This is the latest January temperature record produced by satellites accurately taking global measurements on a 24 hour basis. It shows barely any deviation last month (0.03°C) from the 1991-2020 average as shown by the blue line. The 13 month red line average reveals movement of just over 0.1°C. Furthermore, the satellite record is now revealing no global warming for seven years and three months.
The data is compiled by Dr. Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama, who was kicked off Google Adsense recently for publishing “unreliable and harmful claims”. The move demonetised Dr. Spencer’s monthly satellite update page by removing all Google-suppled advertising. Google says it will ban all sites that are sceptical of “well-established scientific consensus”.
Dr Spencer has been compiling satellite temperature data for 43 years and has received awards for his work from NASA and the American Meteorological Society. He is currently working with NASA on the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on the Aqua satellite.
Satellite data shows less warming than surface measurements, which are prone to the bias caused by urban heat distortions. In the U.K., many of the recent “records” arise from city-based recorders. In July 2019, a U.K. record hot day of 38.7°C was produced in the middle of Cambridge, a city that has grown by 40,000 people over the last 40 years. The U.K. Met Office seems particularly keen on promoting its thermometer readings at Heathrow airport, a massive industrial estate with acres of concrete and tarmac and constantly moving jet aircraft. Needless to say, the surface measurements are the record of choice for media and political thermogeddonites.
However, not all surface measurements accord with the well-established scientific consensus. The recent news that the South Pole had its coldest six month winter since records began was largely ignored by mainstream media. In the world of green political activism, all surface temperature measurements are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Away from the surface distortions, satellites take constant measurements as they circle the globe. The seven-year standstill is graphically shown by further work from the University of Alabama, below.
Over a seven year period the trend is zero. Over 100 years the extrapolated trend is +0.01°C. Margin of error stuff of course, but probably nothing much to worry about. If temperature keep on rising at this rate, we will hit the 2°C ceiling rise set by the Paris climate conference around the year 3000. Back of an envelope calculation, we should hit the Net Zero 1.5°C target in about 400 years’ time.
This complex modelling of course assumes that global temperatures never fall again – a first for Planet Earth.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
We can’t blame just the left wing when Boris Johnson is promoting this climate change stuff as controlled by his wife (who voted for her) because he is incapable of an independant decision based on the accurate scientific data. This accurate data is being surpressed by the mainstreem media such as Sky news and the BBC because it doesn’t suit their agenda. It has become clear that Boris and his cohort in government are to the left of new labour as poromoted by Tony Blair and either they need to be booted out of the Tory party, or those who don’t agree with their brand of leftist toryism and there are I believe enough of them, should depart en masse and start a proper conservative party that real conservatives can vote for, because currently there isn’t one
Believe it or not, there are some near me who actually call this wretched government ‘far right’. It shows how little understanding there is generally about what being right wing actually means. I’ve had arguments with teenagers who compare Donald Trump to Hitler because apparently, they are both far right. Trying to disabuse them of this notion just results in a tirade of insults- yet not one of them has checked their facts after I suggested doing so.
Dr Patrick Moore: ”Fake Invisible Catastrophes And Threats Of Doom”.
Very informative.
Reports like this are are proving the lie. However they achieve nothing if the people doing the work cannot get access to a platform for public discussion and get the message out.
This is our big challenge, a very urgent one. Unless we break through soon it will be too late. Our infrastructure and our lives will be irrevocably changed and worsened for ever.
Control and impoverishment will be the order of the day.
The next big scamedemic…..climate change.
It appears that Google are unaware that “scientific consensus” is an oxymoron.
Thanks for these stories. The Daily Skeptic certainly correctly identified the next big component of the government control measures (fighting climate change).
Watch those “vaccine passports” and see how they morph into “social credit” aps to battle this alleged existential crisis. The same technology will also facilitate the move to a “digital currency” which is a euphemism for banning cash. When cash is banned, it’s game over for the rest of our lives.
I’ve been saying this since mid 2020.
Er, I see an upwards trend there. Not a steep one, but upwards. There have been pauses, but… still upwards.
That’s not a convincing counter-argument to climate alarmist.
I’d prefer a tactic of shrugging and saying “I don’t care, and I’ll vote for whoever keeps lights and heat affordable.”
Try these, 5 particularly;
1. No legitimate evidence shows extreme weather increasing or sea level rise accelerating.
2. No legitimate survey of climate scientists shows anything close to the fabled 97% consensus.
3. All apocalyptic climate predictions by academics have failed.
4. Climate models used to generate alarm have no skill when checked against reliable tropospheric temperatures.
5. The most important argument against climate alarmism is that the proposed solutions are unworkable and dangerous and cause disproportionate harm to the weakest with affordable energy beyond the reach of those who would benefit the most.
And no correlation between CO2 and the Earth’s temperature.
Trying to reply to the oldest comment and whilst my avatar comes up there is no message form.
Sort it out folks
A “useful idiot” when she is off-duty:-
https://brandnewtube.com/watch/the-real-greta-you-can-shove-your-climate-crisis-up-your-arse_39BH1Lf1tFFLaBs.html
I bet Greta had all her childhood vaccines.
We have data going back well before the satellites were launched.
There is plenty of data showing that it was warmer back in the 1930s with the dust bowlera etc
If you are interested in how the weather has shown up in past times, here’s some history of ‘freak events’ in the uk 1700 -1849.
https://www.pascalbonenfant.com/18c/geography/weather.html
The weather has always been more than capable of changing !
Brilliant. I have been following Dr Roy Spencer’s global temperature series for years (published on whatsupwiththat) and it is so good to see raw data rather than the cherry picked variety. And years ago I formed the conclusion, so what is the problem? Of course there may be other problems caused by the use of fossil fuels, and the atmospheric CO2 levels have been rising (albeit only to 0.04% of the atmosphere by volume) but this only seems to have a positive effect in greening an area of the earth approximately equal to North America, as I recall. Meanwhile, other environmental degradation and resource depletion takes place in pursuit of renewable energy, often in undeveloped areas of the world, is taking place while the resistance to fossil fuel use is seriously impeding development in such places.
Nasa appear to agree with you.
From here.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study FindsFrom a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
Until 2010 NASA said “It’s the sun, stoopid”. Hid this page but not the link to it…
https://web.archive.org/web/20100416015231/https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/big-questions/what-are-the-primary-causes-of-the-earth-system-variability/
Scientists there have much more recently stated clearly that the models are useless
http://principia-scientific.org/top-nasa-climate-modeler-admits-predictions-mathematically-impossible/
https://notrickszone.com/2019/08/29/nasa-we-cant-model-clouds-so-climate-models-are-100-times-less-accurate-than-needed-for-projections/
Two things alerted me to this fraud some 15 years ago, having been a default warmer – 1. The language used to describe sceptics, particularly Moonbat saying they were as bad as “Holocaust deniers”. You what? I thought…
and
2 The phrase “The science” being used (as per Covid) meaning not science but a belief system of a cult.
Check out Dr Willie Soon:-
https://youtu.be/1zrejG-WI3U?t=280
Top man, leading research on solar activity and its effect on solar energy output.
Talks a lot of sense.
If you go and live in the woods expect some fires and your possessions singed occasionally I live in a wood UK..
Part 1 of 2
A few years ago, Google made a big fuss of refusing to cooperate and work with agencies associated with the US military, claiming that they could not take the risk that their expertise, intellectual input and technology would be used in warfare.
Shortly after making this pious announcement, Google began working with companies in China. There’s a law in China that obliges every native Chinese company to share all its data, research and intellectual property with the Chinese government – that is, the CCP’s military has access to it.
Google, of course, knew about this law before setting up operations in China. So, while refusing to develop technology alongside Western militaries, Google was very willing to aid the Chinese military to advance their technology.
Google, Facebook and Western experts played a big role in China’s development of facial recognition technology, spyware and in the setting up of the Chinese Social Credit biomedical-identity card system.
Western Big Tech used China to bypass Western privacy laws to develop digital systems that are capable of tracking citizen’s every move 24/7.
Big Tech has all this technology ready and waiting for roll-out in the West. The Vaccine Passports, or rather,… Read more »
Part 2 of 2
This is where I must stop drinking gin and tonic for breakfast!
Google are evil. Have nothing to do with them.
Clive James had this climate change malarkey sussed – he wrote a wonderful essay:
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/07/Clive-James.pdf
On a lighter note, did anyone watch The Apprentice last night? (Spoiler alert)
A computer game had to be created. One team decided to raise awareness about global warming “because the ice caps are melting”, and made their game all about rescuing animals in the ARTIC with a game called ‘ARTIC SURVIVOR’ (sounds more like a Canadian trucker). These are people presumably educated to degree level who cannot even spell Arctic, and were also unaware that penguins didn’t live there. If upcoming generations are so stupid, I hold out little hope for them mounting any meaningful and logical scientific response to the alleged ‘threat’ of global warming.
That’s because the penguins flew away 😉
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNEuIZ0Vwmg
To escape the Polar Bears…….
What does that graph actually show?
… that there has been a moderate, continuing rise in temperature since 1979.
Does it say anything about wider or specific anthropogenic environmental influences? – No
Does it confirm a panic scenario? – No
Get the hobby horses back in the stable.
“… that there has been a moderate, continuing rise in temperature since 1979.” following the 1940s to 70s cooling. Which I remember – growing up in Cheshire in the 50s and early 60s we had snow most winters, not to mention 1963. This has largely been covered up, or blamed on aerosols. Natural variability… was it Briffa who said “It if turns out to be natrual variability, they’ll kill us.” I agree with him
The BBC have always used “forecasts” to lie. Climate is yet another control mechanism for control and taxation.
Anyone remember this beauty back in 2007? (ref)
Roy Spencer is an actual climate scientist. Old school: gathers data about a complex system. The new breed (Mann et al) – surfing on massive grants thrown at them by politicians – play with simplified models on their super computers, making sure they produce the results their political patrons want to see.
Ferguson and his modelling team at Imperial also have worked on climate models. I’ll leave it there.
The satellite data are useful but not definitive. They measure the lower troposphere not the surface and they are actually subject to more “adjustments” than the surface data. There is a wider spread between the different satellite analyses than between the leading analyses of the surface data. Nevertheless Roy Spencer’s analysis does show rising temperature over the kind of 30 year timescale that makes sense for climate analysis. (see attached diagram from UAH website). Roy Spencer accepts this and that increasing anthropogenic GHGs are the main cause. He is only sceptical about the amount of warming and its effects. (I think it was wrong of Google to demonetise him and do not doubt his integrity or expertise).
The recent “pause” arises because of the very strong El Nino in 2015/16 followed by two strong El Ninjas. These are the sort of short term effects that hide the longer term trend.
The last few sentences of the Carbon Brief article summarise it nicely:
Ultimately, surface thermometers and satellites measure different things. They are both imperfect ways of measuring a single aspect of climate change – although, as a direct and longstanding metric, the surface data record does seem to have more utility.
But… Read more »
The long-term trend started at the end of the little ice age. Ocean circulation changes are not the noise; they are most likely the signal, that is, the cause of the warming. CO2 is more likely to be the noise. People assume that the earth-ocean-atmosphere system is in some sort of equilibrium and it needs a driver to cause change. Not so.
Sure. But the radiosonde balloons mirror the satellite results.
Depends what you mean by “mirror”. Their record tends to go up and down at the same time as the satellite records. The question is how much, which determines the trend. There are several analyses of the radiosonde data but the one that seems to come up most is RATPAC-A and this shows a global warming trend of +0.18 C per decade. This is similar to the leading surface temperature records and greater than the satellite records.
“Their record tends to go up and down at the same time as the satellite records.”
No, they fluctuate according to upper atmospheric temperatures. The data largely correlates with satellite data.
“….but the one that seems to come up most is RATPAC-A”
Because it shows up most it must be right? Is that your logic?
“….and this shows a global warming trend of +0.18 C per decade.”
From Spencers website:
“The linear warming trend since January, 1979 now stands at +0.13 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).”
What’s a ‘leading surface temperature record”?
It’s not actually surface temperature data that’s the problem, it’s the data tampering; suppressing temperatures in the past to make the present look a lot warmer relative to the past than it actually is.
It’s also the dishonesty, claiming that a warmer planet would be a worse place to live, which entirely contradicts the evidence for every warm period of human history when the most human progress was made.
It’s also dishonest to torture data to present a single trace gas as the culprit when there is not one single empirical study that demonstrates atmospheric CO2 causes the atmosphere to… Read more »
Sorry, this appears to be an attempt to mislead. First of all, you have cherry-picked one data point to compare to long term average. This is just absurd and meaningless.
Secondly, why is the baseline for the chart the 30-year average? This gives the impression that temperatures in the 80s were somehow below normal. Clearly an attempt to suggest the rise over 30 years was lower than it was.
When you draw a trend line from 1979 to 2022 there is a increase of ~0.5 degrees not 0.03
This site has produced some good articles on the corona pandemic over the months but if it is to become another climate change denial outlet I may have to leave it alone.
Draw a longer trend. Say 1000 years. These are geologic time processes.
The ’70s was an era of especially low temperatures, resulting in a lot of speculation and warnings about a coming ice age (which really would be disastrous).
Can’t we just heat the planet up by a couple of degrees as necessary?
Climate modellers and pandemic modellers are cut from the same cloth. Just look at the op-eds in Scientific American written by climate modeller and recipient of the The MacArthur Fellows Program, Dr. Ben Santer in 2020:
‘How covid-19 is like climate change’ March 17 2020;
‘The things we lost in the pandemic’ May 19 2020;
‘Ignoring Science during a pandemic is poor leadership’ May 22 2020;
‘Counterfactual experiments are crucial but easy to misunderstand’; July 10 2020;
‘Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever’. Aug 5 2020.
Climate change happens and I doubt few on here would deny that but it has sod all to do with mankind.
If you feel out of place here best to clear off because climategate is going to be worse than the Scamdemic.
This pause in global warming is reminiscent of the famous Pause itself, the 10-year failure of global temperatures to rise at all in the lead-up to the last big-time climate scare revival in 2008.
In 2008, a survey of 10,257 scientists showed that 97% of them supported the theory of man-made global warming. The news was trumpeted by the Guardian, the Washington Post, the BBC. The survey was the work of a masters student called Clark at the university of Illinois. Her initial list of 10,257 contacted names consisted almost entirely of people not qualified in the relevant area. After elimination, it was from the affirmative responses of just 75 out of 77 original respondents that Clark’s figure of 97% came.
When hearing any claim that ‘99% of world scientists support the theory of man-made global warming’, bear in mind that the sample employed will always boil down like this to a tiny subset of relevantly qualified respondents, many of whom, when they received the phone call, would have been trembling in fear of losing their jobs or research funding if they uttered a non-compliant peep in their answers.
I knew a biology professor who said the same thing i.e. people that don’t support the narrative don’t get research grants.
If climate change is caused by human activity then the number of humans needs to be reduced. What we need is a damn good pandemic!
Perhaps we should manufacture a virus in a lab and send it to China. That would be a good start
Followed by a top class “vaccination” campaign. 😀
I see rational has reappeared from some shit hole. Please can everybody just ignore. And rayc if it is the anti version.
Thank you.
That’s right…. don’t try to justify your views, when challenged.
And what’s all this about cancellation and censorship….
When I was at school in the 80s and 90s the teachers (and outside of school scientists and the media) were constantly telling us that burning fossil fuels was causing global warming as it was called back then. They extolled us that basically our modern way of life was bad for the planet and unless we immediately ended our personal freedom and prosperity in just a few years we would all be burning alive as the earth turned into a hot fiery version of hell (OK I exaggerate slightly but that is the gist of what we were told). The problem is though in the 30 or 40 years since these doom laden predictions I have not noticed any significant change in the climate. Yes some summers are warmer than others and some winters are harsher than others but there does not seem to have been a significant change in the climate and certainly not the catastrophe predicted. Strangely, the same people today as still telling us that in just a few years time the earth will be finished unless we surrender our freedom, prosperity and embrace communism. Strange that.
And there’s significantly more fossil fuel being burned now versus then as the Chinks ramp up their economy and build more coal power stations
That’s the farce of it all. Even if we in the UK went back to living in the stone age it would not make one jot of difference.
When I try to explain that to people, the anger and aggression fired at me that I dare to question “peer reviewed science” is palpable
The default answer now from any woke about anything is “show me a peer reviewed paper to back up your argument”
Yet the same people do not ask to see a peer reviewed paper to back up the need for lockdown. As an aside, if you questioned whether lockdown was the right policy you were usually met with a similar sort of aggressive response.
That’s very true! Usually it’s “of course they work” and if you try and counter it with what about Sweden etc, “that’s different it’s not as densely populated”
Wokes cannot argue, reason or think for themselves basically.
Yes and sadly they see make up a significant majority of the population. Ironically these people are usually the first to moan as well when they realise their energy bills are going through the roof, taxes are going to have to rise and they can’t afford to go on holiday.
The holiday on the Jet aircraft with massive carbon footprint after they’ve spent months chastising someone who drives a large car?
exactly.
But smithey said they could not afford to go on holiday….
So “Wokes” are poor people? in your opinion?
Are they also lefties? Possibly billionaires? Possibly scientists?
It’s important to have a name for your enemy…. but there are so many enemies….
Not at all. Most of the wokes are actually from the middle and upper classes. Most poor people I know exhibit far more common sense than many wealthy people. What I was alluding to was the fact that many people advocating lockdown and punitive polices as a response to climate change are more than happy for their polices to cause misery and harm to other people but less so when it affects them. The Downing Street parties are a prime example of this.
But you said they couldn’t afford to go on holiday.
You are now saying they are wealthy. surely they can afford their holiday?
But not all of them are wealthy, some are poor. Also, the inevitable green charges on air fares will result in many people, including the moderately wealthy not been able to afford to fly. My point though is a wider one in that people do not question government policy on either the response to Covid or climate change and mindlessly parrot whatever they are told without considering the direct consequences it will have on their lives.
Don’t get involved. This is another 77 trainee. Please ignore.
I am another of those people whose views have changed due to the many climate change skeptics who have been commenting on the plandemic.
There is clearly a debate to be had about whether the climate is changing. However, in terms of what, if anything, we could or should, do about said climate change, this depends crucially on whether it is due to the burning of fossil fuels i.e. an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, and methane.
I know next to nothing about how the so-called greenhouse effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is claimed to work. However, Pfizer’s chicanery with clinical trial data – their claim that the covid vaccine was 95% effective (relative effect) when the absolute effectiveness was a next-to-meaningless 0.7% – led me to wonder whether anyone has measured the effect on atmospheric temperature of raising CO2 from around 280 ppm (when fossil fuel burning began) to 415 ppm today. An increase from 280 to 415 ppm is a relative increase of 48% but an absolute increase of only 0.0135%. So, how did increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentration by 0.0135%, since fossil fuel burning began, change the climate, especially when the starting point was CO2… Read more »
“in terms of what, if anything, we could or should, do about said climate change”
if you accept that global warming brings change but not catastrophic change (as the science seems to suggest – its only the activists/BBC that talk about the planet burning) – then it is really a choice between mitigation/adaptation/ignoring
We could just accept a couple of degrees. UK would be a bit nicer, some places would be wetter, some drier. I’m not sure I’m that bothered either way. Non fossil fuel energy is coming – sooner or later – it will tend to get cheaper over time. Do we rush it out or just take it in our stride?
20 years ago they were telling us terrible things would be happening within 20 years because of global warming. The Maldives disappearing under rising seas, famines and mass displacement of peoples in poorer countries, artic sea ice gone in the summer.
None of that has come to pass. In fact, the world is pretty much the same, perhaps a bit better, except for the next catastrophe the authoritarians have wanted to shove down our throats in the form of a killer virus that kills virtually no one.
That quote says it all.
It’s like the models were immensely wrong…
That sounds familiar
The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is irrelevant. All that shows is that there is a vast amount of other gasses up there. What matters is the absolute amount of CO2 which has increased from about 2430 Gigatons in 1960 to about 3200 Gigatons today. This increase is almost certainly almost due to burning of fossil fuels (isotope analysis plus it matches best estimates of what we have generated)
the common denominator in Covid and Climate is control and money..for the 1%
I thought it was all due to the lefties?
Do you want it to be?
Hi rational with a new name,
The lefties are just useful idiots, not the ultimate beneficiaries.
Rent-seeking.
If you would like to educate yourself on the whole ‘climate emergency’, this is an excellent site.
https://www.weather-research.com/weather-and-climate
in here you will fine the real data and analysis, carefully deployed to completely debunk all the alarmist strands and fantasies.
enjoy.
carefully deployed to completely debunk all the alarmist strands and fantasies.
Says it all really.
The ice sheet in Antarctica has been found to be growing. For any Reality Denier reading this, that means the mass of ice at the South Pole is getting bigger. It’s getting larger. It’s increasing. In fact, since measurements began, the Antarctic ice sheet has recently broken a record for maximum extent – the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre has confirmed that Antarctic sea ice reached a record extent.
A nursery school explanation for said Reality Denier:
It’s like when you were a little baby and your mum could carry you around in her arms – albeit, she obviously dropped or threw you numerous times and damaged your brain. But now that you are an adult you’ve probably noticed that your mum doesn’t carry you around in her arms anymore. The reason she now doesn’t carry you about is not solely to do with her getting old and feeble, it also has a lot to do with you growing in size and getting heavier.
The major scare tactic the climate liars use to drive home their doomsday warning about Climate Change is rising sea levels which will flood all coastal and low-lying areas. Thus, the enlarging… Read more »
As a rule of thumb, it’s a good idea to distrust anyone who tells you there is a problem that is being caused by everyone and they have a solution which involves everyone doing what they say.
Same site will yield the following.
The Longer Term ViewAlthough we have measured changing temperatures and carbon dioxide levels at short timescales (since the 1700s), surely this could just reflect natural variability over short timescales? In order to understand our climate, it is very important to look at the long-term view.
In many places, atmospheric temperatures are now warmer than they have been throughout the Holocene. Figure 3 shows that the temperature of the last 200 years is much higher than it was when Romans were making wine in southern England. However, what is really concerning is the rate of change. Temperatures have risen far more sharply in the last century than they have at any point in the last 2000 years.
Figure 3. 2000 year temperature variations. Robert A. Rhode, Global Warming Art Project. Wikimedia Commons.
This conclusion is reached again and again, and a paper by Mann et al. (2008) in PNAS show that the Earth’s temperature is anomalous in a long-term time context. Mann et al. used stacked records from a variety of sources to create a global graph of temperature change. This famous ‘hockey stick’ graph (Figure 4) clearly demonstrates the rapid rate of change since the industrial… Read more »
From here.
https://climate.news/2019-08-26-climate-change-hoax-collapses-as-michael-mann-bogus-hockey-stick-graph.html
Climate change hoax collapses as Michael Mann’s bogus “hockey stick” graph defamation lawsuit dismissed by the Supreme Court of British Columbia
You don’t take a hint, do you? Nutcases never do though.
a a HOKUM stick graph that shows you’ll swallow any lie.
Mann has been shown to be a liar in court.
I can’t believe anyone is still pushing Mann’s hockey stick graph. Many years ago when I asked Ben Santer why he didn’t use Mann’s graph to help him explain to the lay public what he thought was happening to the Earth’s climate and why, he went very quite and we never spoke of it again. If even Ben Santer has consigned the graph to history, you ought to do the same.
It’s a model. So a projection dependent on input. It also bears no relation to real world data. Even Schmidt admitted this…
https://www.qwant.com/?client=brz-brave&q=%22gavinn+schmidt%22+and+models+and++%22too+hot%22&t=web
Not that policy will change to reflect this
The bit of water thats warming is above volcanoes.
The water also gets warm where the penguin’s take a leak.
One of the core theses of “Climate change” was that BOTH poles would warm (wrong) and that there would be a huge hot spot in the Troposphere (wrong). Not to mention the end of snow from some years aback