We’re still on track to experience the second or third warmest year globally in records dating back to 1880

By Tom Yulsman | September 21, 2017 10:13 am
A global map from NASA of how Earth's surface temperatures last month departed from the 1951-1980 August average. (Source: NASA GISTEMP. Note: part of Antarctica is gray because data from some stations there were not yet available at the time of this analysis.)

A global map from NASA of how Earth’s surface temperatures last month departed from the 1951-1980 August average. (Source: NASA GISTEMP. Note: part of Antarctica is gray because data from some stations there were not yet available at the time of this analysis.)

Last month was among the very warmest on record, according to two new analyses – and the heat is very likely to continue.

With less than four months left to go in 2017,  the year will probably come in as second or third warmest on record.

Two agencies have produced very slightly different verdicts for this past August. NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies has found that last month was the second warmest August globally in 137 years of modern record-keeping, surpassed only by August 2016. Global temperatures last year received an extra boost from a strong El Niño episode.

Meanwhile, NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information found that last month was third warmest, behind August 2016, which was first warmest, and August 2015, second warmest.

The trend in how global temperatures have departed from the long-term mean, through August 2017. In this case, the the base period is switched to 1880-1920 from NASA's traditional 1951-1980. This shows the magnitude of warming relative to pre-industrial time. (Source: Makiko Sato, Columbia University)

The trend in how global temperatures have departed from the long-term mean, through Aug. 2017. The base period here is 1880-1920 in order to show the magnitude of warming relative to pre-industrial time. (Source: Makiko Sato, Columbia University)

The difference between the two analyses really is quite small. NASA estimated that last month brought temperatures 0.85 degrees Celsius warmer than the long-term mean. In its independent analysis, NOAA pegged it at 0.83 degrees C warmer.

“The measured value is consistent with the trend in global average surface temperatures that has been observed during the past few decades,” NASA noted.

Relatively cool conditions in the Arctic – see the blue tones in the global map at the top of this story — helped tamp down the global average in August. These conditions persisted into September, helping to limit the loss of sea ice in the high north.

SEE ALSO: After shrinking to a shocking record low at end of winter, Arctic sea ice staged a modest comeback this summer

Given where we’ve already been this year, here is where we are almost certainly headed:

As his Tweet above indicates, Gavin Schmidt, the head of NASA’s climate monitoring efforts, predicts that there’s a greater than 80 percent chance that 2017 will come in as the second warmest year in records dating back to 1880, to be surpassed only by 2016.

NOAA is forecasting that 2017 will come in as third warmest year.

  • OWilson

    Women and children first! : )

    • BBQman aka Q

      Hello Wilson, long time.

      • OWilson

        Welcome back!

        Bur remember zealots have absolutely no sense of humor! :)

        • BBQman aka Q

          I keep forgetting!

        • Tom Yulsman

          I am not a zealot (and I don’t beat my wife).

          If I lack a sense of humor here, it is because some commenters drain every last molecule of it from me.

          • jonathanpulliam

            You lack a sense of humor because you are a sociopathic personality.

          • OWilson

            You sound like a Global Warming plant by invalidating my point that we skeptics do not engage in childish name calling.

            No surprise that our erstwhile moderator leaves your posts intact here! :)

          • Tom Yulsman

            The idea that people who share your views on climate change do not engage in childish name calling is just plain silly. It’s everywhere.

            This isn’t a liberal or conservative thing. It is about human nature generally, and the intensely polarized times in which we find ourselves. I do my best not to succumb to the tribal temptation. I’m human, so sometimes I fail.

            As for leaving Mr. Pulliam’s comments up after banning him, you’re right. I’d like others to see the depths to which some people sink. But I’ll tell you this: If he were a liberal saying these things about me, he’d be gone too. I don’t care about his politics. (If I did, why are you still able to comment here?) I just won’t have someone who is so blatantly nasty sullying this blog, and Discover magazine generally.

          • OWilson

            Tom, your weakness, and I mean this in the best possible way, is the very obvious progressive double standard practised here.

            Any number of ad hominem attacks launched by the true believers against me are found to be acceptible, “criminal, mentally insane, liar, fascist”.

            You only have to read the posts from your fans, Dana, Mikey, CB, and others to see the evidence :) The examples are too numerous to post here!

            You yourself have joined the chorus on numerous occasions, but If I dare mention even “low info voter”, I’m immediately taken to task!

            I don’t complain, because it is so transparent, I find it humorous! :)

            But I’ve come to expect this sort of thing on a blog tagged Environment/Climate Change (Formerly Global Warming!)


          • Tom Yulsman

            I will try to do better. But for the record, I have on numerous occasions taken people to task for launching ad hominem attacks your way. Perhaps you missed that. And I am sure that I have missed many attacks as well. This is not my day job, and there are only so many hours in the day. That said, I may well have not been assiduous enough in policing commenters with whom I agree on substance but who go beyond civil discourse. As I said, I will try to do better.

          • OWilson

            As always, we AGW skeptics thank you for allowing freedom of speech in this little corner of the universe! :)

            Perhaps your greatest contribution to the debate!


          • Tom Yulsman

            Please email me if you think you have been subjected to an ad hominem attack here. (You can easily find my address.) I’ll have a look and do my best to correct the situation. Just know that I work very hard at my day job, so I often find it difficult to monitor everything here.

          • OWilson

            That would make it too personal.

            Couldn’t argue with you anymore! :)

            If I met you, I’d like you!

            I’d guess we both like Danish beer?

            Besides I really have no complaints about the “shaming” of deniers and skeptics, unless you bring it up yourself.

            I have fun here, and occasionally learn something new!

          • Mike Richardson

            Alright, you dragged my name into this discussion (in the form of a juvenile, condescending nickname), so Wilson — your weakness, and I mean this in the best possible way, is the very obvious conservative bias double standard you practice here.

            “I don’t complain” – – stated while complaining, after listing your grievances in a manner that implies you barely dabble in ad hominem attacks yourself (the record clearly shows this is not the case).

            In addition to insulting entire groups with terms like “low information voters,” ” socialist voters” (apparently the current favourite euphemism for minorities), ” gang banging ghettos, ” “limousine liberals,” “alarmists,” and implying anyone left of center is a friend of Kim Jong Un or Robert Mugabe, you get pretty personal in your attacks on specific individuals who disagree with you. You have referred to me and others who contradict you and provide facts and sources as ” trolls” “fools,” ” nuts, ” “unhinged,” ” delusional , ” and worse, often with little provocation. Now I’m not polishing a halo here — although I believe in the golden rule, I also believe in reciprocity and do respond to repeated personal insults (not something I’m proud of, but it’s the truth).

            You have also, on many occasions, insulted the moderator as well. The main difference I see between you and the guy who got banned (and no, he has a pretty clear record of posting things that are not liberal) is that you don’t follow insults with insults. When you’ve been warned or Tom’s response indicates you crossed a line, you immediately issue an apology and attempt to ingratiate yourself with comments like “You want to save the planet, I want to save the world, we’re cool,” or how you’d have a beer together. Then, in a few weeks, after you think things have died down, you’ll insult him again. This behavior has been repeated on times too numerous to post here — but this is not my blog, and a moderator has the prerogative to accept as many apologies of dubious sincerity as he wants. Although technically, you’ve gotten away with far more insults than anyone here. That’s quite an accomplishment, I admit.

            However, since you say you don’t like double standards (and I certainly don’t), why don’t we request stricter enforcement of the no-ad-hominem-attacks rule? I’m game if you are — but I don’t think you’ll be happy with the results. :)

          • OWilson

            Here’s an ad hominem attack for you.

            Bye Mikey! :)

          • Mike Richardson

            “Here’s an ad hominem attack for you,” – – should be the preface to most of your replies to anyone who disagrees with you. Thank you for helping me make MY point! Also appreciate the irony of your complaints about upvotes, when you often join in with the Bar B Q Man’s ever-reliable (almost robotically so) entourage, or uptick insults at others (again, at times including the moderator). Yeah, double standards are bad — unless they’re yours, of course. But you have been most helpful in demonstrating why you so rapidly backed away from Tom’s offer to crack down on those personally attacking others. Again, thanks! :)

          • Grumnut1

            I just take it out on the dog.
            No well done.
            You need SOME standards.
            Breitbart will ban you if you say something too pertinent that is difficult to argue against.
            Best to steer clear of a solid argument.

  • BBQman aka Q

    CO2 is not a climate driver above the atmospheric levels of 345 ppm, nor does it create a negative greenhouse effect above that level.

    Some of the often ignored facts by those who believe the false theory of CO2 inspired AGW, are 80% of the 1,800 individual CO2 and/or temperature sensors which are not located within man made Heat Islands are in the Northern Hemisphere, which means only 20% are in the Southern Hemisphere. We don’t have enough sensors or an equal enough grid spacing of said sensors to even guess what our Global average temperatures are today, much less what they were in 1880. Earth’s surface area is about 197 million square miles, so if the current sensor spacing was in an even pattern, each sensor would have to cover 109,444 square miles, which is about the size of Nevada for one un-corrupted sensor, which shows there is not enough coverage for us to know what our average global temperature is today, and as far as what it was 175 years ago, forget it, we have no way to prove it within 2.1836 +or -degrees Celsius.

    Next, they say the earth has been warming up since 1880 by almost 1 degree Celsius per century, which is completely normal as we had just exited the 600 year long Little Ice Age that had kept the earth cooler then it was today as evidenced by the stunted plant growth of the time as a result of the lower temperature and even more dangerously low CO2 levels of the period.

    The actual climate drivers are our Sun and the electromagnetic forces it expels at times and other factors such as unseen electromagnetic belts, other planets ability to draw forces off, specifically the gaseous outer ones, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus, and their ability to draw off those forces before they impact earth and the flow path and directional oscillations along with the centripetal accelerations of our molten core, which in turn impacts our oceans conveyance and volcanic activity and an influence on the jet stream which is our last climate driver in a very long sequence of events, none of which can be controlled by man. This minuscule trace gas, CO2, which is only equal to 1/2500th compared to water vapor as a greenhouse gas, is insignificant as a greenhouse gas.

    There are things man can do to impact regional climate, but never global climate.

    The problem is, until man can find a justification for taxing these normal climate drivers which have always been with us, we will have to continue to be deceived by the CO2 lie.

    Please make use of the very extensive climate science library at Catastrophic Anthropogenic Sovereigns Harbor’s primary data web site, it is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization established to bring forth the truth related to our true climate drivers, electromagnetic forces, and show the many data collection flaws in the unproven theory of man made CO2 as a climate driver, if you wish to donate to the organization, please make your check payable to “C A S H” for short and mail to PO Box……together, we can make for a better tomorrow!

    • Tom Yulsman

      Perhaps you would like to explain why you deny simple physics that have been well understood since the 1800s. Ditto the science of paleoclimatology, which, through research about ancient climates, validates what physics has long shown about the role of greenhouse gases in Earth’s climate. (And I should add that neither simple physics nor paleoclimatology depend on the modern monitoring network to provide incisive insights into our impact on the global climate.)

      Lastly, if you would like to keep posting comments here – and you are most welcome to do so, if you stick to the substance at hand and refrain from ad hominem attacks – then I respectfully request that you do not use my blog as a platform for fund raising. No matter what the cause, this is not the place for it. And I will not tolerate it. Thank you for your understanding.

      • jonathanpulliam

        No up-votes for your mischaracterizations. You are the liar Tom. You got your facts wrong and you are an energetic eco-terrorist.

        • Tom Yulsman

          Mr. Pulliam: Ad hominem attacks are not allowed here. So please considered yourself warned: If you write one more comment like this here, you will be banned permanently from the site. I really don’t want to do that. So please stick to substance, make evidence-based observations, and refrain from attacking people personally. Do those things and you are welcome to continue commenting here no matter what your views are. Otherwise, goodbye.

          • jonathanpulliam

            Go ahead and have me banned you creepy lying terrorist.

          • Tom Yulsman

            Mr. Pulliam, I may be wrong about some things, perhaps even most things. But I am neither creepy nor a liar, and I’m certainly not a terrorist. The fact that you have to resort to such immature name calling says much about you, and it is not very positive. As I said before, I’d be happy for you to continue posting comments here —but only if you refrain from ad hominem attacks. Instead, you doubled down. So you are now banned permanently from commenting here at ImaGeo.

      • BBQman aka Q

        Tom, my last paragraph was meant as satire, there is no address to send any money to, if satire is not allowed here, I won’t use humor anymore when making points.

        Next, you are talking in broad points about regional studies that in no way can be extrapolated into a reading of average global temperature and CO2 levels any closer then around 2 degrees Celsius or 60 ppm of CO2.

        We would be more accurate in studying the climate history if we only used methods that were used to establish climate patterns before (1800) recorded history.

      • jonathanpulliam

        Any cursory review of YOUR disqus comments reveal that, in fact, there is a higher than normal amount of ad hominem attacking going on, Professor I Pity Your Students.

    • Grumnut1

      You’ll notice the graph above shows 1.2C from 1880 till 2016. It appears it will drop a bit this year. Currently though, the rise is 1C from 1950 till now.
      Also the main issue is the level of warming is measured by satellites and ground stations on a daily basis.
      It’s difficult to refute each days records.

      • BBQman aka Q

        Today’s satellite records are only a small snapshot in time, climate patterns tend to last for centuries, unless we come up with a method to analyze all data the same way accurately for the last few centuries, we have know way of knowing what the average global temperature was before satellites.

        The ground measurements are to regional and sparse to establish earth’s surface temperature, and that’s only been going on for several decades, not nearly long English to establish a long term pattern, much less tie it to CO2 from fossil fuels.

        If satellites had existed during other time periods such as……. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/24b693606e9cd6ba2c6d75d4b6b4436f5747cc8ddcce63f12bb2c9c1e75b7e73.jpg
        3750bc to 3600bc
        2500bc to 2200bc
        1800bc to 1700bc
        750bc to 700bc
        250bc to 50bc
        300ce to 350ce
        700ce to 1100ce
        1250ce to 1300ce
        ……….then they may have thought the sky was falling as well!

        • Grumnut1

          Your US Air Force came up with the science of paleoclimatology in the late 50’s.
          Including analysing ice core samples.
          They are still considered very good at it.
          Are you trying to say the climate has never changed before, or changed radically?

          • BBQman aka Q

            No, the opposite, the climate has always changed, and before the industrial revolution it changed in some very fast and extreme ways.

          • Grumnut1

            Exactly. And we know the reasons for all of those changes, just as we do now.

          • BBQman aka Q

            Well, I do.

          • Grumnut1

            Good. So we sorted?

          • BBQman aka Q

            What did we sort?

          • Grumnut1

            The reasons for all of those dramatic changes in climate in the past.
            You said you were up to speed on it.

          • BBQman aka Q

            A more likely cause of Climate Change are solar cycles which produce extreme CMEs (electromagnetic energy) during peak times. Since the earth’s two cores, the inner which is solid and outer liquid produces centripetal accelerations which are influenced by the geomagnetic energy of both cores, are also subjected to new flow alterations, depending on a magnitude of energy from the solar electromagnetic pulses (Electrons & Protons) then those flow alterations may change the direction of the centripetal accelerations produced, thus torquing around our orbital precession, which has an impact on our tectonic plates and also produces volcanic activity above and below the sea, which will not only produce earthquakes as a result of the changes in the centripetal accelerations produced, but undersea volcanic discharges as well, which can, and have created El Nino affects which also influence our oceans conveyance, which along with the above mentioned forces will influence our atmospheric pressure, jet stream and impact the Coriolis forces which creates the gyres that create Hurricanes and influences other weather anomalies, the magnetic forces can and do have long term impacts on our orbital precession and eccentricities which also influence our long term climate, imho.

          • Grumnut1

            I thought you said you were up to speed on this:

            Get me some of that weedkiller.

          • BBQman aka Q

            I am, why did you want me to watch this video, it seemed to be one persons opinion which was not backed up by any facts?

          • Grumnut1

            Didn’t you read the scientific papers cited in the video?
            They’re all listed underneath it.
            Other videos have direct links to Scotese etc.

          • BBQman aka Q

            The problem with those and most other Scientific papers I’ve been exposed to, is they never show how CO2 from fossil fuels, which is only 1/82,500th of the greenhouse gas that water vapor is, can have any influence as a climate driver.

          • “Divergent” sgthwjack ✯

            Their entire hypothesis is based upon a false assumption. Not a surprise their models do function properly, even with “adjusted” data.

          • BBQman aka Q

            There are many important quantifiables that are left out of the climate models, and even more historical data that’s been corrupted to cause the models to produce results that support the current AGW theory.

            Most of those AGW folks forget that man only occupies 3% of the total land mass and has only industrialized 1/6th of that 3%, so out of 57.5 million square miles of land mass, only 287.5 thousand square miles are densely populated, that is only 1/200th of the overall land mass occupied with excessive human stacking, now we should realize that the world wide square miles of all earth’s surface including the oceans, is 197 million square miles, which means only 1/685th of the earth’s total surface is occupied by man and spewing CO2 emissions from only 1/10th of that, so man is emitting CO2 from only 1/6,850th or less of the planets surface, now tell me TJ, how is that going to effect an atmosphere that is 3.947 billion cubic miles in size based on 20 miles in height

            Per NASA, there is around 1 trillion tons of CO2 in our atmosphere on the average, yet there is 500 trillion tons of annual rainfall, which means that CO2 is only 1/500th that of water vapor, and with the natural convection which causes the sink, most of the 1 trillion tons of CO2 every year is brought back down to earth as part of the sink and made harmless as relevant to the green house effect, also water vapor absorbs 5 times more solar energy than CO2 which changes the 1/500th to 1/2,500th, so as far as the ability to absorb solar energy and create a green house effect, all atmospheric CO2 is only 1/2,500 that of water vapor.

            Now realize that the 3% of CO2 that man produces of the 1 trillion tons of total CO2 makes CO2 from fossil fuels ability to harness solar energy only 1/82,500th that of water vapor.

          • Grumnut1

            So the data is adjusted daily by every country with satellites?

          • Grumnut1

            Then you should read further. All dipole molecules in the atmosphere act as a greenhouse gas. There is a LOT more water vapour and it constitutes about 60% of the overall effect. CO2 is only about 20%.
            So you’re kind of right.

          • BBQman aka Q

            Has there ever been a successful experiment that included all of the atmospheric elements such as sinks and sources, extreme winds up to 500 mph and low temperatures down to -110f that can start at just 6,000 meters above the earth’s surface, or ever included earth’s orbital rotation in and out of direct sunlight, or clouds, jet streams, oceans, lunar gravitational pulls, nor any geomagnetic influences, or the 500 trillion annual tons of rain that bring much of the annual 1 trillion tons of atmospheric CO2 down in the sink.

            It should also be noted that none of the regionally only and sparse experiments attempted by the AGW folks take into account the Hadley cell portion of the CO2 saturated tropical jet stream, of which only around 40% ever reaches the polar regions to be trapped in the ice. Which means that any ice cores taken between 30 degrees to the poles are missing around half of the Atmospheric CO2 for any historical time period back at least 10,000 years, all CO2 results back to 10,000 years are false and should be at least doubled for better accuracy, also because of increased pressures, density changes and displacement of the CO2 trapped in the ice older and deeper then 10,000 years the, multiplier will only increase.

            The earth’s climate is functioning normally just as it has for the last 10,000 years, the climate has always changed and no matter how hard the Believers of AGW want to stop the climate from changing, it will continue…..adapting to the climate change is part of human nature, trying to stop it from changing is a waste of valuable resources.
            CC: Scott Pruitt 09-23-17-2008CST

          • Grumnut1


          • BBQman aka Q

            I would like to read the report if available.

          • http://www.moonbattery.com Bodhisattva

            Some idiot who calls himself “potholer54” who makes videos on the internet full of his opinions with no valid facts to back them is your ‘expert’?

            Yeah, you better stop drinking that weed killer.

          • Grumnut1

            So you didn’t look at any of the links in the description then?

          • http://www.moonbattery.com Bodhisattva

            OK let’s see what potholer54’s arguments are:

            He claims that just because “the blogosphere” repeats KNOWN, PROVEN, UNDISPUTED FACTS those facts are invalid? Really?

            Just because something is in the blogosphere doesn’t make it wrong.

            And in this case, the statement “climate has always changed and always will” and variations of it are demonstrable fact. The fact people repeat this fact in the blogosphere doesn’t make it false.

            People in the blogosphere say a lot of things we know to be true. The atmosphere is mostly nitrogen followed by oxygen, followed by the real primary greenhouse gas, water vapor. The sun will (appear to) rise tomorrow.

            And what was up with him inserting a part from a completely different video and implying it was in Patrick Moore’s video? Do you have a link to Moore’s actual video – which, by the way, is more factual than Al Gore’s two fictional climate movies falsely released as “documentaries”.

            Next potholer54 makes a false equivalency by claiming that stating the fact that the climate has always changed and will always change (note nobody said anything about CO2 in that FACTUAL statement) is like claiming that since epidemics have always happened they can’t be caused by bacteria, and that plate tectonics can’t cause earthquakes because there have always been earthquakes – what a nonsense idea which only shows the flawed logic of potholer54, you’re apparent “best expert”.

            The difference is alarmists are claiming that climate change is new, unusual or different and it isn’t so. Climate change is really no different now than it’s ever been except in one respect… paleoclimatologists agree that until the recent period known as the HOLOCENE, climate change was MUCH MORE RAPID AND EXTREME – we are actually living in a time of significantly MILD, GENTLE, SLOW climate change – and a likely reason for it, well, part of the reason, there are likely several things contributing, is the present distribution of landmasses and ocean basins on the Earth. Further, orbital variations may have settled into a pattern that lends itself to reduced climate change. Such things that WE REALLY DON’T KNOW, these things I mention are likely possibilities but not known fact – the fact is WE DO NOT KNOW why the Holocene is a period of relatively MILD, SLOW climate change – we just know that it is.

          • Grumnut1

            I’d view the series. There’s about 40 now. You can read all the cited links as well.

          • http://www.moonbattery.com Bodhisattva

            Potholer54 makes statements based on some OUTLIER papers that are written by climate alarmists – it is not what alarmists have amusingly called “settled science” that the cause of a great cooling that kicked off the last ice age (Late Paleozoic) was caused by a reduction in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – in fact that could be a COINCIDENT thing but what paleoclimate studies show is that CO2 level changes tend to LAG, not lead, temperature changes.

            Further, the claim that the subsequent warming was CAUSED by gasses released during flood basalt events (Siberia, Central Atlantic) is also SPECULATION by alarmists and not generally accepted among scientists, at least not as a primary or sole cause. It’s funny though – they claim volcanic action DOES influence CO2 levels when they need it to do so to support their theories, but now they DENY that volcanic source CO2 is playing any role in atmospheric CO2 level changes. This is based on limited measurements and flawed estimates based on those limited measurements, limited in both time and place. We don’t know all the places or all the times where CO2 is being released due to tectonic events so how can we come up with a valid measurements of that CO2 quantity?

            The answer is we cannot.

            But I should mention that nobody is denying his contention that CO2 has a role in driving LONG TERM climate. That is not what alarmists are claiming. They’re claiming a SHORT TERM effect which has already been proven false by direct observation, as admitted by the IPCC:

            … the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

            SOURCE: IPCC AR5

            Now what potholer54 is trying to hide with his cherry picking from Moore’s videos – and note he’s not sticking to the one he claims he’s debunking, he’s cherry picking from all over the place – is that Moore was simply pointing out that, contrary to climate alarmist theories, the Earth is in fact capable of causing relatively rapid climate change – THAT was the point Moore was making – that the Earth causes rapid changes in CO2 – something AGW alarmist theories tend to deny even as he’s admitted it here, if it is in fact the case. Again whether the CO2 was a cause or an effect is questionable as there is more to that than potholer54 said. As the world cools a lot of biological activity – and the CO2 that results – ceases. As the world warms areas where that activity occurs come back into play and it ramps up again. This, too, can account for the observed CO2 changes concurrent with cooling and warming, only in this scenario the temperature change is the cause and the CO2 change the effect.

            And we have evidence that is what we’re seeing now – temperature change driving atmospheric CO2 level change, not the reverse. But i’m off on a tangent and this post is long so let’s close it and go back to the videoS, since potholer54 isn’t sticking to just one, again.

          • Grumnut1

            Of course CO2 lags, not leads CO2 increase.
            Why do you think it will be any different THIS time?
            Why has physics suddenly changed?

          • http://www.moonbattery.com Bodhisattva

            OK I’m up to about the 4:40 point in the video you linked and potholer54 is claiming again that there were large variations in CO2 levels that were driving climate change… only the funny thing is climate alarmists keep telling us that only humans can cause large CO2 changes in the atmosphere, that nature cannot do that, has not done that. And yet here he’s saying yes, it has happened and clearly since humans weren’t even around they could not have had anything to do with it.

            As an aside, you do know that atmospheric CO2 levels, despite the MINUSCULE increase that has occurred in our lifetime, is still near an all time record LOW and if it had gone much lower the food chain would have started collapsing and finally we’re actually seeing a greening of the deserts and the biosphere in general – the biosphere is getting HEALTHIER, it’s THRIVING, directly refuting ANOTHER alarmist claim of you climate alarmists that we’re entering a mass extinction.

            So potholer54 crosses the FACT that climate has always changed off as if it is not true, but we know it to BE true, so now he’s lying and denying reality. ON to the next point – he’s spent… no he’s WASTED the better part of 5 minutes trying to make a straw man argument out of THE FACT that climate has always changed and always will, whether we are influencing it or not. And now he crosses it out as if it’s not true. And this is your source?

            Now after the 5 minute point Moore mentions something ALL SCIENTISTS agree – that our climate is influenced by a number of factors – factors which cause significant changes in the radiation that actually gets to the Earth and are orders of magnitude greater than the tiny effect CO2 has on this issue.

            Now at about 6:20 potholer54 makes a HUGE mistake. He claims we’re not expecting the next glaciation for 16,000 – 20,000 years. Well, when does he think the last one ended – or does he claim we’re still in it? I’ve heard people state both as their beliefs. If we’re still in one that it can’t be disputed that global warming is GOOD, because we need to get out of it and indeed that is a likely reason for whatever warming we are experiencing – we are emerging from the last ice age – in which case those who claim the next one won’t start for 16,000 years (at least) are probably correct – but that also means GLOBAL WARMING IS GOOD because it is WHY we’re emerging from the last ice age. But I’ve also heard prominent scientists say the last one ENDED about that long ago and we’re coming due – or even overdue – to start the next one. Potholer54 does not explain which of these views he shares or how he comes up with his claim we won’t have another glaciation for 15,000-20,000 years, at least he hasn’t so far… let’s continue past 6:30 and see where he’s taking this.

            Potholer54 is full of straw men – he says “Nobody can seriously claim that orbital shifts are a factor in warming over the last 40 years” – and that’s true, but he’s the only one who is even talking about this. NOBODY BUT HIM ever suggested it was – and he only brought this up to make yet another straw man argument – a tactic he is known to use in all his videos.

            What he left out is that Moore also mentioned “ROTATION, TILT AND WOBBLE”, things that WERE CHANGED by several of the major earthquakes we’ve had during the last 40 years. If you were paying attention after each (I was) scientists actually measured changes in the Earth’s rotational speed, tilt and wobble after each. Did these changes have an effect on solar energy hitting the Earth? Probably, but whether it was significant is yet to be seen.

            So his second point is an entire straw man – Moore never said PRESENT WARMING was caused by Milankovitch Cycles – and note potholer54 completely skipped the things Moore mentioned that HAVE CHANGED during the past 40 years that MIGHT have had some influence on changing weather patterns – for we are not really seeing CLIMATE CHANGE – we are seeing changes in WEATHER PATTERNS – changes we did not have the tools to detect, measure or even notice until very recently. And our understanding of them has been set back from 50 to perhaps 100 or 150 years due to climate alarmism and the fraudulent “adjustments” to data accomplished by Jones (of the UEA) and to a lesser extent by people like Hansen here in the U.S. at NASA – one hopes that, unlike Jones, the original, unaltered data is still available here and I believe it is until I find out otherwise.

            So I’m seeing a pattern here – potholer54 debunks Moore’s video by using straw men to deny things that are established facts and to try to say that Moore claimed they were doing things he never did claim in the first place.

            Let’s see if that pattern continues, but since potholer has created a natural breakpoint, I’ll end this post and start a new one for his next straw man argument.

          • Grumnut1

            Ah, he clearly states that people usually have very little to do with global warming:
            Here it is again for some slow learners in the class:

            The next glaciation is about 15000 years away.
            Except if we’re 4C hotter by 2100.
            We may have to send it an email saying we’re going to be late.
            If we’re not wobbling into the sun, then what is it that’s causing a warming of 1C from 1950 till today?

            What we are seeing is the warming of the earth at the rate of 2.52 x 10^14 joules per second.
            http://www.joannenova,com.au agrees and she’s cute.

          • http://www.moonbattery.com Bodhisattva

            Ah this is a good one… at about 6:40 in Moore’s video we’re going to start dealing with “activity from the sun” as a cause of climate change and I can tell you, before I even continue, the false arguments potholer54 will LIKELY raise, because they’re directly from a website full of talking points, lies and propaganda maintained by other climate alarmists – in short everything potholer54 is stating is from that site and I don’t see where he’s given any attribution, which means he plagiarized it all. That cheeky BEE_YATCH!

            Watch, he’s likely going to focus on TSI and claim it has been nearly constant for the last 40 years. Usually the argument is it has changed 0.1% or 0.01%, I’ve seen both figures used so let’s see if he goes there or not.

            Yep, he went there, though he didn’t mention the figures, rather he claimed that TSI has gone down over the last 40 years – but he has not mentioned the known changes – some of them just recently noticed, nor did he mention the peaks in violent solar activity (record flares, some so strong they overpowered our ability to measure them) that coincided with the burst of warming that helped kick off this whole fraud.

            This is a case of waving one’s hands while pointing at TSI while ignoring the other changes – some of which we’re just discovering due again to NEW TOOLS we’ve just developed and launched and new things about the sun we’ve just learned.

            This is one of the typical arguments but I guess potholer54 knew not to dwell on it. He rejects changes in the sun, but he failed to cover all of them. And he does not know, or lied and did not tell us, that not all components that make up TSI went down – some went up. Or so recent peer-reviewed, published papers suggest. Next post, even though there are lots of things about the sun and changes in it’s dynamics that are easily shown to be likely primarily responsible for changes in weather and climate here on Earth.

          • Grumnut1

            Potholer54 will tell you not to believe him in any shape or form.
            Believe the experts instead.

          • http://www.moonbattery.com Bodhisattva

            Not sure where potholer54 is going as he gives us several scientists lecturing about how the global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide have actually moved in opposite directions a number of time in history, suggesting that when they’ve moved together it’s more coincidence than causation – something I’ve seen copious evidence to support. Though there is also evidence that SOMETIMES when the world cooled carbon dioxide tended to follow the temperature down and SOMETIMES when the world warmed carbon dioxide tended to follow the temperature up, suggesting that SOMETIMES changes in temperature did drive changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels – and there’s a lot of evidence backing THIS interpretation.

            But I want to call attention to two blatant lies and two more subtle ones potholer54 tells shortly after the 8:30 point.

            LIE #1: He claims “… Moore concludes there is no correlation…” between temperature and CO2 changes – when in fact Moore admits that SOMETIMES they change together (both going or down at the same time -but generally CO2 is seen to LAG temperature, arguing that if one is causing the other it’s temperature driving CO2 at these times, not the opposite) and other times they move in opposite directions – AS THE GRAPHS FROM THE SOURCES CLEARLY SHOW – a fact potholer54 attempts to ignore. Moore points out, correctly, that while they do SOMETIMES show a correlation, that correlation is not always present and in fact there are significant periods of time when they do not move together at all, either the same way or in opposite directions.

            LIE #2: He claims “… the authors [of the two studies shown] and every other researcher in this field say there is a correlation. Both the graph he uses, that came from one of the reports, and some researchers in this field admit that CO2 does not always move with temperature. Sometimes they move in opposite directions. So his claim is essentially a “no true Scotsman” argument as it is essentially that no climate researcher admits that CO2 and temperature don’t always move in lock step – and certainly several do. He admits that the data came from the reports he cites and does not dispute the graph created to show the two quantities on one page – which clearly shows some periods that feature CO2 and temperature moving in opposite directions. Scientists who openly admit this are called “deniers” when they state this publicly, called this in an attempt to shame them to change their statements contrary to the facts as they know them. Why is shame used – why not science, facts, truth, logic? Could it be because these things are not on the side of the alarmists?

            Lie #3: Potholer54 points out that one of the authors states that, over the long run there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature – note he does not say there is any causation, nor does he say this correlation is consistent, BECAUSE IT IS NOT. He leaves this important fact out – that the correlation is NOT consistent and in fact sometimes it’s backwards – as we just recently saw to some degree when the level of CO2 continued to rise yet the surface warming allegedly caused by this rise significantly decreased. (See IPCC AR5 for more details.)

            Lie #4: Potholer54 revisits his previous claim that the changes in the sun’s output has had no effect on global temperatures and now claims just the opposite. Now he uses changes in the solar output to explain why sometimes CO2 and temperature DID NOT track each other.

            And finally as trying to advance the false argument that the correlation between CO2 and warming is 100% consistent and Moore is allegedly lying when he says it isn’t, he again flashes the graph which clearly shows they are not.

            It’s hilarious – if you look back he claims the sun has no effect on temperature and now he says, and I quote: “No one would be daft enough to claim the sun has no effect on temperature.” No one but him, apparently!

            And then, amazingly enough, after making such a false case for 100% correlation to bolster his argument, HE ADMITS THAT CORRELATION DOES NOT PROVE CAUSATION!

            So what was his point? He admits that correlation is no proof of causation and therefore we cannot conclude that CO2 is driving climate, then he offers the conclusion that, based on this correlation and other dubious evidence, CO2 is in fact driving climate!

            One has to laugh out loud at the self-contradictions this guy accomplishes in his videos.

            He then repeats the lie that Moore claims there’s no correlation – Moore never said that, it’s another of his STRAW MAN arguments. Moore just pointed out that the correlation that does exist is not consistent. Sometimes one moves while the other doesn’t. Sometimes the ratio of the magnitudes of the changes varies, sometimes they move in opposite directions. These are facts undisputed by most climate scientists, if you bother to check.

            Then potholer54 doubles down, first insisting Moore ignores & totally leaves out solar influence right before he shows a different video where Moore says the sun plays the dominant role (correct), a point potholer54 claimed to debunk, so now he’s accusing MOORE of doing what HE did – claiming the sun DOES NOT HAVE SIGNIFICANT INFLUENCE right after arguing it does.

            Shortly after 11 minutes potholer54 tells another blatant lie when he calls the FACT that the surface warming has slowed down a myth and denies it – another reason I call climate alarmists the true “deniers”, because they deny any inconvenient facts. There was no little ice age, there was no medieval warm period, they claim. Then when you show irrefutable evidence these things occurred alarmists “move the goal posts” and admit the evidence is true, but that these things were only “regional”, not global, despite evidence to the contrary.

            I’ll pick up his claim there was no surface warming slowdown in my next post.

          • http://www.moonbattery.com Bodhisattva

            When potholer54 claims the surface warming slowdown, which occurred as atmospheric CO2 was going up, is a myth, he’s arguing with the IPCC and a group of climate scientists which includes Michael Mann, the father of the now thoroughly debunked “hockey schtick”.

            … the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

            SOURCE: IPCC AR5

            It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims. A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that the surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus, was due to the combined effects of internal decadal variability and natural forcing.

            SOURCE: Peer-reviewed, published work by a group of noted climate scientists including Michael Mann, in response to climate alarmists attempts to falsify evidence and revise history to deny the previous admission by the IPCC concerning the surface warming slowdown, which is an established, irrefutable fact.

            On to what potholer54 has to say about it.

            He makes a semantic argument, which, unfortunately, Moore handed to him on a silver platter. Moore points out, correctly, that the temperature “trend has been essentially flat”.

            Potholer54 immediately jumps on this and claims it’s false, stating that there has been warming measured. But how much? This is the key. Generally the measured warming has been so small that it has not left the admitted error band in the measurements being made. That is to say that while we are pretty sure that there was some warming occurring, it was so slight that the estimated error in the measurements is greater than the estimated warming. To understand this you have to understand we’ve never actually taken the temperature of the Earth even once, let alone multiple times.

            Surface measurements are sparse and do not really measure the Earth’s temperature – they give a rather crude estimate. Furthermore the temperature measurement network has changed over time as have the environments where the measurements are taken and these changes have adversely affected the quality and reliability of the measurements.

            Satellite measurements are considered to be much better but they still have flaws – for it is somewhat of an art to interpret them plus it is continually argued that the sensors exhibit some “drift” and there is no firm consensus on how to correct for this and other factors such as time of day the measurements were taken, angle of view during the measurement process, how different layers of the atmosphere may have changed the end value measured, etc. The satellite measurements do show very slight warming but if we’re going to take them as golden then what Moore says is true – they show a significant reduction in the rate of warming – a value trending towards zero from it’s original level – even as the level of atmospheric CO2 continued to rise as before.

            Here potholer54 makes appeals to authority and political arguments – the typical claim that “everyone agrees”… if we all agreed that the world was flat, would it be? No, of course not. We don’t decide things by consensus – we decide them by observation and HONEST recording.

            Even as potholer54 is arguing against any drop in temperature or change in the rate of warming he shows a graph which shows significant drops in temperature as CO2 was rising. He counts on people not to notice this. The whole argument is that CO2 is dominant and natural forces play minor if any role in driving temperature change – so how is it the graph on the screen starting at 11:23 shows steep declines in temperature as CO2 was going ever upward?

            Another thing is he doesn’t let us see the units used clearly – so we don’t really know what we’re looking at with enough knowledge to make any reasonable deductions or conclusions – we don’t know if the horizontal axis is in days, weeks, months, years, decades or centuries. We see that the vertical axis is graduated in tenths of some quantity, we can assume it’s temperature, but is it C or F? And why is 0 placed in the middle of the graph?

            If you look at that graph you will see what I was talking about, though the graph is not all that clear. There are some different colored lines – these are the temperature estimates – and I emphasize ESTIMATES – from different sources. Note that the different sources disagree on both what the temperature was and how much it changed. Furthermore there’s a wide grey band and note the changes are always within it – that band is the uncertainty and the measurements never got outside the level of uncertainty in the estimates.

            Finally note that even as CO2 was going up constantly (not shown on this graph, but either take my word for it or check the Mauna Loa record) we can clearly see ALL the measurement estimates show some times that temperature was going down.

            So this graph, too, disproves potholer54’s attempt to convince us there’s a tight, consistent, constant correlation between CO2 and temperature, something that would be ESSENTIAL if we are to believe that the warming we’re experiencing is due to increasing CO2. Because the theory leaves no room for dispute – if CO2 goes up temperature MUST go up – temperature cannot go down if CO2 goes up. Otherwise who cares if CO2 goes up – temperature can still go down so it’s no big deal.

            There is a graph, and if I can find it I’ll patch it in, that shows the beginning and ending temperatures during the 18-20 year period in question. It shows that while the temperature ESTIMATES went both up and down during this time the beginning and end temperature difference was smaller than the admitted margin for error of the measurements themselves. If you’ve taken ANY advanced college math courses you understand this makes the statement “No statistically significant change” true, though you have to be careful shortening that to “no change” or “no difference” since the measurements are also inconclusive regarding that for the same reason.

            He is right criticizing the press for turning claims of “no statistically significant warming” over 20 years to “No Global Warming” – that is not something we can say with confidence. But likewise people insisting that we’ve set new records for a given month, season or year are also not supported by the data, particularly because the data has been modified and those modifications have “baked in” the warming that makes that statement almost plausible, except for the fact, again, the stated increase in temperature used to support it is still within the margin for error in the measurements, thus not “statistically significant”.

            So once again potholer54 slays a straw man as he misquotes Moore, who said there was little warming, at best, a reduced rate of warming, over the past 20 years, “almost flat” I think were the words he used. And potholer54 lies and says he claimed there was “no warming” when the only one who said that… was potholer54.

          • Grumnut1

            he does not say there is any causation, nor does he say this correlation is consistent, BECAUS E IT IS NOT. He leaves this important fact out

            Potholer54 specifically says correlation is not causation.
            I’m starting to think you’re an idiot, but you may be the smartest person on the planet.

          • Grumnut1

            So you BELIEVE Michael Mann when he says, quite legitimately that there has been a slowdown in the rate of atmospheric warming in the satellite readings, but not when he talks of a hockey stick.
            How about the other 40 hockey sticks?
            Any bone to pick with them or are you fine?

            “so how is it the graph on the screen starting at 11:23 shows steep declines in temperature as CO2 was going ever upward?”
            Sorry, what declines in temperature?

            “Something that would be ESSENTIAL if we are to believe that the warming we’re experiencing is due to increasing CO2.”
            Sometimes there’s a volcano.
            Or El Nino.

            Here’s the graph you we’re after for the last 20 years:

          • http://www.moonbattery.com Bodhisattva

            After the 12:30 point potholer54 goes completely off the rails and mentions the incident he says he wasn’t going to mention, shouldn’t mention.

            This involved the weed killer glyphosate, a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide and crop desiccant in use worldwide. In 2007, glyphosate was the most used herbicide in the United States agricultural sector and it is also popular for home and other uses.

            There is NO EVIDENCE of cancer risk when glyphosate is used properly, though opponents of it’s existence have claimed they have evidence of cancer risk after obviously dangerous overexposure, exposure completely inconsistent with any reasonable, rational use.

            A 2000 review concluded that “under present and expected conditions of new use, there is no potential for Roundup herbicide to pose a health risk to humans”. A 2002 review by the European Union reached the same conclusion. A 2012 meta-analysis of all epidemiological studies of exposure to glyphosate formulations found no correlation with any kind of cancer. The 2013 systematic review by the German Institute for Risk Assessment of epidemiological studies of workers who use pesticides, exposed to glyphosate formulations found no significant risk, stating that “the available data are contradictory and far from being convincing”. Contradictory because the data indicating any risk came from those on the record as bitterly opposed to the production and use of this substance.

            In 2007, the EPA selected glyphosate for further screening through its Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). Selection for this program is based on a compound’s prevalence of use and does not imply particular suspicion of endocrine activity. On June 29, 2015 the EPA released Weight of Evidence Conclusion of the EDSP Tier 1 screening for glyphosate, recommending that glyphosate not be considered for Tier 2 testing. The Weight of Evidence conclusion stated “…there was no convincing evidence of potential interaction with the estrogen, androgen or thyroid pathways.”

            (The above came from various sources all available on the internet.)

            So what does potholer54 do? He tries to villify Moore based on SOME of the organizations he’s been associated with. The odd thing is he left out Moore’s time with GREENPEACE an organization HE FOUNDED AND LED until they went off the rails and became more about money and power than actually doing anything good for the Earth or it’s people.

            Moore has criticized Greenpeace and the environmental movement in general for what he sees as scare tactics and disinformation, saying that the environmental movement “abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism.” Just like potholer54…

            He points out THE FACT people tried to commit suicide by drinking glyphosate – and they lived.

            He should not have said he would drink some, but that proves NOTHING. It’s just a cheap shot at him, just like everything else from potholer54.

          • Grumnut1

            Potholer54 was saying it was a claim he should be able to back up.
            I gather you’re giving Moore a free pass on that.
            Like most of his claims.

          • jonathanpulliam

            Geez, who knew “Roundup” had their own hasbara?
            What do you suppose “Roundup” portends for honeybee colonies?
            Why are you so “caps promiscuous”?
            “Methinks thou doth protest too much”.

          • http://www.moonbattery.com Bodhisattva

            OK we’re finally approaching the end – after the 16:00 or so point potholer54 makes a bunch of claims – that he misrepresents some things, that he withholds others, that he blatantly lies about things – which are EXACTLY WHAT POTHOLER54 DID! He uses the “Moore takes money from evil and greedy corporations” to try and smear him, THEN DENIES THAT IS WHAT HE WAS DOING, even though he did it blatantly.

            Then he takes a swipe at Moore for pointing out, as I do, that if anyone is a “DENIER” it is those who deny that nature, not humans, is the driving force behind climate change. This is NOT equating people with holocaust deniers as the lunatic left has done. This is pointing out the term they chose, NOT THE ASSOCIATION THEY MADE, applies to them, not those they apply it to as an ad hominem attack.

            There is a difference.

          • Grumnut1

            The deniers of naturally occurring climate change”
            Aren’t they holocaust deniers?

          • http://www.moonbattery.com Bodhisattva

            Impressive, but remember there may yet be more things and I’m not sure you covered everything either. One thing lib-nutz don’t understand is that the solar wind is dynamic and it has significant effects on our atmosphere.

          • jonathanpulliam

            Yeah, you’d think these examples from nature might prove persuasive to the scientific community, but, nope, it turns out they prefer to collect grant money ka-ching for phony climate fear mongering.

            I Loved Mike Crichton’s masterful novelization of the issue in “State of Fear”.

            You don’t appear to “know your enemy” in any political sense, Maestro, however, as there’s no mention of the cult of sociopaths that flit about the AGW-promoters like moths to the flame.
            Charles Manson’s “The Family” was actually arrested while they were engaged in eco-sabotaging earth moving equipment by pouring dirt into their fuel systems. The same personality type who “wouldn’t hurt a fly”, would man and his works without remorse.
            “Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.”

          • http://www.moonbattery.com Bodhisattva

            And if you know anything about paleoclimate studies you know that with all measurements, specifically the known accuracy of measurements of temperature and atmospheric carbon levels, the ability to discern rates of changes in both and the confidence levels of the ESTIMATES of each tend to drop very quickly as you go back in time. In fact another thing is climate HAS changed before, has ALWAYS changed since the Earth developed a fluid envelope and has changed RAPIDLY – which is denied by climate alarmists as they have tried to revise away things like the medieval warm period and the little ice age and they’re busy even now manufacturing evidence to cover their tails with this effort.

            But it’s all in vain since the IPCC already pulled the rug out from under the fraud with this admission:

            … the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

            SOURCE: IPCC AR5

          • Grumnut1

            The climate has changed both dramatically AND rapidly in the past.
            We know this due to paleoclimatological records.
            It just hasn’t changed this quickly for 3 million years.
            Our major cities and farms were slightly different 3 million years ago.

            Marcott, of course, showed greater accuracy the further you went back.

            EVERYONE agrees with the IPCC assessment on the changing rate of warming.
            In particular NASA GISS and NOAA.
            So I gather you support their assessments?

        • http://www.moonbattery.com Bodhisattva

          The problem with climate alarmists is they know so much… so much that simply isn’t true. Going back in time, the further you go back, the less confident we can be in pretty much any measurement. Even history is questionable given the fact we know the victors tend to write history that is not factual but rather tends to heap praise and glory on them while the vanquished get demonized, minimized or eliminated from historic accounts. And we see the same thing with climate alarmists as they try to eliminate climate changes we know to have occurred – the little ice age, the medieval warm period – if you look at THEIR representations of the past, neither happened, yet the fact they did happen is literally written in stone, into the geology of the planet.

          If you bother to check, virtually everything climate alarmists say is at best an exaggeration and at worst a deliberate, outright lie. And this is no surprise because their patron saints told them to do it this way:

          “We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we might have… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

          Stephen Schneider to Discover Magazine, 1989, telling his acolytes to lie to get people to join the church of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism.

          In a recent interview about the movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” Dave Roberts of Grist magazine, asked former Vice President Al Gore: “There’s a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What’s the right mix?” Gore answered as follows:

          I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations…

          Now this of course is a short version, I urge readers to google the phrase and read it in full context, but the point is that Gore was also instructing people to LIE as a motivational tool – and they’ve taken him up on it.

      • OWilson

        We have Global Warmers posting regularly on these blogs denying the satellite record, as recorded by NOAA satellites, because it doesn’t show enough warming! :)

        As of July, 2017, the anomaly was 0.28 degrees over the entire 38 year record.

        Add a scienticifically statistical margin of error, and what do you have?

        You do the math! :)

        • Grumnut1

          NOAA MSU satellite readings from 1978 till today:

          You can see that’s about 0.6C increase.

          • OWilson

            Woodfortrees give a couple dozen different deriviations for temperatures, including a number of Global mean temps.

            One gives your figure, another gives about 0.4C

            The standard ongoing joint project between UAH, NOAA and NASA, uses a satellite era record average to derive a warming anomaly of 0.28C for July (as stated above) and an updated value of 0.41C for the latest month, August, 2017.

          • Grumnut1

            Paul actually recommends the combined temperature index as the most indicative.
            That’s why he puts it together:


          • OWilson

            George disagrees! :)

          • Grumnut1


            You should email him.
            He’s a nice guy.

          • OWilson

            George helps me fix my car! :)

          • Grumnut1

            George and Ringo are no longer active with the site.
            Ringo always goes on that the other guys wouldn’t let him do stuff.
            I just let him vent.
            Paul’s a bit cut up by the “Muzac” jibe, but he knows his climate science and he will answer your emails.

          • Grumnut1
          • OWilson

            No, that’s yours! :)


            I don’t get my car parts from Walmart, I get them direct, from Ford.

            George is an authorized, official dealer!

          • Grumnut1

            Why do you put your trust in satellite readings?
            Satellites don’t read temperature.
            Ironically, the outputs have to be dramatically manipulated.
            That’s why the agencies that deal with them don’t trust them.
            They all say the ground readings are far more accurate.
            Why don’t you believe the people who manipulate the satellite readings?

          • OWilson

            You believe what you want to believe.

            Ancient steamship intake valve readings from 1880. ancient tidal gauges, ancient ice core samples, ancient tree rings, require a large part of the NASA and NOAA billion dollar budget to “manipulate” the terrestrial data.

            Your question, “Why do you put your trust in satellite readings?”

            …is the biggest joke from the AGW True Believer Cult!

          • Grumnut1

            All of these techniques and data was developed and refined by the US Air Force.
            So I gather you don’t feel they know what they’re doing.
            Why would you feel there ever was a medieval warm period or little ice age?
            You do realise the scientists who give us the data obtained by satellites feel there are much more accurate ways to obtain it?

          • OWilson

            The U.S. Air Force do what they are told.

            If their political bosses tell them to drop Weapons on Mass Destruction, a couple of Atomic Bombs on innocent civilians in two major world cities, they will be happy to do just that!

            And make endless documentaries about it for true believers like you, patting themselves on the back as heroes!

          • Grumnut1

            That’s very true.
            The Australian military have been doing similar research to your own and finding much the same as your’s.
            That’s while the Prime Minister defunded the CSIRO forcing it to lay off over 100 climate scientists, and he tried to shut down Cape Grimm ( the only CO2 monitoring station in the southern hemisphere). Then he placed huge pressure on the GBRMPA after they started to bring out reports about the death of the Great Barrier Reef.
            Then he gave funding to Bjorn Lomborg to build a new research facility to give the kind of research he preferred to read.
            Then he called Climate Change “Crap” and windmills “A blight on the landscape”
            The same things were going on in Canada under the Harper government.
            And yet both militaries have produced research that organisations like NASA, NOAA and the CSIRO consider to be robust.
            It must be pretty hard when the leader of the country tells you what you need to produce in terms of research, threatens your job, and you keep on getting it wrong.

          • OWilson

            In your country a bunch of left wing politicians and law enforcement officials, State AGs, want to jail anybody who publicly expresses a different opinion on Global Warming, from the “official version”.

            If you can’t see a problem with that, you are the problem!

            It’s that simple! :)


          • Grumnut1

            So you feel those who organise and fund disinformation campaigns for their own personal enrichment and advancement, that adversely effects the lives and health of others, should get off scott free?
            Particularly when it has been shown these same people have funded research that has demonstrated the truth to them.

        • Mike Richardson

          Nope, not denying the satellite record — just pointing out the experts most knowledgeable about how these satellites work have provided data showing that NOAA needs to correct the data for diurnal drift. Here’s the source:


          Next lie, please?

      • http://www.moonbattery.com Bodhisattva

        First, we don’t have enough measurements (ground) to produce a meaningful estimate. Second, the number of stations was adjusted, and adjusted in a way that injected false warming as stations that tended to give colder readings were eliminated and the area they covered is now given an average based on warmer stations nearby. Third the raw data from the ground stations has been continually adjusted to bias the past colder and the present warmer and this is well documented.

        The satellites are the best way to measure the whole globe but even they cannot cover everywhere and they are also subject to debate with regards to what they are actually measuring. The problem as before is the keepers and interpreters of the satellite data have pretty much all invested their reputations and careers in the false claim of AGW due to human CO2, a theory conclusively and decisively proven false by a certain observation:

        … the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

        SOURCE: IPCC AR5

        Thus is is clear. Over a period that wound up being closer to 20 years, as the level of CO2 in the atmosphere increased, the rate of surface warming decreased. If CO2 were driving the warming this would be impossible, YET IT HAPPENED, and in doing so it proved that CO2 is not driving any warming trend, for we could not have observed what we did if it were.

        This clear, simple FACT is apparently beyond the ability of climate alarmists, those who are either behind the fraud or those who have bought into it for whatever reasons, to grasp.

        Is the world warming? YES, at least I hope so. For there is still too much persistent snow and ice for the current average global temperature to be considered “optimum”. Further, it is the warm wet times that cause the biosphere to thrive, it is the warm wet places of the Earth where the greatest biodiversity occurs and it is the cold dry places where life struggles and dies and minimal biodiversity exists. Climate ALWAYS changes and so we basically have two possibilities. It will get warmer and BETTER or it will get colder and WORSE. Which would you choose?

    • diaspora

      Very informative!

      • BBQman aka Q

        Thank you.

    • jonathanpulliam

      “…There are things man can do to impact regional climate, but never global climate”.


      There is no theoretical limit to the size of man-made thermo-nuclear explosive devices. One could construct such a device large enough to obliterate the Earth and its climate altogether.

    • Grumnut1

      CO2 is not a climate driver above the atmospheric levels of 345 ppm, nor does it create a negative greenhouse effect above that level.”
      NASA, NOAA and the CSIRO will tell you that.
      In fact it’s saturated at about 250 ppm.
      Tell them something they don’t know.

      • BBQman aka Q

        Thanks for the correction.

        • Grumnut1

          No problems.
          But why do they all agree with that statement?
          It seems to run counter to what they are ALL saying.
          Surely we can just keep on burning coal and oil till the cows come home then, if they all say that.

      • jonathanpulliam

        That accounts for terrestrial CO2 sinking in primarily the Southern Oceans.

        • Grumnut1

          Good, I gather you know what all those 198 international scientific organisations, all of the worlds major universities and virtually every military force is saying as to what is going on then?
          Why do they say that?
          It seems to counter their main argument.

      • Dano2

        You can’t show these statements are true. Pants on fire.



        • Grumnut1

          So which is it.
          Is CO2 already saturated in the atmosphere at 250 ppm or no?

          • Dano2

            That’s not showing.

            Your claims, your burden of proof. I’ll wait.



          • Grumnut1
          • Dano2

            LoWatts. That’s the only place such statements are found, thanks.



          • Grumnut1

            I’ll let you hunt for the answer.
            Mind you, thinking about it logically for a second will do just as well.

          • Dano2

            If I’m not mistaken, I think it is time to take those points on offer:

            o GHG’s are ‘saturated’ [25 points]




          • Grumnut1

            Oh it’s got to be worth more than 25 points.
            It’s the whole shootin’ match
            (apologies to victims in Las Vegas)
            If all scientific academies and all the world’s major universities say adding loads more CO2 has virtually no effect, what else is there?
            26 points surely.
            BTW, thanks for the link.

          • Dano2

            all scientific academies and all the world’s major universities say adding loads more CO2 has virtually no effect,

            They do not. You were duped.

            Try reading some real papers, visit a library, get a journal sub.



          • Grumnut1

            I think you don’t realise I was agreeing with you.
            That statement is effectively correct.
            In fact you’ll find descriptions (though I can’t find them at the moment) that if you could see IR in the frequencies that it is absorbed by CO2 and water vapour, it would look like a thick London pea souper of a fog. Even at 250 ppm. Adding more does not change much how effectively a thick fog blocks light of ANY frequency.
            Hence the red herring.
            It’s what happens at the top of that fog that is vital to all this.
            Adding more causes that fog to reach higher, into thinner, colder atmosphere, where it radiates less energy to space.
            Global warming is not so much global warming, but a lack of global cooling.




          • Dano2

            a [slowing of] global cooling

            Yes. However, doubling CO2 from preindustrial levels increases temp ~3C.

            So adding more CO2 above 245 ppmv has an effect.




          • Grumnut1

            Yes, I was referring more to the mechanism by which that happens.
            And on another level, how someone like Dr Roy Spencer can say something that is perfectly true, but meaningless.

  • jonathanpulliam

    Would the moderator/editor of Discover explain why you allow a lunatic college professor to threaten people who dare criticize his use of known fraudulent sources in his many climate and CO2 articles?

    He cites the IPCC lies that had to be retracted FOUR separate times.

    He cited falsified NASA atmospheric data that NASA had to retract.

    What is Tom suggesting mankind use in replacement of fossil fuels? Tom wants to use phony, government-subsidized boon-doggles such as photo-voltaic solar that have a larger carbon footprint than fossil fuels alone.

    • OWilson

      All of which can be expressed as an honest disagreement without the ad hominem attacks!

      Thank you!

      • Tom Yulsman

        No. Thank you!

    • Grumnut1

      This is what s needed to power the earth from solar alone.
      In fact, nowhere near that much as it assumes an efficiency of 20%.
      It’s now 34.5%
      What do you think it will be in 10 years time?
      All vehicles in the US can be powered by just one of those dots transforming water into hydrogen and transported as ammonia by combining it with atmospheric nitrogen.
      Thermal solar as well stores power for 6 weeks, but we don’t really need it for power at night.



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