Jim Hansen and Michael Mann famous Climate Scientists have told us their new adjusted temperature record that shows the 1930s and 40s were actually a cold period in US history even though we thought they were high just a couple years ago.   Here is what the record looks like without adjustment:


After Mann and Hansen get through making their “adjustments” here is the record:

gistemp adjusted record

I have commented on the scientific accuracy of the “Hottest year evah” claim in a previous blog but what is laughable about this claim is to me among other things is the very statement that a year across the entire globe was hotter by 0.1C for an entire year is such a ludicrous thing to start with.  This is simply an unknowable thing at least to the precision they claim.  I am saying this not from a science perspective but purely from logic and common sense.

What is an average temperature anyway?

For the Climate scientists in question it is the average of the high temp of the day and the low temp.

Since weather varies during a day in many different ways some days may have a clearing period later in the day that causes the evening to be warmer than the middle of the day or vice versa.  By averaging 2 extremes you don’t necessarily come up with what the “average” might be if you looked at what the temperature was if you averaged across thousands of data points during the day.

Peak temp: 85

Average of temp during most of the afternoon:  65

Most people would say the day was cool.  However thermostats would say it was a scorcher.  Have you ever seen days like that?  I have.

A study done of comparing true average temperature against the average of min and max shows a range of 1C is typical for the difference.  The northern lattitudes have a tendency to report lower than true average temperature and more southerly stations report higher than true average by as much as 0.6C.  Overall the report claimed this introduced a high bias.  This bias is not adjusted for even though it could be handled as a hemispheric adjustment pretty easily.

An average could mean a lot of things

When we say it was hotter do we mean that it reached a high that was hotter than the previous day or do we mean that the average was hotter even if the peak temperature was colder.

Monday:  Hi: 83  Low: 45  Avg: 64

Tuesday:  Hi:73  Low: 56  Avg:  64.5

Tuesday is warmer but the average person would say Monday was hotter.


I live in an area that is pretty hilly.  We have numerous Wunderground thermostats all over the area.  When you look at the Wunderground map you will see that they differ by up to 5F at any time but usually within 2 or 3 degrees of each other.  This is because the variability of the hills creates different ways the sun penetrates and the clouds cover the area as well as the wind moves the air around the hills.  If the wind is coming from the ocean we get different pattern than if its coming from the north.  What is the average for this area?  I have no idea how to do it even for this area.  Take 10 Wunderground thermostats and average them?  Why them?  Why not just take one?  That’s what Climate Science seems to think is fine.

How do you come up with an average for an area when there are so few thermostats?

The temperature gauges used by the GISS and other global measures are extremely sparsely located.  There are regions for 1000KM or more with one thermostat.   Considering the “microclimate” issues one thermometer seems awfully low number. For parts of Russia, the north and south poles and areas around Africa there are virtually no thermostats.   The temperatures for the 70% of the ocean are estimated and even more than half the remaining land of the Earth are not well covered meaning that 80-90% of the Earth is not measured by a thermostat within kilometers of each other sometimes thousands of kilometers.

Thermostats near cities report between 2 and 8F difference than the countryside.  If you are only looking for the movement of temperatures you might argue they all go up and down by a roughly similar amount.  However, who knows if the temperature around cities is going up faster or slower than the overall climate temperature because it depends on how fast cities grow, how fast the ambient temperature grows and many different factors around the types of technology we use in cities, how prosperous the cities are, for instance the use of air conditioning and other things like the placement of the thermometers near pavement or other sources of heat.   The reason this is important is obviously because cities are a small small fraction of the Earths surface so measuring them gives us very little clue about the whole planet.

Doesn’t the time of day make a difference in whether it affects things?

If the average temperature in the morning is climbing 2 degrees but the peak temperature is unmoving I probably would be incapable of really noticing that difference but a peak temperature 2 degrees warmer would be more noticeable.   If the temp were to be up a degree or 2 in the middle of the night it would be even less noticeable even if statistically significant.

Another study showed that nighttime temperatures are less reliable due to the mixing of cold air by the structures we build around cities there tends to be much higher temps.  In fact, if you look only at the max temp the amount of climate change this century drops dramatically.  Almost all the climate change is a phenomenon of nighttime cold temperatures going up.  The reasons for this are varied.  It could be related to clouds.  During the day clouds reflect sunlight as well as collect infrared energy from the Earth.  During the night there is no sun and they only collect the infrared energy from the surface.  If there are more clouds it could produce a higher nighttime temp than daytime temps.  Other reasons are offered.  The point is that not only does the time of day matter to how we feel temperature and how it might affect life but changing rates of change at different times of the day could mean completely different things.


What about altitude?  The surface, 1 meter or 1000 meters above?

What if the temperature of the atmosphere 1000 meters above the surface were colder but the temperature at the surface were much hotter.   I would think temps were a lot hotter because I live at surface level (or about 2 meters above surface level.) Thermodynamically, statistically they might be unchanged for the atmosphere as a whole but I would feel different.

Sea surface and ice surface temps are also confusing.   Sea surfaces are limited to a minimum of 32 degrees F and a maximum of maybe 80F.   They don’t vary as much as air temperatures.  Surface above the ice is even more problematic.   Very little cares about the actual temperature of the ice.  Not much lives in ice but in any case it has much higher heat capacity than air so it would move much slower than air temperature.  A big temperature change in the ice might be noticeable or not.    Even if the ice were 5 degrees warmer but still -50C as in much of the antarctic or arctic would it make any difference anyway?  In fact temperatures of the arctic regions are moving faster but in much of the arctic or antarctic 10 degrees doesn’t make any difference at all.  It’s still too cold to melt or support life.

How do you measure sea temperatures anyway?

The sea has enormous heat capacity and it takes 1000 times as much energy to move the oceans full temperature as it does air.  Therefore the air could heat 100 degrees and the ocean only 0.1 degrees and it would be the same thermodynamically.   Oceans as we know are 70% of the surface of the earth.  So, when we say temps are up 1 degree are we also talking about sea surface because that would be hugely significant if it represented the entire ocean and air.   In fact in the Hansen and Mann “adjustments” part of the process is to estimate the temperature 1m off the surface of the ocean.  Nobody takes this temperature.  It is a completely fabricated record.  We have buoys we’ve paid millions for and we have ships traversing the ocean for centuries who measured the sea surface temperature within a foot of the surface underwater but nobody ever really measured what the temperature 1 meter above the water was.   So Hansen and Mann calculate an adjustment.  Who knows if this is accurate?  It is based on the homogenization algorithm they use to adjust land temperatures which has shown a remarkable +0.35C gain over just using the data without homogenization.

Ocean temperatures are more sensible since that’s where ocean life lives.  Are they sensative to 0.01C change in temperature?  There was some concern about Plankton and Coral because of warming oceans but even with much higher temperatures studies have shown that they adjust or even thrive in warmer temperatures.

What is a temperature reading anyway?

Let’s look at what is a temperature reading anyway?  It is a measure of the kinetic (moving) motion of the molecules in a sample.  Simple enough.   As the air molecules move more they impart more energy to the things they hit.  However, when you use a thermometer a lot will depend if the wind is high or if there is radiant energy impacting the thermometer or if there is a black surface below the thermostat absorbing sun and heating the air immediately in the vicinity of the thermometer vs if the thermometer is located in a green wooded area that is moist and has more thermal capacity.

What about wind chill, dew point, heat index?

That brings up the question of wind chill and heat index that we created because the impact of heat varies dramatically depending on the moisture in the air and wind at the same time.  A very hot windy day doesn’t seem that hot.   A dry hot is not that bad compared to a humid hot of the same temperature.  These are so well known that we actually create “Feels like” indices because temperature is not accurate reflection of “hot” or “cold” by itself.

