“This extended 180-month period of non-warming was not predicted by a single global climate model – nada, zilch, zero.”

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

“This extended 180-month period of non-warming was not predicted by a single global climate model – nada, zilch, zero.”


  • Jim

    Hard to know where to begin on this one. But I guess in a week where former AGW skeptic Richard Muller firmly stated that earth’s temperature is rising AND “Humans are almost entirely the cause,” you needed to have something to post.

    It would be worth looking at this page from Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project, particularly the second graph.
    That graph combines data from not only HadCRU, but also NOAA, GISS and Berkeley itself. Still think the earth’s temperature is stable, or even cooling? I didn’t think so. All data points show the same, and lo and behold, there is that famous hockey stick starting around 1950, clearly demonstrating a startling upward shift.

    So here we have BEST publishing its findings (5 studies, 4 of which have been extensively reviewed already), naming them, and even Richard Muller begging for more analysis showing him if, and where, he is wrong. And, by the way, it was a project primarily funded by climate skeptics the Koch brothers.
    But you post a graph from c3healdines, showing only 15 years of data (and you can find similar periods in the past showing the same), and the graph itself says on it “CO2 Causes Global Cooling?” c3 runs this same story out each year. So, who is c3headlines? This is what it says on its page:
    “In summary, ‘C3’ is an anonymous, opinionated average person-pundit.”
    So I ask, if science is the interest, which story deserved more attention?

  • wodun

    The hockey stick has been debunked numerous times, the science is settled on that one. Also, BEST used flawed data as shown by the recent study on the quality of surface stations. The same study did show a warming trend but not at.the rates claimed by alarmists.

  • Greg


    It looks like you are failing to see the point of the two blog posts. Bringing to light something observed not reported in the mainstream media is significant. I am glad it was posted. Hopefully this type of post will encourage Muller to discuss and explain the noted C3 cooling/leveling temperature trend. Hopefully, he can also quantify the reasons for the deviations of his CO2/Volcano line with the temperature plot lines.

    I am not sure why you are attacking the blog posters and not constructively and directly disputing the substance of the post. The posted observations stand on its own. Your comment seems mainly political motivated without substantive scientific merit. Perhaps if you elaborated on you positions with some references you could make your point without seeming biased.

    Your comment implies that the earth’s temperature has not stabilized especially in the past decade. Unfortunately for your narrative, the same link you refer to (http://berkeleyearth.org/analysis/), the Muller graphs, supports the C3 figure indicating that the earth temperatures have not risen and maybe even decreased slightly for the past decade. It is unfortunate that you cannot acknowledge that the current data support the temperatures that the C3 blog has stated. Does Muller or you have an explanation for the recent leveling off of the earth’s temperatures? It seems that the point of the blog post was to show that the IPCC climate models were completely wrong in its direct correlation of CO2 and earth temperatures. The blog article even says this in its title. Please enlighten us with the science behind the pause of this rate increase. If you could please explain and quantify the leveling off effect of temperature vs. the continued increase of human CO2 emissions that would be most appreciated.

    Oh yes, and the answer to your question. Unless you have a preconceived, biased opinion, the answer is that both deserve equal attention.


  • Jim

    There are two problems with the c3 graph. Maybe I can highlight it for you with this:

    If you look at the graph posted by c3, it starts in 1997. Imagine if he started plotting it in 1998, it would be an even greater demonstration of cooling. But by looking at the longer time period on the graph I posted, imagine if he started it a couple of years earlier, say around 1996. Suddenly it shows a large trending line with increasing temperature.
    c3 is purposely using as short a time period as possible to make the point he wants to make (I would give c3 a name, but it anonymous, as opposed to Muller who put his name on his findings).
    Again, if you refer to the graph I posted, lets go back in time to 1965, and measure even 20 years prior to say 1945. Well, back then c3 would have been telling you the earth is cooling. But the trend continued upward even then.
    One of the important points from Muller is that he has gone back even further, to 1800. To me, it would be hard to look at Muller’s data and come to any other conclusion than the one he came to. Not sure why anyone would prefer looking only at data from 15 years when more is available.

    One other issue. They are dealing with surface temperatures. Most scientists agree that as much as 90% of all heat generated is being absorbed in the oceans, rather than on land. And even though temperatures have only increased slightly during the past 50 years in the oceans, that is because it is absorbing that heat at greater depths. That does not mean that the heat and CO2 absorbed in the oceans is not having an adverse effect there. But it does say that there would be an even greater impact on surface temperature than we currently are seeing.

    One other post which may be of interest. In this one, it is directly related to the use of statistics, and the story we tell each other based on the reading of those statistics:

    In it, statisticians were asked to view temperature data, although they were not told it was temperature that they were looking at. None could find a downward trend. Also note that the year of this article is 2009 (I said that this cooling misinformation is trotted out each year), and although the article says 2005 was the hottest year on record, that has since been eclipsed by 2011.

    Sorry that it sounded politically motivated to you. Its not. Its statistically motivated.

  • Jim

    I have posted a comment for you with links, so it is awaiting moderation. Hopefully you get to see it.
    But another thought came to me. We had a lengthy dialog in January here on the same topic, with me, Rene, and Catalyst, among others. So if interested in some of those responses (and arguments!), it is here:

    But catalyst had an interesting chart which showed better than most the problem with cherry picking time frames, and here it is:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *