October in a Tie As Warmest on Record. But What About that Global Warming Hiatus?

By Tom Yulsman | November 17, 2014 3:10 pm
Sea Surface Temperatures

The weekly evolution of sea surface temperatures is seen in this animation of images from the start of 2014 through the week of November 5th. (Maps: NOAA. Animated gif: Tom Yulsman)

It seems that 2014 is still very much on track to be the warmest year on record. On Friday, NASA released data showing that this past October tied with 2005 as the warmest in a record stretching back to 1880.

This follows record breaking warmth in September and August.

global warming hiatus

(Source: NASA GISS)

Even so, Earth’s average temperature isn’t rising as fast as it once did, prompting scientists to search for explanations of this so-called global warming hiatus. (Click the thumbnail at right and look at the circled area to see what that looks like in graph form.)

Politicians continue to exploit the slow-down for partisan purposes. As Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, the incoming chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said recently:

“While some Democrats may be convinced that global warming is continuing to occur, the scientific record does not agree . . . In fact, for the past 15 years, temperatures have not increased.”

He conveniently ignores the fact that each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years. And if that’s not warm enough for you — despite the Arctic cold that has lately plunged across part of the United States — all of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1998.

Even so, what’s causing the slowdown? You can read more about that in a story I wrote for Discover’s upcoming Year in Science issue. So look for that. But after that issue of the magazine was put to bed, new findings have rolled in, so I thought I’d share them with you here.

The possible explanations for the slowdown include a decrease in solar activity, more blocking of sunlight from aerosol pollution, and large amounts of heat being stored deep in the oceans, far from where it can help warm the air.

In my Year-in-Science story, I write about a theory advanced by Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research and colleagues. They argue that heat plunging into the depths of the Pacific Ocean is the key factor. As that has occurred, the surface waters of the tropical Pacific have cooled. (I italicized ‘tropical’ for reasons that will become clear shortly.) And this, in turn, Trenberth and his colleagues say, has triggered changes to atmospheric and ocean circulation that have ultimately led to heat also plunging into the Atlantic Ocean and polar regions as well.

A new study by Sybren Drijfhout of the UK’s University of Southampton points to heat sinking into the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, and the waters near Antarctica, as the main driver. As Puneet Kollipara describes this research in an article at Science:

Armed with a unique model that simulates the world’s oceans using historical weather data on temperature, humidity, and wind, Drijfhout and his colleagues calculated how much heat is moving between the oceans and the atmosphere, as well as where it first enters the ocean. The model revealed that the oceans were trapping more than 80% of the missing heat. But the change in sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific could account for only 30% of the extra ocean heat uptake. The other 70% was split between the Atlantic Ocean, Indian Ocean, and waters just off Antarctica, Drijfhout and his team reported online this month in Geophysical Research Letters. That suggests that the Pacific isn’t single-handedly running the show after all.

Either way, the oceans are obviously part of planet Earth, so it seems clear that global warming has been continuing — mostly deep in the oceans.

And as the animation at the top of this post suggests, it is possible that the surface of the oceans could be starting to catch up. The animation shows how the temperature of the sea surface worldwide varied from the long-term average, week-by-week beginning on January 1st of this year and up until the week of November 5th.

Keep a close eye on the northern Pacific, from offshore of California up to Alaska. Note that big splotch of orange, red, and magenta — that’s a huge amount of surface warming.

The global mean sea surface temperature this past summer was the highest on record, according to Axel Timmermann, a climate scientist at the University of Hawaii, Mānoa, quoted in a press release here. “The 2014 global ocean warming is mostly due to the North Pacific, which has warmed far beyond any recorded value . . .  and has shifted hurricane tracks, weakened trade winds, and produced coral bleaching in the Hawaiian Islands.”

It’s way too soon to say whether this is the start of a trend. But if it is, the ocean depths may be getting ready to give back some of the heat they’ve been banking. And if that happens, I wonder what Sen. Inhofe will say.

