Good News: Bitter Cold And Snow Doesn’t Invalidate Scorching Heat In The Future

Actually, no, it doesn’t. Of course, the way Warmists are positioning the issue is that your use of fossil fuels (which is immoral, you know, at least for you. Not for the Warmists, otherwise known as Other Guy Syndrome)

Cold weather doesn’t mean climate change isn’t happening

It’s hard to think about climate change while most of the country is in a deep freeze – the Great Lakes are almost entirely frozen over and people on the East Coast are tunnelling out of their homes. But while this part of the planet is freezing, other parts are baking, which is why climate change requires a global perspective.

A snowball was thrown in the U.S. Senate this week by Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), a vocal climate change denier, in an attempt to show that the unseasonably cold weather outside is proof that humans are not making the planet warmer. What he was really showing is his ignorance about the difference between weather and climate.

The phrase “Climate is what you expect; weather is what you get,” invoked by climate scientists, means that the weather we see happening outside our windows is a short-term effect, while climate is a global average measured over a longer period of time. So to judge the planet by what’s happening in your own backyard is narrow thinking.

And, of course

But a recent experiment at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California has directly measured the warming effect of our carbon emissions, using data from instruments that measure the infrared radiation being reflected back to the ground by the atmosphere – the so-called greenhouse effect.

They found that the amount of radiation coming down increased between 2000 and 2010 in step with the rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So, the effect is real. And since we are continuing to increase our carbon emissions, change will continue to happen, like it or not, both warm and cold.

Interesting. The greenhouse effect is mentioned, and then blamed, due to fossil fuels, for cold. Cult.

Don’t forget, though, that the uber-crazy warmth is coming sometime. In the future. They’re certain. Because their models have been such successes.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

59 Responses to “Good News: Bitter Cold And Snow Doesn’t Invalidate Scorching Heat In The Future”

  1. Phil Taylor says:

    There is historical record of very cold days and years before the industrial revolution.
    The cause of this was natural. These forces are still with us today and must still contribute to our weather.
    In the 1990’s we were told constantly that the earth has warmed more in the last half the 20th century than the first half. It stood to reason it was because of the large amount of CO2 in the atmosphere since 1945.
    Then the warming slowed. Then the warmers changed their tune and said that you cannot look at a short period of time, you had to look at the long term trend. A point they sloughed off in the 1990’s.
    The term “Climate is what you expect; weather is what you get,” was not invoked by climate scientists in the 1990’s. In fact it only really happened after 2013 when the IPCC admitted to a slowing or “pausing” of the earth’s warming.

    • John says:

      Do you think that the US Navy knows less about science than you?
      Have you considered emailing them and giving them the benefit of your rightwing bubble scientific knowledge?

  2. John says:

    Teach don’t uou think that you should mention what percent of the earhh’s surface is experiencing the “cold” thst you keep mentioning?
    I believe that the USA is about 2% of the total earth surface and only a fraction of the USA is experiencing the severe winter
    Interesting that you do not seem to feel that should be mentioned
    Are you trying to be deceptive ?

  3. Jeffery says:


    I appreciate that you have revised your previous falsehood. You claimed earlier that the IPCC said warming stopped, and now you typed:

    In fact it only really happened after 2013 when the IPCC admitted to a slowing or “pausing” of the earth’s warming.

    Kudos. Statistically, the trend since 1998 is not different from the trend from 1970-2015, so in fact, there hasn’t even been a “pause”. The trend is slightly less than the models predicted. That happens. Sometimes the trend line wanders above the predicted – look at 1998. Were you and Spencer whining about the models then?

    I understand that you and yours shop around for the dataset that supports your bias (currently RSS satellite), but the Earth is still warming.

    Remember this. The global average surface temperature is an average of the global surface temperature (it’s even in its name). The Eastern US, while important to Americans and the corporate media, is just a tiny percentage of the global surface. All the combined data show that the average global surface temperature is increasing, even when NYC has a cold, snowy winter.

