The latest satellite temperature data for February show no movement from the 30-year average. The news is further evidence that global temperatures started to run out of steam nearly two decades ago. The highly accurate satellite measurements also reveal no global warming for the last 88 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”, e.g. the latest satellite data showing global warming has ground to a halt. The move demonetised Dr. Spencer’s monthly satellite update page by removing all Google-supplied advertising. Google says it will ban all sites that are sceptical of “well established scientific consensus”.
Dr. Spencer has been compiling satellite temperatures 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.
It is unsurprising that there are attempts to downplay or even ban the satellite work. Over the last 30 years, a massive climate change industry has grown up predicated on exaggerated and fanciful global heating claims, and the so-called climate emergency. Huge amounts of money have poured into universities, research facilities and green activist groups of every description. Hiding behind the mantra of ‘settled’ science and ‘scientific consensus’, there is an almost daily outpouring of disaster porn. The latest IPCC ‘Day After Tomorrow’ report, published this week, is just one example.
Scientists – people with qualifications in subjects such as physics and chemistry – have long debated the complex causes of global warming and cooling. The role of carbon dioxide is undoubtedly important, but nobody knows how much warming is caused when levels rise in the Earth’s atmosphere. Some argue that the effect is small, and we could do with more of the gas, which has had a marked effect on the growth of extra vegetation over the last 30 years. Interesting, some work is being done on the ‘saturation’ effect of CO2, although it receives little publicity. This looks at the infrared spectrum and suggests CO2 loses much of its ability to warm the atmosphere once certain levels are reached. Much of the disaster porn, however, relies on computer models which guess that doubling CO2 levels causes global temperatures to rise by 6°C. This is despite the fact that no climate model has ever produced an accurate warming forecast in 40 years.
Surface measurements are generally preferred and are heavily promoted by the U.K. Met Office since they fit the global warming narrative better. But urban heat distortions are considerable, not least in those readings highlighted by the Met Office at Heathrow Airport.
But even surface measurements are starting to show obvious temperature slow downs.
This graph shows the latest average U.K. temperature from the Met Office. It suggests a pause from the middle of the last decade, a pause that was preceded by 15 years of slowing growth. The U.K. experience is similar to many other northern hemisphere countries. Why did temperatures fall from 1945, but then rebound strongly for a few years until the turn of the millennium? Was there a link with rising CO2 levels? There isn’t much evidence for such links in the past. Was it a natural bounce back from the mini ice age that lasted from medieval times to around 1800?
Or maybe a fuller, more sophisticated, explanation is that the atmosphere is a very complex place, impossible to model and despite ‘settled’ science, currently beyond our full understanding.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
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.
I don’t get why it troubled them. The headline graph looked like it showed an upward trend – was not enough for the “approved” narrative?
Even the Met Office graph doesn’t show a clear contradiction in the general trend. Sure it’s paused for a while, it did that before, the pause isn’t long enough to claim it’s a ceiling.
Oh and I am sceptical of both camps. I don’t think it’s clear either way but I think we should try not to pollute too much air, land or sea because it just might cause a step change.
I get your agnosticism, but come on…
The people who are advocating for us to heat our bathwater with photovoltaic panels need to present the evidence for their justification (man made climate change). To date, they have utterly failed to do so.
Until they do, they should keep their noses out of my cornflakes and in their “research”.
Climate change, CoVid – models, charlatans, deceit and lies from the same stable.
Not hard enough I fear.
There is a lot of difference between the fear mongering apocalyptic messages of global warming and a 1C or so increase per century that is recorded since the end of the little ice age.
To change society and plunge the poorest into deep freeze, you need slightly more than ‘feelings’ about the environment. CO2 emissions have bugger all to do with pollution which I totally agree needs to be controlled for the benefit of everyone.
What pollution specifically? Most pollution arises in poor Countries who use wood and animal dung for heat and cooking, can’t afford modern farming or industrial,techniques, do not have modern sanitation/garbage disposal, etc.
We tackle that by buying more of what these Countries make to make them richer – we do that by getting rid of protectionist tariffs and non-tariffs.
Well, massive pollution at source where the rare earths required for turbines and solar extracted, for starters. Plus plastic pollution. There’s plenty to work om without getting stoopid about C02, that’s for sure.
Pollution and climate change are separate issues.
Paused. What caused it? When will it resume, why and how? If you cannot answer that, anything you say about it is just speculation.
’Pause’ shows there is no correlation between increased CO2 emissions and Earth heat budget. If there is a causal relationship between two variables (atmospheric CO2 concentration and near surface temperature) there must be correlation. And correlation leans all of the time, not just some if the time.
That is why the graph troubled them, it shows no correlation and do falsifies the claim of CO2 emissions being responsible for temperature changes.
Geological history shows that clearly. Also, the sharp cooling between the 40s and the 70s has been tampered out of history. I’m old enough to recall snow most winters when I was young up in Cheshire, born in 1951. Not to mention the winter off 1963. Climate “scientists” say “Ah, that was caused by aerosols”. No proof whatsoever.
Call me optimistic, but are times changing for sceptics?
The next elections may be very interesting indeed.
Would be nice if there was actually a choice on the ballot paper.
Come on you can choose which colour tie your uniparty candidates will wear while they lie to you for baksheesh!
Such as
“None of the above”
The avalanche of spoiled papers or low turnout would speak volumes. Since there is no viable alternative to the Davos- nudged two party cabal, what other choice will there be. “Don’t vote, the government will get in”!
I think once again Russia is going to save the West and particularly Europe. The Ukrainian situation has shown us that the Globalists are evil and want to break us. Russia has stood strong for decency, freedom and borders. The petro dollar will go. The sanctions the Wedt has imposed on Russia will indeed break the Globalists and not Russia.
This has been a quiet and insidious war waged by Governments on its peoples. corruption and dislike of the nation and its working class by the so called elites is now being shown for what it is. The West will fall and we will have a period of time in poverty and struggle. However, it means we can restart our democracies and we can drain the swamps. The age of the corrupt Globalists is ending. They have tried to subjugate us four times now and each time we have managed in the end to push them back. This time we may end their nefarious and evil plans forever.
Roy has a blog and in that blog he says things as bad as “It cannot be scientifically shown that the warming we’ve seen is due to mankind”. So perfectly sensible scientific statements which Google-you-Censor don’t want to appear on the internet.
He is what a scientist should be … I don’t always agree, but what he says is justifiable from the evidence. And that is why Google just won’t tolerate him or people like him … they can’t stand people who refer to the actual evidence and draw their conclusions from that evidence and not politicised bullying by the likes of Google-You-Censor.
What he actually does is cherry-pick and misrepresent the evidence.
Try educating yourself with evidence based facts instead of cheer leading your own impoverishment: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/07/13/do-97-of-climate-scientists-really-agree/
And this site – https://notrickszone.com – has collated links to sceptical climate papers over the years. See list on right hand column and go read some. None are EVER mentioned on the BBC or Guardian
Lots of paper on solar activity as the main cause of climate change.
https://notrickszone.com/?s=SOLAR
How many folks know what a Grand Solar Minimum is, or that we are now in one, one many scientists may be as harsh as the Maunder Minimum, tho’ not lasting as long?
Well, the people who are thrusting the man made climate change narrative down everyone’s throats at great cost to everyone aren’t exactly angelic in this respect, leek. And they are the ones who should be working the hardest to prove what they are saying is true. But they can’t. And they’re getting cross.
You’re on the wrong thread. 77 is scheduled to trash Covid truth at the moment.
Evidence? Evidence? We don’t need no stupid evidence!
Give an example of what you mean. Spencer’s main point is that the rate of warning in the past 40 years is not (statistically) significantly greater than that for the 100 years before. Also, all the warming – about 0.5C – of the past 40 years can be accounted for by a 1 Watt-per-square-meter increase in average incident solar energy, while the energy input to the world’s climate system from natural sources, mainly from deep-ocean turnover, is not known to within an accuracy of 10 Watts-per-square-metre.
Funny that the warming at the end of the 20th century, put down to CO2 and the coming heat death of the planet, also coincided with the highest solar activity in 8000 years. Innit.
No, you will not read about this on the BBC or Guardian
https://www.mpg.de/research/sun-activity-high
2004 The Sun is more active now than over the last 8000 yearsAn international team of scientists has reconstructed the Sun’s activity over the last 11 millennia and forecasts decreased activity within a few decades
Note – their prediction that solar activity would remain high was completely wrong; as indeed was NASA about Solar Cycle 24, which they said would be very high, but instead was the opposite.
OCTOBER 28, 2004
The activity of the Sun over the last 11,400 years, i.e., back to the end of the last ice age on Earth, has now for the first time been reconstructed quantitatively by an international group of researchers led by Sami K. Solanki from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany). The scientists have analyzed the radioactive isotopes in trees that lived thousands of years ago. As the scientists from Germany, Finland, and Switzerland report in the current issue of the science journal “Nature” from October 28, one needs to go back over 8,000 years in order to find a time when the Sun was, on average, as active as in the last 60 years. Based on a statistical study of earlier periods of increased solar activity, the researchers predict that the current level of high solar activity will probably continue only for a few more decades.
Evidence of what you say, please. else it’s just an ad hominem, the first recourse of all true believers in the CAGW faith. Anyway, the planet’s been cooling for 7k years or so, so best enjoy any further warm periods whist we are still in an interstadial. BT, this interstadial has followed the pattern of the previous 3 – rapid warming, then gradual cooling interspersed with warm periods, EACH cooler than the preceding one. And then back into a full Ice Age.
See image in next post
Suggest you read this overview of the Holocene climate. It may help you see sense. We sceptics don’t relay on models. We are empiricists, i.e. rely on what are called “facts”.
https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/the-holocene-context-for-anthropogenic-global-warming-2/
.
.
That can’t be the right, the IPCC report said it’s all over for humanity just earlier this week. The WEF repeated this on their website. Surely DS has made some mistake.
Oh I know. Humanity was supposed to have been wiped off the planet several times already, by man made climate change. It just never blooming happens, does it?!
we now know that the Russians have been funding the green agenda creating this so called consensous that climate change / global warming is man made.
I still haven’t seen an explanation for the numerous warming / cooling events over the last 4.3 billion years not to mention the unprecedented unprecedented depletion of C02 by living organisms that has produced this oxygen rich atmosphere that supports “intelligent” life as we know it.
Now why would a country who’s economy is dominated by selling oil and gas be motivated by promoting the green agenda? Have a think!
It’s like claiming to be low carbon while importing the carbon intensive stuff from China or electricity from Europe generated from coal power stations. Russia sponsoring green initiatives in the uk has stopped fracking and stopped storage of gas in old North Sea wells. Russian gas means we can dismantle uk gas infrastructure in favour of renewables that are not reliable.
we can also ban boilers abs tell people to buy electric heat pumps that will barely heat a modern sealed home to 20c, I’ve been shivering my ass off and it’s 22c here (11 IoT rad valves all reporting consistently) and we can easily go higher.
Don’t forget Germanies over reliance on nord stream so the incentive for Russia is to stop nation’s producing their own gas and even tear up their infrastructure and they will then be more reliant on imported gas of which Russia is poised to capitalise.
it’s not difficult or conspirational to see the links.
So fracking across the world was condemned as causing earthquakes, polluting groundwater, causing traffic etc.
In other words, so Russia’s gas supplies had dominance across Europe. Germany has lots of frackable gas, but they don’t exploit it because the greens object to it.
Have a think……!
It’s called playing the long game…
Do we actually know that the Russians have funded environmentalists? I see this asserted in general terms but there are never any details.
Well, there aren’t ever going to be any details forthcoming. This isn’t a railway timetable.
There was an article here just the other day, Hilary Clinton has been complaining about it since ~2008, many didn’t complain when it was furthering their own agendas.
Hilary is utterly obsessed with Russia.
She is.
But I doubt Vlad the Bad has Hilary’s picture on the back of his toilet door.
Come on, keep up!
There was a good post only yesterday about whether on not Russia funds GangGreen. It is certain they have done and even the head honcho of Nato and Hilary Clinton have admitted this. Note that neither have much street cred amongst sceptics.
But just as with the COVID-19 coming from Wuhan Institute of Virology, it gets to the stage when even the egregious Hilary has to admit the facts, to avoid looking even more thick.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t actually blame Putin for this, why wouldn’t he try to blow smoke up the gormless Western Elites’ arses to strengthen his position?
And rest assured that the treacherous Western Billionaires put even more money into GangGreen than Vlad the Bad.
Just as Fauchi and Derszak and the rest pumped US taxpayer’s money into the WIV, that certainly doesn’t absolve the CCP of absolute guilt.
Consider also that RT has consistently portrayed Fracking as terribly dangerous and has even compared pro-frackers to paedophiles. You think Vlad believes that? When he is Fracking in Siberia?
Google “Russia to pay millions for seizing Greenpeace ship” for the strange, forgotten story of Greenpeace’s “Arctic Sunrise” and her trip to try to sieze a Russian Arctic oil platform in 2013.
Overpowered, charged with “Hooliganism” and locked up for a month. (And let’s remember that whatever you think of the Right to Protest, this action was at least as dangerous as hijacking a plane).
None the less, they came to an “agreement”, the activists were released and the Russians coughed up $5 million in 2017 for the activists’ troubles. You think the details of the “agreement” will be released soon? Strange that Russia’s emissions now seemingly are OK. They don’t get bad press from XR etc. anymore than the Chinese. And no more problems for Vlad in the Arctic, from GangGreen.
Oh yes those nasty Russians, I am working on a scientific paper proving they caused the last ice age.
Where could I get some funding from?
Any suggestions?
Yes.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/19/russia-secretly-working-with-environmentalists-to-oppose-fracking
https://www.newsweek.com/putin-funding-green-groups-discredit-natural-gas-fracking-635052
Plenty more where they came from, search Internet for “Russia fund anti-fracking”
Got to admit that although I’d like to agree with the headline, when I look at both those graphs they rise from left to right. The data point which is argued matches the long term average just looks like the bottom of one of a series of dips but long term the trend goes up unfortunately
So? Why is a slightly warmer average temperature (like you can define an average temperature for a planet) a problem?
Maybe, maybe not, but as cphtw point out, data for February do NOT show “no movement from the 30-year average.” *
One of the hallmarks of healthy skepticism is a commitment to honesty and accuracy, I should think.
* I could easily be misunderstanding the graph since I am not a scientist myself, but the article and the linked article say nothing to suggest the graph presents anything besides how I interpret it.
I think “no movement” means the start point = 0 and the end point = 0 not that the temp doesn’t shift around in between the 2 points.
if your prediction is exponential increase and the graph is flat your hypothesis is disproved.
Well, sure, in a graph that swings wildly up and down, while still trending upward, you can select the start of your timeline to be a point that was equal to today’s number, and triumphantly call out, “See? No change!” But that doesn’t mean there was no change.
Due to long term climate cycles and ocean currents. Even Phil Jones from UEA Climategate fraudsters had to admit that the period of warming up to 1940 is scientifically indistinguishable from the warming in the 80s and 90s.
Yup. Yet we are also told by shills like Jones that one was caused by CO2 and the other by … um …. natural variability.
Really? The image below shows the two periods. Also worth noting we had significant cooling between the 40s and the 70s. Whilst CO2 climbed…
What it doesn’t show is anything but perhaps a vague correlation with the rise in atmospheric CO2.
If CO2 is the problem, why the persistent deviations from its almost linear nature?
Correlation is not science. CO2 and temperature show NO long term correlation whatsoever
Quite. Warm is good, cold is not and cold kills 3 to 4 times as many people worldwide annually.
