Skip to content

New Danish Paper Wrecks CO2 Theory Of Global Warming

March 23, 2018

By Paul Homewood


h/t No Tricks Zone


An important new paper from Frank Lansner and Jens Pedersen:



Temperature data 1900–2010 from meteorological stations across the world have been analyzed and it has been found that all land areas generally have two different valid temperature trends. Coastal stations and hill stations facing ocean winds are normally more warm-trended than the valley stations that are sheltered from dominant oceans winds.

Thus, we found that in any area with variation in the topography, we can divide the stations into the more warm trended ocean air-affected stations, and the more cold-trended ocean air-sheltered stations. We find that the distinction between ocean air-affected and ocean air-sheltered stations can be used to identify the influence of the oceans on land surface. We can then use this knowledge as a tool to better study climate variability on the land surface without the moderating effects of the ocean.

We find a lack of warming in the ocean air sheltered temperature data – with less impact of ocean temperature trends – after 1950. The lack of warming in the ocean air sheltered temperature trends after 1950 should be considered when evaluating the climatic effects of changes in the Earth’s atmospheric trace amounts of greenhouse gasses as well as variations in solar conditions.


This is the killer graph:

Figure 19. Ocean air sheltered (OAS) and ocean air affected (OAA) temperatures, all regions.


We can readily see that temperatures at the OAS (ocean sheltered) sites were just as high back in the 1920s to 40s as now.


Frank Lansner explained the significance of his findings in an email to NoTricksZone:

The little ice-age centuries led to a very cold ocean around 1900-1920 and so ocean and ocean-affected stations were not able to show the warming around 1920-30 so well. The ocean kept the warming hidden to some degree. Ocean temperature rise was somewhat delayed for decades it appears. That’s why ocean temperatures do not well reflect the heat balance over the Earth 1920-50 – unlike OAS areas valleys that reflected the change in heat balance rapidly. Thus it appears OAS data are the data best suited for evaluating the heat balance over the Earth.

  1. dave permalink
    March 23, 2018 6:55 pm

    A little confusing, since the writers are not quite aware that “the earth” is a common synonym in English for “the globe.”

    Anyway. If the theories of an imminent “cooling sun” turn out to be right, we on the land will still barely notice the effect, for a decade or two, exactly because the oceans have large thermal inertia and gradual mixing.

    In fact, of course, coordinated warming or cooling of the layers and masses of the oceans is the only meaningful way in which “the globe” can warm or cool. The “Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly” produced here is not extremely alarming:

    • AndyG55 permalink
      March 23, 2018 7:31 pm

      ” imminent “cooling sun” turn out to be right, we on the land will still barely notice the effect, for a decade or two, ”

      The sun has already been cooling for a decade or two.

      • dave permalink
        March 23, 2018 8:18 pm

        I was epitomising a rather complicated argument by saying “cooling sun.”
        The up-swing of Cycle 25 will tell all. The present sun is spotless, as is natural to the end of Cycle 24.

        The SST Anomaly is + 0.1 C, using 1971-2000 average as a standard. So “the pause” is pretty obvious.

        + 0.1 C in 30 years! I truly do not understand how people can talk about the effects of global warming, when there has not been any. How can you have a measurable effect from a “no-change?”

    • March 23, 2018 8:12 pm

      Except them extremely red colours!!

      • dave permalink
        March 23, 2018 8:27 pm


        I am a statistician. I do not deal in colours.

        I did get an O Level in Art, however! Including a study of Churches. Ask me about English Ecclesiastical Architecture. Please! I have been waiting nearly sixty years to show that an atheist can know about flying buttresses, if not flying angels.