    There is no scientific debate about whether the Earth is warming. It is.

    There is very little scientific debate about the cause being CO2 from humans burning fossil fuels.

    Segments of society (conservatives, fossil fuels industry, FOX News and related media) deny these facts because they oppose the solutions. The primary solution is to transition to non-fossil fuel based energy sources.

    In 1998, a group of fossil fuel industry lobbyists got together to develop a plan to cast doubt on climate science:


  4. JGlanton says:

    Let me get this straight. These genius scientists study a climate record starting with a cool La Nina in 2000 and ending with a warm El Nino in 2010, a year that was 0.5C warmer than the 2000 El Nino year, and declare that this shows a warming signature from CO2?

    Of course there is more IR emitted when there is so much more heat in the atmosphere during an El Nino as compared the an El Nina! Duh! These people are shameless.

  5. Phil Taylor says:

    *****The link you showed me shows that the temperature increased to 1998 then got colder!!. Not hotter.***
    If you look at the last graph of your own link you will notice that the dot representing 1998 is higher than all dots after that to 2010.
    That is also a trend is it not? Soon this trend will be longer than the warming trend of 21 years.

    That means that according to that graph it actually got colder since 1998. Since “stupid” is in the title of this article I will say it lacks credibility even though it supports my point. Having the actual hard number temperature here would help clarify, but the intent of this article is to deceive and mock not “enlighten” or educated and preach to the converted. It overlooks the actual fact that the temperature has remained stagnate or cooled since 1998. (according to this graph)

    The term “pause” and “hiatus” are warmer terms not mine or skeptics. They’re the ones who also believe the world has “paused”. Pause means the warming will eventually continue. Skeptics think the warming trend is over till the next one in about 2030.

    The debate here is man made warming. When skeptics say warming, that is what they mean. (Man made) Instead of having to clarify every time.

    Shopping around means fact checking.
    > fossil fuel industry lobbyists got together to develop a plan to cast doubt on climate science.
    It is irrevelant what they say or any one else. Only the satellites. So again what is the temperature? Hard numbers. they will be more precise than these (stupid) graphs.

  6. drowningpuppies says:

    There are NO verifiable measurements of AGW. NONE. Despite many decades of looking, by thousands of very well paid scientists, NO ONE has produced a single testable measurement of AGW. The IPCC certainly hasn’t; they are constantly ratcheting down their sensitivity estimates.
    Science is all about measurements. It is nothing without testable measurements. Without measurements, everything is merely a conjecture; it is speculation. It is an opinion.

  7. Jeffery says:


    Thanks for admitting that the monster El Nino year of 1998 is the basis for the pseudo-“pause”.

    Let me repeat, as Tamino pointed out, there is no statistical “pause”. The trend continues. Sheesh, people.

    puppies, You are confused at how science works. I’ve asked many times, but will again: What data would “prove” to you that CO2 is causing the Earth to warm?


    Earth warming? Check

    CO2 absorbing infrared radiation and re-radiating some back to Earth? Check and Check

    Atmospheric CO2 increasing? Check

    Increased CO2 originates from fossil-fuels? Check

    What is your theory for why the Earth is rapidly warming?

  8. Kevin says:

    Give it up people. Armageddonists like John and Jeff will never see a silver lining. They’ll only see a cloud. The world is doomed in their minds and there’s nothing we can do about it, short of suffering for mankind’s previous sins.

    Even if the world suddenly became freakishly cold, it wouldn’t be enough. They’d just claim that they always knew it would be cold and that’s what they were fighting against. “We’re at war with Eastasia. We’ve always been at war with Eastasia!”

  9. drowningpuppies says:

    So, little jeffery, could you point me to a verifiable measurement of AGW? Where is it?

  10. Jeffery says:

    The results from the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab group are interesting.