Actually, I take that back. Who cares?

  • https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/home Dean Jackson

    “But if it is, the ocean depths may be getting ready to give back some of the heat they’ve been banking.”

    Plausible, but it all comes back to one culprit–the Sun’s energy output, because Carbon Dioxide is a COOLING molecule.

    See my article, ‘Throwing Cold Water on Global Warming’, at…


    • Soosoos

      “because Carbon Dioxide is a COOLING molecule”

      I’d recommend you for a Nobel Prize but couldn’t be bothered to wade through the tediously dull conspiracy theories on your link.

      • https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/home Dean Jackson

        “I’d recommend you for a Nobel Prize but couldn’t be bothered to wade through the tediously dull conspiracy theories on your link.”

        I deal with facts, I leave the ludicrous theories to the Marxist “experts”; they’re a hoot!

        My favorite conspiracy theory is the “collapse” of the USSR. You know that one, don’t you? It was the “collapse” the West refused to VERIFY, even though the survival of the West depends on verification! Ah, you never thought about that, huh?

        My second favorite conspiracy theory is that NORAD didn’t track commercial aircraft over the United States on 9/11. Hmm, let’s see what the 9/11 Commission Report has to say on that subject…

        The 9/11 Commission Report says the following concerning NORAD’s tracking before 9/11…

        “NORAD would receive tracking information for the hijacked aircraft either from joint use radar or from the relevant FAA air traffic control facility. Every attempt would be made to have the hijacked aircraft squawk 7500 to help NORAD track it.” – Page 18


        The 9/11 Commission Report says the following concerning NORAD’s tracking on 9/11…

        “F-15 fighters were scrambled at 8:46 from Otis Air Force Base. But NEADS did not know where to send the alert fighter aircraft, and the officer directing the fighters pressed for more information: “I don’t know where I’m scrambling these guys to. I need a direction, a destination.” Because the hijackers had turned off the plane’s transponder, NEADS personnel spent the next minutes searching their radar scopes for the primary radar return. American 11 struck the North Tower at 8:46. Shortly after 8:50, while NEADS personnel were still trying to locate the flight, word reached them that a plane had hit the World Trade Center.” – Page 20


        “Controllers at NEADS located an unknown primary radar track [Flight 77], but “it kind of faded” over Washington. The time was 9:38.The Pentagon had been struck by American 77 at 9:37:46.The Langley fighters were about 150 miles away.” – Page 27


        “NEADS first received a call about United 93 from the military liaison at Cleveland Center at 10:07. Unaware that the aircraft had already crashed [at 10:03], Cleveland passed to NEADS the aircraft’s last known latitude and longitude.NEADS was never able to locate United 93 on radar because it was already in the ground.” – Page 30


        “NEADS never lost track of Delta 1989, and even ordered fighter aircraft from Ohio and Michigan to intercept it.” – Page 28


        The 9/11 Commission Report directly contradicts the government and the lying media, including the lying “alternative” media (I was the first to catch the 9/11 Commission Report’s truthful accounts of NORAD’s true tracking capabilities on 9/11, which to this day the “alternative” media refuses to report, proving that the “alternative” media is fake.)…

        “Why couldn’t ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes’ transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country’s busiest air corridors. And NORAD’s sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. “It was like a doughnut,” Martin says [Major Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD]. “There was no coverage in the middle.” Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn’t prepared to track them.” – http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-planes

        As the 9/11 Commission Report tells us, NORAD tracked all aircraft before 9/11, and on 9/11 tracked American Flight 77 and Delta Flight 1989, and was looking to track United Airlines Flight 93 and American Flight 11, but those flights had crashed before NEADS operators could find them.

        See what one can learn when one “wade[s] through the tediously dull conspiracy theories”?!

        Words of advice: (1) Pay better attention to the news; (2) do your own research, getting data from all sources; and (3) think about that data and see if it takes you anywhere new.

        • Tom Yulsman

          Mr. Jackon: Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us here. But I do need to lay down some ground rules for the future: If you’d like to comment here again, I ask that you do so concisely — no more comments that go on and on for many paragraphs like this — and that you stick to the topic of the post. I’m sorry, but the events of 9/11 have absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote about. Also, it should go without saying that you should be respectful and constructive. If you can’t follow these simple guidelines, I will ask that you take your commentary somewhere else.

  • Christopher Johnson

    this is all terribly esoteric, however the only reasonable conclusion is that Global Climate is a science very properly in the observational stage. Theories to explain the observations are useful only to inform further observations. Since the theories keep proving inadequate for predicting subsequent observations, changing behaviours at this point would be maybe unnecessary, perhaps counter productive. No one can say.

    • Andrew Failes

      Not true. Climate science is very well understood and completely predictable over time. Small short term variations are something that can be more difficult to explain but in no way detract from what we know is happening. The theories are in no way inadequate for predicting observations on the whole. The only question within the scientific community is at what speed the changes will occur. Not changing behaviour would be suicidal. Even if the rate of change was to occur more slowly than predicted it would still be suicidal.

  • http://dev.blogs.discovermagazine.com Longmire

    Perhaps in reality those who care are misguided and those who don’t are correct.

  • Hew

    global warming is largely not due to greenhouse gases, that is a major misconception in climate science, instead it is due to methane and carbon monoxide that deplete the ozone in stratosphere, thus allow more stronger solar radiations penetrating down to the surface lands, atmosphere and oceans, heat transfer from atmosphere to ocean water is not much, direct sunlight shining on seawater and its high heat capacity that keeps its warmness accumulate, and the heat transfer from ocean into atmosphere is increasingly significant.

    • John Samuel

      Try again. John Tyndall will not be denied.

  • ShadowOfTheVoid

    It seems that denialists simply invented the so-called “pause” by arbitrarily drawing a line from 1998 to the present on the yearly land+ocean surface temperatures graph and calling it a day. The whole “global warming stopped in 1998” meme has been parroted for at least a decade, and it’s still just as bogus as it’s always been, because it’s based on an utter ability to understand simple graphs, the concept of long-term trend vs. short-term noise, or the fact that raw surface temperature data isn’t the only thing climatologists focus on. After all, why use 1998 at the starting point of the trend line? Why not 1996, or 1997, or 1999? Also, why ignore the fact that of the top ten warmest years on record, 1998 is the only one from last century? Or how it’s not even the warmest on record anymore, having been surpassed by 2005 and 2010? Or how as a whole the 00s were warmer than the 90s by about 0.2°C? Or how most of the heating has been in the oceans, which have warmed considerably as well?

    While the rate of surface warming has slowed down over the past decade, the rate of warming has never been constant. The running average over the past 100 years sometimes rose sharply, sometimes it stayed relatively flat, and it even dipped, but those were over periods of 5-10 years. Over the past century, the average surface temperature has undeniably risen a great deal. Global warming hasn’t “stopped” any more than it did in, say, the period from 1987-1994, or the period from 1957-1964, or the one from 1937-1950. Making a big deal out the past decade not seeing warming as fast as the previous decade is molehill mountaineering, plain and simple. Not every decade has to look like the 90s, you know.

    • David H

      “It seems that denialists simply invented the so-called “pause” by arbitrarily drawing a line from 1998 to the present on the yearly land+ocean surface temperatures graph and calling it a day.”

      Makes you wonder what all those main stream climate scientists who are seeking an explanation for the pause are up to then doesn’t it? Still keeps them out of the pub I suppose, and gainfully employed.

      • Andrew Failes

        It’s not a pause though. They are wondering why there is an apparent slow down in atmospheric warming (not climate change and not a pause), which is still within predicted limits of variability, but are finding that the extra energy is being absorbed by oceans. It’s as simple as that. The deniers cut the graph off at 1998 to make it look like a pause, which it isn’t. It doesn’t take a genius to figure it out. Science doesn’t care about your politics. CO2 is a GHG and a forcer for climate change. The experiment that proved this was done in the 1800’s. Add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere and it’s going to get warmer. It’s that simple.

    • OWilson

      I’m with you on drawing arbitrary straight lines and projecting them far into the future. The IPCC hopefully learned their lesson.
      But we do have a consistent, empirical, observed data set from the satellite era beginning in 1979. That’s 35 years, 5 years more than IPCC’s period of weather observations they define as “climate”.
      It shoes NO statistically significant changes in temperature, global ice cover, or sea level rise. Those are facts.
      The “nth warmest on record” (from 1890) stuff is just an obfuscation of the facts.
      A classic denial.

      • Jaget santos

        “I’m with you on drawing arbitrary straight lines and projecting them far into the future. The IPCC hopefully learned their lesson.”

        Do you even understand what a projection is?
        Please do us all a favour and educate yourself moron.

        • OWilson

          Ah, the name calling.

          Last resort of the ignorant.

          • John Samuel

            Ah, the irony. Calling people “ignorant” and criticising name calling. What a delightful lack of self awareness.

          • Rohn Johnson

            Not name-calling, moron. Just the facts. Or would your prefer “willfully ignorant?” You moron.

      • walkedmileseveryday

        You are kidding right, Owilson? Much of our climate data and photos of Greenland and the Arctic come from satellite data. Which satellite are you using? Was it one of those Cons. anti-science Boy Scout experiments?

  • robert

    oh is it really the warmest ? we are tired of you guy’s lying for the government, nobody believes anything from main stream media anymore unless of course you’re a complete tool. global warming is the biggest scam ever pulled on the human population and we are aware of it. you know who really is responsible for all this BS ? The greedy Elite who were willing to move their factories over seas for NAFTA, where the pollution laws were almost non existent and the labor cheap, and they didn’t care about the health issues they would cause to the locals and their children, so where is Al Gore on that ? why aren’t the Elite guilted into into giving up their rights and money ? and what about all the traitors that work for these elites doing their bidding against us. They should all go to prison and be charged for treason , That should include those traitors that try to convince the masses that global warming is happening when it’s not !

  • voltaic

    Science, schmiense. GOP demand more Ouija Boards and voodoo dolls be distributed to schools…..

  • David H

    No matter what way you cut the cake there are natural variations and forcings that constantly appear and cause confusion to this so called settled science. If that does not give you pause for throught then I don’t know what would.

    We were told, categorically in 2006, that the debate was over, the science settled, and it was time for action. I suspect that was a tad premature

    • John Samuel

      The scientific debate was over a generation ago. Denial has a long memory.

  • Jim Russell

    Never confuse the weather with climate. A warm month does not make a climate trend. I am certain that November will nullify September’s record.

    • Tom Yulsman

      Hi Jim: Thank you too for contributing here. You are absolutely correct about a warm month not making a climate trend. As for November nullifying September’s warmth, I wouldn’t bet on that. It is quite possible that unusual warmth across most of the globe will nullify the frigid cold in just one relatively small part of it — the U.S. midsection. This happened in 2013. As NOAA put it (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2014/20140717_stateoftheclimate.html): “Four major independent datasets show 2013 was among the warmest years on record, ranking between second and sixth depending upon the dataset used. In the Southern Hemisphere, Australia observed its warmest year on record, while Argentina had its second warmest and New Zealand its third warmest.” I’ll point out that this was true despite the notorious polar vortex last winter and spring, which depressed temperatures dramatically in the same region that has experienced an Arctic outbreak this week and last.

    • John Samuel

      No nullification.

  • Buddy199

    When climate scientists can offer accurate, detailed predictions for global conditions 5 years into the future (let alone 50 or 100) I will be impressed. Reading their impressive explanations for why they failed to accurately predict conditions, not so much.

