Skip to content

What Phillip Williamson Forgot To Tell You

June 17, 2017

By Paul Homewood


The Spectator has published an article by Dr Phillip Williamson, who works at the University of East Anglia as a science coordinator for the Natural Environment Research Council.



Readers of The Spectator will be familiar with the argument that climate change, like Britpop, ended in 1998. Raised on a diet of Matt Ridley and James Delingpole, you may have convinced yourself that climate scientists, for their own selfish reasons, continue to peddle a theory that is unsupported by real-world evidence.


You may also have picked up the idea that the ‘green blob’, as it has been called in these pages, is somehow suppressing the news that global warming is a dead parrot. That was the case made by Dr David Whitehouse, science editor of Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Forum in a Spectator blog in February last year. He accused the world’s media of ignoring a paper in Nature Climate Change which concluded that the rise in global surface temperature had stalled, contrary to the narrative of man-made climate change. In contrast, an earlier paper by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Science magazine, which questioned the existence of that hiatus, had been given huge coverage.

Those of us who work in climate research do not, of course, ignore evidence. A study published in Nature Climate Change does not go unnoticed. But the particular paper to which Whitehouse referred does not counter the reality of man-made change. By the time he wrote his piece, the hiatus in global air temperatures had already come to a blistering halt. The years 2014, 2015 and 2016 were the three hottest years on record — an unprecedented run.

But this is only part of the story. Anyone who considers climate change to be all about air temperatures at the Earth’s land surface misses something rather important. The evidence is not just blowing in the wind; it is 500 fathoms deep.

As a land species, it’s hardly surprising that we’re more concerned about what’s going on in the atmosphere than with conditions under the sea — but in the context of global warming that’s a big mistake. Around 93 per cent of the extra heat gained by the Earth over the past 50 years has sunk into the ocean, while 3 per cent has made ice melt, and 3 per cent has warmed the land. Only around 1 per cent has stayed in the atmosphere. So if we just measure air temperatures, we’re looking in the wrong place for climate change. Recent analyses by the World Meteorological Organisation and independent researchers have looked at deep-ocean as well as sea-surface temperatures, and both groups found that significant increases in total ocean heat content began around 1980, continuing more rapidly after 1998.

Not all the heat which is absorbed by the ocean stays there. Changes in circulation in the Pacific involve warm water shifting towards South America, raising air temperatures as it does so. Such El Niño events have contributed to the sharp rise in global air temperatures over the past three years.

The apparent slowdown in global temperature rise in the early years of this century was nothing more than the Earth’s climate system expressing its natural variability. Like the weather in London, the Earth’s climate is fickle: what we see in the climate from year to year is much like what we see in the weather from day to day, or week to week. The years between 1998 and 2013 were the equivalent of a spell of cool weather following a heatwave. Yet all the while, taking air and ocean heat content combined, the Earth was warming. Now that the most recent El Niño event has ended, global air temperatures ought to be falling, but they aren’t. The world saw its third hottest January ever, followed by the second hottest February, March and April. The atmosphere and the ocean are warming in tandem, as predicted by climate models.

It is not easy to measure how much extra heat has entered the ocean as a result of human influences on the climate. Given that seawater is around 1,000 times as dense as air, small increases in water temperature represent a huge amount of heat being absorbed. It’s tough to demonstrate a whole-ocean average temperature increase of less than 0.1°C in about 1.4 billion cubic km of seawater. Tough, but not impossible — steadily, scientists have managed to complete the picture. Four years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that such ocean warming was ‘virtually certain’. Following new findings of recent weeks and months, the qualifier ‘virtually’ is now unnecessary, putting to bed any contention that global warming ended in 1998 — it is just that for a while the main effect was on water, not air, temperatures.