    They observed a direct correlation between short-term changes in atmospheric CO2 (CO2 goes up in Northern winter and down in Northern spring – do you know why?) and radiation (not temperature – since many factors influence local temperatures). The finding suggests that a steady, decade long increase in atmospheric CO2 (from 370 ppm to 390 ppm) correlated with a steady, decade long increase in radiative forcing of about 0.2 W/m2.

    I guess Svante Arrhenius was right to be worried over 100 years ago.

  11. Jeffery says:


    Read the story from the Berkeley Laboratory and explain it away please. That’s just the latest stake in the zombie denier heart.

    A little CO2 causes a little more infrared radiation measureable on Earth. A lot causes a lot more.

    But evidence won’t make any difference to you. You will claim it’s not “verifiable” because it wasn’t paid for by Heartland and wasn’t conducted by a denier.

    Earth is warming. CO2 is up because of fossil-fuel burning. Less infrared radiation making it out to space, more being absorbed by Earth. Directly linked to fine changes in atmospheric CO2. Still not convinced?

  12. Kevin says:

    The better question is ‘do YOU know why?’ We may convert you from an armageddonist to a scientist yet, Jeffrey!

    Also, do you know why a theoretical increase in radiative forcing amounted to no increase in temperature?

    I’ll give you a hint: the answer revolves around the word ‘theoretical’.

  13. drowningpuppies says:

    So, little jeffery, where is the verifiable measurement of manmade CO2? What % of the increase is manmade?

  14. Jeffery says:


    You drama-queen Deniers… The Earth is not doomed. We can reduce our CO2 emissions!

    The Earth is not freakishly cold. If it did rapidly cool it would not be by magic but by physical processes such as the Sun suddenly cooling even more, strong volcanoes, changes in the Earth’s orbits etc. Don Easterbrook predicted the Earth would cool dramatically and we’re still waiting.

    During the “pause” we’ve had several of the warmest years we’ve recorded.

  15. drowningpuppies says:

    Little jeffery,

    Try using your little head for once: if AGW were known to be a measurable fraction of total global warming, then the entire debate would be over. But as any fool (like you) can see, the debate is still raging, as much as ever. That’s due directly to the fact that no verifiable, agreed-upon measurements of AGW exist.

  16. Jeffery says:


    The increase in radiative forcing was real, not theoretical. They measured it at two different geographical locations – Oklahoma and Alaska. The changes in CO2 were real. They measured that too. They observed a direct correlation between small changes in CO2 levels and small changes in radiative forcing. They saw a longer term correlation between the larger change in CO2 with larger changes in radiative forcing. Maybe they’re wrong. Maybe you can find some error in their methods.

    The average global surface temperature did increase over that time (2000-2010), but you raise a good point. The radiative forcing from CO2 is not the ONLY contributor to the average global surface temperature. If it were it would be so much easier to predict! And with any scientific measurement there is variability associated with the measurements themself. But you know that.

    Look at Tamino’s graphs from earlier and note the yearly variability. What causes that? We know that CO2 is increasing rather steadily (we noted the annual variations based on Northern hemisphere seasons). El Nino’s, La Nina’s, volcanoes, solar radiance (the Sun is in a cool phase now), and even larger cyclic variances such as the PDO. These all add up to give us an estimate of average global surface temperature. But note the trend, even with the variability. Up.

  17. Kevin says:

    We can reduce CO2 production, but we won’t. It’s going to get up to ~750ppm before leveling off. And you know what bad will happen because of it? Not a damned thing.

    The world will continue to be much greener than it has been for the past 200 years. The temp will generally be the same as it has for the past 200 years. And everyone will continue to grow and spread with joy in a beautiful world except for armageddonists like yourself.

    You can’t be helped. Or if you can be, I’m damned sure not the one who’s going to do it. Your pessimism is not contagious. I’m supposed to be on vacation this week. Your constant negativity is draining, Jeffrey. I’m bowing out. Live in your black and gray world if you want to. I won’t join you there.