What does it mean to say the average temperature for the year for the globe?

The same reflections can be said about averages over a year.  If temperature in winter months is warmer but summer months don’t change we might say it is a warm year but the impact on us and other biologic creatures might be quite different.    If we had a really hot period for a week where temps hit over 100 say in this area we would say it was a hot period.  If we had 2 of those and the rest of the summer was cold never going above 72 we might still say it was a hot summer or we might say it was cold except for a couple weeks that were scorchers.   What does an average of that mean?

You may have thought of all this yourself and come to the conclusion that all this talk of temperatures was kind of meaningless.  You would have a point.  When the “scientists” say temperatures have climbed 0.8C for the last 70 years it would be very hard to understand which of the above things they meant?  Do they mean the morning lows were higher but not the highs?  Do they mean the temperature at the peak of the day or the temperature at 1000 meters?  Do they mean during certain parts of the year or certain parts of the globe were warmer?  Are they saying uniformly across the entire globe at all altitudes, sea surface and all?  What do they mean?  What are they saying?

It is clear that you can “compute the temperature of the Earth in millions of different ways and come up with dramatically different results.

Using thermostats you can look at the following different variables and pick which ones you think are “the temperature”

a) the peak temperature  (NOAA up +1.2F in last 120 years in USA)

b) the low temperature (NOAA up +2.2F in last 120 years in USA)

c) the temperature at a certain time{we don’t know)

d) the average of hundreds of temperatures during the day (we don’t know)

e) the average of peak and low (NOAA up +1.7F in last 120 years in the USA)

f) one of the above temperatures at the surface (Don’t know)

g) the temperature 1meter above the surface (Don’t know if you include the ocean)

h) the temperature of the entire atmosphere

i) the temperature of the stations alone (without considering their density)

j) the temperature of the stations multiplied by its imputed land coverage

k) the temperature of a region,

l) the temperature excluding ice or other slowly moving regions

m) the temperature modified to significance by its impact on life

n) the temperature modified by humidity or wind

o) the temperatures modified by all the adjustments or not modified

Are they saying thermodynamically the system had so much MORE energy?  That is measure h) above.   This is the closest to what the satellites do.   That would seem to be the only valid measure from a scientific sense and would require measuring the entire volume of the air of the earth consistently across the entire globe.

The satellites do this but they show that temperatures have gone up only +.3C or less over the last 70 years (including the cool period from 1945-1975).  The satellites show that the majority of the atmosphere has undergone a cooling between 1998 and 2015 NOT a warming.


Maybe we are interested in temperatures which affect biology.  That would mean understanding the affect of temperatures in each area that the biology existed and what the temperature change meant.  Does a high peak temperature affect biology more than average temperature?  Would the morning temperature being higher but the peak unaffected cause creatures any problems.  One might be able to compute an “effective” temperature which took into account how creatures perceive temperature like wind chill, heat index, dew points, etc…  Coming up with a temperature 1m over the ocean that is theoretical and which no creatures care about would be pointless.  It might be 5C warmer their and nothing and nobody would care or be affected if nothing else was affected. (I realize that is unphysical.   I am just saying that some things matter and some things don’t so if you are measuring some abstract thing like the average temperature we have to know precisely what you are measuring and what it means.  Most of these measures of temperature we read about are an amalgam of different types of temperature that together represents NOTHING.


So, when Hansen and Mann declare that 2015 was the hottest year ever what do they mean?

  1. Is it the lowest temperatures of the day climbed but the peak temperatures went down?
  2. Is it the temperature you could estimate by taking a single thermostat for huge regions like Antarctica and assuming the entire continent was at that temperature or did they estimate the temperature of the rest of the continent and how did they do that?
  3. Is it the temperature of all the air of the Earth or the part 1M over the earth or the surface of the Earth?
  4. Does it include the oceans and where did you get that data because there isn’t a lot of that?
  5. Is it the average of the high and low of the day or a more continuous average over many times or specific times of the day?
  6. Is it that one region was warmer but other regions weren’t?
  7. Was it a particular part of the year that was warmer?

Aren’t all measures of temperature going up so it makes no difference really which one you use?

In general we can say there is some rise in most measures of temperature for the last 300-400 years since the end of the LIA.   Recently in the last 100 we have noticed:

  1. low temperatures are climbing much faster than peak temperature
  2. ocean temperatures haven’t climbed much
  3. the polar regions, specifically the arctic has seen much higher temperature change than the rest of the globe
  4. the northern hemisphere in general is seeing higher temperature change than the southern hemisphere

So, question settled, temps are going up, Global warming proved, CO2 must be the cause, right?   Well, that’s more complicated.   For instance, if you look at the last 120 years temperatures went up dramatically between 1910-1940 without much CO2 contribution.  From 1940-1970 temperatures went down with LOTS of CO2 being added.   From 1970-2000 temperatures did go up with CO2, but again in 2000-2016 temperatures are flat overall for the air according to 14 satellites, radiosonde (balloons) and sea temperatures are flat for the last 16 years.  So, it’s not obvious looking at it that way that CO2 and temperature are related.  This is why the IPCC looks at models.  It’s complicated.  Lots of things affect temperature and in different ways.  CO2 is supposed to heat the bulk of the atmosphere MORE than the surface temperature (the opposite of what we may be seeing) and the upper upper atmosphere is supposed to get cooler.  The sea was supposed to get warmer but isn’t from CO2 except we have noticed a growing slightly warmer temperature 1000 feet below the surface.

There are several factors the IPCC and people in general understand affect climate in major ways:

  1. Ocean : cycles, currents, evaporation and other major effects
  2. Sun:  cosmic and other radiation from the sun and other sources
  3. Atmosphere composition of gases : CO2 and water vapor as well as other gases
  4. Clouds: major impact without real understanding.  Some cool and some warm
  5. Pollutants / Albedo in general : more reflectivity of the surface from pollutants or ice coverage reduce temperature
  6. Volcanoes under and over the ocean: these have had major impact and recent articles suggest underwater volcanoes or spreading of sea floor from changing ice cover could change heat into the ocean in dramatic ways even causing the ice ages
  7. Geography – changes in flow of oceans and geography may have major impact
  8. Biological creatures – some algae and plants in general affect the climate dramatically
  9. Chemical processes in general – weathering, various processes cause long term changes in chemistry that affects creatures and content that affects everything
  10. Variations in the Earths orbit – the earths orbit wobbles in many ways producing significant changes in where the suns radiation hits the earth and how much

Trying to decipher which of these is causing any particular change is incredibly difficult.  However, Hansen and Mann argue that all of these are basically irrelevant compared to the GOD chemical CO2 which controls temperature above everything else.  Virtually all of history in their mind can be recounted as being a simple minor variation around the CO2 axis.

So, how is that theory doing?

If the temperature had gone up between 1998-2015 by the 0.5C Hansen/Mann predicted in 1998,


We wouldn’t be here talking about this issue the same way.  We would have been on board with the basic conclusion of the previous headline.   This would have been amazing in 3 ways:

  1. The absolute temperature change would be much starker than it has been and possibly frightening
  2. The unstopping temperature rise would have been alarming and put to bed theories of alternate causes
  3. The rate would confirm what the computer models suggested putting them as much more reliable than they have turned out to be.



The GISS record that Hansen/Mann use to claim that they are scared of global warming is the highly adjusted record below:




This temperature record is a hodgepodge of different measurements and techniques.  This record above excludes slow moving temperatures such as the ocean surface and the ice surface.   To compensate for the lack of thermometers in many regions they have an algorithm they call “homogenization” which smooths out temperatures over regions based on comparing it to thermostats within hundreds of kilometers and adjusting it.

This algorithm has a tendency to spread the heat island of cities across much wider regions.  They use the average of peak and low.  The result is a carefully crafted temperature record that is much different than the one created by satellites or by ocean buoys or by weather balloons or by just looking at thermostats without such modifications.   In fact, this temperature record is carefully constructed to produce what appears to be the most dramatic increase possible from the data and to eliminate as much as possible the embarassing and devastating flat period from 1998-2015.

It is twice the amount of temperature change seen by 14 satellites which measure the globe continuously and uniformly with high verifiability.

It is twice the amount seen by the radiosondes (balloons)

It is twice the amount seen by ocean buoys over the ocean

It is twice the amount seen by the thermometers without homogenization

It is twice the amount seen by a subset of the thermostats.  411 perfectly placed and calibrated, reliably operating thermostats.

Hansen and Mann might argue this temperature above is carefully crafted to account for all kinds of errors but they don’t mention that the adjustments they use double the amount of heat seen by every other way of measuring temperature.   Even more puzzling is that if the thermostat data was filled with lots of systematic errors when we took the adjustments they put in out we should see a temperature record that is a jumble of errors.  Instead after removing the adjustments we are left with a temperature record that looks like the satellite record.   This is evidence that the adjustments are systematically introducing error not the thermostats.

The temperature Hansen and Mann advocate “calculates” an average 1 Meter above the ocean which is something we don’t actually measure.   They calculate this temperature theoretically for 70% of the surface and for the remainder of the earth they also estimate temperatures using homogenization and other tricks that means fundamentally at least 80-90% of the data above is fabricated from all kinds of theories they have about what the temperature might be.

This compares to satellites which actually measure the entire atmosphere of the earth uniformly and show half the gain they claim.   The satellites are calibrated against the weather balloons and highly accurate platinum resistance thermometers and a cold reading against the backdrop of space.   Arguments are made that the satellites have to be adjusted too but of course these are applied in an environment where the satellites can cross check each other besides the onboard calibrations of each.

Why are we using thermometers or why don’t we drastically improve them?

Theoretically the adjustments to thermometers should balance out to zero.   They claim there are good reasons the thermostats bias to reading too cold (although in the past they were biased to reading higher temperatures than existed so the past has to be cooled and the present has to be warmed according to climate scientists)

Climate scientists decided that it would be better to read temperatures earlier in the day which they claim causes them to  have lower temperatures although if they are averaging peak high and low it shouldn’t make a difference.   If they are not choosing high and low then boy well I just don’t know why they decided to change the time but it adds a huge factor of adjustment which depends on models.  Why not leave the time alone or simply change to thermometers which read continuously and report true averages or at least min and max regardless of time.

Why are we using these old stupid devices anyway?

We are talking billions of dollars being spent on this and we are stumbling with crap technology that depends on the time of the day?   They have no backup thermometers in any locations so if a thermometer isnt reporting correct temperatures they can only guess and adjust depending on their guess.   Why not also put a second thermostat in each location to verify.   Since the two thermostats might differ why not put a third thermostat so we can vote which reading is the right one and have time to go out and fix the broken one?  Is this rocket science?  How much do thermostats cost even if fully tricked out?

We’re spending hundreds of millions on 14 satellites to do the same thing and a fortune on ocean buoys but we rely on crappy thermostats with unverified data.

A peer reviewed paper looked at “perfect” thermometers of which there are 411 in the US.  This study showed the temperatures are moving like the satellites show.  Like the weather balloons are showing.  Like all the thermometers when you take all the adjustments out.

The missing heat is a huge huge problem

They have gone to extraordinary measures to “improve” the temperature record of recent times because it is missing heat.   Even with the massively “adjusted” record of Hansen and Mann it is missing massive amounts of heat.

The heat from CO2 had to go somewhere or it doesn’t exist.  You see the lack of temperature rising for the last 20 years according to the models is a fantastically hard problem for them to explain because by definition the CO2 molecules MUST absorb the extra heat so that heat must exist.   It can’t just be put under the rug of “natural variability”.   There is this law called conservation of energy.   That energy had to do SOMETHING.   What?   This is nearly 20 years of CO2 energy lost.   It’s impossible to simply hand wave it away.

This is why they have gone to such great lengths to fabricate a temperature record that shows more warming.  They need to eliminate the problem that there is missing heat.  Missing heat cannot be explained simply.  It is a huge problem for the science.   So, they were kind of relieved to find it in the ocean.   They found that the ocean from 300 Meters to 1000Meters was warmer than it was 15 years ago.  This is where the CO2 heat must have gone.

The missing heat from the last 20 years is impossible to explain without destroying the very fundamentals of Climate Science.  The climate models did not predict heat from CO2 could go into the ocean.  They don’t explain when it will come out, or how long this will continue.   They said they understood the types of natural variability and this wasn’t one of them.  It simply destroys the very basis of the theory.

A big part of this science is that they claim they understand what things caused what changes at what time (at least for recent 100 years of temperatures).  Up until 1998 their computer models had successfully been tuned to show CO2 as a major factor and to explain the wobbles in the temperature record on volcanoes and increased radiation from the sun, albedo (reflectivity of the Earth) or CO2.   They said the models were good enough to predict the future.

The models didn’t predict 20 years of extra heat from CO2 could disappear into the depths of the ocean at 300Meters and below.   Whether the heat went into the ocean or not it is devastating because the models did not predict this type of natural variability it means it puts into doubt all the other calculations and tuning of the models.

A) They don’t really know what’s happening anymore or what is causing what

They can’t be sure anymore that some of the temperature gain in the late 20th century wasn’t continued recovery from the LIA or related to the ocean in some way or any number of other things.  So, they cannot say how much is due to CO2 or what else and therefore they can’t say how much CO2 affects things and therefore how much more CO2 will affect things now or in the future.   In 1998 they thought they could say this with high precision.  NOT SO ANYMORE.  The theory is kaput even if they won’t admit it.

B) A prediction of 2C by 2100 is impossible

They are constantly still saying temperatures will be 2C higher unless we take drastic action.   However, They have to make up the missing 0.5C the models said we would already have + the additional 1.2C needed to get there.

For instance they need the rate of warming to double instantly and to stay doubled for 8 consecutive decades without any additional pausing.   Neither of these is plausible given the record for the last 8 decades and the 2 pauses we’ve had in that period and the 0.1C/decade record we’ve had for the last 8 decades.    Therefore they are now predicting something which is actually almost impossible to actually happen.

C)  They can’t explain where the heat from all the CO2 we have put in has gone

Therefore, not being able to explain where it went is essentially a complete refutation of the theory so they must be able to explain it or nobody would believe the theory.  They found a place to put it.   They say it went into the deep ocean.  That is strange because their models never predicted this could happen nor did they think this was even possible.   That alone is devastating.  If the heat went into the ocean how did it do that?   How long will it continue to go into the ocean and why?  When will it disgorge and how fast?  How come they didn’t know that?

The other place the heat could have gone is into space.   That would be similarly devastating.   Again they didn’t show it or suggest it was even possible 20 years of CO2 heat could just evaporate into space.  The models didn’t show it, but if cloud cover decreased during the period which it has it could have allowed more heat to escape to space.   If that heat is gone it is a serious problem because it can’t come back to bite us so that heat is gone gone gone.

The heat going into space is similarly devastating as saying it went into the ocean.  It may mean it will keep escaping into space.   When will it stop?  Why?   The ocean is better for the activists.  Keep it here we can keep people alarmed.  So, the ocean is a better place to say the heat went.

Still, wither the ocean or space this is devastating.   They didn’t predict this.  They didn’t even think it was remotely possible.  None of the models show this as something that could happen.  They have no explanation of how the heat from CO2 molecules in the middle of the atmosphere 5,000 feet above us could be getting into the ocean 1000 feet below the surface and yet not effect the surface temperature of the ocean at all. (The surface temp has gone down not up in the last 15 years according to our new buoys.)

What’s the future of this science?

Wow.  Even if they come up with explanations for how the heat got there, when it will stop going there and when it will come out it is obvious this is a way different theory than we were told 20 years ago!   This is NOT a minor 5% difference or something.  The entire heat from 15 years (37% of all the CO2 man ever put into the sky) disappeared.

They need to model how that can happen.   They need to show that model predicts what has happened.   They need to show the model predicts when it will stop, what will happen to the heat.   They need to give some sort of evidence their modeling of this is correct.

All the existing model predictions are completely irrelevent.

We are talking about a completely different thing now, a completely different “climate science”.    We were told this was all settled science.   Does this sound settled?   Does it sound like it was settled 20 years ago?

There are other reasons heat could be warming the lower ocean

There are other reasons heat could be in the lower ocean other than from CO2.   In this article the ice ages have been shown to correlate with underground leakage from the mantle.   When the ice is at a high it creates weight on the poles which flexes the ocean floor and specifically ridges which open up and let energy from the mantle escape into the ocean.

There is the issue that the PDO and AMO are 60 year cycles of El Ninos/La Ninas  that cause massive amounts of energy to be disgorged into the atmosphere or pulled from it in this long cycle.  Where is that heat stored or disgorged from?  It seems likely some of it might come from the deep ocean in cycles.

Over the last 500-1000 years temperatures have varied in the Little ice age and Medieval warm period.  Could this come from deep ocean circulation as well as sun variations?  Could fluctuations in volcanic eruptions in the mantle cause heat to show up in the deep ocean occasionally and make its way to the surface eventually?

They discounted all these theories before but it now seems that the deep ocean does vary in temperature and can have impacts over short periods.   All this changes climate science in ways that are completely unknown at this time.

Will we get 2C

It’s apparent anything could happen at this point.   The theory is obviously hopelessly flawed.   We could go nowhere, up 0.3C or even down in temperature.  It all depends on how the system works.  We simply don’t understand.  If they say they do, they are lying.  They didn’t know it could go into the ocean.  That’s all you need to know to know this theory is flawed fatally.

Some will argue it can’t be the whole theory based on this simple miss for 15 years could completely unravel this theory that everyone (we were told everyone) thought so sincerely was true.   However, science and history is replete with the inconvenient end of theories that many had held true for much longer than climate theory by Hansen and Mann.  A single data point can destory an entire theory.  It’s science.

The role of CO2 is still not known.   The IPCC and climate scientists had based a lot of their belief on 3 things.  1) The physics that CO2 absorbs IR energy 2) The historical record which shows CO2 and temperature corresponding and 2) the recent movement of temperature and CO2.   They were able to paper over the period 1945-1975 because of pollution they claimed.  Even though CO2 rose dramatically in this period of 30 years temperatures went down so they could argue this nonconformance.   But they are not able to explain this 15 years of flat temperatures because they don’t have pollution to blame.   There is not enough to explain the lack of effect of such a large amount of CO2.

Other failures I have pointed out have put a giant crimp in the theory.  The fact that we discovered the PDO/AMO cycles clearly was a massive hit but the lack of heat and discovering it in the ocean is even worse.   The fact that they really can’t explain the rise in temperatures in the early part of the 20th century when there was no CO2 production of any significance.

It is really back to the drawing board for climate science.   This time the bar will be higher.   The next theory will need to take account of the oceans much better.   We still lack much information on the ocean.   The new theory will have to understand clouds and humidity and the interaction of the sun better.   If indeed the mantle is contributing heat that will have to be accounted for.   We are learning about our planet and some very interesting things.   The fact we failed is not surprising.  We know surprisingly little about this world in spite of roaming around on it for thousands of years.