Global Warming Rate Unchanged Since 1970 Despite 2024 ‘Hottest Year’
A sensational science paper has blown holes in alarmist claims that global temperatures are surging
Just published results in Nature show “limited evidence” for a warming surge. “In most surface temperature time series, no change in the warming rate beyond the 1970s is detected despite the breaking record temperatures observed in 2023,” the paper says.
Written by an international group of mathematicians and scientists, it is unlikely to be acknowledged in the mainstream media where general hysteria reigns over the anomalous 2023 experience.
As we have seen, constant misinformation is published to scare the general public and this is exemplified by climate comedy-turn Jim ‘jail the deniers’ Dale forecasting almost daily Armageddon and exhorting people to “join up the dots”.
In science, one swallow does not make a summer and in climate science it is impossible to show a trend by picking on short periods or individual weather events.
This paper is an excellent piece of climate science work since it takes the long statistical view and challenges the two-a penny clickbait alarmists looking for a headline on the BBC.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a biased body but it understands the importance of long-term climate trends by stating, much to the chagrin of ‘Net Zero’-promoting activists, that it can find little or no human involvement in most extreme weather events either in the past or in the likely immediate future.
But these findings, along with the paper on the warming trend, are inconvenient to those promoting the unproven claim that humans control the climate thermostat by utilising hydrocarbons.
The paper is highly technical and mathematically-inclined readers can study the full workings out in the open access publication.
It notes that global temperature datasets fluctuate due to short-term variability and this often creates the appearance of surges and slowdowns in warming. It is important to consider random noise caused by natural variation when investigating the recent pauses in temperature and the more recent “alleged warming acceleration”, it adds.
In fact there have been a number of plausible explanations given for the recent spike, with attention focused on the massive Hunga Tonga submarine volcano adding 13 percent extra water vapour to the stratosphere, a strong El Niño and even the reduction in atmospheric particulates caused by recent changes in shipping vessel fuel.
Several “changepoints” were used by the mathematicians and it was found that “a warming surge could not be reliably detected any time after 1970”.
While the focus was on whether there had been a continued acceleration in the rate of global warming, it was recognised how unusual the surface temperature anomalies were in 2023.
Indeed they were, and it was widely argued that this showed the climate was breaking down, or in the silly words of the UN chief Antonio Guterres that the planet was “boiling”.
Last year’s hysterics were useful for short-term alarmism but they help destroy the ‘settled’ science around CO2. If human-caused CO2 is responsible for the rise, why did the temperature pause from 1998-2012 when atmospheric levels of the gas were on the up.
Does alarmism on the BBC and most other mainstream media only apply when the temperatures spikes upwards for a few months?
One of the key conclusions in the paper arises from considering two time series – 1970-2023 and 2013-2023. This of course includes the early 1970s when global cooling fears were all the rage and average temperatures were falling.
Estimated temperature trends were said to be 0.019°C per year for the first time segment and 0.029°C for the second that includes the spike from last year.
This 0.029°C estimated slope “falls far short” of an increase needed to point to a change in the warming trend in the recent past. This is because of short-term variability in the UK Met Office HadCRUT global database since 1970 and “uncertainty” of the 2012 changepoint.
This uncertainty arises over speculation as to whether 2012 and the ending of the pause was a year marking an important change in the longer time series. ”The HadCRUT record is simply not long enough for the surge to be statistically detectable at this time,” they note.
Cliff Mass is the Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Washington. He has a golden rule of weather extremes:
“The more extreme a climate or weather record is, the greater the contribution of natural variability, and the smaller the contribution of human-caused global warming.”
The mathematicians used changepoint statistical techniques which were designed to identify structural changes over time. Four global mean surface temperature records over 1850-2023 were used including HadCRUT.
This of course is problematic since there is substantial evidence that these datasets hype the warming trend by their careless treatment of urban heat corruptions – the fact that urban areas become warmer through ongoing development.
In addition, substantial retrospective adjustments are made, often cooling the past and warming the near present to increase the ‘trend’. Despite writing copiously about the 1998-2012 ‘pause’, the Met Office has now removed it from its own record by adding 30 percent retrospective warming.
Perhaps the Met Office need not have worried, with the mathematicians noting that the pause was “not unusual” given the level of short-term variability present in the data.
But these datasets are the best we have and nobody doubts that the planet has warmed a small amount over the last 200 years since the lifting of the little ice age.
For want of anything better, using these datasets for scientific analysis is fair, although it could be suggested that overall warming is probably less than suggested by this paper.
See more here Daily Sceptic
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATI ONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. [paypal-donation
Trackback from your site.
Tom
| #
I can tell that just by going outside. Not much has changed except the weather is still variable within reasonable ranges. Don’t know what all those retards flying around and spraying crap on us is going to do. Why would they need to be clouding up the skies on a sunny day with the temps no higher than 60 degrees? All of them are SOB’s.
Reply
Howdy
| #
https://www.reuters.com/article/business/environment/global-temperatures-on-track-for-3-5-degree-rise-by-2100-un-idUSKCN1NY185/
Reply
Roger Joslin
| #
Why is nobody concerned with the chemicals being used for cloud seeding. These chemicals are falling to the ground with the rain and polluting our food supplies and water and everything else on earth?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers.
