Category Archives: Climate Models

July 2017 Gobal Average Temperature –UAH Satellite

The Global Average Temperature (GAT) anomaly rose 0.07°C  in July. The  GAT anomaly now stands at +0.28°C.

The table below shows that the Southern Hemisphere and the Tropics rose from their readings in June.   NOAA says:

“The most recent model forecasts indicate a high probability that the sea surface temperature in the Niño3.4 region will remain at least slightly above average through winter of 2017-18. “

The above is a model prediction, after all.    I note a slight  drop in the ENSO Meter so I suspect that the GAT will continue its downward trend, though maybe not as fast as I had anticipated

2016 01 +0.55 +0.73 +0.38 +0.84
2016 02 +0.86 +1.19 +0.52 +0.99
2016 03 +0.76 +0.99 +0.54 +1.10
2016 04 +0.72 +0.86 +0.58 +0.93
2016 05 +0.53 +0.61 +0.45 +0.71
2016 06 +0.32 +0.47 +0.17 +0.38
2016 07 +0.37 +0.43 +0.30 +0.48
2016 08 +0.43 +0.53 +0.32 +0.50
2016 09 +0.45 +0.50 +0.39 +0.38
2016 10 +0.42 +0.42 +0.41 +0.46
2016 11 +0.46 +0.43 +0.49 +0.36
2016 12 +0.26 +0.26 +0.27 +0.23
2017 01 +0.33 +0.32 +0.33 +0.09
2017 02 +0.39 +0.58 +0.19 +0.07
2017 03 +0.23 +0.37 +0.09 +0.06
2017 04 +0.27 +0.29 +0.26 +0.22
2017 05 +0.44 +0.39 +0.49 +0.41
2017 06 +0.21 +0.32 +0.09 +0.39
2017 07 +0.28 +0.29 +0.27 +0.51

Chart and Tables are from Dr, Roy Spencer’s blog  which you can access by clicking here.


$535 Trillion To Remove CO2 From The Atmosphere

James Hansen, et al have issued a study titled “Young people’s burden: requirement of negative CO2 emissions.  The authors say that unless CO2 reduction begins right away and aggressively the next generation and the one after that will have to spend a $535 trillion to make Earth habitable.  This $535 trillion is not the $trillions that the warmers want to spend to bring CO2 emissions to a net zero by 2050 or 2100 (depending on which warmer group is talking).  The $535 trillion is for removing atmospheric CO2.

The Hansen et al study says the global temperature will melt glaciers and consequently sea level will rise 6 to 9 meters (approximately 20 to 30 feet). Using models, the study determined a temperature rise due to a rise in atmospheric CO2 and then determined that the glaciers will melt which is the big threat. The authors conclude that the current interglacial period would match the Eemian interglacial period which occurred about 125,000 years ago.   That period is believed to have experienced a 6 to 9-meter sea level rise.  The chart below, from Wikipedia shows the current interglacial period, the Holocene and the Eemian and other interglacial periods. Note that the scale is more or less logarithmic and not linear.

A tangential observation—this chart shows that the Globe’s temperature has been much hotter than at present. Also, the Pleistocene running from about 1 million years ago to about 20 thousand years ago shows glacial and interglacial periods.  The peak temperatures are the time of the interglacial and the rest are the times when some part of Earth was covered by advancing glaciers.  Were there SUVs and fossil fuel powered plants putting out CO2 that caused the glaciers to melt?

Continue reading

Paris Agreement Doomed By Projected Coal Based Power Plants

The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) posted “Forget Paris—1600 New Coal Power Plants Built Around The World.”  The GWPF provides the chart below that focuses on Europe, Asia and Africa using data from Coal





As you can see, China already has 2,363 coal based plants and expects to have 1,171more.  It comes as no surprise that China and India are major users of coal based power currently and they will be the major builders in the future.  No other country is even close.  It is illustrative to see that European nations are forecast to be increasing coal based capacity, not reducing it as their none too subtle “holier than thou” attitude would suggest.

Continue reading

Sun And Global Temperature Change

In an earlier posting, the case for CO2 controlling global temperature change was discussed. Several cases were examined that suggest that CO2 probably is a minor factor.  Yes, I do have a bias that the Sun is most likely the main driver of global climate. But I believe that bias is well founded.

As I began to prepare a posting on this topic, on 10 June a new posting on WattsUpWithThat by Mike Jonas appeared.   It covers, most of what I had planned to say.  He says it very well, albeit in a lot of words.  His Figure 7, “Correlation of sunspot cycle length with temperature” is thought by some to have been disproven, so you may want to tread lightly on that. I also think that he should have used an article from December 2016 CERN publication that strengthened his case for the Svensmark theory of galactic cosmic rays/cloud formation/cooling.  See my comment on that by clicking here.

My thoughts on this topic would be less informative than those by Mike Jonas.  Thus I am reblogging his posting:


Indirect Effects of the Sun on Earth’s Climate

By Mike Jonas  10 June 2017

For a long time, I have been bitterly disappointed at the blinkered lopsided attitude of the IPCC and of many climate scientists, by which they readily accepted spurious indirect effects from CO2-driven global warming (the “feedbacks”), yet found a range of excuses for ignoring the possibility that there might be any indirect effects from the sun. For example, in AR4 2.7.1 they say “empirical results since the TAR have strengthened the evidence for solar forcing of climate change” but there is nothing in the models for this, because there is “ongoing debate“, or it “remains ambiguous“, etc, etc.

In this article, I explore the scientific literature on possible solar indirect effects on climate, and suggest a reasonable way of looking at them. This should also answer Leif Svalgaard’s question, though it seems rather unlikely that he would be unaware of any of the material cited here. Certainly just about everything in this article has already appeared on WUWT; the aim here is to present it in a single article (sorry it’s so long). I provide some links to the works of people like Jasper Kirkby, Nir Shaviv and Nigel Calder. For those who have time, those works are worth reading in their entirety.

Table of Contents:

1. Henrik Svensmark

2. Correlation

3. Galactic Cosmic Rays

4. Ultra-Violet

5. The Non-Linear System

6. A Final Quirk




To read the entire posting click here




Media Ignorance Concerning The Paris Agreement

The ignorance shown by the media regarding the Paris Agreement leads me to wonder is it incompetence of just out-right lies.  The primary argument often is, quoting the editorial in the local newspaper, “By breaking ranks with nearly 200 nations, the United States joins only Syria (which is riven by civil war) and Nicaragua ….”  More on this paragraph below, but first about the 200 nations.  According to the Paris Agreement’s Green Climate Fund, the majority of the almost 200 nations are to be given money from this fund.  As of May 2017, 41 nations have contributed or have pledged money to this fund. Reviewing the data, we find that of the 41 nations, 22 of them are in for $10 million or less, 6 are in for $100 million or less, 7 are in for $500 million or less, 1 is in for $750million or less and 5 are in for more than $1billion with the US the major player at $3 billion. Beginning 2020,  the Green Climate Fund will require that the donor nations provide a total of  $100 billion per year! So what has been given so far is chump change.

Well, what do the other 160 nations have to lose by not joining?  Free money is what they will lose if they don’t sign up.  In fact, only about 13 countries are contributing any serious money. The nearly “200 nations” is a bogus issue.

Continue reading

Rumor Has It That President Trump Will Pull Out Of The Paris Agreement Today

President Trump has told us that he will decide on the Paris
Agreement this week.
  This morning, there are rumors in the media are saying that he will announce the US’s withdrawal today—-but maybe with caveats.  Thus, not necessarily completely getting out of this bad, unnecessary Paris Agreement.  We shall see what he does.

I think this posting by Dr Roy Spencer sums up my thoughts about why we should get out.  Here are few quotes from  We Owe it to the Poor to Exit the Paris Climate Treaty” posted on yesterday:

The scientific godfather of modern global warming alarmism, James Hansen, has called the Paris Climate Agreement “a fraud really, a fake …. It’s just worthless words.”

1) Warming over the last 50 years or so has averaged only about half of what computerized climate models can explain. Yet, those models are the basis for the Paris Agreement.

2) It is not obvious that recent warming is entirely the fault of our CO2 emissions. It is very possible that temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period were just as warm as today. Natural climate change exists. If we didn’t cause it, we can’t fix it.

3) Even if future warming increases to match the models, and all nations abide by the Paris commitments, we will avert only 0.3 deg. F warming by the year 2100. That’s less than 0.04 deg. F per decade, which is unmeasurable by current global temperature monitoring networks (satellites, surface thermometers, and weather balloons).

4) The cost of this unmeasurable impact on future global temperatures is variously estimated to be around $1 Trillion per year, primarily spent by the U.S. and a few other countries which drive global prosperity. As usual, the poor will be the hardest hit. That money could have been spent on clean water and providing electricity to the 1+ billion humans who still don’t have electricity.

5) China and India, which are burning coal like there is no tomorrow, don’t really have to do anything under the Agreement until 2030. It’s mainly up to the U.S. to cut our emissions, and send our wealth to poor countries where dictators will continue to enrich themselves.

6) Increasing CO2 levels have benefits, such as increased crop productivity and ‘global greening’. Life on Earth requires CO2, and over the last 60 years we have been monitoring its levels in the atmosphere, Mother Nature has been gobbling up 50% of what we emit to create even more life.

So don’t believe Leonardo DiCaprio, Al Gore, the Pope, and others who claim we owe it to the Poor to remain in the Paris Agreement.

The truth is, we owe it to the poor to get out.


Gore And Nye Are The Spokesmen For Catastrophic Global Warming—That’s The Best They Can Do?

Things have been very busy here at home.  That is my excuse for writing so little recently.  I am working on some thoughts why the global temperature is likely to begin to cool—a case of natural forces.   But in the mean time, the warmers have allowed Bill Nye and Al Gore (and on occasion, Di Caprio) to be the face of their catastrophic religion.  The real warmer scientists have tried the debate arena and have consistently underperformed.  So better to leave it to their apostles,  Nye and Gore.

If you haven’t seen” Bill Nye Saves the World” on Netflix, please do. If he and his minions don’t turn you off, you must be a warmer.  The ratings are generally dismal.  The Google Users rated it 29%. 

See this You tube video that reviews what Nye’s show.   



Algore has a new movie, an update of his “An Inconvient Truth”. I have seen the Promos version of this movie and it will probably be as full of errors and exaggerations as was his original one.  The  first one was the one that James Hansen (god-father of the current US catastrophic warming theory) said—well, ya, there are a lot of mistakes in it but its message is good.  That is the kind of science that the warmers (consensus method) use along with  coercion.