No Global Warming for 13 Years

It was hailed as proof that the world has warmed, the preliminary findings released with much fanfare just a week ago from a new and more accurate method of computing changes in world temperatures. At least that was the claim made at the time by the head of the expert team, Professor Richard Muller, that global warming is real.

Now, following accusations from a colleague that the public comment was misleading, Professor Muller has acknowledged that the BEST data might also indicate that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years.

It is really not such a big deal, except that many prominent Australians, including Tim Flannery and Tony Jones, absolutely cringe when people like me tell them there has been no warming for the past decade. Remember how upset Professor Flannery and the audience were on Q&A last October when I made that simple statement of fact. And Mr Jones continued the argument after the program, insisting that I was wrong.  A clip of the relevant segment is here .

Read about Professor Muller’s revised assessment of global warming here:

Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague, by David Rose, in The Mail on Sunday, October 30, 2011

77 Responses to No Global Warming for 13 Years

  1. Luke October 30, 2011 at 9:18 pm #

    Jeez is that right? We’ll see how the pros react …

    Re Q&A – you’d have to be pretty good to take Jen on in such a forum with a derringer in every pocket and sock. Blood sport enthusiasts just wanted Jen and Tim to be left duke it out for the whole show.

    But who is the GWPF ?

    WikiPravda informs me: “In November 2009, the GWPF listed Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist, as the director,[2] and a board of trustees consisting of Lord Lawson (Chairman), Lord Barnett, Peter R. Forster (the Bishop of Chester), Lord Donoughue, Lord Fellowes, Martin Jacomb, Henri Lepage, Baroness Nicholson, and Lord Turnbull.[12] The academic advisory council included Samuel Brittan, Ian Byatt, Freeman Dyson, Christian Gerondeau, David Henderson, Terence Kealey, Anthony Kelly, Richard Lindzen, Alan Peacock, Ian Plimer, Gwyn Prins, Paul Reiter, Philip Stott, Richard Tol, and David Whitehouse.[13][14]”

    hmmmmm…. should one be sceptical?

  2. stove October 30, 2011 at 11:15 pm #

    Poor Luke.

    The BEST data shows no warming for 13 years. I will repeat that:


    despite increased CO2 levels.

    What part of the BEST data dont you like?

    Play the ball and not the man. Your getting desparate.

  3. John Sayers October 31, 2011 at 12:43 am #

    Yes – it appears that Judith Curry has broken ranks and accused Muller of releasing papers that are incomplete and don’t deserve to pass peer review without checking with co-authors such as herself. Anthony Watts has it all covered.

  4. Sundance October 31, 2011 at 3:14 am #

    There has been no increase in warming since May 1997, which is 14.42 years according to HadCRUT3V data.

    The 2009 NOAA ‘State Of The Climate’ report sets the parameter of IPCC climate models falsification as ANY (cherry picking is allowed) 15 consecutive year or more period of little to no warming. By their examination the IPCC models predict .3 degC to .45 degC warming over 15 years and without rapid warming by May 2012 the IPCC models will be falsified at the 95% level.

  5. Another Ian October 31, 2011 at 5:33 am #

    Check Bishop Hill too – “popcorn time”

  6. Neville October 31, 2011 at 7:32 am #

    Three cheers to Judith Curry, she’s proved time and again she’s tough and can’t be bought, unlike some of the others at BEST.

    Luke won’t like it but the BEST info shows there has been zero warming for the last 10 years.
    Muller evidently can’t read his own simple graph, but thanks to Judith Curry the truth has been revealed.

    All the rest of the MSM donkeys hee hawwwed the same brainless nonsense orchestrated by Muller. These idiots are like Luke and Gav, they want to hide the facts and shut down any opposing arguments.

    Once again there has been minimal warming for 15 years and certainly no warming for the last 10 years. Meanwhile the best test of co2 warming has been proved wrong.
    In the last couple of decades co2 emissions have SOARED thanks to the developing world and certainly temps have not gone up for at least 10 years.

    Little wonder these fantasist fools get so upset when the real temp and facts hit them right between the eyes.

  7. el gordo October 31, 2011 at 7:40 am #

    ‘hmmmmm…. should one be sceptical?’

    It’s healthy to be sceptical, comrade.

  8. kdkd October 31, 2011 at 7:41 am #

    Ah well, Tamino picet this up pretty quickly. ‘…how mistaken, how foolish, how downright boneheaded it is to say that “There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped.”’

  9. debbie October 31, 2011 at 7:41 am #

    Here you go Luke,
    Here is some of the work by the GWPF re this topic.
    Mind you….they are not the only ones who have scrutinised the data.
    Attacking personalities doesn’t really help to unravel the morass.
    Remember if human produced CO2 has been steadily increasing over the last 10 years but global temps have not…..there must be something wrong with AGW hyothesis….
    That doesn’t mean it is totally wrong BTW….but something, probably unknown or unrecognised variables are not being correctly accounted for.
    That therefore indicates that the Science is NOT settled…..and probably not likely to be any time soon.
    Making arbitrary political decisions and attempting major social reform based on this incomplete hypothesis is the problem for a so called sceptic like me.
    It’s a a very bad recipe…. it tastes and smells corrupted.
    I don’t think the science itself is corrupted, I don’t believe it ever should have been used as a magic crystal ball.
    It is the attempt to mix it with politics that has created the very bad taste and corrupted the recipe.
    Jen made that particular point quite clear on Q&A despite the best efforts of Jones and Flannery to cut her off.
    There is something wrong with the theory!!!!! The predictions are not coming to pass!!!! Something is not adding up as was expected!!! If they were genuinely interested in the Science, they would be trying to work out what the missing pieces are….but that is clearly not what is happening.
    This latest fiasco with BEST is just a further indication that something else other than good science is at play here.
    As you said in the previous post re farmers growing food….
    Is there no moderate ground here?

  10. Neville October 31, 2011 at 7:50 am #

    The troposphere still isn’t behaving the way it should. Pity about that hot spot.

  11. Graham Young October 31, 2011 at 8:43 am #

    Thanks for the heads-up Jen. I had a look at the controversy, and some of the graphs, and the thing that sticks out to me is that far from being the “hottest year ever” 2010 looks like being quite a cool one.

    I did a blog drawing attention to that

    It looks like you can pull down data by region, judging by from some blog posts I have seen. Would be interesting to see how the Australian dataset compares to BEST. Maybe Luke could do it for us, seeing he seems to think that there’s some sort of quantum effect in statistics where the outcome of the algorithms is determined by the politics of the analyst.

    Or maybe not, in his case such a quantum effect probably exists.

  12. Robert LePage October 31, 2011 at 8:48 am #

    The fact that ships are now able to sail freely through the North west passage and that the sea ice in the Arctic is at a record low and is thinner than ever before, proves of course that there has been no warming for ten years.
    It is all a figment of someone’s imagination.

  13. jim karlock October 31, 2011 at 9:31 am #

    Ships sailed the NW passage in the early 1900s and during WWII too.

    Arctic ice is effected by ocean currents and one NASA said recent ice loss was due to ocean currents NOT temperature.


  14. debbie October 31, 2011 at 9:39 am #

    Robert LePAge,

    No….that just proves something is going on in the Arctic.
    The Antarctic appears to be behaving in a different manner.
    I think we all agree that average temperatures and ocean currents have changed and that they’re constantly in flux.
    The questions that are proving very difficult to answer however are :
    What causes it and can we or even should we be trying to influence it?
    Is it just natural progression or is our increasing human population creating measureable differences?
    If we are, are those differences harmful?

  15. Jeannette Hope October 31, 2011 at 9:56 am #

    Look at the graphs in the Daily Mail article. The difference is an artefact of graphical representation and sampling (200 v 10 years). You don’t even need to be a statistician to see this. Here are two recycled comments on the article that spell it out.

    The first graph is over 200 years. Taking the last ten years and making definitive statements that warming has stopped is misleading. The sample is not large enough compared to the first graphical data.
    – JT, Providence RI, 30/10/2011 22:57

    1845 to 1863 also shows irrefutably that the warming trend had ceased. Same with 1825 to 1833, 1902 to 1912…in fact, I can see about a dozen instances immediately apparent that anyone who didn’t understand modeling could jump on as “evidence” that the warming trend had ended, assuming we stopped looking forward with our data at those certain points. This is utter foolishness. To anyone who understands modeling data, it is an inane proposition to say that the last leveling-off blip (which, by the way, still shows a slight increase in temperature) is anything more than just another blip. The data show many such blips, and they’re much, much more dramatic than Ms. Curry’s “leveling off.” The trend is clear. The evidence is overwhelming. The data are sound. The Earth is warming. Period. Let’s grow up and move on.
    – Chris Hanks, Ph.D., Los Angeles, CA, 30/10/2011

  16. Luke October 31, 2011 at 10:06 am #

    Well it’s fair cop but let’s see if we can get some independent comment on this “unpublished” work.

    But just for Neville – remember mate the analysis is brought to you by the mainstream effort not sceptics. Sceptics are merely along for the ride. I hope you don’t think McLean et al, Archibald, and Watts UHI stuff has actually added anything !

  17. Luke October 31, 2011 at 10:21 am #

    And as we’d expect a viscous statistical counter-attack from Tamino.

  18. cohenite October 31, 2011 at 10:28 am #

    kd goes to tamino; tamino is a vicious creep but has some statistical skills; he uses those to get stuck into Curry for claiming there has been no warming this century; basically tamino has removed the last 2 months of 2010 from the BEST data on the basis they are unacceptably uncertain; when these outliers are removed the trend becomes 0.14C per decade compared to 0.03C with those months included.

    A more obvious thing to do would have been to EXTEND the BEST data to the current date; we can’t do that with BEST at this stage but RSS also has land-based data up to date and the trend for that is 0.014C per decade for this century; essentially nothing:

    Curry is correct and tamino is a creep.

  19. Mark A October 31, 2011 at 10:32 am #

    And as we’d expect a viscous statistical counter-attack from Tamino.

    yes Luke, it’s a “sticky, gummy” attack all right!

  20. spangled drongo October 31, 2011 at 10:44 am #

    Yeah, Foster’s the the sticky viscous type alright! Desperately tries to shore up AGW with his usual sticky statickys.

    Even got woodfortrees quoting non peer reviewed data!

    If he can’t work it out that the warmest year was at least 13 years back then who is the big deny-er?

  21. spangled drongo October 31, 2011 at 11:23 am #

    Lies. Damned Lies. And sticky statickys:

  22. debbie October 31, 2011 at 11:28 am #

    There is a huge difference between noticing there is a clear flatline and saying that the warming has stopped.
    You may need to go back and look at those articles again.
    The overall trend for 200 years is indeed that things are slightly warmer.
    The problem really isn’t the temperature records per se….it is the interpretation of the projective data and the attempts to plot a solid pattern and correlation re AGW theory that is being severely questioned.
    Something is not adding up.
    I agree it would be great to move on….we’re all expected to pay for this however….most of us don’t like to pay for no return.

  23. spangled drongo October 31, 2011 at 11:31 am #

    And an extra one for Luke and kd:

  24. John Sayers October 31, 2011 at 11:32 am #

    Jeannette – the sections you point out showing a similar flattening as the past decade were during periods when man’s CO2 output was negligible. The last Decade has seen the rise of China, India and Brazil, a period where you must expect significant warming due to massive increase in CO2 production, yet it remains flat. AGW theory disproved.

    Surely the BEST publications should be on hold until peer reviewed and published – this is just crazy everyone arguing about nothing.

  25. Luke October 31, 2011 at 11:44 am #

    I’ll back Tamino over Curry. Be very afraid – It’s not over. (which is why Cohenite pulled out his six shooter) – it was more than the last 2 data points boyo.

    But viscous is correct – sceptics are thick.

    And let’s stop the single driver bogosity – temperature evolution is a combination of solar, aerosols, clouds and decadal/interannual oscillations. Which is what the 5AR guys are working on. Have a look at any actual single realisation from a GCM – it wiggles around. Reality is also a single realisation …. throws grenade – walks off.

  26. Luke October 31, 2011 at 11:45 am #

    sorry “is also a combination”

  27. cohenite October 31, 2011 at 12:15 pm #

    Well yes, I am afraid, of idiots like tamino running things; he says:

    “Now it’s noticeably upward. The estimated slope is 0.14 deg.C/decade — more than four times as large, just from removing two errant data points. Its standard error is 0.11 degC/decade, so the real trend rate could be as high as 0.36 deg.C/decade, quite a bit larger than the average rate since 1975. And yes, it could easily be an even higher slope since we’ve used a white-noise model, which underestimates the uncertainty.”

    Should that not be as high as 0.25C per decade [0.14 + positive error bar of 0.11]; isn’t he adding the -ve error bar as well? How can you add a -ve error bar to the upper end?

    And white noise models do not underestimate uncertainty, they spread it evenly; tamino spreads it evenly too, but it isn’t uncertainty.

    Incidentally I don’t use 6-shooters; my weapon of choice is a subpoena.

  28. Jeannette Hope October 31, 2011 at 12:19 pm #

    John – Point noted, and I agree, we need to wait till the material is reviewed and published. But something is happening in the real world, as opposed to the models (eg glacial melt in Himalayas; current news, but I heard a Chinese scientist talk about this ca 2003, to a stunned audience). Given the complexity of climate and the methodological problems (what does a single temperature figure for the whole world really mean anyway?) and the politics (why does the issue generate such anger, passion and death-threats), I would be cautious to take any one new statement and declare ‘AGW theory disproved’.

  29. hunter October 31, 2011 at 12:35 pm #

    The good faith believers in AGW have been had,and will will start to drift away.
    The hard core will cling to the cult.
    Will the damage the cult has inflicted on Australia, the UK, the USA and the UN be corrected without major changes in government?

  30. hunter October 31, 2011 at 12:38 pm #

    And Luke,
    STFU and actually think about this for a second or two.
    Trenberth, Lacis, Hansen, etc. etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum have told us that CO2 is THE driver of climate.
    Don’t start down that path and pretend it is the skeptic’s fault your gravy train is running off the track.

  31. debbie October 31, 2011 at 1:00 pm #


    And let’s stop the single driver bogosity – temperature evolution is a combination of solar, aerosols, clouds and decadal/interannual oscillations. Which is what the 5AR guys are working on. Have a look at any actual single realisation from a GCM – it wiggles around. Reality is also a single realisation …. throws grenade – walks off.

    I have to once again congratulate you for starting to accept that there is a middle ground here. And I confess I am somewhat but pleasantly surprised. At this post and the last one re the ‘bad farmers’.

    Hunter is right though….we are being consistently told by the hijackers of climate science that CO2 is THE driver and that the human portion IS dangerous and catastrophic pollution. AND WE MUST PAY FOR THESE GRAVE SINS.

    Your comment pasted above is likely much closer to the mark. (without the also).

  32. spangled drongo October 31, 2011 at 1:56 pm #

    Luke and his catatrophist mates have about as much cred as Paul Erlich, whom our ABC interviewed today in light of us reaching our 7 bil milestone.

    Erlich’s breathtaking statement that he hasn’t seen any sign of man’s capacity to adapt to problems over the last 40 years since he wrote his book, sums it all up really.

    It’s not until you hear these catastrophists mouthing off that you realise why the disease has got to such plague proportions and probably will never be eradicated.

    Even though the MSM fully understand that it is BS [even the ABC couldn’t support Erlich, however much they’d love to] it is still too good a catastrope to pass up.

  33. ianl8888 October 31, 2011 at 2:57 pm #

    I’d left this link on a previous thread, but it’s pertinent to this topic

    Curry is not alone:

    “Provoked scientists try to explain lag in global warming”

    The “lag” here is the non-warming of the last decade (13 years, actually) – and all the heavies are trying to explain this, but are at odds with each other

    Interesting times

  34. Ross October 31, 2011 at 5:41 pm #

    Sydney at the moment is having quite a cool spring,even with exponential increases in global C02.NASA say that past warmings were caused by the Sun.AGW theory was working fine until 1995 when the evidence stopped supporting the hypothesis,but alas the gravy train could not be stopped.

    What do you think about the science on this site Jennifer?

  35. jennifer October 31, 2011 at 9:21 pm #

    Ross, I’ve read John Berlau on the issue of the Twin Towers being inadequately insulated against fire because the campaign against asbestos erupted during their building. Steel doesn’t need to melt to cause structural damage, it can buckle and bend at lower temperatures. Berlau says all the 9/11 conspiracy theories, although wrong headed in their major thrust, are correct on major points that neither the planes nor the fires, by themselves, caused the ensuing collapse.

  36. jennifer October 31, 2011 at 9:31 pm #

    Another Ian et al.

    And this link was posted at climate audit in the comments thread but is worth its own thread.

  37. gavin October 31, 2011 at 9:38 pm #

    Guys; I recomend you leave the surface air temp data to experts and go for the other more obvious measures on the horizontal plane.

    Current info on ice:

    & the AFP China report

  38. hunter November 1, 2011 at 6:17 am #

    That site has no science, but it is a demonstration of pathologically disgusting behavior from self-declared experts.
    The remarkable thing is the similarity between AGW believers and 911 truthers.

  39. Another Ian November 1, 2011 at 6:23 am #

    Check Josh’s take on this at

  40. Neville November 1, 2011 at 7:18 am #

    I agree Hunter , the similarity between that site and the CAGW freaks is interesting.
    Unfortunately for the rest of us some sheep will believe and bleat and BAAA anything.

  41. Neville November 1, 2011 at 8:05 am #

    Just listened to Bolt interview Muller and he seemed to be fairly reasonable about BEST results.
    He certainly didn’t claim that the results proved AGW and agreed that oceans were not included, but hoped to look at that 71% of the planet’s surface in the next 12 months.

    I think he said BEST results showed a warming of 0.9C over the last 50 years, but I’m unsure whether too many people would accept that number.

    Of course nothing about solar or clouds or LIA recovery or volcanic activity plus dominance of warm PDO and el ninos over the last 30+ years etc.

  42. Neville November 1, 2011 at 8:35 am #

    Looks like McIntyre is starting to pull apart some of the BEST data and found some reasons why the temp increases might be too high.

    Can some one look at the graph before and after GISS adjustments 2007 for US 48 states.
    Is that difference in temp increase as bad as it looks?

  43. Robert November 1, 2011 at 8:38 am #

    It wouldn’t surprise me if the earth overall has warmed since the late seventies.

    It wouldn’t surprise me if the earth cooled a bit after WW2, subsequent to some warming in the first half of the twentieth century.

    If the earth has warmed since the earlier part of the nineteenth century, I’m relieved.

    If Arctic ice at minimum is a bit greater than it was in ’07, or if it goes lower than ’07 in ’12, so what? There was supposedly too little in the 1920s and too much in the 1970s. So what?

    What really makes me a skeptic is that I doubt graphs of global temp. Walk along a trail for a bit, up, down and around, moving from bush to pasture to town. Walk on a windy day or a still night. Note the dramatic variations, due to small changes of time and place. No single reading for the area you just walked could be very accurate. A simple max or min at one spot tells a very slight story, compared to the real story of weather and climate in that spot. Go a few hundred metres, and you’ll have a different story anyway. There’s nothing wrong with having a temp reading at one spot, but only if you accept how much it doesn’t tell you.

    As for the ocean…forget it!

    Whether I’m right or wrong about this, I simply cannot believe anyone who tells me they’ve “measured” the “temperature” of an ocean – unless that person’s name is God. Try as I might, I just can’t believe. That’s what makes me a skeptic.

    So let’s stop littering the countryside with wind-turbines, let’s stop ripping up prime land for gas, let’s have lots of cheap energy from nice new coal plants, or nice new nukes, let’s get rich, and let’s get back to that admirable indulgence of the rich: conservation.

    Remember conservation?

  44. kuhnkat November 1, 2011 at 9:23 am #

    Let’s play the ball AND the man. I think this article:

    gives a fairly good view of how ethically compromised this man really is. he thinks it is OK for Gore and chums to exagerate and spin while wasting resources as long as they can get attention to this serious problem. Since ha has done it, he apparently thinks it is OK to LIE about being a sceptic when he has been a believer in MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING since the early 80’s. He apparently has nor problem telling stories about others that are not true…

    So, why should I think he has done due diligence when he uses similar data and methods to GISS and gets similar results? When he claims to have put UHI to bed when his study has done NOTHING to attribute trend among possible causes…

    The man is apparently a RELIGIOUS BELIEVER WHO WILL STOP AT NOTHING TO PROMOTE HIS CAUSE!!! Either that or he is a shameless self promoter trying to get his cut of the Global Warming Industry for himself and friends invested in his GeoEngineering Company.

    To sum up, well, I won’t besmirch this blog with what I REALLY think of him!!

  45. kuhnkat November 1, 2011 at 9:31 am #

    Hey, things are looking up. JAXA and the Ubuki satellite team apparently have shown that the industrialized nations are NOT net contributors to the rising CO2. Their study shows that areas where the largest industrialization exists are net neutral or negative.

    Remember our CO2 guru telling us that Ice Cores and Mauna Loa show that there was simply no way to interpret the data other than Nature is balanced and MAN is contributing the INCREASE?? How about the areas where man lives are a sink and absorb his extra CO2 and the oceans and other areas are net producers of CO2. How about THAT explanation?? Oh, and there is no excess methane or CO2 coming from the Arctic exacerbating the problem???

  46. cohenite November 1, 2011 at 10:47 am #

    Muller runs a sustainable energy advisory business:

  47. spangled drongo November 1, 2011 at 1:36 pm #

    Yep, K & C, spot on!

    Muller could play any Melbourne Cup bookie off a break!

    Disappointed that Judith fell for it but AW was a wake-up.

  48. Another Ian November 1, 2011 at 1:52 pm #

    Jen, This looks interesting –

  49. el gordo November 1, 2011 at 2:36 pm #

    Nice work Kuhnkat.

  50. el gordo November 1, 2011 at 3:43 pm #

    If regional cooling has already commenced we should see signs of it.

    The astonishing CAO in Darwin and Brisbane last winter are not good examples. With La Nina intrenched it was the wettest October in NSW since 1976, same for the MDB and the fourth consecutive month with above average

    With so much cloud about the temperatures were below average in NSW.

    Severe Storms
    withsmall hail reportedinNullamanna, Bilpinand

  51. John Sayers November 2, 2011 at 5:25 am #

    This article at WUWT is a must read: context is everything.

  52. Neville November 2, 2011 at 7:30 am #

    Interesting summary by Bolt of the clueless Ehrlich and his clueless followers here in Australia.

    Of course Robyn “100 metres” Williams interviewed this fool on the ABC. It’s amazing this fools failed predictions cover nearly half a century and yet the mad left are still stuck like glue to this idiocy. Just proves how delusional and mad these cultists really are.

  53. Luke November 2, 2011 at 8:56 am #

    On “” – well you’d have to be a gullible drongo (like KookyKat) to be sprouting a map with no legend wouldn’t you. I thought it was a map of world vodka consumption myself. No legend – it could mean ANYTHING !

  54. debbie November 2, 2011 at 8:58 am #

    O/T…probably more relevant to the previous post…but check this out.

  55. Mark A November 2, 2011 at 9:14 am #

    no legend Luke?

    Are you colour blind?

  56. kuhnkat November 2, 2011 at 9:34 am #

    Hey Little Lukey,

    I realize you don’t have the wherewithal to actually look for the underlying paper and links to data so I added them over at Chiefio’s. Since you are probably afraid to go there and look now, here they are again:

    Paper on reducing uncertainty that goes with the chart O’Sullivan put in his post:

    Animation of about 2 years of data collected by the satellite on CO2 concentrations:

    from this page:

    Doesn’t look quite like the lurid pictures that Finglebeen and other alarmists would have us believe about the massive CO2 industrialized nations add to the atmosphere now does it?? Wonder if he has been checking it out yet?? Nope, man still can’t hold a candle to the output of the oceans or the Rain Forests!!

  57. el gordo November 2, 2011 at 2:47 pm #

    Tony Brown offers this historical viewpoint of changing climate.

  58. gavin November 2, 2011 at 3:38 pm #

    For the last time; glaciers are still melting everywhere

  59. cohenite November 2, 2011 at 3:57 pm #

    “For the last time; glaciers are still melting everywhere”

    For the last time? That’s a relief; poor bloody glaciers.

  60. el gordo November 2, 2011 at 8:57 pm #

    Incalcitrant glaciers.

    Alice Springs enjoyed its coldest October on record, pity its only weather.

  61. hunter November 2, 2011 at 11:16 pm #

    You are simply wrong about glaciers are still melting everywhere, if you mean that to imply they are shrinking everywhere- which of course you are seeking to imply.
    Is it deliberate deception on your part?

  62. kuhnkat November 3, 2011 at 7:16 am #


    “For the last time; glaciers are still melting everywhere”

    except in the US where the large snow falls in the last three years have started expanding a number of them!! (snicker)

    (has links to real reports)

    As the US has not been the exception to extra snow and cold I would think other areas in the Norther Hemisphere are also having similar Glacial Growth!! Alaska and Cali had already been exceptions to Goreball Warming melting the glaciers!!
    some NZ glaciers growing.

    Apparently when it is cold SOME glaciers can still be melting and when it is warm SOME can still grow. Goreball Warming apparently has little to do with it!!

  63. gavin November 3, 2011 at 8:42 am #

    Gee, Guys; all I did was google GLACIERS, news, Oct 2011 to be updated for my first comment. No other guide required!

  64. el gordo November 3, 2011 at 1:26 pm #

    Meanwhile in Queensland its been wet and they experienced the ‘third lowest October state-averaged mean maximum temperature in 61 years of record.’

    It feels like regional cooling but…

  65. MikeO November 3, 2011 at 4:52 pm #

    Jennifer I watched some of the Q&A link.
    You say that the temperature rose about .8 over 150 years and that for the last decade practically nothing despite CO2 rising significantly in that time. You say this is measured data. Flannery starts talking about something else and pretends you disagree on the overall rise and saying it is more than CO2. So why are we putting a tax on it? Then Tony Jones switches the argument back to Greg Hunt, what the!! I then switched off. I don’t watch Q&A it produces nothing worthwhile and has a stacked audience. It is a cheer squad they do not listen and have no idea what a rational argument is.

  66. Debbie November 3, 2011 at 5:25 pm #

    . . . . It’s just, weather, noise, a wiggle/wobble etc 🙂 Take your pick from the litany.
    Did anyone notice the new post at Jonova? Don’t know how to link it from this tablet thingy.
    Worth a look.
    I agree with your comment re Q & A Mike. At least they weren’t asked questions about a Catholic saint this time.

  67. Ian Thomson November 3, 2011 at 6:51 pm #

    I see we are back into big snowfall in the NH already . Poor buggers sitting in planes , on the tarmac, for 7 hours. In October.
    Hold it, isn’t it accumulated snowfall that makes glaciers grow ?
    I find this a worry, myself. What if it gets cold here ? I mean eventually.
    No-one can afford to stay warm now.

    Q and A -I have been an avid reader of some of Tim’s writings . The expression on his face, when Jennifer was speaking disgusted me- Before he opened his mouth.

  68. el gordo November 3, 2011 at 8:17 pm #

    Not sure if the growing glaciers in the Rockies have been mentioned, for Gav’s edification.

  69. Ross November 3, 2011 at 9:36 pm #

    Jennifer, I know where you are coming from in regards to 911.I’ve met Prof Neils Harrit and Prof Steven Jones.They are sincere and honest people.We need more of them.

  70. el gordo November 4, 2011 at 10:03 pm #

    A long guest post by Philip Bradley, worth a look.

  71. Schiller Thurkettle November 6, 2011 at 12:23 am #

    It is said that increasing CO2 follows a warming climate. So, does this mean no warming for the last 13 years means no increase in CO2 for the last 13 years?

  72. debbie November 7, 2011 at 10:45 am #

    I just think it proves that they don’t really know as much as they think they do.
    Bloody climate just refuses to co operate with their predictive modelling and keeps indicating that maybe CO2 is NOT a key driving factor that can be clearly plotted and accounted for. Maybe it’s just a symptom and not a cause?
    Mother Nature (if our climate and environment was actually a personality) is just proving to be as ‘mysterious’ and unpredictable as she always was.
    She ( if our climate and environment actually had a gender) is no more the friend of ‘climate scientists and environmental scientists’ than anyone else.
    I’m seriously starting to question who needs to be protected from what or whom? The emerging data is certainly not making that clear at all!
    It’s getting murkier and murkier and murkier with each passing season both NH and SH 🙂

  73. el gordo November 16, 2011 at 10:09 am #

    Found this at Crikey.…/

    Probably deserves a rebuttal.


  1. Climate Update | Cranky Old Crow - October 31, 2011

    […] No Global Warming for 13 Years […]

  2. Jennifer Marohasy » Your Temperatures Diddled - July 31, 2012

    […] 5. No Global Warming for 13 Years. […]

Website by 46digital