The Greens, The Guardian and the Gist ...

By steven d keeler | Oct 18, 2013
Courtesy of: IPCC AR5 From the IPCC via the Guardian


02 comparison-2001-start

03 N. Atl OHC

04 N. Pac OHC

08 fig-3-temp-anom-comparison-a

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5    ALL - from Top to Bottom



The local ecos seem to be able to only quote one source, repeatedly, as the second hand confirmation of their agenda, ' science '  as reported by the British newspaper ' The Guardian ' .  So, lets take a closer look ( with special thanks to Bob Tisdale ).

In an article today ( Friday, October 18, 2013 ) in The Guardian titled " Does the global warming “pause” mean what you think it means ?"  the author has expressed his misunderstanding of one of the most commonly used metrics of global warming - the surface temperature record.

the Guardian reports :

The speed bump only applies to surface temperatures, which only represent about 2 percent of the overall warming of the global climate. Can you make out the tiny purple segment at the bottom of the above figure ? ( Figure 1 above  AND Box 3.1, Figure 1, page 76 of 106 of the IPCC Chapter 3 -  IPCC WGI Fifth Assessment Report )  That’s the only part of the climate for which the warming has ‘paused’.

This statement is correct in that the halt in global warming applies to surface temperatures, but it is incorrect ( and purposefully misleading ) that it applies ONLY to it. The warming of the top 700 meters ( of the oceans ) has also slowed to a crawl, and is nonexistent in the North Atlantic and North Pacific.

The global surface temperature record includes land surface air temperature  ( measured at 2 meters from the surface ) and sea surface temperature measurements. And as a reference, the GISS, NCDC and UKMO global surface temperature products show little ( GISS ) to no ( UKMO & NCDC ) warming since January 2001, based on the linear trends. ( See Figure 2 above )

The author refers readers to the  “tiny purple segment at the bottom of the above figure” ( Figure 1 above ), which is identified by the IPCC as “Atmosphere” in the illustration - not the surface of the oceans.

In their discussion of “Atmosphere” for their Box 3.1, Figure 1, the IPCC explains that the atmospheric component is estimated from lower troposphere and lower stratosphere temperatures, based on satellite measurements. The lower troposphere temperature measurements are from the layer that is approximately 3000 meters above sea level.

The IPCC has NOT presented the heat content for the surface of the oceans in their Box 3.1, Figure 1. The ocean surface warming is included in the top 700 meters of ocean warming - not in the atmosphere.

Further to the IPCC’s Box 3.1, Figure 1, the author forgot to advise his readers that the data in the IPCC’s graph have been smoothed with a 5-year filter, and that the smoothing would hide the slowdown in warming of the oceans at depths of 0 to 700 meters and 700 to 2000 meters. And the Guardian elected not to tell readers that the quarterly NODC ocean heat content data for the North Atlantic during the ARGO era continues to show very little warming for depths of 0 - 2000 meters and cooling at depths of 0 - 700 meters. ( See Figure 3 )

Also, NOT reported,  the fact that the ocean heat content data for the North Pacific show cooling at both levels, with the 0 - 2000 meter data cooling at a lesser rate than the 0 - 700 meter data. ( See Figure 4 )

Data for my Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5 is extracted from the following source :

National Oceanographic Data Center :

The Guardian and the global warming enthusiasts from the IPCC like to present global warming in terms that are meaningless to most people, in Joules with lots of zeroes after it. The units in the IPCC’s Box 3.1, Figure 1 ( my Figure 1 ) are in Zettajoules or Joules*10^21. However, the warming of the oceans takes on a whole new perspective when presented in terms familiar to people: degrees C. ( See Figure 5 above ) Surface temperatures stopped warming, the warming of the top 700 meters of the oceans has slowed to a crawl, so if there is continued warming at depths of 700 to 2000 meters, it is so miniscule that it’s not coming back to haunt anyone at any time in the future.

Note: Radiative imbalance is the metric that alarmists like to portray in terms of atomic bombs. What the alarmists fail to tell their readers is that sunlight and natural levels of infrared radiation at the surface are almost 890 times the number of atomic bombs they’re claiming, and that the uncertainties in radiative imbalance are 28 times the radiative imbalance - Just to put into perspective, the totally irrelevant references to "atomic bombs" used by the alarmists to scare readers.

The very fact that the greens publicize, to the public, ocean temperature change solely in joules rather than in degrees, to mislead, should already make you realize dishonesty is more probable than not.

The Guardian author saves his ' best ' scare for last :

In terms of the threat from long-term global warming and climate change, it really doesn’t mean anything. It just means that at the moment, more global warming is being absorbed by the oceans, but the next time ocean cycles shift, we’ll experience accelerated surface warming just like we did in the 1990s.

Most people will also envision the multidecadal variations extending further into the future. That is, they will imagine a projection of future Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures repeating the slight cooling from 1945 to the mid-1970s along with the later warming, followed by yet another slight cooling of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures, in a repeat of the past “cycle”. Logically they will envision surface temperature records repeating. And in their minds’ eyes, they see an ever growing divergence between the model ' projections ' and what actual has happened, is happening and can repeat, as opposed to the alarmist claim, denying that slight ocean warming cannot dissipate.  If you want to get the alarmists really speechless, ask them to reflect on longer trend plausible climate cycles.

Why didn't the Guardian project and include a plausible 1000 year climate cycle as well ?  

Here’s a summary:

1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016 - 17
2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021 - 22
3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
4 Temperature moving average anomaly 2035 – 0.15 C
5 Temperature moving average anomaly 2100 – 0.5 C
6 General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of the little ice age.
8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be very minor – they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields.
9 There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which could turn out to be a best case scenario.

The local extreme greens want YOU to only consider and prepare for ONE possible future of our climate.  Our past climate history reveals that the norm is much more COLD than WARM - ask yourself, do crops have the better potential to grow, with increasing yields,  in a warmer climate or a colder one ?

More of what the local eco facists DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW OR CONSIDER.


Comments (4)
Posted by: Nathaniel R Brown | Oct 23, 2013 10:51
Posted by: steven d keeler | Nov 06, 2013 20:17


W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change


The ‘expertise’ of the 97%

On occasion when challenged about the 97% figure depending on 75 scientists from a survey of 10,000, it is usually met with a response that these were the experts in the field  of climate science and this is what maters not the number that took part. A closer look at the methodology perhaps raises some concerns about the ‘expertise’ and selection bias as this as resuls depend on 2 additional questions in the survey that were used to identify expertise in climate research (not an unreasonable goal) within the respondents,

Q5 Which percentage of your papers published in peer reviewed journals in the last 5 years have been on the subject of climate change?

A:  1) less than 50% 2) 50% or more 3) not applicable

Q9 Which category best describes your area of expertise?

1) Hydrology/Hydrogeology  2) Geochemistry 3) Geophysics

4) Paleontology 5) Economic Geology (coal/metals/oil and gas)

6) Soil Science 7) Oceanography/Marine Geology

8) Environmental Geology 9) Geology/Planetary Science

10) Climate Science 11) Geomorphology  12)General Geology

13) Structure/Tectonics* 14) Petrology*

15) Sedimentology / Stratigraphy 16 Atmospheric Science*

17) Quaternary Geology*  18) Meteorology*

19) Geography / Archeaology/GI 20 Engineering (Envr/Geo/Chem)*

21 Ecology / Biogeochemistry* 22) Glacial Geology*

23) Mineralogy*  24) Volcanology*  25) Other (*write in description)

The survey used the answer to Q5 narrow down the expertise of the respondents, not unreasonably perhaps, and defined these as ‘active climate researchers’ (ACR), there was also criticism of the framing of this question in the feedback. This subset of respondents were then contacted to check the these claims and once verified, there were 244 respondents that met this criteria.   This categorization gave positive responses to Q1 – 95% and Q2 - 92%

The survey used the answer to Q9 to define those as identifying as in the category of climate science as having more expertise than the other listed categories. Question 9 resulted in 144 respondents self identifying in the category of climate science. This categorization gave positive responses to Q1 – 95% and Q2 – 88.6%

Finally  a category of experts was defined as those that responded as publishing more than 50% of papers AND self identifying in the survey as climate scientists, resulting in a group of 77

This categorization gave positive responses to Q1 – 96.2% and Q2 – 97.4%

So is was this study defining expertise or introducing a selection bias here ? It has not gone unnoticed that perhaps those scientists that self identify as climate scientists, are perhaps those that are more activist minded for a consensus.



Posted by: steven d keeler | Nov 06, 2013 20:36


American Association for the Advancement of Science  - with a credit card and $ 35 you too can become a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, another example of agenda organizations.

American Chemical Society - really ?

American Geophysical Union - the Union won't bother to report a growing number of members who have resigned in disgust.

American Medical Association  - again, really ?

American Physical Society - is this a joke ?


U.S. National Academy of Sciences  - whose members have repeatedly challenged the consensus.


U.S. Global Change Research Program  -  The current administration uses the EPA and other government agencies to push an agenda it could never get through Congress.


Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - an organization that has been widely discredited by misleading or false publications, leaked member climate emails and failed model predictions.

Posted by: steven d keeler | Nov 06, 2013 20:41

Once again, the local eco facists resort to 2nd hand media reports to do the dirty work of hiding full climate facts behind agenda sound or print bites.  As the planet continues to cool, these watermelons are running scared.  Why are the local greens afraid to start taking their agenda claims directly from the IPCC's AR5 ?  Why ?

If you wish to comment, please login.