NASA’s 49% Boost to Recent Global Warming Under Scrutiny as Earth Cools Since 2016
Global warming is in short supply these days, and there is increasing interest in how the major surface temperature datasets keep the heating topped up in their published results. The GISS service is run by NASA and in his latest ‘State of the Climate 2022‘ report, Professor Ole Humlum notes that since January 2008, GISS increased the surface air temperature change between January 1910 to January 2000 from 0.45°C to 0.67°C, a boost of 49% over this period.
Humlum accepts the surface temperature record is subject to error and should be corrected whenever possible. But reporting delays and other administrative corrections fall away over time. Most likely, he suggests, changes over the longer term are the result of alterations in the way average monthly values are calculated by the various databases, “in an attempt to enhance the resulting record”.
Of course the sceptical might observe that the enhancements often lower many past records and increase more recent ones, and thus provide a convenient ‘hockey stick’ backdrop for the promotion of the collectivist Net Zero project. Rising temperatures are said to be primarily caused by humans emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, making it somewhat inconvenient that a short 20-year spell of warming started to run out of steam over two decades ago. Nevertheless, the CO2 warming scare remains the heavy artillery needed to promote the radical transformation planned for human society.

The graph above illustrates the significant recent changes made to NASA’s 130-year past record. The hockey stick effect of recent warming has been enhanced by around 80 years of cooling and significant recent warming. Several of the changes made since 2008 are quite substantial, notes Humlum, ranging from +0.2°C to -0.2°C. Similar retrospective alternations have been made by other databases run by the U.S. weather service NOAA and the U.K.’s Met Office. Over the last 10 years, for instance, the Met Office has added about 30% recent warming to its HadCRUT record.
“Frequent and large corrections in a database unavoidably signal a fundamental uncertainty about the correct values,” concludes Humlum. Others are even less charitable. Two distinguished atmospheric scientists, Professors William Happer of Princeton and Richard Lindzen of MIT, recently made a general point that “climate science is awash with manipulated data, which provides no reliable scientific evidence”. Fellow climate scientists Dr. Roy Spencer and Professor John Christy of the University of Alabama have been working on the effect of urban heat on surface temperatures. They recently found a fifth extra warming from this source across 20,000 global weather stations. Despite this bias towards a warming trend, it was also discovered that NOAA was further warming average temperature trends in its urban heat calculations, rather than cooling them to correct for the bias. To say the least, the scientists noted, this finding was “curious”.
Of course global heaters face challenges on a number of fronts. Humlum notes that relative to the period dating back to 1850, during which a little ice age has been lifting, 2022 was warm, but cooler than most years since 2016. In the Arctic, conditions “generally have turned somewhat cooler”. During 2022, sea ice thickness increased along the coasts of Canada and Greenland. Near the Arctic from 55-65°N, the northern oceans have on average experienced a marked cooling down to 1,400 metres depth since 2004. Since 2016, sea ice indicates a “stable or even rising global trend”.
The eight to nine year length of the current temperature pause can be subject to statistical debate. But all the major surface records show a spike caused by one of the most powerful El Niño heat transfer episodes ever recorded up to the start of 2016. Since then, Humlum notes there has been a gradual turning back towards pre-2015 conditions, including an increase in 2019-20, and a subsequent decrease. All the databases show that last year was part of a declining trend since 2016. As we have seen over the last few years, political agitators have reacted to the warming slow-down by promoting ‘record’ one-off temperatures and pseudoscience attributions of individual bad or ‘extreme’ weather events to ‘climate change’.
Of course there has been a lot of general interest in the relationship between rising temperatures and atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, not least because the ‘settled’ science view that humans control the climate thermostat by burning fossil fuel underpins Net Zero. Humlum briefly looks at the relationship, noting that they vary in concert, but sea surface temperatures are a few months ahead of the global temperature, and 11-12 months ahead of atmospheric CO2. It might be expected to be the other way around if CO2 was the main driver of warming, although other factors might leave the matter open for debate Nevertheless, Humlum concludes that “important changes apparently originate at the sea surface”.
Finally, it seems from Humlum’s observations that the world may be a slightly less windy place than in past periods. Measured energy from global hurricanes and cyclones “is well within the range seen since 1970”. Hurricanes hitting land in the United States remain within the normal range “throughout the entire observation periods since 1851”. Meanwhile on an exposed cape in south-west Norway, the Lista Lighthouse has been measuring wind since 1931. Peak wind strengths were recorded shortly after World War II, and have declined since then.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Chris gives us a great overview of Prof. Humlum’s recent paper from the GWPF.
This is well worth downloading and reading, yourself.
But you don’t actually need scientific training, so long as you remember that, if it is a ‘consensus’ it isn’t science. And if it is science it isn’t a ‘consensus’.
That and the obvious fact that it is a very bad idea to believe a habitual liar.
And the BBC, MET Office, the Committee for Climate Change, Ruinable Energy promoters, most of academia and all of the Uniparty are all remorseless, habitual liars.
“The data don’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We’re basing them upon the climate models.”
Chris Folland – UK Meteorological Office:
“Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.”
David Frame – Climate modeler, Oxford University:
Much more at the link below including this gem:
“In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 per day”
Jacques Cousteau – Mega-celebrity French scientist
https://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html
Part of the problem is that the weakest scientists go into Climate. No one with half an ounce of intelligence wants to spend their life in a “scientific” field where questioning any of the central dogmas will result in banishment from the club, character assassination, and an end to your career. It’s a field that demands either blind faith or out and out dishonesty, and as a result it’s full of half-wits, dodgy grifters, cynical liars and genuinely nasty and unpleasant characters. Any genuinely smart, decent young person considering their future would be well advised to steer clear.
“It is hard to get a man to disagree when his salary depends on agreeing.”———-If government are prepared to pay out money for individuals to look for a purple horse, it is unlikely too many will be in a hurry to say they can’t find any. That is the kind of situation that exists now in the climate junk science field. It has ever been thus that when government money is available people rush in to grab the money and people all over the place are all now “climate scientists”, which is really a term that has no meaning. Quite pathetic.
“It is hard to get a man to disagree when his salary depends on agreeing.”
– great quotation. I googled it, I got just one result, this one:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&as_q=&as_epq=It+is+hard+to+get+a+man+to+disagree+when+his+salary+depends+on+agreeing.&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&tbs=
Well I thought it was funny!
Your correct it was very funny indeed. As far as I remember though that line appeared in a book I read on this issue, and since I have read so many, I cannot recall which book it was. It might have been in “Hubris” by Michael Hart. —-But at least you agree that it is a great line and in my opinion sums up the group think mentality of the climate junk science that supports the political agenda.
It is peculiar how when the earth was 8C warmer in the Cambrian period that there was an explosion of life and diversity. During this time the largest number of creatures ever to evolve in any single period of earths history happened. ——In the last 160 there has been an alleged warming of about 1C and half of that occurred before we were burning much in the way of fossil fuels. In the last 20 years that warming has slowed to a standstill despite more and more CO2 going into the atmosphere. So where is the “climate emergency”? Where is the evidence that CO2 emissions are causing or will cause dangerous changes to climate? ——There is NONE. There are simply pronouncements about rising sea levels which since 2004 has been about 4 millimetres. Or absurd claims about millions of climate refugees when people would hardly notice anything was different about their local climate if it were not on the NEWS every night and what they are seeing is natural variability of the climate, not “climate change”. When what is claimed by political bodies like the IPCC cannot be falsified and is entirely based on the output from models full of… Read more »
Life loves warmth, and life loves CO2. The pious new religion of Eco-Fanaticism is anti-life, a thoroughly negative world-view feeding off middle-class guilt. Note, however, that none of the faithful are prepared to give up anything themselves – it’s a fake religion, following a fake science, propped up by a fake media. The only things that are real are the cost and the damage.
Perfectly put
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention….and thus the ‘real enemy, then, is humanity itself….believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is ‘a real one or….one invented for the purpose.”
Club of Rome
Oh yes I am very familiar with the Club of Rome. —Thanks
I have spent my professional life measuring sea level in various parts of the World with numerous different instruments. I can safely say I can measure sea level rise and fall at a particular location fairly accurately with an instrument capable of measuring the Z to +/- 5.0 cm. The errors get larger when you try and take everything else into account, like local geology, barometric pressure, isostatic rebound, local gravity etc.
The sea level rising at 4mm per year baloney is just that, statistical baloney. Apparently they get their data from satellite observations, what are the errors associated with theses devices. It would probably be more factual to say a sea level rise of 4mm +/- 500mm when you have taken all the errors into account.
It’s the same with ocean acidification, a term used to scare people. Although pH is a logarithmic scale anything above 7 is base and below 7 is acidic. pH in the oceans is a consistent value, the pH probes I use are good for +/- 0.2 of a pH measurement and then that’s only measured at spot depths.
Thanks for your reply. ———–Sea level is obviously a very difficult thing to measure and I do appreciate that in a warmer world the sea will rise. It has been rising for 12,000 years in this Interglacial period. But the main point about this is and about every other aspect of the climate change that gets used as a tool of the Sustainable Development people trying to scare us half to death so we readily accept their agenda is that ——-Just because something warms does not mean humans warmed it. For that to be true you need evidence, and all they have is models. But models are not evidence, and NOT science.
True science is based upon all points of view being open to scientific discovery and experimentation, and open free debate and discussion.
That is how progress is made by scritinizing everything so that the real facts rise to the surface.
Censoring other points of view is not science.
If someone uses the term ‘Settled Science’ you know they are talking about ideology, not science.