95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong

February 7th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

I’m seeing a lot of wrangling over the recent (15+ year) pause in global average warming…when did it start, is it a full pause, shouldn’t we be taking the longer view, etc.

These are all interesting exercises, but they miss the most important point: the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.

I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH):


Whether humans are the cause of 100% of the observed warming or not, the conclusion is that global warming isn’t as bad as was predicted. That should have major policy implications…assuming policy is still informed by facts more than emotions and political aspirations.

And if humans are the cause of only, say, 50% of the warming (e.g. our published paper), then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats.

I am growing weary of the variety of emotional, misleading, and policy-useless statements like “most warming since the 1950s is human caused” or “97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming”, neither of which leads to the conclusion we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good.

Yet, that is the direction we are heading.

And even if the extra energy is being stored in the deep ocean (if you have faith in long-term measured warming trends of thousandths or hundredths of a degree), I say “great!”. Because that extra heat is in the form of a tiny temperature change spread throughout an unimaginably large heat sink, which can never have an appreciable effect on future surface climate.

If the deep ocean ends up averaging 4.1 deg. C, rather than 4.0 deg. C, it won’t really matter.

321 Responses to “95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. david dohbro says:

    unfortunately most of our decisions are emotionally based; very few factual. These decisions range from the simplest thing of “what to put on my sandwich today” to those on a much grander scale “let’s declare war to a nation”…

    • Dr.BobMSU says:

      I agree but YOU must do what you can, where you are to rebut this trend. Go forth and be strong.

      • fonzie says:

        Dr Bob, I think it may be easier than that… forget about Washington and it will go away. I think it feeds off of all the attention that we give it. think of d.c. as just another town with a losing football team…

    • cleanwater2 says:

      This question has been asked a few hundred time on many different web-site and blogs,can someone come up with an answer> Where is there a credible test/experiment that proves that the Hypotheses of the greenhouse gas effect exists?
      There are many physicists and other scientists that show evidence that the GHGE does not exist.
      If there is no credible experiment that shows that CO2 causes atmospheric heating is there experiments that show that it causes atmospheric cooling?
      The thermodynamic properties of CO2 indicate that because of the lower R-value of CO2 compared to O2 & N2 by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere it should lower global temperatures.

      • cementafriend says:

        One can calculate with Prof Hoyt Hottel’s equation (in various engineering texts including Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook), which was determined by empirical measurements, that the absorptivity of CO2 in the atmosphere at 400ppm is insignificant (ie practically zero) before considering overlap and correction for water vapor. Then, again there is measured evidence from huge number of researches and chemical/process engineers that a cool gas in the atmosphere can not increase the temperature of a surface which is at an higher temperature (I personally have made measurements of heat transfer to and from gases in process plant and heat loss to the atmosphere)
        I suggest that there is no so-called climate scientist that has an understanding of heat and mass transfer (which is engineering science). If you want to know more look into some engineering text books on Process Heat Transfer, Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook is a summary with detailed mathematical formulae for experienced Chemical Engineers to use as a reference not for amateurs to arrive at understanding. However, the later has some definitions and basic formulae to assist derivation of more complex information.

        • William says:

          “cementafriend” has it correct. I keep trying to get through to people on this subject. I’m a spacecraft thermal design engineer. Consequently, I deal with all forms of heat transfer, but primarily radiation heat transfer. Leckner improved on Hottel’s experiment, and found the infrared emissivity to be 0.0017. Radiation heat transfer is very weak, because it’s based on the differences between the absolute temperature to the 4th power. Cool CO2 gas cannot transfer heat to a warmer surface. However, it can actually as a barrier to the heat transfer from the Earth’s surface, to deep space. That radiation heat transfer is quite significant, because deep space is effectively 4_K. Even though CO2 can slow down the radiation heat transfer of the Earth’s surface to space, it only blocks a miniscule amount of infrared radiation. When that’s coupled with the fact that it’s only 0.04% if the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect is statistically insignificant.

      • Bronzbac says:

        Though I can not disagree with the hypothesis that man is contributing pollutants in an alarming way to our otherwise natural environment, in a detrimental volume . I must also acknowledge that within today’s media and political machines. The math of including historical facts of natural cycles of temperature swings are absent in their discussions and formulas for which they preach. So, I call BULLSHIT!. If man were not on the planet, these cycles would continue. We should not commit funds to politically enriched ideas, that are of natural events just to comply with political agendas! And in my layman terms. Stay out of my pocket for your own agenda, that lacks the integrity of logical fact!

        Please view this chart of global temperature changes over the last 4500 years.


      • Cupsui says:

        The test for the Lehman:

        Water Vapour (H20 gas) is a green house gas.

        Take a desert…
        very large temperature fluctuations between night (0-10 degs C) and day (40-50 degs C)
        Humidity near 0%

        Take the tropics (say Bangkok)
        very little temperature fluctuations between night (30degs C) and day (35-40 degs C)
        humidity near 100%

        The H20 vapour traps the heat because it interacts with energy at wavelength (infra-red) emitted by the earth.

        For the scientifically inclined:
        Observe the absorption spectra of GHGs and the emissions spectra of the Earth.

        There is your evidence. But I’m sure you will refute it because it is contrary to what you want to hear

        • JayBee says:

          So your “test/experiment determines that we should classify the GHG water vapor (clouds) as a pollutant instead of CO2?
          Okay…I’m convinced!

          • Cupsui says:

            wow! knew that was coming!

            it is an example of a GHG.

            They have similar absorption spectra of light. Come into my lab and we can demonstrate since you won’t believe any other way…

            “There is your evidence. But Iím sure you will refute it because it is contrary to what you want to hear”

            exactly like i said

        • JohnKl says:

          Hello Cupsui!

          Thank you for a truly amazing post and a real fount of information! You boldly asserted:

          “Water Vapour (H20 gas) is a green house gas.”

          Do you think that could be a new concept to this website? Don’t let those Dragon-slayers know about it.

          You bravely declared:

          “Take a desertÖ
          very large temperature fluctuations between night (0-10 degs C) and day (40-50 degs C)
          Humidity near 0%”

          You then went on to dispel more darkness from many people’s minds when you stated:

          “Take the tropics (say Bangkok)very little temperature fluctuations between night (30degs C) and day (35-40 degs C)
          humidity near 100%”

          Btw, I’ve been to the tropics including Indonesia on multiple occasions. In fact, as you state the temperature range year round stays within a narrow margin. My wife, who’s from Indonesia claims the temps rarely move very far from 72 degrees F and the only seasonal variation toggles between a wet and dry season. Indonesia is very close to the equator. Humidity their and in nearby Singapore proves very high.

          Despite being very close to the equator, experiencing longer days on average, a heavier and higher atmosphere, much greater solar energy input and very high humidity (aka more greenhouse gasses) the temp extremes are LESS than where I reside currently in Southern California. Indeed, the high temps out here can be well over 120 degrees F. Heck death valley will frequently exceed 130 degrees F (due much to the adiabatic lapse rate since it’s some 250 ft below sea level).

          You proved to be a truly unusual AGW to suggest that a GHG helped reduce extreme high temperatures!

          Have a great day!

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Cupsui,

            Just to update my last post. Jakarta has apparently reached 34 deg C/93.2 deg F.

            Have a great day!

          • Cupsui says:

            I’m not sure you actually know what you are saying. What i was discussing was an example of an atmosphere with more GHGs keeping temperatures warmer when the sun don’t shine…

            To extend on that think about when the temperatures are well below zero (say -5C)and you still find ice melting if the sun is shining.

            Also did you know Mars can get up to +35C in the Marsian summer…DURING THE DAY! but nighttime temps plummet due to the lack of an atmosphere. Take venus on the other hand and we have stable night and day temps of around 400C because the atmosphere is very thick with CO2 (you got it a GHG!)

            This is the reason temperatures are taken in the shade and not in the sunshine because direct sunlight acts to drive up the actual air temperature.

            you have a great day too

    • B Parsons says:

      Climate change

      Pacific winds slow warming
      Nature 506, 135 (13 February 2014) doi:10.1038/506135d Published online 12 February 2014

      Article tools




      Rights & permissions

      Article metrics

      Subject terms: Climate sciences

      An unprecedented strengthening of the Pacific trade winds over the past two decades has altered ocean circulation and could help to explain the current plateau in global temperatures.

      Matthew England at the University of New South Wales in Australia and his colleagues used a global climate model to look at the impact of the stronger winds. Their model suggests that the fiercer trade winds help to cool the central and eastern Pacific while driving warm water into the deeper ocean in the west. They found that the wind effect cooled global temperatures by 0.1Ė0.2 įC in 2012 compared to a control run without increased trade winds.

      Models assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have generally overestimated recent warming trends. However, the authors suggest that if stronger trade winds are factored in, the climate models tally with the observed temperature changes.

      Nature Clim. Change http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2106 (2014)

      • JohnKl says:

        Hi B Parsons,

        Seriously? You present us with a collective MODEL as to why globally averaged mean temperatures have largely NOT CHANGED for over a decade! In other words, the failure of various models to predict GLOBAL mean temps more than a decade into the future all comes down to supposedly unprecedented REGIONAL trade winds. Do you find it curious at all that YOU USE A MODEL TO EXPLAIN WHY OTHER EMPIRICALLY FAILED MODELS ARE REALLY ACCURATE?!!!

        Just curious, how long do you think that excuse will work? What part of Hernstein’s and Murray’s BELL CURVE do you think will be gullible enough to believe it!

        Have a great day!

        • JohnKl says:

          Hi B Parson,

          Upon reread, I’ll change my previous question:


          It should read:


          Have a great day!

          • Cupsui says:


            you seem to have a lot of hate for model, yet i am sure you drive across bridges, have flown in planes, drive a car. Japanese buildings are modelled before construction to make sure they can withstand earthquakes…

            I guess you just like the models that give you the answers you want. As i’m sure any one as reputable as Dr. Spencer writing on climate models would have noted that most early climate model predictions were elevated because they did not account for the delaying influence of aerosols…(oh wait…i guess he didn’t mention that…hmmm i wonder why?!)…
            So now those models have been adjusted and they still predict rising temps, disrupted rainfall patterns and more extreme weather.

            Models improve over time, but no model is EVER correct. A correct model is an oxymoron. But improving the variables, parameters, inputs and understanding of a model systems increases the accuracy of the model.

            The science is there. The model predictions are there and continually improving unfortunately the fossil fuel industries, and political structure are not there…so people starting picking and choosing the science they want again.

        • Doug in Richland says:

          Very good response. Their argument is like equipping a Model A Ford with power steering, power brakes, and an automatic transmission and still insisting that the original 4 cylinder engine be used.

          • Shawn says:

            All models are wrong.
            A precious few are useful.
            How we define useful–in science–is in a model’s ability to predict future events.

            We model buildings with sound physical laws which are predictive.

            The post above shows that these precious models of climate change are not just wrong–but useless.

            The idea is that if the model you were using to build a building did NOT predict well:
            1) you would not build that building
            2) you would not use that model

            Yet you all insist on referencing these models as if it means something.

            Let’s just say for the sake of argument they were actually predictive–then the next step would be to do a sensitivity analysis to see what aspects of the model are not needed–to simplify without loosing accuracy.

            Where would CO2 be in those models?

            The obvious problem is that these models are not accurate to begin with.

            Enjoy the good day.

      • cementafriend says:

        Mathew England’s knowledge and understanding of fluid dynamics (engineering science), I suggest, is zero. Putting winds into a black box of a model with some weighting is not going to improve a model composed of a series of black boxes. Anything can be put into a black box. As I commented elsewhere Schrodinger’s black cat might be in there. One can not get a sensible answer from a model unless you know the exact relationships of all the variables. As an engineer with experience in thermodynamics and heat&mass transfer I know from actual tested relationships that CO2 should not be in a climate model. At 400ppm or even double that (800ppm) the effect of the presence of CO2 on anything is unmeasureable (excepting maybe unphysical thought bubbles)

    • B Parsons says:


      Glacier reaches record speed
      Nature 506, 135 (13 February 2014) doi:10.1038/506135c Published online 12 February 2014

      Article tools




      Rights & permissions

      Article metrics

      Subject terms: Geophysics

      Konrad Steffen/Cires/University of Colorado/Amap

      Greenland’s fastest-moving glacier has gained the highest flow speed ever observed in any sea-bound glacier in Greenland or Antarctica.

      Jakobshavn Isbrś (pictured) in West Greenland has been retreating since the mid-1990s. Using high-resolution satellite radar observations to map the glacier’s movements since 2009, Ian Joughin at the University of Washington in Seattle and his colleagues report that it has sped up by 30Ė50% in the past two years. In the summer of 2012, the glacier reached a record pace of more than 17 kilometres per year ó four times greater than during the 1990s.

      The Cryosphere 8, 209Ė214 (2014)

    • B Parsons says:

      Remote sensing: A green illusion
      Kamel Soudani
      & Christophe FranÁois
      Corresponding authors
      Nature 506, 165Ė166 (13 February 2014) doi:10.1038/nature13052 Published online 05 February 2014

      Article tools


      You guys need to get out of your own backyard and read real science by real scientists


      Rights & permissions

      Article metrics

      An analysis reveals that satellite-observed increases in canopy greenness during dry seasons, which were previously interpreted as positive responses of Amazon forests to more sunlight, are in fact an optical artefact. See Letter p.221

  2. benpal says:

    Thanks for this update on the State of the Planet.

  3. Jan says:

    Regardsless of who is right or wrong we must all be glad that the worst predictions seems to have failed.
    I sometimes wonder if the alarmist share this relief, somehow I have the feeling that many of them want the temperatures to increase just to prove themselves right.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Spot on – Phil Jones once admitted in a Climategate email that he wants the world to burn, to vindicate his ego.


      “As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”

    • David A. says:

      Eric: When will the entire world have access to your personal emails?

      Let us know. I can’t wait.

      • Robert Austin says:

        The climategate emails were not personal communications, they were work related and the persons involved were funded by the taxpayer. So drop the lame contention that the content of the emails should be ignored because the communications were “stolen”.

      • Brent says:

        David A: I have a work email account and I was informed that it is a tool that I am allowed to use, but I do not own it. That being said; when will you accept that there is more science that just “consensus” science?

    • Tony Kondaks says:

      It’s worse than that, Jan.

      I think there is downright disappointment whenever it is even suggested that global warming and the alarmist-predicted suffering of millions won’t come to pass.

      I’ve always thought that the response by alarmists to the news that global warming is not going to happen is: “Gosh, I hope you are right and I am wrong. I will be more than happy to be proven wrong rather than see millions die and suffer. Therefore, I am cautiously optimistic.”

      But the opposite response is always forthcoming: anger and disappointment.

      I wrote about this a few years ago:


  4. Don Easterbrook says:


    In 2000, I downloaded the IPCC temp prediction to 2100 from the official IPCC website showing a 1 F warming from 2000 to 2010. That curve has long since disappeared from the IPCC website (surprise, surprise!) and the deviations of their projections from measured temps from 2000 are much, much smaller. My question is–how much of the deviation of the modeled curves from 2000 has been back-casted, i.e., their original predictions changed to match what actually happened. If that is the case, then their prediction record is actually considerably more miserable than your curves show.


  5. Pablo says:

    So 97.8% of climate models are wrong, somehow thats quite poetic. ūüôā

  6. Exactly, and as each month goes by they are more and more off.

  7. Don, if you read this I have been and continue to be in complete agreement with your climate assessment.



    One solar climate mechanism/connection theory which has much merit in my opinion, is as follows:

    A BRIEF OVERVIEW. At times of low solar irradiance the amounts of sea ice in the Nordic Sea increase, this ice is then driven south due to the atmospheric circulation (also due to weak solar conditions) creating a more northerly air flow in this area.(-NAO) This sea ice then melts in the Sub Polar Atlantic, releasing fresh water into the sub- polar Atlantic waters, which in turn impedes the formation of NADW, which slows down the thermohaline circulation causing warm air not to be brought up from the lower latitudes as far north as previous while in lessening amounts.

    This perhaps can be one of the contributing solar/climate connection factors which brought about previous abrupt N.H. cool downs during the past.

    This makes much sense to me.


    To elaborate on the above, when the sun enters a prolonged solar minimum condition an overall reduction takes place in solar spectral irradiance, namely in UV light (wavelengths less then 400 nm). The shorter the wavelength, the MUCH greater the reduction.

    UV light reduction likely will cause ocean heat content and ocean surface temperatures to drop, due to the fact that UV light in the range of 280 nm-400nm penetrates the ocean surface to depths of 50-100 meters. A reduction in UV (ultra violet) light then should have a profound effect on the amount of energy entering the ocean surface waters from the sun extending down to 50-100 meters in depth, resulting in cooler ocean temperatures.

    This ties into what was said in the above in that if ocean waters in high latitudes such as the Nordic Sea, were to be subject to cooling the result would be much more sea ice which could impede the strength of the thermohaline circulation promoting substantial N.H. cooling.

    Adding to this theory is fairly strong evidence that a decrease in UV light will result in a more meridional atmospheric circulation (which should cause more clouds, precipitation and snow cover for the N.H.0), due to changes in ozone distribution in a vertical/horizontal sense which would cause the temperature contrast between the polar areas of the stratosphere and lower latitude areas of the stratosphere to lesson, during prolonged solar minimum periods. Ultra Violet light being likely the most significant solar factor affecting ozone concentrations ,although not the only solar factor.

