Global warming spiked in January, setting new record

By Tom Yulsman | February 15, 2016 12:06 pm

With an El Niño nudge, January saw record high temperatures. But accumulating greenhouse gases are the long-run cause of global warming.

global warming

The pattern of temperature anomalies around the globe in January shows particular abnormal warmth in the high northern latitudes, across Canada, Greenland and Siberia. Overall, the global average temperature was 1.13 degrees C, or slightly more than 2 degrees F, warmer than the long-term average. (Source: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.)

| Two updates, 2/16/16. See below. |

January saw an extraordinary, record-setting spike in global average temperature, according to the just released monthly analysis from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The global average temperature at Earth’s surface for January 2016 was 1.13 degrees C above the 1951-1980 average. That’s slightly more than 2 degrees F. The previous record for January, set in 2007, was .95 C, or 1.71 F above average. NASA’s climate record goes back to 1880.

The super El Niño pattern that we’re still in right now hit a peak in January, and that no doubt played a role in this global temperature spike. You can see it’s direct influence in the form of that spear of very warm Pacific Ocean water jutting out from South America along the equator, with associated warmth over the continent itself.

SEE ALSO: If a La Niña follows the current super El Niño, it will probably be bad news for drought-plagued California

But as Thomas R. Karl, director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information, pointed out in a recent press briefing about 2015, which itself turned out to be record warm:

The trend over time is why we’re having a record warm year.

El Niño does cause global average temperature to spike. But the spike for this month, and for all of 2015, came on top of the long-term trend, which looks like this:

Global warming


The black line in the graph above shows the annual mean temperature anomaly, and it takes us only through 2015. So it does not include January 2016. But the overall trend is clear.

The red line showing the 5-year running mean smooths out the year-to-year natural variations — like those caused by warm El Niño phases (1997/1998, for example), and cool La Niña phases (1999/2000). As a result, it shows the long-term trend even better.

global warming


The map at the top of this post shows that extreme warmth in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere played a key role in driving global temperatures up in January of 2016. So does the graph to the right. (Click to enlarge.) It shows how temperatures departed from the long-term average along each band of latitude.

To the extreme left in the graph is the South Pole (where the United States has a base). From there to about -60 degrees latitude, temperatures were actually a bit below normal. The map above shows this too.

Continuing toward the right — meaning farther and farther north — a sudden jump in temperature occurs at about 60 degrees north. That’s about the same latitude as Achorage, Alaska, and Oslo, Norway. (The Arctic Circle is at 66.56, and the North Pole at 90.)

| Update 2/16/16: Remarkably warm temperatures in the Arctic during January have been linked most directly to a phenomenon involving differences in air pressure over the Arctic and lower latitudes. Known as the Arctic Oscillation, or AO, it went strongly negative in January, yielding higher atmospheric pressure over the Arctic and lower in the mid-latitudes. (Click here for side-by-side graphics from the National Snow and Ice Data Center showing the air pressure and temperature patterns.)

As a result of the strongly negative Arctic Oscillation, cold polar air was able to spill south. Meanwhile, the pattern of high and low pressure systems tended to pump relatively warm air up into the Arctic. (Update ends here.) |

Over the long run, warming in the Arctic has occurred about twice as fast as the rest of the globe. This is believed to result from positive feedbacks on temperature. Chief among these feedbacks is one involving Arctic sea ice. Here’s how it works:

Warming of the atmosphere resulting largely from our emissions of greenhouse gases has caused Arctic sea ice to retreat in extent. The result: increasing amounts of dark sea water are exposed. In summer, sunlight that would ordinarily bounce off bright ice and snow now strikes the increasing extent of open water. Dark surfaces are very good at absorbing energy, so waters warm. And some of that warmth is re-radiated into the atmosphere, thereby magnifying warming in the Arctic.

Amplification of human-caused global warming has caused significant ecological impacts in the high north, as well as impacts on local, indigenous communities.

SEE ALSO: Whispers of ecological change in the Arctic are trying to tell us something. Are we listening? 

“Indigenous peoples are running out of time and are having fewer opportunities to adapt to changes,” said Aili Keskitalo, president of the Sami Parliament of Norway, speaking at the 2016 Arctic Frontiers conference in Tromsø, Norway.

The Sami people have been reindeer herders, and their traditional livelihoods are now threatened by a warming climate.

I’ve emailed several experts to get further explanation and commentary about January’s record-setting global temperature. As soon as I hear from them, I’ll update this post. So please check back.

| Update 2/16/16:  After January’s analysis was released by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, I emailed a few questions to the director, Gavin Schmidt. I asked him how he would describe the record-setting month, and the possible roles El Niño and other factors. I didn’t ask anything about climate change. He got back to me today, and here was his response:

We generally don’t comment on single months because there is a lot of variability there and our main focus is on the long term trends, not the vagaries of weather. For short term variability you are better off talking to meteorologists, not us.

So here’s my take: NASA GISS is funded by taxpayer dollars to do these analyses, and it makes them public every month. By not providing any expert guidance in interpreting what the data mean, GISS scientists are missing an opportunity to do public education that would prevent just the sort of misinterpretation they may well fear. I also don’t believe any of my questions were beyond Gavin Schmidt’s expertise.

That said, his reply did get me to thinking about the way I handle weather, on the one hand, and climate on the other. As a science journalist who writes about these issues very often, I find that it is all too easy to forget to make the distinction crystal clear. I also worry that writing about each monthly report could be misleading. A single month does not constitute climate. Twelve months times 10 (a decade) does. By focusing on such a small time period — four weeks — am I helping to sow confusion on this issue? I surely do not want to.

In this post, I did try to put the monthly report on global temperatures into the context of the long-term trend. And I also tried to explain proximate meteorological factors, such as the Arctic Oscillation. I thought I was finding the right balance between explaining weather and providing the long-term climatic context. But perhaps I need to do better.

With all of this in mind, I’m thinking about doing an entire post on weather and climate — an explainer that could help us all sort out the complexities. We’ll see.

In the meantime, please weigh in with your own thoughts below. I have just one request: Feel free to criticize me, but no ad hominem attacks please — on me or anyone else. Stick to the issues at hand. Be civil. And I will be grateful. 

  • TreeParty

    Lessee, even the UAH satellite data reports January 2106 as the warmest January since their records began. It will be interesting to see how the hard-core deniers spin this. Most of them depend on the anomalously hot El Nino year of 1998 to buttress their bogus claim of “no warming for 18 years.” Let’s see if they are so hypocritical and evidence-averse as to dismiss this sign of accelerating warming as “anomalous”.

    • Mike Richardson

      The entire past year has erased any uncertainty regarding a “pause” in the warming. We’ve seen record after record with each month, and this year appears set to continue that trend, itself part of the overall long-term trend in warming temperatures. Apparently, the oceans are only soaking up so much of the heat (part of the supposed “pause” before giving it back. But you’re right — as the post from Odin’s shown, this evidence only encourages more inventiveness on the part of those who simply can’t accept mankind’s role in raising the global temperature. I’m sure we’ll see one or two others show up before long to contribute some politically inspired rants against accepting scientific fact.

      • Jens Hansen

        This warming phenonomen is it a new thing or has it been going on for some years

        • abulinix

          Nonsense and idiocy disguised as illiteracy. The trend is up, up, up, even in the satellite measurements, which are not direct measurements of air temperature but rather measurements of microwave radiation emitted by oxygen molecules tens of miles away, that must be fed into models, including adjustments for orbital decay and atmospheric parameters, in order to estimate temperature. Land temperatures are up about 20% more. And 90-95% of heat is trapped in the oceans, which have been warming to the tune of 5 Hiroshima bombs per second over the last quarter century. Your Arctic is melting, about 13% per decade; Ice thousands of years old is disappearing every summer. Shameful ignorance or shameful mendacity? It’s one or the other, no matter how bad your English.

          • Jens Hansen

            How good is your norwegian.
            Are you useing Hiroshimabombs to measure ocean heat now. How many bombs of heat does the ocean hold as a total. I guess this massive build up of heat will transfer to the amosphere some time soon or. Is NOOA’s huge fleet of satellites a waist. Southern hemisphere is getting colder thats a fact and the south pole is not going to melt.

          • abulinix

            I do not attempt to post in languages other than those I speak well. The increase in total energy of the earth system has been enormous–and has indeed translated to (rapidly) rising temperatures, in ocean and on land–as even your own links to the satellite data show (and temperature modeling from satellite microwave data are by no means “the” definitive dataset–only one of many). With that, we also know that the oceans have been absorbing more than their share of energy since about 1997, and that pattern has been shifting of late–resulting in the unprecedented temperatures of 2015–and now 2016, with more on the way. Arctic melting produces positive feedbacks aside from impacts on sea level. The Southern Hemisphere is not warming as quickly as the northern, but it is most certainly not cooling. Another loaf of total nonsense from you. That the Antarctic ice sheet isn’t melting away anytime soon is true–but there is enough ice on Greenland to flood many of our major population centers (which, incidentally are predominantly situated in Northern latitudes). To sum up, you and your ilk are despicable.

          • OWilson

            That’s a little over the top, and if our erstwhile moderator was in the least bit consistent, he would tell you so. :)

          • Tom Yulsman

            I’m tired. Have a nice day.

          • OWilson

            Thanks Tom, no need for us to fight. You have my best regards, and my respect for your opinions and the serious effort that goes into producing a most interesting and amazingly illustrated blog.

            It’s just that…. well, let me just say that it is YOU that has chosen this particular subject, which is probably the most contentious, since the Scopes monkey trials.:)

            But that should please you, as it is certainly one that is followed by a lot of your avid readers.

            If you look at the posts you will see that the invectives and ad hominems usually comes from one side of the debate. It is to these folks who just repeat the dogma, and insults, but can never seem to follow their own illogic to a realistic conclusion, that my ire is directed.

            As always the opportunity to comment is much appreciated.

          • Tom Yulsman

            Thank you Mr. Wilson for the pat on the back. I appreciate it. And for the record, I’m not tired because of the comment section of the blog. I just like doing too may things, so as a result I do too many of them for too long. But I’m really not complaining.

          • Rick Kooi

            data never revealed before. ALL Satellite DATA from 1979 to 2016…all of it.
            RAW DATA
            on the web site of the founder of the Global Warming “pause” & “hiatus”


          • Rick Kooi

            More water south…and the energy absorbed is a bit delayed….but it is coming.

          • Rick Kooi

            Examine world temperatures for the
            ….1st time….
            data never revealed before. ALL Satellite DATA from 1979 to 2016…all of it.
            RAW DATA
            on the web site of the founder of the Global Warming “pause” & “hiatus”


          • just_jim

            Just a small quibble. I believe that the 5 Hiroshima bombs a second is the current rate. The average over the last 25 years is closer to 4 Hiroshima bombs a second.

          • Jens Hansen

            I actualy read the report. Its a sientific blunder were the writer first state that warmer seas will store less heat. then telling the public that oceans has stored the same amount of heat last 15 year that did in the first 150 years of the so called of unnatrual human heating of the globe. just to use hiroshima bombs as a measurements tell us that this i activism not sience.

        • Rick Kooi

          A UK Science team declared that the last 20 years has been the HOTTEST 20 Year PERIOD in recorded history.
          **Almost immediately science teams in several countries decided to challenge the claim.

          **HUNDREDS of ICE CORES were examined in detail…instead of disproving the claim, they verified AND extended it.
          **The last 20 Year Period has been the hottest in thousands of years…hotter than the European Medieval Warming and hotter that the Roman warming….by quite a margin.
          **They found CO2 in our atmosphere is a higher level than found in hundreds of thousands of years.
          **Methane is higher than in well over a millions years.
          **Other teams examined SOIL CORES and still others examined tree rings.

          …all verified that the last 20 years have been hottest in thousands of years….
          In 1958, famed director Frank Capra shot “The Unchained Goddess,” one
          of The Bell Laboratory Science Series shown on American TV and later in
          U.S. classrooms. As related by Open Culture, one of the narrators declares:
          now, man may be unwittingly changing the world’s climate through the waste products of its civilization. Due to our releases in factories and
          automobiles every year of more than six billion tons of carbon dioxide, which helps the air absorb heat from the sun, our atmosphere may be getting warmer.”

          “When asked if this is bad, the narrator explains:“Well, it’s been calculated a few degrees rise in the Earth’s temperature
          would melt the polar ice caps. And if this happens, an inland sea would fill a good portion of the Mississippi valley. Tourists in glass bottom
          boats would be viewing the drowned towers of Miami through 150 feet of tropical water.

    • Lakota Clearwater

      Denier are prepared to give their Etch-a-Sketch a good shake and start over with a new baseline of 2016, or 2017 (whichever ends up being warmer), and from that point they will provide abundant evidence that there’s another hiatus, or perhaps even cooling. Of course another record year will come along in a few years, and they’ll have to start yet another time series. For those who do begrudgingly accept that the earth is warming, there are many options to choose from that preserve the denier’s core beliefs. For example, there are the conspiracy theorists who claim that the government is intentionally warming earth in order to impose whatever it is that deniers fear will be imposed. They have an unlimited capacity to improvise alternative hypotheses to explain away science and reality.

      • Jens Hansen

        Were is the huge temperatur raise in their satellitt data.

        • just_jim

          I’m not particularly interested in how much warming there is 5 miles up which is the lowest the satellites measure. I live on the surface, my food comes from the surface. The surface temperature is what matters to me.

    • Jens Hansen

      Well you can all take a look at the data your self.
      Now please tell me were the huge increace in temperatur the last 18 yeas is manifested in their satellitt data.

    • abulinix

      Spencer used to put a sine-wave through his data, “for entertainment purposes only.” Unceremoniously removed it several years back.

    • 9.8m/ss

      They also lean heavily on estimates of stratospheric temperature from numerical models. They’ve been told over and over that those estimates are “satellite data” which are “more accurate” than measurements from actual thermometers at Earth’s surface. The president (Carl Means) of the company (Remote Sensing Systems) that packages the satellite estimates says they’re misusing his company’s product. But deniers never let facts get in the way of an emotionally appealing talking point.

      • Rick Kooi

        NO! They haven’t been told over and over that satellite data is more accurate.
        1.Satellite’s do not measure temps. they require radiance interpolation and then manipulation to come up with temperatures of sorts at a thousand feet or so.
        2.Satellites generally TRAIL ground level temps trends since they are sampling THAT high.
        3.Even RSS web site declares Ground Stations are more reliable.
        4. SEE ALL THE RAW SATELLITE DATA, here to for kept secret… NOW available that the web site of the Father of

        “global Warming Pause”
        “global Warming Hiatus”
        ‘slight Cooling”

        Give the 1st Graph a quick left to right once over….along that BLACK CENTER Line.
        WHERE are the most temperature dots left of center (1979)….??
        WHERE are the most temperature dots RIGHT of center. (2016)…??

  • odin2

    The “hottest year on record” claim is a red herring to deflect from the fact that the satellite data shows that there has been no global warming in the lower troposphere in 18 years and 8 months in spite of the fact that 2015 is an El Nino year (which causes a natural spike in global temperatures). Here is what Dr Lindzen had to say about the claim that 2015 was a “record” year:

    ” ‘Frankly, I feel it is proof of dishonesty to argue about things like small fluctuations in temperature or the sign of a trend,’ Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, tells the science blog Climate Depot. ‘Why lend credibility to this dishonesty?’

    ‘All that matters is that for almost 40 years, model projections have almost all exceeded observations,’ Lindzen says. ‘Even if all the observed warming were due to greenhouse emissions, it would still point to low sensitivity.'”

    • 9.8m/ss

      Lindzen is not “a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.” He retired three years ago, to pursue a career in “free market” political advocacy. But what would you expect from Daily Caller?

      • odin2

        From the MIT website:

        Having trouble finding something to smear Lindzen with?

        • 9.8m/ss

          The CV on that page was last updated in 2010. The correct title would be Professor Emeritus. But if they haven’t appointed a new person to the Alfred Sloan seat, I suppose he can still use that title instead.
          Linzen did a lot of good work a long time ago. Recently, he became a full time public relations man for the fossil fuel investors.

          • odin2

            Whatever. Sneer and smear is all that you have. Is is more accurate to say that he is free from the shackles of government funding. He can speak his mind.

          • TreeParty

            Sneer and smear is all fine, all part of the game. What climate scientists have that makes a difference is EVIDENCE of global warming, in temperature measurements, sea level rise, ice mass melting, etc etc. And EVIDENCE that greenhouse gas emissions are by far and away the largest forcing of the observed warming. You are apparently impervious to the glacial weight of the evidence, and cling to the dubiousness of a scientist who, let’s be charitable, is not at the top of his game. Appeal to “authority” is all you have, and it is a mighty weak argument against the mass of evidence for AGW.

          • odin2

            You are projecting. Provide one or more scientific journals showing by empirical evidence that humans (primarily Anthropogenic CO2 emissions) are the primary cause of global warming at any time.

            Both of the satellite data sets (RSS & UAH) show that there has been no global warming in the past 18+ years despite increasing CO2 emissions during this period equal to 1/3 of the rise in CO2 since pre-industrial times. If CO2 emissions were a direct and significant cause of global warming, we would have experienced global warming during the 18+ year pause. We did not.


            There is no empirical evidence showing that CO2 emissions are the primary cause of global warming.

            The hypothesis about human caused global warming (AGW) is not supported by empirical evidence. The hypothesis is based on computers which overemphasize CO2’s role in climate change and de-emphasize the role of clouds, solar cycles, ocean cycles and other natural causes of climate change. These computers have been notoriously wrong almost all of the time (when compared to real world data) and have been compared to a sports team that played the entire season without winning a game. Computers that model an imaginary planet and are programmed with guesses of a few of the many variables affecting climate are not data or empirical evidence. Ninety-eight percent of the climate models relied upon by the IPCC failed to predict the 18 year and eight month pause and their projections of future temperatures during the last 20 years substantially exceeded the observed temperatures during this period.

            The outside atmospheric levels of CO2 are currently around 400 ppm. During the last ice age CO2 levels fell to 180 ppm and plants started to shut down. If CO2 levels had reached 150 ppm or lower, plants would have died off and all plant and animal life on the planet would have died. Green houses regularly keep CO2 concentrations at 1000-1200 ppm because the plants grow better. In the past, CO2 levels have been at several thousand parts per million and plants and animals thrived. US submarines try to keep CO2 levels below 8,000 ppm. Federal OSHA standards set CO2 maximums at 5,000 ppm. When you exhale, your breath contains more than 40,000 ppm CO2. The most predominant greenhouse gas is water vapor and increased CO2 levels are greening the planet.

            We are much closer to being CO2 deprived than we are being threatened by too much atmospheric CO2. Plants thrive on more CO2- that is a good thing. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a weak greenhouse gas that is colorless and odorless which comprises only .04% of the atmosphere (naturally occurring CO2 + CO2 emissions). CO2 emissions were only 3-4% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. So, CO2 emissions make up only .0012 to 0.0016 % of the atmosphere. That is why blaming global warming on CO2 emissions is like having “the flea wag the dog”.

            Climate change is natural and has been occurring since the formation of the planet. The 18 year and 8 month pause just proves that the skeptics were right all along-natural causes of climate change are more powerful than the insubstantial effects that human generated CO2 has on the world’s climate.

            Here is a link to 250 peer reviewed papers published in the past year indicating that natural forcers are the dominant driver of climate change:


          • Gene Maxwell

            OK. I’m convinced. You are obviously a vaunted scientist, a true outdoors-man, the master of Google and links. I will ignore my hundreds of links that dispute your few. Let’s go ahead, burn more fossil fuels and pollute the planet with more carbon dioxide. That’s what you want, right? If its possible we might make things worse, so what! Who cares if nations and segments of society battle over water and food? People suffering from heat and draughts all over the planet? Big deal! We humans have no affect and can do nothing to change it. So, we may as well continue polluting. I mean, those cites in China and India (with skies dark and dreary) don’t really seem to be suffering much. Probably just a hoax. We can deny it. Hey! We can be like the planet Venus in a hundred years or so! Cool. I won’t care, I’ll be dead.

          • odin2

            Apparently, you have no empirical evidence substantiating the AGW hypothesis.

          • Gene Maxwell

            You feel mocked? Thin-skinned, huh? Sorry, did not mean to hurt your feelings. Do you REALLY want me to post about 100 links? You got links, I got links. Look, greenhouse gases from human pollution, since the start of the Industrial Revolution, builds up in the upper atmosphere trapping radiant Earth heat which then gets absorbed into sea water raising sea temperature. That is basic freaking science! More energy coming in than leaving. Astronomy 101 – Atmospheric carbon dioxide acts like a thermostat. The Sun has always been up there. The Industrial Revolution is recent. Apparently, you do not understand basic science, and you obviously did not understand the point within my previous post. You look, but you don’t “see.” You GWDers always fail.

          • odin2

            Mocking is a Saulinsky technique. Left wing talking points are not empirical evidence. Provide one or more papers that show, by empirical evidence, that human activities (mostly CO2 emissions) are the primary cause of global warming at any time.

          • Raymond Michael Borland

            Post your citations or shut up. Yeah, i have heard how many links people have and then you get 3 cittions, read them, and find they say absolutely nothing about the issue under discussion. there is so much b.s thrown in comments it amazes me. Odin2 has always posted citations for his statements and when i verified his information, he has been very accurate. i would not dismiss this man. He is well educated and must be an avid reader.

          • OWilson

            That’s the usual “stuff” that get’s thrown against the wall, in the hope that some of it may stick, or at least get folks going in a circle. :)

            Then when that fails, the inevitable personal insults. It does work with low info folks, so you don’t know, and haven’t learned any better

            Too cute by far. We be on to you:)

          • Paul Griese

            The statement: “No empirical evidence for human-made global warming,” is a common argument made by “Deniers.” Unfortunately, they have not looked very hard.

            “In 2013-2014, only four of 69,604 publishing climate scientists rejected anthropogenic global warming”

            Ref: “The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming,” by James Lawrence Powell, Skeptical Inquirer, Nov/Dec 2015 (Mr. Lawrence is Executive Director of the National Physical Science Consortium. He has a paper under review in Environmental Research Letters in which he critiques the 97% claim of consensus, when in fact it it 99%)

            Ice core analysis and observations at the Arctic, Antarctic, and in Greenland reveals similar temperature and CO2 trends consistent with the nature of greenhouse gases. Polar records show a close relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature in the world. (; – the carbon dioxide didn’t come from the Sun!

            Other items:

            (How Much Have Humans Affected Climate?)


            Links for information concerning human activity:


   – “Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?”


            The web site,, has so many listings concerning evidence for human-made impact, it would take a long time to go through it all.

            Of course, has tons of articles and listings linking to evidence.

            President George W. Bush’s own inquiry to the National Academy of Sciences to review the IPCC findings, found that the findings were accurate, confirming human-made and human activities contributed to Greenhouse Gases, accumulating in the atmosphere causing surface air and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. (National Academy of Sciences, Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (2001)

            Other documents and articles that can be found (Internet addresses have been provided when needed for copy/paste into web browser):

            “Climate Change – Evidence, Impacts and Choices” – published by the National Research Council of the National Academies (2012)


            “Evidence of anthropogenic emissions and climatic variability” (Etheridge, Steele, Francey and Landenfelds)

            Journal of Geophysical Research July 20 1998


            Climate Change: Lines of Evidence videos


            Other sources that can help provide direction to find further evidence:

            “Sorry Lindzen and Fellow Deniers” –

            Ronald Bailey, (What Evidence Would Persuade You That Man-Made Climate Change Is real?) April 3, 2015

            National Security and the Accelerating Risks of Climate Change (May 2014), by the CNA Military Advisory Board.

            Skeptical Inquirer Magazine and web site frequently has articles concerning Global Warming, Climate Change, and human impacts.

          • odin2

            People normally lead with their strongest argument. The Powell “study’ is nothing but a computer key word search of abstracts of scientific papers with no human analysis. It is nothing but a propaganda ploy.

            An argument or hypothesis , no matter how elegant, is not empirical evidence. Thomas Huxley once said: “Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact,”

            “Empirical evidence is information that is acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.”


            “Because scientists are human and prone to error, empirical data is often gathered by multiple scientists who independently replicate experiments. This also guards against scientists who unconsciously, or in rare cases consciously, veer from the prescribed research parameters which could skew the results.”

            “The recording of empirical data is also crucial to the scientific methods, as science can only be advanced if data is shared and analyzed. Peer review of empirical data is essential to protect against bad science.”


            Today many studies and papers are published on line with their data and code so that anyone with the scientific expertise can critique and replicate the study or paper. This helps avoid “pal’ review by a close knit group of scientists and makes it more difficult for scientists who have a political agenda to keep scientists with a different viewpoint from publishing. Here is an example of best practices by Nic Lewis where he makes the data and code available online even though his paper was peer reviewed and accepted for publication:


            The data and methodology have to be made public so that disinterested scientists can replicate the experiment or observation to eliminate the possibility of bias, human error or outright fraud.

            The following are not empirical evidence :

            1. Appeals to authority;

            2. Appeals to consensus;

            3. Theories (no matter how elegant);

            4. Computer climate models;

            5. Evidence of CO2 and temperatures rising at the same time (correlation is not proof of causation and besides studies show that temperatures increase before CO2 increases- which suggests that the AGW hypothesis of CO2 emissions causing global warming is backwards);

            6. Evidence of what happens when temperatures increase or decrease (this may or may not be evidence of the effects of changes in temperatures, but it is not evidence of what caused the change in temperatures);

            7. Predictions of dire consequences of global warming like increased frequency, duration or strength of climate phenomena (these are based on CCM projections and the assumption that there is global warming as projected by the climate models- no global warming and the dire consequences will never happen

            The only peer review paper to even claim to hav empirical evidence outside of the laboratory was a study by Feldman et (Berkley labs). It was published in Nature in February of last year. Even if the paper is taken at face value (there are many problems with it), the paper only indicates that CO2 has a small effect that is easily overridden by natural forcers.

          • OWilson


            You’ll be dead, and you won’t care about the $billions being spent on top of the already spiraling out of control national debt, by unscrupulous pols who are getting rich off this questionable science.

            Yep, let’s leave our unpaid debts to the children and their children.

            Because it’s “the right thing to do” and it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy and noble inside.

            Y’all think the planet is in trouble because YOU happen to be alive at this brief blink in a 4,5000,000,000 lifetime.

            It’s all about ME, and NOW!

            We get it. :)

          • Mike Richardson

            Debt isn’t erasing islands in the Pacific, melting Greenlands glaciers, and increasing drought conditions in the western U.S. Plus, debt can always be restructured, paid down, or refinanced. Strange to get worked up over that, then support trickle-down economic policies that haven’t helped pay down the debt (kinda hard to do that if you keep looking for wars to blow hundreds of billions of dollars on!), but have helped increase income inequality and resulting poverty. But I have to admit, it’s an amazing feat of projection to turn concern for the environment and our descendants into a “ME” thing. Truly a bizarre perspective.

          • Jens Hansen

            So your belife is that the climat crysis is her now even before we have reached the feared 1 degree C up in year 2100

          • Mike Richardson

            “Belief” and “climate.” Not necessarily a crisis, but problematic, regardless of the anecdotes you may know. That’s why we’re gathering data globally, and attempting to better understand the phenomenon, rather than dismiss it and hope for the best, based on fairy tales told by industry-supported denier blogs. Science, not belief, should guide our decisions on this and other important issues of the day.

          • OWilson

            You (your governments) are spending the money of our descendants for them with no feasible plan to pay it back, and without their consent, because YOU think you know best.

            You know what thinking folks say about taxation without representation?

            Yep. Slavery!

            If you don’t believe me, just look at your own Democratic voting gangbanging, crime infested vandalized plantations where you keep you voters illiterate, and dependent forever on your government handouts, because you prefer to worry about the weather.:)

          • Mike Richardson

            More politicized rhetoric, with no actual facts to back it up. It’s not the weather, Wilson, as you well know. It’s the future, and something you don’t have a real grasp on, since you seem to have solutions from the 19th century. I suppose you would have been opposed to moving from whale oil to coal if you’d been living in Victorian times. At least most folks seem to be smart enough to look over what you’ve got to say as the hot air it is. Have a good weekend! :)

          • Jason Marrow

            Yeah, these so-called “papers” were peer-reviewed, and the peers discarded them as false and inaccurate. Dubious information, debunked by the majority consensus of the scientific community who research AGW. (90-99% consensus ref: Skeptical Inquirer Nov/Dec 2015; Astronomy Magazine, Oct. Jeff Hester; Sep 2, 2015; IPCC 2010)

          • odin2

            Consensus is not empirical evidence. It is a political argument and has no place in science. Resorting to a political argument is a propaganda technique to deflect from the fact that there is no empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis.

            “Much to the dismay of the global-warming lobby, a recent survey of 1,500 public middle-school and high-school science teachers from all 50 states revealed that only 30 percent of middle school and 45 percent of high-school teachers think that global warming is caused mostly by human activities. The study showed that about 15 percent believe climate change is “mostly driven by natural causes,” while another 15 percent think “human and natural causes are equally important.”

            The study was conducted by Penn State and the National Center for Science Education and was reported in the February 12, 2016 issue of Science, a journal published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).”


            The “studies”, usually by non-scientists, proclaiming the 97% consensus figure have been shown to be biased and unscientific. Here is an article that identifies 97 separate articles and papers debunking one of the leading 97% consensus papers- Cook, et al.:


            Here is what Mike Hulme, Ph.D., Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia had to say about Cook’s paper:

            “The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”

            Professor Tol is a economist at the University of Sussex.

            Tol was a coordinating lead author for the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Working Group II.

            Here is what Professor Tol has to say about the Cook paper:

            “In their paper, Cook and colleagues argue that 97% of the relevant academic literature endorses that humans have contributed to observed climate change. This is unremarkable. It follows immediately from the 19th century research by Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius. In popular discourse, however, Cook’s finding is often misrepresented. The 97% refers to the number of papers, rather than the number of scientists. The alleged consensus is about any human role in climate change, rather than a dominant role, and it is about climate change rather than the dangers it might pose.

            Although there are large areas of substantive agreement, climate science is far from settled. Witness the dozens of alternative explanations of the current, 18 year long pause in warming of the surface atmosphere. The debate on the seriousness of climate change or what to do about it ranges even more widely.

            The Cook paper is remarkable for its quality, though. Cook and colleagues studied some 12,000 papers, but did not check whether their sample is representative for the scientific literature. It isn’t. Their conclusions are about the papers they happened to look at, rather than about the literature. Attempts to replicate their sample failed: A number of papers that should have been analysed were not, for no apparent reason.

            The sample was padded with irrelevant papers. An article about TV coverage on global warming was taken as evidence for global warming. In fact, about three-quarters of the papers counted as endorsements had nothing to say about the subject matter.

            Cook enlisted a small group of environmental activists to rate the claims made by the selected papers. Cook claims that the ratings were done independently, but the raters freely discussed their work. There are systematic differences between the raters. Reading the same abstracts, the raters reached remarkably different conclusions – and some raters all too often erred in the same direction. Cook’s hand-picked raters disagreed what a paper was about 33% of the time. In 63% of cases, they disagreed about the message of a paper with the authors of that paper.

            For more see:


            See also:


            If we are forced to get into a game of counting noses, The Global Warming Petition Project is a statement about the cases and consequences of climate change signed by 31,478 American scientists, Including 9,021 of them with Ph.D.s. The statement reads in part:

            “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial evidence that increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”


            On March 28, 2012 a group of 48 former NASA astronauts and engineers sent a letter to the head of NASA saying:

            “ ‘We believe the claims by NASA and GISS [NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies], that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data,” the group wrote. “With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.’”


            Note in particular Section 1.3 in the FAQ section.

            48 former NASA astronauts and engineers:

            For the science:

            See also this website:


            Some consensus!

          • Paul Griese

            There is empirical evidence within the consensus. Much to the dismay of the GWDers. Additionally, this evidence overwhelms the contrary. Cheers!

          • odin2

            That is one of the lamest arguments that I have ever seen. Give your mother her computer back. LOL

          • TreeParty

            Don’t you get tired of lying? Or maybe worse, you don’t
            actually understand that many of your claims are false…The only thing I am “projecting” is data, evidence, and the considered judgment of many hundreds of climate scientists.
            The tired, discredited canard about “no warming for 18+ years” is a good example of a big pile of bovine excrement, and you know it. A
            couple of years ago, I began hearing about “no warming for 16 years”, then it was 17 years, then 18+ years; all based on beginning the time series with the El Nino spike of 1998, which was the hottest year in the temperature record up to that point. But at the present time, there HAS been warming for the last 16 years, based on ANY set of global temperature measurements you can point to. And then, of course, as of 2015, 15 of the 16 warmest years on record have occurred during the 21st century. 1998 is currently tied
            with 2009 as the sixth warmest year on record. To claim “no warming for 18+ years” is just so much sophistry. And what about the rising sea levels, caused by global warming; and the melting of ice masses around the globe, caused by global warming? I haven’t heard you address the convergence of multiple lines of evidence that the planet is warming…
            As far as “one or more scientific journals showing by empirical evidence that humans (primarily Anthropogenic CO2 emissions) are the primary cause of global warming “, here ya go, Bosco:


            Do you think that the claim that CO2 is an “colorless, odorless
            gas” actually means anything?! Do you think that the “argument” that “4% of .04%” is necessarily an insignificant fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere carries any weight with scientifically conversant people?! You are being duped, Odin – pretty sad,really.

  • Jens Hansen

    There is no klimat problems in Norway. The same people have had problems because their herds are to big.

    • Tom Yulsman

      Sorry Mr. Hansen, but you are wrong. The temperature trend in the Norwegian Arctic, and resulting changes in sea ice, ecosystems, fisheries, etc. have been well documented with typical Norwegian accuracy — and they are unequivocal.

      You should also know that I’ve been to the Arctic in your country eight times now, including Bodø, Svolvaer, Tromsø, Kirkenes, Vadso, and Vardo. Few people who actually live and/or work in the Norwegian Arctic, including coast guard sailors, scientists, a priest (in Svalbard), Sami people, etc., etc., would agree with your assessment. In fact, your own government is gearing up for increased ship traffic in the Arctic, as well as oil and gas exploration — which is moving farther north as conditions warm and ice retreats.

      In case you are interested, here are two temperature analyses for Svalbard: They agree pretty well, and to say there is no warming would be to deny reality.