    • John Samuel

      The earth warms. Surface, oceans and melting ice. It’s just physics.

    • Rohn Johnson

      No, you won’t be impressed, Buddy, until you can’t grow Kentucky Bluegrass in your baked front yard. Because you, like a dog, experience weather, and that is all you know. It’s cold in your backyard. It’s wet in your backyard. So what’s all this blather about global warming, right? Moron.

      • Buddy199

        Spit out the tobacco juice, put down the scotch and borrow a brain from your neighbor in the next trailer.

  • OWilson

    It’s fun to watch the warmers searching for the real cause of this “hiatus”. Reminds me of a losing gambler trying to justify his loss, “I was actually right, if….”.

    Or the child that insists the bogyman is still there even though the parents open all the closet doors. “But he’s still there, Momma, hiding under the bed, (the ocean)!”.

    New studies and theories to explain what is happening, may add to our knowledge, but it is getting further and further away from what was once, they insisted, “settled science”.

    • Tony Peart

      There was never any hiatus . People who don’t understand the science are having what they call a debate and arguing from ignorance . If you receive all your info from journalists then no wonder you lack the ability to comprehend what is happening .

      • OWilson

        Ah, the arrogance of the true believer.

        What IS happening is that the most credible observed, empirical data (the 35 year satellite record) shows NO statistically significant changes in temperature, global ice cover, or sea level rise. Those are facts.

        The rest is flawed modeling from unreliable data (1890 ? that was the stone age in scientific terms) and alarmist anti- capitalist speculation from the usual political sources.

        Not to mention classic denialism.

        • Jaget santos

          Ah the arrogance of a denier, thinks he knows more then scientist :D.

          “the 35 year satellite record”

          LOL not a single dataset agrees with you – not one.


          “..global ice cover, or sea level rise. Those are facts.”

          – 159 Gt Antarctic LAND ice volume………McMillan el al, GRL (2014)
          + 26 Gt Antarctic SEA ice volume…………Holland et al, J Climate (2014)
          – 261 Gt Arctic sea ice…………………………..PIOMAS
          – 378 Gt Greenland, Enderlin et al………….GRL (2014)
          – 259 Gt other land based glaciers…………Gardner et al. Science (2013)

          TOTAL ICE LOSS PER YEAR = 1,031 Gt.

          Btw denier where is your sources?
          Talk about arrogance.

          • OWilson

            I didn’t bother going any further than your first link.

            For them (UofYork) their world ended in the fall of 2012.

            How convenient. But then, I expect that from you guys.:)

            The rise in temperature from 1979 to 2014 is 0.37 degrees (UAH Dataset)

            At that rate by the year 2100 it would have risen another 0.74 degrees. However, for the last decade or so that trend has flattened out, which has led to what the IPCC calls an “hiatus”.

            Not statistically significant.

            As for GLOBAL (we had TWO poles last time I checked) ice cover, see the graph 1978 to 2014 at NSIDC, the only credible source.

            Which, of course affects sea levels over the same period, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves, shall we?

          • walkedmileseveryday

            Good news O Wilson. I found the “Satellite Data”. and I think you misinterpreted it. The line slopee left to right, upwards, not downwards. Here is a link to NASA, (they know a little about satellites) Comparision of ground measurements vs Satellite measurements. Almost a 1:1 correspondence. We await your apology. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatures.png

          • OWilson

            Your chart ends in 2009, Einstein.

            That’s even worse junk than your comrade above tried to pass off :)

            Come back when you get some up to date data.

            But, sigh!, I can see why low info voters could buy this stuff.

          • Jaget santos

            Denier do you actually have any sources?
            Oh I see you don’t. How convenient denier.

          • OWilson

            I posted the sources above:

            Hiatus – IPCC AR5

            Temperature – UAH

            Global Ice cover – NSIDC

            and this just in – Nature Geoscience :

            “Groundbreaking 3D mapping of previously inaccessible areas of the Antarctic has found that the sea ice fringing the vast continent is thicker than previous thought.

            Two expeditions to Antarctica by scientists from the UK, USA and Australia analysed an area of ice spanning 500,000 metres squared, using a robot known as SeaBed”.

            Who’s the “denier”?

          • John Samuel

            You are.

            The globe warms: surface, oceans and melting ice.

            The surface warms.

            The oceans warm.
            …and rise 3.2 mm per year, up from 1.9 mm per year a century ago.
            …and acidify by 30% since the industrial revolution.

            The earth is losing a trillion tons of ice per year:
            – 159 Gt Antarctic land ice, McMillan el al, GRL (2014)
            + 26 Gt Antarctic sea ice, Holland et al, J Climate (2014)
            – 261 Gt Arctic sea ice, PIOMAS
            – 378 Gt Greenland, Enderlin et al, GRL (2014)
            – 259 Gt other land based glaciers, Gardner et al. Science (2013)
            = – 1,031 Gt, total

          • OWilson

            Again I didn’t get past your first link.

            “Charity Tip Jar”?

            A chart which ended in 2009 ?

            More junk science for the low info folks.

            I’m done with you, troll.

          • John Samuel

            I’m surprised you even tried to read the first link. Did a friend help?

            There is no pause.

        • walkedmileseveryday

          So we have data, from, tens of thousands of “sources” and you are refering to “a satellite record”. Is this one satellite, or all of them put together, etc. I am boggled by your knowledge of “satellite” data. Does this satellite also measure employment and wage data? Hopefully this “satellite data” has observed the high costs of health care too and our need for a single payer system.

      • susansylvia

        I’m not sure why you would say that there was never any hiatus. The IPCC’s AR5 report of 2013 discusses it in a fair amount of detail, especially as it relates to their models’ inadequacy in forecasting it. And I quote:

        …As a consequence, it is argued in Chapter 11 that near-term model projections of GMST increase should be scaled down by about 10% (Section This downward scaling is, however, not sufficient to
        explain the model-mean overestimate of GMST trend over the hiatus period.

        In summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during
        1951–2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment, medium confidence). The forcing trend reduction is primarily due to a negative forcing trend from both volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of forcing trend in causing the hiatus, because of uncertainty in the magnitude of the volcanic forcing trend and low confidence in the aerosol forcing trend.

        Almost all CMIP5 historical simulations do not reproduce the observed recent warming hiatus.

        End quote.

        There really is no longer any debate over whether there has been a ‘hiatus’ in the warming process since 1998. Event the argument that ‘the heat is hiding in the ocean’ has been laid to rest by NASA’s recent study. The only question that remains now is why the models didn’t see the hiatus coming. It would be wise if you actually read the IPCC and NASA report before making condescending comments. If you receive all your info from journalists, then no wonder you lack the ability to comprehend what is happening.

  • https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/home Dean Jackson

    “October in a Tie As Warmest on Record. But What About that Global Warming Hiatus?”

    What about it…

    “All 50 states have below freezing temperatures today”


    • Tom Yulsman

      Hi Dean: Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Here is something for you to consider: The weather you are experiencing tells you very little if anything about the weather people are experiencing elsewhere in the world. So while the U.S. midsection was cooler than average in October (and is downright frigid now), many other parts of the world were unusually warm, including Australia, Central Asia, parts of Siberia, Europe, and elsewhere. Just as important, keep in mind that the cold snaps here and hot spells there are examples of weather — the day-to-day variations in the state of the atmosphere. It’s how those variations add up over several decades that gives you climate. And when you look at global averages over decades, it’s clear that climate change has not gone into hibernation. Each one of the last three decades has been successively warmer at Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1860. That is a clear indication of climate change.

      • https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/home Dean Jackson

        “It’s how those variations add up over several decades that gives you climate. And when you look at global averages over decades, it’s clear that climate change has not gone into hibernation.”

        Yeah, I’m aware of that. I just added the link as a curiosity, indicating micro oscillations in solar activity…


        The article concludes (and the data is robustly correlative)…

        “70-90 years oscillations in global mean temperature are correlated with corresponding oscillations in solar activity. Whereas the solar influence is obvious in the data from the last four centuries, signatures of human activity are not yet distinguishable in the observations.”

        The reason human activity isn’t distinguishable in the data is due to the FACT, as I pointed out in my article on this subject (see my pertinent comment below), that Carbon Dioxide is a COOLING gas!

        • Asemodeus

          Are you still peddling lies Dean? For shame!


          • https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/home Dean Jackson

            “Are you still peddling lies Dean? For shame!”

            ‘So now to calculate the change in temperature, we just need to know the climate sensitivity. Studies have given a possible range of values of 2 to 4.5°C warming for a doubling of CO2 (IPCC 2007), which corresponds to a range of 0.54 to 1.2°C/(W-m-2) for λ. We can then calculate the change in global temperature caused by the increase in TSI since 1900 using the formulas above. Although Wang, Lean, and Sheeley’s reconstruction puts the change in TSI since 1900 at about 0.5 W-m-2, previous studies have shown a larger change, so we’ll estimate the change in TSI at 0.5 to 2 W-m-2.’


            In order to disprove the Sun’s robust effect on climate change, Skeptical Science assumes Carbon Dioxide is a WARMING molecule, and adjusts its calculations accordingly. When so adjusted, Skeptical Science’s calculations show a not too robust role for Solar activity that would explain Earth’s climate change in the last half century or so. Well, guess what Skeptical Science’s calculations would find if Carbon Dioxide were coded as a COOLING gas, as empirical experiments on Carbon Dioxide affirm? Skeptical Science would find the following to be true…


            Because Carbon Dioxide is a COOLING molecule, it’s masking the higher total solar irradiance the Earth’s been experiencing the last 32 years, contradicting the Skeptical Science article where it observes, “But since TSI hasn’t increased in at least the past 32 years (and more like 60 years, based on reconstructions), the Sun is not directly responsible for the warming over that period.” Yes, the Sun is responsible for the warming.

          • John Samuel

            CO2 absorbs IR – known since 1859. Try again.

          • https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/home Dean Jackson

            “CO2 absorbs IR – known since 1859. Try again.”

            I never said it didn’t.

          • John Samuel
        • walkedmileseveryday

          “The Millenium Group”. That is not a good place to get information dean. Unless you want to know about the Reptillians hiding behind the Hale Bop Comet, or the unearthed giant Turkish Skeleton. And of the “Millenials” GHG data, etc…http://tmgnow.com/repository/cometary/shechinah/shechinah.html

          • https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/home Dean Jackson

            “Unless you want to know about the Reptillians hiding behind the Hale Bop Comet…”

            A 1996 TMG article on Comet Hale-Bopp with cutting edge observations, including the actual composition of comets…



    • walkedmileseveryday

      Hi Dean, here is some of the science behind your analysis: “Its almost the middle of Winter, and scientists have observed that is when it is cold in the NORTHERN hemisphere”. Can you understand that climate science?



ImaGeo is a visual blog focusing on the intersection of imagery, imagination and Earth. It focuses on spectacular visuals related to the science of our planet, with an emphasis (although not an exclusive one) on the unfolding Anthropocene Epoch.

About Tom Yulsman

Tom Yulsman is Director of the Center for Environmental Journalism and a Professor of Journalism at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He also continues to work as a science and environmental journalist with more than 30 years of experience producing content for major publications. His work has appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, Audubon, Climate Central, Columbia Journalism Review, Discover, Nieman Reports, and many other publications. He has held a variety of editorial positions over the years, including a stint as editor-in-chief of Earth magazine. Yulsman has written one book: Origins: the Quest for Our Cosmic Roots, published by the Institute of Physics in 2003.


See More


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collapse bottom bar