Skip to content

Sorry Alarmists, Even Joe Romm Confirms The Pause

September 7, 2016


By Paul Homewood




Joe Romm continues to make an idiot of himself.  


He uses this graph from UAH to show that even satellites confirm his apocalyptic version of events.


1 BXut8lmkvtnoiifBEkS_HA


He cherry picks the latest 12 month average, which just so happens to be a miniscule 0.074C higher than at the same stage in 1998. He forgets to tell you though that the current El Nino has been much longer lasting than 1998’s, and consequently temperatures in late 2015 were already comparatively elevated.


He also forgets to tell you that August 2016 is 0.07C cooler than the same month in 1998, or that the last five months have also been cooler this year.

In reality, these differences are no more than weather, and have no significance either way.


He then goes on to label Roy Spencer and John Christy as “deniers”, which is one of the most ludicrous epithets I have ever come across, and just shows how politicised climate science has become.


Romm then goes on to mention that there is another satellite dataset, RSS, which somehow disproves the “deniers’” UAH. Unfortunately for the discredited Romm, the RSS data show exactly the same as UAH’s – the current 12-month average is 0.081 higher than in 1998, but again we find no statistically warming since 1998.





Romm’s only answer to this is to say that there has been warming since 1979:


You will no doubt be shocked, shocked to learn that the satellite data has, in fact, confirmed global warming for a long time. Indeed Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) reported earlier this year that the satellite data shows a “Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978 [of] +0.12 C [0.22F] per decade.” And Spencer and Christy are both leading deniers themselves!


Please Joe, do keep up. We all accept that there was warming between 1979 and 1998, which coincided with the PDO switch and the movement of the AMO from its coldest state to its warmest.

It is what has happened since that matters. You know, that thing called the “Pause”, that even the UK Met Office, in July 2013, accepted was real, prior, of course, to the latest super El Nino. Indeed, it was so real, they even wrote a paper about it.


But even if we assume that the rise in temperature since 1998 is part of an underlying change, then so what?

A change of 0.07C over 18 years equates to 0.4C/century. This is way below anything forecast by the IPCC, Joe Romm or any of his well rewarded cohorts, as John Christy points out:






If all we are arguing about is an inconsequentially small rise in temperatures in the next century, one that is almost certainly beneficial, don’t the wheels fall off Joe Romm’s alarmist bandwagon?


But, of course, when you look at Joe Romm’s website, you will realise that he is a lot more interested in politics than facts. 



  1. September 8, 2016 12:15 am

    It is hard to show a warming trend net of the known chaotic behavior of surface temperature and harder yet to show that surface temperature is related to fossil fuel emissions. The IPCC uses a correlation between cumulative emissions and cumulative warming as empirical evidence that fossil fuel emissions determine surface temperature but that correlation is flawed.

  2. September 8, 2016 4:40 am

    If you use Romm’s temperature graph, the IPCC average run of Christy’s matches.

    The entire dispute is based (now) on Karl et al 2015 vs UAH.

    • CheshireRed permalink
      September 8, 2016 9:10 am

      Could you please expand on that a touch Doug?

      • Gerry, England permalink
        September 8, 2016 12:55 pm

        Karl et al is known as the ‘pausebuster’ paper for making the pause disappear by using data fraud. This made the sea surface temps warmer by taking the modern argobouys data and raising it by assuming temps recording from ship engine intakes and from thermometer dipped into to buckets of water were more accurate. This ignored warming contamination and reading accuracies.

  3. RAH permalink
    September 8, 2016 4:40 am

    Joe Romm does not have to continue to make an idiot of himself. He has always been an idiot and makes his living preaching to a mass of idiots that believe him.

  4. richard verney permalink
    September 8, 2016 10:47 am

    The satellite data set essentially shows responses to ENSO modulated (at any rate short term) to volcanic eruptions.

    It would appear that El Nino drives temperature trends up more than la Nina drives temperature trends down.

    When one reviews the data as a whole, there are 2 pauses not one. Essentially there is little if any statistically significant warming as from inception in 1979 through to the run up to the super el nino of 1997/98, and following that super el nino there is no or little statistical warming through to the run up to the just fading strong el nino of 2015/16.

    What we see is this that coincident with the super el nino of 1997/98 there has been a one off and isolated step change in temperature of about 9or just over 0.3 degC). Apart from that event, there is little of note in the data set.

    2010 was a strong el nino and it merely resulted in a short term spike in temperatures which was completely offset by subsequent la nina conditions.

    The question is whether there will be another long lasting step change in temperatures coincident with strong 2015/16 el nino, or whether when the cycle completes the position will be similar to the 2010 strong el nino, ie., that there will be only a short lived spike in the temperature data and not a long lasting step change.

    The current ENSO cycle has yet to complete. IF no longing step change is seen coincident with the 2015/16 el nino what we will see in the data set is a reappearance in the ‘pause’ (the second pause). In these circumstances when the pause reappears it will quickly be over 20 years in duration and notwithstanding that nearly 40% of all manmade CO2 emissions will have taken place from say 1995/96 there will be no statistically significant warming during this period.

    The upshot of this will be that by necessity the Climate Sensitivity will have to be lower than claimed. As the pause lengthens, Climate sensitivity must decrease.

    I envisage that this data set will cause real problems for the writing of AR^ since I envisage (but do not know) that the strong el nino of 2015/16 is not akin to the Super el nino of 1997/98 and I envisage the prospects of their being no long lasting step change in temperatures coincident upon the 2015/16 el nino to be strong.

    At this stage, everything is premature but by 2019 matters should be clearer.

  5. richard verney permalink
    September 8, 2016 10:57 am

    There are a few typos in my comment, the most important one was that I am referring to the writing of AR6 which will be written sometime in 2018.

    If the pause does make a come back in 2017, there will be more and more papers being written on climate sensitivity and these papers will put ever lowering figures for climate sensitivity as the pause lengthens and CO2 emissions continued unabated.

    AR5 ducked the climate sensitivity issue. There were a number of papers published after the closure date so AR5 did not review these but the panel were aware of these papers and this no doubt played a large role as to why AR5 did not contain a best estimate for ECS.

    I am envisaging that by 2018 there will be more of these papers and they will all be putting a figure on climate sensitivity below 2, most below 1.7 and some as low as about 1.1.

    these papers and the ones published too late for AR5 will cause AR6 real problems since the best estimate for climate sensitivity will have to be below 2 and that is unpalatable for the IPCC.

    This and the growing problem with model divergence will make AR6 a very difficult report to write. I envisage that there will be a lot to sweep under the carpet.

  6. September 8, 2016 11:42 am

    Romm writes for the New York Times. Any more questions?

  7. Gerry, England permalink
    September 8, 2016 1:01 pm

    Of course the graphs shown are for anomalies and not temperatures. If you produced a temp graph you would barely see any change. The obvious question is ‘anomalous to what?’ – who knows the exact temperature the planet should be to calculate the anomaly? Just as who knows how long a glacier should be? The answer coming form anyone with common sense is you can’t say because we have a constantly changing climate. Yet somehow the warmists think it should be stable and unchanging.

    • robinedwards36 permalink
      September 8, 2016 11:10 pm

      Any discussions on weather (temperature?) changes have to be referred to something. Every observation site, or district, or state or country has different measured values for obvious reasons. To my mind, referring these values to some arbitrary base and forming an “anomaly” has no value. Other people commenting on the /observation/ set might well choose a different base from which to work out the “anomalies”. What is to be gained from such an approach? Not much! Probably only confusion will arise – as it has countless times.

      My contention is that the base from which to work out “anomalies” should be the average value for the site/time period of interest. This avoids entirely the silly arguments about choice of base value. It is consistent, very easily reproduced by anyone, and requires no elaborate explanation (or excuse!).

      Changes in temperature for different locations are readily comparable. If you are interested in the absolute values simply add the average that was used for the base.

  8. September 8, 2016 1:53 pm

    Can JR tell us why a substantial increase in CO2 levels since 1998 has led to almost no increase in global temperatures? Without accepting the obvious absence of the claimed correlation between the two of course.

  9. September 8, 2016 9:53 pm

    Why Things Bite Back S05 E11, “Romm Com.” Both sides of the warming debate have their loonies. The warmists have most adroitly captured the media, yay for them. But this means that their loonies always make it into the news while our loonies stay submerged at the bottom of the pond, saving us untold embarrassment. On the plus side, it would all be too numbingly dull without Romm et al. adding some comic relief.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: