RSS going negative

Here’s the decadal trend for RSS.


For those cynics that think I’m “cherry picking”, here’s cherry picking.

13 1/2 years of global cooling!!!


Unfreaking believable that scientist still speak in terms of “as the globe warms” and some such nonsense.  It hasn’t for over a decade.  Oh, you want the data?

Still “skeptical”?


(You’ll actually have to click on the link that says “raw data” to get the numbers.  I ain’t gonna do everything for you!)


You just cant make this stuff up.  We’ve got hundreds of “scientists”, thousands of “journalists”, and millions of believers babbling about the earth warming.  It hasn’t for over a decade.

One satellite (RSS), the other thermometer readings (HadCrut).  For those wondering, UAH shows about .003 degrees warming over the last decade.

“DANGER, WILL ROBINSON”!!!!!!  That would mean 0.3 0.03 degrees per century!

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to RSS going negative

  1. Paul Bennett says:

    Your final line: “Danger, Will Robinson”!!!! That would mean 0.3 degrees per century! should read 0.03 degrees per century as it’s a per decade measure and would move up by a factor of 10 and not 100. Best regards and thanks for the info.

    • suyts says:

      And, I thank you. It is a sad side effect of beer! One I can usually overcome in a better fashion than that, but it happens. I hope this helps in some small way.

  2. Latitude says:

    good grief………..

    I didn’t know you had this over here.

    I slow and old, alright….

    • suyts says:

      lol, is ok, I only put this stuff out so people can see the fallacy when our scientist friends talk about a warming globe. I haven’t decided what to really do with it, if anything else at all. I don’t know if I’m willing to dedicate all the time necessary.

      • Latitude says:

        This would be a great place to deposit damning information for later. Just like you started out.

        I’ve got two people on that SST thing right now.
        I want to know how they are showing + anomaly,
        when we’ve been running below all year.

        Something is screwy going on….

  3. P.J. says:

    I found the link to your new post over at Real Science … I like what I see!

  4. Phil Nizialek says:

    A couple of questions for you, Mr. Sexton. Do you agree that the decadel trend you reference comes at the end of what appears to be a fairly steep step up of temps that began in 1979, and leveled off in 1998? And that this leveling off has occurred concurrently with a PDO shift to negative, and an extrordinary solar minimum, both of which could, theoretically, drive a sharp decrease of global average temperatures? Is the fact that what we actually see is a leveling at a higher “step” not an indication that the PDO and solar min factors have merely stalled a CO2 induced warming trend, as opposed to an indication of a natural cycle of cooling?

    It seems to me this trend you cite, while certainly a fun club with which to bash the “runaway warming, we’re all gonna die” extremists, probably isn’t the end of the story. One possible scenario, it seems to me, will be a resumption of significant warming as the PDO shifts to positive in 15 years, and solar mins return to more historical norms. When talking of climate, ten year trends may be hints of what is to come, but are not definitive.

    I say all this because it seems to me that the science on how CO2 concentrations effects the atmosphere’s heat retention is pretty sound. That is, increased CO2 concentrations should, in a perfect world, cause some increase in temps. That being said, the runaway warming predictions of Mr. Hansen and his ilk all depend on modeled feedbacks, which in my view are poorly understood, and incorrectly modeled. The slight step up referenced above, and which has now leveled off due to changes in natural climate drivers, might very well be indicitive of CO2 induced warming, without all the hysterical positive feedback predicted by the IPCC and others. Your thoughts?

    I’m not proficient with computers, so have a hard time linking and such, but will try to get you that stuff to illustrate my thinking if you wish.

    • suyts says:

      Phil, thanks for stopping by! I’m sorry your comment was stuck in moderation for so long. I’m in a middle of a move so I haven’t the time to check on this all the time. That said, now that your comment has been approved, you may comment freely in that you’ll no longer be hampered with the moderation.

      As to your posits, yes, and I’ve heard the thoughts express before. Something akin to “if it weren’t for the natural forcings, it would be a lot worse than what it is.”

      While I certainly can’t show that this is wrong, the problem I have with it, is that we were told that CO2 was the main driver of the warming seen in the 80s and 90s. That said, sure, it could be true that natural occurrences have thwarted the heating and could resume once these cycles end and swing the other way.

      As far as the heat retention of CO2, I really don’t think it could ever be significant. I’ll explain. Yes CO2 is a GHG, but so are other gases. The unique wavelength absorption for CO2 is almost nothing. In other words, CO2 is retaining heat that would otherwise be retain by H2O and and to a smaller degree, Nitrous Oxide.

      See the absorption spectrum here. Once you see that, then consider the multi-directional paths when CO2 becomes excited and emits the heat. I’ve heard different percentages, but I figure roughly 1/3 to 40% gets sent back down to earth.

      As to your oscillating events, there was recently an interesting post on WUWT, albeit a rough read because of the graphics and abbreviations used, . From reading that, it is obvious, we don’t have a clue as to all of the factors involved in our climate much less the weightings. This goes for me as well as anyone else. We simply don’t know what we don’t know. Another view, which seems obvious to me, but not others, is that the earth’s climate is an equilibrium seeking mechanism. So, it stands to reason that if the additional CO2 were to cause warming outside the natural variations, it would engage a trigger to seek a balance. For instance, it has been posited that if the ice cap were to melt, it is likely to have a negative forcing on ocean temps because this would allow additional heat to escape from the oceans. (You have to consider temps in terms of Kelvins to get your head around that.) I’m not sure if that is correct or not, but I’m pretty sure the arctic albedo is overstated in terms of cooling the earth.

      All of that said, the purpose of this post, wasn’t to try and state that we’re headed for an ice age or anything else, but rather to put all of the hyperbole about “recent warming” into a proper perspective. To me, there’s not many things more irksome than when some pinhead gets up and says this weather pattern or some event is something one would expect in a warming world. Fact is, our world isn’t warming and hasn’t for some time. Any changes in our climate or weather patterns within the last 10 years have nothing to do with temps. The temps have essentially been the same.

      • Phil Nizialek says:

        Mr. Sexton,

        Thanks for your comments. I don’t mind being in moderation. I only get to look at these sites infrequently in any case.

        You may misunderstand my ideas. Your comment that my musings “are akin to “if it were not for natural forcings it would be a lot worse than what it is”” is not exactly what I’m saying. I posit that CO2 induced warming will happen, but never get out of control because of both natural cycles like those I cite, and negative feedbacks, many of which have been hypothesized, but not yet proven. In other words, it will never be “much worse that what it is” precisely because complex “controls” in the climate, and the very nature of CO2, prevent the system from going “out of control.” It seems that it is these cycles and feedbacks that AGW enthusiasts ignore to the peril of their theories.

        That doesn’t mean that some part of the step up in temperature I referenced isn’t the result of anthropogenic CO2 production–it seems to me it certainly is. It’s just pretty inconsequential from a climate standpoint.

        In other words, I think we’re in the same camp. In my mind though, it doesn’t hurt to conceed an anthropogenic climate effect. It is just silly to worry about it as much as our AGW friends do.

        Some day we need to discuss the economic effects of the solutions to this non problem our friends want to implement. Now there is the real anthrpogenic tragedy.

      • suyts says:

        Phil, it seems we are in the same camp. As to the real tragedy, as soon as I find time, (and this will be a while in the coming) I plan to take a several part look at just that. My first one will be on the enormous cost of implementing various “smart grid” technology. (Implementing smart grid technology is how I earn my keep in the world away from the internets.) But that’s going to be quite an undertaking so don’t look for it anytime soon.


  5. Pingback: The mischaracterization of skepticism and the misapplication of the Skeptic label | suyts space

  6. Pingback: The top 10 posts for the year (by views) | suyts space

  7. Pingback: More From Suyts Victory Lap!!!!! Lack Of Global Warming Documented!!!! | suyts space

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s