yourself because the data for the entire inter el nino period BUSTS your own stated hypothesis.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/trend/plot/uah/to:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:1999/to:2015.5/trend

    From the start of the satellite record to 1997, before the el nino event

    Trend 0.036 ±0.177 °C/decade

    The trend after the 1998 el nino event, but before the 2016 el nino event

    Trend: 0.148 ±0.177 °C/decade

    For the entire satellite record

    Trend: 0.149 ±0.064 °C/decade

    No difference at all between the trend between 1998 and 2016 el nino event and the trnd for the entir e satellite record.

    No statistically significant difference between trend before the 1998 el nino event and the trend for the entire satellite record.

    Your hypothesis is BUSTED.

    And you have still not given me a theoretical explanation for your stepwise warming due to el nino events hypothesis.

    • Jason Calley says:

      “And you have still not given me a theoretical explanation for your stepwise warming due to el nino events hypothesis.”

      And the alarmists CAGW followers have not given an explanation of the stepwise adjustments they have made to the actual data. They have given a few plausible reasons — and even more implausible ones — but have yet to justify how or why they have changed the measured facts. If the warmists would include a few elves and some sword fights their theory could be published as straight fantasy, but the one thing it is NOT, is science.

      • Philip Shehan says:

        Nothing to do with the question I ask.

        • Jason Calley says:

          “Nothing to do with the question I ask.”

          Here’s an analogy.

          Suppose that there is a group dedicated to the idea of Catastrophic Alien Galactic Warfare (CAGW). They have access to a massive collection of cloud photos taken from all over the world. Using some unknown process they manipulate the cloud photos to show an alien invasion fleet of saucers flying all over the world. Sceptics respond that the original photos look like ordinary clouds. The same CAGW crowd then demands an explanation of where the clouds came from. Sceptics then point out that the CAGW camp has failed to document how and why they have changed the photos to show saucers. The CAGW response? “That has nothing to do with the question of where the clouds came from.”

  28. AndyG55 says:

    Yawn.

    You have NOTHING.

    The entire satellite period contains steps from El Nino energy release.

    Every fact I posted is immediately verifiable form REAL data.

    You puerile cherry picking from a zero understanding of anything to do with climate stands out like dog’s balls.

    Thank you for using the little SkS trend app to PROVE that the trends before, and between El Ninos as being indistinguishable from zero.

    You are doing a great job of confirming my FACTS.

    ps, you do know that WTF uses the uncorrected UAH data, don’t you.

    I guess your monkey isn’t really that bright.

    Now explain why, despite ALL this CO2 rise, there is no warming in the Southern polar regions, and the Southern Ex-tropical

    None in Australia for 20 years,

    None in Japan for 20 years,

    No warming in the Arctic from 2001 until the current El Nino jump.

    Your IGNORANCE of anything to do with climate is displayed in BOUNDs for all to see. All you have is cherry-picked nonsense.

    We are ALL LAUGHING at you, just like everyone else on the web does. :-)

    • Philip Shehan says:

      Andy. I have already answered your point regarding regional variations in climate.

      For moreinformation read this:

      http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter14_FINAL.pdf

      You have the entire globe to cherry pick regions large and small to suit your narrative. Go for your life.

      But you have failed to notice a glaring inconsistency in your argument. You use global temperature data to make your claim that global temperatures rise only after el nino events.

      Then you want to repudiate global temperatures.

      Thus you discredit your own argument.

      Andy refutes Andy.

      And once again, the fact that your short term periods encompass such a wide range of possible values, including zero, does not mean that the true trend is zero. It could be a large watming trend. It could be a large cooling trend. It could be close to zero.

      It means that such short term data is next to useless in determining what the real trend is so your claim has no mathematical evidence to support it.

      You are simply displaying your ignorance of statistical significance by making that assertion.

      No warming in Australia for 20 years?

      The Australian temperature data, adjusted or unadjusted, take your pick shows warming for the last 20 years.

      http://media.bom.gov.au/releases/18/bureau-of-meteorology-media-statement-no-2-climate-records/

      WFT uses uncorrected UAH data?

      Bollocks. It uses version 5.6. No idea how many versions preceeded that but at least 5 seems a reasonable conclusion to draw.

      ALL satellite temperature data is adjusted, based on models.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVMsYXzmUYk

      Carl Mears, senior scientist at RSS says that surface temperature data is more reliable.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BnkI5vqr_0

      I use UAH to stop the whining from “skeptics” who insist satellite data is pristine and unsullied.

      Complete tosh but to avoid getting bogged down in that argument I go along with that restriction because as Mears shows, the differences between these all these sets is too small to make a difference to the arguments.

      Running for cover behind a smoke screen of abuse and bluster when you can’t answer the science again.

      Deniers like you don’t laugh when I scientist shows up their ignorance. They get angry. Thus the abuse.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Not angry, laughing at your puerile attempts to bend reality.

        The current version of UAH is 6.0.

        again you prove your ignorance.

        Here is UAH for Australia for last 20 years…. no BOM changing the data to match urban sites.

        Further, they can call it “global” if they like, but outside the tropics in the Southern hemisphere.. which has as much atmospheric CO2 as anywhere else, it is not warming., That is one pretty large section of the “globe” that is somehow not heating from CO2…..

        The slight beneficial warming has been coming from the tropics via the El Nino steps and from natural; ocean cycles like the AMO.

        El Nino is now dropping rapidly, AMO has turned down from its peak, Solar cycles are likely to be low. Please come back at the end of the year.. bring a big rag , to wipe the egg off your face. :-)

        The CO2 warming “idea” (never really made it to a hypothesis stage, did it) is busted. End of story.
        Squirm and worm as much as you like, just makes people laugh at you more.

        The IPCC is a political organisation whose sole charter is to try to spread the climate propaganda. You know that, that is why you refer to it.

        Carl Mears in a known “believer”, but still has enough scientific integrity (do you know what that is?) not to create warming trends by fudging his data. He manages a few words to keep fellow alarmist on side… so what.

        That is because it is NOT CO2 that is causing the warming.

        You have again shown nothing except a monkey like ability to use the SkS trend calculator on cherry picked periods, showing basically zero understanding of anything to do with climate.

        But that is just the way you operate. Low-level statistical farce.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Heck , there wasn’t even any warming in the Arctic between the end of the 1998 El Nino and the sudden transient spike of the current El Nino.

          Well mixed CO2, but NOWHERE is warming except those areas directly affected by the El Ninos, the ocean cycles and the wobbly jet stream (which is induced by the weak solar activity)

          CO2 WARMING IS A NON-EVENT !!!

        • Philip Shehan says:

          So version 5.6 is uncorrected but version 6.0 is corrected?

          I was aware of version 6.0

          Do you have an update on version 6.0 since Spencer wrote:

          “This should be considered a “beta” release of Version 6.0, and we await users’ comments to see whether there are any obvious remaining problems in the dataset. In any event, we are confident that the new Version 6.0 dataset as it currently stands is more accurate and useful than the Version 5.6 dataset.”

          “The following is meant to provide a general introduction to the new processing steps in Version 6, emphasizing departures from past practices, and not to provide exhaustive detail. It will likely be close to two years before a peer reviewed paper with greater detail gets published in a scientific journal.”

          http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/#comment-190574

          And yes I use WFT and Kevin Cowtan’s regression algotirithm which uses version 5.6. If and when version 6.0 gets out of the development phase they will update it as they have with other data, including RSS.

          But as I have shown, there is no statistically significant difference between various temperature data sets, even the srface data and RSS so it will make no difference to the conclusions.

          “Skeptics” and deniers like you quote Mear’s data as gospel, to the exclusion of all others, but when he says something you don’t like he is to be personally attacked. Your standard MO.

          Similarly Cowtan’s trend calculator is used by “warmists “and “skeptics” alike and you present not a scintilla of evidence that it is wrong but you attack it when it produces results you don’t like.

          I even had an email disussion with Ross McKitrick about his own calculations which agree with Cowtan’s. They agree with data Monckton presents to justify his “pauses”. It’s probably where he got it.

          Just like the “skeptics” who loved statistical significance when they could use it to attack Jones but react with hostility when it dismisses their beloved “pause”.

          This is what marks you out as a denier. To call you a skeptic is an insult to genuine skeptics.

          • AndyG55 says:

            YAWN !!

            When did I say that Cowtan’s calc’s were wrong

            Its the user that is the cherry-picking, zero knowledge idiot. You are a one trick monkey.

            Shove a line wherever you think you can show a trend, regardless of actually events in the climate.

            So hilarious to continually watch your childish efforts to subvert reality. :-)

          • Philip Shehan says:

            Andy As I keep saying, YOU are the one who is cherry picking the dates. Very, very, VERY specifically.

            And the “skeptics” who insist on starting with 1998. But not 1999, and stop before 2016 bcause it is not fairwhen they want to demonstrate their phantom pause.

            But I play along and give the trends four YOUR cherry picked data AND theirs. Because whatever data set you pick, they are too short to provide any mathematical justification for their claim or yours.

            Because the error lmargins are HUGE.

            Then there is you lack of consistency in wanting to NOT include the confidence limits when looking at your carefully cherry picked data prior to 1998 to claim that the line is flat, but when the post 1998 shows an upward trend, claim that is a zero slope because you suddenly discover that the error limits include a zero trend. They are suddenly kosher.

            Not that anyone with the most basic understanding of statistics would make such an absurd claim.

            And you want to use global data to make your case, but then say global data is rubbish because there are all those neatly cherry picked regional pieces of data.

            And if you have no problem with Cowtan;’s algorithithm, why to you keep harping on about the “SkS” trend calculator.

            The fact is you are full of it, twisting and turning like a cornered outhouse rat.
            And even skeptics here who are not in total denial as you are recognise it.

            “Denial is used for a psychological defense mechanism postulated by psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.”

            I’m done here. Talk to yourself because I have made my point very very clearly, with a mountain of EVIDENCE to back up my analysis of you and your trends.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Let’s repeat the facts YET AGAIN.. because Phlip’s little monkeys cannot grasp reality

            1. No warming in the UAH satellite record before the 1998 El Nino

            2. No warming between the end of that El Nino in 2001 and the start of the current El Nino at the beginning of 2015.

            3. No warming in the southern polar region for the whole 38 years of the satellite record.

            4. No warming in the southern ex-tropicals for 20 years.

            5. No warming in Australia for 20 years, cooling since 2002

            6. No warming in Japan surface data for 20 years

            7. No warming in the USA since 2005 when a non-corrupted system was installed, until the beginning of the current El Nino.

            8. UAH Global Land shows no warming from 1979 – 1997, the no warming from 2001 – 2015

            9. Iceland essentially the same temperature as in the late 1930’s as now, maybe slightly lower

            10. Southern Sea temperatures not warming from 1982 – 2005, then cooling …

            11. Even UAH NoPol shows no warming this century until the large spike in January 2016

            Since CO2 is meant to be well mixed, all these areas should be affected by CO2 warming…… But they are not.

            The ONLY warming is coming from El Nino events and ocean cycles.

            CO2 is not even in the picture.

            Any calculation of CO2 sensitivity that makes out that CO2 is responsible for any more than a tiny fraction of the slight warming since 1970 (after the peak in 1940), is very much based on ignorant and baseless assumptions.

            It is very obvious that CO2 has very little to do with warming, otherwise the bulk of the Southern Hemisphere would be warming, and there would be a clear steady rise in temperatures around the world… Neither of these things is happening.

            Unless one wants to pretend that EL Ninos and the AMO, PDO etc are driven by CO2, then the whole assumption of CO2 warming is arrant nonsense.

          • AndyG55 says:

            You desperately need to train another batch of monkeys , Phlip. These one are proving decidedly DUMB

  29. AndyG55 says:

    Poor Phlip..

    He is like a yapping Chihuahua that keeps treading in its own poo..

    then licking it.

    So incredibly funny, albeit stomach churning, to watch. :-)

  30. AndyG55 says:

    Let’s re-iterate the fact’s that the poor monkey can’t comprehend

    1. No warming in the UAH satellite record before the 1998 El Nino

    2. No warming between the end of that El Nino in 2001 and the start of the current El Nino at the beginning of 2015.

    3. No warming in the southern polar region for the whole 38 years of the satellite record.

    4. No warming in the southern ex-tropicals for 20 years.

    5. No warming in Australia for 20 years, cooling since 2002

    6. No warming in Japan surface data for 20 years

    7. No warming in the USA since 2005 when a non-corrupted system was installed, until the beginning of the current El Nino.

    8. UAH Global Land shows no warming from 1979 – 1997, the no warming from 2001 – 2015

    9. Iceland essentially the same temperature as in the late 1930’s as now, maybe slightly lower

    10. Southern Sea temperatures not warming from 1982 – 2005, then cooling …

    11. Even UAH NoPol shows no warming this century until the large spike in January 2016

    Since CO2 is meant to be well mixed, all these areas should be affected by CO2 warming…… But they are not.

    The ONLY warming is coming from El Nino events and ocean cycles.

    CO2 is not even in the picture.

    Any calculation of CO2 sensitivity that makes out that CO2 is responsible for any more than a tiny fraction of the slight warming since 1970 (after the peak in 1940), is very much based on ignorant and baseless assumptions.

    It is very obvious that CO2 has very little to do with warming, otherwise the bulk of the Southern Hemisphere would be warming, and there would be a clear steady rise in temperatures around the world… Neither of these things is happening.

    Unless one wants to pretend that EL Ninos and the AMO, PDO etc are driven by CO2, then the whole assumption of CO2 warming is arrant nonsense.

Leave a Reply to ClimateOtter Cancel reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.