It looks like the people who approved of your comment didn’t actually read it.
It is certain you have made zero effort to understand it.
The satellite measurements started at the end of the 1970s which was a particularly cold decade. So you might expect some upward drift in temperatures. Surface temperature measurements have been going for much longer than the satellite measurements but they have limitations: they are mostly on land, they are subject to increasing urban heat island effects as the population grows, and they are subject to revisions which are not always well explained, such as the repeated downward revision of the very high temperatures that brought on the “dust bowl” in the US in the 1930s.
They are also most prolific in western, urbanised areas.
Africa has thousands of square miles with no data.
The temperature record is a mess. So they make up temps where they have no record. And 100 years ago there were hardly any climate recoding stations beyond the Western world and Anglosphere. So comparisons of now to then are based on fabulation.
https://robert-boyle-publishing.com/product/audit-of-the-hadcrut4-global-temperature-dataset-mclean-2018/
Also still emerging from the LIA which only ended mid 19th Century. When you would EXPECT temperatures to rise. Many graphs “proving” CAGW start in 1979. When the mid-century cooling ended.
A case of “See what they did there?”
How much does it go up by? To date, 0.4ºC from the 1979 start point yet we are being assured that 1.5ºC is to be catastrophic. But it wasn’t during the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warming periods, it was entirely beneficial to humankind. Why would it be any different now.
And whilst some people might be criticised for pointing to the last 88 months of largely no increase in temperature as an indicator of the future, its no less plausible than pointing to computer models of the future displaying 6ºC rise in temperature.
The difference is, Spencers data is observable, computer models are guesswork.
Been warmer before in the Holocene. Considerably.
I’ll need that graph for dummies, it’s bottom left to top right everytime I see it…
For the umpteenth time for dummies – look at the rate of change not the trend. If a graph starts at 0 and goes to 50, the trend will be up. But if it’s a sharp rise to 30, then flat to 40, then slightly down to 50 – the trend Left to Right is up, but rate 30 to 50 is down.
i blame the schools.
All this debate about “data” is – anymore – a distraction.
Over the past 20 years, there’ve been several loud-and-clear pointings toward the underlying purpose.
The following link goes to a photo essay on one of those (one of the more minor ones, but one of the starkly clear when taken in the larger context.)
http://www.zombietime.com/climate_movement_drops_mask_admits_communist_agenda/
Five years before that event, there was a large and widely-publicized anti-Climate Change gathering at a Mexican resort (Cancun, IIRC). Participants posted photos and excerpts from the speeches. It was Trotskyism run rampant.
Davos? … What about the annual Sun Valley conference in Idaho in July?
The underlying purpose of every bit of it is very “Sixties” — stomping Daddy.
Where did the BBC’s nearly-a-hundred-different-genders come from?
Where do Sadiq Khan’s ever-intrusive bike lanes come from?
How about the Rotherham police ignoring the groomers?
It’s all the same. They want revolution? Why aren’t you giving “it” to them?
Where did the BBC’s nearly-a-hundred-different-genders come from?
The intellectual grandfathers may have been Deleuze and Guattari, whose Mille plateaux appeared in 1980 as the second volume of Capitalism and Schizophrenia. An English translation by Brian Massumi was available in 1987. It should be noted that the work was an attack upon conformity and dogmatism.
Mama was probably Liz Grosz, author of A Thousand Tiny Sexes: Feminism and Rhizomatics (1993), profoundly influenced by their work. But that was also opposed to conformity.
I doubt many (indeed any) of the woke folk have read either. They might have heard hopelessly confused, dumbed-down bits and pieces.
I think all of GangGreen and those worried by the scarcity of Transgender bathrooms are still getting their rocks off dreaming of the “inevitable collapse of Capitalism” and salivating at the prospect of a Communist Nirvana (bound to work if tried enough times, surely…)
Except it is not data.
The graph they use shows the Global Mean Temperature Anomaly (GMTA) which is derived from raw data which is manipulated to allow for this and that and take away the number you first thought of, carry one in the margin,etc, to produce numbers compared to a chosen baseline. The numbers out being an anomaly compared to baseline, either above – warming, or below – cooling.
(Just like the Imperial College work of fiction for the CoVid apocalypse.)
We know the GMTA is a load of manure, because the numbers out exceed the degree of accuracy to the decimal place of the data in. Hence ludicrous tenths and hundredths of a degree not there in the data but needed to show ‘warming’. July is a hundredth or tenth of a degree ‘hotter’ then ever before.
It is indeed Manmade global warming – made right inside their computer jiggery-pokery.
Joining statements of several other people, how precisely does the top-most graph show no movement from the 30-year average and show that global warming has ground to a halt?
On the surface, it doesn’t look like that to me. I’m seeing an upward trend there.
When 88 months passes with no temperature rise, yet CO2 holds an almost linear upward trend, something is wrong with the theory.
Sad to see so many who can’t see that if CO2 (and only the 3% “human” CO2 of the 0.04% of the CO2 in the atmosphere) is the sole driver of Climate, then there curve should be shooting ever upwards.
It clearly isn’t.
Hypothesis destroyed.
Quite. Tho’ I would even give this nonsense the name “theory”. At best it’s a hypothesis, which facts repeatedly disprove.
See Feynman* clobber this nonsense in no time at all
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
The chart on top of the article shows an upward trend since at least 1993, possibly since 1985. I may be misreading that, that’s why I asked about it. But it’s certainly there.
You have to look at the rate of change not the trend. This is the trick the climate scammers pull on the General Public, like increase in ‘cases’ during the CoVid lunacy which were an artefact of increased testing, showing them a graph which appears to show an increase in what they want you to believe, but when taken in context and explained, it does not
If a car starts from rest and has an acceleration of X up to 80mph, then decelerates to 75mph, the trend in speed will be upward – but it will not be getting faster (warmer) and in fact has got slower (cooler).
Are… uh… are we looking at different graphs?
I see a clear and continuing upwards trend.
I agree although there is also a definite levelling off over the past 6-7 years
Yeah, but look at the y axis.
And then consider that we’re looking at just fifty years.
And then ask the question “how can we encapsulate global temperatures in a simple average in a meaningful way?”
But you know this, I am sure! And yes, there is a trend. What that trend means and how it is relevant, is, of course, the question.
We are looking at 50 years of uncontaminated temperatures. By that I mean no UHI’s and no vast areas of land with no weather stations on them.
We are also looking at the average across the planet, including Oceans, monitored 24/7/365.
Argo floats spend most of their time ‘parked’ at 1,000 feet below sea level, before diving every ten days, then resurfacing and transmitting their data, before diving to 1,000 feet again.
The surface temperature is taken every ten days, at a single point, representing a vast area of Ocean.
Ships data is of restricted value because they stick to shipping lanes. The Southern Ocean and much of the Pacific Ocean is missed because there’s nothing there to sail to.
We’ve only had Argos a short time. Much better than buckets, but most of the SST record is nonsense and meaningless.
RSS temps were originally calibrated against surface temperature record, so inherited all the flaws and error of that. It has however diverged from the surface temperature record, giving a cooler record.
The problem with averages is 50% of data are above 50% below. It us doubtful whether an if these records are accurate within +/-3 or 4 degrees.
And it is only the arse-end of a 10 000 year upward trend out of an ice age. Considering climate in periods of anything less than thousands or tens of thousands of years isn’t scientific or meaningful.
Rest assured that when you have your feet in the oven and your head in the freezer, on average you’ll be really comfy.
The whole idea of a global average temperature (accompanied by great wailing and gnashing of teeth if it strays up 0.1°C) is a total nonsense.
It’s not the trend, it’s the rate that matters.
We were told the rate of increase would be straight line, directly proportional to increase in CO2 emissions. It isn’t. The rate of temperature increase levelled after 1996 and then started to decline slightly from 2008 onwards.
It’s like a car accelerating to a particular speed, then the rate of acceleration stays the same and then reduces. Of course the speed of the car will show and upward trend from rest, but that trend upward will stop, or reduce if the acceleration decreases.
Also inconveniently True
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4IpSKuAR2M
Ukrainian Woman Who Emotionally Confronted Boris Is A Member Of World Economic Forum
MSM misleads people AGAIN.
This article shows the weak arguments presented against climate change.
One measurement shows a local minimum and the author thinks the trend is disproved.
It is obvious nonsense.
You’re clearly unaware that the climate has been changing for 4.5billion years and no sceptic “argues against climate change” as you put it. It is actually quite the reverse. The natural climate variation is easily big enough to explain all the 20th century change … because we see several similar scale changes in the longest temperature series. But it is the alarmist who argue against climate change … telling us the climate didn’t change until a few academics stopped believing in global cooling and got obsessed with the idea of global warming.
So please get it right: it’s the alarmists who deny climate change.
Spot on, Mike. The green crowd are arrogant enough to suggest climate change is a) a bad thing and that b) we control it.
Hubris characterises the West in modern times.
That’s the Christian/ Jewish notion that man is a god-like being (literally stated in the Genesis). Not exactly a modern notion.
It’s a global minimum shown on Spencers graph. Nor is anyone saying the trend is disproved. What’s disproved is any meaningful relationship between the rise in atmospheric CO2, and temperatures.
Mike and Red Hot (and other realists on here),
When I come up against global warming cultists, the conversation usually ends when I ask them ‘What is the ideal temperature of the World?
Yeah.
Go take a leak. The “obvious nonsense” is running down your leg.
I’m lazy and weak-willed so I don’t have the energy to look into climate change right now. But what I do know for certain is that
“ Google says it will ban all sites that are sceptical of “well established scientific consensus”.”
is cause for grave concern for the future of our species
But then perhaps I am worrying over nothing. Drew63 says we’re living in a liberal democracy which is much better than Russia.
Dear Leek
Seeing as you’re back, please give us your thoughts on how you feel “covid” is going in the UK now we’ve dropped all restrictions other than the nonsensical requirement to test on entry to the UK if you haven’t had what are laughably termed “vaccines”.
Would you have made the same choices as our PM?
What’s your suggested way forward now?
Good question Julian, but sadly your UK does not include us poor slaves in Sturgeons Siberian Gulag.
Google says it will ban all sites that are sceptical of “well established scientific consensus”.
That means they would ban Galileo, Pasteur, Einstein…
What a ridiculous world we now live in!
Eppur si muove
Indeed!
Science is evidence based.
Religion is consensus based.
It appears that an inevitable side-effect of the interaction between human nature and computers is disaster-porn.
Other side-effects include radical Islamist terrorism, conspiracy theories and a high-tech surveillance society.
Take away computers and climate change disappears.
Sadly, just like nuclear weapons, it is impossible to uninvent computers.
Google is actually banning ‘primary scientific data’, not any interpretations.
Science is underpinned by primary data, whereas ‘scientific concensus’ is an amalgamation of opinions interpreting that scientific data.
By banning the presentation of primary data, Google has declared itself to be anti-science.
Not that that has come as a surprise, they are anti anything that stops them making billions of dollars. And right now, making those billions is totally dependent on being politically correct.
As with all the pandemics to date, there are many flaws in the claims about the next hobgoblin called climate change.
Carbon dioxide is a ‘trace’ gas in the atmosphere at about 0.0415% (cf. nitrogen at 80%). Despite searching online and asking several scientists, including 3 who work at the Met Office, for the evidence that shows that raising atmospheric CO2 from say 280 ppm pre-fossil fuels to 415 ppm today has caused any change in the climate, I have received blank responses.
Even if CO2 were relevant, an increase from 280 to 415 ppm, while a large relative 48% increase, is an absolute increase of only 0.0135%. Does this remind you of the Pfizer claim for the covid vaccine of 95% efficacy, which was a relative effect, when the same data showed that the absolute effect was 0.7% i.e. from bugger all to a bit more than bugger all?
The famous ‘hockey stick’ data mash-up by the discredited Dr Michael Mann, who lost a Canadian court case for refusing to release his data for independent scrutiny, and other data, shows the earth’s temperature over thousands of years rising and falling BEFORE changes in CO2 concentration so CO2 cannot have been the cause.
Keep asking for the evidence and speaking truth to power.
“Climate stability” (or the absence of change) is a myth. What we can see is another obsession with one issue, and selective reporting and so on. All the more so when some of us live in parts of the world where the weather is quite variable, from year to year.
We need to do a better job of coping with events that can, and do, cause a fair bit of damage from time to time. Something has been done – but not enough of it, ranging from planning to build in certain areas, or not to build there, reducing the risk of heavy rain, to drought and so on.
What is necessary is improved project management. There are lots of ideas that are going nowhere financially that could deliver worthwhile benefits, such as improved water supply to certain areas, reducing the risk of flash flooding etc.
Our ancestors survived several severe changes in climate with nothing more than flint tools and wearing animal skins, the notion that future advanced generations will be flummoxed by a bit of warm weather is absurd.
The effect of increased atmospheric CO2 is logarithmic, so for a doubling of CO2 the maximum temperature increase it could produce, leaving other factors aside, is 1.2C. So if we go from the 400ppm now to 800ppm, the effect would be that 1.2C. I cannot remember exactly, but it will take X centuries to double the CO2 concentration if we now burnt all the coal, gas and oil we could find.
The global warming myth is yet another tool being used to support the gradual implementation of totalitarian government. The globalists of the WEF and elsewhere think that their vast wealth gives them the right to rule over us.
We need rid of those people from positions of influence. A good start would be to get rid of Boris & Co and elect a truly democratic British government. Some hope with the present corrupt system!
The consensus is that Google is a gang of leftie f- tards who pretend to believe in ” science”. But only if it suits them.
Russia in Ukraine has not created energy price increases. For goodness sake this propaganda is now getting out of hand!!!!!
Our energy prices have been caused by the Globalists insisting that the West go green and we have to pay for their agenda. This is the next step to breaking businesses, economies and societies.
Of course the war in Ukraine has pushed up energy prices. Even more than they were being pushed up by Net Zero.
Well not really. Gas and oil are bought on future contracts so what the energy companies are paying now are 3, 6, 12 month old prices.
Any increase now will be felt in the future. Current energy prices are all the work of the Nitwits in Government and their ruinous Green policies.
Sanctions, not the war, have pushed up oil & gas prices, as well Biden’s cancellation of fracking licences and Keystone pipeline in the US, creating drop in supply.
But the good news is, the higher prices are boosting revenues to Russia to fund the war.
it’s a good job we have such genius among our ruling elite.
I love Nigel Farage and Mark Francois but had to shout at the telly during their interview last night on GBN.
Nigel keeps fanning the flames of the climate crisis by accepting the lie that man made CO2 is warming the planet. As readers of WUWT and ‘Not a lot of people know that’ understand, the argument is absolute tosh.
Will someone please enlighten Nigel on this issue.
CO2 does warm the planet – that’s just physics. The question is how much, how significant are positive and negative feedbacks, and whether the damage done by Net Zero is greater than the damage caused by the emissions. See, even “absolute tosh” is complicated!
The fact that we cannot measure ‘how much’ = not much at all or we would be able to measure it. Tossing a bucket of water into the Channel raises the water level… how much?
The major, nearly the whole, warming effect is from water vapour. The supposed link with C02 is that the slight uplift in the Earth’s heat budget – thus warming – that increased CO2 can cause, will cause an increase in water vapour which will have a bigger warming effect, cause more water vapour, more warming, more water vapour, and feed-back loop will be established until… ‘tipping point’ – Yikes!
C02 is supposedly a multiplier, not a direct agent.
But this overlooks other counteracting outcomes, more cloud to block incoming heat radiation, rising warm air and then precipitation which cools, water laden air in the upper atmosphere is moved by the Earth’s rotation over the Poles – particularly South Pole – where it falls as snow and ice and is fixed thereby reducing water vapour.
That C02 has some warming effect is true, but it is part of a large complex system, and since less than 3% is from Mankind, the actual contribution to warming cannot be measured which means it is so low as to be lost in background noise and insignificant.
Dominant CO2 warming of climate is a neat, plausible idea on paper taken in isolation from myriad other factors involved, but it fails when we go in search for the evidence.
Mars: 93% atmospheric CO2, no water vapour – freezing near surface temperatures. Earth: 0.03% atmospheric CO2, 2% to 4% water vapour, average near surface temperature 14C +/-2C.
When politicians and journalists hear someone is a “scientist” they seem to believe that they have the knowledge and right to proclaim expertise in a far wider field than they are likely to have in practice. Virtually all scientists spend their lives researching in an extremely narrow compass. A “climate scientist” for example may specialise in fluid dynamics, ocean currents, solar radiation, cloud formation, atmospheric chemistry, land use, thermodynamics, orbital dynamics, particulates, weather patterns, satellite telemetry etc (and possibly in even narrower sub-fields). They will have little more expertise outside their specialism than most interested, well educated “generalists”. In reality then, there is no such thing as “climate science” other than as a portmanteau term or as a useful misdirection for journalists and politicians who are told modelling is science. A climate modeller has to make decisions how to incorporate the most appropriate recent reportage from the many and varied papers published within each of these specialisms, make judgements about their contribution, often neglect new research or data (sometimes deliberately) and predict how they will all inter react. The modeller must then incorporate all relevant forcings (with their own assumptions) into a statistical model than can supposedly forecast a chaotic climate for decades ahead. The modeller cannot possibly be an “expert” in the dozens of specialist fields that can and should contribute to climate research. Look at how well Covid models did in modelling the pandemic for just a few months (or even weeks) ahead.
There is no such thing as a ‘climate scientist’. There is no a university degree course for Climate Science. You correctly list a whole range of areas that are connected with climate, the impression that ‘climate scientists’ like to give that they are knowledgable in all of them, simply is bogus.
But ‘climate scientists’ actually relates to a handful in a hard core group, who are listened to above the hundreds of others who work in the field, most of whom challenge the ‘narrative’. They also produce crappy models. The parallel with Project CoVid Calamity is unmissable.
The end is nigh! The end is nigh! That’s what the climate catastrophists are bringing us. We’ll all have a horse and cart for travel and to carry our bits of wood and twigs home to burn for heating. On the plus side we can dry our horses dung and burn that too, at least it’ll be free.
Best not to burn anything…just in case!! That’s the “logical” conclusion to these academic whackjobs’ modelling. And politicians actually listen to these people ( because it suits the WEF goal?).
Aren’t they planning on banning wood burners? Will that include horse dung burners?
I like old tires myself!
So global emergeny due to CO2 is humbug. Carbon is a basic element of life and CO2 is not pollution, but a necessary requirement of plant life. Plant growth has increased since the marginal increase in CO2 due to humanity and plants are what directly or indirectly are what feeds us. Surely after the Covid debacle we don’t trust computer modelling any longer where some scientists put in distorted data to justify their funding and Google removes accurate measured data so as not to reduce theirs. I have installed solar panels and run an electric car and try to limit my families impact on the planet, but I don’t believe the climate emergency rubbish. I do believe some disharges from our existence cause pollution and shouild be limited but don’t think CO2 is one of them.
Your family’s impact on the planet?
What is your family, an asteroid?
‘I do believe some disharges from our existence cause pollution.’
Like the ones from mining operations to produce what is required for solar panels and car batteries do you mean?
Its a question of attitude we limit our vehicle trips and home heating have added extra insulation to our home. Our solar panels are still operating and have been installed for some time so I think on balance they will reduce pollution. Mining for the components of batteries has been shown to cause pollution and on balance that polution may cancel out much of the obvious reduction in local pollution by running an electric car, but what I am saying on the point of our impact on the planet is that we try to reduce it. Do you have any better ideas that don’t involve going back to the stone age?
The reason I like Daily Sceptics so much is that a) it tends to explain the other side of the story that MSM does not and b) it does tend prefer things with evidence…. usually.
So I ask my fellow sceptics to help me out here, because really I just don’t get it. Maybe I am being thick and missing some really obvious point but I am perplexed by the evidence presented in DS around climate temperatures.
The text in this article says ‘The news is further evidence that global temperatures started to run out of steam nearly two decades ago’ and then shows a graph with a distinctly upward trend. I am sorry, is that supposed to show that climate change is a hoax? The text and the graph say opposite things.
Perplexed, I looked at the site the graph came from. Did that show, or report that the world was not getting warmer? No, it showed the world getting warmer.
Alas this article is not alone on DS as providing (at least for me) a great deal of disparity between the narrative of the text and the evidence to support it. If I am missing something, please point it out to me.
If DS wants to point out the flaws in UK energy policy, green tariffs, lack of energy independence, rising energy prices, I have no issues with that. I see the evidence provided. There is a case to get fracking. There is a case that maybe the world getting warmer is not the disaster some say it will be.
But if DS are going to say the world isn’t getting warmer, then DS really need to provide better quality evidence to support that position. There are a great many thermometers in the world, owned by a great number of people and institutions. The raw data from dozens of sources is available for anyone to download and the world IS getting warmer. Naturally there are some oscillations and it is easy to cherry pick data to show whatever you want to show. But averaged out over the decades of the last couple of centuries, things are getting warmer at a rate not seen in modern human times before.
So a general call out to DS editors and readers for some evidence.
The best reasoning I have been able to find so far is this video ‘Why have climate change predictions been so WRONG?’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4zul0BuO8A&list=WL&index=1
If the articles cannot be evidence based, then the reputation of DS and all the good work it does is in jeopardy.
So I humbly ask for your help.
The one thing I like more the DS, is the Free Speech Union, of which I am a proud member. So please, if you feel like venting your frustration at me (or others) simply for not getting the point… don’t. Step away from the keyboard until you feel rational. There enough hate filled keyboard warriors on the woke side trying to cancel people, without team Sceptic members signing up. But if you have evidence that the world is not getting warmer, I’d love to see it.
PS many thanks to all at DS for all the hard work. It kept me sane during lockdown.
I made two factual statements. Last month saw no movement from the 30-year average. The 30-year trend is commonly used by climate scientists, specifically to get a handle on climate change, rather than short term weather variations. In addition, there has been no global temperature increase for 88 months. These two facts arise from studying the most accurate record of temperatures we have – the satellite data. If we look at the high point achieved in the late 90s and compare it to now, I think it is reasonable to state that global warming is running out of steam. Whenever we publish this graph we get plenty of people who point out there has been a warming trend. Allow me to assure you that I can see that. But we are presenting evidence that shows it is currently flatlining. If it was continuing to go up of course, it would be on every media platform on the planet.
Thanks for the reply Chris, I appreciate you taking the time to do it. I am assured that you can see the trend line is up. Likewise I can see that February 22 figure is the same as the one 88 months ago. But it is not a flat line between the dates, it has been consistently hotter for every measurement made. I would not contests the 2 facts you have highlighted, only on the conclusion that is drawn from them. These are two very cherry picked dates. Pick another two dates and you can show warming, (or cooling depending on bias) So the supposition that these two points represents a long term flat line requires evidence.
Sorry to be on your case about this, but I am sceptical about most things, including what sceptics say. I only put faith in numbers, never narrative. That graph looks like it goes up to me.
I enjoy reading articles. Thanks again for all your efforts.
Imagine climbing a hill.
You walk and walk, climb and climb.
You reach the top of the hill. Perhaps you can climb on top of a wall. Jump up and down.
But you aren’t getting any higher.
You are certainly higher than you were a couple of hours ago.
And we’re certainly warmer than we were in 1850. Difficult to say how much warmer because modern temperature readings are fiddled by siting thermometers next to runways at Heathrow- and all the rest. And temperatures from the past have been “adjusted” and “homogenised” on an industrial scale to “make the past colder”.
But the majority of the “warming” is at high latitudes, in Winter, at night.
Instead of minus 50°C at night in Franz Joseph Land, a toasty minus 20°C. And so on.
It is very likely that temperatures generally in the 1930s were similar to those today. It is almost certain that the medieval warm period was significantly warmer. And the Little Ice Age was a lot colder. Look up The Great Frost of 1709.
And the aim of Michael Mann and his totally discredited “Hockey Stick” was to pretend that global temperatures were practically static for a thousand years. And then fossil fuels. Complete bollox.
Don’t forget that 100% of the warming so far (and 100% of the increase in CO2) has so far been beneficial.
How much warmer might it get?
The honest answer? NOBODY KNOWS. ABSOLUTELY NOBODY.
Stick with wild ass guesses from fanatics who tell bare faced lies to line their pockets and advance their agenda, if you wish.
But suffer the consequences if you chose not to do your homework and if you swallow the cool-aid.
Well, we all know where ‘computer modeling’ leads don’t we?
Recommended reading for everyone, and should be compulsory reading for all school children, its simple, a matter of fact, and proven fact-based. As ever, make your own INFORMED decision. But so few do. If you listen to the official narrative alone you haven’t got a chance. https://www.beautyandthebeastlytruth.com/
Just look what they did to the ever-so-popular Dr. David Bellamy? Remember him? I seem to recall he latterly dared to question the official narrative…and disappeared from public view. Odd that.
Here is a fascinating graph of recent estimates of climate sensitivity:
https://postimg.cc/47w6x3Cg
It is interesting to consider the effect of extrapolating the ECS and TCR trends out to 2025 or 2030.
There Are Now 365 Studies that Prove the Efficacy of Ivermectin and HCQ in Treating COVID-19. Any hospital administrator who mandated the shots to employees to comply with the government mandate for Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement and who refused to allow alternative treatments to be tried, doctors who pushed their patients to take the EUA drug without giving fully informed consent, anyone who forcefully administered the shot, the AMA, AAP, Boards of Health, CDC, FDA, NIH, WHO, scientists who participated in the development, Big Pharma (Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, Astra Zeneca, et. al.), anyone who pushed the sick into nursing homes resulting in deaths, all must be arrested, prosecuted, tried and if found guilty sentenced to prolonged imprisonment and fines or death for intentional homicide. Get your ivermectin before it is too late! https://ivmpharmacy.com