2016 Will Likely See Record Global Warmth in Satellite Data

June 22nd, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

…but the approaching La Nina might extend the global warming pause to 20 years.

Even though global average tropospheric temperatures are rapidly falling now as La Nina approaches, it is usually the second calendar year of an El Nino event that is the warmest, especially in the satellite record of tropospheric temperatures. This is because it takes a couple of months for all of the unusually warm Pacific surface water to transfer its extra heat to the atmosphere, pushing peak atmospheric temperatures into the second calendar year of an El Nino event.

While 2015 was only the 3rd warmest year in the satellite record (since 1979), 2016 might well beat out 1998 as the record warmest.

I computed just how fast average cooling must be for the remainder of this year for that to happen (or not happen), at least in our UAH dataset; the RSS satellite dataset would give somewhat different results. The following graph shows that if steady, linear cooling occurred from the May 2016 value of +0.55 deg. C to reach +0.20 deg C in December, then 2016 would edge out 1998 for a new record warm year (ignoring measurement uncertainty).


If linear cooling ended up resulting in +0.19 deg. C in December, then we would avoid a new record warm year.

How likely is it that cooling will progress at such a fast rate? Examination of previous El Nino-La Nina transitions suggest it would be unusual, but not out of the question. The latest La Nina forecast suggests fairly rapid onset of La Nina conditions, possibly by next month.

Nevertheless, if I had to make a prediction one way or the other, I would bet that 2016 will not experience that rapid of a rate of cooling, and will edge out 1998 for record warmth. I’d be happy to be wrong, though.

And, of course, if we go into prolonged La Nina conditions for the next 2-3 years, we might well be debating the meaning and significance of a 20-year pause in global warming in another year or two.

For the reminder of the year, I will try to include updates to this graph in my usual monthly global temperature updates. This will provide a visual guide to how we are progressing toward a possible new record warm year.

307 Responses to “2016 Will Likely See Record Global Warmth in Satellite Data”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. mpainter says:

    The last few months in Texas have been wet, as usual with an El Nino spike. But the rain is tapering off and La Nina will bring the usual drought, I doubt not. I am not looking forward to La Nina, when the global temperature anomaly crashes. For Texas, that means blocking high pressure, prolonged drought, and searing, 100 F + heat. And the global warmers will rejoice and call it AGW, ignoring, or maybe in ignorance, that it is global cooling that produces these conditions, not AGW, and not CO2.

    But just try explaining that to one of them.

    • Simon says:

      Mmm not everyone thinks the world is outside their window. Some of us look at the big picture. You want to try it.

      • mpainter says:

        Try explaining it to Simon, for example.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        @Simon…”Mmm not everyone thinks the world is outside their window. Some of us look at the big picture. You want to try it”.

        I think you need to try it yourself.

        Ask yourself why there are anomalies of +5C in parts of the Arctic yet the UAH global average is about +0.25 over the 1980 – 2010 average. Obviously, there is equal cooling to offset the pockets of warming.

        A global average is nothing more than a number. People are far more concerned about what is going on outside their windows than they are about a number garnered from questionable statistics.

        Also, ask yourself why all of the recent warming is coming from natural oceanic forces like El Nino. Despite two major EN spikes in the past 18 years and one lesser spike in 2010, the global average has been flat over that period.

        Where’s the anthropogenic factor?

        As mpainter claims, the effect of the current warming is more localized than global with locales like Texas suffering far more than me in a temperature rain forest on the West Coast of Canada.

        • Carbomontanus says:

          Dr. G.Robertson

          The temperature of the tropopause or so called iso-term- layer is also very flat, sorldwside. And the lapse- rate is a reality.

          Hus, if you sdet up your stations on Mount Everest or chose to use satdelite measurements from 4.5 Km abovde the ground and call that for more reliable , scientific and realistic or sceptic………

          Then you are guaranteed to find a quite more flatter longterm temperature and even with lower short- time temperature swingings, than what you will find on the ground.

          Be very solidly and intensely conscioius and aware that a Roy Spencer is very aware of this very reliable bias or systematic error,…….

          ……. that is very important and reliable for anyone,….

          …whoose basic project and interest is to proove that the climate on earth is not changing, or changing least possible!

          I repeat…….!

          Because, It actually changes less on Mount Everest and in common commercial airplane flight altitude.

          But we do not live there, and we do not grow strawberries, potatoes, and tomatoes,…

          …neither do we fish mackerels lobsters and shrimps and go skating and / or skiing up there.

          Thus “Dr” Spencer is hardly discussing our climate, in order for him to be important and in charge and to draw out his cash.

          He points at and discusses something with a very obvious systematic bias and error, and he is probably very well aware of it.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            @carbomontanus…”Thus Dr Spencer is hardly discussing our climate, in order for him to be important and in charge and to draw out his cash.

            He points at and discusses something with a very obvious systematic bias and error, and he is probably very well aware of it”.

            Roy works for John Christy at UAH and John has served as a lead author and reviewer on several IPCC reviews. Furthermore, both have received awards from NASA and the American Meteorological Society for ‘excellence’ in their work of making data sets from NOAA satellite temperature data.

            Neither of those outfits hand out awards for work that is based in bias and error. If you want to go after anyone for bias and error why not go after NOAA itself. It’s has perfectly good data from it’s satellites but it gives it away to UAH and uses land-based stations that have a third of the coverage of satellites and several degrees less accuracy.

            Furthermore, NOAA has chopped 5000 stations from a global pool of 6500 stations then applied the 1500 data to a climate model, where it is interpolated and homogenized to synthesis the missing 5000 stations. That not only introduces bias and error, it is pure chicanery.

            In this blog, Roy offers opinions. I venture to say that most scientists offer opinions they can’t prove but when push comes to shove they base their conclusions on real data.

            The graph Roy offers is based on real data from NOAA satellites. It has been a thorn in the side of alarmists for a couple of decades at least who offer opinions based on unvalidated climate models and fudged surface data.

    • Andy May says:

      I live in Texas also and I am dreading the upcoming La Nina as well. But, as average worldwide temperatures fall, it will be nice to watch the doomsayers squirm. Some consolation in that.

      • mpainter says:

        The few with any intelligence are already squirming. They know that the spike-hype is over, and that pause is going to reach 20 years.

        • doctor no says:

          My goodness. Still dragging that corpse about are you?

          Wait until the La Nina spike ends up warmer than the last La nina spike.
          Then you will have nowhere to run and hide.

          • mpainter says:

            This is not one of those few.

          • Ernest Bush says:

            @ doctor no – You might want to compare SST anomaly charts starting from about November 2015 to now. Or you can start from January and watch all that blue spreading out across all the oceans before YOU get too cocky. Strange, I have heard no Warmist media talking about this.

          • Another stupid post by dr. No claiming that a weak La Nia is blamed on man made global warming.

          • If this La Nia ends up being the strongest ever I’m going to rub it all in dr no’s face. Historical data shows us that very strong el Ninos are always followed by very strong La Nias. But climate alarmist like dr no claim whatever they want without looking at historical evidence to back there claims.

        • Simon says:

          Pause … ha… what pause. A figment of the denying teams imagination. Never happened. Lets see how low the temps go this year. Bet they will still be higher than they were during the 98 La Nina. O and that would mean we are still warming.

        • mpainter says:

          Other AGW hard cases crouch in the darkness of their closets, mumbling repeatedly
          “There is no pause…there is no pause…there is no pause..”
          This mantra is punctuated by hysterical outbursts of “Climate change lives!”.

    • doctor no says:

      Going for broke are we?
      Sounds like desperation time when you pin all your hopes on a La Nina event.

      What will you do if it is a fizzer?
      Crawl back into your hole?

      • geran says:

        do no, you’re funnier than you realize. Even if the La Nina is weak, it proves NOTHING about AGW. But, as you probably lose sleep over, if the La Nina is strong, it is just one more BUST for the AGW pseudoscience.

        Either way, you’re hilarious.

      • mpainter says:

        Of course, one should dismiss the thought of trying to explain anything to the foaming drno.

        • doctor no says:

          Ok then.
          If La Nina is strong you will claim an end to warming Yes?
          If La Nina is a fizzier you will claim it means nothing ..Yes?

          Can’t you see some logical inconsistency here?

          • geran says:

            Yup, AGW is the logical inconsistency. It’s not science. It is not working. Yet a remaining few still cling to it.

            It’s not logical.

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            Geran, you are great! 😄

            Have a nice day.


          • Ayla says:

            Again, doctor no, what the hell do you mean by IF?

            You are a pawn of BigOil.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        @doctor no “What will you do if it is a fizzer?”

        Start looking for scientific reasons as to why. There is no anthropogenic factor in this. The spikes in ’98, ’10 and ’16 should make that clear. Anthropogenic warming cannot spike over a few months then die away abruptly.

        Seriously, use some objectivity and the scientific method.

        • Objectivity is Fun says:

          The spikes you refer to are El Nino. Not AGW!
          The spike this El Nino is higher than previous, as one would expect with a raising baseline.
          El Nino=spikes
          It is reasonable to question climate sensitivity-but the idea that human kind will go extinct is as absurd as your argument.

          • mpainter says:

            The only warming in the satellite record is the step-up at circa 2001-2 and this was due to increased insolation.

    • barry says:

      It’s so warm for Winter outside my window. Therefore I conclude the globe is quite warm this fine day?

      But I’m a real skeptic. I know that temps here does not = temps somewhere else.

  2. Vincent says:

    In Australia it’s the La Nina events that bring rain. A few days ago there was a massive downpour of rain in Brisbane, and a few weeks ago an even more massive downpour that caused floods along the east coast all the way to Tasmania.

    This is an indication of the global balance regarding climate and weather. A drought in one part of the world is balanced by wet conditions in another part.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      @Vincent “In Australia its the La Nina events that bring rain”.

      I was thinking the same on a recent visit to a locale in Northern Alberta in Canada. The locale is at the foothills of the Rocky Mountains where they turn into the Prairies. Torrential downpours in July are not the norm for that region and it poured and poured very heavy rain.

      The El Nino has let up since February and this downpour brought cold weather that lasted days with persistent rain and high winds. The week before, it snowed. A major road from the BC/Alberta border to Prince George was closed due to severe flooding.

      On the coast, at Vancouver, we had similar weather in mid-May, and it was cold. The heat from the February El Nino spike was long gone.

      I am guessing weather unrest over the Pacific, possibly due to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which drives La Nina. Something is going on that is uncommon and it has no anthropogenic content due to its suddenness.

  3. michael hart says:

    “I would bet that 2016 will not experience that rapid of a rate of cooling, and will edge out 1998 for record warmth. Id be happy to be wrong, though.”

    I must gently disagree. On balance, I don’t want a cooling world, even if that shows that warmists have been talking from where the sun don’t shine.

    Continued gentle warming is good. Plants grow more. Less people die in cold weather. More areas of the planet become habitable.

  4. RW says:

    Thanks for the update.

  5. Yes this initial cooling is related to El Nino ending but as the cooling evolves this might give us clues if something other then the El Nino’s end is contributing to the cooling. I am talking solar.

    If these solar related items respond in the following manner to prolonged solar minimum conditions if the cooling progresses the case for a solar climate connection is going to be stronger.


    1. Global cloud coverage increase linked to Galactic Cosmic Rays.

    2. A more Meridional Atmospheric Circulation linked to changes in EUV light which effects Ozone distributions in the atmosphere.

    3. An increase in Volcanic Activity linked to Muons a by product of Galactic Cosmic Rays

    4. Surface /Ocean Heat Content drop off linked to a decrease in UV light just below the wavelengths of Visible light.

    5. The cooling itself, how does it CONTRAST in degree of intensity to past cooling events when El Nino conditions ended and La Nina conditions commenced when the sun was in an active state such as was the case last century.

    As of now minimum solar conditions are getting close to the solar criteria I have called for which would impact the climate.

    For example EUV light has recently fallen below 100 units and the Cosmic Ray count is close to 6500 units, while Solar Flux readings have fallen to less then 90.

    Solar Wind /AP INDEX – still elevated but they should subside to the criteria I have called for going forward , which is AP index 5 or less and Solar Wind Speeds of 350 km/sec. or less.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      @salvatore…”An increase in Volcanic Activity linked to Muons a by product of Galactic Cosmic Rays”

      Let’s not forget neutrinos. So-called empty space is apparently teeming with them, giving rise to Dayton Miller’s theory that space has an aether component.


      Einstein once claimed that if Miller is right his theory of relativity is wrong.

      Neutrinos and other sub-atomic particles could hold answers to our weather and climate.

  6. dave says:

    As of today:


    F10.7 flux 82.9
    Layman’s Sunspot Count 16
    Royal Observatory of Belgium’s Sunspot Count 24

    ‘Brightness Temperature’:

    Maue’s Global 2-meter Anomaly
    (compared to 1979-2010 averages)

    Month to date + 0.25 C


    Neutral conditions.

  7. dave says:

    That is the brightness temperature of the earth, not the sun, of course.

    • dave says:

      It is interesting that Mass Media, world wide (India TV an hour ago, Daily Mail England eight hours ago,many others), has decided to shout “Blank Sun – Mini Ice Age Coming!”, on the basis of a few speculative studies of solar dynamics and the natural decline of Solar Cycle 24.

      The Mass Media is rarely wrong in their judgement of what is suddenly passe, and what the new panic or fad must be. They mysteriously change direction together, like a flock of migrating birds wheeling as one.

      “The flower that once has blown forever dies.”

  8. Aaron S says:

    Ironic that the media will advertise 2016 as the “warmest year” but the narrow margin is actually pretty solid evidence for an on-going hiatus bc real AGW would have put 2016 major el nino much warmer then 98.

    • Roy Spencer says:

      yup, that’s true.

    • doctor no says:

      Do you mean that setting new records by small margins is evidence of no warming?

      That is a novel approach.

      • geran says:

        What you seem to misunderstand is that AGW, if it is valid, must show up in continuing heat records. There can be no “pause”. If mankind is heating the planet, and natural responses can not deal with it, then temperatures must rise accordingly.

        Each 10-year period where “un-adjusted” temp data does not show an increase is a bust for AGW pseudoscience.

        Sorry, that’s how it works.

        • doctor no says:

          I see now.

          Each time I ascend the stairs, I am not really going UPbecause each step is actually flat.


          • geran says:

            You can’t explain how CO2 can warm the planet, yet you believe the planet is warming. Though, even with “adjustments”, any warming is statistically insignificant and due to natural variation.


          • doctor no says:

            Blind Freddy can see the planet is warming.

            I admire your efforts to declare otherwise but, at some point soon, you know you will have to admit defeat.

            Why not join Roy and admit warming is occurring – but at a rate lower than predicted.
            That would be my fall-back position.

          • mpainter says:

            Blind Freddy is told that it is warming. But Blind Freddy can’t see for himself.

          • Lewis says:

            Dr. No.
            The steps are actually a good analogy. If the steps are .05MM in height, at the end of 100 steps you’ve gone up – how much.

            Yet you’re trying to reach the next floor, which is 12 feet up.

            Then, for no apparent reason, you get a few down steps of .5mm or so and it appears, after 200 steps you’ve gone up – .1 MM.

            If you’re trying to reach the next floor, when do you get there? But you’re certainly closer.

        • Steven Mosher says:

          too. funny.

          The science actually tells us to expect flat periods, and dips, and spikes, in the slow ramp upwards.

          here, a top climate scientist will explain for you


          • mpainter says:

            Moshe, get one of your “top climate scientists” to explain the step-up in the satellite record in terms of CO2, please and thank you.

            But you won’t, cause you can’t.
            Two funny.

          • geran says:

            Mosher, also please provide the proof of the [bogus] Arrhenius CO2 equation. Do you realize there is NO proof? So, all this time they have been touting an equation that Arrhenius pulled out of his a__, and folks like you fell for it.


          • Steven Mosher says:

            “Moshe, get one of your top climate scientists to explain the step-up in the satellite record in terms of CO2, please and thank you.”

            why would try to explain something that is wrong.

            The gradual increase, the secular trend over DECADES, is explained the result of an imbalance in forcing. That forcing is due to many factors, including co2. Co2 is but one forcing. The year to year, month to month, sub decade wiggles that fascinate and distract you, are not “caused” by c02. the change in c02 on a year to year basis
            is 1/100ths of watts. So we know that c02 is NOT the cause, and never claimed it was. Co2 changes the climate, the long term statistics of weather. As Palmer explains, the pendulum bob will continue to wander chaoticly , but we are interested in the long term statistical questions: do el nino get stronger? more frequent?
            less frequent. That science inst settled. What is settled is that the long term secular trend will increase. Predicted and confirmed.
            The record also conforms what we believe: Along the way to 3C more of warming we will see dips, and valleys, and plateaus.

            Silly skeptics need to read more science. but heck, you cant even watch a video.

          • Steven, Yes there is a long term affect Steven as I mentioned in one of my comments talking about climate sensitivity. Keep in mind that the sun is always the main driver of climate and what is happening is a huge reduction in solar radiation over the next 15 years or so. The problem is Steven I think alarmists like you and others on this website are so worried about the long term affect centuries from now that you don’t even consider looking at what climate change will have an impact on us going forward. Crop damages, food shortages will all affect the way we live just like in the 1800s. Even if fossil fuels were to keep going and mans affect on the climate were eventually to catch up the climate will always change it will just limit the rate of cooling so that these solar minimums won’t be as cool. However I am very confident that we will run out of fossil fuels 100 years from now and switch to a different energy source. Do your research Steven

          • See John caseys vid on climate change the best climate prediction expert in America:


          • Steven Mosher says:

            “Mosher, also please provide the proof of the [bogus] Arrhenius CO2 equation. Do you realize there is NO proof? So, all this time they have been touting an equation that Arrhenius pulled out of his a__, and folks like you fell for it.


            There is no proof in science. There is proof in math, geometry, and logic. In science we have evidence. Evidence will confirm a theory or disconfirm a theory. The questions of radiative transfer are
            established, settled science. Not proven, but settled. That means

            A) no one has a suitable working replacement
            B) they are used productively and put to use by other disciplines

            So with regard to raditive transfer, it is settled. No one working in science or engineering would waste time trying to challenge them.

            These laws are used in the very production Of the satellite record.
            Thats right, Dr. Spensers record is the result of raditiave tranfer models. ( for microwave) These laws are also used to design IR systems. we used them to design the stealth fighter,
            to design sensor systems, the engineers of Reagans star wars had to use these laws. Any one who build anything that looks through the atmosphere has to understand these physics.

            You do not.

            That is why the US congress calls dr. Spencer to testify and not you.
            That is why no company would hire you to design a satellite sensor or hire you to process satellite data.
            That is why you lost the debate.

          • Geoff Wood says:

            “So with regard to raditive transfer, it is settled. No one working in science or engineering would waste time trying to challenge them.”

            Yes, it is settled, but not as it is used in climatology.

            Radiative heat transfer requires a thermal gradient. That gradient is provided by gravity in all gravitationally bound gaseous envelopes. We can predict this from the application of logic. We know from repeatable experiment that all of matter and energy ‘feels’ gravity. So we can predict a thermal gradient with knowledge of the exchangeability of gravitational potential with kinetic energy.

            Significant heat transfer processes modify a thermal gradient and latent heat transfer in the form of moist convection does this, cooling the surface and heating the atmosphere thereby reducing the gradient.

            There is no evidence that long wave heat transfer modifies the long term, area weighted global mean lapse rate in the troposphere. At all. Full stop.

            So long wave radiative heat transfer, both surface to atmosphere and inter atmospheric remains an environmental product. This is from the logic that it ‘requires’ a gradient to exist and its impotence is evident in its inability to modify the gradient described without it.

            Many casually admit that ‘greenhouse gases’ warm the lower atmosphere and cool the upper, but global data shows no supportive evidence for this assumption.

          • mpainter says:

            Moshe, calling an observation wrong is standard AGW fare: AGW science is right, hence observations are wrong. In any other science, you would be snorted at for such a claim. Of course, you have no basis for judging such things and the AGW mantra is all you know.

          • fonzarelli says:

            Hans von Storch on “the pause”…

            At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15 year stagnation in global warming occured in the simulations. The answer was: under 2% of all the times we ran the simulations… …In 5 years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models… …But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.

            (and mosh calls himself a scientist?)

          • mpainter says:

            Right, fonz, as the “pause” extends we will see more more of these sort of interviews.
            And the pause might turn blue before long.
            A dios G lobal W armers

          • mpainter says:

            There is proof in science. If I show Exogyra arietina is present in the strata, I have precisely ascertained its place in the mid-Cretaceous.

          • geran says:

            Mosh, your pseudoscience is “par excellence”!

            (I’ll just start with your first statements.)

            You spout: “There is no proof in science. There is proof in math, geometry, and logic. In science we have evidence.”

            The Arrhenius equation is an EQUATION! In math, as you stated, an equation requires proof.

            You spout: “Evidence will confirm a theory or disconfirm a theory.”

            That is true in actual science, but in your pseudoscience, you must constantly strive to “massage” the data hoping for more “cherries” to pick.

            You spout: “The questions of radiative transfer are established, settled science.”

            Yes, but that is the actual science which you know little about. You believe Watts can be added. Therefore, you believe that 10 square meters of ice supplying 3000 Watts can bake a turkey, just as an oven supplying 3000 Watts.

            You have no clue, but you peddle your pseudoscience to the highest bidder.

            Hello “climate science”!

            (Do you want me to address the rest of your nonsense statements?)

          • You want a real scientist to explain the actual data to you who actually spends 100% of his time talking about the science rather then that boso talking about his stupid models forecasting storms accurately and therefore could forecast climate accurately! well here you have one!:


          • mpainter says:

            So Mosh, no warming in the satellite record that is attributable to CO2. That is what the step-up means. Thirty seven years. So get your “experts” to address that.

            And now, La Nina and no more little boy spikes, not for ten years. So make that forty seven years of no warming due to CO2.

            And Mosh, nebulous vaporizing about climate “chaos” does not impress those who draw their science from observations. Peddling chaos is the latest twist in the AGW pretzel factory.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Doctor no,

        There’s one thing at least. Regardless of what a thermometer reads, you’ll discover surrounding it with CO2 raises the temperature not one iota.

        Thermometers respond to heat, not CO2 concentration. For example, if you breathe on a thermometer reading 20 C, the temperature will likely rise. A foolish person might associate the rise in temperature with increased CO2 levels from the lungs. They would be wrong. Likewise, a thermometer exposed to an open fire may show an increased temperature. This is due to heat, but a stupid Warmist might claim that the increase in temperature was due to the CO2 produced.

        A Warmist seeing a rising temperature will rush around wildly looking for CO2. Finding CO2 in the vicinity, the foolish Warmist will declare triumphantly “See, I told you so! CO2 causes heating!”

        Foolish Warmists. CO2 heats nothing. Fill a room with 100% CO2. The temperature doesn’t change. Why should it?

