A Calm Overview of Recent Climate Variation

The GWPF has just published another excellent contribution on climate – they claim it is ‘The World’s First State Of The Climate Survey Based on Observations Only’. That by itself is an indictment of the IPCC and its political goal-driven mission. Let us contrast that massive but essentially poisoned endeavour with this decent, calm, apolitical, scholarly one, albeit on a far smaller scale. It has been put together by one man, Ole Humlum of Norway. Many readers here will already be familiar with his Climate4You website as an invaluable source of data and insights.

It is so refreshing to study climate materials without them being overlaid or interspersed with pompuous, portentous, pretentious pontifications about the future and/or how awful we have all been with fossil fuels, industry, agriculture, and all the rest of our civilisation and progress.  I hope a lot of people will download this new report, print a copy, and keep it handy for studying and referring to in years to come.  It strikes me as being a very useful contribution indeed, one that can enhance discussions around climate variation and our possible impact on it.


  1. From the report:

    “The year 2016 was affected by the oceanographic phenomenon El Niño in the Pacific
    Ocean. It is likely that 2016 was one of the warmest years in the longest global air
    temperature record (HadCRUT), which extends back to 1850. However, by the end
    of 2016, global air temperatures were again back to the level of the years before the
    recent El Niño episode, suggesting that the global 2015–16 surface temperature peak
    was caused mainly by this oceanographic phenomenon.”

    Debunking, yet again, the “climate emergency” declared at El Nino’s peak.

    But wait, we have another “climate emergency” in the making:

    “4. The recent 2015–16 oceanographic El Niño is among the strongest since the
    beginning of the record in 1950. Considering the entire record, however, recent
    variations of El Niño and La Niña episodes do not appear to deviate from the
    previous pattern.
    5. Much of the heat given off during the 2015–16 El Niño appears to have been
    transported to the polar regions, especially to the Arctic, causing severe weather
    phenomena and unseasonably high air temperatures. Subsequently, the heat
    may have been radiated out to space, as latitudes north of 70°N have been char-
    acterised by above-normal outgoing longwave radiation during the northern
    hemisphere autumn and early winter of 2016.”

    Earth is losing heat rapidly! If we get another moderate to powerful El Nino in 2017, as models are predicting, we may reach a global cooling tipping point! Definitely ‘uncharted territory’.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I wonder how the enforcers will react. Presumably the first step will be to investigate his funding. Then a Mashey style investigation of whether he was once in the same building as Steve Mc….


  3. Jaime. I am disconsolate. I searched through The Climate Denier List -a list of scientists, real or imagined, pundits and loud mouths, and found no record of myself – surely I qualify for the last category? Perhaps I could get ATTL to sponsor me.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. They’re so half-hearted these list-makers.

    The most recent entry — on Paul Homewood — was posted on February 11, 2015.

    The next most recent entry is on Gordon J. Fulks, posted december 6, 2013. There was one more in October, the first since the one or two posts in June.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I’m sorry for you Alan. You appear to have been diligently working so hard over the years to achieve denier status. Perhaps we sceptics should start a petition urging the Great and the Good of the Climate Consensus to add those deserving of infamy to Ze List much sooner.


  6. I’m sure that Ken is working on a depiction of Alan the denier, except that nobody will be able to interpret it in the way that Ken intended


  7. I hate to disappoint people here, but I’m not involved, and have never been involved, in developing lists of people of any description. If some here would like to be included (and think they deserve to be included) then they will have to contact someone else.


  8. Alan, I was added to one of the more actively-maintained lists a few years back.

    The long response: http://www.climate-resistance.org/2010/06/inner-spin-outer-chaos.html

    TL;DR version: It turned out that the list that accused us of being a sleeper cell of revolutionary communist-Marxist, right-wing libertarians in the control of the ExxonMobil flying saucer mind-control ray was in fact a project part-funded from the Goldsmith fortune and with the involvement of Caroline Lucas and George Monbiot. In exposing sinister ‘networks’ connecting cash with ‘PR’, it seems the investigators had formed their own.

    The lists are frustrating, because it is the tendency of most green loons to simply copy and paste from smear sites, rather than engage on the substance of debates. But then, that’s always been the point of uncritical deference to the Consensus: to moralise about those who dissent from it, rather than to understand their perspective.

    The person who added me to the list was an activist for the then Optimum Population Trust, now Population Matters. He trawled my Facebook for info on who I was friends with, and so on, after he had embarrassed himself in a couple of online debates. He didn’t take it well. So rather than reflecting on his own argument and how to improve it, he sought instead to smear.

    These lists say much more about them than us. For all the tu-quoque whinges about sceptics apparently hypocritical ‘tone policiing’, I’ve yet to see any ‘sceptics’ or ‘deniers’ compile a ‘hall of shame’, and the suchlike.


  9. BenPile. You are quite correct to refocus upon the more serious aspects of these denier lists. They are not the least bit funny in and of themselves. But if you can’t generate some mirth, you end up crying in utter frustration.


  10. Alan, all responses, from ignoring, pointing-and-mocking, to returning-in-kind are valid – I meant no judgement of your comments. The response to the list-makers I found most illuminating though, was SpinwatchWatch, which uncovered some unsavory tendencies lurking behind the Spinwatch project. But who has time to do all that?!

    It’s worth not forgetting how nasty these people are, and how they are categorically not drawn from the fringes of the web, but are well-connected, and funded by “civil society” organisations. As I said on the other thread, the debate does not improve as one moves up the food chain.


  11. BenPile. My 1.14pm comment was just that. I saw no criticism and I was agreeing wholeheartedly with you when you were drawing our needed attention to serious aspects. I was merely agreeing with your next comment (before you actually made it) that humorous and serious responses are equally valid.
    I’ve not seen discussions like this on activist sites – they are invariably dire.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Hey guys. I hope you will forgive a bit of self-promotion, but I thought some of you might find something I’ve been discussing interesting. I’ve been discussing a PhD dissertation which based upon drawing conclusions about “climate change deniers,” beginning with this post:


    That post is the most important one as it provides a layman’s explanation of how shows how statistics can be abused to draw pretty much whatever conclusions you want about about practically anybody and have them be “statistically significant.” The approach is discussed in a bit more technical detail in this next post:


    And finally, a bizarre case where it appears data has been tampered with is discussed in my latest post:


    Part of why I wanted to post this here is this is exactly the same sort of approach Stephan Lewandowsky used to draw conclusions about people. I thought it was interesting people are now getting PhDs based entirely upon his bogus methodology.


  13. ATTP has the gall to come here and make demands while he bans discussion at his echo chamber. What does he offer besides lessons in cowardly hypocrisy?


  14. One useful aspect of presenting the different global estimates is that it allows comparisons of both the differences and the similarities. Take sea level rise. The satellite data estimates at least twice the level of rise of the tide gauges. But still the satellites are only averaging 3.5mm a year from 1992. But neither data set shows significant acceleration.
    Compare this to the predictions. In June 1988 The New York Times reported James Hansen as claiming:-

    The rise in global temperature is predicted to cause a thermal expansion of the oceans and to melt glaciers and polar ice, thus causing sea levels to rise by one to four feet by the middle of the next century.

    That would mean an average rise of 5 to 20mm per year. Given that greenhouse gas emissions have risen faster than the average 1.5% pa Hansen assumed (less in the 1990s, around 2.5% post 2000) we should be seeing some significant increase in the annual rate of rise nearly half way through the period.


  15. Another comparison is between the global average data temperature data sets for satellites and surface. There are significant difference in trends, but strong similarities as well. Most significant is that all temperature data sets show a marked slowdown in the rate of warming in this century compared to the last couple of decades of the twentieth century.
    Compare this slowdown or pause to Figure 13b on CO2 Concentrations. That rate of rise has been increasing, particularly post 2000. There might be lagged impacts on global average temperatures, but unless the longer term impacts are greater than the short-term impacts (and for periods in the opposite direction) the real world evidence does not appear to support the notion than rising CO2 is having major impact on global average temperatures.


  16. The “demand” is that he posts on other blogs with the expectation that he will not be treated by skeptics the way he and so many other climate fanatics treat skeptics when they can determine who speaks. A certain possible imprecision? Sure. Does my point stand? I think so.


  17. Hmmm, I’m certainly not demanding anything and I fully expect to be treated as I am – as far as I’m concerned, you’re responsible for how you choose to treat others, not them. All I was pointing out here, is that I’m not involved (despite suggestions to the contrary) in the writing of lists of people that are then available on the internet. If people here feel they should be included, they will have to contact someone else (and, yes, I realise that people here don’t actually want to be included, they just want to make it seem that I’m somehow responsible for lists that you probably regard as objectionable).


  18. ATTP, there’s an old saying, possibly apocryphal in the sense that few or none have actually experimented with it: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

    Why don’t you lift your ban?


  19. ATTL. “On whom?”. Exactly. I don’t often visit your site and have never commented upon it, not because it doesn’t have some good scientific argumentation within it, but because I strongly suspect contrary views have been excised or are absent because of the risk of excision. In contrast, IMO, almost anything goes here and over at BH. It sometimes gets rough (especially on BH) but I don’t read of anyone being banned – I can only think of the meanderings of the Duke of York being removed after some time period, and that seems perfectly reasonable given their total non-relevance to the topic being discussed. In contrast I have repeatedly read here from people I have come to greatly respect (but not necessarily agree with) that they have been banned from your site. Yet you benefit from the right to comment here, sometimes spilling your ill temper and bile. Strange that gander.


  20. so kind of Paul to agree to let you comment here then .. you banned him from your “house”, but you expect to come and play here. 😉


  21. Now we get see the obtuse banality of ATTP in action. It is a simple concept: if one wishes to comment freely on a skeptic blog and not be dismissed as a shallow hypocrite, then allow skeptics to freely post on a true believer site under one’s control.


  22. John Shade. It’s instructive to read your commentary about the new report and compare it with that written by Ken. Both have relevant points, so that a reasonable person might be expected to conclude that the truth probably lies somewhere in between. The topic has, however, become so very polarized and toxic that this “in between” barely exists.


  23. Alan, you are too generous! But I will leave the reading of Kenattp’s stuff to others like your good self. I am pleased though that you report he made relevant points – that’s a sign he doesn’t spend all his time wriggling with his contortions, confusions, and obfuscations like he does here. Since I suppose we taxpayers are helping with his upkeep, I am mollified by this news.


  24. …and Then There’s Physics says: 25 Mar 17 at 9:01 am

    “Alan, Are you a mind reader? I do kind of wish that it could be more pleasant, but I’ve realised how unlikely that is and have largely given up on thinking that it’s actually possible.”

    Just what may a personal chair in computational astrophysics do; besides troll here and list those banned from his personal chair? Is it really that hard to determine “at which end of the telescope the sensor array must go”; Even for those who cannot learn, such as you? 😦


  25. ATTL, ATTH is both a liar and a hypocrite. It shows an incredible lack of self awareness that he posts here while banning most of the people who regularly comment here from his blog. Self evident dick behavior does not help you convince anyone, ATTL.


  26. dpy6629 says: 26 Mar 17 at 12:50 am
    “ATTL, ATTH is both a liar and a hypocrite.”

    We may never agree; but you do consider opposing POV! OTOH Ken, universally treats every other as some sort of greasy, pregnant,stoned, possum!. Have you looked at those incisors, and the prehensile tail protecting the unborn?


  27. ATTP “When it comes to commenting on blogs, I don’t really expect – or wish for – anything.”

    I deprecate Alan Kendall’s calling you a liar (“The farmer and the cowman should be friends”!). But that remark is clearly an exaggeration (instead, you mean “anything much”). If it were literally true, why would you ever comment on any blogs? We all post in the hope of justifying our views to readers. When you post on this blog, I can readily accept that that you don’t necessarily expect to convince us – but I simply don’t believe that you don’t wish it.


  28. Osseo,

    But that remark is clearly an exaggeration (instead, you mean “anything much”). If it were literally true, why would you ever comment on any blogs?

    Well, yes, but the word really was intended to play about the same kind of role as the word much. I agree, though, that I of course expect something (or I probably wouldn’t bother at all) but these days it isn’t very much (I’m pretty pleased if it doesn’t degenerate into name calling).

    When you post on this blog, I can readily accept that that you don’t necessarily expect to convince us – but I simply don’t believe that you don’t wish it.

    Believe it, or not, but I don’t really wish to convince people. I’m perfectly happy with a discussion in which the other party doesn’t agree with what I’m saying. It might be nice if I got the sense that the other party was at least thinking about what I’m saying before responding, but even that is not something I particularly expect these days.

    Anyway, I only responded because you had commented on what I had said, so I will endeavour to do as people seem to wish and stay away (which is fine with me).

    Liked by 1 person

  29. ATTP; what people wish is that you would actually engage in a dialog and think about what skeptics write before banning them from your blog. And think about the implications that skeptics have been proven correct time and time again and what that means to the alarmism you are so dedicated to.


  30. Osseo. I’m slightly bemused by your comment about my calling Ken a liar. This specifically refers to a single occasion here where he blatantly did identify a previous post of his as being ‘misleading’ and was done at my expense. It does not refer in any way to his attempts to debate points of scientific fact or opinion.
    I am not a climate scientist nor a physicist, so I leave most of those discussions to others more qualified or more willing to step into those waters. Yet I do believe, over the years, that I have developed a “nose” for good and bad science, and it is here that Ken and I often clash.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. I suspect ATTP doesn’t really give two hoots about ‘climate change’ other than it has proven to be a handy vehicle for the expression of his personality. As soon as it drops from the headlines, falls down the list of things to display virtue about, and especially as soon as the ignorance and incompetence of zealots for the climate cause are widely ridiculed, he will drop it for something else.

    In the meantime, here is another straw in the wind:

    ‘I’m A Scientist, Who Are You?’
    This is not the first time I have heard this; in fact, it is often the smug retort I get from scientists who want to discredit me. It’s also a reason why more people don’t write anything controversial about climate change—because the blowback from the self-righteous climate tribe is swift and harsh. Of course, the “I’m a scientist, who are you?” reply is one-part arrogance, one-part “STFU little lady.” After all, we’ve been taught to be intimidated by and obsequious to the intelligentsia, right?

    See the rest at: http://thefederalist.com/2017/03/30/taxpayers-cant-talk-climate-change-policies-neither-can-scientists/

    Hat-tip: http://climatescience.blogspot.com/2017/04/how-to-deal-with-youre-not-expert.html


  32. John Shade. Of course there is yet another layer, yes you may be a scientist, but of the wrong sort. You are not trained to offer an opinion on climate science. Or you are old (= a has been) and out of touch. Your opinion is worthless.


  33. Yes Alan, I daresay that’s all true enough – playground level stuff that suits the low moral and intellectual standing of the campaigners. It all helps to erode trust, not least when arrogance is followed by observations which undermine it.

    A few years ago, folks were pointing out that ‘sceptic’ or ‘skeptic’ is not actually a rude thing to call a genuine scientist or genuine admirer of science, and so the campaigners worked to try to reclaim it for themselves. Damage done however.

    Here is an article from star blogger Glen Reynolds of Instapundit fame, from 2012 and making some good points about declining trust in scientific authorities (‘institutions’) without necessarily declining admiration for science itself:

    And saying, “trust us,” while denouncing skeptics as — horror of horrors — “skeptics” doesn’t count as science, either, even if it comes from someone with a doctorate and a lab coat.

    After a century of destructive and false scientific fads — ranging from eugenics to Paul Ehrlich’s “population bomb” scaremongering, among many others — the American public could probably do with more skepticism, not less.

    If scientists want to be trusted, perhaps they should try harder to make sure that those who claim to speak for science are, you know, trustworthy. Just a thought.

    For the whole article: http://nypost.com/2012/04/02/faith-in-science/


  34. John Shade. I forgot there is one more dismissive tactic – you may be qualified and not an old fossil but, horror of horrors, you are in the pay of oil companies or big coal. Your contributions are hopelessly compromised: you are a DENIER writ large and have sold your soul.


  35. Given their tremendous contribution to human welfare and progress, I’ve long been bemused by the notion that oil and coal companies are wicked entities. The facile labelling of ‘denier’ or ‘big X’ badness is of course a sign of dealing with an ideologue, zealot, fanatic or brainwashed victim. One of the sources of dismay for me about the CO2 Fiasco is the revealing light it has cast on human frailty. Even our institutions of science have been shown to be vulnerable to propaganda, groupthink, and outright prejudice.

    But there are signs that genuine scientists are still alive and well in and around the climate fields: http://notrickszone.com/2017/04/03/growing-skepticism-already-150-new-2017-scientific-papers-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.