      Lastly, did you know that the average temperature for the past 30 days in Longyearbyen was -5.1 °C, an astonishing 10.8 °C above normal?: The highest temperature was well above freezing: 4.5 °C, on 24 January, which just happened to be my 60th birthday. I actually celebrated it in Tromsø, where I was attending the Arctic Frontiers conference. Why do you think they use that word “frontiers” in the conference name? The answer: Unequivocal warming in the Arctic region is opening up new areas for resource development, fishing, and other economic activities, while also bringing new environmental challenges.

      • Jens Hansen

        First i was talking about the temperature on mainland Norway and there is absolutlu no problems related to that and the Sami people. As you know Svaldbar had lots of ice last winter. Polar bears are reported to be fat as pigs.
        My relatives has been into fishing and whale hunting and have told me stories of changing weather in the northern ice dating back to late 1800. Some wery cold some years was much warmer.

        • Tom Yulsman
          • Jens Hansen

            Trying to tell me that Sami never had problems with nature befor. Norwegian goverment had to force them to reduce their giant herds as they was destroying their land. So it must be very hard compered to his skiing grandfather.

          • nosmokewithout

            Family stories are not evidence. They measure nothing and are at best, stories specific to one place at one time by one eye witness.

          • Jens Hansen

            So if my grandfather tells me how they was sailing up north he had some reason to be lying. He was telling me facts long before the so called climat crisiss was a worry.

          • nosmokewithout

            Date, latitude and longitude? Can you give these?

          • OWilson

            We never got a date, latitude and longitude for those poor sad polar bear cubs which sat on one of the last tiny pieces of ice before the Arctic melted all away in the summer of 2015 :)

            You first :)

  • OWilson

    NOAA publishes monthly global temperature data derived from satellite observations. According to the satellite date, the warmest year was 1998, another El Nino year, some 18 years ago

    Now, satellites do not return the same values as the collected, adjusted and inferred ground based data, which includes (according to NASA) historical steamship cold water intake valves, glacial melting rates, and estimated (inferred) values for vast locations on earth where there are no instruments. The results are then posted showing their best “estimates” after all the necessary “adjustments”, but without the scientifically required disclosure of the “margin of error”, which one should expect in this kind of complex calculation.

    If you check out NASA’s ground based methodology, ERSST_v4: NOAA/NCEI’s Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST) v. 3 and 4, you will see many references the the work of Climate Activist James (Hocket Stick) Hanson, and so many adjustments and arbitrary “normalizations, and that the heavy hand of man is well in evidence, rather than pure scientific measurement.

    Bottom line, until the scientists officially throw out satellite temperature obsservation, and post a margin of error in their manually produced charts, I will remain a skeptic.

    • Icarus62
      • OWilson

        Yeah, let’s throw some more “stuff” at the wall.

        Anything to avoid the questions actually raised, one of which is why NASA will not show the margin of error in their much published and circulated chart.

        (Which is again re-circulated in Tom’s article above in all it’s grandeur) :)

        Typical response :)

        • Icarus62

          Not sure what you mean OWilson. Error bars are shown in the article above:

          • OWilson

            Ah it’s so clear now :)

            So, Einstein, the chart shows an anomaly of 0.80 degrees.

            Tell us is simple terms what the margin of error is in degrees?

          • Icarus62

            Looking at the right-hand error bar, it appears to be around 0.1°C.

          • OWilson

            Appears to be? Lol

          • Tom Yulsman

            Let’s just dispense with comments like, “So, Einstein…” Yes, I know others do the same thing, or worse. But I can’t play whack-a-mole 24/7. So just do me a favor and give me one fewer mole to whack, ok? Thank you.

        • TreeParty

          1) “This graph..” is blocked (403 error; forbidden). Thanks for no link to data….

          2) “NOAA publishes monthly global temperature data derived from satellite observations. According to the satellite date, the warmest year was 1998”. I believe you have erred (or lied!): care to provide evidence for your claim? Care to provide a time series for the data that shows the trend to the present?

          3) “but the whole debate could easily be settled by using a universally accepted scientific method..” Please note that the several methods that are in use converge on evidence of continued warming of the planet, right up to the present moment. This convergence of multiple ensembles of measurements has certainly convinced scientists of the truth of what is going on. They have moved on to an explanation of what is causing the observed warming. You are left in the hot dust, contesting the validity of the data, and so cannot even address whether there is any other plausible cause of the observed warming beside massive combustion of fossil fuels? Do you also contest the measurement of the fraction of the greenhouse gas, CO2 in the atmosphere at >400 PPM and steadily rising?

          • OWilson

            1. The link tells you exactly where you can find the satellite data. I have posted a (working) link many times here.

            2. You then will see a link to the raw NOAA satellite data from which it is derived.

            3. I am not the only one “contesting the data” there is presently a major effort by some eminent climate scientists to determine how, formerly “Settled Science” is routinely adjusted to show what left wing politicians want it to be :)

            More on that later!

      • Jens Hansen

        Are you awere of that the start of your graf is from the end of the little iceage when climate was so cold that 2/3 of Europes population went extinct. Is tha your dream climat.

    • Icarus62
    • Icarus62
    • 9.8m/ss

      There is no “satellite earth temperature data.” No technology exists to directly measure surface temperature from earth orbit. NOAA’s satellites measure microwave brightness in the stratosphere. Then UAH and RSS feed those measurements into an elaborate numerical model (which is frequently adjusted) to produce estimates of temperatures from three to ten miles up. That’s the “satellite data” that you hear (every day on the Glenn Beck show) are “more accurate” than thermometers on the ground.

      • OWilson

        There are no “ground stations with instruments” on most of the planet, but science, being what it is, has found ways to calculate the temperature for those “missing” locations :)

        We are in the satellite era (and computers too) now!

        • 9.8m/ss

          What part of “surface temperature” went over your head? No technology exists to directly measure surface temperature from earth orbit. Those “satellite data” you pin your hopes on are estimates produced by numerical models, of conditions between three and ten miles above the ground. NASA and its contractors built the satellites and NOAA operates them. The data NOAA provides to RSS and UAH represent microwave brightness in the stratosphere, not surface temperature. RSS and UAH feed the microwave brightness info into their models, and the models produce the so-called “satellite temperature record.”

          • Jens Hansen

            You r a complete moron.Are yoy realy trying to convince people that temperature cant be measured via microwave radiation

          • 9.8m/ss

            There is a difference between “directly measured” and “estimated.” Thermometers measure by direct contact. The product you showed a link to is the output of a complex numerical model. That makes it an estimate, not a direct measurement. RSS is quite up front about that. That’s why their web site says they derive temperature products.

      • Jens Hansen

        My termometers mercury is reciving radiation from the atmosphere.
        Temperature or energy can be messaured in many ways. Microwave radiation is one very good way to do it if noy the sientist would never constructed this expensiv program.

        • 9.8m/ss

          Your thermometer is in contact with the atmosphere. It senses the temperature by conduction. If it’s also collecting significant radiation from somewhere, your measurement will be skewed. You should keep a thermometer in the shade.

    • just_jim

      You are objecting to the adjustment of ground based data, then going to the satellite data? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

      Did you really expect that on one knew that the satellite data is the most processed and adjusted of all? That there have been over 10 versions of the UAH satellite data. That getting the correct answer requires guessing correctly on how to correct for instrument degradation satellite drift, separation of stratospheric data from tropospheric data.

      And then, even if all this is correct, you are left with 1998 was the warmest year 5 miles up.

      You seem to have nothing.

      • Jens Hansen

        You dont understand a s… Raw data from NOAA’s super expensive fleet of satellites are avaliveble for all. There have been updates to the satellites soft ware over these 40 years for sure but manipulation of data is presentet to you via NOAA’s data simulations were input data from sea and land sensores are changed all the time. Satellite meassure ments is a part of this but all other sensor readings are constantly manipulated to make up new harcrut models.
        How much higher is the global temperature from normal the last 20 years.

  • go2green

    The efforts to reduce co2 levels should have started decades ago.

    • OWilson

      Maybe this might help you understand.

      From a trusted source:

      “”Although there have been jumps and dips, average atmospheric temperatures have risen little since 1998, in seeming defiance of projections of climate models and the ever-increasing emissions of greenhouse gases.”” – Nature, January 14, 2014

      • 9.8m/ss

        It takes thirty years for climate trends to become discernible above the weather noise. 2016 – 1998 = 18. What’s the big fuss over some weather noise? And why would you pretend weather noise invalidates the basic physics of the enhanced greenhouse effect?

        • OWilson

          The Nature article raises the issue of your “enhanced greenhouse gas effects” and the accuracy of the global warming models that incorporate them.

          Take it up with them :)

          • just_jim

            They not only raise the issue, but deal with them. I think it is dishonest that you didn’t mention that.

          • 9.8m/ss

            Do you know how to spot a scientific illiterate? When science fills in a detail or corrects a small error, he’s the one insisting it invalidates the science that led up to it. Daily Caller runs opinion pieces jeering each time another piece of the “pause that wasn’t” comes in. “68 excuses and counting!”

          • OWilson

            Thomas Huxley wrote: ‘Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact’.

            Take out common sense and you have Jamestown :)

          • Mike Richardson

            LOL! Wow, not even a vague reference to drinking the Kool-Aid, just “You’re a bunch of cultists who would commit suicide because you don’t see things the way I do!” That’s pretty sad, Wilson. Can’t come up with facts to support your view? Oh wait, that’s right, you can’t. Take out common sense, and you get … oh, conservative politics :(

      • nosmokewithout

        From the same trusted source

        “Scientists may get to test their theories soon enough. At present, strong tropical trade winds are pushing ever more warm water westward towards Indonesia, fuelling storms such as November’s Typhoon Haiyan, and nudging up sea levels in the western Pacific; they are now roughly 20 centimetres higher than those in the eastern Pacific. Sooner or later, the trend will inevitably reverse. “You can’t keep piling up warm water in the western Pacific,” Trenberth says. “At some point, the water will get so high that it just sloshes back.” And when that happens, if scientists are on the right track, the missing heat will reappear and temperatures will spike once again.”

        Two years later, here we are.

        • Tom Yulsman

          I will be a talk by Kevin Trenberth tomorrow, and I’ll get to ask questions too. So I’ll report back what I gather, in a post here at ImaGeo.

          • nosmokewithout

            Excellent, I am truly envious, and will watch for your article. It would be interesting to know how he sees the debate on climate developing over the next few years. 2017 will certainly represent a regression to mean, and in that respect, the naysayers will undoubtedly make hay from that fact. Can the strength of the current El Nino be linked to the evident rise in Ocean Heat Content and also the exceptionally high air temperatures experienced this year in the Arctic or are there other mechanisms driving temperatures in the Arctic.

      • just_jim

        You mean this article? Climate change: The case of the missing heat The article that started by showing a puzzle, then showing how scientists looked at data and came up with prospective answers. and finishes:

        “Scientists may get to test their theories soon enough. . . . And when that happens, if scientists are on the right track, the missing heat will reappear and temperatures will spike once again.”

        And surprise, the missing heat did reappear and temperatures did spike once again.

        So when we read the entire article it shows the exact opposite of what you were claiming it showed.

        Remind me to be very, very suspicious of anything you post.

        And thanks for showing that I can’t trust what you post.

  • odin2

    The “hottest year on record” claim is a red herring to deflect from the fact that the satellite data shows that there has been no global warming in the lower troposphere in 18 years and 8 months in spite of the fact that 2015 is an El Nino year (which causes a natural spike in global temperatures). Here is what Dr Lindzen had to say about the claim that 2015 was a “record” year:

    ” ‘Frankly, I feel it is proof of dishonesty to argue about things like small fluctuations in temperature or the sign of a trend,’ Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [now retired], tells the science blog Climate Depot. ‘Why lend credibility to this dishonesty?’

    ‘All that matters is that for almost 40 years, model projections have almost all exceeded observations,’ Lindzen says. ‘Even if all the observed warming were due to greenhouse emissions, it would still point to low sensitivity.'”

    The El Nino of 2015 just ended. El Ninos (which are a natural phenomenon) cause a spike in global temperatures. We could easily see temperatures continue to rise for the next several months. El NInos are usually followed by El Ninas which cause temperatures to drop.

    For example, look at the temperatures from 1998 to 2000 on the following graph:

    El Ninos and El Ninas are natural variations in the world’s weather.

  • Earthling

    “an El Niño nudge” of 95%.

  • mikehaseler

    The only record set is how big a fraud the temperatures you quote have become. In contrast, the satellite temperature which for many reasons is the only credible and near global temperature measurement we have, has failed to make any such records even though this is an El Nino year.

    And please … when we start seeing the global cooling later this year can we have the same level of reporting on the cooling – let’s see some more bogus faked up excitement during the El Nino cooling as we are getting from this brief warming.

    • nosmokewithout

      Mike, you regularly deride the surface temperature data and make bold claims about the satellite data, which you know is not a surface temperature. The surface temperature has been validated, despite the adjustments that have been made to it, and found to be reliable in showing the increase.

      Adjustments aside, the surface shows warming trends irrespective of these adjustments, and this is validated by natural indicators such as the start of seasonal melts, migration of birds, advent of spring. Such indicators really do put a lie to the satellite data reliability, and even REMSS admit this.

      “Why does this discrepancy exist? One possible explanation is an error in the fundamental physics used by the climate models. In addition to this possibility, there are at least three other plausible explanations for the warming rate differences. There are errors in the forcings used as input to the model simulations (these include forcings due to anthropogenic gases and aerosols, volcanic aerosols, solar input, and changes in ozone), errors in the satellite observations (partially addressed by the use of the uncertainty ensemble), and sequences of internal climate variability in the simulations that are difference from what occurred in the real world. We call to these four explanations “model physics errors”, “model input errors”, “observational errors”, and “different variability sequences”. They are not mutually exclusive. In fact, there is hard scientific evidence that all four of these factors contribute to the discrepancy, and that most of it can be explained without resorting to model physics errors. ”

      You also know next year will be cooler, as the presence of an active El Nino phase boosts warming, so it’s absence will remove an extreme forcing of temperature. That does not mean next year will represent a “cooling” planet. Our planet will still be gaining heat, in the oceans and atmosphere.

      The approach you take and language you use is not rational, and you are prone to confirmation bias. I am keen to for you to answer a question on one of your previous posts. Let me remind you of it. It is also posted on your web site.

      “‘Danish data shows an increase in surface ice since 1990:…”

      It is interesting because looking at how ice is accumulating on one single day, namely the 18th of January, and extrapolating a conclusion from that means.

      a) You have failed to understand the data you were posting

      b) You actively seek confirmation bias and lack serious objectivity

      The data you looked at is ice mass balance, namely

      the amount of snow that falls and is compressed to ice
      the amount of snow and ice that melts or evaporates (sublimates)

      It does not include the following

      the amount of ice that flows away due to the ice motion

      Your conclusion from that page is that the Greenland ice sheet is growing.

      The reality is given here

      The attached graph does not represent an increase in any way you imply.

      I’d be interested to see your response to this point!

      • Jens Hansen

        How much higher is the last 10 years global temperatur from your ideal.

      • mikehaseler

        I used to work in temperature measurement and meteorology and so I’m not some gullible academic who doesn’t know what they are talking about.

        There are many reasons to believe the temperature trend is much cooler than the corrupt figure given for surface data.

        1. The data is massively adjusted (equivalent to all the warming since 1940)

        2. The stations just happen to have been located conveniently on the
        edge of urban areas – the areas that were mist subject to changes in the
        20th century as urban areas increased.

        3. There is proven poor siting (which causes additional warming to
        rural). The problem here is that they turn a nod and a wink to poor
        sites that help increase the warming trend where a quality organisation
        would have dealt with them.

        4. Then there is the multiple instances of site specific tampering with
        data – which looks like individuals changing sites to cause additional
        warming to everything above.

        5. Then there is the oft change in methodologies to select those that show the highest warming.

        6. Then there is the way they intentionally remove sites with a cooling trend from the data (possibly as part of 5).

        7. There is the fact the temperatures are far from global with e.g. most of central S.America and Africa being missed out.

        8. Then there is the fraudulent misuse of ocean temperature data
        (changing good data without a warming trend to fit bad data with a
        warming trend).

        • nosmokewithout

          It is interesting that you have deliberately avoided my question on your assertion that the Greenland ice cap is growing, which is clearly not this cast. How could you have been so wrong?

          I used to work in surveying. Theodolite readings produce many errors. Yet the first survey of Mount Everest was a theodolite survey from sea level. They were within a few feet of the actual height. Seems a remarkable achievement but the errors cancel each other out.

          Now Judith Curry has some good analysis on her web site regarding these readings. I’ll post the conclusion here for you to read.

          “In summary, it is possible to look through 40,000 stations and select those that the algorithm has warmed; and, it’s possible to ignore those that the algorithm has cooled. As the spatial maps show it is also possible to select entire continents where the algorithm has warmed the record; and, it’s possible to focus on other continents were the opposite is the case. Globally however, the effect of adjustments is minor. It’s minor because on average the biases that require adjustments mostly cancel each other out.”

          Points one to five are not backed up in reality. The remainder are specific cases, and in the bigger scheme, most likely have little or no effect on the global average. Investigate by all means, but with such large quantities of data, specific cases have little effect.

          Your use of the word fraudulent is gross. What is more, your view is not shared by the natural world, where in a massively unbiased way. Rising temperature is changing the seasonal patterns. That is not selective, yet you avoid discussing this point. Not the only point you fail to address.

          You are extremely selective in how you are assessing the climate. Your track record on denial is impressive. You have committed whole heartedly to disproving AGW. You have misinterpreted data on the Greenland ice sheet. You certainly now are in the unenviable position of being wide open to both confirmation bias fallacy and extremely vulnerable to the sunk cost fallacy. I cannot imagine you ever admitting you were wrong.

          I will admit to being wrong, were there evidence that that is the case. There is not. Our Arctic region is certainly under massive threat, and the whole Arctic ecosystem stands to being devastated by the warming that certainly is driven by greenhouse gases. More damage by humans on our planet is bad news.

          There is no harm in looking for better and more efficient ways for humans to behave so that our impact on this planet is lessened. People like yourself are barriers to a better future, your focus on technology and esoteric argument obfuscates the bigger problems that need addressing. I hold your position to be extremely misguided and I would suggest you come out of your current mindset and take a look at what we are doing to the planet.

          • mikehaseler

            “It is interesting that you have deliberately avoided my question on your assertion that the Greenland ice cap is growing, ”

            … because it was a stupid question.

            I said Greenland surface ice has grown as shown by the graphic here from the Danish institute that measures this surface ice:


            I get bored proving you alarmists wrong — it’s just so easy to do it.

          • nosmokewithout

            So you agree it is losing volume. Interesting. Surface ice requires greater snowfall, this would result from more water vapour in the atmosphere, and that is a predicted result of global warming.

          • nosmokewithout

            “No place for name-calling in debate” – Who do you think said this?

          • mikehaseler

            So what? I call a group of idiots who deny the scientific evidence to create alarm “alarmists” and what exactly have your friends been saying:

            July 2009 “Al Gore today compared the battle against climate change with the struggle against the Nazis,” reports the London Times.”25

            Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.24

            In January 2013 David Bellamy revealed that the:

            BBC axed me for rubbishing global warming … Someone even emailed me to say I was ‘the worst paedophile in the world’, basically saying I was killing children by denying global warming.21

            In June 2009, former Clinton Administration official Joe Romm
            defended a comment on his Climate Progress website warning sceptics

            “An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds,”

        • OWilson

          You missed a major point:

          9. This Administration and their Cabinet and Agency Heads, have been demonstarbly lying to you, Pleading The Fifth, wiping their hard drives, wiping their servers, using their own bathroom servers for top secret communication, producing phony lists, fighting Congressional Supeanors, fighting Freedom of Information requests, even launching inter agency law suits to protect information.

          Information of course, that belongs to the taxpayer.

          It is so bad that PEW, a respectable polling organization found that 97% of your countrymen don’t really trust your government.

          Those are Banana Republic numbers, for you defenders of the status quo. :)

  • Jens Hansen

    This so called climate crysis is a hypotes that can happen if global temp gets 1 degree warmer by year 2100 im told by media.

  • Ciara

    the quickening of climate events caused by global warming is so evidently clear it is unbelievable to hear some people say “global warming is just a myth”, Earth is heating up now, and we must all do what we can; no matter how small or how big our contribution is to help, it counts and it does matter. We might just make it as a renewable planet

  • John Doe

    The world is comming to an end , the industry will not stop , the polution will keep growing everyone needs to prepare for what’s comming. Winter is autumn , spring is summer. Get ready for the end in less than 10 years.



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