        Are you a foolish and deluded Warmist, perchance? Do you believe temperatures increase in the presence of CO2? Or are you just blindly following the bizarre teaching of James “Death Trains” Hansen?

        The world wonders. Maybe “doctor no” should more aptly be “doctor no clue”. Oh well.


        • doctor no says:

          Mike (the Joker)

          Your thought experiments are devastating !
          I wish I had thought like that many years ago – I would certainly have given my lecturers a hard time instead of blindly believing their stupid equations.


          • Mike Flynn says:

            doctor no,

            Thank you, although I gave examples backed by science, rather than thought experiments or analogies. I did speculate on foolish Warmist behaviour, based on their past performance.

            As to stupid equations, which ones did you think were stupid? Maybe you didn’t understand what you were hearing and reading. Or maybe your lecturers believed things later shown to be false, and based their equations on false initial premises.

            In any case, I think you’re just attempting sarcasm, or possibly trying to be gratuitously offensive in lieu of providing factual justification for your fantasies.

            Standard Warmist fare. About as effective as usual of course. Warmism and climatology have produced no new science, and nothing of use to man nor beast. That dead horse you’re flogging seems to be going nowhere. Changing steeds might seem like a rational choice, to anyone except a Warmist.


          • doctor no says:

            “As to stupid equations, which ones did you think were stupid? ”

            Obviously the radiative transfer equation. How could that possibly be applied to the situation of a room with an open fire and everybody breathing out co2 onto a thermometer?

            I want my university fees refunded!

          • Mike Flynn says:

            doctor no,

            Which particular radiative transfer equation did you think was stupid? Why did you think it was stupid?

            Maybe you just didn’t understand it. That would explain why you think CO2 somehow raises the temperature of the Earth’s surface.

            In every batch of university students, one has to be the dimmest bulb in the box, so to speak. What leads you to think it wasn’t you?

            I ask because the principles behind the radiative transfer equation (as I use the term), are fairly straight forward. If you apply it to two bodies of different temperatures, (planes for simplicity, if you wish), separated by CO2 of notional optical thickness, and no higher temperature than the cooler body, the calculation should not be too difficult.

            The result, of course, is no heating of either body greater than would be the case if free space existed between the two bodies. No CO2 warming.

            I wish you well with your attempt to get a refund. You might be asked why you didn’t seek help at the time, but I suppose even now you don’t realise that you have misinterpreted what your lecturer tried to impart.

            No matter. If you wish to doom yourself to avoidance of reality, and substitute Warmist fantasy instead, you have every right to do so. I wish you well.


          • doctor no says:

            I don’t think you are correct.
            The radiative transfer equation applies to a medium which both absorbs and emits – both directions. That is a relatively complex situation. That is the situation with regard to the atmosphere, bounded on one boundary by a blackbody surface, and on the other by dark, cold space.

            It has very little relevance to what happens between two separate bodies. Your example sounds naive.

          • mpainter says:

            Wrong again. The earth is no black body. More AGW error. Thanks for your helpfulness.

          • doctor no says:

            Irrelevant. Call it a grey body if you like.

          • mpainter says:

            Not even that.

          • Lewis says:

            Mike Flynn,

            (from previous string)

            I appreciate your attempt at humor.

            Methane hydrates contain a great amount of stored energy. Mankind, imho, as it has so often done, will find a way to retrieve these valuable resources.

            Abracadabra will become real. Just like pumping oil, fracking, nuclear fission, the internal combustion engine and turbines.

            Keep smiling.

        • Steven Mosher says:

          Dont bother with Flat earth Flynn. According to him, Reagan’s Star wars Didnt work because reagan thought the earth was flat.

          • geran says:

            Mosh, I remember years ago when Willis E. referred to you “drunk blogging”. Apparently, you have not sought help.

      • And here we go dr no back to your 5th grade science class on the basics of climate change. Just because a few warm records have been broken doesn’t prove anything about it being related to man made global warming. Global warming is measured around the globe! That is why it’s called GLOBAL warming! Another thing you need to know is that co2 only makes up 1% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere with 70% of it being natural. According to marry salby the admission of carbon 14 from our fossil fuels makes up only about 1% of all carbon isotopes in the atmosphere however it is the most dense with C12 being the least dense and C13 in the middle. Because of this when we observed carbon emissions from the nuclear testing our admissions were only present for 20 years before its atomic structure gets reduced by 99%. If we followed that equilibrium level all the way to 2120 when all fossil fuels are to be exhausted we should see minimal warming since 70% of our fossil fuel emissions are to run out in another 50 years or so. Considering a doubling of co2 since preindustrial times since man started admitting fossil fuels into the atmosphere when co2 concentration was approximately 360 ppm and by 2100 if we were to double co2 this would take us to 720 ppm causing a temperature increase of 1C. This theory however can be broken down. If we were to eliminate all greenhouse gases and feedbacks from the atmosphere a doubling of co2 concentrations would result in a warming of 1C. However if we include all the other greenhouse gases and negative and positive feedbacks this would Change the temperature equilibrium. If we were to only incorporate negative feedbacks along with all other negative feedbacks of other GHG we would actually get a cooling response. However if we were to add the positive feedbacks we would only get a climate sensitivity of about 0.3C which is a minuscule amount and is undetectable in the climate system. Another theory suggests that the equilibrium in warming decreases with height simply because the models that calculate the warming don’t include the corrialus affect in them which causes cooler air to over go the wamer air rather then the other way around this caused the so called skin temperature of the atmosphere to have a warming of about 1C at the top levels of the troposphere however if you go to the earths surface the climate response would be a lot less because a lot of the cooler air would have already kept the warmer trapped in the upper atmosphere between the co2 trapping affect and the cooler air sandwiching the warming affect between these air layers.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        @dr no…”Do you mean that setting new records by small margins is evidence of no warming?”

        No…it means it’s entirely insignificant.

        Remember, these records are based on averages. With the surface record, two temperatures are taken per day, a high and a low, and that is averaged. It’s not exactly rocket science.

        With a high of 30C and a low of 10C, the average is listed as 20C. Do you see nothing wrong with that?

        With NOAA playing games with the readings, like slashing 5000 reporting stations from a pool of 6500, then using a climate model to interpolate and homogenize the data, it becomes a joke.

    • barry says:

      Different flavoured skeptics called off the pause as soon as satellite temps from 97/98 showed the tiniest upward slope. Monckton did so, for example.

      But the point being made here is that such a tiny increment to warming still leaves a ‘pause.’

      I’m more skeptical than Monckton or other skeptics that disagree with him. The uncertainty in linear trends for the period is so large that within 95% confidence limits it could be cooling or warming at anywhere between -0.15C to +0.2C/decade.

      Anyone promoting as gospel the mean linear trend for this short time period is either woefully underinformed or selling something.

      • mpainter says:

        The satellite temperature record shows a step-up connecting two flat trends. You know that already.

        • doctor no says:

          Agent 86:
          “So, you don’t believe in a pause.”
          “Would you believe in a step-up connecting two flat trends.?”
          “How about the cooling trend from April to May ?”
          “Would you believe the cooling trend from afternoon to evening?”


        • barry says:

          The satellite temperature record shows a step-up connecting two flat trends. You know that already.

          I know that this is what you believe. I disagree. But we’ve been through that before. I’m not going to repeat, and you’re not going to say anything new, just avoid the substantive part of comments in favour of (re)assertion, incredulity and name-calling.

          I’d love to be wrong, though.


          – uncertainty in trend analysis. Spelled out (again) below.
          – Step changes statistically not validated. Nothing but two linear regressions and no testing to break the hypothesis. No skepticism. No analysis. Just assertion.

          • mpainter says:

            If you refuse to acknowledge the step-up, you simply reveal your lack of powers of observation. Using a straight edge to connect the endpoints of a time series is the the preoccupation of the simple minded, as it ignores all in between. And that is where we learn- by observations.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            @mpainter…”Using a straight edge to connect the endpoints of a time series is the the preoccupation of the simple minded, as it ignores all in between”.

            Not only that, it ignores basic statistics theory. When you apply statistics you must specify a context. Taking arbitrary data points and drawing a line through them may give you an average of sorts but it explains nothing about the context in which the data applies.

            The 1998 El Nino pulse is a clear step and John Christy has claimed there was little or no ‘true’ warming preceding it for 18 years. The EN step was transient, however, but it was followed by a La Nina valley followed by an unexplained step circa 2001. Then the average stabilized for several years around 0.3C.

            Drawing a trend line through the UAH data from 1979 till present tells us nothing. The line would go through several different contexts including volcanic aerosol cooling, three major El Ninos and at least two major La Ninas. All of those events can explain warming/cooling on their own and there is no evidence of anthropogenic warming in the signals.

            The 2001 step remains unexplained.

        • Steven Mosher says:

          at some point you guys have to learn to stop applying linear models to temperature data. its physically wrong.

      • mpainter says:

        The step-up is due to late 20th Century changes in cloudiness. Reduced cloud albedo means increased insolation at an estimated 2.5 W/sq m – 5 W/sq m. There is your warming for the satellite era: about 0.3 C.

        AGW = Adios Global Warmers

      • mpainter says:

        Then Barry, you deny the pause? What’s your name, by the way?

        • barry says:

          It seems you’ve forgotten our previous conversations. I’ve said – consistently – that a ‘pause’ in global surface temps is statistically unjustified. I’ve given the uncertainty interval before. The uncertainty is consistent with cooling, no trend, and warming continued with no abatement from previous. Too little data to make a positive claim.

          IOW – yes, I deny the pause. Bases solely on the single metric used to promote it, I would also deny that cooling or warming has occurred. I’d look to more data to posit an opinion.

          Have you formed an opinion on the uncertainty of the current rend since 1998?

          EG – RSS 0.038C/decade (+/- 0.185)

          Never seen you comment on the bolded part.

          • mpainter says:

            We have 37 years of satellite data. That seems enough to me to make some calls. The only warming is in the step-up, about 0.3 C. Do you deny that this is in the data?

            Your arguments are more like mathematical sophistry. Very little science.

          • barry says:

            37 years may be long enough. 18 years isn’t.

            EG RSS 0.038C/decade (+/- 0.185)

            Never seen you comment on the bolded part. Surprise us.

          • mpainter says:

            Barry, I think that I have figured out your problem. You imagine that by ignoring the step-up, it will disappear. It won’t, Barry, not in a thousand years. No matter what direction the gta takes from here, the step-up is indelible. You AGW habit of ignoring the observation that does not fit your theoretical views. You have yet to grasp that observations trump theory.

          • mpainter says:

            I’ve never seen you comment on the bolded part.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        @barry…”The uncertainty in linear trends for the period is so large that within 95% confidence limits it could be cooling or warming at anywhere between -0.15C to +0.2C/decade”.

        The IPCC listed something similar in AR5:

        “Despite the robust multi-decadal timescale warming, there exists substantial multi-annual variability in the rate of warming with several periods exhibiting almost no linear trend including the warming hiatus since 1998. The rate of warming over 19982012 (0.05C [0.05 to +0.15] per decade..”

        See page 6 under Temperature:


        I am predicting Dr. No will zero in on the 0.05C insignificant trend while ignoring the error bars. Try adjusting your room thermostat 5/100ths of a degree C.

        • barry says:

          Yes, that was the rate for the surface records (can’t remember if they relied on Hadley or an average of all 3 surface records). RSS (and UAH) sat record has more uncertainty owing to larger variability, and the trend since 1998 went slightly positive recently owing to the latest el Nino (and almost certainly some background warming). But the message is clear – trends of 18 years or so suffer from statistical uncertainty, especially satellite (UAH v6.5 Beta) record, which mpainter relies on.

    • Nate says:

      The margin in the any of surface records between 98 and 16 will not be small.

      But again- comparing individual years to each other is a poor way to understand a trend

      The tallest president of 19th century was Lincoln, 6’4″ and of the 20th was LBJ 6’3.5″. So the trend in presidential height is -.5″/century??

      Also I think it is pretty clear that El Nino has a significantly stronger impact on the troposphere than on the temperature at the surface. Hence the 98 and 2016 spikes are larger in the satellite record than at the surface. This could also alter the apparent pause and trend

  9. jerry l krause says:

    Hi Whoever,

    Several have commented how their local climates change with El Nino- La Nina events. And it seems this change is definitely related to changes in atmospheric circulation patterns. Yet, it seems most of the attention is focused upon temperature. If this (temperature) is the case, explain how a general increase, or decrease, in the earths average temperature directly influences the atmospheres general circulation.

    Another thought relative to active or inactive sun. While it seems difficult to predict El Nino-La Nina events, they seem to occur randomly, like short term weather events. However these events seem to have occurred more frequently than the active-inactive solar events. Is there any correlation between these events and solar activity?

    Have a good day, Jerry

    • fonzarelli says:

      Hello Jerry, (always nice to “see” you…) during the “hiatus” of Dr Spencer’s comment page i spent a little time over at “watts up with that” where they have quite a rigorous debate going on about the role of the sun. I believe a fellow named bob weber had some interesting data regarding a possible correlation between the (11year) solar cycle and global temps. (it was pretty interesting stuff) If there is such a correlation, i’ve always noted that the argo ocean temperature data seems to bear this out. The ukmo version of the argo data shows a decreasing trend from 2003 (?) to 2010 and then from 2010 until recently there is a rise in temps. This dovetails very nicely with the solar cycles. It’s interesting to note that the minimum (argo) temperature in 2010 (which corresponded with the solar minimum) happened at a time of an el nino. The el nino of 2010 being the highest atmospheric temperature of the argo era until now… That all kind of got me thinking, what if el ninos have no real bearing on temperature trends at all. Perhaps el ninos just represent a temporary break down in ocean circulation patterns which cause a short term spike in atmospheric temps and that’s all. If we look at Dr Spencer’s graph at the top of the page, just imagine that there are no el ninos there at all. (not in ’98, ’10 & ’16) We would see a trough in the late 90s which corresponds with a solar minimum. Rising temps until the solar max into the 2000s. Decreasing temps into another trough circa 2010 at the last solar min. And lastly rising temps until the present as we just begin a decent toward another solar minimum. So hidden in plain sight in the temperature data may be the influence of the sun on global temps. Now, i’m kind of sticking my neck out there in presenting this to you as i haven’t really given this much thought. I find it’s a good way to learn if i go ahead and put something dumb out there. I either get somebody corroborating my idea or someone showing me why i’m way off. Either way i learn something, although with the latter i risk the possibility of embarrassment (☺). At the very least i want to continue looking at the ukmo (unadjusted) argo data to see if it continues tracking with the solar cycle. None of us are going anywhere for a while. Hopefully as “climate change” time drones on we’ll all get a clearer picture of just what’s going on. The near term future looks interesting to say the least, regardless of what happens…

      • jerry l krause says:

        Hi Fonz,

        First thank you for your comments. I do not care what others think. I’ve been wrong before and I am sure I will be wrong again and again. Way back I considered that 11 year cycles might have something to do with Jupiter. And way back there was much discussion of the quasi-biennual (sp) oscillation in the south Pacific (I think I remember) That seemed to correlate with Mars. What seems amazing is I have not read about this oscillation, which was considered so important then, in years. Sometimes I conclude that if the ‘big’ boys cannot figure it out, they quietly forget about it and move on.

        I have told you before that I do not like blogsites like this because there is little continuity.

        Recently I discovered http://principia-scientific.org/

        You probably are familiar with it. I consider it an attempt to be like the Royal Society in that it has a private membership so one has to be accepted before one comment and they can get rid of certain people who abuse the privilege of commenting. So the result is there were very few comments when I came on board. Presently there still are only about 6 commenters.

        But they appreciate me there and I have been invited to write article and I have. Many a reviews of what my giants have stated. Try not to insert too many of my ideas because actually very few are original so I can let others carry most of the water.

        I really consider I have hit some home runs. So you might take a look. Because there are few comments and I have not been there long, it is not too hard to scan to find my comments and articles.

        Have a good day, Jerry

  10. Walter Dnes says:

    Another way of putting it…

    * If the 7 months Jun-Dec average +0.349 or higher, it’s a new record

    * If Jun-Dec average +0.348 or lower, it’s not a record

  11. mpainter says:

    From April to May the UAH anomaly fell 0.16 C. If it falls a like amount during June, then this year will not be a record in the Satellite temperature, I’ll wager. There’s a good chance that it will fall a good bit in June, as the El Nino peak came earlier than usual and fell off very sharply.

    Something tells me that this is the last hurrah of the global warmers. They will have no more reasons to exult over a temperature spike, not for decades.

    AGW = Adios Global Warmers
    And good riddance, I might add.

    • mpainter says:

      Correction, from May to June it fell 0.16.

      • doctor no says:

        Correction – you were correct first time:
        From APRIL to MAY it fell 0.16

        You use such terms as:
        ” Ill wager”
        “Theres a good chance ..”
        ” Something tells me that this is ”

        Why don’t you read Roy’s analysis at the top of this page.
        He succinctly indicates why he favours a record 2016. Feel free to disagree with him.

        Something tells me you are getting more and more desperate.

  12. barry says:

    I’ll take a small wager. I’ll bet $50 that 2016 will be warmer than 1998. No leniency for uncertainty, just the final figure, higher or lower. Whatever the current version of UAH is in January 2017.


    I’ll honour it. Pride demands integrity.

    • barry says:

      One caveat – a Pinatubo-like eruption before the ends of the year cancels the bet (even if 2016 still warmer).

    • mpainter says:

      First of all, what’s your name?

      • doctor no says:

        Don’t prevaricate.
        Take up the offer.
        After all, you use such terms as:
        Ill wager
        Theres a good chance ..

        Go on. Have a go!

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        @mpainter…”First of all, whats your name?”

        dr. no sounds a lot like Eli Rabett.


        Halpern (aka Eli Rabett) challenged the assertions of Gerlich and Tscheushner on their paper in which they claimed the greenhouse effect theory is nonsense. He and his co-authors claimed that G&T had messed up royally by claiming two heat sources in their paper, radiating against each other, had one source not radiating.

        Halpern et al had thoroughly confused the difference between heat transfer and the exchange of infrared energy. They apparently thought that heat could not be transferred only one way since IR was being transferred both ways.

        G&T had to school them in basic thermodynamics, namely that heat and IR are not the same and that the 2nd law must be applied to heat and not to a summation of IRs.

    • doctor no says:

      I will bet that nobody here will take up your generous offer.

      When it comes to putting their money where their mouth is, they are cowards.
      It has been the case for decades now.

      • mpainter says:

        Is everybody here a coward?

      • Chris Hanley says:

        It seems there is a double act developing, doctor no + barry = Don Quixote + Sancho Panza or maybe The Lone Ranger + Tonto.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Laurel and Hardy? Abbott and Costello? Good for a laugh, if nothing else!

          Maybe they are a couple of bearded balding bumbling buffoons using pseudonyms?


          • doctor no says:

            I cannot speak for Barry.
            I am bearded, thinning a bit on top, and am happy to provide you with some amusement.

            BUT – I am here to educate you as well. You are definitely a difficult class to teach.
            I think the term is “special needs”.

      • doctor no says:

        See ! I told you – nobody will put their hand up.

      • An Inquirer says:

        I am surprised that no one has taken you up on your bet. Given the first few months of this year, for most of this year, your bet would have seemed a sure thing for you. However, recent and emerging developments make the outcome much more iffy. Certainly you are being fair in letting UAH be the measurement as the other measurements are determined by advocates of global warming action. Also, I think your use of UAH speaks to your recognition of the integrity of Spencer and Christy.
        The reason that I do not take the bet is that it involves calculations that I do not care to get into — how much does UAH need to drop in the next 7 months and how does that compare to the past.
        Now if you are willing to wager that 2016 UAH temperatures will be lower than Hansen’s forecast from Scenario A (base case) or his Scenario B (later described as most expected), then you have a bet. That bet would be consistent with your offer — we know the outcome of the early part of the period.

        There are a few bets that I have not found a taker: that Artic Ice will still be with us in 2025. Or that Polar Bears will be just fine by 2050. Or that hurricane ACE will not show any consistent upward trend by 2020. (I am trying to figure out a bet on tornadoes.) Or that we will not have record high temperatures set in 10 states from 2000 to 2020.)

        • Barry’s bet is going down the drain and when it does I’ll be here laughing my ass off!

          • An Inquirer says:

            Climatechange4realz: I do not understand your comment. If you think that Barry would lose his bet, why do you not accept it?

            The reason I do not go for it: Football Team A is down by 21 points in the 4th quarter, and Barry is trying to find a sucker who will bet on Team A.
            I would be interested if Barry would take another bet: Experts predicted that Team A would lose by 60 points, but Team A is down by 21 points in the 4th quarter. Would Barry take a bet that the experts will be right?

    • Mike Flynn says:


      Would you be prepared to bet on something that actually has to do with the supposed greenhouse effect? Your proposed bet seems to be about temperatures, rather than a specific cause.

      I’m prepared to bet that no one will have demonstrated the ability of CO2 to cause a temperature rise in an externally heated object by means of a repeatable scientific experiment. If you wish to take the bet, we will need to agree on definitions, etc, I realise.

      Just betting that a group of instruments show a higher reading at one time than at another, seems fairly pointless. What does it prove? Were precisely the same instruments used in 1998? Are they measuring the same thing? Have any aspects of the surface affecting measurements changed since 1998? And so on.

      My only caveat would be that scientific rigour is followed. The experiment needs to be agreed on in all details, by both parties.

      A lot simpler, and a lot more controllable. What do think – fair enough, or not?


      • Massimo PORZIO says:

        Hi Mike,

        as the old and smart physic professor said to his students: “take care guys, that any thermometer measures the temperature of itself”.

        It seems to me that it’s a long time that the new generation of professors is missing to warn their students about that.

        Have a great day.


      • doctor no says:

        You mean you don’t trust the UAH data?

        • doctor no says:

          Mike – your weasel words fool nobody.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            doctor no,

            As to UAH data, I know the theoretical physical limitations. Maybe I’m not as gullible as you.

            As to weasel words, Waffling Weasely Warmists are the experts. I’m glad I’m fooling nobody. That’s not my intent, so I thank you for the confirmation that I have succeeded.

            You still haven’t managed to produce a single fact. Others may decide for themselves whether they choose Warmist fantasies over facts. It’s a relatively free world, although it seems that Warmists want to make it less so.

            Still no CO2 warming, and nobody prepared to demonstrate that it exists. Just unverifiable and unsubstantiated hypotheses following the finest Cargo Cult Scientism principles. Oh dear. Maybe if you wish really, really, hard, you can turn fantasy into fact. Or maybe not.


          • doctor no says:


            If you don’t trust any data – how can you be so certain that there is no warming?

            A common trap that old skeptics fall into.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            doctor no,

            A couple of points. You seem to have shifted the goal posts from CO2 induced warming to warming in general. As an example, standing near a heat source emitting CO2 will create warming. You claim it is the result of CO2 – I say it’s the result of the radiant heat.

            No “aha” moment there. Your “gotcha” appears to have fizzled out.

            Are you talking about heating supposedly due to the presence of CO2 in the air, or recorded increases of the temperature of various measuring devices? Two different things, entirely.

            Your logic is that of the Warmist persuasion. Dismissive statements and attempted “gotchas” are not science – in my opinion, at least.

            When you can define your terms unambiguously and scientifically, the path to truth may become more apparent. I leave it to you.


          • doctor no says:

            Cut the .
            Just tell us what observations you trust.

            You cannot sit there and claim no warming while a the same time dismissing the accuracy of the observations.

      • barry says:

        Hey Mike,

        Having seen quite a few experiments on the net, you tube and other places, being familiar with Tyndall’s paper and the tests he undertook with the apparatus he built (and with one Eunice Foote three years earlier), and reading comments on the net about countless classroom experiments and hearing about them in person from science teachers, and knowing that Roy Spencer backs the basic greenhouse effect, I suspect that no experiment would satisfy you (except one on the net I’ve seen that doesn’t satisfy me) that adding CO2 to a volume of atmosphere receiving radiant energy causes the temperature of that volume to increase.

        Nor could I imagine how we could set up such an experiment together – unless you live in Australia, perhaps.

        Having said that, your proposal seems fair. How would you develop it into a concrete test?

        • Mike Flynn says:


          Tyndall’s setup is fine by me. My own experiments support his conclusions.

          There is a slightly easier way to achieve the same result if you have access to a vacuum pump, a vacuum chamber, a variable source of heat, a CO2 supply, and a very sensitive heat measuring device.

          Tyndall’s thermopile and galvanometer combination was sensitive enough to respond to a single assistant’s exhalation from 30 feet away, in a cold lecture room.

          However, just place your emitter and receiving object as far from each other as possible in the chamber, and exhaust the chamber as best you can. Even cheapish vacuum pumps can pull a pretty fair vacuum.

          Set your heat source to give a fixed measured temperature on your target. Now allow CO2 to fill the chamber. Allow to stabilise. The temperature of the CO2 will have risen, but the temperature of your target will have dropped. Tyndall explains why. In essence, more energy absorbed by the CO2 means less available for the target. Conservation of energy applies.

          Most people don’t realise how meticulous and methodical Tyndall was. He spent weeks, literally, nullifying the effects of the Earth’s magnetic field on his galvanometer. Patience, trial and error.

          If you have access to a physics lab (I don’t, these days), you should have no trouble.

          As to bearded balding bumbling buffoons, of course I mean in respect to belief in the non existent greenhouse effect. The people referred to are quite free to sue me if they feel unjustly treated.

          Seriously, maybe if you reread Tyndall, you might conclude that others have misunderstood his writings. Doing your own experiment will set the matter to rest. Don’t be surprised if Warmists tell you you must be wrong. Just ask to their results from an identical experiment.


          • geran says:

            Mike, as you know, the Warmists are not interested in the actual science.

            That’s why I find them so hilarious.

          • Mike Flynn says:


            You’re right of course. It’s a pity though, the billions wasted could have used for something else, maybe even funding real science.


      • barry says:

        Maybe they are a couple of bearded balding bumbling buffoons using pseudonyms?

        Saw this after I posted. A fair-minded, gentleman’s wager with you looks less likely than I had imagined.

        • Ayla says:

          Wagers? Bets?

          This is the greatest threat humanity has ever faced and you are talking of BETS.

          And not taking on these “bets” means, something IMPORTANT to you or the other pawn of BigOil, doctor no?

          • barry says:

            None of the talk here is terribly meaningful in the larger scheme of things. One could march for mitigation and still make bets. Walking and chewing gum and the same time is quite possible.

    • Nope only liars like you Barry

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      @barry…”Ill take a small wager. Ill bet $50 that 2016 will be warmer than 1998″.

      By how much? We’re probably talking in the range of hundredths of a degree C.

      So, we had a record in 1998 then had to wait 18 years to beat it by a few hundredths of a degree C.

      Not impressive and not an indication of anthropogenic activity.

  13. Alec aka Daffy Duck says:

    AMO peaked wicked high at the end of the last two big el Ninos, 1998 & 2010… That is not happening this year. My bet is temps will dip a bit quicker than they did in 2010 and 1998





    These are at my criteria for solar activity if sustained will impact the climate.

    Solar wind still above my criteria of 350 km/sec and AP index still above 5 but these should fall going forward.

    So for myself the moment of truth as to if my theory has merit or not will be known within in a year or two at most.

    Time will tell.

  15. Geoff Wood says:

    “So with regard to raditive transfer, it is settled. No one working in science or engineering would waste time trying to challenge them.”

    Yes, it is settled, but not as it is used in climatology.

    Radiative heat transfer requires a thermal gradient. That gradient is provided by gravity in all gravitationally bound gaseous envelopes. We can predict this from the application of logic. We know from repeatable experiment that all of matter and energy ‘feels’ gravity. So we can predict a thermal gradient with knowledge of the exchangeability of gravitational potential with kinetic energy.

    Significant heat transfer processes modify a thermal gradient and latent heat transfer in the form of moist convection does this, cooling the surface and heating the atmosphere thereby reducing the gradient.

    There is no evidence that long wave heat transfer modifies the long term, area weighted global mean lapse rate in the troposphere. At all. Full stop.

    So long wave radiative heat transfer, both surface to atmosphere and inter atmospheric remains an environmental product. This is from the logic that it ‘requires’ a gradient to exist and its impotence is evident in its inability to modify the gradient described without it.

    Many casually admit that ‘greenhouse gases’ warm the lower atmosphere and cool the upper, but global data shows no supportive evidence for this assumption.

    • jimc says:

      Please put a number on this gravitational thermal gradient and demonstrated it in a controlled repeatable at-equilibrium experiment.

      • Geoff Wood says:

        Hi jimc. The number from 2014 from Dr Spencer’s AMSU at 7.5km and surface 2m data from NCEP CFSRv2 was 6.69K/km which places both in equilibrium once specific humidity for both is included. The Earth is inter annually in very close equilibrium with the sum of diabatic processes.

        • @Geoff So what would be the temperature gradient from that in the long term and where are you getting that information from?

          • Geoff Wood says:

            Hi ‘4real. I have mentioned where the altitude data is from. The specific humidity data is from NOAA. The ‘information’ is that any gain in gravitational potential by spontaneous process has to come from the available energy states which sum up to Cp in a gravitationally bound gaseous envelope. There is no reason to assume that, within the HUP uncertainty in the Universe that random motion, either diffusive or advective doesn’t conserve energy. Adoption of the observable effects of gravity upon macroscopic objects being applied to the microscopic domain with knowledge that gravity is indiscriminate leads to a definable lapse rate: Cp is the thermal response to energy changes and in the vertical this answers to gravity in accrual or depletion of potential. Testing for this where specific heat is included as an addition to Cp renders tropospheric gradients isentropic or reversible adiabatic to a very high degree. No evidence of heat trapping by opacity in the lower troposphere.

          • “No evidence of heat trapping by opacity in the lower troposphere.”are you quite sure about this Geoff? https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=216

          • Geoff Wood says:

            Hi ‘4real. From 7.5km it should be impossible to calculate a surface equilibrium temperature without including the radiative transfer code if long wave opacity genuinely modifies the gradient or, as suggested, ‘traps heat’.

            From 7.5km, the bulk of the atmosphere’s opacity is below. 60% by mass is at a lower altitude where density shortens mean free path, pressure broadens spectral lines and 95% of the water vapour resides.

            However, simple calculations show that area weighted global mean values are in equilibrium. That is, per unit mass the air at 7.5km has the same total energy as the surface air. All that is needed is to subtract the difference in energy to vaporise sufficient water to replicate surface specific humidity. When this energy value is subtracted from the thermal pool the projected potential temperature (~310K) is reduced to the actual surface measurement. There is no evidence that extra energy resides where opacity is high. This renders inter atmospheric long wave an environmental product of the gradient, not something that created it or forces it in any way. Btw, strong radiative coupling would always cool the warmer and heat the cooler thereby ‘reducing’ the gradient anyway, not increasing it!

          • mpainter says:

            Hi, Geoff, good to have your comment. How do you reconcile your viewpoint with the fact that both CO2 and water vapor are saturated in their respective absorbency at a few meters above the surface. In other words, there must be an effect on the gradient due to this, even if only confined at close proximity to the surface.

          • Geoff Wood says:

            Hi mpainter. Penned a reply yesterday. Tried to submit it many times. Now it just comes back saying I’m duplicating something already sent. But I don’t know where it is!

          • Geoff Wood says:

            Just reworded it partly and resent. It just took me back to the top of this page!

          • Geoff Wood says:

            This is nothing like what was written earlier, but a completely different approach to your question mpainter.

            You are assuming that the Earth emits in these bands. I can assure you that it doesn’t. Radiative heat transfer is about ‘differences’ (gradients) and over metres the temperature difference is always relatively small over the diurnal cycle. Radiative exchange in a spectral band or quantum line is intensity driven. There is no massive upwelling (or down welling) flux. The atmosphere is not strongly coupled to the surface by long wave radiation. Only around 8% of the atmosphere’s energy arrives this way. This means that ‘other’ processes dominate and set the gradient that sets relative intensities over respective optical depths.

            Please remember that the thermal response of a gas to energy changes in a near isobaric environment is Cp. Cp for air ‘already’ includes vibrational modes where applicable and their effects upon temperature under energy changes.

          • mpainter says:

            Thanks for your reply and your perseverance.

            The CO2 contribution to that 8% can be shown to be minuscule.

        • jimc says:

          Goeff, an atmospheric situation involving every uncontrolled variable under the sun (phase change, convection, horizontal and vertical air transport, radiation, etc.) does not qualify as a controlled experiment. What is your rule for solids an liquids and other gases?

          • Geoff Wood says:

            It’s an ‘observation’ jimc. I do not need to make it any more complicated than to say that the sum of all diabatic processes doesn’t add up to a ‘hill of beans’. Inter annually the troposphere alters temperature by tenths of a degree out of around 280K. I am illustrating that my ‘magical coincidence’ the atmosphere here on Earth, and on Venus, and Titan all arrange themselves such that opacity does not affect the surface temperature projected from altitude. Despite the opacity always being much higher near the surface this is not evident in the data. There is no evidence that high opacity ‘traps heat’ near the surface.

    • mpainter says:

      What say you, global warmers. Or don’t you understand what this means?

      • Geoff, Do you have any links that I can look at so I can look more into this?

        • Geoff Wood says:

          Hi ‘4real. It is not a complicated calculation to do for yourself. A gas can only store energy two ways at these temperatures; in gravitational potential and the sum of independent thermal (kinetic) states that exchange freely through equipartition to constitute its heat capacity. In a gravitationally bound gaseous envelope an addition to Cv of thermodynamic work R is included, to give Cp the isobaric specific heat capacity. This is engineering textbook catalogued for air and other gases but is derivable from first principles. The availability of a condensing gas (water) adds specific latent heat to the mix. So given specific humidity at vertical reference points you can calculate the thermal response to vertical displacement by adding or subtracing changes in gravitational potential energy from the thermal pool, and adding or subtracting the latent heat. By, again ‘magical coincidence’ the Earth arranges its troposphere as if long wave opacity wasn’t there at all, given that I can locate that as lower tropospheric and can calculate through it!

          • As much as I want to believe this is true I don’t have any evidence or links supporting this claim of yours. No links no proof. Please provide links to support your claims if you are going to use back up evidence to support your claims

        • Geoff Wood says:

          ‘4real. I am willing to discuss gravitationally bound gaseous envelopes with you from first principles to supportive data. If you require me to direct you towards some ‘peer reviewed’ literature that exists amongst a myriad of conjecture for you to follow a logical argument, then please accept my best wishes and let this discussion end. You can Google anything that is said and sort the ‘wheat from the chaff’ yourself.

          I trust that if you are ”4real’ then you will look into this, or start with my first line, read it and accept it or question it, and ask about it. I would hope that your intention is to understand how atmospheres behave that is supported by measurement and not accept anyone’s influence who cannot, or is unwilling to explain the details. The proof is in the application of logical argument supported by data.

    • FTOP says:

      Geoff Wood writes:

      “Radiative heat transfer is about differences (gradients) and over metres the temperature difference is always relatively small over the diurnal cycle. ”

      Drop microphone moment.

      Apply that fact to the Trenberth energy diagram and the whole AGW fallacy is laid bare. We see proof of the limited role of opacity in the Robinson & Catling study of tropopause height.

      Fables die hard, but CO2 warming is on life support and the upcoming La Nia has a pillow over its head.

      • mpainter says:

        Yep, a cooling globe with no El Nino spike for the AGW crowd to super-hype for the next decade. Bottom line: we will have 50 years of satellite data with no warming except the step-up. The pillow is poised, La Nina has a murderous glint in her eyes.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Geoff Woods…”Radiative heat transfer requires a thermal gradient. That gradient is provided by gravity…”

      Not sure what you’re getting at Geoff. Certainly, a thermal gradient is established in thermal conduction within matter but in the atmosphere, the majority of molecules are unaffected by radiative transfer according to the AGW theory.

      Nitrogen and oxygen accounts for 99% of the atmosphere and according to radiative theory those molecules don’t take part in radiative heat transfer. That’s partly why I think the theory is a joke. It seems absurd to me to claim that CO2, which accounts for 0.04% of atmospheric gases can be responsible for up to 25% of atmospheric warming.

      N2 and O2 certainly are involved with convective heat transfer, especially in the ‘hot air rises’ paradigm. I have no idea what so much focus is placed on radiative transfer when only 1% of the gases in the atmosphere, which is 96% water vapour, are involved.

      • Geoff Wood says:

        Hi Gordon. You have said,

        “Geoff WoodsRadiative heat transfer requires a thermal gradient. That gradient is provided by gravity
        Not sure what youre getting at Geoff. Certainly, a thermal gradient is established in thermal conduction within matter but in the atmosphere, the majority of molecules are unaffected by radiative transfer according to the AGW theory.”

        I’m ‘getting at’, if you describe a ‘purely mechanical’ atmosphere bound by gravity, such that work is done in the vertical reference frame, and the energy stored or liberated from gravitational potential and normalised through the independent energy stares that exchange through equipartition, then you correctly describe the vertical thermal gradient of a gravitationally bound gaseous envelope that we call the troposphere. Long wave radiative transfer is not necessary in this description.

        Radiative heat transfer ‘requires’ a thermal gradient, otherwise no heat is transferred, and significant heat transfer by entropy would always drive the system towards being isothermal (reduce the gradient). The persistence of the purely mechanical lapse renders long wave, surface to atmosphere and inter atmospheric ‘products’ of a gravitational environment.

        The notion, as is popularly accepted that the Earth emits in the long wave and this energy is absorbed and re-radiated in all directions, some of which is back to the surface thereby increasing its temperature is pure fictional nonsense, and is not depicted in the data.

        I agree with you upon many points but I am intent upon pointing out that opacity doesn’t ‘trap heat’ in a gravitationally bound envelope, as the thermal profile doesn’t follow opacity at all!

  16. mpainter says:

    “And, of course, if we go into prolonged La Nina conditions for the next 2-3 years, we might well be debating the meaning and significance of a 20-year pause in global warming in another year or two.”

    Dr Roy understates in suitable fashion. A 20 pause is a gimme.

    • doctor no says:

      And, if we go into prolonged El Nino conditions for the next 2-3 years, we might well be debating the meaning and significance of .

      • mpainter says:

        You are making a joke, right?

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Unintended comedy, perhaps. Of the blindly bumbling blundering buffoon variety?

          That was intended humour, but many of the audience appear bewildered, and seem to be sitting on their hands. That’s life in the comedy world – you can’t make ’em all laugh!


          • Lewis says:


            I’m repeating myself but.

            Methane hydrates, obviously unknown to you, will be abracadabra (your term).

            I suggest you do some research before you so boldly tout your ignorance.

            Mankind will, as it has so often done, find a way to use the energy contained therein, and will continue as it has following the advent of nuclear fission, internal combustion, fracking, coal mining and oil drilling.

            I believe in man’s ability to discover, innovate and use.

            (I also believe in his ability to abuse)

          • Lewis, I’ve looked at every one of your comments. So far you have not provided one piece of evidence to support or back up your claims. If your going to comment at least provide links to support your claims to some of your comments and try to think a little no actually ALOT more scientific and not just go on blabbering about us polluting the atmosphere and we are all going to die. That’s algore type tripe! If I were you I would change your ways mate! Only my opinion though

          • Lewis says:

            Climate four reel.

            I appreciate your reading my comments. You should have noticed, I am not, nor do I pretend to be, a scientist. Further, I feel no obligation to cite evidence of what, I think, should be common knowledge, or of my opinions; which is all I offer. For instance: methane hydrates are easily researched, if you care to do so. Beyond that, your request will be ignored by me.

            To be very clear, I come here to learn, to comment about a few things and to be entertained. If I want only science, there are other places, much less entertaining, to attend.

            Best wishes,

            Lewis Guignard
            Crouse, NC
            (notice I am not hiding behind some pseudonym)

    • mpainter says:

      Let’s assume that the “pause” extends for ten more years. This is reasonable with the coming La Nina and no El Nino spike to be expected.

      Now, let’s debate the significance of a 30 year pause.☺

      • barry says:

        A 20 pause is a gimme.

        A prediction with absolute certainty. Excellent.

        Care to make a bet?

        We’d have to set the parameters clearly.

        • mpainter says:

          You lose. The pause never ended, as the El Nino spike is always followed by La Nina. This is another incontrovertible fact that the hard-core AGW crowd ignores. The El Nino hype merely exposed the vapidness of the AGW science.

          There will be no more spikes for a decade, at least. When there is, another La Nina ensues. AGW is rubbish.

          • barry says:

            How about this? If after 20 years since 1998 the linear trend is flat or cooling, you win. If the trend is positive, I win. Linear trend model is ARMA(1,1), which handles autocorrelation well, which we can check here:


            As you have no interest in the uncertainty parameters (ie, statistical significance hold no interest), then all we need to check is that the slope is up or down. Doesn’t matter by how much.

            You can select either 1997 or 1998 as start date, or any month between if you like.

            I’m willing to bet $100. If you agree and we email each other, I’ll give you my name. And my word that I’ll honour the bet.

          • mpainter says:

            If you are serious, the very first thing you should do is identify yourself and give contact information. Otherwise, you have no credibility.Zippo. do this first, or back down.

          • barry says:

            All info openly shared in email, not on a public website – I’ve been stalked and don’t want a repeat of that.

            Email to:

            b a r r y s c h w a r z @ h o t m a i l . c o m

            Remove the spaces.

          • doctor no says:

            make sure you agree on the definition of the trend.
            Some naughty monkeys here will simply take a ruler and connect the end points.

            Also, I will give you $10 if you actually strike a wager here.

          • barry says:

            Details would be hammered out in emails, and then made public, including conditions, if both parties agree.

          • mpainter says:

            This is science, I’m not interested in any money aspect. Don’t care to collect if I win.
            So let’s keep it science. The loser of the wager will acknowledge the truth of the other’s position. That’s as it should be.

          • barry says:

            The loser of the wager will acknowledge the truth of the others position

            The wager I proposed had a chance of either of us winning, and the loser still being ‘right’. I took what I think are the favoured odds.

            If the price of the bet is accepting “the truth of the other’s position,” The conditions would have to be much more stringent.

            Of course, we’d have to lay out what our “truths” are.

          • barry says:

            Must say, though, looks like you’re backing down, after seeming to get on board, on putting your money where your mouth is.

          • mpainter says:

            Money was your idea, not mine. My terms are fair. Are you backing out?

          • mpainter says:

            Note drno bribery attempt, which Barry ignored.

          • barry says:

            According to you, you’re certain to win $100. Not so sure you’re going to take my money after all, huh?

        • barry says:

          You’ve nominated the stakes. You’ve set no terms.

          You had a chance of winning under the terms I nominated, though I had the better odds. The period for such a high stakes bet would have to cover 30 years of satellite data. You could slice that into 2 decades either end.

          Or what do you propose?

          • mpainter says:

            Very well, how about 39 years of satellite data, to 2018? In this case I have won on terms. Two flat trends connected by a step-up.

            My original “wager” was for this year’s standing in the temperature record. I am also willing to stand on my above comment in that regard. This, however, depends on the June UAH update.

          • mpainter says:

            Also, Barry, I propose that you leave off talk about “putting your money where your mouth is”. In fact, I insist. Do you agree?

          • barry says:

            While the odds favour this year being warmer than ’98 in the UAH6.5 Beta version, I don’t think the chance quite strong enough to wager money.

            I would, however, bet $100 that the mean linear trend from Jan 1998 to Dec 2016 remains positive.

            I’d even be willing to accept your stakes for that term.

      • doctor no says:

        “Lets assume that the pause extends for ten more years.”
        Is that all you’ve got?
        So far you have disputed global surface temperature records, sea level rise, melting ice, etc. etc. and now you can no longer rely on the UAH record.
        So you now resort to wishful thinking.
        How pathetic.

        • mpainter says:

          The only warming during the satellite era is a step-up of about 0.3 C circa 2000-2002. There’s no need to invoke AGW to explain it. Reduced cloudiness as per NASA data explains the step-up. AGW RIP ☺

          • doctor no says:

            You are repeating yourself – like a broken record. Nothing original to add?

          • dr.no'satroll says:

            If you weren’t so dense, he wouldn’t need to repeat himself…

          • mpainter says:

            The step-up knocks AGW flat. That is why the AGW types ignore it. And that is why you hate it. You should seek counseling on anger control.

          • doctor no says:

            Admit it. That’s all you have left in the locker.
            A plaintive cry of “the step up .. the step up”

            Why don’t you leave science to the big boys?

          • mpainter says:

            And of course, the step-up is impossible to attribute to CO2. And that’s the real reason it gets ignored. I predict that when the pause reaches 20 years and the post-mortem on AGW is conducted, the focus will be on the step-up. It should be fun. ☺

          • Hello. I’m looking for a troll with the name of Dr No has anybody seen him? Lmao

          • doctor no says:

            “I predict that when the pause reaches 20 years..”

            You mean – when the corpse comes back to life.

          • doctor no says:

            “Reduced cloudiness as per NASA data explains the step-up”

            You are happy to believe NASA data when it suits you.

            LOL again
            Your argument that “reduced cloudiness” caused a sudden temperature increase begs the question: “What caused the reduced cloudiness?”
            The only plausible answer is ghgs.

          • mpainter says:

            Roy will have to change the name of his blog to “Global Cooling”.☺

  17. Christopher Hanley says:

    The global average temperature is going to go up or down or stay the same, speculating about future movements is utterly pointless.
    Im confidently predicting that the atmospheric concentration of CO2, allegedly now the highest in 800,000 or 2 million or 15 million years (take your pick), will continue to rise at about the current rate indefinitely.

  18. Brian D says:

    June anomaly will be between 0.2 – 0.3. Looking at AMSU graph at channel 06, Jun 23, (channel 05 not working), June is tracking closer to 2012 so far, which had an anomaly of 0.14, and I’m betting for a little more of a rise from the 23rd to the end of June. That’s my guess and I’m sticking to it!


    • My guess according to historical evidence: solar minimum just like 1800s at the minimum maybe even colder. Straight plunge in temperatures even after La Nia up to the 2030s. Brief warm up and an even bigger cool down due to 206 year decline in solar radiance. And if you say that less then 1% compared with all other greenhouse gases increase of man made co2 is too powerful to overcome the power of the sun which makes up 99% of our mass in this universe then buddy I am not sure what planet your from!

      • I’m betting Barry on this one! If he loses he won’t get paid he’all get regret and I am
        Going to laugh so hard at you losers that you all are going to go home crying to your mommys saying I regret for not listening to climatechange4REALZ!

      • Crunch time has arrived .

        Those of us who have been saying it is solar are now going to have a chance to prove this indeed is the correct call.


        AP INDEX – 5 OR LOWER



        SOLAR IRADIANCE – OFF .15&


        The above solar parameters are now starting to be reached and what makes it more meaningful this time around is that this time around solar activity has been below average for at least 11 or 12 years proceeding this drop off.

        When solar criteria met the above from roughly 2008-2010 the number of years of sub solar activity proceeding that drop off was only 3 or 4 years not enough time, this time we have more sub solar years behind this current solar drop off.

        • barry says:

          Salvatore – what are the threshholds with respect to global surface temperature that make… and break your hypothesis.

          • If the global temperatures stay the same or move higher over the next few years that would break my hypothesis taking into consideration ENSO.

            With El Nino ending the initial drop in global temperatures is linked to this so this current drop does little to prove my solar hypothesis correct.

            We have to see how the cooling evolves and if the global temperatures continue down once La Nina has already been established then at that time my solar play and associated secondary effects from solar will have to be looked for as perhaps the reason for the further global temp. decline.

            Right now it is much to early but the sun is heading toward or in some cases is below my low average solar parameters (finally)which I think will cause solar activity to impact the climate.

            This is just now happening ,post 2011 to just recently solar activity was much to high in my opinion to have any cooling effect upon the climate. All of the solar parameters during that period of time were well above my solar criteria which I think is needed for global cooling tied to solar activity.

          • barry says:

            If a la Nina sets in this year, what further in time would make/break your hypothesis?

      • barry says:

        Im betting Barry on this one!

        On this?

        Straight plunge in temperatures even after La Nia up to the 2030s.

    • mpainter says:

      In a week or so we shall see the UAH update and then see if your prediction of a drop of 0.2-.3 C in the anomaly is correct. I tend to doubt that it should cool so precipitously, myself. If you are right, the issue will be settled.☺

  19. David Appell says:

    Roy wrote:
    “but the approaching La Nina might extend the global warming pause to 20 years.”

    Extend? You don’t even know your own data — its 20 year trend is +0.05 C/decade.

    • appell'sajerk says:

      david, you’re gross…

    • Dave now solar is heading toward my criteria which I have said I think is needed to have an impact on global temperatures. Going forward we will find out if this is correct. If the global temperatures with La Nina taken into account do not respond to this next stage of this prolonged solar minimum which is now really starting to take hold going forward then you will be able to say I was wrong.

      Dave, I tried to explain to you in the past that from 2011- to just recently the solar parameters were much to high to have any cooling effect. The maximum of solar cycle 24 although very weak was still a solar maximum and it sent all the solar parameters well above the criteria I think is needed to have a cooling effect upon the climate.

      This is now changing and this time when the solar conditions meet my criteria they will have some 11 or 12 years of sub- solar activity in general behind them since sub- solar activity in a general sense really took hold in year 2005.

      So if as expected this solar minimum really becomes established and global temperatures do not respond I will be wrong it is that clear cut.

      Crunch time is fast approaching and we will see.

      • LMAO! Of course temperatures will respond! The sun makes up 99% of the mass on all of our solar system! It controls the climate of all the planets and you think that a little bit of an increase in that 1% of co2 in the atmosphere is going to cut it! Yeah will just see about that!

    • run the numbers, David. By then end of 2017, we would have a 20 year “pause”. Its significance is an other question.

  20. barry says:

    International institutes monitoring ENSO have adjusted the forecasts to November, indicating slightly less chance of a sustained la Nina forming by then. Chance appears to be about 60%, more in line with BoM modeling from last month. The spread of international forecasts last month gave 75% chance of a sustained la Nina by the end of the year.


    Via ONI index (SSTs Nino3.4), June will not be a Nina month, although it’s just possible it will dip near or below the mark in the next few days. July probably will be a Nina month, but the question is whether Nina will sustain for the 3-5 months required to be classed full-blown Nina event, with the low Tropical/global temps that ensue. Time will tell.

  21. barry says:

    For the reminder of the year, I will try to include updates to this graph in my usual monthly global temperature updates. This will provide a visual guide to how we are progressing toward a possible new record warm year.

    Thanks, that will be interesting to observe.

  22. barry says:

    Dunno what this ‘pause’ before 1998 is that mpainter is talking about. The linear trend is 0.08C/decade.


    That’s the RSS trend, but it’s virtually identical to UAH6.5, which is 0.083C/decade Jan 1979 to Dec 1997, or a rise of 0.15C over the period.

    (If it’s meaningful that one hundredth of a degree means the difference between one year being cooler or warmer than the next, then surely a temperature rise of 10x that amount is also meaningful)

    • Barry that little temperature increase from 1979 to 1997 was caused by the sun not by man. Of course you alarmists find anyway to blame any sort of warming on mankind!

    • barry says:

      Mpainter calls 1979-1997 a ‘pause’ or a period of no trend. You call it an ‘increase.’ Do you also think he’s wrong to call it a pause?

    • barry says:

      To quote mpainter:

      The satellite temperature record shows a step-up connecting two flat trends.

      • Depends how you look at it Barry. If you are trying to compare 1980 temps to 1997 temps you’ll see an increasing trend but if you just look at the last 18 years as a whole you’ll see a almost flat trend

        • barry says:

          I’m “looking at” mpainter’s claim about 1979 to end 1997, which you may quote above. Seems we agree with each other but not with him.

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        The physics laws governing the thermodynamics of transient heat transfer combined with the huge effective thermal capacitance (approximately equivalent to the thermal capacitance of the top 110 m of the oceans) absolutely prevents meaningful (as an indication of energy change) step changes in temperature.

  23. This graph shows an increase in average global surface temps from 1979 to the present day


  24. This temperature chart from the RSS on the other hand shows no increase or decrease since 1998


  25. Barry it depends on how the cooling evolves.

    If the cooling is accompanied by an increase in global cloud coverage, a more meridional atmospheric circulation, and a fall in global sea surface temperatures, and an increase in volcanic activity then the case for a solar/climate connection in my opinion will be strengthened. exist.


    INCREASE IN CLOUD COVERAGE- related to an increase in galactic cosmic rays when the solar wind is weak.350km/sec or less.

    MERIDIONAL ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATION – this at the very least would distribute the cold /warm areas of the globe differently. This is related to OZONE concentrations in a vertical /horizontal sense in the atmosphere which is related to EUV light intensity coming from the sun. If EUV light is weak say 100 units or less it should effect the OZONE distribution in the atmosphere in a way that causes the temp gradient between the poles and equator to weaken thus creating a weak polar vortex and a more meridional atmospheric circulation. This kind of atmospheric circulation especially in the N.H. should increase sea ice/ snow coverage and global cloud coverage.

    It would likely increase snow coverage due to the fact that Arctic out breaks would be driven further south into areas normally not covered with snow for much of the year while although warmth would be driven toward the Arctic regions temperatures would still be cold enough to maintain snow coverage, giving a net increase in global snow coverage. Higher albedo lower temperatures.

    GLOBAL SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES- have been shown to be related to UV LIGHT intensity for the most part just below the visible light wavelengths, since light in these wavelengths penetrates the ocean surface to the greatest depths. When solar activity is weak UV light decreases hence sea surface temperatures should decrease.

    VOLCANIC ACTIVITY – according to history over 80% of major volcanic eruptions which have at least a temporary cooling effect on global temperature occur at times of prolonged solar minimums. This is the case at least from 1600 AD- present.

    One theory is when solar activity is weak more galactic cosmic rays penetrate the earth ‘s atmosphere and an increase in MUONS a by product of these cosmic rays reaches the calderas of existing volcanos making them more unstable.

    • barry says:

      Is there a point in time, should warming continue, where you would consider your hypothesis unsound? (Not looking for a bet, just curious what temp evolution would cause you to reconsider)

  26. And also lmao! I cannot believe this? Why are you asking me this stuff Barry? Come on buddy old pal I thought you were smarter then this!

  27. Barry feel free to ask anyone any questions this is an open forum.

  28. climatechange4REALZ- you are with the solar/climate connections correct?

  29. Climatechange4realz says:

    Yes I am. Co2 only controls the earths climate by a miniscule amount. So small it is undetectable to the human eye. The increase in global temps over the past century is due to the sun not mankind as some warmists will blame this on! The sun just got finished with its 206 year bicentennial solar cycle and is now about to go into solar decline causing a 30 year solar minimum just like in the 1800s and 1600s. The problem is we are not prepared for it because we have so much man made global warming propaganda jammed down our throats that it becomes a hard thing for the human mind to digest in its belief system. The concentration of co2 in the atmosphere is currently about 400 ppm that’s 0.0400% of all green house gases in the atmosphere. Now if we were to double co2 to about 760 ppm by 2100 that will still only increase atmospheric concentration of co2 to about 0.0760 ppm which is still less then zero and is a miniscule amount. It is believed that a doubling of co2 since pre industrial times when man first started admitting fossil fuels alone in the atmosphere is only about a 1C warming. Now if we were to add the affects of the positive and negative affects of other greenhouse gases. The negative feedbacks when introduced to the climate system will actually get a cooling affect. When adding positive affects it is only 0.3 C warming which is still a miniscule amount of warming once all is Said and done. Another theory suggests that as we increase with altitude the temperature gradient in warming of co2 gets bigger until it aproaches the so called skin temperature of the atmosphere resulting in a warming of 1C just as the other theory prove. However as you decrease with altitude and you get to the level where we are at you only get a 0.1C warming affect. Another problem we have is models don’t include the so called vertical overturning of the atmosphere which transports cooler air downward and warmer air upward since warm air usually rises. With out this the climate sensitivity will be another 0.6 C of warming but since we include that in we go back to a negative value while including the positive feedbacks and you only get a warming of 0.3 C once all fossil fuels have been admitted from now since the gradient increases over time so the increase of temps from co2 is a miniscule amount that nature will completely overdominate

    • And that’s not all humans only make up about 30% of the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that leaves humans causing a 0.02% increase of greenhouse gases and the greenhouse affect. Thinking about all that time wasted on climate sensitivity when math tells you it’s only a 0.02% increase makes me want to fall on the floor laughing!

      • Sorry man made global warming alarmists but I just completely shredded your stupid greenhouse gas scam into a billion pieces! And if your reading this Elliot who posted on another blog and you still disagree with me and think that this tiny increase will warm the planet then you are so dumb that you don’t have a brain because it got divowered by Barney the dinosaur!

      • barry says:

        humans only make up about 30% of the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere

        Disagree completely. If human activity emits twice the CO2 that remains in the atmosphere, simple arithmetic tells us that the increase has to be anthropogenic. And that biosphere has been a net sink for the increase above background levels for 200 years.

        The only way around this is if there is some mechanism in the biosphere that selectively takes up anthro emitted CO2, and then another source causing the rise. No such mechanism has been posited, much less identified.

        • Barry, first of all where are your links to support this? Second of all I don’t know what your even talking about. Your not making any sense whatsoever. They found co2 in ice cores when they did studies on co2 concentrations that went up to 10,000 ppm! Third of all even if all co2 increase was anthropogenic where talking about an increaes from .0280% to .0560% that’s still waaaaaaaay less then 0% of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere so what warming would it cause? None! Because it is none! Minuscule! Microscopic!

          • barry says:

            Current levels of CO2 are 2% of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The other 98% is almost entirely water vapour, the concentration of which fluctuates according to temperature and pressure. Different GHGs have different ‘strengths’ of warming potential in the atmosphere. CO2 accounts for an average of about 17% of the total greenhouse effect.

            thats still waaaaaaaay less then 0% of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere

            Oh boy. That’s so off-base it’s “not even wrong.”

            Which is typical of most of your comments.

            The knowledge I supplied is basic. We have excellent estimates of how much human activity emits each year and over time.

            Since 1965 anthropogenic emissions = a rise of about 160ppm above background levels.

            But the rise in atmospheric CO2 has only been 80ppm. CO2 levels in 1965 were 320ppm. They are currently at about 400ppm.

            Anthro emissions are twice the rise in the atmosphere.

            That’s how we know it’s us. The biosphere has been a net sink for anthro emissions over time. Mostly the oceans (which have recorded a similar amount of CO2 increase as atmos in the same time).

            It’s simple arithmetic. No fancy models, just accounting and observation.

            There is no way we could emit twice the increase and it not be anthro. Not without magical thinking.

            There are other empirical lines of evidence, but that one is the clincher. There’s no way around it.

          • You say: “CO2 accounts for an average of about 17% of the total greenhouse effect”

            Still no links I see. So sad. More evidence that tells me your cherry picking from your ass!

            Then you say:

            “But the rise in atmospheric CO2 has only been 80ppm. CO2 levels in 1965 were 320ppm. They are currently at about 400ppm.”

            Do you even know how to convert ppm to %?

          • Have fun Barry, and this time provide links to support your claims like a real scientist would!


          • barry says:

            Dr Spencer gets it:

            The rate of rise in atmospheric CO2 is currently 2 ppm/yr, a rate which is 100 times as fast as any time in the 300,000 year Vostok ice core record. And we know our consumption of fossil fuels is emitting CO2 200 times as fast! So, where is the 100x as fast rise in todays temperature causing this CO2 rise? Cmon people, think.


          • barry says:

            You say: CO2 accounts for an average of about 17% of the total greenhouse effect

            Still no links I see.


            “A simplified summary is that about 50% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour, 25% due to clouds, 20% to CO2, with other gases accounting for the remainder.”

            Different GHGs absorb at different rates, which is why CO2 is a larger contributor to the greenhouse effect than it’s fraction of greenhouse gases.

          • “CO2 accounts for an average of about 17% of the total greenhouse effect”

            Since when did I say that? Did you even read my whole comment I made?

          • I appreciate you providing a link Barry. But I find it to be pure left wing drivel! How in God satans name can co2 contribute to that much of the greenhouse effect when it is such a tiny trace gas in the atmosphere? That’s a load of hogwash!

          • What’s even more sad is that the website you provided to me as a link actually admits that current concentration of greenhouse gases is about 380 ppm yet all they focus on is how it compares to natural emissions of co2!

          • barry says:

            What you haven’t contended with is that human activity has emitted twice as much CO2 as the increase in the atmosphere – and how it could be anything other than anthro emissions that is responsible for the rise.

            It’s simple arithmetic. Maybe you have trouble with arithmetic?

          • Barry did you even read my previous comment! What did I tell you?! Here I go repeating myself once again! I said to provide links to support your claims but as usual you continue to just cherry pick away! If you don’t provide any links than how the hell can I know what your saying is true? I can’t because you have no support backing it up!

          • Never mind Barry I apologize I didn’t see that link you posted above

          • barry says:


            98% of gases in the atmosphere are not greenhouse gases. They contribute nothing to the greenhouse effect.

            The 2% of gases in the atmosphere that contribute to the greenhouse effect make the surface 30K warmer than it would be without them (temps at night would be more like the dark side of the moon). By volume, CO2 is 2% of all GHGs in Earth’s atmosphere. By strength, CO2’s average contribution is about 17%, because different gases have different GHG ‘strengths’, molecule for molecule. A molecule of methane has different properties than water vapour, than CO2, than CFCs etc.

            By analogy, an increase of 100ppm arsenic to body mass can kill you. Trace amounts of arsenic can be lethal.

            Here is a visually clear representation of a small amount changing the radiative properties of a volume. In this case, 100ppm of blue ink changes the colour of a volume of water.


          • Your link doesn’t prove anything I want what you said in your comment written in stone in black and white on somebody’s web page not some random 90 year old buffoon mixing black water with clear water and saying that that’s how much co2 we are dumping into the atmosphere!

          • barry says:

            The experiment shows that a change in parts per million can have an effect that is clearly seen. You are going on about ‘trace amounts’ so as to make out that they couldn’t possibly have an effect. The experiment was a visual representation of what a 100ppm change can do. I linked it for you so you can see with your own eyes.

            If you want a more technical review of the effect of various greenhouse gases, look for the 1978 Ramanathan and Coakley study of the gases in the atmosphere.

            Or would you be willing to consume 100ppm arsenic/your body mass? You would soon learn what ‘tiny amounts’ can do.

            Skepticism is requisite. You are practicing denial. I could provide any number of links, but you would reject them all if they didn’t fit snugly with your view. I even provided a link to Dr Spencer, a dyed-in-the-wool skeptic vastly more competent than you. Still not good enough for you.

          • barry says:



            Thank you for that link. It verifies that nearly half the anthro emissions are being absorbed by the natural sinks, that the rise in CO2 above background levels since the industrial revolution is man-made, and also mentions one of the other lines of evidence for this (isotopic ratio). From the article:

            About 40% of the extra CO2 entering the atmosphere due to human activity is being absorbed by natural carbon sinks, mostly by the oceans. The rest is boosting levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    • doctor no says:

      ” Now if we were to double co2 to about 760 ppm by 2100 that will still only increase atmospheric concentration of co2 to about 0.0760 ppm which is still less then zero..”

      ‘Another problem we have is models dont include the so called vertical overturning of the atmosphere which transports cooler air downward and warmer air upward since warm air usually rises”
      DON’T THEY ??

      By the way. What school do you attend?

      • I don’t get my research from school. I look it up on the computer weezle brain! I don’t learn climate science because it’s a required I learn it because I enjoyed it! Now if that’s your only question and your not going to even prove why I’m wrong then why even make a comment criticizing what I just said! Your just like all the other stupid global warming alarmists! All talk no proof! better get that brain exammded by a better doctor who actually knows what he’s doing and does his job because he wants to help people not to make money like most scumbags do because it seems DOCTOR NO is NO DOCTOR! Good luck in life dirt brain!

    • We are on the same page which is good and can share thoughts.

  30. And if you want links because you think I’m just pulling words out of my ass. Well here’s one for you!


  31. Lol you guys are waistline your time on studying the physics of looney hogwash when the evidence is right there in front of your face! People are hilarious!

    • Because of this I have decided to stop wasting my time and breath posting on dr Roy Spencer’s webpage if you morons aren’t going to get the facts of climate change straight. And as for you dr spencer, I appreciate you are a skeptic like me and we both share similar view points on climate change and I am glad you and dr Christi came out with this website and sattalite records of actual global temperature data. I’ll see all you alarmist losers on the other side of this climate debate once the truth becomes obvious on what is really happening with our climate. The world of climate change debate will be a totally different subject and I am just dying to see people’s reactions. So long everybody and if your smart you will have taken advantage of what I’m saying and share this right information about climate change with the whole world to try to get people out of this mess before it’s too late. Climate change is a ticking time bomb waiting to explode in your face when you least expect it but not me because I am prepared for it and i encourage you to do the same. The world will be a totally different place. So long friends!

      • doctor no says:

        Please remember to take your dummy and shut the door behind you.

      • I hope you remain but I understand your frustrations.

        I view it this way the more people disagree the better it will be if we are correct. If everyone or most agreed with our views on the climate we would not be able to have an argument for our positions.

        For myself the more that disagree with my thoughts when it comes to the climate the better.

  32. toncul says:

    Why trusting a necessary wrong satellite dataset that is a mixture of REMOTE measurements, adjustements, empirical formulations with tunable parameters and arbitrary choices (just look at the old version of UAH that was clearly different from that one),

    when there are thermometer measurements ????

    We measure temperature with a thermometer.

  33. Vincent says:

    I really think that many of you posters who are engaged in the back and forth, tit for tat arguments which either support some degree of warming influence from C02, or completely debunk it, need to look at the broader picture.

    Try to expand your horizons. If there’s uncertainty, as there often is on all sorts of matters, especially quantum mechanics, then try to rise above such uncertainty.

    Accept that we simply don’t know, and devise a strategy that will be of benefit if the ‘warmist’ are right, but also of benefit if the warmists prove to be wrong in the future.

    No prizes for declaring what that strategy is. (wink).

  34. “Accept that we simply dont know, and devise a strategy that will be of benefit if the warmist are right, but also of benefit if the warmists prove to be wrong in the future.”

    Bullshit Vincent! Of course we know! Did you read my previous comments as to how little co2 there really is in the atmosphere? If that tiny bit of co2 caused so much warming to an powerful star that compromises of 99% of the universes total mass then something is terribly wrong!

    • doctor no says:

      Still here?

      “We cant trust you unless you provide links to support your claims”

      • I am providing links! The real question is are you still here dr no?

        • doctor no says:

          “I have decided to stop wasting my time and breath posting on dr Roy Spencers webpage”

          I see you have changed your mind.
          And when I say “mind” I use the word carefully since, in your case, I think it may be missing.
          Now that you have come back into class after your little tantrum please sit down and pay attention. You may yet learn something.
          Today we are looking at the FIZZER LA NINA.
          Beloved by many skeptics, there are signs that this La Nina may be a fizzer, dashing their hopes and wishes that it will reverse the warming trend in the UAH data.

          • doctor no says:

            BTW, did you know that data from the satellite channel (AQUA CH06)
            is used to estimate
            DAILY GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE AT: 25,000 FT / 7.5 KM / 400 MB

            Yes – 7.5 km above the surface!
            CH05 failed in 2013
            CH04 failed in 2008

  35. barry says:

    Roy, I’ve found a word that is caught by the filter and rejects posts.

    ‘A b s o r p t i v e’

  36. WizGeek says:

    @doctor no: Over the past several years that I’ve followed Dr. Spencer’s blogs and responses by others, there’s never been anyone as disrespectful, crass, and dogmatic as yourself. You present thoughtful counterpoint, but you do so in a very affronting and belittling way, and that approach detracts from your credibility and degrades the discussion.

    • doctor no says:

      “…theres never been anyone as disrespectful, crass, and dogmatic as yourself.”

      I admit that, at times, I am a bit naughty. However, I hope you have noted that it usually happens in response to some unsavoury or particularly ignorant posts (your good self excluded). I do try to be polite and helpful but, in many cases it is “pearls before swine” (sorry, there I go again).

  37. doctor no says:

    Blog seems strangely quiet recently.
    I hope it is because you have all gone away and are studying my informative posts very carefully.

  38. calculator says:

    great information…

Leave a Reply to barry