      • dave permalink
        March 23, 2018 9:17 pm

        This is more soothing:

  2. Broadlands permalink
    March 23, 2018 7:22 pm

    It does seem confusing for Mr. Lansner to say: “Ocean temperature rise was somewhat delayed for decades it appears.” Paul has brought attention to the North Atlantic study of the 1920s and 30s made by Drinkwater in 2006:

    Drinkwater, 2006 wrote: “Ecosystem changes associated with the warm period included a general northward movement of fish. Boreal species of fish such as cod, haddock and herring expanded farther north while colder-water species such as capelin and polar cod retreated northward. The warming in the 1920s and 1930s is considered to constitute the most significant regime shift experienced in the North Atlantic in the 20th century.”

    It was also noted that in October, 1922: “The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas about Spitzbergen and the eastern Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto un-heard-of high temperatures in that part of the earth’s surface.” …”With the disappearance of white fish and seal has come other life in these waters. This year herring in great shoals were found along the west coast of Spitzbergen, all the way from the fry to the veritable great herring. Shoals of smelt were also met with.”

  3. Tony Budd permalink
    March 23, 2018 7:33 pm

    But the Ocean Air-affected areas are also more likely to be those with larger population growth and more urbanisation over the last 150 years. And so they would on the whole be warmer due to both loss of the cooling effect of vegetation cover, and also the gain in heat output from factories, offices, transport and increased home-heating over that period, plus greater absorption of solar radiation by roads and buildings.

    The sheltered valleys will have remained more dedicated to agriculture, and will in most cases have lost – or at least not gained as much – population and therefore urban heat-effect. So the delayed Little Ice-age effect is probably significant but not the whole answer.

    Even the increased likelihood of hurricanes hitting the US east coast could in large part be due to urban heating in the whole area, creating an attractive path for hurricanes. They are then less likely to always follow the Gulf Stream/North Atlantic Drift warm air..

  4. tom0mason permalink
    March 23, 2018 7:39 pm

    A good review of one of the most sane papers about atmospheric temperature I have ever read. So refreshing for a climate view that understands that the local topography must be considered when assessing temperature variation around the globe.

    Sun and ocean currents are what determines the vast majority of our weather, and therefore the climate. CO2 is at best an ‘also ran’ that some people asserted and inspired to be a great conditioner of the climate but it has never happened.
    If more papers like this gets some traction then the Hansen, Mann, Trenberth, Schmidt, et al can consider most of their research junk, as the real world natural determinants overrule the hypothetical nonsense of CO2 warming. Their hypothesis about atmospheric CO2 warming is as big a phony as the ‘phlogiston theory’ of heat, and as convincing as ‘cold fusion’ ever was.

  5. Tom Dowter permalink
    March 23, 2018 10:04 pm

    This paper mirrors some results that I got a few years ago when I was investigating Anthony Watts’ claim that poorly sited US weather stations warmed by more than well sited ones. What I found was that elevation was a far more important factor in determining how much warming we actually got. This work was concentrated on stations which lie between 35 and 45 degrees North and -115 to -90 degrees East. Originally this was to avoid any effects from proximity to the Coast.

    I have now revisited that work using only unadjusted data and concentrating on the warming between 1950 and 2010. If I group the stations into strips one degree north wide, I find that those stations that are of below average elevation do indeed warm less, (actually most of them cool), than those which are of above average elevation. Indeed this is true, on average for 8 out of the 10 strips concerned, but not for the remaining 2 most northerly ones.

    It is a pity that this paper is only in E&E since this is not a journal that the AGW brigade take much notice of.

  6. March 23, 2018 10:14 pm

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    NAS, NAE, and NAM will be fast-tracking their google sponsored science censorship bureau to make sure that papers like this one never, ever see the light of day!

  7. March 24, 2018 4:08 am

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  8. March 24, 2018 4:19 am

    Dave, thanks for bringing this very useful site to my attention:

  9. realist10 permalink
    March 26, 2018 12:14 pm

    Posted by FrackNation on Thursday, March 22, 2018

    Full transcript of article below:

    Attempt to sue oil companies backfires as judge calls out their exaggerations and deceptions.
    ENVIRONMENTAL campaigners suing oil companies were left wounded yesterday when the first ever “climate change trial” left their exaggerations badly exposed under questioning from a curious judge who demanded evidence not allegations.
    Supported by environmental pressure groups, lawyers for the cities of Oakland and San Francisco, are suing five American oil companies for “damage caused by their products causing climate change.”
    The case has been cast was a David Vs Goliath clash but in yesterday’s court hearing the plaintiffs were the ones wilting under a legal spotlight.
    Perhaps the most damning finding came at the end when the judge dismissed the claim that documents submitted by the plaintiffs proved oil companies knew that climate change was destroying communities but conspired to hide their knowledge in the pursuit of profit.
    The judge agreed with Chevron’s counsel that the “smoking gun” documents were nothing of the sort and was in reality an internal summary presentation of publicly available IPCC climate reports.
    In a dramatic part of the complaint the Californian cities had claimed the presentation, by an industry funded group the Global Climate Commission (GCC), stated that a doubling of carbon dioxide levels over pre-industrial concentrations would occur by 2100.
    They claimed the internal presentation also “noted “potentially irreversible” impacts that could include “significant loss of life.” This was their proof that the oil companies had blood on their hands, knew they were doing wrong but conspired to keep producing their killer product regardless.
    However this part of the complaint was completely but almost casually rejected by Judge Alsup who agreed that the GCC presentation was nothing more that a summary of public IPCC documents.
    Judge Alsup pointedly asked if the plaintiffs disagreed with his findings and if they had any comments to add but the lawyers for the Californian cities declined to defend a central point of their own complaint.
    It was not the only blow to the plaintiff’s case in the five hour hearing/tutorial – which the judge has asked for so that he could learn more about the science behind the controversy. Although he was to call one of the plaintiff’s experts ‘a genius’ – it did not stop him rebuking the same witness for presenting a misleading and exaggerated illustration regarding the current amount of Co2 in the atmosphere.
    Oxford Professor Myles Allen was illustrating how much Co2 was now in the atmosphere when the judge rebuked him for using a misleading illustration that made the atmosphere appear to have more than 400 parts per million of Co2.
    “It’s 400 parts per million but you make it look like it’s 10,000 part per million,” he said.
    Professor Allen was forced to admit his slide was misleading. “Your honor is quite right,” he agreed.
    Professor Allen raised further eyebrows by praising, and including in his presentation, research on climate science by the late Professor Stephen Schneider in the 1970s. Professor Allen failed to mention that at the time Schneider believed the world was entering a dangerous period of Global Cooling (he also blamed oil companies and American industry for the cooling) before switching to believing in Global Warming but still blaming oil companies.
    For a movement that had apparently waited so long to bring oil companies to justice and expose the truth about Global Warming – their witnesses seemed particularly unprepared.
    Professor Gary Griggs of UC Santa Cruz was high on rhetorical flourish and dramatic possible future scenarios but was called out by Chevron’s lawyer. Griggs gave a dramatic account of the local area, including San Francisco, under ten feet of water but this led Chevron’s side to point out in a recent report commissioned by the California state the same Professor Griggs said the chance of a ten feet sea level rise in California was just 0.1%.
    Griggs also struggled with a simple question from the Judge – what caused recent Ice Ages? Griggs talked at length and seemed to eventually say it was changes in the Earth’s orbit but that the current climate change was different.
    Judge Alsup also mocked the numerous times IPCC predictive models got the current climate trends wrong and catastrophic weather never arrived. Looking at several IPCC models and their relationship to reality the judge said to Chevron’s lawyer: “So your point is that [IPCC] models overstate the problem. Instead of doom and gloom it’s just gloom”.
    The trial was also notable because of the way that scientists for the plaintiffs had to admit under oath that the first half of the 20th century was very warm. Several times the judge interrupted proceedings to ask why the 1930s or the surrounding years were so warm or why sea level rise slowed down after the 1950s.
    We also were introduced to the concept of good Co2 and bad Co2. Professor Don Wuebbels of the University of Illinois withered somewhat under questioning as he said that increased wildfires were a result of climate change. The judge then asked him if the Co2 from these wildfires would contribute to Climate Change. Wuebbels struggled to answer but eventually told the judge that the Co2 from fires was somehow different and not contribute significantly.
    In total it was a difficult day for these Californian cities and their “experts” pushing doom and gloom. No more so when Chevron’s lawyer produced material used in bond offerings by these cities. As they were trying to raise money and loans for spending, the same cities underplayed the effects and emphasized the very uncertainty they are now criticizing the oil companies for. After all no one wants to lend money to a city that is going to be flooded in a few years. So the plaintiffs were in court looking for money contradicting their other statements they made looking for money from a different source. This was not a good day for Climate alarmists. It was however a good day for the truth. Lets hope we have many more of them.
    Phelim McAleer, Producer/Director FrackNation

  10. manicbeancounter permalink
    March 27, 2018 11:38 am

    More generally, the paper’s authors are saying that over fairly short distances temperature stations will show different climatic trends. This has a profound implication for temperature homogenization. From Venema et al 2012.

    The most commonly used method to detect and remove the effects of artificial changes is the relative homogenization approach, which assumes that nearby stations are exposed to almost the same climate signal and that thus the differences between nearby stations can be utilized to detect inhomogeneities (Conrad and Pollak, 1950). In relative homogeneity testing, a candidate time series is compared to multiple surrounding stations either in a pairwise fashion or to a single composite reference time series computed for multiple nearby stations.

    Lansner and Pederson are, by implication, demonstrating that the principle assumption on which homogenization is based (that nearby temperature stations are exposed to almost the same climatic signal) is not valid. As a result data homogenization will not only eliminate biases in the temperature data (such a measurement biases, impacts of station moves and the urban heat island effect where it impacts a minority of stations) but will also adjust out actual climatic trends. Where the climatic trends are localized and not replicated in surrounding areas, they will be eliminated by homogenization. What I found in early 2015 (following the examples of Paul Homewood, Euan Mearns and others) is that there are examples from all over the world where the data suggests that nearby temperature stations are exposed to different climatic signals. Data homogenization will, therefore, cause quite weird and unstable results. But what I also found is that those who support AGW theory not only do not question their assumptions but have strong shared beliefs in what the data ought to look like. Homogenize a number of times, and evaluating the unstable results in the context of strongly-held beliefs will bring the trends evermore into line with those beliefs.

  11. Peter F Gill permalink
    March 29, 2018 5:32 pm

    A lack of sun spots is not the same thing as a cooling sun. However, the reduced interaction between the magneto-spheres of the two bodies is likely to have a cooling effect on Earth via increased cloudiness. I will leave it to others to discuss the relative importance of (a) fast protons of galactic origin or (b) alpha particles etc from our own sun. By the way great to see that now some of have left the Editorial Board E&E is still publishing sceptical stuff.

  12. dave permalink
    March 29, 2018 11:04 pm

    According to NASA:

    “The total variance in solar radiation [at the top of the atmosphere of the earth] is about 1.3 watts per square meter during one [11 year] sunspot cycle.”

    In view of the possibility that a major change is occurring in the sun, It is interesting to theorize that such a reduction will continue even through the notional “up” phase of weak or suppressed cycles.

    Sunspots themselves are merely an aspect of solar magnetic activity.

    NASA goes on to state in a poo-pooing manner:

    “This is a small [sic] change compared to the 100s of watts [of changes] we experience due to seasonal and latitude differences…”

    This is hilarious, when you consider how sceptics are routinely shouted down if they make exactly the same point – but with respect to how trivial hypothesized CO2 effects are compared to those same natural changes.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: