“THE PAUSE” Lives On : Global Temperatures Continue To Cool Despite Record And Rising CO2 Emissions


GLOBAL temps continue their cooling trend, rebounding off the 2015/16 Super El Niño – the strongest since accurate measurements began, caused by surface waters in the Pacific Ocean, west of Central America rising up to 3C warmer than usual.

THE latest UAH V6.0 February anomaly of +0.20 brings temperatures back to the levels they were at after the 1998 El Niño.

UAH Feb data and results here…





NASA’s MSU satellite measurement systems, generate the RSS and UAH datasets, which measure the average temperature of every cubic inch of the lower atmosphere, the exact place where global warming theory is meant to occur.

BEFORE 2016, UAH and RSS both tracked closely showing very little warming in their data sets which led to the identification and validation of “the pause” in global warming which has since become the subject of much research and debate in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

From the RSS website:

HOWEVER, by 2016, Carl Mears, who is the chief scientist for RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) and who has used the pejorative “denialist” in various correspondence, decided that “the pause” was not a good look for the global warming narrative so RSS was massively adjusted upwards, conveniently eliminating “the pause” in the RSS dataset.

Mears’ objectivity towards the business of global temperature data collection and reporting can be found in his commentary on his website:

MEARS then published a paper claiming that new and improved adjustments have “found” that missing warming.

Mears, C., and F. Wentz, 2016: Sensitivity of satellite-derived tropospheric
temperature trends to the diurnal cycle adjustment. J. Climate. doi:10.1175/JCLID-
15-0744.1, in press.


THE result…
Differences between the old version and new version of RSS:



(Data and research via WUWT)


UAH is the satellite data set featured in this post and is jointly run by Dr. John R. Christy –  Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. And Roy Spencer Ph.D. Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Spencer commentary on the divergence between RSS and UAH post “adjustment”:

“We have a paper in peer review with extensive satellite dataset comparisons to many balloon datasets and reanalyses. These show that RSS diverges from these and from UAH, showing more warming than the other datasets between 1990 and 2002 – a key period with two older MSU sensors both of which showed signs of spurious warming not yet addressed by RSS. I suspect the next chapter in this saga is that the remaining radiosonde datasets that still do not show substantial warming will be the next to be “adjusted” upward.

The bottom line is that we still trust our methodology. But no satellite dataset is perfect, there are uncertainties in all of the adjustments, as well as legitimate differences of opinion regarding how they should be handled.

Also, as mentioned at the outset, both RSS and UAH lower tropospheric trends are considerably below the average trends from the climate models.

And that is the most important point to be made.”

Comments on the New RSS Lower Tropospheric Temperature Dataset « Roy Spencer, PhD

(Climatism bolds)



THIS epic twitter conversation between NASA GISS’ chief climate commissar Gavin Schmidt and @7Kiwi captured an epic admission as to the spurious nature of the highly upwardly ‘adjusted’ NASA land-ocean temperature data set, that leads to the huge and widely recognised divergence between satellite observations, climate models and NASA’s GISS temp…


A translation (square brackets) of Gavin’s admissions just for fun . Though many truths in it…

NASA and NOAA’s preferred surface-based thermometers measure “different parts of the system [UHI affected parking lots, asphalt heat sinks, AC exhaust air vents], different signal to noise ratio [we bias toward warm stations], different structural uncertainty [we ‘homogenise’ the data set to cool the past and warm the present to fit the global warming narrative].”NASA GISS Gavin Schmidt’s admission about the satellite record versus the surface temperature record

More info on NASA GISTEMP: Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)


IT’S not difficult to see why the NASA data set is the preferred go-to for global warming activists, mainstream media, the UN IPCC and politicians seeking to implement draconian climate policy on their citizenry…

Screen Shot 2018-03-02 at 8.21.43 am.png

Land-ocean temperature index, 1880 to present, with base period 1951-1980. The solid black line is the global annual mean and the solid red line is the five-year lowess smooth. The blue uncertainty bars (95% confidence limit) account only for incomplete spatial sampling. [This is an update of Fig. 9a inHansen et al. (2010).]

“The Pause” is well and truly wiped from the record, with vengeance!

C/w UAH satellite global temp data:



NASA has doubled global warming since 2001:


NASA make up make up record temperatures in countries where they have no thermometer data. NOAA’s current data in Africa and much of the rest of the world is fake:


NASA has massively altered their US temperature data since 1999, to make a 1930-2000 cooling trend disappear:

SEE more extreme examples of NASA / NOAA temperature data fraud at Tony Heller’s superb resource: The Deplorable Climate Science Blog | “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts” – Richard Feynman


GOOD READ : Satellites / Thermometers

Measuring global temperatures: Satellites or thermometers? 


by Dr. Roy Spencer

The University of Alabama in Huntsville

The official global temperature numbers are in, and NOAA and NASA have decided that 2015 was the warmest year on record. Based mostly upon surface Dr_-Roy-Spencer-178x300thermometers, the official pronouncement ignores the other two primary ways of measuring global air temperatures, satellites and radiosondes (weather balloons).

The fact that those ignored temperature datasets suggest little or no warming for about 18 years now, it is worth outlining the primary differences between these three measurement systems.

Three Ways to Measure Global Temperatures

The primary ways to monitor global average air temperatures are surface based thermometers (since the late 1800s), radiosondes (weather balloons, since about the 1950s), and satellites measuring microwave emissions (since 1979). Other technologies, such as GPS satellite based methods have limited record length and have not yet gained wide acceptance for accuracy.

While the thermometers measure near-surface temperature, the satellites and radiosondes measure the average temperature of a deep layer of the lower atmosphere. Based upon our understanding of how the atmosphere works, the deep layer temperatures are supposed to warm (and cool) somewhat more strongly than the surface temperatures. In other words, variations in global average temperature are expected to be magnified with height, say through the lowest 10 km of atmosphere. We indeed see this during warm El Nino years (like 2015) and cool La Nina years.

The satellite record is the shortest, and since most warming has occurred since the 1970s anyway we often talk about temperature trends since 1979 so that we can compare all three datasets over a common period.

Temperatures of the deep ocean, which I will not address in detail, have warmed by amounts so small — hundredths of a degree — that it is debatable whether they are accurate enough to be of much use. Sea surface temperatures, also indicating modest warming in recent decades, involve an entirely new set of problems, with rather sparse sampling by a mixture of bucket temperatures from many years ago, to newer ship engine intake temperatures, buoys, and since the early 1980s infrared satellite measurements.

How Much Warming?

Since 1979, it is generally accepted that the satellites and radiosondes measure 50% less of a warming trend than the surface thermometer data do, rather than 30-50% greater warming trend that theory predicts for warming aloft versus at the surface.

This is a substantial disagreement.

Why the Disagreement?

There are different possibilities for the disagreement:

1) Surface thermometer analyses are spuriously overestimating the true temperature trend
2) Satellites and radiosondes are spuriously underestimating the true temperature trend
3) All data are largely correct, and are telling us something new about how the climate system operates under long-term warming.

First let’s look at the fundamental basis for each measurement.

All Temperature Measurements are “Indirect”

Roughly speaking, “temperature” is a measure of the kinetic energy of motion of molecules in air.

Unfortunately, we do not have an easy way to directly measure that kinetic energy of motion.

Instead, many years ago, mercury-in-glass or alcohol-in-glass thermometers were commonly used, where the thermal expansion of a column of liquid in response to temperature was estimated by eye. These measurements have now largely been replaced with thermistors, which measure the resistance to the flow of electricity, which is also temperature-dependent.

Such measurements are just for the air immediately surrounding the thermometer, and as we all know, local sources of heat (a wall, pavement, air conditioning or heating equipment, etc.) can and do affect the measurements made by the thermometer. It has been demonstrated many times that urban locations have higher temperatures than rural locations, and such spurious heat influences are difficult to eliminate entirely, since we tend to place thermometers where people live.

Radiosondes also use a thermistor, which is usually checked against a separate thermometer just before weather balloon launch. As the weather balloon carries the thermistor up through the atmosphere, it is immune from ground-based sources of contamination, but it still has various errors due to sunlight heating and infrared cooling which are minimized through radiosonde enclosure design. Radiosondes are much fewer in number, generally making hundreds of point measurements around the world each day, rather than many thousands of measurements that thermometers make.

Satellite microwave radiometers are the fewest in number, only a dozen or so, but each one is transported by its own satellite to continuously measure virtually the entire earth each day. Each individual measurement represents the average temperature of a volume of the lower atmosphere about 50 km in diameter and about 10 km deep, which is about 25,000 cubic kilometers of air. About 20 of those measurements are made every second as the satellite travels and the instrument scans across the Earth.

The satellite measurement itself is “radiative”: the level of microwave emission by oxygen in the atmosphere is measured and compared to that from a warm calibration target on the satellite (whose temperature is monitored with several highly accurate platinum resistance thermometers), and a cold calibration view of the cosmic background radiation from space, assumed to be about 3 Kelvin (close to absolute zero temperature). A less sophisticated (infrared) radiation temperature measurement is made with the medical thermometer you place in your ear.

So, Which System is Better?

The satellites have the advantage of measuring virtually the whole Earth every day with the same instruments, which are then checked against each other. But since there are very small differences between the instruments, which can change slightly over time, adjustments must be made.

Thermometers have the advantage of being much greater in number, but with potentially large long-term spurious warming effects depending on how each thermometer’s local environment has changed with the addition of manmade objects and structures.

Virtually all thermometer measurements require adjustments of some sort, simply because with the exception of a few thermometer sites, there has not been a single, unaltered instrument measuring the same place for 30+ years without a change in its environment. When such rare thermometers were identified in a recent study of the U.S., it was found that by comparison the official U.S. warming trends were exaggerated by close to 60%. Thus, the current official NOAA adjustment procedures appear to force the good data to match the bad data, rather than the other way around. Whether such problem exist with other countries data remains to be seen.

Changes in radiosonde design and software have occurred over the years, making some adjustments necessary to the raw data.

For the satellites, orbital decay of the satellites requires an adjustment of the “lower tropospheric” (LT) temperatures, which is well understood and quite accurate, depending only upon geometry and the average rate of temperature decrease with altitude. But the orbital decay also causes the satellites to slowly drift in the time of day they observe. This “diurnal drift” adjustment is less certain. Significantly, very different procedures for this adjustment have led to almost identical results between the satellite datasets produced by UAH (The University of Alabama in Huntsville) and RSS (Remote Sensing Systems, Santa Rosa, California).

The fact that the satellites and radiosondes – two very different types of measurement system — tend to agree with each other gives us somewhat more confidence in their result that warming has been much less than predicted by climate models. But even the thermometers indicate less warming than the models, just with less of a discrepancy.

And this is probably the most important issue…that no matter which temperature monitoring method we use, the climate models that global warming policies are based upon have been, on average, warming faster than all of our temperature observation systems.

I do believe “global warming” has occurred, but (1) it is weaker than expected, based upon independent satellite and weather balloon measurements; (2) it has been overestimated with poorly adjusted surface-based thermometers; (3) it has a substantial natural component; and (4) it is likely to be more beneficial to life on Earth than harmful.

About the Author: Dr. Roy Spencer

Roy W. Spencer is a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He received his Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin in 1981. As Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, Dr. Spencer previously directed research into the development and application of satellite passive microwave remote sensing techniques for measuring global temperature, water vapor, and precipitation. He is co-developer of the original satellite method for precision monitoring of global temperatures from Earth-orbiting satellites. Dr. Spencer also serves as U.S. Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for EOS (AMSR-E) flying on NASA’s Terra satellite. He has authored numerous research articles in scientific journals, and has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.


“The Pause” related :

“Hottest Year Evah” Meme via Dataset related :

Climatism Top Posts :

Climate Science related :

Source info :


PLEASE Tip The Climatism Jar To Help Keep The Good Fight Alive!

(Still waiting for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)

Click this link for brief info…TQ, Jamie 🙂

Donate with PayPal



THE Fantasy Of Accelerating Sea Level Rise Just Got Hosed

“Using these modelled estimates, the globe should now be seeing a rapid acceleration in sea level rise. Yet no evidence of this can be found so far. In fact the real measured data show the opposite is happening: a deceleration in sea level rise is taking place.”

“In other words: global sea level rise has decelerated since the 1950s.”

NUFF said!

Watts Up With That?

We’ve been told over an over again that global warming would melt the icecaps, and melt Greenland, and that would result in catastrophic sea level rise flooding cities. We’ve also been told that “sea level rise is “accelerating” but in an investigation done here on WUWT by Willis Eschenbach, Putting the Brakes on Acceleration, he noted in 2011 that there seems to be no evidence of it at all, and notes that sea level was rising faster in the first half of the record.

Figure 1. Satellite-measured sea level rise. Errors shown are 95% confidence intervals. Data Source.

The smaller trend of the recent half of the record is statistically different from the larger trend of the first half. Will this reduction continue into the future? Who knows? I’m just talking about the past, and pointing out that we sure haven’t seen any sign of the threatened acceleration…

View original post 541 more words

SCIENTISTS : Worst Climate Warnings ‘Will Not Come True’

Screen Shot 2018-01-23 at 7.22.16 am

THE back-pedalling by climate ‘scientists’ continues as it becomes ever more obvious that their alarming projections have been deliberately exaggerated to push an agenda far removed from reality.

THE refined estimate of ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity – the amount of warming that would occur if the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubled) is even more significant considering that recent emissions of CO2 have been much greater than originally assumed, according to scientists.

LATEST findings are yet another blow to the “settled science” meme…


Screen Shot 2018-01-23 at 8.21.31 am.png

Worst climate warnings ‘will not come true’

January 18 2018

Earth’s climate may be less sensitive to man-made emissions than previously feared, a study has found. It raises hopes that the worst predictions about global warming can be avoided.

It suggests that the target set in the Paris Agreement on climate change of limiting the average temperature increase to well below 2C is more achievable than some scientists have claimed.

Apocalyptic predictions that the world could warm by up to 6C by 2100 with devastating consequences for humanity and nature are effectively ruled out by the findings.

However, the study makes clear that steep reductions in emissions will still be needed to avoid dangerous climate change. It also concludes that the aspirational target in the 2015 Paris Agreement of limiting warming to 1.5C is less likely to be achieved.

The study, published in the journal Nature, refines previous estimates of how sensitive the climate is to carbon dioxide by considering the historical variability in global temperature.

It focuses on the key measure, known as equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), which is used by climate scientists to make predictions. ECS is the amount of warming that would occur if the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubled.

The concentration has already increased by about 50 per cent since pre-industrial times, from 270 parts per million (ppm) to 403ppm.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a scientific body which advises governments, gives a range for ECS of 1.5–4.5 degrees C. The new study narrows this range to 2.2–3.4C.

Peter Cox, professor of climate system dynamics at the University of Exeter and lead author of the paper, said his team had “squeezed both ends” of the range presented by the IPCC.

“We can rule out very low climate sensitivities that might imply you don’t need to do very much at all but also very high climate sensitivities that would be very difficult to adapt to.

“That’s useful because it gives policymakers and people an idea of what they have got to deal with and they can make decisions on that basis.”

Mr Cox said his study showed there was less need to worry about apocalyptic visions of the future, such as those presented in the 2007 award-winning science book Six Degrees – Our Future on a Hotter Planet, which had an image on the cover of a tidal wave breaking over Big Ben.

“The very high warming rates are looking less likely so that’s good news,” he said.

“Unless we do something bizarrely stupid, we are not looking at catastrophic climate change.

“But I wouldn’t want people to think we don’t need to act. It means that action is worthwhile. We can still stabilise the system if we choose to do so.

“We are definitely up against it but we aren’t in a position where we are talking about such large climate changes that we are just messing around on the decks of the Titanic. We know better now, I hope, from our work what we have got to do.”

He said his study showed the 2C target set in Paris was “still just about achievable” but limiting warming to 1.5C in the long term could only be achieved by “overshooting” and then somehow reducing the temperature using futuristic technology, such as artificial trees which suck CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Piers Forster, director of the Priestley International Centre for Climate at the University of Leeds, said the study “confirms that we will see significantly more warming and impacts this century if we don’t increase our ambition to reduce CO2 emissions; but the possibility of 6 degrees or more warming with associated devastating impacts can perhaps begin to be ruled out”.

Worst climate warnings ‘will not come true’ | News | The Times & The Sunday Times


Climatism Related :

ECS Related :

WHAT I Learned About Climate Change: The Science Is Not Settled


EXCELLENT article written by a ‘Vegan Democrat’ and former CAGW believer, highlighting the reasons why many remain sceptical of the “settled science” of climate change…


By David Siegel Entrepreneur, investor, blockchain expert, start-up coach, CEO of the Pillar project and 20|30.io

What is your position on the climate-change debate? What would it take to change your mind?

If the answer is It would take a ton of evidence to change my mind, because my understanding is that the science is settled, and we need to get going on this important issue, that’s what I thought, too. This is my story.

More than thirty years ago, I became vegan because I believed it was healthier (it’s not), and I’ve stayed vegan because I believe it’s better for the environment (it is). I haven’t owned a car in ten years. I love animals; I’ll gladly fly halfway around the world to take photos of them in their natural habitats. I’m a Democrat: I think governments play a key role in helping preserve our environment for the future in the most cost-effective way possible. Over the years, I built a set of assumptions: that Al Gore was right about global warming, that he was the David going up against the industrial Goliath. In 1993, I even wrote a book about it.

Recently, a friend challenged those assumptions. At first, I was annoyed, because I thought the science really was settled. As I started to look at the data and read about climate science, I was surprised, then shocked. As I learned more, I changed my mind. I now think there probably is no climate crisis and that the focus on CO2 takes funding and attention from critical environmental problems. I’ll start by making ten short statements that should challenge your assumptions and then back them up with an essay.


  1. Weather is not climate. There are no studies showing a conclusive link between global warming and increased frequency or intensity of storms, droughts, floods, cold or heat waves. The increase in storms is simply a result of improved measurement methods. There has been no real increase.
  2. Natural variation in weather and climate is tremendous. Most of what people call “global warming” is natural, not man-made. The earth iswarming, but not quickly, not much, and not lately.
  3. There is tremendous uncertainty as to how the climate really works. Climate models are not yet skillful; predictions are unresolved.
  4. New research shows fluctuations in energy from the sun correlate very strongly with changes in earth’s temperature, better than CO2 levels.
  5. CO2 has very little to do with it. All the decarbonization we can do isn’t going to change the climate much.
  6. There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.” Carbon dioxide is coming out of your nose right now; it is not a poisonous gas. CO2 concentrations in previous eras have been many times higher than they are today.
  7. Sea level will probably continue to rise — not quickly, and not much. Researchers have found no link between CO2 and sea level.
  8. The Arctic experiences natural variation as well, with some years warmer earlier than others. Polar bear numbers are up, not down. They have more to do with hunting permits than CO2*.
  9. No one has demonstrated any unnatural damage to reef or marine systems. Additional man-made CO2 will not likely harm oceans, reef systems, or marine life. Fish are mostly threatened by people, who eat them. Reefs are more threatened by sunscreen than by CO2.
  10. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others are pursuing a political agenda and a PR campaign, not scientific inquiry. There’s a tremendous amount of trickery going on under the surface*.

Could this possibly be right? Is it heresy, or critical thinking — or both? If I’ve upset or confused you, let me guide you through my journey…

Read all of it here: What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled | Medium

Highly recommended ~ 38 minute read with an abundance of supporting data, evidence and peer-reviewed “science”….

This nine-thousand-word essay represents over 400 hours of research boiled down into a half-hour reading experience, with links to 250+ carefully chosen documents and videos. I’m building the argument from the bottom up, so take your time and see if it makes sense. Along the way, I’ll list five “smoking guns” that I think make the argument for decarbonization unsupportable. Before we dive in, I want to talk about …

David Siegel | Medium

What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled | Medium

H/T  🇦🇺 Canberroo  🇦🇺


Related :


Record Breaking Winter Cold? Don’t Worry, the Climate Explainers Have it Covered

“Even this week’s cold weather is probably being caused at least in part by global warming, said Jonathan Overpeck, a climate scientist at the University of Michigan.”

BUT wait, there’s more! …

“So what happens if global temperatures take a real plunge for a sustained period? Don’t worry, the explainers have that one covered as well – James Hansen, former NASA GISS Director, published a paper which suggests global warming will trigger a short ice age in the near future…”

ERGO, no! There is no “weather or climate shift [that could] cast doubt on the dominance of that wicked little trace molecule.”

HOT, cold, wet, dry, snow, drought, flood, heatwave, blizzard – it’s ALL “global warming” aka “climate change” aka “climate disruption” and it’s ALL your fault!


Watts Up With That?

Graph from p3768 of J. Hansen et al.: Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms. Graph from p3768 of J. Hansen et al.: Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms.

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Does record breaking winter cold cast doubt on climate predictions of milder winters? Could ANY weather or climate shift cast doubt on the dominance of that wicked little trace molecule? Apparently not, according to leading climate explainers.

It’s cold outside, but that doesn’t mean climate change isn’t real

Sammy Roth, USA TODAY Published 5:13 p.m. ET Dec. 28, 2017

This week’s cold snap has brought record-low temperatures, freezing rain and heavy snow to much of the United States. But 2017 is still on track to be the second- or third-hottest year ever recorded globally — and scientists say climate change is to blame.

Even this week’s cold weather is probably being caused at least in part by global warming, said Jonathan Overpeck, a climate scientist at the University of Michigan.

View original post 817 more words

THE Great Global Warming “Pause”


BETWEEN the start of 1997 and the end of 2014, average global surface temperature stalled. This 18-year period is known as the global warming “pause” or “hiatus” and has been the subject of much research and debate in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

THE rise in global temperatures that alarmed climate campaigners in the 1990’s had slowed so much that the trend was no longer statistically significant. This despite one-third of Man’s entire influence on climate since the Industrial Revolution occurring since February 1997.

THE pause took a pause during the 2015/16 super El Niño which was the strongest such event in recorded history and helped to make 2015 and 2016 the warmest years in the modern warm period. However, 2017 witnessed the biggest drop in global temps in recorded history, seen across most data sets, bringing temps back inline with 1997-2014 averages, rendering “the pause” alive and well, to date.

THERE has been a recent surge in media reports aiming to debunk and bury the inconvenient hiatus, not predicted by any climatologist, science agency, government body, media outlet or UN computer model.

A few of the latest attempts by the mainsteam media at re-writing climate history…

This slideshow requires JavaScript.


BEFORE it “never happened” – ‘established’, ‘peer-reviewed’ climate science was all over the pause…

1997 – 2015 TEMPS





The Executive Summary alone mentions the word “pause” eleven times, but the key paragraph is this:


The Met Office link to their “pause” explanation has been deleted! Very un-Orwellian of the climate mafia…

“The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth.”― George Orwell1984


“The hiatus continues to challenge climate science.” – Hedemann et al | Nature Climate Change …


The subtle origins of surface-warming hiatuses | Nature Climate Change


PAUSE for thought via Tony Heller’s RealClimateScience

Before it was disappeared, the hiatus was central to the IPCC report.

The MWP, LIA, 1940’s spike, 1970’s global cooling – all disappeared by the climate mafia.

Sometimes settled science requires rewriting history over and over again.

Deep Sixing The Hiatus | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog


CALL me a cynic, but if “global warming” is so dastardly, and an “imminent global threat”, as we’re constantly told, isn’t a near 20 year warming “pause”, “hiatus” or “slowdown” (if that works better for you) a good thing? It definitely wouldn’t appear so by how much abuse, huffing and puffing is spewed out by the climate mafia when those two words – “pause” or “hiatus” are printed or uttered. One might think that the angry voices have skin in the climate game, financially, politically and/or ideologically. Oh…wait!

AS we know, the pause has been a big embarrassment to the climate establishment, because the longer it goes on, the more it casts doubt on their climate models and their theory, and thus threatens the literal trillion dollar industry made up of grants, funds, well-paid government jobs in climate bureaucracies, rent-seekers, advocacy groups, bird-slicers (windmills) and bat-blasters (solar farms)…

A LOT of jobs, reputations and (taxpayer) funds are now at stake.


TO conclude, an excellent summary of the pause and what it means for our understanding of the chaotic and complex climate system by Dr David Whitehouse…

The lesson of the pause is not that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist, but rather that the computer models, which predicted an acceleration in global warming, and on which current policy is based, have proved to be inaccurate. Nevertheless, the pause is an important event that enriches our understanding of a highly complex climate system. In the future, a long-term rise in global temperatures may resume. There is a good chance, however, that the recent super El Niño only interrupted the 1997-2014 pause. No-one knows. But if the pause were to resume or warming keeps slowing down, many of the fundamental assumptions of climate science would have to be re-assessed.

Dr David Whitehouse is the science editor of the Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)



THE latest “pause-buster” paper that this post is based on claims that “Missing Arctic temperature data, not Mother Nature, created the seeming slowdown of global warming from 1998 to 2012, according to a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change.” – Zhang et al. …

IF that’s the case, then what for the “missing data” at the other ‘inconvenient’ pole – Antarctica – that has been cooling for the past ~40 year and gaining ice mass?

“Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) data (2003–08) show mass gains from snow accumulation exceeded discharge losses by 82 ± 25 Gt a−1, reducing global sea-level rise by 0.23 mm a−1..” – H. Jay Zwally et al. …

PERHAPS cancel’s out the apparent “unreported” Arctic data that underpins the latest pause-buster attempt by Zhang et al.

FURTHER, a valid and worthy observation by our friends “Climate Realists” who noted on twitter:

Latest Excuse on the Pause: There was NO pause in global warming because of a lack of data in the Arctic… and yet your told the Arctic is the worst it’s ever been.. work that one out.

AND this via @SimonMaxfield8

FOR the Arctic they give a warming estimate of 0.659°C per decade. This means, without the Arctic data, the global temperature paused, i.e. only one region was contributing to global warming, and a region where it’s been estimated about half is due to natural factors.  


UPDATE – Big Global TLT Temp drop In Jan

ALL 2016/17 super El Nino warming effectively gone from the system. Global temps according to UAH back to pre 2016 “Hottest Year Evah” temps…

EXPECT further drops following the February NH deep freeze that has seen snow fall as far as southern Morocco and the Sahara desert, sharks freezing to death in the US and Iguanas frozen solid in Florida.

  • Anomaly for January, 2018 was +0.26 deg. C.
  • Coolest tropics since June, 2012 at -0.12 deg. C.


Global Warming Pause/Hiatus Related :

El Niño Related :




KIRIBATI Climate Plan: More Resorts, More Tourists


PRESIDENT Tong knows perfectly well that without the U.S. involved in the UN wealth redistribution scam, the fast and furious ‘climate cash’ ain’t gonna come!

HE’S now backtracking from the Kiribati “drowning” scenario, big time, so as not to deter potential investors to his new “5-star” resort plans! After all, who would want to invest in a ‘sinking’ island?!

I jousted with Tong/Kiribati via twitter back in 2013 during the lucrative Obama climate-cash years…


Watts Up With That?

Anote Tong, President of Kiribati Anote Tong, President of Kiribati. By Sam Beebe – http://www.flickr.com/photos/sbeebe/6852258588/, CC BY 2.0, Link

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The President of Kiribati doesn’t want his people to be seen as climate charity cases – instead he wants investment, new tourist resorts to give his people jobs and economic opportunities, to help pay for reclaiming land from the sea like Singapore.

As climate change threatens islands, Kiribati’s president plans development

The low-lying Pacific island nation of Kiribati is one of the parts of the world most threatened by climate change and rising sea levels. Scientists say the islands could be uninhabitable within decades, and in recent years, some leaders there have begun planning for a worst-case scenario that could involve relocating the population to other countries.

However, in a video presentation to the international climate conference in Bonn, Germany, last week, the president of Kiribati appeared…

View original post 379 more words