What happens in the ocean matters, because rising sea temperatures reinforce climate change in several ways. Warmer sea water can release methane trapped on the sea floor. Some of it finds its way to the surface and into the atmosphere, where it acts as a greenhouse gas, trapping heat — at least 30 times more effectively than carbon dioxide. Warmer water also means less sea ice. That matters, because ice reflects the sun’s rays. With less sea ice, the ocean will absorb even more heat. As the ocean warms, it expands, lifting coastal ice-shelves and making it easier for glaciers to slip into the sea. New analyses now suggest that sea levels could rise by up to a metre, and maybe more, in our children’s lifetimes.

Genuine scepticism can be constructive, since science responds to challenges by obtaining new evidence to test ideas. But those who summarily dismiss evidence when it has become overwhelming no longer deserve the name sceptics — it’s then out-and-out denial. There is no hoax; scientists like me gain nothing from exaggeration.

Yet the worst-case scenarios are not inevitable. They can be averted by action to reduce, and eventually end, greenhouse gas emissions. While Donald Trump and others might dismiss inconvenient truths, science is now in no doubt that the planet is warming, and that there is a need to take action on a worldwide basis. The Paris agreement will be the future, whereas the so-called global-warming hiatus is already history.

What could have been a constructive essay has depressingly ended up as a cheap propaganda piece.

He grossly misrepresents the position of David Whitehouse and Matt Ridley, to all intents dismissing them as “deniers”. Neither denies the greenhouse effect, but they believe there is a proper debate to be had about climate sensitivity and effects.

But to Williamson, there is only one gospel, and others shall not be heard.


He claims, by the time he [Whitehouse] wrote his piece, the hiatus in global air temperatures had already come to a blistering halt. The years 2014, 2015 and 2016 were the three hottest years on record — an unprecedented run.

This may be true for the widely discredited surface temperature record, but not according to satellite data for the atmosphere, which shows last year as only in a statistical tie with 1998.

It is, of course, Williamson’s prerogative to refer to surface data, but he needs to explain why he chooses to ignore the satellite data. To make no reference at all to data, which would undermine his argument, is not the behaviour one associates with a proper scientist.

He goes on to say, now that the most recent El Niño event has ended, global air temperatures ought to be falling, but they aren’t.

This is totally untrue, global temperatures have fallen back by half a degree and more since the El Nino peaked last year, and are back to levels seen in the years after 2001.

[Click on link for clearer image]


The heart of the Williamson article however concerns oceans and how they are somehow hiding the missing heat.

However, things are not quite as black and white as he makes out.

We only have ARGO data since 2004, which is far too short a period to be drawing conclusions from. Prior to that, we had very little idea what was happening to ocean heat content.

It is certainly debatable just how much we know now.

He states, it’s tough to demonstrate a whole-ocean average temperature increase of less than 0.1°C in about 1.4 billion cubic km of seawater. Tough, but not impossible — steadily, scientists have managed to complete the picture.

In fact, the temperature increase detected is much less than 0.1C, approximately 0.02C since 2004.

It is certainly questionable whether any statistical significance can be attached to such a small amount at all, or whether such a figure is genuinely detectable.



Then there is the question of just what is causing this increase in ocean temperatures, if it really exists.

He claims that around 93 per cent of the extra heat gained by the Earth over the past 50 years has sunk into the ocean. Unfortunately this is just mumbo jumbo. It is a physical fact that long wave radiation can only penetrate the top few millimeters of the ocean, where any warming would quickly lead to evaporation.

Even if there was a way for this extra heat to be mixed up with the deep ocean, the difference would be too small to detect.

This raises the question of whether other factors are at play in raising ocean temperatures, with the obvious one being the sun. After all, climate scientists have long known that ocean cycles can have major effects on the climate. Not only are they very powerful, but also very long lasting. The idea that man has caused sudden changes in the deep ocean is frankly scientific gibberish.

Williamson’s logic is that the pause in air temperatures, which he seems to accept existed until the 2015/16 El Nino, was because the world’s climate was going through a period of natural cooling, with the oceans holding back the heat (think La Nina).

But this ignores the AMO, which has been running through the warm phase since the mid 1990s. As even NOAA accept, when this happens, global air temperatures rise.

Meanwhile, the PDO has not really got into negative phase yet, partly because of the recent record El Nino.

Neither of these facts are consistent with his argument. Air temperatures have in fact plateaued despite the AMO and PDO.

But perhaps most importantly of all is the longer term trend. Williamson gives us a clue, when he says, “as the ocean warms, it expands”. In other words, sea levels rise.

But we know from tidal gauges all around the world that sea levels have been rising since the late 19thC, and for much of that time at a similar rate as now, and long before man made CO2 had any significant influence.

There is therefore no evidence that what we are seeing now is not just a continuation of that natural trend.

We in fact know very little about these ocean processes, and it is certainly a subject which deserves much greater attention.

Now that would be a good topic for the Spectator, but don’t expect Mr Williamson to be writing it!



It was Phillip Williamson in his role as science coordinator (whatever that means!) who made a formal complaint about one of James Delingpole’s articles about ocean acidification to the UK press regulatory body IPSO last year.

Dellers has his usual forthright account of how IPSO threw out the complaint!

Sounds as if one of Williamson’s jobs is to shut down free speech.

  1. markl permalink
    June 17, 2017 5:55 pm

    Ask anyone on the street “how hot was the hottest year ever and how much did it exceed the previous record” and you’ll get a blank stare. No one knows because they aren’t being told. It’s absent from every scare mongering article. When you tell them it was ,1 degree which is beyond the measurement instruments’ limitation you get another blank stare. Along with the non stop climate change propaganda the people are being mushroomed.

    • June 18, 2017 10:11 am

      Modern electronic thermocouples are capable of measuring to a thousandth of a degree.Even the FLIR device we use at work to detect bearings that are running hot, measures to a tenth of a degree.

      • A C Osborn permalink
        June 18, 2017 10:28 am

        So, how do you compare those measurements, especially the spikes, to the old Mercury and Alcohol thermometers that were checked by mark one eyeball?

      • markl permalink
        June 18, 2017 2:23 pm

        But “modern electronic thermocouples” aren’t what they are being compared to.

      • June 18, 2017 4:10 pm

        Also don’t confuse resolution with accuracy. Just because you can resolve fractions of a degree doesn’t mean the measurement is accurate to the same degree (pun intended!).

      • miniTAX permalink
        June 19, 2017 3:22 pm

        ” thermocouples are capable of measuring to a thousandth of a degree.”

        No. Too noisy for that. PT100 or PT1000 maybe.
        Anyway, you were talking just about resolution, not accuracy so it’s irrelevant.

        There is no way to get temperature with 1/10°C accuracy (let alone 1/1000) for a room using just one sampling point because there may be several 1/10°C difference between the bottom and the top, near the wall and near the windows…
        Climate science uses temperatures with one sampling point not for a room but areas with hundreds of km radius, sometimes thousands of km. Then applies a secret sauce to concoct a “global temperature” (chef Gavin Schmidt uses a diferent sauce than chef Phil Jones or chef Muller or chef Karl). And claims 1/100 °C difference is meaningful, how anymore stupid can it be ?

  2. Old Englander permalink
    June 17, 2017 6:33 pm

    Important to respond to this sort of thing; very prompt, you do the world a service. Thank you.

  3. A C Osborn permalink
    June 17, 2017 6:44 pm

    All the usual dead arguments from authority, appeals to authority, concensus, Hottest evah.
    He also forgot to tell the public that he is PAID to say all those things.

  4. June 17, 2017 7:10 pm

    Reblogged this on Wolsten.

  5. June 17, 2017 7:14 pm

    I don’t suppose we will see him debating Whitehouse and Ridley on the BBC any time soon.

  6. Scott Scarborough permalink
    June 17, 2017 8:09 pm

    Williamson does not mention how and when this “natural variability” will change. When will the heat stop going into the ocean? The specific heat of water is much greater than the specific heat of air. The energy that would heat water 0.1 C would have warmed the air to a much higher temperature and the heat that goes into the ocean can never come back to haunt us via the laws of thermodynamics. A lower temperature ocean that is only 0.1 C warmer due to our CO2 can not ever heat the air even close to 0.1 C. So they fail to mention that this un-predicted result, the heat going into the ocean, invalidates their models since that heat can never come back. He acts like his explanation of why their predictions were wrong still validates their predictions. They do not. His explanation of the “pause” is one of the worst I have ever seen for maintaining the alarm of Global Warming.

  7. June 17, 2017 8:16 pm

    “But the particular paper to which Whitehouse referred does not counter the reality of man-made change”. Classic scientivism, decide the answer in advance (that it was man what done it), and suppress contrary voices. There are loads of UK academics doing this, funded by the taxpayer, and grabbing a substantial part of the budget for Science and Engineering research.

    All you have to do is mention the magic word “sustainability” in your grant application (I’ve seen Grenfell Tower referred to as a “sustainable building” thanks to its cladding). For non-scientists just add the word “interdisciplinary” and taxpayer riches will be yours.

  8. June 17, 2017 9:01 pm

    It’s simple science. The sun heats the oceans, the oceans heat the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases (which are a figment of climate “scientist’s” imagination) have nothing to do with it. It’s cloud changes that affect the sun’s energy going into the oceans.

    • Athelstan permalink
      June 17, 2017 10:35 pm

      Water, is it a gas, is it a liquid, is it a solid!?????????????? No it’s convection, no conduction no its…………………….. down to radiation!

      Bring on the ‘big warmy’

      CO2 is plant food, mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, give it some water my son..

      • Barry Cullen permalink
        June 18, 2017 4:23 pm

        But less than that needed at lower CO2 levels. So don’t overwater.

  9. Athelstan permalink
    June 17, 2017 10:36 pm

    Williamson, his flaccid prose bears a quite uncanny resemblence to effluent issuing ex Bumbling Burble man bob ‘the apologist’ Ward. like Williamson are two practiced barefaced liars. Ah yes you may riposte BUT!……… but that is not an uncommon trait up at UEA, more particularly in the climastrology dept at CRU – the Charlatans Redoubt of the Unqualified.

  10. don penman permalink
    June 18, 2017 1:14 am

    The idea that the oceans are storing increased energy is absurd and like the positive water vapour feedback has not been proven. Thermometers do have an accuracy of + or – 0.1 degrees centigrade but that only allows us to measure changes yearly which can be extrapolated to a ten degree change per century, estimates range for the increased greenhouse warming expected from increased co2 but a one degree rise in global temperature would be a 0.01 degree change per year that is not detectable with the thermometers that we have and it would not be any better if it was a 0.03 degree change per year. They are always trying to make the added greenhouse warming larger by any means they can think of.

  11. Broadlands permalink
    June 18, 2017 1:49 am

    It has been widely reported that the world saw the last three years as the “three hottest on record”. And according to NOAA, last year, 2016, the global average was 58.69°F. However, back in 1996 the New York Times quoted both NASA/GISS and the “British” that global temperatures were below that number.

    As for the ENSO? It has done nothing during the 20th century. El-Nino has trended cooler, La-Nina trended warmer… the two together.. El-Nada.

  12. mkuske permalink
    June 18, 2017 2:41 am

    I always find it funny when an alarmist claims the pause in the 17 years between 1998 and 2015 was “natural variability” but the change in climate in the 17 years between 1980 and 1997 was “climate change”.

    Ummm…couldn’t the 17 years between 1998 and 2015 be climate and the years between 1980 and 1997 be “natural variability”?

  13. annbanisher permalink
    June 18, 2017 3:50 am

    I’m curious how CO2 can heat the water without heating the air.
    I thought the idea was that the CO2 traps the heat in the atmosphere.
    Let’s forget for a moment the logic of the atmosphere heating the ocean, which is a 1000 times denser.
    Now add on that it does so without itself heating up.
    That is truly a magic molecule.

  14. bea permalink
    June 18, 2017 7:19 am

    It is possible that an underlying process of warming continued during the last twenty years, but that would be the stately, very slow, warming* of the last 150 years of the upper ocean – about 1/200th C a year.

    The atmosphere is a hair, in the tail, of the dog.

    *The only scientific sense of “global warming,” as it the only definte change which has occurred everywhere.

  15. nigel permalink
    June 18, 2017 7:44 am

    “…the last 150 years,,,”

    “Spring, at Shanghai, comes slowly.”

    So wrote a traveller in 1853.

    He would be glad to find that it comes 12 days earlier now, on average. Of course, according to the Shanghai Bureau of Meteorology, 2/3rds of the change has been caused by increased urbanization. – the UHI effect, again.

    UHI applies to England, as well. The number living in urban areas has increased from 25 million to 45 million just in my lifetime.

  16. June 18, 2017 8:44 am

    Natural variability can influence temperatures either way – that’s what variability means of course.

    Show us the numbers for that and we can then move on to discuss any residuals such as alleged man-made warming. The trouble is there’s too much uncertainty to be able to do that, as IPCC reports have said many times.

    Meanwhile we get bombarded with far too many opinionated assertions masquerading as scientific knowledge.

  17. June 18, 2017 8:49 am

    It seems that, driven by the need to continually support the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming conjecture climate scientists are examining the temperature record at altogether too fine a scale, month by month, year by year.

    Our current, warm, congenial Holocene interglacial has been the enabler of mankind’s civilisation for the last 10,000 years, spanning from mankind’s earliest farming to recent technology.

    Viewing the Holocene interglacial at a broader scale is much more fruitful, on a century by century and even on a millennial perspective.

    According to ice core records, the last millennium 1000AD – 2000AD has been the coldest millennium of our current Holocene interglacial.

    Each of the notable high points in the Holocene temperature record, (Holocene Climate Optimum – Minoan – Roman – Medieval – Modern), have been progressively colder than the previous high point.

    For its first 7-8000 years the early Holocene, including its high point known as the “climate optimum”, have had virtually flat temperatures, an average drop of only ~0.007 °C per millennium.

    But the more recent Holocene, since a “tipping point” at around 1000BC, 3000 years ago, has seen temperature fall at about 20 times that earlier rate at about 0.14 °C per millennium .

    The Holocene interglacial is already 10 – 11,000 years old and judging from the length of previous interglacial periods, the Holocene epoch should be drawing to its close: in this century, the next century or this millennium.

    But the slight beneficial warming at the end of the 20th century to the Modern high point has been transmuted into the “Great Man-made Global Warming Scare”.

    The recent warming since the end of the Little Ice Age has been wholly beneficial when compared to the devastating impacts arising from the relatively minor cooling of the Little Ice Age, which include:
    • decolonisation of Greenland
    • Black death
    • French revolution promoted by crop failures and famine
    • the failures of the Inca and Angkor Wat civilisations
    • etc., etc.

    As global temperatures have already been showing stagnation or cooling over the last nineteen years or more, the world should now fear the real and detrimental effects of cooling, rather than being hysterical about limited, beneficial or probably now non-existent further warming.

    Warmer times are times of success and prosperity both for man-kind and the biosphere.

    For example during the Roman warm period the climate was warmer and wetter so that the Northern Sahara was the breadbasket of the Roman empire .

    According to the Ice Core records, each of these successive Holocene warm periods have been cooler than the one previously and a tipping point towards accelerated global cooling occurred at about 1000BC.

    The coming end of the present Holocene interglacial will in due course again result in a mile high ice sheet over much of the Northern hemisphere.

    As the Holocene epoch is already about 11,000 years old, the reversion to a true ice age is almost overdue and would be the real climate catastrophe.

    With the present reducing Solar activity, significantly reduced temperatures, at least to the level of another Little Ice Age are predicted quite soon later this century.

    Whether the present impending cooling will really lead on to a new glacial ice age or not is still in question.

    This point is more fully illustrated here:

    • June 18, 2017 11:00 am

      I have been boring people with those facts for many years and they were the initial basis of my scepticism about AGW, sadly every environment/climate change minister since Gordon Brown has been totally dismissive 😦

      • Dung permalink
        June 18, 2017 11:03 am

        The above message should just be from Dung ^.^

    • cibaris permalink
      June 18, 2017 3:52 pm

      The French revolution had more to do with volcanic activity. It is also responsible for the beginning of restaurants (volcanic activity).

    • gallopingcamel permalink
      June 20, 2017 12:34 am

      Excellent points which illustrate that historians are far more credible than Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth and the rest of that sorry bunch. Once again there follows a link to a History Channel documentary in case someone here has not seen it:


  18. June 18, 2017 8:54 am

    The interesting thing about ocean temperatures is what is the effect of thermal vents and underground volcanoes etc? Has there been any study on the amount of heat they produce, and whether this is increasing or decreasing?

    • bea permalink
      June 18, 2017 5:50 pm

      “…any study…”

      Much study. The estimate is 0.1 W per square meter over spreading ridges, and not changing much.

  19. Rowland H permalink
    June 18, 2017 9:08 am

    Is it not possible that deep sea volcanos might be warming things up???

    • Gerry, England permalink
      June 18, 2017 10:43 am

      Absolutely. Given that only recently they discovered some underwater volcanoes just off the coast of Italy! Not in some super deep Pacific region but so close to the coast you could probably almost see them.

    • Broadlands permalink
      June 19, 2017 7:13 pm

      Yes, the 40,000 mile volcano…

      “A main question is to what extent the volcanism changes over time. The old idea was that the eruptions of oozing lava and related activity occurred at fairly steady rates. Now, studies hint at the existence of outbursts large enough to influence not only the character of the global sea but the planet’s temperature. Experts believe the activity may carry major repercussions because the oceanic ridges account for some 70 percent of the planet’s volcanic eruptions. By definition, that makes them enormous sources of heat and exotic minerals as well as such everyday gases as carbon dioxide, which all volcanoes emit.”

  20. June 18, 2017 10:44 am

    Appalling use of false and unsupportable statements by this guy:

    “Around 93 per cent of the extra heat gained by the Earth over the past 50 years has sunk into the ocean, while 3 per cent has made ice melt, and 3 per cent has warmed the land. Only around 1 per cent has stayed in the atmosphere.”

    Such precision from so little data……

    “It’s tough to demonstrate a whole-ocean average temperature increase of less than 0.1°C in about 1.4 billion cubic km of seawater. Tough, but not impossible — steadily, scientists have managed to complete the picture.”

    70% of the earth’s surface is ocean, with risibly small data coverage, over a short time scale, yet they can do this?

    “Warmer sea water can release methane trapped on the sea floor. Some of it finds its way to the surface and into the atmosphere, where it acts as a greenhouse gas, trapping heat — at least 30 times more effectively than carbon dioxide.”

    This simply isn’t happening.

  21. Gerry, England permalink
    June 18, 2017 10:46 am

    Ah, satellite records. I just wonder how the 1930s would look had we had the ability back then? Fiddling the 30s lower has been one of the key jobs of the climate science fictionists. That and sneaking down the big 1998 El Nino as it looks odd that it matches, if not exceeds the last one. Anyway, there are some triggers for knowing that what you are to read is BS. UEA and CRU are right at the top.

