The temperature pause is back! Nineteen year, nine months and counting! A Limerick. (Updated)

La Niña came in with the cold.

Alarmists predictions on hold.

So the eighteen year pause

is now nineteen, because

no sunspots, a sight to behold.

Last month’s drop in global temperatures is the largest on record,

steepest-drop-global-temperature” The pause” is back! No global warming in the last nineteen years! The last El rss_8_month2016-temp-decline-land-rss-copyNiño has come to an end and is replaced by a La Niña. The temperature drop from September to October is 0. 6 degrees larger than normal.

Note that the results are from land area only. The worldwide data that include oceans will, like ocean temperatures show a lag. That is why land temperatures only is a leading indicator of climate change.


The sun has been unusually quiet. Much like during the beginning of the little ice age.

How is the winter shaping up so far? Look at the snow cover.

ims2016332Russia has been snow covered since the beginning of November.

Alaska and most of Canada are now snow covered.

And it is colder than ever in Siberia for this time of the year.





cxujniquuaexqfWe can see the polar vortex set up over Siberia and Greenland this year. This bodes for a very cold winter globally.  But it is interesting that the area over te Arctic ice is up to 20 degree C warmer than normal. It can only mean one thing: It snows more than normal. Thanks to this snow, the ice accumulation over Greenland is at record levels since the September minimum. accumulatedsmb

Figure: Greenland snow assumulation

Obama on leadership, COP21, the pause, warmest year on record, the facts.

Asking Obama about his comments a year ago that America is the indispensable nation and that America leads, CBS 60 minutes interviewer Steve Kroft commented that Vladimir Putin “seems to be challenging that leadership” with his actions in Syria.

Obama’s response was revealing about how he sees the role of the United States as a global leader. “If you think that running your economy into the ground and having to send troops in in order to prop up your only ally is leadership, then we’ve got a different definition of leadership,” Obama replied. “My definition of leadership would be leading on climate change, an international accord that potentially we’ll get in Paris. My definition of leadership is mobilizing the entire world community to make sure that Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon. And with respect to the Middle East, we’ve got a 60-country coalition that isn’t suddenly lining up around Russia’s strategy.”

Leadership? Obama seems to have an unique angle on leadership. He claimed in his  April 18 weekly address to the nation, : “2014 was the planet’s warmest year on record.”

This will be one of his main arguments going into the Climate Conference COP21 in Paris in December.

How accurate is this statement?

Besides from the fact that we are not even close to the Minoan warming period 3000 years ago, or the Roman warming period 2000 years ago, not even the Medieval warming period 1000 years ago it is way off the mark on other facts as well. The figure below is from the Greenland Ice Core probings and is one of the best gauges for temperature records the last 10000 years. 2014 was still one of the 1000 coldest. Note also that the inter-glacial maximum temperature was around 6000 years ago and we are well into the bog-building face where normally Carbon would be deposited in the bogs and trigger the next ice-age. Burning Coal slows down the cool-down.


We are now experiencing an 18 year 8 month pause in the warming occurring since the little ice age. This is an undisputed fact if one looks at the satellite data.

18yr8monthspauseHowever, if one looks at the data generated by the surface stations it looks quite different. There has been a substantial rise in global temperatures since measurements began, and indeed, this century is so far the warmest on record., who is right? The official satellite measurements or the official surface temperature measurements?

The satellite measurements are done without any corrections, but the instruments are frequently calibrated to ensure no temperature drifts occur over time.

On the other hand, the United states Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) is the custodian of temperature data from the 48 contiguous states. As temperature stations are dropped and others are added they try to do a homogenization step to present the most probable past temperatures for the 48 states. This leads to temperature adjustments to past readings. They sincerely try to do the best job possible to ensure the adjustments are without bias of any kind. If we look at the next picture they did a near perfect temperature adjustment of past temperatures as a linear function of CO2 concentration.

tempC02(Credit to Tom Heller who did the analysis). This means that all homogenization was performed assuming the temperature adjustments had to conform to the IPCC model.

In other words, by assuming the model is right you adjust the data until they fit the model. Using the adjusted data you then claim this proves the model is right.

Climate science?

Ted Cruz, the Sierra club, cooking and burning, the pause, and the 97% consensus.

During a hearing of a Judiciary subcommittee on Tuesday Oct. 6 regarding regulation and minorities, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who is running for the Republican nomination on a platform that includes rejection of mainstream climate change political science, seized an opportunity to show off his debating skills and knowledge of facts.

In the video below Cruz is questioning Aaron Mair, president of the Sierra Club, and an epidemiological-spatial analyst with the New York State Department of Health.

Senator Cruz asked if the Sierra club President was familiar with the term “the pause”. After conferring with his technical expert Mr. Mair said it referred to the pause in global warming during the 4o’s.

Sen. Cruz tried to educate Mr Mair it referred to the 18 year pause in global warming as presented by the satellite data. To which Mr. Mair answered “we concur with what 97% of scientists say” and that “the earth is cooking and heating up and warming.”

Senator Cruz wanted to know if the Sierra Club would change their beliefs about man-made global warming if they were shown facts that disproved it. Cruz didn’t get an answer. Just the usual, “we concur with what 97% of scientists say.”

So, Where did that 97% of scientists consensus come from?

The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change.  The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth – out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists, astronomers and scientist engineers with specialty control theory and thermodynamics. That left the 10,257 scientists in disciplines like geology, oceanography, paleontology, and geochemistry that were somehow deemed more worthy of being included in the consensus. The two researchers also decided that scientific accomplishment should not be a factor in who could answer – those surveyed were determined by their place of employment (an academic or a governmental institution). Neither was academic qualification a factor – about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, some didn’t even have a master’s diploma. The responses were still not satisfactory, so the subgroup was further cull down to those who in the past years had written multiple peer-reviewed papers on climate science. This yielded the 77.

To encourage a high participation among these remaining disciplines, the two researchers decided on a quickie survey that would take less than two minutes to complete, and would be done online, saving the respondents the hassle of mailing a reply. Nevertheless, most didn’t consider the quickie survey worthy of response –just 3146, or 30.7%, answered the two questions on the survey:

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

The survey was taken in 1999, after a rapid temperature rise due to an unusually strong el nino, and nearly everybody had switched side from believing in global cooling in the 60’s to global warming, but even with that only 90% thought global temperatures had risen since the little ice age.

The second question is a little misleading for the average person. To a scientist significant means it is measurable outside the margin of error, not that it is major or even large, just that it should not be ignored. We can all agree that human activity such as clear cutting forests and turning the area into asphalt jungles will change the local climate. This is called urban heat islands. Likewise changing forests into agricultural lands tends to heat up the land by up to one degree. Air pollution tends to lower temperatures and is considered bad, adding CO2 tends to increase average global temperatures, the question is by how much and if that is good or bad.

Notice the second question did not deal at all with CO2, nor did it say anything about dominant contributing factor. Yet it is often cited in conjunction with “the 97%”

The other interesting question was: What is “the pause”

As presented by satellite data there has been no significant warming in the last 18 years and 8 months, as is seen in the following picture:18yr8monthspause

And the satellite data keep showing us this even though we are having a rather strong el nino. Without it the temperatures would be in decline.

For a discussion on “the pause” vs. “Warmest year on record” see:

See also:

Source for “the 97%” :