As I read about the atmospheric greenhouse I find a multitude of evidence that no currently seems to have read Arrhenius’s. empirical essay of 1896 Here’s a link to it.
(https://www.rsc.org/images/arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf)
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
And if there is no comment from Herb, Howdy Aaron, James and other frequent commenters, this irrefutable proof of our present scientific problems.
Have a good day
Reply
jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Commenters and PSI Readers,
As I read about the atmospheric greenhouse I find a multitude of evidence that no currently seems to have read Arrhenius’s. empirical essay of 1896 Here’s a link to it.
(https://www.rsc.org/images/arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf)
I am going to keep reminding of what I commented until someone dares to refute what I wrote.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Commenters and PSI Readers,
I believe in the Creator God about whom I read in The Holy Bible (a history book). A few days ago I finally read the definition of INSTINET, a noun. 1. A natural attitude or knack; as, an instinct for order. 2. a A tendency to actions which lead to the attainment of some goal natural to the species; as natural and unreasoning promoting to action; as, the web-building instinct of spiders. b.The native or hereditary factor in behavior; as, habit is based upon ‘instinct. (Webster’s)
PONDER THIS. To me this definition has no meaning if nothing has been CREATED (an action) without a CAUSE.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Commenters and PSI Readers,
Yes, many errors; but some of your errors are not accidents like the ones I am calling to your attentions.
As I read about the atmospheric greenhouse [effect] I find a multitude of evidence[s] that no [one] currently seems to have read Arrhenius’s. empirical essay of 1896.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Commenters and PSI Readers,
As I read about the atmospheric greenhouse effect I find multitudes of evidence that no one currently seems to have read Arrhenius’s. empirical essay of 1896. Here’s a link to it.
(https://www.rsc.org/images/arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf)
I am going to keep reminding one of this link until someone gives evidence that they have actually read what Arrhenius actually wrote.
Have a good day
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
It would help if you included pages to support your position, meanwhile how come no one ever discuss the 1906 paper?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Sunset,
You ask: “how come no one ever discuss the 1906 paper?” First, I do not pretend to be a mind-reader. The paper to which I have referred was published in 1896. So I am not sure we, you and I, are referring to the same paper; or if you made a mistake.
Have a good day
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
He posted TWO papers on Carbonic Acid the 1896 paper and the 1906 paper.
The Probable Cause of Climate Fluctuations
Svante Arrhenius
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Arrhenius%201906,%20final.pdf
The 1906 paper
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Sunset and PSI Readers.
Sunset just demonstrated (illustrated) how (why) discussion is so-so critical. For his comment (question) “which page”,clearly helped me to see what he, readers, and I need to see
I had learned that the only TRUTH the practice of SCIENCE can find is the idea (theory) is the theory that is absolutely FALSE. The Earth does not STANDSTILL. Bodies twice as heavy do not fall twice as fast. The first required no special instruments; just dropping two bodies of significantly different weight from some high place and seasoning the one of lesser weight would just begin to fall as the heavier hit the ground. Galileo had to make a telescope to make his non-quantitative observations which proved that the Earth did move and was not the center of our solar system..
The two last FALSE SCIENTIFIC are Darwin’s theory of the Evolution of Life (LOL and the atmospheric Greenhouse Effect of carbon dioxide, water molecules (plus a few other gaseous molecules) upon atmosphere’s temperatures (GHE).
Sunset asked me what I consider an innocent question. Now, I ask him: what makes a reasoned idea a Scientific Idea which seems to explain something? What I read about the GHE was a reasoned explanation of the temperature influence of atmospheric carbon dioxide and water molecules, What I was expecting to find was Arrhenius’s statement, which somewhere and sometime read, that if our atmosphere had NO carbon dioxide or water molecules, the Earth’s average surface temperature would be maybe more than 50F lower than it is observed to be. Arrhenius made this prediction because he know the theory had to explain something that was not known.
So what was not know even though it was a common metrological measurement. The atmosphere’s dew point temperature (DPT) which is measured side by side with the atmosphere’s temperature (AT). Hence, the measure AT can never be less than the ADT and a SCIENTIFIC LAW is that the AT is never (within experimental error) been less than the ADT when both a measured at the same place and time. This law absolutely refutes the GHE.
I am tired and will deal with Darwin’s theory to morrow.
Have a good day and thank you for your question.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Sunset and PSI Readers,
Darwin’s theory of the EVOLUTION OF LIFE might seem to have no influence upon PHYSICAL SCIENCE; however that is from where, the idea of billions of years of history came.
So the issue is more than how LIFE was created. And it is difficult to imagine how it was that Darwin didn’t see that birds had to incubate (set on the eggs to use their bodies heat to keep the eggs at a necessary warm temperature.
Hence, it is the commonly observed fact, that birds need to keep the eggs at some minimum contentious temperature once the incubation of the eggs is begun, which proves that Darwin’s theory is absolutely FALSE (WRONG). it’s that simple!
Have a good day
Reply