    This could then set up a more -NAO, (high pressure over Greenland) which would promote a more Northerly flow of air over the Nordic Sea, bringing the sea ice there further South.


    A reduction of the solar wind during a prolonged solar minimum event would cause more galactic cosmic rays to enter the earthís atmosphere which would promote more aerosol formation thus more cloud nucleation. The result more clouds higher albedo, cooler temperatures.

    Compounding this would be a weaker geo magnetic field which would allow more galactic cosmic ray penetration into the atmosphere , while perhaps causing excursions of the geo magnetic poles to occur in that they would be in more southern latitudes concentrating incoming galactic cosmic rays in these southern latitudes where more moisture would be available for the cosmic rays to work with, making for greater efficiency in the creation of clouds.


    MILANKOVITCH CYCLES overall favor N.H. cooling and an increase in snow cover over N.H high latitudes during the N.H summers due to the fact that perihelion occurs during the N.H. winter (highly favorable for increase summer snow cover), obliquity is 23.44 degrees which is at least neutral for an increase summer N.H. snow cover, while eccentricity of the earthís orbit is currently at 0.0167 which is still elliptical enough to favor reduced summertime solar insolation in the N.H. and thus promote more snow cover.

    In addition the present geographical arrangements of the oceans versus continents is very favorable for glaciation.


    High latitude major volcanic eruptions correlate to prolonged solar minimum periods which translates to stratospheric warming due to an increase in SO2 particles while promoting more lower troposphere cooling.

    One theory of many behind the solar/volcanic connection is that MUONS, a by product of galactic cosmic rays can affect the calderas of certain volcanoes by changing the chemical composition of the matter within the silica rich magma creating aerosols which increase pressure in the magma chamber and hence lead to an explosive eruption.

    Muon densities increase more in higher latitudes at times of weak solar magnetic activity, which is why volcanic activity in the higher latitudes will be affected more by this process.

    These four mechanisms make a strong case for a solar /climate connection in my opinion, and if the prolonged solar minimum meets the criteria I have mentioned going forward and the duration is long enough I expect global cooling to be quite substantial going forward.


    Solar Flux avg. sub 90

    Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec

    AP index avg. sub 5.0

    Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute

    Total Solar Irradiance off .015% or more

    EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.

    IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.

    The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005..

    IF , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.

    The decline in temperatures should begin to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24.

    NOTE 1- What mainstream science is missing in my opinion is two fold, in that solar variability is greater than thought, and that the climate system of the earth is more sensitive to that solar variability.


    A. Ozone concentrations in the lower and middle stratosphere are in phase with the solar cycle, while in anti phase with the solar cycle in the upper stratosphere.

    B. Certain bands of UV light are more important to ozone production then others.

    C. UV light bands are in phase with the solar cycle with much more variability, in contrast to visible light and near infrared (NIR) bands which are in anti phase with the solar cycle with much LESS variability.

    This is my latest take on the climate situation. Time will tell.

    © 2014 Southwest

  9. When I go to some other web-sites it just amazes me how personal this subject of climate prediction gets, and how the concentrations center around each person or person trying to discredit the other person rather then joining forces and trying to come up with the reasons as to why the climate changes and how it will change going forward.

    That is what matters and one can have all the education one could ever hope for but if the predictions are wrong it is meaningless.

    The persons or persons that forecast the climate correctly going forward and why it may do what it may do before it happens is what matters rather then who is doing the predicting.
    So many in my opinion are so hung up on who is predicting and what credentials do they have, rather then looking at are the persons that are doing the predicting correct or not and the whys.

    • RAH says:

      It’s personal because it effects EVERYONE personally and economically! The government already regulates how much water my toilet can use. What kind of light bulbs I can use. And so many other things from the way new vehicles I can buy will be built to what fuel will be made to put into the vehicle I choose. And it is ALL based on the premisses of environment or climate change “science”.

      Science which is not science because they wish to deny anyone the ability to falsify their theories or even their claims of findings upon which the develop those theories and even access of other scientists that propose opposing theories to “peer reviewed” journals.

      Meanwhile we have a government agency called the EPA that is denying the public which funds them access to the data they base their regulations on. We have NASA and NOAA fighting to keep the public from accessing the sources and methods by which they develop their published temperature measurements.

      There is no “acceptable level” for Tyranny!

      I love nature. I have probably spent more time living in it and more correctly on it and with it than than most of the pasty faced city slicker wackos that climb trees to “save the spotted owl” or some other much published stunt. I want to conserve it. But I no longer believe this fight is over conservation or preservation or even survival. It is about the fundamentals of what makes a capitalistic system work. It is about control and domination over people their economy. So your right! It’s damn personal! Because what is happening is tyrannical!

      • David A. says:

        The government already regulates how much water my toilet can use. What kind of light bulbs I can use. And so many other things from the way new vehicles I can buy will be built to what fuel will be made to put into the vehicle I choose.

        Do you think you have the right to consume any resource, or emit any substance, regardless of its impact on others?

        • kuhnkat says:

          David A,

          Commie much??

          There used to be private property laws in the US. Yes, you should be able to use/consume everything you legally purchase.

        • Bill says:


          There is not good evidence that using a toilet that flushes using less water is saving the planet. Nor does banning lightbulbs of a certain type necessarily result in less global warming. Some are persuaded of the danger of CO2 emissions but many are not. Certainly not at the level that it is worth having the government collaborate with corporations to mandate that cheaper light bulbs can not be sold and only more expensive ones containing mercury can be purchased.

          I have the compact fluorescents in about half my lamps/lights at home. Yet for safety, I prefer incandescent in certain dark locations. So if someone in my family falls down the stairs that should be my decision to have put a CFL there, not yours.

          The CFL’s do not last nearly as long as advertised and are more expensive. You are forcing poor people to use a greater % of their meager income on lighting that used to be extremely inexpensive.

          In CA, maybe in drought the CA people can decide that their state or localities with drought should use low flush but why New Orleans or St. Louis or thousands of other places with tons of water? Why not let those states and cities decide this? Low flush toilets were already being developed and available and could be purchased by those who wanted them.
          Due to the recession, voluntary limitations on energy use (such as CFLs), and more use of natural gas, the US has already been reducing emissions for many years before this law on CFLs was passed. When there is not clear harm from something, then no laws should be passed and when possible things should be done at local or state level. It’s interesting that you are so willing to bypass my rights to enforce your beliefs. When I, (assuming you are David Appell) am just as educated or more in science and I would never think it was ok for me to get my congressman to pass laws limiting things just because I believe they are harmful.

          • David A. says:

            There is not good evidence that using a toilet that flushes using less water is saving the planet.

            I don’t know about saving the planet, but it might save California.

            Fresh water is a very valuable resource on this planet — humans use over half of the available runoff:


            Wasting or polluting water has potentially serious consequences for other people, which is why we have laws against them.

            Someday we’ll also have laws against carbon pollution. Future generations will look back on us as dirty pigs for the way we treated the atmosphere and ocean.

          • David A. says:

            So if someone in my family falls down the stairs that should be my decision to have put a CFL there, not yours.

            Not as long as your pollution affects others (in this case, far into the future).

            If the market priced in negative externalities, then you might have a point. Pay for the damages from your pollution, and you might be able to have whatever light you like. (It would depend on the light.)

            But the so-called ‘free market’ doesn’t price in carbon pollution. That’s why Stern called climate change the greatest market failure that the world has ever seen.

          • Robert Austin says:

            David A.
            I am well aware that you are not a scientific ignoramous so I implore you not to use the misleading term “carbon pollution”.
            The term may be in vogue with the scientifically feeble such as Gore,Obama and Suzuki but it’s use detracts from your message.

        • David A. says:

          Commie much??

          Actually, most of the communinism goes the other way, to those allowed to pollute the commons without consequence.

          “From each according to their smokestack, to each according to their lungs.”

          • David Onkels says:

            David A:
            “But the so-called Ďfree marketí doesnít price in carbon pollution. Thatís why Stern called climate change the greatest market failure that the world has ever seen.”

            Stern was wrong.
            “Carbon pollution” is nothing less than a term that was invented to continue to argue for useless government intervention in the economy to address inconsequential effects of carbon emissions.

            Your reference to communism is amusing. It is free societies in the west that have addressed environmental concerns in a responsible manner.

            My concern is with the pricing of “externalities”. It is a simple thing to price externalities far too high in order to advance a policy agenda. For instance, overly high imagined costs of carbon emissions are used to promote carbon taxes with no Pigovian offset of any decent scale.

            I oppose taxes as a devise used to change behavior, rather than to raise revenue for the government, especially since I think they produce no environmental benefit.

          • JohnKl says:


        • fonzie says:

          if that “impact” is based on the junk science of the ipcc then yes…

        • David Onkels says:

          David A: “Do you think you have the right to consume any resource, or emit any substance, regardless of its impact on others?”

          The usual laws concerning nuisance, pollution, and trespass apply, as do many more modern, less clearly drafted statutes.

          That said, I have the right to consume any resource that I can, within the constraints of the market, afford to consume. If the government provides some resource or commodity, e.g. water, then the government entity has the responsibility for pricing the product in a responsible manner.

          Had government entities priced water properly, then water-efficient toilets would have been developed by plumbing fixture manufacturers in response to the resulting price signals and consumer preferences.

  10. David A. says:

    How does this comparison look with the Cowtan and Way data?

    • Jake says:

      You mean the temperature data set that was essentially invented so that there could be the appearance of warming over the past decade? You mean that data?

      • David A. says:

        No, I mean the temperature dataset that, some think, uses a superior method of interpolating across unobserved areas.

        Or do you think the models that provide temperature data are somehow sacrosanct? History shows they often need adjustments….

        • NoFreeWind says:

          >History shows they often need adjustmentsÖ.
          Apparently you are not the only person to share that view.
          “Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
          explain the 1940s warming blip.”
          “So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
          then this would be significant for the global mean — but
          we’d still have to explain the land blip.”

          And THEY can do it!

          “It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip”

          Meaning, let’s remove part of the History. They fixed it.

        • NoFreeWind says:

          Yes, there have been many adjustments!
          Here is a recent WFT HadCRUT graph of Northern Hemisphere temperatures from 1940-1980 which shows a .3C drop during the period many were worried about a new ice age.
          Here is Hansen graph in 1999 showing a .6C NH drop for the same period.
          Here is another source, 1959-1969, showing another .6C drop between
          So, according to your way of thinking, that .6C drop in temp from 1940-1980 was in “need of an adjustment”.

          • Bill Sparling says:

            Which is why I have always advocated using the RAW DATA instead of adjusted, and use ALL OF IT, even the parts that make you look bad.

          • David A. says:

            How can you use the raw data only, when

            a) it is often incomplete or full of gaps
            b) weather stations break or must be moved
            c) there are significant areas with no stations
            d) development near stations affects their readings

            etc. These are all real problems in the real world. Unless you choose ways to deal with them, you will be getting a biased view of climate and of climate change.

          • Darren Potter says:

            David A. – “Unless you choose ways to deal with them, you will be getting a biased view of climate and of climate change.”

            And you will get a biased view of climate when those with a Pro-AGW agenda choose ways to deal with a) through d).

          • David A. says:

            Darrell: So what is your “unbiased” method of dealing with data gaps, in both space and in time?

          • Bill Sparling says:

            David, if there are gaps in the data, it is your responsibility as a researcher to report those gaps honestly, to fill in the gaps with real data from new measurements and to account for all of the above. “norming” or applying the data in dishonest ways (including regionally) is poor research and worse science. And You KNOW it.

          • Kelly Lynn says:

            I am a newcomer to this blog, and I am only a doctor, not a scientist, but I can’t help but inject my two cents. When I read about “interpolating” data to fill in “gaps” I come to the inescapable conclusion that somebody is just making stuff up. To draw conclusions and promulgate freedom limiting laws and regulations based on partial data is to give too much latitude to one’s bias and self serving interests. If I have a patient who comes in complaining of fever and chills I can conclude that they have type B symptoms from an occult lymphoma, or that maybe they just have a cold, (or a lot of other possibilities). Without other (real- not made up, excuse me…”interpolated”) data the underlying cause of the fever may just as likely be one as the other. But if I own a cancer center and can get paid a lot of money for treating them with an expensive chemotherapy drug, then the incentive to draw the first conclusion is powerful. Not to say that every person on the planet is motivated by money – theoretically, at least, there could be one or two out there who are not – but everyone has potential biases which tend to steer them one way or another. The point is that the more gaps there are in the data the more likely one is to draw an incorrect conclusion. In medicine, the mantra is “First Do No Harm.” No one would treat the aforementioned patient with potentially toxic chemotherapy drugs with collecting more real data. Nor should scientists, or especially self serving politicians, dictate a “treatment” which limits the freedoms of all, based on inconclusive REAL data.

          • Bill Sparling says:

            According to David A: “ALL data comes from models.” Ummm, no. Models are based on data not the other way around. At least, that is how things work in the real world.

        • David A. says:

          Wind: Are you really unaware of the adjustments that have been made to UAH’s own models over the years, and the controversies of the 1990s where their relatively low temperature numbers were found to be in error?


          It can’t be said often enough: there is no data without models, and, like all models, data models need to be continuously challenged, tested, and (often) adjusted.

          • Streetcred says:

            LOL … Models = Data. Bullshit! Models = artificial output. And yes, the models are ‘challenged’ in every conceivable way. So, Models = Bullshit.

          • David A. says:

            Sorry, you’re completely wrong. ALL data comes from models. In the case of climate data, it often involves a lot of difficult and tricky modeling, as in the methods used to convert MSU observations into temperature data.

            These models need continuous testing and comparison just as much as other models.

            There is no data without models.

          • Darren Potter says:

            David A.: “It canít be said often enough: there is no data without models,”

            Tell non-sense often enough and it becomes fact?

            Data existed before the models. Which is why AGW Alarmist had to hide decline, toss raw Weather station temp. data and create their “adjusted” data, and they have to keep tweaking (adding bias) to their models.

          • David A. says:

            Data existed before the models.


            Show me one piece of data that has ever existed without a model.

            Just one.

          • nicke says:

            David A
            Data is just basic information. In the most basic form it is a bit (one or zero). A model is something used to better understand some data. A model will produce data (and consume energy see Landauer’s principle – one solution to Maxwell’s demon). Data, however, just exists. Information can not be created or destroyed it merely changes mediums. There doesn’t have to be a model for the first piece of information to have existed. For it to have changed mediums to something usable by a model we have invented, then the process of changing its medium is then just part of that model. This leads to the concept of in principle complete information about a physical system at one point in time should determine its state at any other time. Which is why it is important to have more data and correct data for the models to use.

          • The Cube says:

            “David A. says:
            February 10, 2014 at 5:59 PM
            Data existed before the models.


            Show me one piece of data that has ever existed without a model.

            Just one.”

            Are you nuts? Did you pass high school physics?

          • fonzie says:

            I think David has been posting way to many comments and that he needs to put it in “park” for a while… (Dave, being a “warmist” on a “denialist” site is going to burn out your motor)

          • Wally Marshall says:

            Wednesday, Feb 12, the high temp in Houston,TX was 52 deg F.
            That is data. Not a model.

  11. And even if the oceans are increasing energy at the rate of 4 Hiroshimas per second, this can only be regarded as fantastic news. “The Pause” is a unique opportunity to hold the surface temperature constant, and with that, we can draw some pretty promising conclusions:

    1) The fact that the surface temperature is not changing indicates that the full brunt of all forcings and feedbacks is currently just 0.5W/m^2 (this is 4 Hiroshimas/second across 16 years, taken over the surface area of the earth)

    2) This is the ONLY warming taking place. So taking that as 100% accurate and correct (as dubious as that may be), we already know that since preindustrial, we have done 0.52 doublings of CO2. Since one doubling is fairly well agreed to be 1įC to 1.2įC of direct effect, and 3.7W/m^2, we can then say that the direct effect is now 0.52*3.7 or 1.94W/m^2. This effect is active NOW. Yet, the TOTAL energy accumulating is only at 0.5W/m^2.

    3) We know the surface has increased in temperature, and it is staying at an elevated temperature, and given an increase of 0.8K, the planet should be emitting 4.35W/m^2 more than it used to. IT IS ALREADY DOING THAT.

    4) The bottom line is that the current energy imbalance is 0.5W/m^2, since that is all we can measure. THERE IS NO OTHER NET FORCING LEFT. 0.5W/m^2 can only raise the temperature by 0.13įC MORE than it already has (plus or minus any feedbacks).

    5) If we assume that 1.94W/m^2 is the total direct forcing of 0.52 doublings, and only 0.5W/m^2 is left, it means that the earth is already very close to equilibrium, just by changing surface temperature the 0.8K (some of which is undoubtedly natural since it would take a sizable recovery out of the LIA just to get back to the usual downtrend line of the last 6,000 years).

    6) This means that the ocean, besides being a giant heat sink, does not take energy from the atmosphere well, even when the atmosphere is (for the moment) at a higher temperature than it was in the last 160 years or so.