  18. Jeffery says:


    Please don’t be too offended by the author’s use of “stupid” in the title. It wasn’t directed at you personally. Note too that many of the articles that environmentalists receive from Deniers contain the slurs, “warmist”, “warmers”, and the insults “hoax”, “fraud” and “lie”. It’s a rough world here on the interwebs.

    On the other hand, if not “stupid”, what term would you use to describe someone who claims a single peak of warming (e.g., 1998) invalidates decades of data rather than looking at statistical trends?
    “Naïve”? “ignorant”? “dishonest”? “propagandist”?

  19. Jeffery says:

    little puppy,

    There is no scientific debate raging. It’s a political debate. If you think this is about science, you need to read more.

    Scientists understand that the Earth is warming because of the CO2 we’re adding to the atmosphere. The benefits of this CO2 and warming will likely be outweighed by the changes in climate.

    The debate is between scientists and governments (hence, the people) vs the fossil fuels industry and their supporters.

    The science is quite clear, and I’ve wondered why the Deniers deny. Some are directly funded by those who will be harmed by a transition to non-fossil fuels. Some are conservatives who just dislike anything “environmentalist”. Some are libertarians who think that corporations should be able to have their way with us, we the people. Regardless, it’s not about science or data or evidence – it’s about conservatives carrying corporate propaganda.

  20. Jeffery says:


    So, it’s not that you are unconvinced by evidence, it’s just that reality makes you sad.

    I hope your Pollyanna wishes are true and the world turns out to be wonderful, even at 750 ppm of CO2. And I hope my more realistic expectation of human suffering is wrong.

    I’d like to be able to say you’ll be missed, but you won’t. You’ve added very little of substance. Buh-bye.

  21. Jeffery says:

    The poor, pathetic, naïve scientists thought that data and evidence would be persuasive in the face of the fossil-fuel/conservative media war. The same tactic – to manufacture doubt – that the tobacco industry used to persuade Americans that cigarettes weren’t killing 400,000 of them each year is being used by the corporate/Denier complex.

    Over 90% of actual scientists know that the “skeptics”-for-hire are lying.

    That’s the closest parallel.

  22. Kevin says:

    “So, it’s not that you are unconvinced by evidence, it’s just that reality makes you sad.”

    Reality makes me very happy. Always has. Your predictions of future reality make me sad. It’s why I don’t take armageddonists seriously. You’re so depressing and unrealistic. I’m going to hazard a guess that you’re single?

  23. drowningpuppies says:

    Little jeffery,

    If the science is quite clear, once again, how much manmade CO2 is there in the atmosphere?
    Simple question.

  24. Jeffery says:

    Little puppy,

    The entire increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past century is from humans… therefore, roughly 30% of the total. Of course, you’re just trying to distract from the truth. Where do you think the increase in CO2 came from?


    Married over 40 years, kids, grandkids, great job(s), great friends… I love life! But I also worry about the lives of my grandchildren, great-grandchildren, great-great-grandchildren and on and on.

    Ignoring the truth may work for you but not for me.

  25. Jeffery says:


    I understand your desire to attack me personally rather than dealing with evidence. Alinsky Rule 5: Mock and ridicule.

    Just about every scientist on Earth disagrees with your position on climate change. Does that give you pause?

  26. The entire increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past century is from humans… therefore, roughly 30% of the total.

    Which is it, all or 30%? If the former, that’s quite possibly the most insane and cultish thing I’ve read on the subject. Nature puts out way more CO2 than mankind.

    If the latter, you’re admitting that natural forces account for the majority, which pretty much blows your Blame Mankind theory away.

    Have you stopped using fossil fuels yet?

  27. jl says:

    J-“Skeptics for hire…” Which is no different than warmunists for hire- by the government. One wonders why you would continue such a lame argument when it just makes the climate astrology side look worse because it takes in many times the money? Not too swift of a debate tactic, J. “The same tactic- to manufacture doubt, is what the tobacco industry used.” Really? First, the tobacco companies were sued. Who is being sued now? Second, doubt isn’t “manufactured”, it’s brought about by the lack of supporting data and the failure of climate models. Third, no one forced anyone to buy cigarettes, but the end game of the giant cclimate hoax is government forcing us to completely change our energy use. So, other than comparing apples to pears, nice try.

  28. jl says:

    J- “I guess Svante Arrenius was right to be worried.” Is this the same “father of global warming” that believed: oranges would grow in Arkansas and Virginia, the Antarctic would be home to millions of people, that Alaska would have the climate of Maine, that Chicago would have fig trees, that Canada would have the same climate as Missouri, and that Siberia would be the greatest farming country in the world? Seems his predictions were as bad as the astrologer’s are now. I think we have the right to be worried about him.

  29. Jeffery says:


    I guess I was unclear.

    The current total is 400 ppm. A century ago, the CO2 level was 280 ppm. The increase since then has been from burning fossil fuels. 400-280=120. 120/400×100%=30% of the current total is from burning fossil fuels.

    The INCREASE from 280 to 400 is from fossil fuel burning. If we had not added CO2 to the atmosphere, it would still be 280 ppm, and it’s very unlikely the Earth would have warmed nearly as much over the past century.


    I haven’t stopped using all fossil fuels. Why on Earth would you ask?

  30. Jeffery says:


    Is this the same…

    Yes. Arrhenius was right that increasing atmospheric CO2 would lead to warming (he demonstrated that CO2 absorbed infrared), but he agreed with todays “skeptics” guesses that it would be good for mankind.

  31. Kevin says:

    Nice. I’m being calls a follower of the far left Saul Alinsky! I suspect your comment is the only time I’ll ever be accused of that, so thanks.

    Many of us have told you time and time again there’s something dramatically wrong with the ipcc (and your, since you consider them to be the bible)’s view on CO2 forcing. Is it off by a factor of three? Or five? I don’t know. But it’s off, and there’s been no warming for decades despite what the models based upon it predict. When the model fails, you can’t blame the world, Jeffrey. You have to blame the model.

    Except for this week, I have to work with other scientists almost exclusively in my work life, and there is not a single one of them that is afraid CO2 will damage the planet. We do spend a little time laughing about the ones willing to say it will so they can get some grant money though.

    I do not respect scientists who would use their degree in that selfish and destructive way.

  32. John says:

    Sen Inhofe the greatest climate truthers jn the ZuS Senate also believes the Grand Canyon was created during Noah’s Great Flood and that there were unicorns and t Rex on the Ark
    Lol And you think “warmists” are wack jobs? Look at who us leading the truthers

  33. Kevin says:

    You’re pretty sure about that John?

  34. Kevin says:

    Since john has switched us to ‘nonsensical’, here is the REAL reason there are no unicorns anymore. A tragic loss.

  35. Jeffery says:

    …there’s been no warming for decades…

    And that, my friend, is what being a Denier is all about.

    You repeat the same falsehoods time after time.

  36. Jeffery says:

    Just because you use an Alinsky tactic doesn’t make you a follower. Ridicule is the most obvious device to use. Most conservatives use ridicule to win arguments since they rarely have the facts on their side.

    5.“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating.

  37. Kevin says:

    To use your own words, “Stop it. You’re done.” You’ve used the word ‘denier’ once too many. You lose respect every time you try to use it to describe people who don’t share your opinion on global warming.

    And your respect just ran out. Now you have none left to lose, Jeffrey.

    You can disagree with my assessment, but then you’d just be a denier.

  38. Jeffery says:

    I thought you were leaving? You just can’t quit me can you? Don’t deny it.

    Since I pronounced you “done”, you’ve done nothing of note.

  39. Kevin says:

    There is truth in what you said. I have a very hard time letting lies go uncorrected, Jeffrey. I’m stretching my belief system hard to believe that you don’t know you’re professing false info. It’s that I believe you BELIEVE your misconceptions that makes it so hard to let them go.

    To paraphrase Donny Rumsfeld, Jeffrey, if I KNEW you knew that your position on CO2 was silly, I’d be able to let it go. But I don’t know that. At least I don’t know it deep down. So I can’t let it go.

    Yikes! You pronounced me ‘done’? How far did that get you?

  40. Phil Taylor says:

    Dear Jeffrey:

    I took another look at your link. Though it was not directly from NASA it may have come from there. Notice that the dot that shows the most cooling is around 2008 which we know was a cool year.
    However, as I stated earlier all the dots after 1998 are cooler than 1998. Now we can all remember the headlines from the past. 2004 hottest year on record, beating out 1998. 2010 hottest year on record. There is also a claim for 2012 and now 2014. The reason that I do not readily except that 2014 is now the hottest year on record is because of these claims in the past. When I have the time I will fact check 2014.

    So now you have to consider this. Is this graph correct, or is the claims of those years being the hottest on record correct? One of them in not correct. One of them is propaganda. That is why we need to defer to NASA for our data. The graph is a little misleading in that the red lines should change direction after 1998 and head downward or at least level off.
    It is designed to appear that there is an upward trend. That is the claim of the graph but in fact according to this graph if you start from 1970, then there is 28 years of warming and 15 years of stagnation or cooling. The cooling has not reached 1970 levels but we still have 13 more years to get there. Just in time for the world to start warming again in 2030 as some predict the next warming cycle will begin. 1998 was a BIG el nino year and temperatures before 1985 may have been a little off because they were not derived from satellites and a one time correction occurred then by a fraction of a degree warmer. If this is true then it makes sense that the temperature will stagnate as the past temperatures were slightly off and then cool but still remain a little warmer than the 1970’s

  41. Phil Taylor says:

    This is an urban myth. Were all these scientists surveyed? In fact you have yet to name any. I know there are some.
    Where did that famous “consensus” claim that that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union survey consisting of a brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the 3.000 who responded only those who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals were considered in their survey statistic. That number was 77. Of those, 75 answered “yes”. Or 97 percent.

    For those other than Jeffery who knows this from another post you can google “scientists that do not belive in climate change.” A list of quite a few come up.

    Also Physicist Frederick Seitz was President of the US National Academy of Sciences and of Rockefeller University. He received the National Medal of Science, the Compton Award, the Franklin Medal, and numerous other awards, including honorary doctorates from 32 Universities around the world. In August 2007, Dr. Seitz circulated a petition to be dubbed the Global Warming Petition project to the American climate based Scientific community. 31,487 signed it. Of those 9029 have Phds. Google it. The names of all the people who signed are on record on their webpage so you can see for yourself.. Warming promoters wishing to discredit this, claim how can you verify all those that responded. You can’t, but random samples have proved to so far 100 percent correct and warming promoters have yet to find anyone that did not qualify.

  42. Jeffery says:


    Your obsession with 1998 is telling. As a scientist, one cannot pick and choose the bits of data that support their personal bias. Tamino fit a line (this is a statistical procedure, not art) to the totality of the data. The portion of the data post 1998 is not statistically different from the totality of the data, regardless of what your eyes tell you.

    Why choose 1998 as the beginning of your cooling trend? Why not choose 2000? It’s warmer now than in 2000, therefore no pause. Do you consider that fair? Me either.

    Look at the last few years. Each year warmer than the previous. Is that fair? No.

    Why do you believe the only acceptable data are from the satellite? How do they measure temperature from 100 miles away?

  43. Jeffery says:

    Dr. Seitz was a brilliant physicist.

    He was also a right-wing ideologue on the payroll of RJ Reynolds and was a spokesman for tobacco interests, arguing that it was not proven that cigarettes were harmful. He oversaw the disbursement of $45 million in research funds from the tobacco industry, admitting, “They didn’t want us looking at the health effects of cigarette smoking.”

    He co-founded the conservative George C. Marshall Institute to help President Reagan sell his strategic missile initiative. The GMI later switched to climate change denial in support of the fossil fuels industry that supported them financially.

    Do you really want to discuss the Oregon Petition?

  44. Kevin says:

    “Look at the last few years. Each year warmer than the previous. Is that fair? No.”

    Is it an accurate statement? Also no.

  45. drowningpuppies says:

    The entire increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past century is from humans… therefore, roughly 30% of the total.

    Thanks, little jeffery, that one statement proves your lack of intelligence.

  46. Phil Taylor says:

    I am not obsessed by 1998. IPCC is. They claimed at the time that 1998 was the warmest year ever. They also predicted as well as climate models, that the earth would continue to warm beyond 1998 levels because of C02. it did not.
    Others predicted that it is because of a warming trend that ended in 1998 and that it will then cool. Who is right? According to your graph the latter theory is correct.

    However…If you look at any high point in your graph and compare to any low point in your graph you can claim the world has cooled. If you took any low point in your graph and took any high point then you could claim that the world warmed. That is why graphs are misleading.

    So what really happened, (according to your graph.)

    The world warmed from 1970 to 1998. Then cooled from 1998 till now.
    However, you could say the world temperature has gone up and down. Overall UP from 1970 till 1998 and overall Down since 1998 till now.

    ***Now if each black DOT represents a year as it appears to do so, it goes right up to 2014 or 2015. Those dots show that 2014 or 2015 are not the warmest year on record.
    so who is right, the graphs or NOAA?

    From 1945 to 1978 the world cooled. CO2 went up.
    From 1998 till present the world cooled (according to your graph) instead of going up as predicted.
    Co2 rose during this time to to almost 400ppm.

    Now lets be fair. It would be fair to say that overall the world did not warm or cool SIGNIFICANTLY from 1998 till now.
    It is fair to say that CO2 rose during this time. It is fair to say that climate models predicted warming would continue after 1998 but did not.
    It would be fair to say that the world did not significantly cool ether. It would be fair to say this graph and media headlines contradict year other.
    It would be fair to say that headlines have created the illusion that the world has warmed greater than it has. It would be fair to say that if it is NOT fair to claim the world has cooled. it is also NOT fair to say the world has continued to warm.
    It is fair to say that skeptics have a reason to be skeptical. There is a lots contradictory evidence like this that raise red flags. We do not need oil companies to misinform, warmers are doing a great job on their own.

    What to do. Just use IPCC, NASA or NOAA and maybe British Met sources. No one else.

    Therefore, even though this graph supports my claims, because it is not directly from NASA I am willing to take it with a grain of salt. You should too.

  47. Jeffery says:

    Last try on this topic.

    No. You’re obsessed with 1998.

    1998 was a single year. One cannot base their perception of warming or cooling on a single data point. If next year we have an El Nino and the average annual surface temperature sets a new record, will you graciously accept defeat and say, by golly, the world is warming after all. I would hope not – not based on that single year. You’re asking me to accept that the Earth is cooling because 1998 was a hot year! Did you panic in 1998, thinking your denier worldview was crashing down? I hope not. It was only one year.

    Does it not strike you as unusual that the Earth is cooling from 1998 to today, but warming from 1999 to today??

    According to NOAA data, the Earth has warmed an astounding 0.4C from 1992 to today. Yet, those lying scientists who put trend lines on the data claim only a 0.29C increase! According to the NOAA data, the Earth has warmed 0.8C since 1977! My point is one cannot arbitrarily cherrypick start and stop points. Here is your access to the datasets and you can calculate everything yourself, including fitting trend lines to the data:

    The data are clear. The Earth is warming. Is CO2 the only variable contributing to the average global surface temperature? Of course not. That’s why the average bounces around – but the trend is up, up and away.

    One should always be skeptical. But one should also try to understand.

  48. Jeffery says:

    that one statement proves your lack of intelligence

    That you can’t understand the simplest of concepts proves yours. Maybe Teach can explain it to you, LOL.

  49. Phil Taylor says:

    Has the world warmed beyond the all time high of 1998. Yes or no?
    If yes, then why does your graph does not show it. If no, then NOAA is incorrect. Likely because NOAA does not display all the data. Just the land based and ocean data.

    Who is correct. One is wrong.
    Please choose.

    >Does satellites measure temperature from 100 miles away?
    Yes very well.

    Why 1998. Again because it was the warmest year. The others years were not. Again because IPCC and allies said it would get warmer.
    If it did, why does this graph not show it? Why do the lead authors at IPCC claim it has not. Why has warmers invented the term “pause” and “hiatus.”
    to describe this period if it did not?
    If you do not like 1998 and prefer to chose 1999 instead when according to your graph the temperature dropped. Ok. Then what was the likely reason it droped that year? CO2 or lack of an el nino that occurred the year before?
    If I was cherry picking i would choose 1998 to 2008. But I do not. if you were cherry picking you would choose 1999, or 2000 till 2014 which you do. You did not like it when i choose 2013.
    >According to the NOAA data, the Earth has warmed 0.8C since 1977!
    Yes Easterbrook concers. That was when the last cooling trend ended and the new warming trend started. I have said this many many times before!
    What you fail to mention is that it started droping again, or slowing down, or cooling after 1998. It did not warm 08c overall. -Just as a result of the warm 1990s when this theory became popular to explain the warm 1990’s. Since 1860 (if you except this data) the world has warmd 1/10 of a degree per decade on average. 2/10’s of a degree in the 1990’s and now has not warmed beyond the 1998 high or if you insist on thinking so it has warmed slightly. The trend then will likely adverage out to again about 1/10 of a degree. What is considered normal coming out an ice age.

    >1998 was a single year. One cannot base their perception of warming or cooling on a single data point.
    Yes you cannot! So why do warmers keep doing this. When the 1990’s were warmer than a normal decade, why not say “hey we are going through a warm period. When it slowed, or paused, why not say “Heh the trend has now changed.”

    >Does it not strike you as unusual that the Earth is cooling from 1998 to today, but warming from 1999 to today??
    No 1998 was a warm year to a cool year and 1998 was a cool year to a warm year. However all are STATICALLY insignificant.
    They cancel each other out. Not currently? Wait a year or go back a year.

    >The data is clear.
    Not that clear if so, we would have the hard numbers.

    >Is CO2 the only variable contributing to the average global surface temperature? Of course not. That’s why the average bounces around – but the trend is up, up and away.

    Maybe CO2 is not a contributor at all.
    >trend is up, up and away.
    Your graph does not show this. At best it is very slightly up, ..but hardly up, and away…

    I will look at the link you provided when I can. However, the only source to really take seriously is the sources I mentioned.
    These other sources may not be as relaible or politically motivated.

  50. drowningpuppies says:

    The entire increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past century is from humans… therefore, roughly 30% of total.

    Little jeffery,
    Thanks. You are the gift that keeps on giving.


    There are NO verifiable, testable, empirical measurements of AGW. NONE at all.

    On second thought: just go away. Try to sell your pseudo-science to the IPCC. They know there are no measurements of AGW. It seems you are the only one who believes that there are.

    Stop bothering the grownups here with your anti-science nonsense. If you had a verifiable, testable measurement quantifying the fraction of total global warming attributable to AGW, then you would be the first— AND on the short list to win the next Nobel Prize.

    Go for that, and leave the rational folks alone. We don’t need your nonsense.

    On third thought, please keep commenting.
    You make it too easy.

Pirate's Cove