This just in: Great Ice Age of 2008 is still over

This is a follow up to the Climate Progress exclusive from last month, “The Great Ice Age of 2008 is finally over — next stop Venus!” NOAA’s National Climactic Data Center reported (here):

Based on preliminary data, the globally averaged combined land and sea surface temperature was the thirteenth warmest on record for April and the January-April year-to-date period ranked twelfth warmest.

So global coolers will have to find some other fish to fry freeze. [Yes, I know, deniers/delayers, the mere fact that this wasn’t the warmest April or warmest January-April on record proves conclusively we must be cooling.] Interestingly the warmest April and January-April on record according to NOAA/NCDC occurred in … wait for it … 2007.

The rest of us know that we are on the cool side of all-time warming because we’re still in a (weakened) La Ni±a and a local mininum of the solar irradiance cycle (see figure) but the deniers/delayers insist that if CO2 doesn’t explain every single short-term and medium-term temperature fluctuation, then the whole damn theory of human-caused warming is as debunked as, say, the notion that men ever landed on the moon.


By the way, I don’t like to brag or anything, but as I correctly predicted last month:

Based on my own general circulation model running on my souped-up lap top, I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that the remarkable warming of the last couple of months won’t continue at the same pace over the next two months. If this prediction proves as accurate as my March prediction, I do think it will vindicate all of the analyses presented on this blog both in the past and for all time. I mean who else is out there making accurate predictions — other than, say, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists? And they don’t count, do they?

Take that, coolers!

Related Posts:

31 Responses to This just in: Great Ice Age of 2008 is still over

  1. silence says:

    Just out of curiosity, what is the source of the total solar irradiance graph?

  2. Jon says:

    Just out of curiosity, what is the source of the total solar irradiance graph?

    Looks like the TSI graph used by GISS, which is based on Willson and Mordvinov 2003 and subsequent ACRIM composite updates.

  3. silence says:

    Thanks Jon!

  4. David B. Benson says:

    Oh, go ahead and brag! :-)

  5. Finnjor says:

    Warming 2 C in 50 years makes 0.04 C per year. One year 0.02 C cooler than the trend year, the other 0.06 C warmer. 50 x 0.04 = 2 C.

    In other words: one decade 0.2 C cooler than the trend decade, the other 0.6 C warmer. 5 x 0.4 C = 2 C.

    One year cooler means natural fluctuation. Only the warming trend counts. And the warming trend in scientifically calculated along the laws of physics.

  6. Nylo says:

    The satellite data according to UAH:

    Coldest April since 1997. Coldest Jan-April since 2000. You can find hotter Aprils and Jan-April periods as early as 1980. And that is because the satellite data started in 1979.

    I think this is information. Some people may qualify it as disinformation though. I will take a screen print before it is censored.

  7. Nylo says:

    More (dis)information, same source (UAH). According to the satellite data, the global temperature mean of the last 12 months is the coldest since September 2001. Which could mean, according to Joe, that it is like the 10th warmest or something like that. But I don’t confuse warm and warming, cool and cooling. We are warm, not warming. And cooling, not cool.

    2007’s Jan-April was colder than 1998, again according to the UAH data from satellites. The average anomaly in 2007 for the first 4 months was a full 0.14ºK higher than the average anomaly for the whole year, and a full 0.21ºK bigger than the average anomaly for the rest of the year. 2007 was suffering from El Niño at the beginning. An El Niño episode had started in the pacific in Jul-Aug-Sept 2006 and lasted until Dec-Jan-Feb 2007.

  8. Joe says:

    Hard to believe anything that comes out of UAH. It is so funny you deniers quote data from UAH, but dismiss NASA data. I guess I’ll have to do a post onit.

  9. Dano says:

    You know, UAH did a Hansen correction before Hansen was a denialist totem.

    That’s right: their data were wrong and they were forced to do a correction – but only after they were forced to give up their data for people to do an audit.

    But to the point: people don’t live in the lower troposphere. They live on the surface of the planet. And its a La Niña year. I wonder if the denialist would like to bet on whether the warming trend will continue (that is: whether physics is real).



  10. Dano says:

    And looking at the UAH data, the April 12-mo is above the decadal trend and comparing to the warmest year rather than a trend isn’t valid statistically. But its valid denialistically.

    Thank you for cherry-picking, pathetic denialist.



  11. Lamont says:

    last saturday we had the earliest 90F temperature ever on record here.

    ice age is over and we can all thaw out now (and damn it was a cold april/may here, i need to thaw out).

  12. Nylo says:

    @Dano, the anomalies are calculated with regard to the 1979-1998 average. This april’s 0.148 12-mo positive anomaly means we are 0.148 warmer than that average. The anomaly didn’t begin to be overall positive until 1987. This means that, only looking at this data, we would have seen a heating of 0.148 but in 20 years, not in a decade. And you are comparing it to the decadal trend. That proves that this April’s 12-mo positive anomaly is unusually low. But you don’t even need to do any calculations to arrive to that conclusion, just to look at the data.

    Comparing to the warmest year was needed because Joe had said that 2007’s Jan-April had been the warmest on record. I was just counter-stating: it depends on the source, and according to UAH, it wasn’t, 1998 still leads.

    By the way, do you acknowledge that by calling me “pathetic denialist” you are technically violating the Terms of Use of this blog? Not that it should cause you any concern. According to the Terms of Use, it is up to the blog admins to decide whether that deserves a punishment or not. And I would be very surprised if you got punished.

  13. Dano says:

    This means that, only looking at this data, we would have seen a heating of 0.148 but in 20 years, not in a decade.

    Yes. The 17 warmest years have all occurred in the last 20 years. Thanks for reminding us of that.

    And for reminding us that you haven’t answered the question: compared to what?

    Not compared to cherry-picking. Nonetheless,

    These data, again, are not for the surface of the planet. Where people live. They have limited utility for decision-making when standing alone. No one else on the planet uses them alone for decision-making, because people don’t live in airships in the lower trop.

    Second, do you reject these data because the scientists acted Mannian in their refusal to release their code for auditing, then after they were caught they issued a Hansenian retraction and correction? No? Excellent – then let’s look at surface data – stuff used for decision-making because people live there.

    o GISS anomalies don’t cherry-pick starting points to indicate the last 12 months is the coldest since September 2001. In fact, you can probably pick a better cold period to cherry-pick to find what you want – say, 5/02-5/03 has lower warm anomalies than, oh, well, gosh 12/07 was pretty anomalously warm, but golly go for it!!!!!!!! Anyway, the anomalously warm months and trends continue in this surface dataset.

    o HadCRUt data have better cherry-picked starting points as well. Try 2005 for that dataset and get back to us. Anyway, the anomalously warm months and trends continue in this surface dataset as well.

    o This land-ocean temp dataset seems to indicate a rebound from La Niña conditions, which you haven’t acknowledged, caveated, cautioned, nothing about.

    Now. Would the denialist (oh, sorry – brave individual dnihilist Galileo figure) like to bet on whether we are cooling/entering an ice age/not warming/catastophizing (against all known properties of physics)?

    The dnihilist is confidently asserting – using only one of multiple datasets – that we are cooling. Compared to what? Weather or climate scales? If we are talking about climate, then choose your climate-length scale (standard is 30 yr) and bet me.

    Wager. Let’s go. And lest we cherry-pick (er…get confused), let us take more than one dataset – preferably where people live, no? Choose your time scale reference and two datasets. End point (end of this year, one year from now) Bet. Wager.



  14. Nylo says:

    Dano said: “And for reminding us that you haven’t answered the question: compared to what?”

    What do you want me to compare? Temperatures? That’s what I am doing all the time! We are reaching 8-10 years low records all the time, and the cooling I talk about is for that period. Furthermore, we are at times breaking the records of 1999-2000, which are so far the strongest La-Niña influenced years since 1989, and we are breaking them with the much more weakly LaNiña-influenced 2008. On the other hand, to try to find some clues of warming, you have to cherry-pick looking for very specific periods inside years which were clearly El Niño influenced, like that Jan-April 2007. So you cherry-pick the hottest months of already hot El Niño years, but I cannot compare them to another El Niño year because it would be cherry-picking. That’s quite a double standard. It doesn’t matter that 2007 was colder that 2005, 2002 or 1998, the other El Niño years that we had had before; what matters is those four very unusually hot months, yeah. And you accuse me of cherry-picking.

    Do you, instead, want me to compare trends? I will put some. If we are not going to cherry-pick starting points, and therefore we cannot choose 1998 as a starting point, then we also cannot choose 1999 or 2000, strong La Niña years. Let’s pick 2001 then, although still partially influenced by La Niña and therefore favourable to you. Since 2001, the average monthly anomaly has been 0.2514ºC higher than the 1979-1998 average (UAH data). However, if we only average for the first three years in that period (Jan 2001 to Jan 2004), the average anomaly is +0.26ºC, which is higher than the overall period. This means that the later 4 years have REDUCED the average of the first three. FUrthermore, during the last 24 months, which include 2007, an El Niño influenced year, only 10 months out of the 24 were hotter than that average anomaly since 2001, the other 14 were colder. And we have been under that average since September 2007, that is, for a whole 8 consecutive months, including March 2008.

    As to betting: why should I bet that we are going to enter an Ice Age? I would first have to believe it, which I don’t. I believe in overall warming because of CO2. What I object is the massive warming defended by IPCC in AR3 and AR4. No, that’s not a true trend for me. I expect a trend resulting in a total +1.2ºC since 1900’s temperatures, (i.e. +0.4ºC since now) for the year 2100. That is, +0,06ºC/decade. Because the current temperatures are above that trend (same as they were in 1940), I blame weather for it, and expect some short-time cooling until we match the +0.06ºC/decade trend again.

    You can see my own trend prediction in the link above, in green, and the short-term evolution of temperatures I expect. As you can see, I clearly expect some coling, but I don’t expect to ever see again the temperatures we had in 1990. Which is perfectly compatible with a completely non-catastrophic warming of only +0.4ºC from now to 2100. In blue, you have aproximately the prediction by the IPCC. Both are put over a graph that shows the evolution of yearly temperatures since 1890 according to GISS (I think you prefer that source).

  15. Nylo says:

    I am ready to bet that we won’t see a new maximum in yearly temperatures that beats the 1998’s maximum by more than 0.15ºC before 25 years, no matter if it is under El Niño conditions. In other words, all of the next 25 years yearly temperature averages, until 2032, will be colder than 1998’s+0.15ºC. Is it good enough for you? I am ready to accept GISS data for the bet, but only if during the whole period they don’t change again the temperatures history making 1998 look colder.

  16. Joe says:

    I’d take that bet — if only to express my optimistic view that I’ll live that long. I guess my daughter can collect on my behalf.

  17. Nylo says:

    Joe, you can collect the bet much earlier than 2032. You only need one year with higher temperatures than 2008+0.15ºC, which could happen anytime, right? I am the one which cannot collect it before 2032. Your doubts about your own health make me doubt about this bet unless additional terms were added…

  18. Joe says:

    I know most bloggers are twentysomethings and maybe thirtysomethings, but I am a 40 something. Still, I’m happy to add additional terms. My daughter is 15 months, so she’ll sign anything….

  19. Nylo says:

    What about adding a safety period? For example, if we don’t see the 1998+0.15C record halfway (by 2020), you advance half of the bet. This would not change the whole bet, I mean, if then, between 2020 and 2032 the maximum happened, I would give you back the advanced half AND the whole ammount, and if it didn’t happen, you would give to me the remaining half. How confident are you that 22 years after 1998 the record will have been (or not) exceeded by 0.15C?

  20. Dano says:


    your reliance on a single dataset (not on the surface) – and your inability to read the data (April had the coldest global temperature anomaly since July 2004, which means… yes, you got it right!: the anomaly was colder than in January and February this year. *snicker*) – as well as your inability to discern climate from weather makes your comments read such that you can’t speak to the issue.

    Your statement We are reaching 8-10 years low records is a joke, son. Compared to what? The highest year on record? Joke. Climate trend, son, not weather, not noise, not short-term variability.

    As for your silly betting terms, why not a simple bet that temp trends will continue to rise, quickly refuting your silly statements? Why base the bet on the highest year on record? What are you afraid of?



  21. Nylo says:

    Dano, do you mean that you wouldn’t dare to bet that the record temperatures of 1998 won’t be exceeded by 0.15ºC before 2032, that is, 34 years after 1998?

    As for betting about trends, which trend? Measured with which data? With what averaging of temperatures? On which temporary scope? Did you even follow the link in my post to see that I predict an overall warming trend, but that we will cool in the short term? With short term meaning about 10 years? How do you want me to bet about long trends going down, if I think that in the long term they will go up? I am not discussing global warming but global apocalypsis.

    If you want a bet on trends, this is what I am ready to bet, with you or anyone else: the average anomaly of temperatures during 2008-2017 will be colder than the average between 1998 and 2007, effectively making the existing overall warming trend to reduce a lot. But I am not going to bet more than something purely symbolic with you, because of your bullyish, insulting and disrespectful behaviour, which makes me profoundly dubious about whether you would pay once you lost or if you would simply disappear. No thanks, you don’t look like a trustworthy guy.

  22. Dano says:

    I am not going to bet more than something purely symbolic with you, because of your bullyish, insulting and disrespectful behaviour, which makes me profoundly dubious about [yada]

    Playing the victim bully doesn’t distract away from the fact that you have an inability to analyze data, are ignorant about anomalous temps, confused between weather and climate, unable to choose appropriate datasets, make confident assertions based on ideology rather than evidence, and cherry-pick convenient starting points to support pre-conceived notiions. So therefore _I’m_ a bully instead. Gotcha, lad.

    So you appear to want to bet that the trend in temps will be less than a particular decadal period that started with the highest recorded anomalous temp – most would call that cherry-picking.

    Nonetheless. Judging from your inability to discern that this past April – according to UAH TLT – did not, in fact, have the coldest global temperature anomaly since July 2004, are you sure I’m not taking your money that you don’t really want to bet? That is: you are stating that the trend for the next decade will be lower than the previous decade that started with a high anomalous temp.

    I’ll take that bet on the trend (after all, that is your argument).



  23. Nylo says:

    Dano, I am ready to compare 2008-2017 with 2001-2007 instead, if you prefer to avoid 1998. However, and in spite of all those things you say that I am unable to do, you seem unable to notice that, according to GISS, whose data I have agreed to use for these bets, 2005 was hotter than 1998. So 1998 would no longer be cherry-picking the hottest year, would it? Am I the one with problems to analize data and ignorant about anomalous temps? And not only that, but 2002 and 2007 had temperatures also quite close to the ones in 1998 according to GISS. That makes 1998 a rather normal individual year in the last decade, doesn’t it. Or will you claim that the “normal” years of the decade were 1999 and 2000?

    You accuse me of not knowing the difference between weather and climate, however you AGWers are the ones claiming that the temperature rise until this decade was purely climate, without any weather on it, (weather can only stop warming like now, but noway could it have increased the previous trends, according to the AGW histeria) no matter the crystal clear 30-year PDO oscillation that even a 5-year-old child could identify only by looking at the graph of the temperatures of the 20th century. The problem here is not that I don’t distinguish weather and climate. The problem is that you reject that any recent temperature rise could have posibly been caused by weather, even when there are clear evidences of such a thing.

    Let’s move on to the price of the bet. As I am not willing to bet money to you in particular, let’s put it this way:

    1) IF I WIN, you will agree to make a public declaration, in this blog and in up to 10 other forums and blogs I may decide at that moment, admitting that the warming between 1975 and 1998 was partially caused by natural weather oscillations; that the IPCC AR3 and AR4 predictions for temperature trends were most probably exagerated; and that no catastrophic sea level rise will probably happen that endangers our civilization in the ways predicted by IPCC AR3-AR4, before we run out of petrol.

    2) IF YOU WIN, I will similarly agree to make a public declaration, in this blog and in up to 10 other forums and blogs you may decide at that moment, admitting that the IPCC predictions in AR3-AR4 were most probably right, that stopping any CO2 emissions is a top priority, and that our civilization will suffer countless damages unless action is taken immediately.

    Are those terms OK for you?

  24. Dano says:

    Nylo, I merely point out that you wish to bet about cooling, starting with a record high year (HadCRU, GISS includes very warm Arctic temps that year, but we can say 2005 if you wish). This gets to numerous analysis and critical thinking skills. I wish to avoid nothing.

    however you AGWers are the ones claiming that the temperature rise until this decade was purely climate, without any weather on it,

    No. The 1998 El Nino a case in point

    The problem is that you reject that any recent temperature rise could have posibly been caused by weather, even when there are clear evidences of such a thing.

    No. The 1998 El Nino a case in point

    no matter the crystal clear 30-year PDO oscillation

    and no. No one with a modicum of sense says that climate or weather is controlled by only one factor.


    As for the terms, in 1) we already know that your date range was partially caused by these factors, ‘exaggeration’ is not quantitative and thus not reproducible (IOW, your opinion), and your SLR cannot be connected with the terms and given parameters.

    The question is simple: will temps rise or fall? The bet is simply yes or no with agreed-upon time periods. I don’t care what the payment is.

    Rise or fall by how much between when and when?

    That’s all I want to know.



  25. Nylo says:

    I sometimes think you have serious problems in reading comprehension…

    Using GISS data, the average of the anomalies between 2008 and 2017 will be lower, by any extent, than the average of the anomalies between either 1998-2007 or 2001-2007, you choose, meaning a colder decade than the present and already stabilised decade. If you think it will be higher, accept the bet, and accept the payment of the loser. If not, shut up with all the nonsense of me allegedly not wanting to bet on cooling trends.

  26. Dano says:

    No, I’m not accepting payment terms. I told you why your strawmen as terms above are unacceptable.

    Restate without ululating ideological payment terms, lad.



  27. Nylo says:

    No longer interested. Especially after my response to your post has been deleted once again without explanation. Business as usual here.

  28. Dano says:

    Try a straight bet without nutter ululating ideological terms that don’t follow from the science.

    E.g.: Dano must state he lost the cooling bet to Nylo on 10 sites of Nylo’s choice.

    See? Simple.

    Leave out the denialist cr*p and you won’t get deleted.



  29. Nylo says:

    Fine enough. Then if I lose, I would just state that I lost in a similar way right? Now back to the terms, what do you prefer the comparison to be with, 1998-2007 or 2001-2007?

  30. Nylo says:

    May’s lower troposphere temperature anomaly the lowest since Jan 1999. May’s lower troposphere temperature anomaly in the tropics the lowest since 1989 and the lowest “ever” (since measures began) for any May.