    7) If you assume that the surface and atmosphere have negligible heat capacity (or that they are in fact at equilibrium now, which doesn’t seem difficult to believe given the huge seasonal and diurnal changes), then we can even estimate climate sensitivity as the 0.5W/m^2 / 1.94W/m^2, or about 0.26 of the direct effect. This means a total impact of 0.26įC per doubling, AFTER whatever change has already occurred.

    Any number of combinations of explanations (internal variability, aerosol, the oceans ate my homework) could get us here, but the bottom line is, right now, there is only 0.5W/m^2 left. Period!

    That’s all that is left to drive ocean temperature changes. At that rate, we can wait forever without doing anything about CO2.

    I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on this, Roy.

    • David A. says:

      Climate forcing and energy imbalance are not the same thing.

      • Taxpayer says:

        As just a working person paying my fair share of the high taxes, I hope all this infighting is not going on at the taxpayers’ expense.

        After reading all this, it is no wonder people have stopped listening.
        Is there any part of politics, government or science that is not corrupted.

  12. JohnKl says:

    Hello Dr Roy,

    Thank you for the post. We share many of the same sentiments. However, I do have a question about the graph. It appears to show a greater upward departure from mean 1979-1983 temperatures after the year 2005 than any time before with the year 2013 the hottest. The graphs you normally present appear to show 1998 as the hottest year. Can you explain?

    Thanks again, and have a great day!

    • Joe says:

      Per the graph, they are 5-year running means. So it looks like Dr. Roy’s own data disprove the notion that global warming has stalled or reversed – the 5 year period ending in 2013 is the warmest on record!

        • fonzie says:

          Thank you, David, for explaining that to me. I’ve been just as confused as johnkl every time dr roy posts this graph. My eyes ain’t what they used to be either so I’ve been missing the fine print…

      • Jl says:

        “Warmest on record.” Of course the question the warmists fail to ask themselves is “warmest compared to …what?” What’s the definition of “record” in this case? As for the graph above, it’s only 1983, I believe. If one is talking specific temperature records, that only goes to 1880 or so. In other words, when anyone says “warmest or coldest on record” it’s really saying nothing, as a few high or low temps in a 135 or less year span does not make any kind of a trend when compared to 4billion years.

        • fonzie says:

          Yes, Jl this is true but when your talking about stasis vs change then maybe warmists have a point. Many large cities, of course, are built at sea level. If even a little anthropogenic warming causes seas to rise then that’s not a baseless concern…

      • JohnKl says:

        Hi Joe,

        Thank you for the clarification. However, you stated:

        “Ė the 5 year period ending in 2013 is the warmest on record!”

        Which record would that be? You may have drafted your post a little hastily, as I had. The graph reveals two 5 year mean data sets. True, the UAH data set graphs 2013 as the warmest on it’s record. However, if you look more carefully the HardCRUT 4 surface data set displays 2006-7 as the warmest years with subsequent cooling and only slight warming for 2013. Hence, different data-sets reflect different results.

        Have a great day!

  13. mojomojo says:

    So 9 out of 10 models are wrong.
    If 97 doctors , who gave consistently incorrect diagnosis ,told you to have a lobotomy or your grand kids will suffer headaches.

    My intuition tells me to not listen to the advise of those whom are consistently wrong.
    I prefer to take the advice of the 3% who are consistently correct.

  14. Visiting Physicist says:

    The climate models fail because you cannot determine planetary surface temperatures by measuring radiative flux. There is too much other non-radiative transfer of thermal energy between the surface and the atmosphere, as well as between the surface and the sub-soil, ocean depths etc. Because of this, it is totally incorrect to use Stefan-Boltzmann calculations as the Earth’s surface does not act at all like a black or grey body.

    The “33 degrees of warming” does not, and never could come from back radiation from a colder atmosphere. Such radiation cannot add to the warming effect of the Sun: it can only slow that portion of surface cooling which is due to radiation. But the surface also cools by other non-radiative processes which cannot be affected and, in fact, can accelerate to compensate. But I digress, because none of this has much to do with the surface temperature, because the Sun could not, with its own direct radiation, raise the surface to anywhere near the observed mean temperature. And if it could not make it hot enough in the first place, then slowing of radiative cooling is irrelevant. This is very obvious on Uranus where there is virtually no Solar radiation penetrating far into its atmosphere.

    The additional energy does not even come from radiation. I have shown in my new book (available in less than 3 weeks) that valid physics presents us with a totally different concept: a concept which also explains how the necessary energy gets down into the atmospheres of Uranus, Venus etc, into the crust and mantle of Earth, into the core of our Moon to make it hotter than the surface – indeed from cooler to warmer regions throughout the universe.

    For more information see this comment …

    • MikeB says:

      Well you may be visiting but youíre obviously not a physicist. Please spare us your forthcoming book of blatant nonsense.
      How are people ever going to learn anything when they are distracted by this continuous stream of Dragon Slayer drivel?

  15. Visiting Physicist says:

    This has nothing to do with PSI, dragons or Slayers. I am not a member of such.

    I throw down the gauntlet to you MikeB to prove anything in the book (or the summary herein) to be contrary to physics.

    When are you going to explain the temperatures at the base of the Uranus troposphere, and how the energy gets there?

    I challenge you MikeB here in public and I know you will not be able to give a satisfactory answer other than the process described in the book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all.”

    • Dr. Strangelove says:

      Why don’t you submit your paper to a peer-review science journal? Instead of trying to convince bloggers. I bet it will be rejected. Go try. Tell us when it’s published.

      • DonM says:

        I suggest the 1963 paper by Edward Lorenz- “Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow”.

        No finite set of past states is sufficient to predict future states. The Navier Stokes equations are nonlinear, chaotic, with sensitive dependence on initial conditions.

        When evaluating the work of a climate scientist, first ask, Is his starting data finite? If based on that he attempts to predict the future, then he is incompetent or a fraud.

        • David A. says:

          If climate is so chaotic, why are the recent ice ages so periodic?

          • JohnKl says:


            They’re not. We’ve been in an ICE-AGE for thousands of years now.

            Have a great day!

          • JohnKl says:


            Just a point of clarification. While the climate swings between warmer and colder periods, the onset of what we know of as the ICE-AGE and the ensuing mass extinction, creation of perma-frost and the ice-caps happened several thousand years ago, there has only been gradual warming since.

            Have a great day!

      • Visiting Physicist says:

        There is indeed a scientific paper all ready to go, but I chose to explain it in more detail in book form and I will be using the book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” in my efforts to persuade physics staff of universities throughout the world to consider and, if they wish, debate the content.

        Out of this I stand a good chance of getting positive reviews for the paper, because no physics personnel will be able to prove it wrong. It is indisputably based on the laws of physics, which I can see you don’t understand well enough. That is why you can’t explain how the Venus surface warms by 5 degrees, now can you?

        Those who make a living from the fraud are being warned through the book and my climate blog comments.

        I will not tolerate this travesty of physics that is wasting billions and killing people whose lives could have been saved with that money spent on humanitarian aid. Those who propagate the hoax without looking into the fictitious “fissics” are participating in all this. Do you all hear me loud and clear?

        • engineer says:

          Dude, you’re arguing with people who reject the scientific method.

          The title of this blog post is, essentially, “Our theory is not born out by reality, therefor, our measurement of reality must be wrong”.

          It’s the epitome of denial.

          Global warming is a political ideological movement that couldn’t care less about science.

  16. Ray says:

    It’s ironic that the more wrong the models are, the more convinced “experts” are that it is warmer than forecast.

    There are those in the “blogosphere” who will argue that temperatures are “well within the forecasted range”.

    However IMHO the most significant fact is that temperatures are below the majority of the models in IPCC AR4 scenario “C” which assumed no rise in C02 since 2000.

    • David A. says:

      It would be interesting to see the Cowtan & Way data plotted on the same graph. There data through Dec 2013 is here:


      • Scott says:

        Comparison vs Cowtan & Way would be interesting. But to make it fair you’d also have to rerun the model hindcasting with the Cowtan & Way data and get new values for the adjustable parameters. IIRC, the models are typically tuned to a surface data set (e.g. HADCRUT4). And as you pointed out elsewhere on this thread, comparing UAH LT values to surface values is not completely valid. Comparing models tuned to a different approach/level of extrapolation to a data set using alternative extrapolation methods is the same mistake, albeit a less egregrious version.

        What would be far more interesting (and scientifically valid) would be to do temperature extrapolations to much lower distances…say 100 km or so. Then compare the “global avg temperature” computed by the models ONLY using the areas covered by the data set. That is the right way to do the comparison and the model results should still be sitting around somewhere if someone wanted to pursue such an endeavor.


        • barry says:

          Hindcast models are not tuned to temperature data. You remember incorrectly. They are run with no forcing components to test for interannual variation (ENSO, major volcanic eruptions), which are called control runs, and then run from initial conditions with best-estimate observed forcings providing the change. Certain aspects for which the physics are not well-understood are parametrised (this is where they tune), but these are not long-term forcing components, only interannual cycles/fluctuations. No temperature data is used to train them. The results are compared with temp data, amongst other things, after the runs.

          • Scott says:


            You are right that models are not explicitly tuned to temperature data. But if you think there’s no tuning to temperatures at all, then you’re deceiving yourself. You mention parameterizing–do you not think that the tweaking of those parameters involves matching the temperature record? Your assumption that these components are not long-term is, of course, an assumption. Even granting you it, these short-term components could still affect long-term results because the relative contributions of short-term vs long-term may be skewed and inappropriately calculated. On the other hand, since one of the parameters is aerosols, I’d consider that more than just a short-term cycle, making your assumption invalid. Volcanic forcings, for instance, are estimated at least in part by their effect on the temperature record.

            I have no problem with a statement saying the models are not explicitly tuned to temperatures, but it’s incredibly naive to say that the temperature record is not involved in the tuning indirectly. And you can be sure that when models produce results that dramatically differ from the temperature record that they are rejected. Why else do you think that hindcasting is done so well and then all the models rapidly diverge after that? Differing quantities for future forcings can’t explain all of the divergence.

            Or what about this… What if a new approach to modeling was described and most people thought it was going to be superior. Say it was then put into practice and showed much less warming than the temperature record. If the explanation was that the model was right and the temperature record was wrong and had a warm bias, how well do you think this explanation would be received? Why then is there still widespread faith in the model outputs when they’ve already done so poorly (running far too hot) in just a decade or two?


  17. ImranCan says:

    Just curious what the blue dots are on the chart referring to UAH Lower troposphere. I guess these are an annual average of some measurement but they don;t correspond very well to the usual UAH anomaly plot of lower troposphere. As per the previous post.

    What are they ?

  18. Threepwood says:

    “assuming policy is still informed by facts more than emotions and political aspirations.”

    was it ever?

  19. MikeB says:

    Visiting Physicist

    Do you assure me that you are an independent looney-tune and not part of any other looney-tune groups?

    I donít have to read your book. You already made it clear too my satisfaction that you are scientifically illiterate when you implied that it is totally incorrect to use Stefan-Boltzmann calculations at the Earthís surface. I must confess I didnít read much further than that.
    Letís put it to the test and see how it works. Letís try to calculate how much the Earthís surface should be radiating given that its average temperature is about 14 or 15 degrees Celsius, say T = 288K. Plug that into the Stephan-Boltzmann equation
    Radiation Intensity = 5.68 * 10^-8 * T^4
    This gives us an answer of 390 Watts per Square metre.
    Note, this is independent of any other effects such as convection, evaporation etc, it is just the radiation component.
    Note also, that the Earth behaves very much like a blackbody in the infrared and so there is no need to factor this value by the emissivity.
    Now letís cross-check this answer with the Earth energy budget reported by the IPCC, based on Trenberth and Kiehl (1997).
    What do they estimate the outgoing radiation to be from the surface. Wow! They get 390 W/sq.m too. What a remarkable coincidence, how could that happen by chance?
    But it wasnít chance was it? We both applied the well-known and well-proven Stefan-Boltzmann Law and not unsurprisingly came up with the same answer. You see this Law applies everywhere (except la-la land).

    The hard part to answer from the diagram is how can the radiation from the surface be more than the energy coming in from the Sun? Learn some basic physics and write a book about that.

    • Visiting Physicist says:

      Blackbodies are by definition only receiving and emitting radiation. They must be totally insulated from non-radiative energy transfers. SBL applies to black and grey bodies only, not internal interfaces such as the surface-atmosphere boundary on Earth. There is no surface at the base of the theoretical Uranus troposphere, but it’s hotter than the surface of Earth there – yet no significant solar radiation or internal energy reaches that layer.

      When you can explain why the base of the Uranus troposphere (at altitude -300Km) is at a temperature of about 320K, and when you can explain how the temperature of the Venus surface actually rises by 5 degrees during its 4-month-long day, then your own understanding of physics will be elevated in my eyes, but not before.

      When the Earth’s surface emits electromagnetic radiation not all of the energy in the radiation actually came from thermal energy in the surface. Much of it came directly from electromagnetic energy in the back radiation, because that EM energy from a colder source cannot be converted to thermal energy in a warmer target. This is cutting edge physics, I know, so you probably haven’t read papers about it such as this one …


  20. David A. says:

    Why are UAH LT data being compared to models that project surface temperatures? Should they be the same?

    • Scott says:

      Good point David. The UAH trend should be divided by ~1.2 or the model trends multiplied by ~1.2 to give a more proper comparison. Better still would be to compute the LT global average temperature in the model runs and then plot there.

      Of course, doing any of those would make the disagreement between the models and observations larger.


  21. Stephen Richards says:

    Well stated Dr Spencer. I have been reading, not commenting for a very long time and have noticed a trend recently…… For really wierd commenters. You seem to have attracted all the hob goblins in the world.

    Keep going. The world needs you now and in the future.

  22. Manfred says:

    ‘95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong’

    Otherwise referred to as the prescience of Al Gore, The Inconvenient Truth.

    Thank you Roy.

  23. Stevek says:

    I must be missing something but why is the uha not showing 1998 as warmest year ?

  24. David Walker says:

    Do you remember, in the mid-1990s, when I pointed out your reported observations were being abused and/or ignored by the IPCC?

    Some of us “laypersons” have been watching all along, and knowing the context and outcomes were pre-determined; because human nature — the love of money and power — never changes.

    The more political power or self importance perceives to possess, and the less people question (by complacence or by force), the more likely corruption becomes action.

    Clearly, the UN’s climate agenda is a result of that perception, spewing from a group of elitists who see themselves above the law because they are loose to steer policy without accountability. A bunch of sycophants.

    • David A. says:

      There were significant problems with the UAH dataset in the 1990s:


      If it hadn’t been for some other groups making a strenuous and detailed case, they might still be there. That is exactly how science advances, and how discrepencies now will advance it further.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        @David A “There were significant problems with the UAH dataset in the 1990s:”

        Please….give me a breal….Wikipedia????

        You do realize that the wiki was seriously affected on climate issues by William Connelly, a climate model programmer who hung out at realclimate and who acted as an editor on the wiki. He had the temerity to slag the likes of Fred Singer, an electrical engineer who started the US satellite program.

        The errors to which you refer were well within the error margin given for the data and they were applicable to the Tropics only.

        If there were serious issues do you think NASA and the American Meteorological Society would have given Roy Spencer and John Christy medals for excellence?

        • JohnKl says:

          Hi Gordon Robertson,

          Good points. Keep in mind Wikipedia claims their have been at least 10 adjustments made to the MSU satellite data since the 1979 inception:

          UAH version Main adjustment Trend correction Year
          A Simple bias correction 1992
          B Linear diurnal drift correction -0.03 1994
          C Removal of residual
          annual cycle related to
          hot target variation 0.03 1997
          D Orbital decay 0.10 1998
          D Removal of dependence
          of time variations of
          hot target temperature -0.07 1998
          5.0 Non-linear diurnal correction 0.008 2003
          5.1 Tightened criteria for data acceptance -0.004 2004
          5.2 Correction of diurnal drift adjustment 0.035 2005
          5.3 Annual cycle correction 0 2009
          5.4 New annual cycle 0 2010

          Seven of these corrections occurred in or after the year 1998. Or in other words the greatest number of adjustments just happens to coincide time-wise with greatest degree of apparently observed warming. Were their other minor adjustments made not listed by Wikipedia?

          Have a great day!

          • fonzie says:

            Gordon, Dr Spencer has spoken of the problems himself. Orbital drift which caused an artificial cooling trend. It was pointed out by remote sensing systems… So there’s nothing new here.

          • John K says:

            Hi Fonzie,

            No one claimed there’s anything new here! Gordon declared upon an old issue involving MSU satellite data. After the fact adjustments made to observational measurements represent a mental construct of what temps should be had the orbital drift/decay or some other perceived disruption not occurred. They no longer represent observational measurements. As such the graphs generated from them seem to become mere art/projects made to conform better with other datasets like surface thermometers, not empirical data. For the data set to be empirical it must be clean of such “adjustments.” Of course such REAL EMPIRICAL DATA then becomes harder to come by as you must have datasets unaffected by the problems mentioned above. It would have been interesting had the satellites used small gas ejections to maintain orbital path, but that would cost scarce dollars.

            Have a great day!

  25. Ivan says:

    Stevek, UAH is a big outlier; no other data set, including the infamous Gistemp shows any appreciable warming after 1997, (although the people at CRU are trying to ‘upjust’ the HadCrut a little bit by cooling the past and warming the present). The difference is especially dramatic with RSS, which shows practically no warming since 1996.

  26. Hot Potato says:

    Here’s the naming of yet another cold weather (now climate) wave. This one is called Orion; it’s the cold weather wave that just passed over the Northwest and resulted in precipitation (Oh My God! Precipitation! We’re all gonna die).


    Of course, it’s the Weather Channel which has been out in front in pushing the AGW agenda. I believe the naming of these cold weather waves is part of the propaganda. Storms are now examples of AGW. What, you didn’t know that? It’s true. When you name the weather, you magnify its psychological effect and that’s precisely what AGW advocates want. Their message is “see how crazy the weather is? See all these terrible, horrible storms that we have to name because they’re so terrible? This is exactly as we predicted…that the weather, i.e. storms and droughts and floods and you name it and we have named it…will become much more erratic and harsh and intensified.”

    I have a name for all this naming business since naming is the name of the game. I’m calling it Hogwash. Excuse my potty mouth, but that’s what it is and that’s the name I’m sticking with, by golly.

  27. Reiner Wilhelms says:

    You don’t really tell whether the swarm of curves from the different climate models was obtained using the models as they were 30 years ago and with the parameters they contained in 1983, or if you redid the simulations using the old models with parameters that you know from now. And with parameters I mean here those parameters that are in principle derivable from physically meaningful quantities but can’t be measured directly and thus need to be found basically by curve fitting.

    My understanding of proper modeling would be, to use the model with the best knowledge about measurable parameters and the best guesses for those that need to be estimated. Then predict estimates of observables which the model is built to predict. Then, when the corresponding measurements become available, you improve the estimation of the model parameters so that, when you rerun the model over the past, the discrepancy between measurements and predictions is diminished. If you have to do too much fiddling of the parameters and they don’t seem to converge you probably have a bad model.

    So how exactly were those many curves obtained?


    • DonM says:

      The Navier Stokes equations describe fluid flow with changes in temperature and density. They are nonlinear, chaotic with sensitive dependence on initial conditions. No finite set of past states is sufficient to predict future states. This has been known since 1963 and the Edward Lorenz paper “Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow”.

      When examining a climate scientist’s predictions of the future, first ask if his starting data was finite. If it was, he is either incompetent or a fraud.

      End of story.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      @Reiner Wilhelm “Then predict estimates of observables which the model is built to predict”.

      The IPCC were forced to change the word ‘predict’ to ‘ ‘project’, after expert reviewer, Vincent Gray, pointed out to them that the models are not validated therefore can predict nothing.

      Before you make a prediction, you need to validate a model by demonstrating independently that it can predict the future. That has never been done and Roy is only pointing out that any ‘projections’ they have made have been way off.

  28. David A. You loose most of your credibility when you refer to “carbon pollution” (like that sadly misguided man President Obama).

    Firstly, you obviously meant Carbon Dioxide, not carbon; not the same thing at all. Secondly, there is no evidence at all that this beneficial trace gas is any sort of a pollutant. It may have modest effects on the atmosphere, but if there are any they are unlikely to be harmful in a world which is not (apparently) warming at this time.


    • MikeB says:

      The difference between Animals and Plants is defined by the ability of plants to make their own food. Animals cannot do this; they must eat the plants, or other animals that eat plants.
      Plants make their food by a process called photosynthesis by which CO2 (from the air) and water are combined in the presence of sunlight to form basic carbohydrates and sugars.
      The whole food chain on this planet depends on that process! So, when you say that ďthere is no evidence at all that this beneficial trace gas is any sort of a pollutant ď, that is a bit of an understatement. Itís presence in the atmosphere is ESSENTIAL to all life on Earth.

      For the EPA to classify it as a pollutant is DUMB. Unless they have been watching Star Trek and wish to remove all Biological Infestation from the planet (i.e. Us)

    • David A. says:

      Of course atmospheric carbon is a pollutant — a substance that, in excess, is undesirable.

      It’s also legally a “pollutant,” as the US Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts vs EPA (2007).

      • Darren Potter says:

        David A.: “Of course atmospheric carbon is a pollutant”

        More non-sense. Your argument would have water as a pollutant, because of your very lame “a substance that, in excess, is undesirable.”

        U.S. Supreme Court did not rule Carbon was a pollutant. U.S. Supreme Court only up held E.P.A.’s authority to make rulings without facts or science to back up E.P.A. No surprise there.

      • David A. says:

        Except excess water doesn’t last, like air pollution or carbon pollution — it quickly drains away.

      • David A. says:

        U.S. Supreme Court did not rule Carbon was a pollutant.

        Read more carefully. Look up the case law.

      • JohnKl says:


        “Of course atmospheric carbon is a pollutant ó a substance that, in excess, is undesirable.”

        You should be ashamed of such a remarkably useless definition, since any substance, in excess, is undesirable. Too much of anything can kill.

        Have a great day!

        • JohnKl says:


          Btw, you do realize you have yet to provide any useful definition of what excessive carbon levels would be. To arbitrarily classify chemical compounds as excessive without providing any rational basis other than planetary temps might exceed my expectations certainly does have all the earmarks of politics.

          Have a great day!

    • David A. says:

      For the EPA to classify it as a pollutant is DUMB.

      The EPA didn’t classify CO2 as a pollutant — the Supreme Court did, after Massachusetts sued the EPA on this ground (and others).

      The EPA is simply following the law.

      • RandyC says:

        Is “Ohm’s Law” a law because some lawyers argued in from of some politically appointed judges who ruled on their political beliefs, or is it a law because of sound science, mathematics, and the test of time?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      “It (CO2) may have modest effects on the atmosphere…”

      That’s being extremely kind.

      Consider that all GHGs are about 1% of atmospheric gases with water vapour accounting for 96% of GHG warming. All CO2, of which 96% is from natural sources like swamps and the oceans, accounts for only 0.04% of atmospheric gases. Based on a density of 390 ppmv, the IPCC claimed that anthropogenic CO2 account for only 4% of all CO2, making it about 1/1000nds of 1% of atmospheric gases.

      A real greenhouse with 100 panes of glass would require the removal of 99 panes to be equivalent to the metaphorical effect of all GHGs, at 1%. How much warming would that allow in a real greenhouse? All CO2 would represent 4/100 of 1 pane of glass and you’d have trouble finding the proportion of 1 pane accounted for by ACO2.

  29. odanny says:

    Has Dr. Spencer ever revealed if he is getting paid by any of the fossil fuel companies, or the consortium who promote their use?

    • NoFreeWind says:

      Dr. Spencer is an academic and Government scientist.
      He possesses the trait of “common sense” which is in short supply these days. I assume he makes a decent salary, lives in a nice house, drives a decent car, flies in airplanes etc. He has the very unique capability (among climate scientists) to actually recognize that all of the prosperity that he enjoys comes from fossil fuel. Fossil fuels are not just a nice option in life. It was 1F here at my house today, like it has been many days these past few weeks. Some people actually have a brain that recognizes that there is ABSOLUTELY NO REPLACEMENT for this vilified fossil fuel. Hilarious and absurb that Michael Mann, labeled as one of the “good people”, couldn’t be reached for an interview a while back, why?, because he was on vacation in Hawaii – from Pennsylvania.
      This entire discussion so SO ABSURD, the complete STUPIDITY that much of our human race and politics has descended into. All because 1 in 20,000’s parts of the atmosphere changed from something to CO2. And that change very likely is because of the oceans and has nothing or very little to do with human emissions. What is even more crazy, is that our leaders and otherwise? intelligent, educated population has completely fallen for this, all because of Politics!

      • Kyle says:

        He is on the board of a fossil fuel profit funneling front: George C Marshall Institute.


        Almost every notable AGW denier can be linked to the billions of dollars being spent by oil and gas companies to deny the science.

        • John says:

          I can verify what Kyle says is true for I was the cash delivery man for both the George C Marshall Institute (GCMI) and the Illuminati. At the request of GCMI and my Big Oil masters, I was responsible for paying denier scientists like Roy Spencer. To buy Roy Spencer, we hire several A-list Hollywood starlets to satisfy Dr Spencer’s carnal desires at a 5-star cathouse. But that wasn’t enough for Dr Spencer. We had to put him on the payroll for $36 million a year. Paying him in gold and blood diamonds (he refused to accept conflict-free diamonds). Marc Morano gets $175 million a year. I resigned my post because of an online survey from Hustler Magazine that said there is a 97% consensus that man causes global warming. I new it was a legit survey because it was from the internet and a scientists whose livelihood depends on govt grants vouched for its accuracy. I regret my past activities and behalf of Big Oil. Please forgive me…

        • tonyM says:

          You are barking up the wrong tree. I don’t know if Dr Spencer is receiving director’s fees but I certainly hope that he is. It is the best advice in town.

          Now as for your assertion of Big Oil perhaps you should wake up a little and look at a range of manipulation in this field Ė its a billion dollar a day field.

          Have a look at Enron and BP to see the scam. Ask yourself why Shell today is exhorting Govts to subsidize the renewable industries.

          Do you think it is being done for the love of the planet? How does that fit in with your assertion of Big Oil.

          I don’t have the patience to inform you but it is all available on the net. It doesn’t stop there. In a sense scientists are both manipulated and manipulators. They are not the big players or big earners. Look to Gore who has become a billionaire.

          Have a look at the UN. My country collected $7 billion in CO2 taxes last year (we are 23 million people- Australia). Guess what Ė 10% tithes went to the HO church organization Ė the UN. Yep, the UN gets 10% of what my Govt collects!

          Yet you come here and start on Dr Spencer. Grow up a bit and open your eyes.

          • Kyle says:

            I have no idea what your point is to be honest. Is it that every scientist is corrupted by government profit on CO2 taxes? If so, they should all jump ship, because the real money to be made is from fossil fuel companies.

            And I don’t know where Spencer’s income comes from either. All I know is that big oil is in fact, spending lots of money towards scientific denial. There is no denying that. And its no surprise that they would pick the George C Marshall Institute to funnel there money into. They keep people like Spencer denying denying denying.

            “Naomi Oreskes states that the [George C Marshall] institute has, in order to resist and delay regulation, lobbied politically to create a false public perception of scientific uncertainty over the negative effects of second-hand smoke, the carcinogenic nature of tobacco smoking, the existence of acid rain, and on the evidence between CFCs and ozone depletion.[2]”

            And AGW denial is no different here.

          • tonyM says:

            You say ďAll I know is that big oil is in fact, spending lots of money towards scientific denial ď

            ďDenialismĒ is a nonsensical term in science. So state exactly what is the ďscientific denialĒ that you parrot.

            If you know of ďlots of moneyĒ then spell out your sources and amounts in detail.

            Now compare that to what oil and gas interests spend in promoting AGW or promoting renewables. That may give a better clue as to what is happening.

            AGW is estimated to be a $1 billion a DAY industry with very little going to the skeptical side Ė despite what you may believe. In orthodox science skepticism is highly desirable.

            As for the scientists I thought I was pretty clear; they are rather like two bit players in the whole scheme of the political machinations and mulcting the public purse. Sure, some are high profile, but largely they are being used by the big players. They are the excuse to make the process run more smoothly.

            Start with the UN and the charter under which the IPCC operates. It has nothing to do with science and all to do with justifying a position of alarmist warming to Govts basically. One reason is the 10% tithes I mentioned. Power and control is another.

            But if you don’t even make an effort to look up the net as I suggested on the Enron/BP history and say Shell’s Govt efforts in pushing for renewables then how serious are you in really understanding the issue? You will find all the big name players there Conoco, Shell, Duke et al.

            In a nutshell there are vested interests manipulating Govts which are far bigger. Oreskes is hardly the most reliable of persons but what exactly have the previous lobbying efforts got to do with the AGW?

            Why would you intimate that somehow there is something wrong with Dr Spencer being a paid director? His position on the subject is openly stated and I can’t think of a better person to give them honest, expert advice.

            Surely you would not be suggesting that Al Gore or Mickey M be better candidates for honest science!

        • Jl says:

          Which is out weighed by money from the government (around the world) supporting the warmists.

        • Ipsophakto says:

          Great! I’d love to get paid – like all the Big Climate CAGW Memeplex “researchers” linking pimples to exhaling CO2

      • Bart says:

        Oh, boy. You knew it was only a matter of time before desperation drove them to conspiracy mongering.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      It might interest you to know that environmental groups are being investigated in Canada for claiming they are charities. Our tax rules make it clear that charities cannot participate in political activism.

      Al Gore made his money initially from oil. Seems what is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander.

      The inference that climate scientists funded by oil money are on the take is misguided propaganda. Pat Michaels stood up in the 1980s, using his limited resources, and fought back against the propaganda of James Hansen, who had government funds backing him as he spread political propaganda. Western Fuels stepped up and offered to fund Michaels and he accepted.

      I would have accepted too, provided they understood that I was a scientist and did not necessarily endorse their products. Who said that a scientist cannot accept private funding and maintain his integrity?

      I’ll tell you who…alarmists who cannot disprove skeptical claims and need a red herring argument to supplement their political propaganda.

  30. Aaron S says:

    Reiner those are the newest ipcc models

    You do an excellent job describing the reason for frustration; the models have failed to match the data through time and to fix the models the earth’s climate sensitivity to co2 needs to be reduced. Currently the model owners continue to consider their models valid and create reasons for the discrepancy such as the climate moves in steps and we are waiting for the next el niŮo warming to see the warming that has not occurred over the last decade. This or some other reason for a delay might be the case (time will tell) but there is currently uncertainty in the models that is being mostly ignored and political figures continue to try to exploit agw.

    Of course I’m in no way associated w dr. Spencer… I’m just a geologist that read your question and tried to answer as best I could bc I know he gets busy and cant answer every questioon so unfortunately many good and sincere questions go unanswered.

  31. Visiting Physicist says:

    Climate models are wrong because they are all based on an assumption of there being isothermal temperatures in a planet’s troposphere in the absence of so-called greenhouse gases.

    Donít you find it interesting that they say that the greenhouse gas water vapour does most of the warming, perhaps 30 degrees of it, with carbon dioxide helping with the other 3 degrees. Water vapour may well vary in different regions. There may be only a third of the mean in a dry desert area for example, so the IPCC authors are, in effect, telling us that water vapour is raising the temperature by only, say, 10 degrees in a dry desert area. Thus the mean temperature in such a location would be below freezing point.

    I donít care how many peer-reviewed published papers in respected journals there may be supporting this absurd conjecture, Iím not falling for the bluff. Itís not supported by physics.

    The temperature has already been raised by the gravitationally induced temperature gradient in the troposphere which the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us must happen as an autonomous result of the spontaneous evolving of thermodynamic equilibrium. It does not happen as a result of any lapsing process. There is no surface at the base of the Uranus troposphere and there is no solar radiation or internally generated thermal energy reaching that layer. Gravity has trapped thermal energy over the life of the planet and the whole temperature plot in the Uranus atmosphere is maintained by gravity, and so too is the case on Earth.

    • steveta_uk says:

      Wow Doug, this is one of the thickest things you’ve ever posted.

      “There may be only a third of the mean in a dry desert area for example, so the IPCC authors are, in effect, telling us that water vapour is raising the temperature by only, say, 10 degrees in a dry desert area.”

      So you now think it’s a linear relationship? Dude, grow up and read some real physics testbooks.

      • Visiting Physicist says:

        A statistically significant study has shown that when water vapour increases above a region the mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures decrease. This is the opposite of what IPCC guesswork says.

        Many use the equations of physics without understanding the prerequisites for such to apply. The use of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law for Earthís surface is an example, because Earthís surface does not meet the definition of a black or grey body that gains and loses energy only by radiation..

        No one here can explain, as I have in the book ďWhy itís not carbon dioxide after allĒ Ö

        (a) How the necessary energy gets down into the base of the Uranus troposphere (where itís hotter than Earth) but where no significant direct solar radiation reaches and no internally generated energy is convincingly evident and no surface exists.

        (b) Why the core of the Moon is far hotter than the maximum temperature reached on its surface.

        (c) Why Venus hasnít cooled off when we know that its dark side can cool by 5 degrees in a mere 4 months.

        (d) How the necessary thermal energy gets into the surface of Venus during its daytime and raises the temperature from about 732K to 737K

        (e) Why the thermal gradient in Earthís outer crust is about 20 times steeper than the gradient in the mantle

        (f) Why (as a statistically significant study shows) does an increase in water vapour (and droplets) above a region lead to lower mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures Ė the exact opposite of what the GH conjecture imagines happens.

        (g) What keeps the Earthís core hot?

        I am not wasting more time here Ė itís all in the book which will be very widely circulated among influential people when available late April.

        If anyone wishes to contact me feel free to write to Ö
        [email protected]


  32. Fight On says:

    I still struggle intellectually with US Govt Climate Policy having any measurable/discernible impact on global warming. For example, California has a sort of Cap & Trade scheme – is there any science or empirical data that this policy has any discernible impact on global temperatures and the climate of North America? Is there any science behind US Climate policy being efficacious in controlling and regulating global temperatures? Is US Govt Climate policy competent, capable, and cost-effective in regulating the Climate.

    Seems like blind faith and speculation to me. Regardless of the theory of CAGW and climate models it just seems like the effort and investment in government policies to control CO2 is a complete waste of time. A sort of feel good sentimentalism.

    • Marshall says:

      I absolutely agree with this. It seems that California is so convinced of its trend-setting abilities that it believes it can trigger a global domino effect to save the planet simply by legislating state emission caps. And since we know that developing countries like India have larger CO2 footprints than developed countries like the U.S., even the assumption that an effective nationwide limit would have any effect on global climate change whatsoever seems dubious. So what’s the actual battle plan? To balloon the state tax burden high enough that some undetermined magic number of countries that are presumably the worst CO2 offenders will see how great the high energy costs are and jump on board with expensive CO2 caps of their own? This is expensive insanity.

  33. Visiting Physicist says:

    Fight on asked “is there any science or empirical data that this policy has any discernible impact on global temperatures?”

    No there is no valid science because planetary atmospheric and surface temperatures are not primarily governed by radiation, as you will be able to read in my book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” available through Amazon in March.

    There is no scientific evidence that there would be isothermal conditions in any planet’s troposphere in the absence of greenhouse gases, as Roy Spencer clearly thinks would be the case. On Uranus, where there are hardly any GH gases (except in the methane layer near TOA) there is evidence of a temperature gradient, even where there is no surface and no incident solar radiation and thus no upward lapsing convection.

    And no there is no empirical evidence that greenhouse gases like water vapour cause higher mean temperatures. There is empirical evidence that they do the opposite, though, and that study will be published in the Appendix of my book.

  34. crakar24 says:

    Here you go Roy


    Have you seen this, care to comment it would be much appreciated if you did



  35. Visiting Physicist says:


    The models clearly start from an assumption that there would be isothermal conditions in the troposphere in the absence of greenhouse gases. You also have claimed such in articles last year.

    You all ignore the Loschmidt gravitationally induced temperature gradient.

    Anyone is entitled to disagree with the brilliant 19th century physicist, Loschmidt if you so choose, but you canít prove him wrong, whereas I have proved him correct. And no, the WUWT article which ran a wire up the outside of a cylinder did not rebut it because the wire also develops a temperature gradient which prevents perpetual energy circulation.

    The temperature gradient results from a diffusion process and does not require any upward convection or even a hot surface beneath. More often than not the new energy absorbed in higher, cooler regions actually can move downwards towards warmer regions if it is restoring thermodynamic equilibrium, because physics tells us that such equilibrium is a state wherein the sum of kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy is homogeneous. I call this “heat creep” because it is a slow process that can be dominated by high levels of absorption, such as in Earth’s stratosphere and ocean thermoclines.

    So Iím not talking about convection or pressure or solid surfaces absorbing solar radiation. I am asking anyone to explain why the base of the Uranus troposphere (altitude -300Km) is 320K according to Wikipedia (Uranus / Troposphere) as there is no surface there, no incident solar radiation, no internal energy generation and no reason for any net upward convection.

    Ē Uranusís heat flux is only 0.042 Ī 0.047 W/m2″
    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus

    Furthermore, there is very close to perfect energy balance at TOA according to measurements from Voyager 2, so any internally generated thermal energy, which some seem to think is responsible for maintaining the 5,000K temperature in the small solid core (thousands of Km below the troposphere) would be far less than 0.042W/m^2. Thatís a tall ask for so little energy. And itís got to keep all that atmosphere hot too, or so they seem to think.

    Now consider Venus. Its surface cools by about 5 degrees during its 4-month-long night. So its internal energy is not succeeding in keeping its surface at around 730K. But for the Sunís energy, it could easily have cooled right down in a few centuries. (So too could Uranus.) But the Sunís energy raises the temperature of the Venus surface by 5 degrees spread over the course of the next 4-month-long Venus day. But it cannot do that by direct radiation which is less than 20W/m^2.

    For the back radiation enthusiasts, such back radiation coming from that initial new solar energy would also be less than 20W/m^2. But you would need over 16,000W/m^2 of direct radiation to actually raise the temperature. Thatís about five times the Solar energy that even reaches TOA, so obviously the energy cannot be amplified within the Venus atmosphere.

    The required energy does not come from radiation at all. Nor does pressure create energy and we have no reason to believe the pressure changes much at the surface anyway. For any increase there would be a cancelling decrease, and thus no net change in temperature due to pressure changes.

    So can you, Roy, or anyone else explain Venus and Uranus temperatures?

    • Dr No says:

      Welcome back Doug.
      You are a very naughty student.
      I gave you all the necessary explanations over a year ago and yet you still have’nt learnt a thing.
      I am afraid we cannot promote you to the next grade until you learn to do your homework.
      Write out 1000 times:
      “I must learn what the adiabatic lapse rate is.”

      • Visiting Physicist says:

        You, Dr No, must learn that your adiabatic lapse rate has nothing to do with any lapsing process on a planet like Uranus – partly because there’s no surface at the base of its troposphere (where it’s hotter than Earth’s surface) – oh, and there’s no direct Solar radiation reaching down there either and no reason for any net upward convection. My book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” could be your first textbook on the new paradigm that explains all planetary atmospheric, surface, crust, mantle and core temperatures.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      @Doug “So can you, Roy, or anyone else explain Venus and Uranus temperatures?”

      I sure can’t but Andrew Ingersoll, an astronomer, had this to say in an abstract for a paper I cannot afford to buy:


      “…the second law of thermodynamics requires that the bulk of the lower atmosphere heating must come from a source other than direct sunlight or a thermally driven atmospheric circulation…”

      Here’s a more in-depth look at Venus by Ingersoll:


      The only disagreement I have is Ingersoll referring to heat-trapping GHGs. Heat cannot be trapped, it is a relative measure of kinetic energy in atoms or molecules. It can be transferred due to thermal gradients or infrared emissions but talking of trapping heat is kind of dumb.

      They may be able to claim that about infrared energy but physicist/meterologist, Craig Bohren, referred to that notion as a metaphor at best, and at worst, plain silly.

      Bohren explained in his book Atmospheric Radiation that the trapping of photons of IR by GHGs is far more complex than a one-to-one event. Climate alarmist talk about GHGs trapping heat is apparently a juvenile idea requiring in-depth physics, like Feynman diagrams.

      That is complicated by the fact that a photon is a definition, not an actual particle. It is defined as a particle of EM having momentum and no mass. A photon is clearly a theoretical attempt to particalize EM.

      If surface radiation is in fact a wave, that complicates matters even more. As of the 1950s, Einstein admitted that no one knew if EM was a wave or particles.

      • Visiting Physicist says:

        “ďÖthe second law of thermodynamics requires that the bulk of the lower atmosphere heating must come from a source other than direct sunlight or a thermally driven atmospheric circulationÖĒ

        Yes that’s correct. I’ve said as much in my book now at the printing stage. And I’ve explained what the source of energy is in great detail.

        Greenhouse gases have nothing to do with any surface temperatures other than the fact that large quantities (such as for water vapour on Earth) have a measurable cooling effect.

        Thermal energy is trapped – but the trapping is due to the gravitationally induced temperature gradient.

        If you want to learn about radiation and when it does or does not transfer thermal energy, read the paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.”

        • David A. says:

          How does a temperature gradient trap heat? Let’s see the equations….

          • Scott Basinger says:

            Don’t argue with the slayer.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            @David A “How does a temperature gradient trap heat? Letís see the equationsÖ.”

            There are a lot of metaphors used in science that are just plain wrong, the greenhouse theory being among them. The greenhouse theory is a metaphor for something else that cannot be easily explained.

            Here’s Lindzen on the GHE:


            Heat cannot be trapped. What can be trapped is atoms and molecules. Glass in a real greenhouse can trap atoms and molecules as their mean kinetic energy rises due to absorbed solar energy in greenhouse soil being conducted to the atoms/molecules. That rise in kinetic energy is a rise in heat.

            Heat is the mean kinetic energy of a gas. I know nothing about temperature gradients in the atmosphere, but I would imagine that the trapping of heat was a reference to the trapping of atoms and molecules of air, at least temporarily.

            If you had atoms/molecules of a higher kinetic energy contained somehow at one end of a temperature gradient and the equivalent at the lower temperature end of the gradient, you could claim that heat was trapped, although it’s real particles that are trapped.

            The problem with theory (heat trapping) as I see it is as follows. If heat is trapped higher in the atmosphere, it is suggesting that the temperatures in the atmosphere are warmer than the temperatures on the surface. In that case, heat could not be transferred from the cooler surface to the warmer atmosphere.

      • David A. says:

        That is complicated by the fact that a photon is a definition, not an actual particle.

        Who should we believe, you or Albert Einstein?

        • JohnKl says:


          While Einstein (and Planck) toyed with the idea of quantum particles he denied the existence of photons later in life.

          Have a great day!

  36. aussiebear says:

    Off the mark by 95%+ to 97%+ ???

    That’s isn’t just a “FAIL”.

    That’s outright shocking by anyone’s standards!

    …Except those who are pushing the Climate Change agenda.

    Science, engineering, mathematics, and even the consequential effects of real world economics seem to be getting in their way!

  37. Gordon Robertson says:

    Talking about oceans as heat sinks, how about the surface as a radiator of infrared energy? The IR flux from the surface has to be immense, yet alarmists are claiming that anthropogenic CO2, which account for 1/1000nds of 1% of atmospheric gases, based on a density of 390 ppmv (IPCC), is supposed to intercept enough of that flux and re-radiate it back to the surface so as to warm the surface.

    In the Trenberth-Kiehle radiation budget, they have as much IR being reflected back to the surface as is being emitted, yet ALL GHGs, of which water vapour comprises 96%, account for about 1% of atmospheric gases.

    That luminary alarmist at realclimate, Gavin Schmidt, has claimed ACO2 has an effect of up to 26% with regard to warming. Of course, Schmidt is confused about the definition of positive feedback according to engineer Jeffrey Glassman.

    It’s little wonder the models are wrong when the people programming them don’t understand positive feedback. As Glassman pointed out, real positive feedback requires gain (an amplifier) and there are no amplifiers in the atmosphere.

    I may be wrong here, but I seem to recall Roy explaining that positive feedback has been redefined in climate science to mean a not-so-negative, negative feedback. In that case, the models are definitely wrong because they have implemented a real positive feedback which does not exist in a real atmosphere.

    • Windchaser says:

      I may be wrong here…

      That you are. Basically, it sounds you’re saying that “positive feedback” as defined in something like electrical engineering doesn’t exist in the atmosphere.

      It doesn’t. “Positive feedback” is defined differently in climate science.

      Best to check your definitions when branching out into a different field, as it can save you some time and help you avoid some strawman rebuttals.

      • Bart says:

        “ďPositive feedbackĒ is defined differently in climate science.”

        No, it isn’t. It’s just implicit that the positive feedback is contained within a dominant negative feedback loop.

        It would not surprise me if Gavin Schmidt has odd ideas about positive feedback. He is not a feedback specialist, and I have seen him suggest some odd things at RealClimate.

        • Windchaser says:

          No, it isnít. Itís just implicit that the positive feedback is contained within a dominant negative feedback loop.

          Ehhh.. ok. I’ll agree with that. I might argue whether that qualifies as a different definition or not, but either way, I like how you said it better.

          Still, it’s the same issue of getting educated – you need to be aware of the implicit negative dominant feedback before you start talking about the impossibilities of positive feedbacks in the Earth’s climate system (and, yeah, I’ve heard that “positive climate feedbacks couldn’t exist or we’d have all roasted by now”).

          • Bart says:

            The problem I have seen crop up is that it is just assumed that the overarching negative feedback will stabilize the positive feedback. But, in fact, systems with small internal positive feedback can become unstable even if the negative feedback is very large.

            For example, let

            xdot = -a*x + b*y
            ydot = c*x

            for a, b, c constants greater than zero. You may have a much greater than b*c, but this system will be unstable nevertheless.

            There is a situation very like that in the climate. A rise in surface temperature causes an increase in atmospheric CO2. If rising CO2 causes a significant rise in temperature, then there is a positive feedback

            dT/dt = -a*T^4 + b*CO2
            dCO2/dt = c*T

            where the T^4 term is a massive negative feedback due to radiation. However, this system as written is unstable, regardless of how large the radiative term is.

            And, even if it is somehow stabilized, an internal positive feedback reduces phase and gain margins and, depending on its significance, this often results in high sensitivity to outside disturbances and generally erratic behavior.

  38. Visiting Physicist says:

    Not only is there no positive feedback, there is no warming effect whatsoever by water vapour in the first place. I am publishing a study (within 2 or 3 weeks) which is based in 30 years of temperature records on three continents, and which shows with statistical significance that higher levels of water vapour lead to lower mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures.

    Can anyone show me a real study (not just IPCC propaganda) that purports to prove the opposite? If you can then I bet I can find something wrong with it. My hypothesis in the book makes it very obvious why water vapour cools.

    And, by the way, no one has come up with any explanation (different from mine) which explains why the base of the Uranus troposphere is 320K (hotter than Earth’s surface) even though it receives no solar radiation and no significant internal thermal energy is being generated.

    Then you can explain Venus temperatures, because Andrew Ingersoll did not get it right I’m afraid. It’s all in the book of course.

    • David A. says:

      In what journal will your paper be published?

      • Darren Potter says:

        David A. says: “In what journal will your paper be published?”

        Hopefully in a journal that has far more credibility than nay of journals made into propaganda folders by AGW Alarmists.

      • Visiting Physicist says:

        It’s in my book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” for far wider readership, including hundreds of free copies to politicians, universities, media outlets and government authorities – with a compelling cover letter. I put my money where my mouth is. However, although the text is finalised, the publishers have just advised that production of the paperback and electronic forms will take at least another 10 weeks or so.

        It contains an explanation of the Uranus temperature gradient in its troposphere which you, I gather from your other comments, cannot explain because you have no understanding of how the required thermal energy gets to the base of that troposphere (and beyond to lower depths) after it is absorbed by the methane layer near TOA. Nearly all outward radiation on Uranus comes from that methane layer and Uranus is not contracting or generating internal energy, as textbooks might claim.

    • Visiting Physicist says:

      I am spending tens of thousands of dollars self-publishing and advertising my book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” which will be on Amazon and Barnes & Noble sometime in March – $13.95 for the paperback, or $8.95 electronically.

      I put my money where my mouth is.

      I have also written an as-yet unpublished paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” which is similar to the book.

      The book will be sent gratis to universities, politicians, media outlets and government authorities, and I expect to find some support from physicists who put their mind to it and hopefully write positive reviews enabling publication.

      No one on any climate blog has been able to answer the questions I have posed about Venus and Uranus temperatures, whereas my hypothesis does answer such. Unless and until the climate world understands the process that determines temperatures through the universe, they will never understand Earth’s climate.

      • David A. says:

        I don’t believe you are spending 10s of thousands of dollars.

        • Visiting Physicist says:

          No, maybe it won’t be much into five figures if the first few advertisements don’t pay for themselves in sales. We’ll see. But if they do, and/or I get some free TV publicity, profits will go into more free copies to influential people.

      • Dr. Strangelove says:

        Before you waste $10,000 on a science fiction book, ask university physics professors to review it. They will dismiss it as nonsense. Don’t be scared. You can choose as many universities and professors as you wish. If all of them reject you, is it time to start thinking maybe there’s something wrong with you? C’mon do it for your own good.

        • Visiting Physicist says:

          You have absolutely no understanding of the physics, Dr.S, as I have explained in responses to you elsewhere. Yes there will be those who are not game to stick their necks out and swim against the tide of the GH hoax – I’m not naÔve. But no one so far has been able to prove me wrong, least of all yourself, Dr.S. And you have no valid answer to my very relevant questions about Uranus, now have you?

          • Dr. Strangelove says:

            Dougnut Cottonball, why did you change your name? Let me guess. Because you were banished from various blogs for spreading pseudoscience. Afraid to ask real physicists because you have been dismissed as quack so many times? Truth hurts. Pity pity you

  39. baseline_error says:

    Why do I get a very strong feeling that this graph that you keep posting in your blog (but you never got peer-reviewed) is just a dubious mistake in aligning baselines on some very short intervals of time?

  40. Hot Potato says:

    Oh My God!! Another anthropogenic-induced catastrophic winter storm is barreling down on Atlanta. We must give it a name. I have it! How about Winter Storm Oops I Crapped My Pants? And while I’m at it, maybe I better get on over to Walmart and stock up on Depends just in case. This could be the big one…as Fred Sanford was so fond of saying.


  41. Ŗri says:

    Dr Roy
    Donít they update the graph with the known temperature , it seem silly to have a computer model from 1983 when we have the real temperature.
    It would be nice to see the graph with the closest models only so we can have some idea of the future.


  42. DonM says:

    The Navier Stokes differential equations describe fluid flow with changes in temperature and density. They are nonlinear, chaotic, with sensitive dependence on initial conditions. No finite set of past states is sufficient to predict future states. This has been known since Edward Lorenz’ paper “Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow”.

    Anyone who pretends to predict future states from past states is either incompetent or a fraud. When evaluating their work first ask- “Is their starting set of data finite?” if so then their predictions are not meaningful.

    • David A. says:

      Weather is chaotic, but the paleoclimate record shows clear patterns and forcings for climate. Yes, there can be chaotic fluctuations that send the climate into a new state (Younger Dryas, snowball Earth,..), but the record shows they are rare. For almost all of the time climate responds to the known forcings in a nonchaotic manner (in the large), and energy balance is a far more important consideration than chaos.

      Look at the last few million years, with the regular cycle of ice ages. Not a lot of chaos there.

      • Norman says:

        David A

        “Look at the last few million years, with the regular cycle of ice ages. Not a lot of chaos there.”

        I think we have different vision. I look at the graph of the last 400,000 years and can see plenty of chaotic (lots of sharp up and down temps of over 2C) behavior. I see some cycles but there is a lot of chaotic behavior inbetween.


      • David A. says:

        I look at the graph of the last 400,000 years and can see plenty of chaotic (lots of sharp up and down temps of over 2C) behavior.

        That is certainly not chaos — in fact, it’s the opposite: the climate responding smoothly to a periodic forcing function.

      • JohnKl says:

        David A,

        “Look at the last few million years, with the regular cycle of ice ages. Not a lot of chaos there.”

        Hmmh! It’s very difficult to observe phenomenon after it has occurred. Of course, you may pretend to have a time machine.

        As to their not being a lot of chaos, that depends on how you define the term.

        The PERMAFROST remains of untold millions of mammoths, mastadons, dyre wolves, sabre-tooth tigers and even humans proves very rapid freezing of said biomass. Since the intact frozen biomass remains edible (Russian ivory scavengers frequently feed mammoth and mastadon remains to their pets, while selecting the best ivory produce) and carbon 14 datable (carbon 14 half life ~5730 yrs) the remains cannot be any older than five or six half lives 30-40k yrs, not millions!!


        Have a great day!

  43. David A. says:

    Roy Spencer wrote:
    neither of which leads to the conclusion we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good.

    This is a red herring. No one (of course) wants to “freeze and starve” poor people to death. It’s unacceptable to even imply such a thing.

    But you and I are rich — there’s no reason why we shouldn’t be paying for clean energy. No excuse at all — and coal-generated power needs to go even before climate considerations. It’s filthy in many ways.

    A carbon tax-and-dividend would, in fact, HELP the poor — 60% of Americans would receive more back in dividends than they pay in taxes. It would alleviate poverty while at the same time cleaning up the environment.

    Using the poor as an excuse for the lack of actions by the rich is immoral.

    • JR says:

      Silly utopians, always arguing how “moral” it is to raise taxes.

      • David A. says:

        A carbon tax-and-dividend doesn’t raise taxes — it distributes all taxes collected back on an equal per capita basis.

        It makes those people who are most polluting the Commons pay something for that damage, provides incentives to correct the “free market’s” failure, and helps to alleviate poverty.

        • Jake says:

          David: you seem to be an intelligent guy, you know that it’s not that easy. We already have corporations hiding in tax friendly countries like Ireland, and other corporations that run to places like Southeast Asia where regulations are reduced or non-existent. Any type of taxation for those who remain would be handed to the consumer, the corporation isn’t going to take a hit on profits, it just doesn’t happen. And, once again, those folks who are struggling will struggle more. You remarks are constantly socialist, and socialism doesn’t work. Just take some time and check in on the European Union. The only country with a truly strong and functioning economy is the one which, at least in some fashion, follows free-market principles.

          This isn’t a Utopia, I know in your opinion it is tragic that at some point we hit the anthropological lottery and developed exceptional brains. Brains that have allowed us how to use the resources around us to reduce the misery and difficulty of life. When the heat engine was developed, no one envisioned the bad, only the good. Would it be Utopic if we could fill our lands with wind turbines, solar panels and other renewable energy sources? Well maybe, maybe not. I for one refuse to feel guilt for moving forward and making life, well, livable. Get back to me when you hook your oxen to the yoke, and you hand split the eight cords you’ll need for heat …. oops, but that will dump oh so much CO2 into the air.

          And finally, I strongly believe that the human race is exceptional, and that we will always find solutions to our problems. When the time comes, and the have-to’s arrive, we will figure it out. It must be awful to live your life with constant apocalyptic thoughts.

          • David A. says:

            The problem of corporations offshoring labor is a completely separate problem.

            If you want to attack that, then do so — I’m certainly listening.

            But using it as an excuse not to deal with carbon pollution won’t fly.

          • David A. says:

            If you don’t like socialism, are you ready to give back your tax deductions for home mortgage insurance, retirement accounts, college savings, and the tax benefits your employer gets for offering health insurance?

            Then let’s talk.

          • David A. says:

            When the time comes, and the have-toís arrive, we will figure it out.

            So your solution is to hope for a magic potion that will solve all your problems just when you need them to be solved?

            Not very wise, IMO.

          • Darren Potter says:

            David A. says: “If you donít like socialism, are you ready to give back your tax deductions for home mortgage insurance, retirement accounts, …”

            Completely invalid argument, in that you assume those deductions are money the Government is giving to a Taxpayer.

          • David A. says:

            Of course the home mortgage interest deduction is money the government is giving to taxpayers.

            Just ask anyone who claims it.

          • BBould says:

            Of course the home mortgage interest deduction is money the government is giving to taxpayers.

            Just ask anyone who claims it.

            No David it’s money that they don’t take. It’s already yours.

        • David A. says:

          socialism doesnít work.

          False. There are several countries that are more socialist than the U.S., that have better standards of living than we do. (Canada and Norway come immediately to mind.) Your generalization does not hold.

          The US already has a lot of socialism, and has for most of the last century.

          • Jake says:

            And it’s why we’re dying a slow death, thanks to your ilk.

          • Darren Potter says:

            Your examples aren’t, try again.

          • David A. says:

            MY ilk?

            Americans LOVE socialism, when it benefits them: tax deductions or credtis, for their home mortgage, their retirement savings account, their college savings accounts, their employer’s deductions for providing health insurance, the hedge fund manager loophole, etc etc etc.

            Try taking THOSE government benefits away, and listen to the squawking.

          • David A. says:

            The very name of it says it is a tax.

            False — it says it is a “tax-and-dividend.”

            Please read more carefully.

          • Jake says:

            Hey, I’ll see your Canada and Norway and raise you East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Spain, France, Greece ………

          • David A. says:

            The name says “tax-and-dividend,” not “tax.”

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi David A,

            You claim:

            “Americans LOVE socialism, when it benefits them: tax deductions or credtis, for their home mortgage, their retirement savings account, their college savings accounts, their employerís deductions for providing health insurance, the hedge fund manager loophole, etc etc etc.”

            How are tax deductions socialism since it represents a REDUCTION of government resource confiscation? You truly have no clue about what you speak.

            Have a great day!

          • JohnKl says:

            David A,

            You asserted:

            “There are several countries that are more socialist than the U.S., that have better standards of living than we do. (Canada and Norway come immediately to mind.”

            Canada has a “conservative” leader currently and Norway’s total tax take last I read fall around ~40% of income (less than the U.S., when state and local taxes get included). Moreover, Norway’s government debt falls far below the U.S.. How exactly are either Canada or Norway more socialistic than the U.S. currently?

            The U.S. hasn’t had the highest standard of living in the world since it decoupled it’s currency from gold, adopted much of the socialist BS you apparently espouse and departed from the constitutional protection of it’s citizens life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

            Have a great day!

          • Bill Sparling says:

            David, don’t try to pull my country into your socialist nonsense. Canada is NOT a socialist country and never has been, despite what your newspapers might claim.

          • JohnKl says:

            Hello David A,

            You asserted:

            “”socialism doesnít work.”(someone else’s quote you quoted)


            Well, of course it all depends on how you define “WORK!” That depends on what you VALUE! If you look at the figures below uncovered by R J Rummell of the University of Hawaii, you’ll see that SOCIALISM DOES INDEED WORK VERY WELL IF YOUR GOAL IS MASS DEATH!!!

            “I BACKGROUND

            2. The New Concept of Democide [Definition of Democide]
            3. Over 133,147,000 Murdered: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide
            II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS

            4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
            5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
            6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
            7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime”

            Simply put no ideology on earth matches SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM in the capacity for PURE DESTRUCTION! You may want to investigate statistical carnage more closely. You should find that when the communist Khmer Rouge seized Vietnam more people died from “peace-time” occupation than ever died from their conflict with American forces.


            Have a great day!

        • Darren Potter says:

          David A. says: A carbon tax-and-dividend … It makes those people who are most polluting

          Another invalid argument made by leaps.
          The very name of it says it is a tax.
          Carbon is not a pollutant. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. We are carbon based life forms that inhale air which does contain Carbon Dioxide.

        • Ŗri says:

          That sounds ok and if it were the case I might be for the CTAX butÖ When has a politician given any money back once they have their hands on it the pork would be astounding.


    • Darren Potter says:

      David A.: “But you and I are rich ó thereís no reason why we shouldnít be paying for clean energy.”

      We already do pay for clean energy. It is the Global Warming Alarmists who insist falsely that carbon is filthy.

      David A.: “HELP the poor ó 60% of Americans would receive more back in dividends than they pay in taxes.”

      In essence Top 40% income earning Americans would be paying for 60% that contributes nothing to tax base, while consuming at the 40%’s expense.
      You do realize that bottom 40% (based on before taxable income) are already getting back more in money than they pay in taxes?

      • David A. says:

        We already do pay for clean energy. It is the Global Warming Alarmists who insist falsely that carbon is filthy.

        Lame. Denialism is not sufficient.

        In essence Top 40% income earning Americans would be paying for 60% that contributes nothing to tax base, while consuming at the 40%ís expense.

        False — everyone would be paying for their pollution, of which the rich do far more than the poor.

        You do realize that bottom 40% (based on before taxable income) are already getting back more in money than they pay in taxes?

        No — where is proof of that?

        • Bryan says:

          The tax-and-dividend idea would be interesting if it really is ever found that carbon dioxide is harmful at levels expected to be brought about by foreseeable use of fossil fuels. However, I think there is a serious problem with it.

          The thing that I think would make it counterproductive is that it would drastically raise the total tax burden on the creation of opportunity. Serious creators of opportunity make a lot of money, and also generally burn a lot of fuel. So they already pay a high marginal income tax rate — that is, for every additional opportunity they create (which of course involves them making money), they pay a high tax rate on the income they make. A tax-and-dividend scheme would also tax their large energy use, adding greatly to their tax burden. To be effective, the tax would have to be significant, so it would end up being a huge burden on those who burn a lot of fuel — the opportunity creators. And it is clear that this would be in addition to (rather than replacing) the income taxes they already pay, because the carbon money is distributed to all instead of used to pay the expenses of government.

          We are already over-taxing he creation of opportunity. When the risks and costs of creating opportunity stay the same, and the reward is lowered (by taxation), we will get less opportunity creation. Who is most hurt when less opportunity is created? Not the rich.

          The severe impact on low income people is especially apparent if you consider the effect of slower economic growth compounded over time. So the poor take an immediate hit when they have less opportunity due to lack of business expansion and new business formation. And they suffer a growing negative impact over time, as decade after decade the rate of growth in the economy is lower than it would be otherwise, so their standard of living generally does not grow like it otherwise would.

          The distributed dividend would help, but at best would only help to offset the immediate effect of lost opportunity. But which is better, a distribution of free money, or the opportunity to make more money? Even if the distribution at first is somewhat higher than the extra money they could otherwise make, it is still inferior to the opportunity expansion it is trying to make up for, since earning (instead of being given) more money also means more experience, more training, more responsibility, and better preparation for more advanced opportunities in the future. Gaining more money through a “dividend” rather than through increased opportunity might be better in the short run, since it is in addition to the money the person is already making, and is going to be a real windfall. However, over the long run, it will generally be better to have increased opportunity rather than a giveaway to supplement ones income.

          If anyone doubts that tax-and-dividend would slow economic growth, just consider what it does to both opportunity creators and opportunity seekers. The creators have a lower reward for expanding their businesses, and the seekers have less of a need to produce more, since they get free money to supplement their income. So the drive to produce is dampened for all. Can the economy grow at as high a rate in that environment. Again, the slower growth will be compounded over time.

          So if it is ever determined that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful, and thus are a cost to society that should be transferred to the one who is causing the emissions, the way to do it would be to replace the income tax with a carbon tax. That way you are not unduly increasing the tax on the creation of opportunity. You are also not dampening the need for opportunity seekers to produce by giving them free money.

          • Bryan says:

            To clarify: I left out a question mark. Should be: Can the economy grow at as high a rate in that environment?

    • Bart says:

      “No one (of course) wants to ďfreeze and starveĒ poor people to death.”

      Yet, that is the practical effect of the policies you favor. Protesting that your intentions are good does not heat the homes of the elderly, or replace the food on the tables of the poor that will not be produced or transported for lack of affordable fuel.

      “A carbon tax-and-dividend would, in fact, HELP the poor…”

      All the money in the world does not help anyone if there is nothing for them to buy with it. You’ve got to produce items before they can be consumed and, if you are producing less, then people will be poorer, regardless of whether you give them more money.

      Money is to wealth as hydrogen is to energy – it is a medium, not a source.

    • crakar24 says:

      Now hold on there a second David, i appreciate the US co2 tax is/will be different to here in Australia but we have the highest tax in the world. Last year it raised 7 billion dollars and our co2 emissions went down by 0.3% approx 1.2 million tonnes and the total reduction can be attributed to production shortfalls due to economic reasons ergo the co2 tax accomplished nothing.

      The whole point of a tax is to increase the cost of coal power to make wind/solar cheaper however as you have pointed out 60% of Americans will actually make a profit out of this tax so how exactly will the tax do what you ask of it?

      We have been there done that and proven that this concept is a failure.

      Also what do you consider rich? A majority of people live from pay packet to pay packet if you apply a tax then they have less money because a co2 tax does not stop at the generation phase it reaches all quarters of the economy and is not simply applied once but each and every step of the way. I do believe you are talking out of your hat on this subject.



  44. Jeff Ridgway says:

    Dr. Spencer, have you considered publishing these model-misfit results in a peer-reviewed journal? They are so simple, yet the impact is huge. The anti-skeptic crowd is always accusing AGW skeptics that they don’t publish in peer-reviewed journals enough. All the while intimidating scientists who submit skeptical articles (and rejecting their papers). BUT these results that you present are so definitive that I don’t see how a journal can reject them (although they’ll try!)

    • David A. says:

      But blogging is so much easier.

      • Lewis Guignard says:

        David: Is that why you hang around here? Really, I’ve read quite a bit of what you write and wonder if you really think you’re going to convince anyone of your belief that man is a bad actor or if you’ve been assigned Dr. Spencer’s blog by Soros, in order to keep your stipend.

        As has been pointed out elsewhere, the fact that man has learned to use hydrocarbons as fuel has been the greatest boon to mankind. To then pretend it is a mistake is typical of those immoral self-flagellators who, for some reason, believe man to be bad, a mistake perhaps.

        Understand this: the world, the earth, doesn’t care about mankind. If it continues to exist, at some point everything we’ve done will slide beneath another plate and be melted down.

        In the end, only humans care about humans and our responsibility is to ourselves, just as bacteria or roaches or rats or bats. To pretend we can control the weather or even climate is presumptuous and that we should even try is more so.

        Your actual purpose is to use government to punish those who produce and do well, which also has been delineated here. But, as those writers pointed out, the results of your policies will be to increase the number of poor by not allowing them the economic possibilities which have heretofore been available.

        So the question is, what is your point? It seems to be to use government to control others – authoritarian/socialism/corporatism/fascism etc.

        And let us be clear – those in government will not suffer even as they hold the people in squalor – see Cuba – obviously as state you wish the rest of the world to emulate.

        So is it your desire to have a ruling class of the well off and the rest held to some lower standard – a type of feudalism? It certainly seems so – because your belief in the goodness of government is astounding when the evidence shows time and again the opposite to be true.

      • RandyC says:

        When I click my mouse over the name David A. it takes me to the link “davidappell.blogspot.com” Hi Pot. Meet kettle.

      • Jl says:

        And your lame “rebuttal” is even easier still.

    • Robert Austin says:

      Ignoring David A.’s flippant response,what Dr. Roy is showing is not novel or esoteric and has been the subject of discussion on numerous blogs. For this reason plus the fact that it does not support the consensus, it is not likely publishable. That does not detract from its message, a message that needs repeating on a regular basis, that the climate models and the empirical data are rapidly diverging. This post is discussed over at:


      Especially good are the comments by rgbatduke.

  45. willywolfe says:

    It is hilarious that so many distortionists use the examples of a few countries that are flush with natural resources that they are selling to support their socialism in defense of socialism. All of this in an attempt to justify socialist policies that disallow us from exploiting our natural resources!

    • David A. says:

      How much socialism does the US fossil fuel industry get, in terms of both direct subsidies and for not having to pay the damage costs of their product’s pollution?

      • Massimo PORZIO says:

        David A.

        Here in EU, a “socialist” law imposed to the car makers the reduction of CO2 to very low levels.
        Now in our cities we have more diesel cars than gasoline propelled ones.
        In very air polluted days during winter, the stupidity of our unscientific politicians leads us to stop use cars into the cities between 8am and 6pm to reduce the PM10 pollution (so the workers have to move outside the cities out of that time slot, polluting before and after those time limits).
        In fact as per Lavoisier postulate diesel cars produce less CO2 but they have to release other byproducts of their engine combustions, so looking to the “numbers” an analysis commissioned by the city of Torino, a very old gasoline Euro 1 car is about 10 times less PM10 pollutant than a newer, last generation, Euro5 diesel car.
        AFIK no one ever died for CO2, while PM10 (especially the one coming form the dirty diesel fuel) is linked asthma and other lungs related illness.

        Follow my suggestion David, if you are a scientist keep politics away from your business.

        Have a nice day.


        • JohnKl says:

          Hello Massimo Porzio,

          Good response. Here in the U.S., California in particular, the enviro-weenies make much of current EPA regs which keep diesel emissions down to levels claimed to be similar to gasoline. The socialist BS masters also use it as an excuse for exceptionally high diesel prices charged for these supposedly clean blends. Unfortunately, this eliminates much of any real benefit to be had from the higher energy content diesel fuel. The question unanswered by David and others is why should the government be in the business of manipulating free ex-change at all. All this un-scientific manipulation of markets lines the pockets of a few socialist pluto-crats but does nothing for the common people, as usual.

          Does the EU mandate mpg standards for vehicles? They probably do. To meet such standard corporations will be more likely to offer higher mileage Diesels as a result, whatever the health impacts. Of course, this developments leaves room open for greater government regulation of Diesel vehicles to protect the health of asthmatics. Do you see how one government regulation generates a crisis that leads to further government regulation to impose still more costs and abscond more resources from the general populace? Yet another example of the Marxist dialectic of crisis, anti-thesis, synthesis.

          Thank you for the information about PM10.

          Have a great day!

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            Hi John,
            “Here in the U.S., California in particular, the enviro-weenies make much of current EPA regs which keep diesel emissions down to levels claimed to be similar to gasoline”

            I hope for you that’s not the very same try that our national oil company did in late 90s and early 2000.
            A good friend of mine who knows my point of view about diesel fuels (I never had a so dirty car ideed), used to work for an experimental oil refinery plant where the oil company was checking a new blend which was supposed to be “clean”.
            One day, he accepted that they refueled his diesel car with that new experimental blend.
            Well, while he was on the run to return home on the highway, he called me by the phone.
            He was driving his Volvo S70 2.5 Turbo diesel which was a car capable of run up to 200km/h and he said: “Hey Max, it’s incredible, they give me their latest diesel blend and now I’m pushing the pedal full down, but it doesn’t run more than 110km/h!”
            Hi Hi Hi… Few day later he discovered that they invented a special molecule to bind the diesel fuel with water. Their “great” idea to keep the PM10 low was to aggregate the PM10 powder with the water vapor created during the combustion.
            They no matter if the water change of state sucks away a lot of energy.

            They call this blend “white diesel” (also called “gecam”) and some municipal administrations still use this “wonder blend” for the city bus to reduce some “environmental issues” (they say).

            Who cares of WHO which in 2012 finally declared as scientifically proven that diesel exhaust emissions are cancerogenous, the most important issue for environmentalist is keep the CO2 low. ūüôĀ

            What a crazy world.

            Have a nice day.


      • Jl says:

        Look up the definition of “subsidy”. That’s money given to a person or corporation by the government. The fossil fuel industry receives tax breaks, the same as thousands of other industries and individuals. In other words, the get to keep money that was theirs to begin with. Your “green companies” are the ones receiving subsidies, as they have for the most part not yet become viable. Most wouldn’t exist without these subsidies.

      • willywolfe says:

        Zero, tax reductions are not subsidies, except in a socialist’s mind. Without their products we would be living in caves or thatch huts and starving or dying of diseases. None of our modern world would be here without fossil fuels. Yes we need to move forward and improve our energy strategies and reduce pollution. We can’t do that by taking giant step backwards as you seem to propose. David, your simplistic, naive view of the world and history is pathetic. I have to wonder, are you paid by some propaganda organization to post these inane musings on this site?

  46. Walter Allensworth says:

    Dr. Spencer,
    How is it that we know that “If the deep ocean ends up averaging 4.1 deg. C, rather than 4.0 deg. C, it wonít really matter.”

    This is a powerful argument against the CAGW meme if it’s really true. If the ocean is able to serve as a heat sink for the earth and provide, essentially, “negative feedback” in terms of climate sensitivity then whoo-hoo. That’s the answer. We’re saved. No more need be done.

    I’m a CAGW skeptic, but can it really be this easy?


  47. Go Canucks!! says:

    Regarding your question about Cowten & Way


  48. Dan Pangburn says:

    Run all ideas through three filters:
    Common sense filter,
    Human nature filter, and,
    Prior knowledge filter.

    Socialism fails all three.

  49. Visiting Physicist says:

    There are still no answers to my questions about Venus and Uranus temperatures – here or on any climate blog including WUWT. You are all stumped, aren’t you?

    The single most important question to answer about Venus is how does the required energy get into the surface in order to raise its temperature by about 5 degrees over the course of its 4-month-long day? The fact that it cools by 5 degrees at night indicates that it could easily have cooled right down in just a few centuries. So clearly it is this regular warming by the Sun which is keeping the surface at around 730K. The direct solar radiation is not doing it because less than 20W/m^2 gets through to its surface. Even if you think carbon dioxide somehow heats the surface with back radiation, there could not be more than another 20W/m^2 of back radiation originating from energy in the original solar radiation. (Back radiation cannot increase the temperature of a hotter surface, but I say this in case that is to be your response.)

    Many (including the Slayers) still live with the paradigm that radiative forcing Is the cause of planetary temperatures being what they are. Such a paradigm is incorrect It very clearly does not explain why the Venus surface temperature rises by 5 degrees during its 4-month daytime, or why the base of the troposphere of Uranus is hotter than Earth’s surface. If you cannot explain the process which brings about observed temperatures on other planets, then you cannot explain Earth’s temperatures. Why, for example, does surface cooling slow down so much in the early pre-dawn hours, at least in calm conditions? Why are more moist areas able to be shown to be cooler?

    I have explained in this comment (and in more detail in my book) why thermodynamic equilibrium in a gravitational field is not an isothermal state. If it were then the whole of the Uranus atmosphere would be isothermal at a temperature below 60K because no solar radiation reaches much beyond the methane layer near its TOA.

    I have not seen (from anyone else in the world) a valid explanation of the Uranus and Venus temperatures, especially the rising temperature on Venus (obviously due to the Sun but not due to its direct radiation reaching the surface) and the near -g/Cp temperature gradient throughout the Uranus troposphere and probably thousands of Km below, which is not due to any lapsing process. Nor has anyone explained the hot core of our Moon and, although you may think someone has explained the temperatures beneath Earth’s surface, they haven’t.

    My hypothesis of “heat creep” explains all these and, in fact, all known temperature data in the Solar System. Wait for my book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” available sometime in March.

  50. Go Canucks!! says:

    Dear Visiting Physicist:
    The topic is about climate models and observations.

    Please stay on topic!

    • Visiting Physicist says:

      Climate models are wrong because they ignore the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient that I’m talking about.

      Still I see that no one understands the process of “heat creep” which results from that temperature gradient and which determines temperatures on Uranus, Venus, Earth and throughout the universe. No one can answer my questions.

      If those who design the models understood this, then they wouldn’t get it so wrong. The models should be focussing on natural climate cycles (probably regulated by planetary orbits) because these cycles are “controlling” climate.

      Mankind can never control climate by cutting carbon dioxide emissions. All that all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does is cause minuscule cooling less than a tenth of a degree.

      That is why the climate models get it wrong. They need a paradigm shift, because what they are modelling is irrelevant.

    • David A. says:

      What equation descibes the trapping of heat via gravitationally induced thermal gradients?

      • Visiting Physicist says:

        The explanation, David A, is in my book, complete with all the relevant calculations that are needed.

        I’ve given enough clues here and on WUWT if you care to read a dozen or so comments there in the Monckton thread about 17 years 5 months without warming.

        Otherwise you and silent readers can wait for my book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” available next month through Amazon and Barnes & Noble.

        Where is your explanation of how energy is obviously trapped in the Uranus troposphere where no solar radiation reaches and no internal heat is generated?

        The energy came from the Sun and was trapped over the life of the planet as it was transferred by “heat creep” from the methane layer (in the uppermost atmosphere) down into the far hotter depths and into the solid core thousands of kilometres below the base of the Uranus troposphere – all the while heat was “creeping” up the temperature plot which has a pre-determined -g/Cp gradient.

        It doesn’t surprise me that no one on any climate blog has been able to explain the Uranus temperature gradient. That is because you are all indoctrinated with the GH radiative forcing garbage that they only started to teach in the 1980’s and never was in any physics textbook.

        It was nothing but guesswork by climate folk who had no understanding of atmospheric thermodynamics. Sadly Roy Spencer has also been thus indoctrinated and thinks the troposphere would have been isothermal but for GHG. If that were the case, well you can see what a troposphere like that is on Uranus – far from being isothermal.

        “The world will one day look back upon a small slice of history that began in the 1980’s and sadly have to conclude that never in the name of science have so many people been so seriously misled by so few for so long. Never have so many careers, so much time and so much money been spent in the pursuit of such a misguided and ineffective goal to reduce human emissions of carbon dioxide, a harmless gas which comprises about one molecule in every two and a half thousand other molecules in the atmosphere of our planet, Earth.”

        • Massimo PORZIO says:

          Well came back Doug.
          Maybe you missed this, I would like you take a look to it:


          It seems that using narrow band LWIR detectors to allow the satellites to look through the GHGs “fog”, the surface temperature in last years cooled instead of warmed.

          Have a nice day.


  51. Hot Potato says:

    Visiting Physicist,

    Per your theory, if I’m reading you correctly, you assert the temperature of the atmosphere of any astral body if it has an atmosphere, or more specifically any warming of any respective astral body’s atmosphere is the result of gravitational forces almost exclusively. What about astral bodies such as the moon with no atmosphere? Is this gravitationally-induced temperature gradient you’re talking about prevalent and observable for these bodies as well? If not, then it appears to me that your theory only applies to astral bodies with an atmosphere, and if that’s the case, then surely the molecules that comprise the respective atmospheres have something to do with it…and more to do with it than you claim.

  52. Visiting Physicist says:

    Hot Potato:

    You are close to understanding, but not close enough, because I have explained that the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient occurs both above and below any surface – everywhere from the tropopause to the core.

    Because it is the very state of maximum entropy which the Second Law of Thermodynamics says will “evolve spontaneously” this means that, if the equilibrium is disturbed by the absorption of new thermal energy from the Sun, then that new energy will spread out in all accessible directions away from the source – some of it actually up the gradient.

    Regarding the Moon, what it tells us is that the Sun’s energy penetrates under the surface and up the temperature gradient and, in doing so, it maintains far hotter temperatures in the core of the Moon than are ever observed on the surface.

    It does not need internally generated energy on the Moon or any planet. Even on Venus the internal energy is not enough to prevent it cooling 5 degrees in a mere 4 months on the night side. Planets are not kept hot by internal energy – even if there is none (as on Uranus) there will still be enough energy from the Sun. That is why Uranus is as hot as 5,000K in its core and hotter than Earth at the base of its troposphere, where there is no surface, or any incident Solar radiation, or internal energy generated.

  53. Ben Davidson says:

    Hi Roy, my name is Ben Davidson and I run the Suspicious0bservers YouTube channel. My C(lie)mate series is very popular and I want to share your work with my viewers.

    I would love any to have either a casual chat or a proper interview, and I believe it would be intellectually stimulating for all 165,000 of my subscribersÖ who I am going to send to this website today and tomorrow.



  54. Murray Allan says:

    Let’s cut to the chase. Algore stood in front of a chart in 2005 and stated that increased CO2 would cause temperatures to go up. The graph was very demonstrative and subtle it was not. It takes a great imagination to say he was correct.

    Losing the federal election in what could very well have been a fraudulent recount in Florida to oil man Bush likely caused his maniacal fusion of science and politics to attack fossil fuels. And we all have to listen to it now.

  55. On the site Watts Up With That, they just posted an article that says major adjustments have been made to solar irradiance, recently.

    This is just more BS, and shows how subjective climate data has become instead of objective as well as not reliable.

    I hope going forward that no adjustments will be being made to other important solar data such as solar flux, ap index, and solar wind values ,as well as EUV light flux.

    That aside this just strengthens my case that the mainstream has no clue as to how variable the sun really is, since they can’t even measure it to begin with and mainstream has no clue as to the solar/climate secondary connections.

    • Aaron S says:

      Agreed, and what drives me crazy is the abundant data for solar forcing( at 11, 22, about 90 yrs) available in tree ring and lacustrine annual layers that is just discounted. I’ve seen tree ring thickness triple in a 22 yr cycle (over several continuous hale solar cycles) and that is very strong forcing in that region. The sun is clearly a big player in climate variability that is ignored

  56. Evan Jones says:

    Is there a version of this with a grayed-in margin of error?

  57. Paige says:

    Um no. I don’t even know where to start with this article. First, why are you plotting the deviation over a random five year averaging period – this is clearly not a reliable measure of the mean ‘pre-1850’s’ climate because there is shorter term climate variability in the record – these years could have been over an El Ni√Īo or La Ni√Īa. Second, you can never hope to simulate climate using a 1D model. Never. I’m guessing that’s why the paper is in a crappy journal. Third, a fraction of a degree change in ocean temperature has critical impacts on ocean physical processes at the poles – let alone an AVERAGE increase in ocean temperature. Last, they are models – of course they aren’t going to be 100% right – the data shows an increase as well, which is the key result. I suggest you read up on ocean physical processes before you post something that could be read by other PhDs in earth science.

  58. Greg Raven says:

    I disagree that decisions on climate are based primarily on feelings or emotions. What I do think is that there are powerful people in our government and elsewhere (Obama, Gore, etc.) who have bet heavily that they can stampede people into acting on “global warming,” the effect of which will be millions if not billions of dollars flowing to special interests. The emotion-based warming alarmists are simply useful idiots. If you follow the money trail, you come up with a far different picture.

  59. Seega says:

    How about a series called “THE TRUTH ABOUT CLIMATE”, aka Finding Bigfoot and Ancient Aliens. The public would eat it up, the network would make money, and you would have gone completely around the government puppets to the real deciders, the consumers of media. It might work.

  60. Patricia G. says:

    I have to say from a very non-scientific vantage point you all are quite amusing. I am waiting for the post(said in an extremely articulate way of course)that basically responds, “I know you are, but what am I?”

  61. Bob G says:

    Thank you all for a wonderful debate. Sadly (insert sarcasm)they now know why their predic..er projections were off; Trade Winds. Hang on to your hats (or roll up your pants) it’s about to blow.


  62. Ipsophakto says:

    I’ve used the climate model vs. observations analysis by Dr. Spenser for flustering many a CAGW alarmist. Mostly I got insults and nonsense as replies.

    …but here’s a direct attack. Who is this, and is there a rebuttal by Dr. Spenser or anyone else?




    • Chris says:

      I haven’t looked in so much detail – but the key for me is at the end of the analysis where they say :-

      “The divergence only becomes apparent from around 2005.”

      It appears they did their best to come to a different conclusion, but in the end they seem to agree with the analysis done here – only with some difference about the time at which the divergence occurs.

      • Bob Turner says:

        ‘I havenít looked in so much detail Ė but the key for me is at the end of the analysis where they say :-
        ďThe divergence only becomes apparent from around 2005.Ē ‘

        I suggest that you look on more detail then. They’re indeed saying that a divergence becomes apparent in 2005; but that the model data for 1983-2004 is in good agreement with observations. So, some deviation for the last *9* years.

        RS’s posting had shown a substantial divergence starting already from 1983. So he postulates a stong divergence for the last *31* years.

        No way can it be said that the two analyses are in agreement.

        They are accusing RS of fudging the data. It would be interesting to see his rebuttal.

        • Chris says:

          You don’t find it interesting that they agree that the model data no longer agrees with observations? That is the same conclusion as reached here? Why not?

          The models use the historical records to calibrate the various parameters, so it is no real surprise when the models match the historical record up to the date when the simulation was run, or for a short time after. The simulations are not based on 1st principles from the fundamental laws of physics – they need to be calibrated, so they will match the historical record by design.

          The two different analyses both conclude the models predictive qualities are poor at this time.

          Exactly when the divergence happened is not so important – just that the divergence does exist.

          That actually is a consensus.

          • Bob Turner says:

            You make a good point.

            However that isn’t what comes out of the original posting. The posting says ‘since 1979’, and is clearly trying to say that there was never any kind of agreement at all.

            The people who have criticized the posting say that the starting points for the graphs have been very carefuly chosen, using non-standard baselines, to unjustifiably (and unscientifically) magnify the model/data disagreement. And that criticism appears to be justified.

            I, being naive, look at websites like this one in the hope of finding unbiased (non-political) facts. I’m not sure I’m finding them here.

          • Chris says:

            I took two things from this chart, and I don’t see that the other analysis says very much different. The other analysis was just using different offsets (and different datasets as well)

            1. At the present time only two models are cooler than the observations. If you want to change the offsets of the various models and observations that may well change. Still, right now it doesn’t look good for the models.

            2. The average slope of the models is nothing like the slope of the observations. Changing the offsets wont change this.

            The slope seems more relevant as the offsets are somewhat arbitrary in any event.

            To me at least, making an argument that the observations do match the models, seems as unlikely as making an argument that there was no increase in temperatures in the late (and early) 20th century.

            The best thing for science that people working on the AWG could do is to come out and say that the models were wrong, or at least incomplete, and we don’t fully understand what drives the climate.

            Scientists were once respected and trusted, but the longer this goes on, the more likely they will be considered as just another a bunch of politicians wanting our money.

  63. Ronald Chappell says:

    Your latest data shows ~0.2 C increase since the 1998 el nino. While this is on a short trend line to 1.33 C/ per hundred years and no problem, I thought there was agreement on zero average increase since ’98. ie. a hiatus in the normal temperature rise which we have enjoyed for the last 150 yrs.
    What has changed in the data analysis?

  64. Murray Allan says:

    The climate religion has used politics to tie up and rape science.
    Personally, my favorite is the way they will not look at the temperatures of the last 2000 years. And when the little ice age comes up, they arrogantly dispense with it by calling it regional. 400 years of cold leading up to 1850 was not due for a reversal?
    Sea levels started rising in 1860. In 1880 about 1.3 billion people existed on earth ( with many just being savages ) but somehow their pitiful industrial efforts were able to drag up temperatures dramatically by 1940? Really? We put 2 ppm of CO2 into the air per year NOW ( with 7.3 billion people, basically no savages ). How much did they produce? It does NOT take a scientist to see that the earth was due to warm and started a natural process in 1860.
    Lastly, it is pathetic to the cult now refer to the PDO as the reason they have no heat. Why were your models not picking up on this initially? Probably because the models are insane.
    Algore says CO2 = warming. He also says too many kids are bad for the planet. I wonder which of his 4 kids he will kill first?

  65. What must be kept in mind is that solar activity post Dalton Minimum thru 2005 ,was overall very high.

    Post 2005 solar activity has been low.

    When people that believe in AGW theory try to snowball the public by saying in the last 20 years of the 20th century temperatures rose as solar activity declined therefore solar has nothing to do with the temperature, is a bunch of BS.

    Solar activity was declining perhaps but there are THRESHOLDS, and solar activity was above the thresholds which would equate to it having a positive influence on the temperatures up to year 2005, although it perhaps was declining from the peak of it’s activity earlier that century.

    Look at the AP INDEX for reference.

    What mainstream does not want acknowledge are the following:

    Solar activity increased significantly throughout the 20th century and although may have declined for the last 20 years of that century activity was still high enough to be above the thresholds to have the sun be a positive influence on the temperature.

    Mainstream does not accept or appreciate lag times between changes in solar activity and a temperature response.

    Mainstream does not understand that just because solar activity is on the decline that ,that has to translate to a temperature reduction. They don’t understand that in order for declining solar activity to translate into a temperature reduction the declining solar activity has to cross a threshold of low solar activity both in degree of magnitude and duration of time to have the temperature effect both through primary and thru secondary solar /climate connections. I listed those solar parameters that I feel are necessary to accomplish this on previous post.


    Mainstream ignores past history which clearly shows quiet solar prolonged periods equate to colder global temperatures while prolonged active solar periods equate to warmer temperatures.

    The typical 11 year sunspot cycle is not going to have any major effects on the climate ,so to try to equate a solar /climate connection based on that cycle of 11 years is in vain.

    Last but not least many sun like stars show variability in irradiance many times above the .1 that mainstream keeps trying to convey to the public is the extent of our sun’s variability. Further how they can say this with confidence is beyond me ,since they keep changing the data and the instrumental record for solar variability is ONLY 20 years in length. In addition parts of TSI light spectrum from the sun vary much more then other parts ,and probably have a much greater impact on the climate.

    Ozone formation versus UV light variation from the sun as a prime example.

  66. If Only We Were Significant says:

    @ DavidA:

    I wonder if you would consider the following as refuting your claim that a model exists before data. If you go to the dentist and they make a model of your teeth, did your teeth exist before or after they made the model of them?

    If the dentist modifies your teeth does that change the model?

    Data measurements are nothing more than isolated points of reference that can be compiled to form a model or data set. Depending on the interpretation of data at any given point a model can be viewed as having difference outcomes.

    When those outcomes are predetermined by a political group that is funding the research to prove it you should be more skeptical of any published results. It would be the equivalent of the dentist already having created a mold of your teeth before you even went to visit and then “adjusting” your teeth to fit the desired result.

    The IPCC isn’t trying to control climate change, they are trying to control people. It is the desire of all governments because free people realize they don’t need them as much as they want to impose themselves upon us.

  67. FishingWithFredo says:

    Even if you believe every alarmist thing the IPCC has said about man’s role in the planet’s warming and what’s to come, they can’t at all prove that the radical things they propose we do about it will do jack squat to change the planetary climate — particularly when so many other nations keep their economies thriving on petroleum products.

    I’ve been of a mind that the alarmists have gained so little traction because they quickly move from science to leftist political policy, from an area that’s somewhat trusted and respected to an area that’s neither.

    Turns out the science shouldn’t be trusted, either. (Though the Climategate emails made that clear enough.)

    This really exposes the dangers of science funded through politics.

  68. Robert says:

    I ain’t gotz a PhD and I ain’t livin off Gov.t grants and I ain’t scamming College undergrads for sex pretending to be a Global Warming Save the Plant Ego Maniac …… BUT I KNOW THIS MUCH.

    If the idiots can’t agree on the hypothesis, can agree on the data and can’t agree on the analysis …. you are all full of shit with your conclusions on AGW.

    (e.g., 4,500 years of temperature data??? Really? The ancient tribes of Israel got you temp data from across the globe?)

    Simplest explanation is likely the best … it all goes in cycles and here we are.

    • Visiting Physicist says:

      Yes Robert, I agree it is all entirely due to a combination of natural climate cycles, possibly regulated in some as-yet-unexplained mechanism relating to planetary orbits.

      Carbon dioxide does not add to this natural trend. In fact, like water vapour, it reduces the gradient of the temperature plot in the troposphere, so the whole plot rotates and intersects the surface at a lower supporting temperature.

      What you people don’t understand is that the thermal gradient (lapse rate) is a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. It would be steeper in the absence of radiating gases, but inter-molecular radiation has a temperature levelling effect and thus reduces the gradient.

      This happens on all planets. When Venus cools by 5 degrees during its 4-month-long night it loses a lot of energy in both its surface and the whole troposphere.

      If the Sun did not shine again, it would cool right down in a few centuries. But the Sun does warm it the next Venus day – back up by 5 degrees. However, the vast majority of the energy going into the surface to do this warming is not by radiation, but by “heat creep” which is diffusion of kinetic energy at the molecular level – wait for it – up the temperature plot from cold to hot.

      Sounds crazy, doesn’t it. But there is a valid reason in physics why this is so, as I have explained in my book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” which will be available through Amazon and Barnes & Noble by the end of April, if not sooner.

  69. Robert says:

    … and shame on the Scientists who hyperventilated. Their f*ing MENSA cards should be revoked and their tongues ripped out of their mouths for the problems they have perpetuated. … and yes this hysteria has hurt the ordinary people.

  70. SW says:

    I think you see it wrong when you write about “expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies” — think about reducing waste. Waste is anti-prosperity, not a basis of prosperity.

    Also I don’t think you’re going to find these policy changes expensive.

    Also, you might as well get prepared for changes, they’re coming! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_change

    No need to panic!

  71. John Pancetios says:

    What a f*ckhead. Even if they are WRONG, do you see the f’ing trend? So what if they are over forecasting, if the planet will go well beyond what supports a lot of live organisms (and those other organisms that depend on them!) in the ever-so-short timespan?!?! It’s better to be *right* and call someone you do not agree with wrong than just being realistinc on the realization that the planet is being mismanaged (by the very people that are on your side!).

    • Chris says:

      The idea that something is wrong, and so we must do something (anything) to fix it seems common place.

      It is misguided and it is important to really understand the underlying cause.

      What if AGW is true, but caused by changes to land use (say) and not CO2. If our resources are then spent on solutions to reduce CO2 emmisions (with no effect) then we will be less able to allocate resources to the real problem (if we even bother to look for alternatives).

      Doing anything in the name of saving the planet might make people feel good, but ultimately could be pointless in terms of the climate and actually kill people right now.

      AGW is supposed to make the planet hotter. One of the arguments to take action is that the heat will kill people. The answer (apparently) is to make energy more expensive. The frail and the old now can’t afford to run their airconditioners, so some of them will die. This really is happening now. This seems really sick to me.

  72. Mayson Lancaster says:

    So what’s causing drunken forests, polar icemelt, bird migration changes, animal and plant range changes, and increase in extreme weather events (see the insurance industry for details on that one)? Chopped liver? Fuck the models, look at the physical and biological data.

    • Chris says:

      It is important that we understand the cause, so that resources are allocated in a useful manner. What is the point in reducing our standard of living if there is no benefit?

      It is possible that CO2 is not a significant cause, and so increasing energy costs might be just reducing our standard of living (and already killing some people as they cant afford to run airconditioners in heat waves) with no positive outcome.

      • Visiting Physicist says:

        Carbon dioxide is not a cause of warming at all. I can prove with valid physics that all the carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere is doing is causing a very slight cooling effect less than a tenth of a degree. No one has proved me wrong over these last 12 months in which I have been explaining why.

  73. Wahyu says:

    I wonder why nobody brought up about “State of Fear” novel by Michael Crichton. It fictionally yet accurately sums up of all the on going debate of this global warming BS, and uncover all fishy interests behind the pro global warming agenda. it should be global warning guide to the unwary, imho.

  74. David says:

    Climate science is way beyond a barely scientifically literate observer such as myself. In view of the failure of the apparently scientifically literate to reach any kind of agreement, I’m not prepared to invest the necessary time in dragging myself up(?) to their level.

    I’m going to sit on the fence and see what happens.

  75. Dr. Dean says:


    Forgive me for pointing out something that may well sink this neat little bit of politicking By Dr Roy Spencer.

    The following is something that he must be aware of …


    a) What they produce is estimates. Not targets and certainly not goals. Estimates.

    b) The estimates are produced with *varying degrees of confidence.* None of those degrees of confidence is “a dead cert.”

    c) You cannot factor in “unknowables” into your models, such as the global credit crunch that slowed down industrial (and economic) output significantly.

    d) A projected, estimated, rise in temperature of up to 0.6 degrees is not “wrong” if the warming is only 0.35 degrees.

    The key phrase is “up to.” 0.35 is part of that “up to” – arguably, a temperature of 0.65 would render the model wrong since the observed result is outside the range of up to 0.6, whereas 0.35 is inside the range.

    Models are not maps. They are not charts of a certain and unchanging future.

    None of the models predicted cooling. Warming is what they projected and warming is what we have.

    • Chris says:

      That is all very well if they are not used for policy making.

      If they are going to be used for policy making then we actually do need predictions and accurate ones, so that adequate resources can be funnelled in the right direction.

      If we can’t make accurate predictions, then I don’t want to pay for them, or any policy that is based on estimates.

      • Dr. Dean says:

        “If we canít make accurate predictions, then I donít want to pay for them, or any policy that is based on estimates.”

        What a ridiculous thing to say.

        ALL policy is made on the basis of estimates. We estimate the wheat harvest. We estimate the taxes that will be generated. We estimate the total amount of money that will be spent by consumers. We estimate how much oil and gas will come out of the ground.

        Not just for next year, but for years and years to come.

        ALL such models are subject to “drift” and unknowables.

        But models have a tendency to improve over time as the process becomes increasingly refined.

        Nowadays, for example, 4 week weather forecasts are as accurate as 5 day forecasts were 10 years ago.

        Warming so far has reached approx 0.35

        That is already causing damage – very expensive damage.

        Even if there was no further warming from here (and there will be) we are unprepared for the kinds of damage that we will face for the warming we have so far.

        “I donít want to pay for them”

        You can either pay before, with preventative measures, or you can pay after, once the toothpaste is out of the tube.

        • Chris says:

          After decades of run away global warning – one of the dire consequences is destruction of our agriculture and the subsequent food wars.

          No doubt that is part of the very expensive damage.

          In the country I live, where there is little opportunity to increase the amount of land under cultivation I quote from a recent news article

          “It’s Australia’s second-largest winter crop production (including wheat, barley and canola) on record”

          Once again observations don’t seem to match the predictions.

          I don’t see very much damage caused by global warming. It has been about as hot here in the 1930’s and also a few decades before that.

          I do see the cost of electricity rising as renewables are added to the generation capacity and water has increased from 0.97c/kL to 3.49/kL – as a result of the solution to global warming. This will kill people – it is a prediction of AWG – heat kills people. Cheaper electricity and cheaper water would help prevent these deaths but the solution to AGW makes the problem more severe. This seems backwards to me.

          The solution to global warming is killing people – not global warming itself.

          If there are other decisions made, with such far reaching consequences (and that the policies are already killing people), based on such tenuous predications (computer simulations) based on such poor quality records (temperature records) then I don’t know of such policies.

  76. Visiting Physicist says:

    The greenhouse radiative forcing conjecture starts with an assumption that there would be isothermal conditions in a troposphere that was free of radiating (so-called “greenhouse”) gases, including water vapour, or free of direct solar radiation.

    There are similar conditions in the Uranus troposphere where there is very little methane except in a layer in the uppermost regions. Virtually all the very weak solar radiation reaching the planet (nearly 30 times the distance from the Sun that Earth is) is absorbed and re-emitted back to space by this methane layer where the temperature is a very cold 60K or so, that being the radiating temperature of the planet. There is no internal energy generation that can be convincingly detected, yet the core is at about 5,000K and the base of the troposphere (where there is no surface being heated by any direct Solar radiation) is hotter than Earth’s surface.

    The existence of isothermal conditions would be in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which says that a state of maximum entropy will evolve spontaneously. Such as state is isentropic, and so the sum of molecular kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy for each molecular has a propensity to be equal at all altitudes. This means that there is a temperature gradient, because temperature depends upon the mean kinetic energy, not the gravitational potential energy.

    If there were isothermal conditions (an impossibility) then what is the sensitivity for each 1% of water vapour in the atmosphere above any region? Perhaps you would say something like at least 10 degrees of warming. Hence you would say in a dry desert (with say 0.5% water vapour the warming would be 5 degrees, but in a rain forest with 4.5% water vapour it might be 45 degrees, making the rainforest 40 degrees hotter than the dry desert.

    Need I say more about this ludicrous travesty of physics?

  77. John says:

    Hi Roy,
    Thank you for completing and sharing this research. I find your blog to be an excellent source of knowledge and I enjoy reading it.

    I have read a blog by Sou (whoever she is) from hotwhopper (ttp://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-deceit-and-deception.html which is critical of our work.
    Her claim is that you are being “deceitful” because you have used a 5 year average baseline instead of a 30 year baseline which she said you should have. Now I am no scientist but to me having a 30 base line would be a great way to dampen out any the deviations the models have had from the observations correct?

    Could you please provide comment on this?

    Many thanks

  78. Dan A says:

    Gee, I don’t know Dr., his eminence John Kerry says otherwise, you must be wrong, he’s a Democrat politician, and you’re just a PhD in Climate science………….

  79. Grzegorz Maj says:

    Ice is melting. Temperature is not growing because excess of heat is being absorbed by melting ice, look at 2007-2013: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/02/20/global_warming_old_arctic_ice_is_melting_away.html

  80. Politicians want better education statistics and demand that superintendents ensure it is so.
    As my friend Jamar Booker said, men value young, attractive, healthy, faithful, and nurturing women.
    Kardashian released the next statement through her official Twitter account, ‘I
    am very frustrated today seeing reports that I got surgery to reduce my baby weight.

  81. Tom Powell says:

    Spencer is a signatory to “An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming”, which states that . . .

    “We believe Earth and its ecosystems‚ÄĒcreated by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence‚ÄĒare robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory.

    Jesus wept.

  82. I all the time emailed this weblog post page to all my contacts, because if like to read it after that my links will too.

  83. marty says:

    Hallo Dr. Spencer
    The graph is of 1914, do you have a new one?

  84. marty says:

    hello- why do the data of the observations end in 2013, is there no update?

  85. Superb website you have here but I was wanting to know if you knew of
    any user discussion forums that cover the same topics talked about in this
    article? I’d really like to be a part of community where I can get feed-back from
    other experienced individuals that share the same interest.
    If you have any suggestions, please let me know.


  86. Thank you for letting us discover your works. I had a great time reading this! Amazing job!

  87. Great article, I liked it very much congratulations!! 51370902

  88. Your site is very good, I liked the information. Grateful. 15648087

  89. Your information is of great quality, thanks for sharing. 9377255

  90. Excellent article! Congratulations on the information. 29596297

  91. Excellent article! Congratulations on the information. 90877061

Leave a Reply