  22. bea permalink
    June 18, 2017 12:27 pm

    These dinosaurs of the Main Stream Media huff and they puff, but the ground is moving beneath their feet, especially in the USA, the country which always sets the trends

    Rasmussen Reports (the polling organization) shows Trump’s Approval Rating among Likely US Voters has climbed to 50%. Remarkable when you consider the daily tidal-wave of hatred and incitement to murder directed at him.

    And the main reasons are, IMO, in the following statistics:

    61% think the US economy is at least somewhat fair, and 37% think the country is moving in the right direction. Which compares to, respectively, 45% and 17% in the last days of Obama.

  23. dearieme permalink
    June 18, 2017 12:49 pm

    “Those of us who work in climate research do not, of course, ignore evidence.” Indeed; many of them try to suppress evidence.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      June 19, 2017 12:45 pm

      Such as when doing treemometry you inconveniently find the results dropping as you approach the last couple of decades. But hey, just graft on some instrument records to cover up the problem that tree obviously aren’t a good temperature proxy.

      • gallopingcamel permalink
        June 20, 2017 12:39 am

        Hide the decline!

        OK, that is an oldie but those Minnesotans are still doing great work:

  24. June 18, 2017 1:34 pm

    From the article: “The years 2014, 2015 and 2016 were the three hottest years on record — an unprecedented run.”

    Only if you go by the bogus, bastardized surface temperature charts. The satellite record shows only 2016 is hotter than 1998, or 2010, and only hotter than 1998 by one-tenth of a degree. 2014 and 2015 are nothing to write home about.

    The bogus, bastardized surface temperature charts were customized to make it look like 2014, 2015, and 2016 were successive “hottest” years. That way the alarmists could say “hotter and hotter” every year as a method of fooling the public into believing their dishonesty.

    The author of the article has obviously been duped by these NOAA/NASA/CRU/BOM/IPCC lies. He thinks they are real representations of reality and not manufactured and thus goes off into flights of fancy about the state of the Earth’s atmosphere and climate based on these lies.

  25. June 18, 2017 2:02 pm

    Just about all the unmodified surface temperature charts available from around the world, show the same temperature profile that Hansen’s 1999 U.S. surface temperature chart shows.

    Hansen’s 1999 chart shows the 1930’s as being 0.5C hotter than 1998, which makes the 1930’s about 0.4C hotter than 2016, the supposed “hottest year evah!”.

    So the true surface temperature profile does NOT show that the temperatures are getting hotter and hotter, it actually shows the Earth has been in a temperature downtrend since the 1930’s.

    Here’s a link to Hansen’s 1999 U.S. chart. The Hansen U.S. chart is on the left and the bogus, bastardized “Global” surface temperature chart is on the right.

    Like I said, just about all the Unmodified surface temperture charts (before the Climate Change Gurus got hold of them and changed them) resemble the temperature profile of the Hansen 1999 U.S. chart, they do NOT resemble the Global surface temperature chart “hotter and hotter” profile. The true profile of just about all unmodified charts shows the 1930’s-40’s as being as hot or hotter than subsequent years.

    Does anyone think the U.S. chart and the rest of the Globe could look so different? You can prove the “Global” chart is the bogus one to yourself by comparing any unmodified chart to these two charts and see which one fits better. It will be obvious with one look.

    The Hansen U.S. surface temperature chart is the real global temperature profile.

    Just add the satellite record onto the end of Hansen 1999 and we will see we are in a temperture downtrend from the 1930’s, which blows up the CAGW narrative, and is the reason the dishonest alarmist chart manipulators went and drastically changed all the charts all over the world and cooled their pasts in order to make the present look that much hotter.

    The dishonest chart manipulators have fooled and scared a lot of people, and have caused enormous amounts of money to be wasted. Such dishonesty should be punished.

  26. CheshireRed permalink
    June 18, 2017 2:32 pm

    His ‘93%’ claim is surely a straw-man. In the days preceding any possible human influence most solar radiation would’ve gone into the oceans. So as before, also now. Yet they’re only rolling out that meme because nothing scary is occurring in the atmosphere – the very place where ‘atmospheric global warming’ was supposed to be happening. Nice place to hide something that the public (the REAL target of his PR fluff) will never be able to confirm or deny.

    Oh, and his dismissal of the pause is pretty unchivalrous given both the IPCC (the ‘Gold Standard for climate science’ when it suits them) and the UK Met Office have acknowledged it, and it’s only bloody-well stopped because of a natural El Nino! Some humility would be nice.

    • CheshireRed permalink
      June 18, 2017 3:41 pm

      PS Their ‘93%’ claim is typical of how they use the most favourable figures to promote their cause. Again this isn’t an otherwise neutral scientific position, instead it’s a non-stop barrage of PR propaganda. 93% sounds an impressively large figure but is humiliated by the actual claimed ‘warming’ of between 0.1C and a miniscule 0.02C. Those figures simply won’t scare the public, hence they play the ‘93%’ card instead. Smoke, mirrors, exaggerations and outright falsehoods.

  27. Robin Guenier permalink
    June 18, 2017 3:49 pm

    If, as Dr Williamson says, “there is a need to take action on a worldwide basis [and] The Paris agreement will be the future“, we’re in deep trouble: LINK.

  28. Dung permalink
    June 18, 2017 4:58 pm

    “The years 2014, 2015 and 2016 were the three hottest years on record” so in terms of global temp, how many years does our record give us. However short or long that period is would hardly register on a charts showing long term temp changes (unfortunately no such record exists but the geological records including the ice cores tell us that CO2 plays no part).

  29. Soren Nielsen permalink
    June 18, 2017 7:25 pm

    have of course written a letter to the editor thanking them for the most hilarious article ever in the Spectator


  30. Derek Colman permalink
    June 19, 2017 12:45 am

    The temperature rise in 2015/2016 caused by the El Nino did not break the pause, because since the final effects of the El Nino heat subsided global temperature has dropped right back in line with the pause according to the satellite record. The Met Office does not make a song and dance about it, maybe because they are worried about funding, but they quiet spokenly maintain that the pause was real. Many other scientists have protested about the Karl et al paper which disappeared the pause, and even a whistle blower called fraud on it.

  31. Geoff Sherrington permalink
    June 19, 2017 7:37 am

    Leaving aside direct sunshine into oceans from a somewhat steady sun, what mechanisms related to CO2 are postulated to increase ocean temperatures?

  32. June 19, 2017 1:52 pm

    Since the AGW conjecture is mostly an atmosphere effect,surface temperature data at best would promote a misleading explanation,but Satellite data would be a far better measure to better assess the supposed effect of the AGW conjecture.

    Besides Mr. Kaufman,like most warmists ignore the PER DECADE warming rate rate. The IPCC says .30C per decade,while Satellite show around .13C per decade since 1979.

  33. gallopingcamel permalink
    June 20, 2017 1:20 am

    Williamson says:
    “New analyses now suggest that sea levels could rise by up to a metre, and maybe more, in our children’s lifetimes.”

    My guess is that delusion is based on a discredited claim by NOAA:

    NOAA claimed that sea level rise would range from 0.2 meters to 2.0 meters by 2100. Gullible and naive aarmists like Bill Nye and Phillip Williamson picked up on the ridiculous 2.0 meter number.

    Sea levels have been rising for the last 20,000 years. The rate of sea level rise declined sharply around 8,000 years ago and has averaged less than 0.3 meters/century since:

    That NOAA claim of 2.0 meters is cuckoo. The fastest rate of rise was ~1 meter per century during the period when the Laurentide glacier was melting. That was the glacier that covered where New York city stands today with one mile of ice.

    Sea level has risen over 130 meters in the last 20,000 years and could rise another 20 meters if the remaining continental ice melts. The resultant coastal flooding is much to be preferred to one mile of ice over New York city! It is easier to move to higher ground than to cope with a mile of ice.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: