Sunday, December 15, 2013

Calculated Mean Global Temperatures

A very powerful methodology has been derived which objectively allocates the AGT rise since before 1900 among candidate factors. Three candidate factors are considered which together can account for over 97% of the AGT.

As a consequence, all of the assessment previously presented in this blog is replaced by the analysis and results presented in


  1. Your Reference 10 note is unhelpful to one without context. I suggest a link. And while I came to this article via a comment thread, the idea of it lying fallow without added commentary and updates seems a waste. Do you have a Disqus link to add ?

  2. The Reference list with links is at the end of the article.

    I am unfamiliar with 'Disqus link'. Please clue me in through email link accessed through 'View my complete profile' in upper right corner of article. The email link is displayed on the left side just below where my picture isn't. Thanks.

  3. Thanks Dan!
    This is the kind of information that we all need to read. I am totally frustrated with the Global Warming religion and their zealotry... I have resorted to cynicism on all my blogs. Thanks for your post! Keep up the good work!

    1. Thanks for the comments.

      The warmers lose cred as the CO2 continues to go up and average global temperature doesn't.

  4. 1816? The year without a summer? Man, that must have sucked.

  5. Replies
    1. Certainly a detailed piece. I just cannot bring myself to believe in man-made global warming. Wrote a satirical post some time back you might enjoy Paleo Indians and Global Warming. Almost forgot, thanks for your recent visit to one of my blogs (Right Wing Humor)>

  6. I have only started reading this after reading your comment on WUWT so I haven't much to add except a little criticism about the axis titles. I guess for blogs the units should be (%deg;C) or divide by K (and not K degrees as you have in one graph). I know its difficult to choose the right option for the common reader but mixing things up is not a good idea.

  7. The recommended symbol for degrees Kelvin is K with no degree symbol. Since a Celcius degree is the same size as a Kelvin degree that could have been used but requires also the degree sign. Practice in science work is to use K for either the temperature or the temperature difference which is what anomalies are. All of the graphs have the ordinate (anomaly) in degrees Kelvin using the symbol K. I added 'degrees' on the first graph in case someone might think that the K stood for 1000.

  8. Dan - your method produces results very similar to mine which is based simply on the working hypothesis that the recent peak in temperatures is a result of a synchronous peak in the 60 year and 1000 year quasi- periodicities in the temperature data and the use of the neutron count (and 10Be) as the most useful proxy for solar activity over the long term. For several posts on this subject and for forecasts of the timing and amount of the coming cooling see
    Here are the conclusions of the last post on the link
    "In earlier posts on this site at 4/02/13 and 1/22/13
    I have combined the PDO, ,Millennial cycle and neutron trends to estimate the timing and extent of the coming cooling in both the Northern Hemisphere and Globally.
    Here are the conclusions of those posts.
    1/22/13 (NH)
    1) The millennial peak is sharp - perhaps 18 years +/-. We have now had 16 years since 1997 with no net warming - and so might expect a sharp drop in a year or two - 2014/16 -with a net cooling by 2035 of about 0.35.Within that time frame however there could well be some exceptional years with NH temperatures +/- 0.25 degrees colder than that.
    2) The cooling gradient might be fairly steep down to the Oort minimum equivalent which would occur about 2100. (about 1100 on Fig 5) ( Fig 3 here) with a total cooling in 2100 from the present estimated at about 1.2 +/-
    3) From 2100 on through the Wolf and Sporer minima equivalents with intervening highs to the Maunder Minimum equivalent which could occur from about 2600 - 2700 a further net cooling of about 0.7 degrees could occur for a total drop of 1.9 +/- degrees
    4)The time frame for the significant cooling in 2014 - 16 is strengthened by recent developments already seen in solar activity. With a time lag of about 12 years between the solar driver proxy and climate we should see the effects of the sharp drop in the Ap Index which took place in 2004/5 in 2016-17.
    4/02/13 ( Global)
    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 Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 - 0.15
    5 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 - 0.5
    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 minor but beneficial - they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields .
    9 Warning !! 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 may turn out to be a best case scenario.

    How confident should one be in these above predictions? The pattern method doesn't lend itself easily to statistical measures. However statistical calculations only provide an apparent rigor for the uninitiated and in relation to the IPCC climate models are entirely misleading because they make no allowance for the structural uncertainties in the model set up.This is where scientific judgment comes in - some people are better at pattern recognition and meaningful correlation than others. A past record of successful forecasting such as indicated above is a useful but not infallible measure. In this case I am reasonably sure - say 65/35 for about 20 years ahead. Beyond that certainty drops rapidly. I am sure, however, that it will prove closer to reality than anything put out by the IPCC, Met Office or the NASA group. In any case this is a Bayesian type forecast- in that it can easily be amended on an ongoing basis as the Temperature and Solar data accumulate. If there is not a 0.15 - 0.20. drop in Global SSTs by 2018 -20 I would need to re-evaluate.

  9. Dr. Page,
    My assessment is an extrapolation of the past. I demonstrated that CO2 change had no significant effect in a paper made public in 2008 at The determination of the two climate drivers appears solid. Prediction beyond 2037 depends on prediction of sunspot numbers and ocean oscillations, neither of which have been confidently predicted very far into the future.

    I don't like long moving averages because they tend to obscure trend peaks. Long moving averages can be misleading, particularly in noisy data.

    Although we both predict future declines, it looks like my decline prediction for 2035 is about twice what you came up with. I haven't looked beyond 2037 but suspect sunspots may be related to planetary synodic periods and ocean oscillations may be influenced by some beat frequency with the lunar cycles.

    I believe that future-cast must also work as hind-cast and simple is better than complex. Predictions must be physics based.

    I agree that what the IPCC is doing has little to do with climate.

  10. Dan, I don't know if you do the Facebook thing or not, but here's an interesting thing about Bill Nye and Global Warming:

    Facebook Bill Nye Global Warming

  11. JB - Thanks for the link. I added a comment.

  12. I saw that. There was a guy named Christopher Robert that said this to you:

    Quote" I'll give you a hint: if it ends in .com and it's not a real journal (,, etc.), it's not a source, and no real scientist will ever even click your links. Richard Feynman would roll in his grave if he knew crazies like you were trying to cite him. Citing a blogspot to try to argue science....sheesh."Quote

  13. Wow, some very straight forward info for a change. Instead of the blah blah blah global warming because blah blah blah.

    1. Never knew the point on c02 either, as temps don't change. All $$$$

    2. GlobalWarmingTimes A Global Warming News Site offring each and every latest news and information about Global Warming I just follow this blog and read it daily basis it will keep you updats.. Global Warming News

    3. Mahesh - It might keep you misinformed.

  14. The CO2 data that was used (and change to which was shown to have no significant effect) is from Law Dome Antarctica 1180-1958 and Mauna Loa Hawaii after 1958. A graph is on page 11 at
    Several other early (most superseded) papers are at

  15. Thanks Dan,

    Best article I've read in weeks. Nice to see real mathematics.

  16. Thanks for the feedback.

    Here is more. The physics of thermalization explains why non-condensing ghg change has no significant effect on climate.

  17. A really good article, thank you very much.

  18. Your valuable blog aware us from the side effect of global warming.

    Thanks for the sharing a awaking blog on the global warming times.

    Global Warming Times

  19. Dan Pangburn: "The warmers lose cred as the CO2 continues to go up and average global temperature doesn't." Precisely. The counter by claiming the current hiatus is too short of a time period. All of the hullabaloo for the past year is an attempt to downplay and discredit the idea (data) and supporters of the hiatus (supporting real data is an contradiction in terms itself).

    I looked at this on WUWT in two related posts in which I look at the simple cross plot of NASA GISS mean monthly temperature vs. Mauna Loa Keeling CO2.

    Key points:
    Taking the entire data set (back to 1959, limited by the Mauna Loa data) the X-Y plot clearly breaks into three distinct periods a) 1959 - mid 1970s flat or no correlation; b) mid 1970s to late 1990s global mean temperature monotonically increase suggesting apparent correlation with with CO2; c) late 1990s to date - current hiatus with zero correlation between CO2 and global mean temperature. Re the first period in fact from the mid 1940s to mid 1970s not only was there was no relation between temperature and CO2 but even cooling during the period. The point in the second WUWT article is if manmade CO2 is the predominate factor "causing" global warming, this conclusion is not supported by the data. Therefore it is not a conclusion it is an unsupported premise. The data during the last period late 1990s to date is remarkable in that the X-Y data are a complete scattergram/shotgun with zero correlation.

    My conclusion is: "The accepted (by the consensus) hypothesis that global mean temperature (the dependent variable) can be explained by or is due to “mainly” a single variable, CO2 is patently false during the 18+ year hiatus...(d)id CO2 sensitivity go to sleep? ...(a)re other variables exactly canceling out the CO2 effect? It is also important to recognize that the Mauna Loa data includes manmade and non-manmade CO2. The integrated assessment climate models (IAMs) are deterministic physical models of the climate with built in predetermined physical model structures (i.e., defining of cause and effect). From the data, we can say they (models and their proponents) are wrong based on their (in)ability to explain the facts (data) during this hiatus. The zero “fit” / complete lack of correlation does allow us to conclude that during the hiatus, the assumption that CO2 is the major thing driving global mean temperature is not just a lousy hypothesis, it’s wrong and unsupported by the data (fact). The data present strong evidence that all of the variability (scatter) in the data during the hiatus is due to “not CO2.”

  20. You really share a valuable blog on the effect of global warming.
    The data and fact that you have been presented for the better understand the global warming effect is correct and easy to get.
    Global Warming News

  21. Pity it doesn't match reality.
    How are polar temperatures going ? Classic GHG phenomenon of warmer when little or no sun or at night.
    Record heat worldwide for last few years.
    First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect at Earth's surface

    February 25, 2015
    Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
    Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide's greenhouse effect at Earth's surface for the first time. They measured atmospheric carbon dioxide's increasing capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from Earth's surface over an 11-year period at two locations in North America. They attributed this upward trend to rising carbon dioxide levels from fossil fuel emissions.
    0.2 Watts per Sq meter over 11 years during which time CO2 rose 22ppm, since late 1700's CO 2 has risen 140 approx ppm largely due to man along with feedbacks and the starting to melt methane Clathrates. Just mans activities has increased CO2 back radiation by approx 1.4 Watts per Sq Meter,

    A maunder Minimum reduces incident energy by approx 0.5 Watts per Sq Meter.
    Do your own math

    1. Perhaps you did not read the analysis. The match is 97% with measured average global temperatures.

      LBNL got it wrong. If CO2 had an effect on climate, it would have appeared in the 542 million years of the Phanerozoic eon.

      You need to take the blinders off.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. If existing albedo is 30% (of which two-thirds is due to cloud cover) then an increase to just 31% lowers the temperature by about 0.9 degree which is comparable with the difference between the Maunder minimum temperatures and the mean temperatures over the last ~1000 year natural cycle. The radiation from CO2 (like that from water vapor) works against the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient, thus leading to lower surface temperatures because, in case you don't know, the so-called wet adiabatic lapse rate is less in magnitude than the dry rate. How could you possibly maintain radiative balance with the Sun if the thermal profile did not rotate about a pivoting altitude and become lower at the surface end? You can't raise the surface temperature with more water vapor and, at the same time, have a less steep temperature gradient, because radiative balance would be way out and soon correct itself by lowering the whole thermal plot whilst retaining the same gradient.

      This is the epitome of self-contradiction in the greenhouse radiative forcing conjecture. A higher surface temperature due to water vapor and yet a less steep temperature gradient !?!?!

    4. Determination of Standard Atmosphere, first done in the 1950s, is described here and agrees with some of what you say. The population gradient of ghg contributes substantially to the radiation balance. Energy balance is calculated at

  22. Dan, great work, you need to get this published in a refereed journal. It needs an abstract before the intro, and the intro may benefit from a little wordsmithing, otherwise it's excellent.

    I had difficulty understanding why the value of R squared was different in Table 1 between the two rows in yellow? Looks all the parameters are the same but the correlation coefficient is different, why is that?

    1. Measured values are 5-year smoothed at second hi-lite.

  23. Great to see this post found really understanding about global warming, I get another blog related to Global Weirding News and Global Warming Newswhich have almost every news links for global warming.

  24. I agree that climate change is all 100% natural, with possible causes relating to planetary orbits (see and their effects which could pertain to variations in solar activity, sunspots, cosmic ray intensity, cloud formation and solar intensity varying because of variation in the distance from the Sun. I’ve said all that on my first website years ago.

    What I don’t agree with is the radiative forcing conjecture that radiation from the cold atmosphere helps the Sun to raise the surface temperature to observed values. You cannot add the two and use the total in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations, but Hansen and Pierrehumbert thought they could get away with doing so: after all, politicians are ignorant about such matters and so are brain-washed climatologists.

    Only maximum entropy production can do that in the process wherein new thermal energy absorbed in the upper troposphere makes its way to the surface by natural convective heat transfer which is restoring thermodynamic equilibrium or, in other words, maximizing entropy. On what point do you have difficulty in your understanding of this standard physics based on the Second Law?

    1. I don't know what Hansen and Pierrehumbert did but "add the two" is certainly wrong. Some other mistakes by the 'consensus' are discussed at

      It appears you could use a refresher in radiation heat transfer to understand what is going on. Your last paragraph is nonsense. Heated air rises.

  25. Why we need the heat creep process:
    (copied from the comment thread on my blog)

    We know that, apart from direct solar radiation, there must be additional thermal energy entering a planets surface each morning and early afternoon because otherwise we dont have any warming at those times, and we dont have overall energy balance at the surface for each complete rotation, such as each 24 hours for Earth. In typical Earth energy diagrams like the one on this page, they show back radiation of about 324W/m^2 into the surface, but the electro-magnetic energy in that radiation is not converted to thermal energy in the warmer surface, and so there is no heat transfer from cooler to warmer regions. Such heat transfers can never happen by radiation. Instead, a similar amount of thermal energy is actually delivered into the surface by conduction across the interface with the atmosphere. This was energy originally absorbed each morning from new solar radiation that is strong enough to raise the cold temperatures found mostly in the upper troposphere and above. This new energy must be what makes its way to the surface, but it does not do so by radiation. Only non-radiative processes (natural convective heat transfers) can transfer thermal energy up the sloping thermal plane, provided that the process is increasing entropy. This is because such processes depend upon energy being transferred by molecular collisions, and gravity acts on molecules in flight between collisions increasing their kinetic energy as their gravitational potential energy decreases. But, by definition, no energy is transferred across internal boundaries in a perfect state of thermodynamic equilibrium. Energy transfers only happen when new energy creates a state that is not in thermodynamic equilibrium, so that entropy can increase. If the new energy is at the top of a column of the troposphere, then a new state of thermodynamic equilibrium (with its associated temperature gradient) can only be attained if some of that new thermal energy at the top is dispersed downwards to warmer regions. That is what I have been first to explain does in fact happen, so that we know this heat creep process is possible, and it is indeed the correct physics which explains the missing energy that raises the surface temperature each morning, even under thick cloud cover.

    1. You have really talked yourself into a mess here. The clear atmosphere is essentially transparent to radiation from the sun. Clouds absorb some, reflect some, and transmit some. Start there or just look at